ing their way over miry and rutty roads were liable to be set upon by thieves, so liable, in fact, that in 1506 Quirini in the suite of Philip preferred to await his master several months rather than brave the dangers of the road to London. That this fear was only slightly exaggerated is shown by the comment of the Italian: 1 2 There is no country in the world where there are so many thieves and robbers as in England; insomuch, that few venture to go alone in the country, excepting in the middle of the day, and fewer still in the towns at night, and least of all in London. Geographically, culture, so far as it found expression in formal literature, was almost confined to the south of England. The expression "formal literature" has been used to differentiate the type of work which will be considered in the following chapters from the ballads with which we have no concern. The scarcity of population and the difficulty of communication give the explanation to the phenonenon that in the Renaissance two different literatures existed simultaneously and, as it were, in parallel planes. In the first, the authors are generally known; they are connected with the Court; the composition is pretentious, follows definite models, and is responsive to European influences: in the second, the authors are generally anonymous; the composition is simple, and follows the ballad form. The antithesis between these two may be carried indefinitely. Court poetry deals with European subject matter, often after European models; the ballads deal primarily with English subjects, usually in the conventional quatrain: nature in the first is seen through books; in the second it is studied from life; action in the first is slow and detailed; in the second it is rapid and suggested; the art of the first is studied and formal; in the second it is spontaneous and real. It is to be added that references in the first class to poems of the second class are apt to be supercilious,3 and lastly that, while the little skiffs of the second class have triumphantly floated down the centuries, the great galleons of the first have succumbed to wind and weather. Another feature to be considered for its effect upon the literature is the political situation. When, August twenty-second, 1 England under the Tudors, by Dr. Wilhelm Busch, 1895, i, 253. • Italian Relation, ibid., 34. 'I wryte no Iest ne tale of Robyn hode. Barclay, Ship of Fools, Jamieson, ii, 331. 1485, the crown which had rolled from the head of Richard IV was picked from the hawthorne bush to be placed upon that of Henry, Duke of Richmond, the old order had passed. The long struggle between York and Lancaster, which history poetically calls the Wars of the Roses, had necessarily been unfavorable to authors. Scarcely a writer survives as a personality, with the exception of Lydgate and Occleve whose works are read only by specialists. With the exception of the ballads there are few pieces that have any interest beyond the philological. This condition is not surprising. England had suffered the throes of civil war for generations and war, although it may offer subject matter for literature, rarely grants the leisure necessary for composition. Yet too much emphasis must not be placed upon these wars in discussing the literary output, because their action was sporadic. It must be remembered that Caxton was apparently placidly issuing his books at Westminster when Edward IV was still upon the throne, while Richard III had usurped the power by the murder of his nephews, and during the battle of Bosworth Field. The reign of Edward IV of twenty-two years had given stability that, in spite of the episodic career of Richard III, was continued by Henry VII. To establish his dynasty upon a firm foundation was the first problem of the new monarch. Henry's claim to the throne was at best questionable. The direct Plantagenet line had ceased with the deposition of Richard II, the son of the Black Prince and grandson of Edward III. The Lancastrian branch claimed descent from John of Gaunt, the fourth son of Edward III, and the York branch from Edmund Langley, the fifth son. But Henry Tudor claimed descent only from an illegitimate connection of John of Gaunt with Katherine Swynford, a connection that had been legitimized by Richard II, but whose descendants had been excluded from the throne by Henry IV. Moreover, Henry Tudor derived his right through his mother, and if descent through the distaff side were accepted, all the Yorkist heirs had a prior claim. Even the choice of him to lead the insurrection was apparently due to Archbishop Morton, the patron of More. At the battle he had only five thousand soldiers and the victory was gained by the aid at the decisive moment of three thousand more under William Stanley. His right to the throne consisted in his being considered the most valuable man in his party and his pos session of it was due to troops over whom he had no control. Under such circumstances his seat was far from secure. Evidently with this in mind the Italian remarks: 1 This kingdom has been, for the last 600 years, governed by one king, who is not elected, but succeeds by hereditary right. Should there be no direct heir, and the succession be disputed, the question is often settled by the force of arms. . . . And, heretofore, it has always been an understood thing, that he who lost the day lost the kingdom. In relation to the attitude of the people toward their sovereign he says: 2 but from what I understand few of them are very loyal. They generally hate their present and extol their dead sovereigns. Such was the condition confronting Henry Tudor. To meet the problem the first act of the new reign was the authorization of his title by Parliament. Then by marriage with Elizabeth, the heiress of the Yorkist faction, Henry united in his children the claims of the two parties. The necessity for such action is apparent in the light of the insurrection of Lambert Simnel, personating the Earl of Warwick, a possible Yorkist heir, and of Peter Warbeck, personating one of the princes murdered in the tower. Later, by means of the marriage of his son Arthur to the Infanta of Spain, he gained European recognition for his dynasty. Beyond this, his policy may be defined as avoidance of foreign complications, conciliatory measures at home, and an accumulation of treasure that would enable him to be independent of Parliament. His success in the last of these aims may be estimated from the fact that in 1497 the Milanese ambassador valued his treasure at £1,350,000,-a sum so vast, considering the purchasing power of money at that time, that it seems an incredible amount to have been amassed in twelve years. In discussing the social factors affecting the early years of Henry VIII, then, these two must be borne in mind; first, a sense of social inferiority with other sovereigns, a feeling none the less strong because it was never expressed, and second, the possession of this large amount of ready money. The first gave Henry the desire and the second 1 Italian Relation, ibid., 46. 2 Ibid. the means for the somewhat vulgar love of display so characteristic of his Court. To this analysis of early Tudor society one more factor, and that the most important from the point of view of the type of literature produced at the Court, must be added, namely the personalities of the rulers. The modern reader must remember that, as there was no reading public, there was no such thing as the profession of letters. Authorship was merely incidental. For example, Hawes was Groom of the Chamber to Henry VII, Barclay a monk, Skelton first royal tutor and then Rector of Diss, More a lawyer, Heywood a courtier, Surrey and Wyatt nobles, etc. Writing books was a side issue, a polite accomplishment. And the literature of the Court has a personal, intimate, almost epistolary tone; while occasionally books were written addressed to all England, such as the Ship of Fools, they were usually composed with a definite circle of readers before the mind of the writer. Caxton's prefaces are really open letters. His allusion to Skelton, for example, in the dedication to his Eneydos would be understood because the majority of his readers knew Skelton personally. It was a small world. And in this world dominated naturally the personality of the king. He it was that could make, or mar, a writer's fortune, his approbation meant success, and his disapproval spelled failure. Of the two Tudor kings, Henry VII may be dismissed with few words. During his reign modern English literature is just beginning. His preference was for French, due to his early residence abroad, and a Frenchman André was his official historiographer. He was fond of music and encouraged songwriting, again especially in foreign languages. His account book shows various items paid for books, unfortunately omitting the titles. Once only does it state that Vérard received six pounds for printing two volumes entitled the Gardyn of Helth. To the Conventual monastery at Greenwich he presented a "valuable" library. And he advanced Pynson ten pounds to enable him to print a book of the mass. These meager details show merely that he was not averse to learning. Probably the great problems of statecraft had absorbed his energies, leaving him slight inclination for literature. Henry VIII, on the contrary, is the protagonist of the Renaissance in England. Early in his lifetime the hope of the nation centered upon him. Hawes, in a poem dedicated to Henry VII, after celebrating the virtues of his father and mother, thus eulogizes the young prince in a burst of lyric exuberance.1 Thus God, by grace did well combine The Red Rose and the White in marriage. Being oned, right clear doth shine In all cleanness and virtuous courage; Of whose right and royal lineage, Prince Henry is sprung, our King to be, O, noble Prince Henry! our second treasure, I pray to God well for to increase Your high Estate in rest and peace! Shortly before this comes the celebrated account of Erasmus.2 I was staying at Lord Mountjoy's country house when Thomas More came to see me, and took me out with him for a walk as far as the next village, where all the King's children, except Prince Arthur, who was then the eldest son, were being educated. When we came into the hall, the attendants not only of the palace, but also of Mountjoy's household, were all assembled. In the midst stood Prince Henry, then nine years old, and having already something of royalty in his demeanour, in which there was a certain dignity combined with singular courtesy. On his right was Margaret, about eleven years of age, afterwards married to James, King of Scots; and on his left played Mary, a child of four. Edmund was an infant in arms. More, with his companion Arnold, after paying his respects to the boy Henry, the same that is now King of England, presented him with some writing. For my part, not having expected anything of the sort, I had nothing to offer, but promised that on another occasion I would in some way declare my duty towards him. Meantime I was angry with More for not having warned me, especially as the boy sent me a little note, while we were at dinner, to challenge something from my pen. I went home, and in the Muses' spite, from whom I had been so long divorced, finished the poem within three days. The popular conception of Henry as only a bestial corpulent tyrant must be revised if one is to understand the age. In every 1 Hawes, Example of Virtue, 295–296, Dunbar Anthology, ed. Arber, 294. |