Contents

List of illustrations viiAcknowledgements viii

Introduction 1Thomas S. Freeman and Susan Doran

PART 1TROJAN HORSES: CONTEMPORARY CRITICISMSOF ELIZABETH

1 Providence and Prescription:The Account of Elizabeth inFoxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’ 27Thomas S. Freeman

2 Duessa’s Trial and Elizabeth’s Error: Judging Elizabeth in Spenser’s Fairie Queene 56Andrew Hadfield

PART 2JACOBEAN PERSPECTIVES: POLITIC PRINCESS OR PROTESTANT HEROINE?

3 William Camden and the Anti-Myth of Elizabeth: Setting the Mould? 79Patrick Collinson

4 Elizabeth in Arcadia: Fulke Greville and John Hayward’s Construction of Elizabeth, 1610–12 99Lisa Richardson

5 Drama Queen: Staging Elizabeth in If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody 120Teresa Grant

v

6 ‘A Very Deborah?’The Myth of Elizabeth I as a Providential Monarch 143Alexandra Walsham

PART 3ELIZABETH ENGENDERED: PRESENTATION ANDPRACTICE

7 Virginity, Divinity and Power:The Portraits of Elizabeth I 171Susan Doran

8 Queen Elizabeth and Mrs Bishop 200Brett Usher

9 Harington’s Gossip 221Jason Scott-Warren

10 A Queen for All Seasons: Elizabeth I on Film 242Thomas Betteridge

List of Abbreviations 260Notes on the Contributors 261Index 263

vi Contents

1

Providence and Prescription:The Account of Elizabeth inFoxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’

Thomas S. Freeman

Insistence on the popularity and influence of John Foxe’s Acts andMonuments (commonly known as Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’) hasbecome something of a truism among scholars. Yet one section ofFoxe’s text, his account of the tribulations of Princess Elizabethduring her sister’s reign, has had a pervasive impact which is impres-sive even when compared with the ready, indeed reverent, generalreception of his book. Significant portions or the whole of thisaccount were reprinted in such major early modern historical worksas Holinshed’s Chronicles and John Speed’s history of Great Britain.1

William Camden, arguably the most influential historian ofElizabeth’s reign, drew on Foxe’s narrative of the persecution ofElizabeth, even if he only made a limited use of it.2 Poets as well ashistorians borrowed from Foxe;William Alabaster’s Elisaeis (an imita-tion of the Aeneid with Elizabeth, rather then Aeneas, as its hero) tookits historical substance, such as it was, from the Acts and Monuments.3

Yet Foxe’s narrative of Elizabeth was more than, to quote JimmyDurante, ‘duh toast of duh intellectuals’; it was appropriated bypopular authors as well. William Birch’s best-selling ballad, ‘A songbetween the Queen’s Majesty and England’ has Elizabeth declaringthat:

27

I was tumbled and tostfrom pillar to postand prisoner in the Tower . . .4

This is clearly derived from Foxe, who declared that Elizabeth was‘clapped in the Tower and . . . tossed from thence from prison to prison,from post to pillar’.5 Similarly,Thomas Deloney’s popular and endur-ing ballad on the exile of Katherine Brandon, the dowager duchess ofSuffolk, contained a vivid description of Elizabeth in the Tower, whichwas drawn from Foxe.6 And throughout the reigns of the early Stuartkings, Thomas Heywood wrote dramas and prose narratives aboutElizabeth which were heavily based on Foxe and enjoyed strikingpopular success.7 Foxe’s account of Elizabeth was so well known thatJohn Prime, in an Accession Day sermon in 1588, could quote from it– ‘You remember, I am sure, who she is that said Tanquam ovis, that shewas a sheep even in the valley of death, led unto and shut up in theslaughter house, and you may not forget who is he that took the knifeout of the butcher’s hand’ – without giving any reference, confidentthat his readers would recognise the allusion to Elizabeth.8

The influence of Foxe’s account of Elizabeth proved to be remark-ably persistent as well as remarkably pervasive. Recent biographies ofthe last Tudor monarch, academic and popular, follow his narrativefaithfully, if not slavishly.9 While most of his history has been rigor-ously questioned, his account of Elizabeth has largely escaped criticalscrutiny.10 What analysis there has been of the account has beendevoted to Foxe’s motives in producing it. But here as well, unifor-mity, if not unanimity, reigns. It has seemed self-evident to almost allscholars what Foxe’s objectives were: the glorification of Elizabeth asa means of securing the Elizabethan religious settlement. FrancesYates, claiming that the Acts and Monuments is a notable example ‘ofthe power of propagandist history in establishing and maintaining arégime’, also maintained that Foxe’s book was the source and inspira-tion of the symbolism by which Elizabeth justified her rule.11 RoyStrong went even further, leaping breathlessly from one conclusion toanother, in an attempt to link Foxe’s book to the celebrations honour-ing the anniversary of Elizabeth’s accession and thus to the officialglorification of Elizabeth: ‘In 1571, coinciding with the rise ofAccession Day festivities, convocation promulgated an order that acopy [of the Acts and Monuments] should be installed in every cathe-dral church that any one might come to read [it]’.A little further on,Strong asserts that Foxe’s book finishes triumphantly as Elizabeth,

28 Trojan Horses

God’s holy handmaiden, herself a Marian martyr, has succeeded to the crown.Divine revelation, political and religious history all converged upon the accessionof the Virgin Queen, the final victor in the pope-emperor struggle, the leader ofthe battle against the Antichrist of Rome. These are the themes for which theAccession Day stood.12

Strong’s eloquence is stirring, but it should be remembered that Foxenever referred to Elizabeth as either the final victor in the papal–imperial struggle or as the leader of the battle against the Antichrist.Other scholars, while not as effusive as Strong, are still emphatic aboutFoxe’s objectives and the effects of his account of Elizabeth: CurtisPerry has claimed that the account was ‘a major contribution to aProtestant church settlement’,13 while Anne McLaren has maintainedthat Foxe described Elizabeth as ‘a providential ruler as justificationfor her assumption of the crown’.14

These assessments rest on a series of overlapping assumptions.Thefirst is that because Foxe’s account is read today as a straight-forwardglorification of Gloriana, this is the only way to read it and that thiswas how this text was read during Elizabeth’s reign.A second assump-tion is that this was how Foxe intended his text to be read. Here, itshould be remembered that while claims of providential responsibil-ity for the accession of a ruler can be an instrument of legitimation,this is, nevertheless, only one of many purposes such a claim mightserve. Finally, it is an obvious oversimplification to assume that Foxe’sviews of Elizabeth and the religious settlement did not change duringthe two decades which separated the first edition of the Acts andMonuments from the fourth edition, the last edition published duringFoxe’s lifetime. Can it be reasonably maintained that the changesmade in Foxe’s account of Elizabeth, from one edition to the next,were unrelated to the changing religious and political circumstancesin which he was writing? The first step in understanding Foxe’s narra-tive is to study its development, examining the changes that weremade to the account and analysing the reasons for them.

II

Foxe’s first discussion of Elizabeth occurred in an oration published inJanuary 1559.The title of the work, Germany’s congratulations to Englandon the restoration of the light of the Gospel, underscores the optimisticexpectations which Foxe then had of the new queen.15 In the oration,he emphasised the role of providence in placing Elizabeth on the

Providence and Prescription 29

throne and claimed that, consequently, it was the duty of the Englishpeople to love and obey the queen whom God had chosen forthem.16 But there was also a hint in the oration of a less royalist under-standing of providence’s support of the new queen when Foxe insistedthat Elizabeth had ‘nothing which she has not received from the giftof God’.17 In this passage, Foxe was basing Elizabeth’s right to rule, noton her royal lineage, recognition by parliament and the nobility, oreven on her virtues, but solely on God’s choice of her as queen.

In September 1559, Foxe published a second, expanded version ofhis Latin martyrology, the Commentaries . . . on deeds done in the Church,which contained his first narrative of the events of Mary’s reign. Heonly mentioned Elizabeth’s ordeals a few times in this work, but thesepassing references further demonstrate that he interpreted Elizabeth’ssurvival and accession as works of providence. At one point, heclaimed that Elizabeth was preserved from danger by ‘the watchful eyeof providence’.18 He also identified the source of the danger toElizabeth: she was menaced by Stephen Gardiner, the bishop ofWinchester, who sought to have her executed. Only Gardiner’ssudden death in 1555, which Foxe implied was God’s work, savedElizabeth’s life.19 In succeeding editions of the Acts and Monuments,Foxe elaborated on his claims that Gardiner sought to destroyElizabeth. Foxe’s book contained no less than two detailed versions ofthe story that Gardiner, in his capacity as Mary’s Lord Chancellor, hadsent a writ to the Tower ordering, in the queen’s name, that Elizabethbe executed; allegedly, the bishop’s nefarious scheme was onlythwarted when the Lieutenant of the Tower, queried Mary about theorder and the queen countermanded it.20

Foxe, moreover, embellished what his sources said in order to laythe responsibility for Elizabeth’s peril at Gardiner’s door. Repeating apassage originally written by John Aylmer, which denounced theMarian bishops for plotting to have Elizabeth killed and ‘to wash theirrochets in her innocent blood’, Foxe added the words: ‘but especiallythe bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, then Lord Chancellor’.21

At one place in his first edition, Foxe stated that John Story urged thatElizabeth be put to death, arguing that it was pointless to lop thebranches off the tree and not strike at its roots. Later in the sameedition, Foxe attributed the comment to Gardiner, and in subsequenteditions, he dropped all mention of Story and declared that Gardinermade the remark.22

Foxe may have had personal reasons for villifying Gardiner.23 Buthe had more compelling motives for traducing Gardiner. Even before

30 Trojan Horses

Mary’s reign, decades of opposing the evangelicals, both by the forceof argument and the argument of force, had made ‘wily Winchester’an almost demonic figure to the godly.24 Portraying Gardiner as apersecutor of Elizabeth made the sufferings of the princess part of theongoing persecution of the gospel.This strategy can be seen in Foxe’sdeclaration that Gardiner’s death was a divine blessing

not so much for the great hurt he had done in time past in perverting his princes,in bringing in the [Act of ] Six Articles, in murdering God’s saints, in defacingChrist’s sincere religion, etc., as also especially for that he had thought to pass, inmurdering our noble queen that now is.25

This list, indeed incantation, of Gardiner’s alleged crimes, culminatingin his attempt to have Elizabeth killed, placed the princess in thecompany of the saints Gardiner had persecuted, and elevated thepolitical struggle between Elizabeth and Mary into a battle betweenGod and Satan. It is worth noting that Foxe’s account of Elizabethdeals largely with her experiences before Gardiner’s death in October1555, and includes virtually nothing about Elizabeth’s sojourn atHatfield or indeed little at all about her life during the last three yearsof Mary’s reign. It is possible, but hardly likely, that he lacked infor-mants for this period; more probably he did not want to blur his clear,if tendentious, picture of the malevolent prelate and the persecutedprincess, by describing the threats to Elizabeth which continued afterGardiner’s demise and the webs of intrigue spun by, and around, theprincess in the final years of her sister’s life.

The emphasis on Gardiner’s responsibility for endangeringElizabeth stimulated the development of Foxe’s providential interpre-tation of Elizabeth’s life and accession to the throne. BlamingGardiner for her peril was, in essence, blaming Satan and his falseChurch. Once the threat to Elizabeth was perceived as diabolical inorigin, it was only natural to see the thwarting of that threat as theresult of divine activity. Subsequent events – such as the numerousattempts to assassinate Elizabeth and their failure – gave particularrelevance and force to the account of Gardiner, and by implication theCatholic Church, threatening, while providence was protecting,Elizabeth.The story of Mary’s bishops conspiring to have the princesskilled was an inflammatory one, which a number of Elizabethanpropagandists employed to kindle the fires of anti-Catholicism.26

Nevertheless, Foxe’s providentialism was a versatile weapon, capable ofmany uses, some of which struck at Elizabeth herself.

Providence and Prescription 31

III

But this lay in the future. Foxe’s treatment of Elizabeth in the firstedition of the Acts and Monuments, published in 1563 before the majorreligious controversies of her reign had come to a head, was the mostflattering he would accord her.This is particularly true of his dedica-tion of the work to the queen; the dedication’s elaborate comparisonof Elizabeth to Constantine, the first Christian emperor, praisedElizabeth for ending the Marian persecutions and restoring the gospelto the realm.27 Although this dedication only appeared in the firstedition, it has been frequently quoted by scholars who wish to portrayFoxe as a royal propagandist, anxious to glorify his queen; FrancesYates’s influential analysis of Foxe is, in fact, based largely, indeed over-whelmingly, on the dedication to the first edition, rather than on themain text of the Acts and Monuments.28Yet while this dedication marksthe brief noontime zenith of Foxe’s regard for Elizabeth, unsettlingshadows were already lengthening across this sunlit landscape. AsThomas Betteridge observes, the dedication ‘is far from being a simpleacclamation of the new queen’; it maintains ‘that Elizabeth’s succes-sion was an act of God and that therefore for her rule to remain trueto itself it needs to continue to fulfil this God-given role’.29 Nor wasFoxe backward in suggesting, in the dedication, some ways in whichElizabeth could fulfil godly expectations. For one thing, he pointedlycommended Constantine’s financial largesse to the Church as a modelfor Elizabeth to follow. 30 Foxe also enthusiastically endorsed Englishintervention to support Protestants in France and Scotland.31 Theassumption which underlay the dedication to the first edition was thatElizabeth would unhesitatingly fulfil her providential role; in futureeditions this assumption would not be made.

The 1563 edition also contained Foxe’s first narrative of Elizabeth’sordeals during her sister’s reign. In the main part of the text of thisedition, there are scattered passages, culled from oral sources, chroni-cles and official documents, briefly recounting aspects of Elizabeth’sexperiences.32 But the narrative of Elizabeth’s imprisonment comesonly at the end of Foxe’s book; in fact, the irregular pagination of thenarrative suggests that even then it was a late insertion into the text.33

(Probably Foxe acquired some, most, or all of the oral accounts, whichmake up the core of the narrative, as the printing of the first editionwas nearing completion.) The narrative begins with a comparison ofthe violent, ill-advised and often illegal policies of Mary with theprudent, deliberate and merciful policies of Elizabeth. Foxe then

32 Trojan Horses

praises Elizabeth’s virtues: her modesty, lack of vanity, scholarship andclemency. Almost all of this material was drawn, generally word-for-word, from John Aylmer’s famous defence of Elizabeth’s right to rule,the Harbor for Faithful and True Subjects.34

Then Foxe proceeds with a detailed account of Elizabeth’s arrest,imprisonment in the Tower, her transfer to the manor of Woodstockand her confinement there, as well as her interviews with Mary andGardiner at Hampton Court, before she was sent to a less-rigorousconfinement at Hatfield. Foxe’s account concludes with Gardiner’sdeath and with praise of the peace of Elizabeth’s reign and her mercytowards those who persecuted her.35 This narrative would becomethe core of Foxe’s account of Elizabeth, although considerable mate-rial would be added to it in later editions.The account is detailed, butis it accurate? Did Foxe invent the details of this narrative? If not, whatwere his sources for it?

It is often assumed that there was a single basic source for theaccount of Elizabeth.36 This, however, is untenable; leaving aside thechanges in subsequent editions, there is significant evidence that theaccount of Elizabeth in the 1563 edition was based on a variety ofsources. A manuscript narrative of Elizabeth’s incarceration in theTower, the text of which was incorporated en bloc into the firstedition, survives among Foxe’s papers. As the manuscript is notwritten in Foxe’s hand, it is not merely a preliminary draft of his text.Unfortunately, the manuscript is incomplete, missing at least its firstpage.The portion that survives begins with an account of a quarrelbetween Elizabeth’s servants and those of the constable of the Tower;it continues with Elizabeth requesting, and finally obtaining, permis-sion to walk about the Tower, and concludes with the story of a boybringing her flowers while she was imprisoned.37 The manuscriptaccount terminates with about a third of its final page remainingblank, yet Foxe’s narrative of Elizabeth’s imprisonment continuesbeyond this. Obviously then, the informant who provided Foxe withthe stories in the manuscript, did not provide him with the remain-ing stories of Elizabeth’s captivity.

In fact, the 1563 account of Elizabeth can be deconstructed, reveal-ing several distinct groups of informants.The first informant was aneyewitness to Elizabeth’s arrest, journey to the Tower and entranceinto it. Not only is this portion of the narrative detailed, but some ofits details can be corroborated.38 This was followed by an account ofElizabeth’s interrogation by the privy council on Good Friday, 1554.Sir James Croft could not have been the source for other portions of

Providence and Prescription 33

Foxe’s account of Elizabeth, as he was imprisoned in the Tower from21 February 1553 until 18 January 1554. But he was present at thisinterrogation and he may well have been Foxe’s source for thisepisode. Certainly, he meets two of the fundamental criteria of asource for an episode in Foxe: he figures prominently in the accountand he is mentioned favourably; the interrogation ends with Croft onhis knees loyally protesting Elizabeth’s innocence of treason.39

Another informant, whom I shall call the Tower informant,supplied the material in the manuscript account of Elizabeth’s incar-ceration in the Tower. He was almost certainly a member ofElizabeth’s household, very probably with some responsibility for hermeals. Only a member of her household would know, or wouldbother to relate, that the privy council sent the imprisoned princesstwo yeoman for her chamber, another servant for her robes, two forher pantry and ewery, one for her buttery, one for her cellar, two forher kitchen and one for her larder.40 The Tower informant’s involve-ment with Elizabeth’s kitchen is suggested by his description of thequarrels between Sir John Gage, the Constable of the Tower, andElizabeth’s household staff over the delivery of food to the princess;particularly noteworthy is the Tower informant’s description of Gagehaving Elizabeth’s kitchen servants searched and constantlywatched.41 Moreover, the Tower informant is also corroborated onone point. He related that a young boy brought flowers to Elizabethduring her stay in the Tower; years later another informant identifiedthe boy as the son of the keeper of the Wardrobe.42

In all probability the Tower informant was not Foxe’s source forElizabeth’s journey to Woodstock or her sojourn there. As has beenpreviously mentioned, the Tower informant’s manuscript ends withthe story of the boy bringing flowers to Elizabeth. Furthermore, theprofuse detail about Elizabeth’s household and kitchen is not a featureof the narrative of her stay at Woodstock. But Foxe’s informant (orinformants) for Elizabeth’s journey to Woodstock and confinementthere were also verifiably accurate; they accompanied the princess onher journey and were probably in her service.43 Finally, there appearsto have been an informant, or informants, at court since Foxe receiveddetailed and apparently accurate information about Elizabeth duringher stay at the royal court before her arrest and during the period shespent at Hampton Court, before she was sent to Hatfield.44

Foxe was not the first person to declare that Elizabeth’s survival andaccession were providential.45 What made Foxe’s providential depic-tion of Elizabeth unique, and uniquely important, was its wealth of

34 Trojan Horses

colourful details.These details not only made his account memorable,but led to its use by poets, novelists and dramatists as well as histori-ans. What has not been properly appreciated is that Foxe did notinvent this detail but gathered it from numerous oral sources.46

Moreover, since these sources covered every stage of Elizabeth’simprisonment until Gardiner’s death, it appears that Foxe’s researchwas both systematic and thorough.As is so often the case with Foxe,however, while he does not seem to have invented material, it is possi-ble that he shaped the material he acquired, through selection andomission, to suit his own purposes.

What were those purposes? In the first edition, Foxe wished toextol, if not Elizabeth herself, then certainly her advocacy ofProtestantism and reversal of her sister’s religious policies.This is thetheme of both the dedication and the praise of Elizabeth which pref-aces and ends Foxe’s 1563 account.47 In this praise there was a greatdeal of prescription. When Foxe reprinted Aylmer’s praise ofElizabeth’s sobriety, modesty, lack of vanity and clemency, one of hisreasons for doing so was to encourage Elizabeth and others to emulatethese virtues. Repeating Aylmer’s story of a young woman inspired byElizabeth’s example to eschew the wearing of ostentatious dress, Foxeadded a comment: ‘Let noble ladies and gentlewomen here learneither to give, or to take good example given, and if they disdain toteach their inferiors in well-being, yet let it not shame them to learnof their betters.’48

In the first edition, Foxe’s prescriptive advice was limited to matterswhich were, at least in theory, relatively uncontroversial. In latereditions, as the political and religious circumstances of Elizabeth’sreign changed, he would use his narrative of her experiences toinstruct her on what to do in more important and more contentiousmatters.

Furthermore, the providential praise of Elizabeth in the 1563edition contained hints of its subsequent use.While Foxe praised hervirtues here, he did not credit them with any role in securing her thecrown. Instead, he credited God alone with her protection fromdanger, declaring that his purpose in writing about Elizabeth’s ordealswas so that ‘Her Majesty, and we likewise, her humble subjects . . . beadmonished how much we are bound to the divine majesty and alsoto render thanks to Him condignly for the same.’49 More strikingly,Foxe also related a story that the great Marian martyr, Hugh Latimer,had prayed that Elizabeth be preserved from harm and that God hadnot only saved Elizabeth, but made her queen in answer to Latimer’s

Providence and Prescription 35

prayers.50 As long as Foxe thought that Elizabeth was carrying outGod’s will, there was no dissonance in his hymn of praise. But ifElizabeth was perceived to be backsliding from her duty to further theprogress of the gospel, then praise could evolve into censure andprescription into reprimand.

IV

In the next edition of the Acts and Monuments, published in 1570, Foxeadded new material about Elizabeth to his narrative of the first twoyears of Mary’s reign. Some of this consisted of anecdotes given toFoxe; one particularly interesting example is the story, told to him bySir Thomas White, of the Marian authorities trying to suppressrumours that Sir Thomas Wyatt had cleared Elizabeth of involvementin his rebellion.51 Foxe also drew isolated references to episodesconcerning Elizabeth from chronicles and journals.52 However, noattempt was made to bring these materials into a coherent narrative.Incidents about Elizabeth were reprinted from the 1563 edition andplaced side by side with new stories concerning her, despite frequentrepetition and some inconsistency in dates.53

This stands in contrast to the narrative of Elizabeth’s imprisonmentat the end of the volume. Here as well, Foxe gathered new informa-tion but he seems to have systematically tried to fill in gaps in his firstaccount and to carefully work this new material into the narrative. Forexample, Foxe was now able to provide additional details aboutvarious Marian officials involved with Elizabeth’s imprisonment.Thus, while in his first edition he stated that Sir John Williams andtwo nobleman went to Ashridge to place Elizabeth in custody, in thesecond edition he corrected and amplified this, stating that Williamswas accompanied by three knights: Sir Richard Southwell, Sir EdwardHastings and Sir Thomas Cornwallis.54 Displaying care which he hadnot lavished on references to Elizabeth in the main body of the text,Foxe also corrected chronological errors which had appeared in theaccount of the ‘persecution’ of Elizabeth in the first edition.55

Notes, in Foxe’s handwriting, relating anecdotes about Elizabeth’ssojourns at the Tower and Woodstock, survive among his papers.56

Those notes which were printed appeared (with one exception) inthe second edition, indicating that they were compiled between 1563and 1570.57 They demonstrate Foxe’s painstaking cultivation of a newset of oral informants and his systematic examination of their

36 Trojan Horses

evidence. Once again his sources were well-informed witnesses toevents at court, in the Tower and at Woodstock.58 But, Foxe not onlytook pains to accumulate and analyse new information aboutElizabeth, he also made a determined and successful effort to inter-weave the newly acquired data into his existing account.59 The labourhe expended in shaping the account of Elizabeth demonstrates itsimportance to him.

To understand why Foxe invested so much care in his secondnarrative of Elizabeth, it is necessary to consider changes in both theChurch and Foxe’s attitude towards it, which occurred between thepublication of the first two editions of his work. During the firstdecade of Elizabeth’s reign, many of the hopes of the godly for a thor-ough reformation of the Church were sharply disappointed.Althoughthere were a number of contentious issues, by 1563 the wearing of thesurplice and the outdoor clerical dress, prescribed in the royal injunc-tions, had emerged as the chief grievance of those determined topurge the English Church of the remnants of popery.60 This particu-lar ulcer started to bleed fiercely in January 1565 when Elizabethwrote a letter to Matthew Parker, the archbishop of Canterbury,ordering that the neglect of ceremonies, including the failure to wearthe prescribed clothing, by the clergy be investigated and brought toan end. Parker’s attempt to impose uniformity and the requiredcostume on the clergy led to open defiance by some prominentEnglish divines. Eventually overt opposition was crushed, but thewearing of the surplice remained a deeply held grievance of thegodly, and their hopes of achieving a thorough reformation of theChurch, although thwarted, continued to burn.61 Now, however, thegodly began to see Elizabeth herself as one of the chief obstacles tothe cleansing of the Church.Their attitudes were epitomised by theactions of one of their leaders, Laurence Humphrey, the president ofMagdalen College, and one of Foxe’s closest friends, when Elizabethmade a royal progress to Oxford in 1566. Presenting her with a NewTestament, Humphrey publicly prayed that God would open herheart to allow further reform of the Church.62

In the battle over the surplice, there was no doubt about which sideFoxe was on. During a dispute among the Marian exiles at Frankfortover ceremonies of worship, Foxe had been a member of a commit-tee of five divines which had composed an alternative liturgicalmanual abolishing the surplice and outdoor clerical dress. In the firstedition of the Acts and Monuments, Foxe referred to the cap andsurplice as ‘baits of Popery’.63 Foxe was named as one of 28 ‘godly

Providence and Prescription 37

preachers which have utterly forsaken Antichrist and his Romish rags’in a list sent to Lord Robert Dudley before 1564.64 In March 1565,Foxe was one of 20 clergymen who signed a letter to ArchbishopParker, asking that they might be permitted to follow theirconsciences and not be forced to wear the cap and surplice.65 Mostimportantly, at least for the purposes of this article, Foxe made numer-ous alterations to the text of the second edition of the Acts andMonuments, in order to hone its attacks on the wearing of the cap andsurplice.66

In his second edition, Foxe also edited and amended passages inorder to express his disapproval of the queen’s religious policies andto spur her on to the thorough reformation for which he longed.Some of the most striking changes occurred in the new dedication toElizabeth. Its most noticeable feature is a negative one: the failure torepeat the elaborate comparison between Elizabeth and Constantine.In fact, most of the dedication is not concerned with Elizabeth at all;instead Foxe discussed Catholic attacks on his first edition and hispoor health before apologising for having written the work inEnglish.67 This was in itself rather deflating, but Foxe signalled hisaltered attitude towards his queen in other ways.The heading to thededication was revised; in the first edition Foxe piously hoped forElizabeth ‘long to flourish and reign in perfect health, and muchhonour, through the mercy and favour of Christ Jesus, our Lord andeternal Saviour, to the comfort of his church’.68 Now Foxe wishedElizabeth ‘a long reign, perfect health, and joyful peace, to govern Hisflock committed to her charge, to the example of all good princes [and]the comfort of his Church’.69

The emphasis on Elizabeth’s pastoral responsibilities was furtherunderscored in the opening words to the new dedication:‘Christ, thePrince of all princes, who hath placed you in your throne of majesty,under him to govern the Church and realm of England, give yourroyal highness long to sit and many years to reign over us.’70 Yatesmaintains that these words ‘imply the divinely ordained right of thequeen to rule over both church and state’.71 Certainly, Foxe wasaffirming Elizabeth’s authority over Church and State, but he was alsosaying that this authority stemmed from God and imposed profoundobligations on Elizabeth; it may even be that Foxe was hinting that thelength of her reign depended on how well she fulfilled these obliga-tions. In what was arguably the most significant of change of all, Foxewho had hailed Elizabeth seven years earlier as the ‘supreme gover-nor’ of the Church, now called her its ‘principal governor’, declaring

38 Trojan Horses

that she ruled ‘under Christ the supreme head’.72 And as before, Foxedid not hesitate to suggest how Elizabeth could carry out God’s will,but this time there was an undertone of criticism as he praised her‘virtuous inclination . . . (speedily I trust ) to furnish all quarters andcountries of this your realm with the voice of Christ’s gospel andfaithful preaching of his word’.73

Foxe was even more blunt about the imperative for Elizabeth toreform the Church in the main text of his second edition. Hearranged the order of events in his narrative of the conclusion ofHenry VIII’s reign in order to condemn the king, and thus implicitlyhis younger daughter, for failure to purge the Church and the realmof all traces of Catholic practices and ceremonies.74 But many schol-ars have argued that, far from criticising Elizabeth, Foxe’s narrativeactually concealed her willingness to conform to Catholicism duringMary’s reign. David Starkey claims that ‘The effect of this highly flat-tering memoir of Elizabeth’s “sufferings” under Mary was to makeElizabeth seem to have shared the experiences of exile, while, inreality, she had ostentatiously conformed to Mary’s Catholicism.’75

Andrew Pettegree concurs, maintaining that ‘Elizabeth’s story had tobe made part of the heroic tradition of those who had truly witnessedduring Mary’s reign’ so therefore, in Foxe’s narrative, ‘the manner ofher conformity and attendance at Mass is touched upon onlyobliquely.’76

Starkey and Pettegree are certainly correct about the importanceand sensitivity of this issue. John Knox wrote to the English queen on20 July 1559, reproving her because ‘for fear of your life, you diddecline from God, and bow in idolatry’ and he urged her to atone forthis sin by aiding the Scottish Protestants.77 But far from healing, orsimply ignoring, the wound, Foxe rubbed salt in it. For one thing, ina story introduced in the 1570 edition, Foxe did describe Elizabethattending Mass in the Tower.Worse yet, the story also described twoof her yeoman sabotaging the ceremony; their quiet but effective defi-ance contrasted with Elizabeth’s conformity.78

This implicit criticism of the queen’s lack of commitment to thegospel was made again, and even more strongly, in Foxe’s accounts ofthe divine preservation of Robert Horneby and Elizabeth Sandesfrom persecution. Horneby was a groom in Elizabeth’s service whowas imprisoned and eventually fled into exile for his refusal to attendMass. Elizabeth Sandes, a gentlewoman attending Elizabeth, wasremoved from Woodstock after she refused, despite parental and offi-

Providence and Prescription 39

cial pressure, to attend Mass; she also fled into exile.79 In contrast totheir mistress, Horneby and Sandes had risked death and enduredimprisonment, exile and parental wrath rather than attend Mass. Foxenever made the comparison between the defiance of Horneby andSandes, and the compliance of Elizabeth, explicit, but he made thecomparison difficult to avoid.80

Finally, Foxe’s notes reveal that he knew of, but never printed, astory in which Elizabeth openly disapproved of preachers at hersister’s court who denounced the religious reforms of Henry VIII andEdward VI.81 Far from concealing Elizabeth’s conformity to theMarian religious policies, Foxe concealed her lack of conformity tothem.To portray Elizabeth as a heroic champion of the gospel duringthe time of persecution would serve to endorse the religious policieswhich Foxe opposed. Yet at the same time, Foxe did not wish tominimise Elizabeth’s sufferings, since these formed, as we have seen, avery useful rod with which to smite the Catholics. PortrayingElizabeth as the beneficiary of divine aid during Mary’s reign enabledFoxe to attain both of his seemingly irreconcilable objectives.

V

Certainly, Foxe further emphasised the role of providence in theaccount of Elizabeth in the 1570 edition. In Foxe’s first edition, thisaccount formed part of a section ‘containing such acts and records ashappened in the most flourishing reign of Queen Elizabeth’.82 In thesecond edition, the account was placed in a section recounting talesof those who ‘being pursued in Queen Mary’s time, were in greatdanger, and yet through the good providence of God mercifully werepreserved’.83 The lavish praise of Elizabeth’s clemency, learning andvirtue that had introduced the narrative of her imprisonment in thefirst edition was dropped from the second edition, never to reappear.It was replaced by Foxe’s paean to providence:‘Never was there, sincethe memory of our fathers, any example to be showed, wherein theLord’s almighty power hath more admirably and blessedly showeditself . . . than in the miraculous custody and outscape of this oursovereign lady, now queen.’84 The emphasis on providence continuedthroughout the narrative; after reprinting a passage describing thedanger which threatened Elizabeth, Foxe added a passage in thesecond edition declaring that God ‘when all help of man and hope ofrecovery was past, stretched out his mighty protection and preserved

40 Trojan Horses

her Highness.’85 Marginal notes added to the second edition joined inthe chorus intoned by the text: ‘Lady Elizabeth preserved by theLord’s providence from execution in the Tower’; ‘How the Lord herebegan to work for Lady Elizabeth’; ‘Note the wonderful working ofthe Lord’s providence in saving of Lady Elizabeth’, and (appearingnext to a statement that God placed Elizabeth on the throne) ‘TheLord make England thankful to Him for His great benefits’.86 Aparticularly telling new marginal note was placed next to the story,faithfully reprinted from the first edition, of God answering Latimer’sprayer that Elizabeth be protected and made queen: ‘Q. Elizabethgranted of God to England’.87

All of these changes underscored God’s responsibility for the acces-sion of Elizabeth. Helen Hackett has claimed of Foxe’s narrative, aswell as the narratives which were based on it, that their

hagiographical treatment of Elizabeth’s life before her accession also served to createa sense that it was not only her anointment as monarch which had raised her to asanctified level, but that she had an innate personal holiness which destined herfor that anointment.88

Susan Frye has also maintained that Foxe described Elizabeth’ssurvival and accession as a divine reward for her virtue, a virtue whichthe martyrologist depicted as ‘active rather than passive’.89 There islittle foundation for these views in the text of any edition of Foxe’swork and still less when the development of his account of Elizabethis traced from one edition of the Acts and Monuments to the next.From his second edition onwards, Foxe pruned back his references toElizabeth’s virtues. In none of his editions did he ever credit any ofElizabeth’s virtues or actions with her survival or accession. Elizabethis distinguished from the martyrs and confessors who fill the pages ofthe Acts and Monuments by her utter passivity; in Foxe’s book she doesnot articulate her convictions, she does not defy the Marian authori-ties either verbally or by refusing to attend Mass, she merely endurespersecution and waits for God to save her. And as Foxe increasinglydownplayed Elizabeth’s virtues, he increasingly emphasised that sheowed her life and her throne to God and only to God.

This insistence had important consequences apart from denying aheroic or active role to Elizabeth. For one thing, it underscoredElizabeth’s obligations to God and to propagating the gospel. Othersbesides Foxe did not hesitate to remind Elizabeth of the special debtshe owed to the Lord, and of how He, and the godly, expected repay-

Providence and Prescription 41

ment. In the dedication to the Geneva Bible, Elizabeth was advisedthat

considering God’s wonderful mercies toward you at all seasons, who hath pulledyou out of the mouth of lions . . . the hope of all men is so increased that theycan not but look that God should bring to pass some wonderful work by yourgrace to the universal comfort of his Church.90

Elizabeth was bound to disappoint such high expectations eventuallyand when she did, the wine of approbation was destined to sour intovinegar. The gulf between her obligations and her achievement hadthe potential of turning any relation of her providential deliveranceinto barbed criticism.91 It also had the potential of turning into some-thing even worse; if Elizabeth was enthroned solely by God’s will,then what kept her on the throne when she no longer fulfilled it? TheOld Testament is replete with examples of kings and magistratesprotected and raised up by God, only to be cast down by Him whenthey disobeyed his commands and tolerated idolatry. As usual, it wasKnox who articulated the unsayable. In a letter to Elizabeth, hewarned the queen

to ground the justice of your authority, not upon that law which from year to yeardoth change, but upon the eternal providence of Him who, contrary to nature,and without your deserving, hath thus exalted your head. . . . But if . . . ye shallbegin to brag of your birth, and to build your authority upon your own law,flatter you who so list, your felicity shall be short.92

In the third edition of the Acts and Monuments, Foxe added mater-ial on Elizabeth which made exactly the same point, much less terselybut with at least equal bluntness. The six years which intervenedbetween the publication of the second edition of the Acts andMonuments and the publication of the third edition, in 1576, sawfurther disappointments for Foxe and the godly. Their efforts topersuade parliament in 1571 to mandate a revision of the Book ofCommon Prayer had failed completely.93 The rise of the Presbyterianmovement in the 1570s provoked a fierce reaction from Elizabethleading to further suppression of the godly in 1573.94 In his secondedition, Foxe had emphasised the providential nature of Elizabeth’ssurvival and accession in response to the crushing of the anti-vestiar-ian movement. In the third edition, in response to renewed repressionof the godly, he incorporated the oration of John Hales into his text.

42 Trojan Horses

The oration had been made at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign andit is easy to see why it took 17 years for it to be printed. John Hales, itsauthor, had profoundly angered Elizabeth by championing the validityof Lady Katherine Grey’s marriage to the earl of Hertford; as a resultHales was imprisoned for a year and then placed under house arrest,where he remained until his death in 1572.95 Controversial as Haleswas, his oration was even more contentious. It began uncontroversiallyenough, with a denunciation of the cruelty of the Marian persecution,which Hales maintained was God’s punishment for England’s sins, andwhich was ended only through His mercy.96 After declaring that everyEnglish person should praise God for this mercy, Hales remindedElizabeth of her particular debt of gratitude owed to the Lord:

Diverse times they have taken you, sometime have had you in a stronghold,secluded from all liberty, sometime at liberty, but not without most cruel jailer’scustody, and many times they determined that, without justice, ye should bemurdered privily . . . But He that sitteth on high . . . He took upon him theprotection of you . . . Wherefore the greater his benefits hath been toward you, the moreare you bound to seek His glory and to set forth His honour.97

Having established Elizabeth’s profound obligation to God for her lifeand crown, Hales warned the queen of the consequences if she failedto honour her obligation:‘If ye fear Him and seek to do His will, thenwill He favour you and preserve you therein from all enemies as Hedid King David. If ye now fall from Him or juggle with Him, lookfor no more favour than Saul had showed to him.’98 Hales theninstructed Elizabeth that God expected her to reform the EnglishChurch and further warned that these necessary reforms ‘may not be[done] with pitching and patching, cobbling and botching, as wasused in times past, whilst your most noble father and brotherreigned’.99 In other words, unless Elizabeth carried out even morethorough reform of the Church than that of Edward VI, she wouldrisk divine punishment for having turned her back on God.

By the time that Foxe published Hales’s oration, it was clear thatElizabeth would never enact the sweeping reforms which Halesconsidered to be her divinely ordained mission. In effect, this wasFoxe’s last word on Elizabeth. Apart from a minor addition made tothe narrative of Elizabeth’s imprisonment and the addition of Hales’soration in the third edition, all of the material on Elizabeth in thethird and fourth editions was faithfully reprinted from the secondedition.100 By adding Hales’s oration to his narrative of Elizabeth,

Providence and Prescription 43

Foxe built significantly further on the implicit criticisms of Elizabeth’slack of religious zeal which he had made in his second edition. By1576, the Old Testament model for Elizabeth in the Acts andMonuments was neither Deborah nor Josiah, it was Saul.

VI

But did Foxe’s contemporaries comprehend this implicit criticism?Unless it can be demonstrated that they did, this novel reading ofFoxe’s text must remain tentative at best. In fact, however, Foxe’snarrative of Elizabeth’s ordeals and preservation provided the basis forthe most devastating, and most famous, attack on her by one of herProtestant subjects.

On 25 February 1570, Edward Dering, hitherto a rising star seem-ingly destined for high ecclesiastical preferment, preached a sermonbefore Elizabeth which detailed the corruption of the English Churchand castigated her for allowing it. This sermon earned DeringElizabeth’s undying enmity and blasted his career.101 It also created asensation, going through 16 editions during Elizabeth’s reign.102

Patrick Collinson has observed that Dering’s sermon contained a veryFoxean message, in it, ‘Elizabeth was reminded that she had notchosen God but that God had chosen her as His instrument, and itwas strongly implied that He could unmake her again if she fell intounthankfulness or neglect of her duty.’103 Peter McCullough has alsopointed out that Dering’s sermon echoed Foxe’s narrative by remind-ing the queen that she had once been a prisoner.104

But no one has yet appreciated the extent to which Dering’ssermon was based on the Acts and Monuments. In his sermon, Deringdeclared to Elizabeth:

If you have ever seen the days in which you have said: ‘O Lord, I have no friendbut thee alone’, now that prosperity hath brought unto you a great many of faircountenaunces, forget not that God, who was your only friend in trouble.105

According to Foxe, this is exactly what Elizabeth had said when shedisembarked at the Tower:‘And before thee, O God, I speak it, havingnone other friends but only thee.’106 Dering continued:

If in times past you have prayed that you might not build upon the sand, to haveyour house shaken with every blast of wind: now that you have [the] choice ofyour own ground, take heed I beseech you, where you lay your foundation.107

44 Trojan Horses

Foxe had described Elizabeth in the Tower ‘desiring God not to sufferher to build her foundation upon the sands, but upon the rocks,whereby all blocks of blustering weather should have no poweragainst her’.108 Dering then jabbed sharply at the deprivation of anti-vestiarian ministers:

If you have prayed in times past unto God to mollify your enemies’ hearts, and tobring their cruel practices to nothing, now that you yourself are in safety, be notcruel unto God’s anointed and do his prophets no harm.109

What made this jab all the more wounding was that Foxe declaredthat Elizabeth, when she was a prisoner, had prayed: ‘Thou, O God,art the withdrawer and mollifer of all such tyrannous hearts and acts,and I beseech thee to hear me, thy creature, which am thy servant, andat thy commandment, trusting by thy grace ever so to remain.’110

Dering used Foxe’s text to identify Elizabeth as a persecutor of thegodly, just as her sister had been. Dering drove this point home witha brilliant rhetorical flourish, based on Foxe’s claim that Elizabeth haddescribed herself as being ‘Tanquam ovis’:

If you have said sometime of yourself: Tanquam ovis, ‘as a sheep appointed to beslain’, take heed you hear not now of the prophet, tanquam indomita Iuvenca, ‘as anuntamed and unruly heifer’.111

Yoking two Old Testament similes together, Dering mocked thequeen’s pretensions to martyrdom and, contemptuously disparagingher gender, he warned her that her disobedience to God’s will wasinviting divine punishment. Although Dering’s sermon was remark-ably bold, and remarkably caustic, he was merely stating directly whatFoxe had already implied. Foxe had forged the axe which Dering usedto hack at the royal image.

VII

Yet while Dering’s career suffered lastingly for his temerity, Foxe’sbook was not only tolerated by Elizabeth’s government, its dissemi-nation was fostered and encouraged by those closest to the sovereignwhom Foxe had criticised.Yates and Strong may have been incorrectabout Foxe’s motivations, but they were more correct than they knewabout the official sponsorship of the Acts and Monuments.A letter, onlyrecently discovered, from the privy council to the archbishops of

Providence and Prescription 45

Canterbury and York and the bishop of London, dated 27 November1570, praised the Acts and Monuments as

A work of very great importance and necessary knowledge both touching religionand other good offices, the matter whereof being very profitable to bring herMajesty’s subjects to good opinion, understanding and dear liking of the presentgovernment.

The letter went on to urge the prelates to see that a copy of Foxe’sbook was placed in every church in England.112This was wildly unre-alistic; there were over 8000 parishes, and more churches thanparishes, in England, while in all probability there had not been morethan 1200 copies printed of the 1570 edition.113 Yet this letter prob-ably lay behind several more limited, but more effective, initiatives thatwere undertaken in the following months. On 1 February 1571, inresponse to the request of the archbishop of Canterbury and thebishops of London and Ely, the mayor and corporation of Londonordered that a copy of Foxe’s book be placed in the Orphan’s Court,at municipal expense, and further ordered that each of the citycompanies purchase a copy of the work for display in their ownhalls.114 In April 1571, convocation decreed that all bishops, deans andarchdeacons purchase the work and display it in the halls of theirhouses; in addition, a copy of the Acts and Monuments was to be placedin every cathedral church.115

It was apparently Elizabeth’s privy council which spurred this driveto disseminate the Acts and Monuments; there is certainly no sign ofElizabeth’s involvement in it. This distinction is important; theElizabethan government was not monolithic and there were anumber of issues on which at least some of the privy councillorsshared Foxe’s viewpoint rather than their queen’s. It is by no meansinconceivable that one reason why the council sponsored Foxe’s workwas in the hope that it would help induce Elizabeth to undertake thereligious reforms that at least some of the councillors desired as muchas Foxe.

But there is probably more to it than this. Elizabeth’s own attitudestowards Foxe’s narrative of her imprisonment are difficult to ascertain.After Dering’s sermon, she must have been aware of the icy under-currents swirling just below the sparkling surface of Foxe’s narrative.Nevertheless, while she was not necessarily involved in the council’sefforts to disseminate the Acts and Monuments, she did command thatcopies of the book be displayed prominently in her court.116 It would

46 Trojan Horses

appear that Elizabeth’s response to Foxe’s narrative was to accentuatethe positive and ignore, rather than censor, the negative.

And there were, from Elizabeth’s view, positive aspects of Foxe’sportrayal of her. His narrative corresponded with one central pillar ofElizabeth’s self-presentation by including numerous anecdotes ofcommon people displaying their love and loyalty towards the princessdespite the displeasure of the Marian authorities.117 And Elizabethwas in complete agreement with Foxe on the key point of his narra-tive: providence had protected her and placed her on the throne. Atthe beginning of her reign, both in her entry into London in January1559 and in her first speech to parliament a month later, Elizabethpraised God, at some length, for having preserved her during theperilous days of her sister’s reign.118 This was a theme that she was toemphasise publicly throughout the remainder of her reign. Her letterto Henri IV, deploring his conversion to Catholicism, was written interms which suggested a profound personal belief in God’s protectionof her and a pride in having suffered for the gospel in Mary’s reign.119

From the beginning, Foxe’s account of Elizabeth was a pill ofprescriptive medicine under a sugar coating; as time went on, themedicinal centre grew larger and more bitter while the sugar coatingbecame progressively thinner.Yet Elizabeth’s response remained thesame: each time, she sucked off the coating and spat out the pill. Herstrategy was remarkably successful; thanks in large part to the defeatof the Spanish Armada, and of the perception of God’s hand in it,Elizabeth came to be seen as a great Protestant champion and thedissonant chords of irony and disapprobation in Foxe’s narrative wentincreasingly unheard.120Yet if we fail to discern those chords now, andignore the subversive edge to his narrative, we cannot fully understandFoxe, his great book or the Elizabethan Church. If we fail to appreci-ate the real challenge that Foxe’s account represented, we cannotcomprehend Elizabeth’s skill in managing it. To perceive Foxe as agrateful apologist for an adored queen is to do justice to neithermonarch nor martyrologist.

Notes

1. Cf. John Speed, The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine . . . (1612; STC23041) 1822–3 with A&M [1570], 2289–94. The first edition ofHolinshed’s history derived elements from Foxe, particularly in praisingLord William of Thame’s courtesy to Elizabeth and criticising Sir HenryBedingfield’s severe treatment of her (Raphael Holinshed, The Last

Providence and Prescription 47

Volume of the Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland [1577; STC13568], 1755). The second edition of Holinshed, published a decadelater, reprinted Foxe exactly (cf. Raphael Holinshed, The Second Volumeof Chronicles (1587; STC 13569), 1151–60 with A&M [1583], 2091–7).

2. Cf. William Camden, Annales rerum Anglicarum, et Hibernicarum regnanteElizabetha . . . (1615; STC 4496), 13 with A&M [1563], 1004. RobertNorton’s loose translation of the Annales increased the resemblancesbetween Foxe and Camden by echoing, or repeating, the martyrologist’swords: cf. William Camden, The History of the Most Renowned andVictorious Princess Elizabeth, trans. Robert Norton (1630; STC 4500), 9with A&M [1563], fo. 1711r.

3. See The Elisaeis of William Alabaster, ed. and trans. Michael O’Connell,Studies in Philology 76 (1979), 5 and 61–5.

4. Quoted in Helen Hackett, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen: Elizabeth I andthe Cult of the Virgin Mary (Basingstoke, 1995), 57.

5. A&M [1563], fo. 1711r. Birch’s ballad was entered in the Stationer’sRegister in 1558–9 but the unique surviving edition dates from 1564(Hacket, Virgin Mother, 252 n. 49). The verses incorporating passagesfrom Foxe’s 1563 edition were presumably added to the original ballad.

6. See William Chappell and J. Woodfell Ebsworth, eds, The RoxburgheBallads (8 vols, 1879–97), i, 289; and Tessa Watt, Cheap Print and PopularPiety 1550–1640 (Cambridge, 1991), 91–4.

7. These included the Gunaikéion: or nine bookes of various history concerningwomen (1624) which went through two editions (STC 13326 and STC[Wing] H1784) and England’s Elizabeth (1631), which went throughthree editions (STC 13313, STC 13314 and STC [Wing] H1779). Therewas also another prose narrative in The exemplary lives of memorable of nineof the most worthy women of the world (1640) and a verse history, The life anddeath of Queen Elizabeth (1639). But it was Heywood’s drama onElizabeth, If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody (1605–6), whichenjoyed perennial popularity. (See Chapter 5 in this volume; for thenumerous editions of the play, see STC 13328–13339.)

8. John Prime, The Consolations of David briefly applied to Queen Elizabeth(Oxford, 1588; STC 20386), sig. B2r. The passage Prime is quoting isfrom A&M [1563], fo. 1712v.

9. J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth (1934), 46–51 and 54; Mary M. Luke, ACrown for Elizabeth (1971), 382–426 and 442–7; Carolly Ericson, TheFirst Elizabeth (1983), 122–46; Jasper Ridley, Elizabeth I (1987), 58–63;Christopher Hibbert, The Virgin Queen (Reading, MA, 1991), 45–57;and Maria Perry, The Word of a Prince (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1995),97–9, for example, all follow Foxe’s account without caveat. A fewauthors – Paul Johnson, Elizabeth I (1974), 46–52; Anne Somerset,Elizabeth I (1991), 39–47 and 49; Wallace MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I (1993),16–25 – express doubts about the accuracy of Foxe’s narrative but repeat

48 Trojan Horses

it faithfully. Alison Plowden characterises Foxe’s account as ‘highlycoloured and unsubstantiated’ and then goes on to reproduce it, addinglayers of unsubstantiated detail herself (The Young Elizabeth [1971],157–84; quotation on p. 157).

10. There are important recent exceptions to this. David Starkey hasrecently made acute criticisms of Foxe’s narrative and offered valuablespeculation on the sources for it. David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship(2000), 141–2 and 153–4. For comments on Starkey’s analysis, seeThomas S. Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject being Prysoner”: John Foxe’sNotes on the Imprisonment of Princess Elizabeth, 1554–5’, EnglishHistorical Review 117 (2002), 108 n. 26 and 110. John King’s analysis ofFoxe’s narrative of Elizabeth’s imprisonment is the first to consider inany detail the changes made in the different editions of Foxe’s work.John King, ‘Fiction and Fact in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’, in David Loades,ed., John Foxe and the English Reformation (Aldershot, 1997), 24–31.

11. Frances Yates, ‘Foxe as Propagandist’, in Ideas and Ideals in the NorthernRenaissance(1984), 28–39, esp. 33–4; also see Frances Yates, Astraea: TheImperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century (1975), 42–51.

12. Roy Strong, The Cult of Elizabeth (1977), 127–8. 13. Curtis Perry, ‘The Citizen Politics of Nostalgia: Queen Elizabeth in

Early Jacobean London’, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 23(1993), 97.

14. Anne McLaren, ‘Reading Sir Thomas Smith: De Republica Anglorum asProtestant Apologetic’, Historical Journal 42 (1999), 933.

15. John Foxe, Germaniae ad Angliam de restituta evangelii luce Gratulatio(Basel, 1559). John Wade of the University of Sheffield is preparing atranslation of this work. I am grateful to him for sending me an earlyversion.

16. Foxe, Gratulatio, 13–15 and 23–4. 17. Foxe, Gratulatio, 15. 18. John Foxe, Rerum in ecclesia gestarum . . . Commentarii (Basel, 1559), 635. 19. Foxe, Rerum, 268 and 635. 20. A&M [1570], 1952 and 2294. 21. Compare John Aylmer, An harborowe for faithfull and trewe subiectes (1559;

STC 1005), sigs. N3v–N4r with A&M [1563], fo. 1712r. 22. A&M [1563], 1004 and 1383; A&M [1570], 1952.23. In a memoir of his father’s life, Simeon Foxe, the martyrologist’s

younger son, claimed that Stephen Gardiner had questioned John Foxeat the beginning of Mary’s reign and later tried to have him arrested.The memoir was first printed in the eighth edition of the Acts andMonuments published in 1641. See A&M [1641], II, sig. A7r. This story,however, should be treated sceptically.

24. See Michael Riordan and Alec Ryrie, ‘Stephen Gardiner and theMaking of a Protestant Villain’ (forthcoming).

Providence and Prescription 49

25. A&M [1563], 1383. 26. For example, Anthony Munday reprinted Foxe’s account word-for-

word in his Watchword to England, a diatribe on the ubiquity of EnglishCatholic traitors and the danger they represented. Cf. AnthonyMunday, A watch-woord to Englande to beware of traytours and treacherouspractises (STC 18282; 1584) fos 17v–31v with A&M [1583], 2091–7.

27. A&M [1563], sigs. B1r–B2v. 28. Yates, ‘Foxe as Propagandist’, 28–39. 29. Thomas Betteridge, Tudor Histories of the English Reformation, 1530–83

(Aldershot, 1999), 176–7.30. A&M [1563], sig. B1v.31. A&M [1563], sig. B2r. Fourteen years later, Foxe would give another

application to the providential myth, by claiming that God hadpreserved Elizabeth and placed her on the throne in order that sheprotect Protestants in foreign countries (Foxe, Contra Hieron. Osorium,fo. 397r).

32. A&M [1563], 927, 1001, 1004 and 1383. 33. The pagination for the 1563 account of Elizabeth starts with page 1708,

then (with p. 1709 omitted) it goes from pagination to foliation (fos1710r–1713v). This is followed by a section which is paginated (pp.1713–16; p. 1713 follows fo. 1713).

34. Cf. Aylmer, Harborow, sigs. N1r–v and N2v–O1r with A&M [1563],1708–10 and fos 1710v–1712r. Foxe rearranged this material andprinted it in a different order from Aylmer.

35. A&M [1563], fos 1711r–1713v and 1713–16.36. For example, see King’s comments in ‘Fiction and Fact’, 26–7, where

he discusses whether Sir James Croft or Elizabeth herself was the sourcefor Foxe’s account. King also points out that Foxe cited WilliamGrindal and Roger Ascham as sources; however, Foxe merely repeatedthese citations, along with the passages in which they were embedded,from Aylmer’s Harbor for Faithful and True Subjects.

37. BL Harley MS 419, fos 135r–136r; cf. A&M [1563], fos 1712v–1713r. 38. For example, the description of the delay caused by the running tide,

which made it unsafe for the barge transporting Elizabeth to cross underLondon Bridge (A&M [1563], fos 1711v–1712r) is confirmed by theImperial ambassador’s report (CSP Spanish XII, 167). David Starkey hascriticised the accuracy of Foxe’s account of Elizabeth’s landing at theTower (Starkey, Elizabeth, 141), for discussion of this point seeFreeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 108 n. 26).

39. A&M [1563], fo. 1712v. 40. BL Harley MS 419, fo. 135r; printed in A&M [1563], fo. 1712v. 41. BL Harley MS 419, fo. 135r; printed in A&M [1563], fos 1712v–1713r.42. A&M [1563], fo. 1713r; BL Harley MS 425, fo. 137v; Freeman, ‘“As

True a Subject”’, 114. David Starkey has criticised Foxe for declaring

50 Trojan Horses

that Elizabeth was held in a ‘dungeon’ at the Tower when, in fact, shewas confined in the royal apartments there (Starkey, Elizabeth, 142).Foxe, in using the word ‘dungeon’ was simply repeating the word theTower informant had used in his manuscript (cf. BL Harley MS 419, fo.135v with A&M [1563], fo. 1713r). Undoubtedly, the Tower infor-mant was being inaccurate, but the error probably stems from partisanexaggeration rather than ignorance.

43. For example, Foxe related that certain villagers rang bells as Elizabethjourneyed to Woodstock and that Sir Henry Bedingfield, her warder,had some of the bellringers arrested and put in stocks (A&M [1563], fo.1712v). Bedingfield reported the incident to the privy council (BL Add.MS 34563, fo. 12v).

43. Foxe described Elizabeth as being ‘very princely entertained’ whenshe stayed at the house of Lord Williams of Thame (A&M [1563], fo.1712v); Bedingfield also reported that Elizabeth was ‘marvellously wellentertained’ at Lord Williams’s house (BL Add. MS 34563, fo. 13r).Elizabeth’s illness at Woodstock and her treatment by Dr George Owenand Dr Thomas Wendy, reported by Foxe (A&M [1563], 1714), is veri-fied by Owen’s correspondence with Bedingfield (BL Add. MS 34563,fos. 57r and 65r). And Foxe’s account of Elizabeth finally receivingpermission to write to Mary and of her squabbling with Bedingfieldover who would deliver the letter (A&M [1563], 1713–14) is corrobo-rated in its details, if not the interpretation of them, by Bedingfield’sreport of the incident to the privy council (BL Add. MS 34563, fos50r–51r).

44. For example, Foxe stated that a nobleman advised the Spaniards thatEngland would never be at peace until Elizabeth was executed (A&M[1563], 1714). In the next edition, Foxe identified the nobleman asLord Paget (A&M [1570], 2294). This sounds like an exaggeratedversion of a remark Paget made to the Spanish ambassador (and possi-bly others) that if sufficient evidence was not found to put Elizabeth todeath, she should, for the peace of the realm, be married to a foreigner(CSP Spanish XII, 201).

45. An especially well known example is Sir Thomas Smith’s claim, madein his 1561 ‘Dialogue on the Queen’s Marriage’, that Elizabeth waspreserved by providence in order to ‘cast off the Romish yoke’ and ruleEngland peacefully (John Strype, The Life of the Learned Sir Thomas Smith(Oxford, 1842), 216).

46. It might be argued that Foxe could have obtained the material in the1563 edition from Elizabeth herself, thus eliminating the need toconsult multiple sources. But at least one section of the 1563 account(the material written by the Tower informant which is preserved in BL,Harley 419) clearly did not come from Elizabeth. For one thing, the MSis not in her handwriting and for another, the account refers to her in

Providence and Prescription 51

the third person. It is unlikely that she would have displayed this infor-mant’s concern with her kitchen staff. Finally, it is difficult to see whyElizabeth would have ended an account of her experiences with herimprisonment in the Tower. For other arguments against Elizabethhaving supplied Foxe with an account of her imprisonment, seeFreeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 109.

47. A&M [1563], 1716. 48. Cf. Aylmer, Harborowe, sig. N1r–v with A&M [1563], fo. 1710v. 49. A&M [1563], 1716. 50. A&M [1563], 1355. Foxe was repeating this, word-for-word, from

Augustine Bernher’s foreward to his collection of the sermons of HughLatimer. See 27 Sermons preached by the ryght reverende . . . maister HughLatimer, ed. Augustine Bernher (1562, STC 15276), sig. C2r.

51. A&M [1570], 1587–8. White was the lord mayor of London at the timeof Wyatt’s rebellion and execution.

52. For example, see A&M [1570], 1639. 53. For material on Elizabeth reprinted from the first edition, cf. A&M

[1563], 927 and 1001 with A&M [1570], 1587 and 1639. New mater-ial on Elizabeth also appeared in A&M [1570], 1587–8 and 1639. Atone point, Foxe states incorrectly that Elizabeth was sent to the Toweron 15 March (A&M [1570], 1587); at another place Foxe statescorrectly that Elizabeth was sent to the Tower on 18 March (A&M[1570], 1639). Foxe never corrected the error.

54. Cf. A&M [1563], fo. 1711r with A&M [1570], 2288. For other exam-ples of Foxe identifying Marian officials left nameless in the first edition,cf. A&M [1563], fo. 1711v with A&M [1570], 2289.

55. For example, in the first edition Foxe stated that Elizabeth started on herjourney to Woodstock on 16 May 1554 (A&M [1563], fo. 1713v). Inthe second edition this was corrected to 19 May 1554 (A&M [1570],2292).

56. These notes are discussed in Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 104–16.57. The exception is a note first printed in the 1576 edition of the Acts and

Monuments. It was probably omitted from the 1570 edition by accident;see Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 105 n. 4.

58. See Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 107–10. 59. See Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 105 and 113–14.60. Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (1967), 65–9. 61. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 69–83. 62. Cambridge University Library, MS Mm.I.43, p. 431. 63. A&M [1563], 1697. 64. Magdalene College, Cambridge, Pepysian Library, MS ‘Papers of State’,

ii, 701.65. Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2019, fos 1r–2r. 66. Thomas S. Freeman, ‘“The Reformation of the Church in this

52 Trojan Horses

Parliament”: Thomas Norton, John Foxe and the Parliament of 1571’,Parliamentary History 16 (1997), 135–6 and Tom Betteridge, ‘FromProphetic to Apocalyptic: John Foxe and the Writing of History’, inJohn Foxe and the English Reformation, 230–1.

67. A&M [1570], sigs. *1r–*2v. 68. A&M [1563], sig. B1r. 69. A&M [1570], sig. *1r (my emphasis). 70. A&M [1570], sig. *1r. 71. Yates, Astraea, 43. 72. A&M [1570], sig. *1r. 73. A&M [1570], sig. *2v (my emphasis). 74. See Thomas S. Freeman and Sarah Elizabeth Wall, ‘Racking the Body,

Shaping the Text: The Account of Anne Askew in Foxe’s “Book ofMartyrs”’, Renaissance Quarterly 54 (2001), 1186–9.

75. Starkey, Elizabeth, 153. 76. Andrew Pettegree, Marian Protestantism: Six Studies (Aldershot, 1996),

116. 77. D. Laing, ed., The Works of John Knox (6 vols, Edinburgh, 1846–64), vi,

50. 78. See Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 105–6 and 109–11.79. For these cases, see Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 106–8. 80. In the 1570 edition, the stories of Horneby and Sandes were printed

immediately before the narrative of Elizabeth’s imprisonment (A&M[1570], p. 2288). In later editions, new material was inserted into thetext between the accounts of Horneby and Sandes and the account ofElizabeth.

81. See Freeman, ‘“As True a Subject”’, 111–12. 82. A&M [1563], 1708. The section of episodes from early in Elizabeth’s

reign are on pp. 1708–29 of the first edition. 83. A&M [1570], 2288. The section on those preserved by providence was

on pp. 265–97 of this edition. There was a section on those preservedby providence in the first edition (A&M [1563], 1694–1703); signifi-cantly, the account of Elizabeth first appeared in this section in thesecond edition.

84. A&M [1570], 2288. 85. A&M [1570], 2288. 86. A&M [1570], 2294–6. 87. A&M [1570], 1910. 88. Hackett, Virgin Mother, 58. 89. Susan Frye, Elizabeth I: The Competition for Representation (Oxford,

1993), 74 and 76–7. 90. The Bible and Holy Scriptures . . ., (Geneva, 1560, STC 2094), sigs.

2r–3v. 91. For examples of this, see Patrick Collinson, ‘Windows in a Woman’s

Providence and Prescription 53

. Soul: Questions about the Religion of Queen Elizabeth I’, inElizabethan Essays (1994), 116–17, and Peter E. McCullough, ‘Out ofEgypt: Richard Fletcher’s Sermon before Elizabeth I after theExecution of Mary Queen of Scots’, in Julia M. Walker, ed., DissingElizabeth: Negative Representations of Gloriana (Durham, NC, 1998),128.

92. Works of John Knox, VI, 50. 93. Freeman, ‘“Reformation of the Church in this Parliament”’, 131–47.94. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 131–55. 95. See ‘Hales, John’, in P. W. Hasler, The House of Commons, 1558–1603

(3 vols, 1981).96. A&M [1576], 2005–6. A manuscript copy of this oration survives

among Foxe’s papers (BL Harley MS 419, fos 143r–148v); the text ofthis manuscript is identical to the version which Foxe printed.

97. A&M [1576], 2007 (my emphasis). 98. A&M [1576], 2007. 99. A&M [1576], 2007.

100. The minor addition is of a story of Elizabeth being forced to hurry onher journey to Woodstock despite wishing to tarry at Rycote towitness the end of a game of cards (A&M [1576], 1985). For back-ground on Foxe’s source for this note and the reasons why it was firstpublished in the third edition of the Acts and Monuments, see Freeman,‘“As True a Subject”’, 105 n. 4.

101. Patrick Collinson, ‘A Mirror of Elizabethan Puritanism: The Life andLetters of “Godly Master Dering”’, in Godly People: Essays on EnglishProtestantism and Puritanism (1983), 304–5; and Peter E. McCullough,Sermons at Court: Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and JacobeanPreaching (Cambridge, 1998), 36–7.

102. McCullough, ‘Out of Egypt’, 119.103. Collinson, ‘Mirror of Elizabethan Puritanism’, 304–5.104. McCullough, ‘Out of Egypt’, 129.105. Edward Dering, A Sermon preached before the Queenes maiestie . . .,

(1570? STC 6700), sig. B2v. 106. A&M [1563], fo. 1712r. 107. Dering, Sermon, sigs. B2v–B3r. 108. A&M [1563], fo. 1712r. 109. Dering, Sermon, sig. B3r. 110. A&M [1563], fo. 1712r–v. 111. A&M [1563], fo. 1712v; and Dering, Sermon, sig. B3r. Elizabeth, and

then Dering, were citing Isaiah 53:7 (in the Vulgate this verse beginswith the words Tanquam ovis), which Christians have traditionallyregarded as a prophecy of Christ’s passion and martyrdom. Dering thencited Jeremiah 50:11, a prophecy of God’s vengeance on Babylon, inwhich Babylon is compared to an untamed heifer.

54 Trojan Horses

112. Borthwick Institute, Institution Act Book II, part III, fo. 85r. ElizabethEvenden and I plan to publish this letter, with commentary, in the nearfuture.

113. Discussion of the print runs for the first four editions of the Acts andMonuments are in Elizabeth Evenden and Thomas S. Freeman, ‘JohnFoxe, John Day and the printing of the Acts and Monuments’, in a forth-coming book to be edited by Michael Harris, Giles Mandelbrote andRobin Meyers.

114. Edward Arber, ed., A Transcript of the Register of the Company OfStationers of London, 1554–1640 (5 vols, 1875–94), i, 496.

115. Gerald Bray, ed., The Anglican Canons, 1529–1947, Church ofEngland Record Society 6 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1998), 177–9 and181.

116. William Harrison, The Description of England, ed. Georges Edelen(Ithaca, NY, 1968), 230–1.

117. Judith M. Richards, ‘Love and a Female Monarch: The Case ofElizabeth Tudor’, Journal of British Studies 38 (1999), 142–3 and 157 n.94. On Elizabeth’s insistence on the love her subjects had for her as anenduring feature of her propaganda also see Christopher Haigh,Elizabeth I, second edition (1998), 160.

118. [Richard Mulcaster], The Passage of our dread soveraigne Lady (1559,STC 7590), fo E4r–v; and Elizabeth I: Collected Works, ed. Leah S.Marcus, Janel Mueller and Mary Beth Rose (Chicago, 2000), 56–7. Ithas been suggested that Mulcaster might have invented the prayer ofthanks to God which he describes Elizabeth making; persuasive argu-ments that Elizabeth did recite this prayer are made in William P.Haugaard, ‘Elizabeth Tudor’s Book of Devotions: A Neglected Clue tothe Queen’s Life and Character’, SCJ, 12 (1981), 94 n. 44.

120. Haigh, Elizabeth I, 25–7; J. E. Neale, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments,1559–81 (1953), 64–5.

119. Elizabeth I: Collected Works, 371.120. See Chapters 5 and 6 in this volume.

Providence and Prescription 55

AAccession Day, celebrations and

sermons, 28, 145, 146, 147, 149,150, 153, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162,213

Alabaster, William, 27Allen, Edmund, 203, 215Andrewes, Lancelot, 208Anjou, Francis duke of, 10, 59, 60, 65,

155, 177, 187, 189Armada, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23 (n.25),

47, 122, 120, 153, 157, 159, 160,162, 163, 199 (n.76), 242

Ascham, Roger, 126–7Ashridge, Hertfordshire, 36Ashton, John, editor of Oxford DNB, 9Aston, Margaret, 147Aylmer John, later bishop of London,

30, 33, 35, 209, 214, 258

BBabington, Anthony, 87, 88, 152Bacon, Francis, 15, 84Bacon, Nicholas, 15, 215, 219 (n.61)ballads, 27, 28, 144, 152, 153Bancroft, Bishop Richard, 202, 203,

209, 217, 220 (n.67), 236Barton, Anne, 135Beale, Robert, 89, 91Bedingfield, Sir Henry, 47 (n.1), 51

(n.44), 123, 125, 126Bentley, Thomas, 150–1, 181–2, 183,

184Berlatsky, Joel, 202, 218 (n.12)Bernhardt, Sarah, 1, 242, 247, 254Best, Bishop John, 205Betteridge Thomas, 32Beza, Theodore, 153Bible, 124, 125, 126, 159, 162

Bishops’ Bibles, 149, 172, 174, 181Geneva Bible, 42, 147, 149, 197

(n.49)

Bill, William, 203, 214, 220 (n.59)Birch, William, 27bishops, 162

Edward VI’s, 201, 215Mary I’s, 30, 31, 109Elizabeth’s, 12 , 46, 149, 200–17

passimBlack, J. B., 17, 18Blackwood, Adam, 14, 15Blanchett, Cate, 1, 13, 248, 254, 257,

258British Empire, 2, 3, 16, 17, 179, 187,

188Britten, Benjamin, 227Bromley Thomas, Lord Chancellor, 90Browne, Thomas, 81, 83Buchanon, George, 81, 86, 87Bullinger, Heinrich, 152Bullingham, Bishop Nicholas, 205Burgess, Cornelius, 161Burghley Lord see under Cecil, Sir

WilliamButler, Judith, 254

CCambridge, 206, 207, 208, 214, 222Camden, William, 6, 7, 14, 18, 19, 27,

79–93, 107, 108, 111, 112, 133,156, 210, 258

Annales, 79–93 passimBritannia, 79–80, 192

Carleton, Bishop George, 157Carlson, Eric Josef, 200, 218 (n.12)Case, John, 184Catholics

anti-Catholicism, 2, 21 (n.21), 31, 59, 144, 149, 150, 154, 156

executions of, 14, 15 plots, 8, 31, 89, 122, 130, 151, 152,

162, 247recusancy, recusants, 14, 15, 149, 232writers, 14, 15, 155, 232

263

Index

Cavendish, William, 135Cecil, Sir Robert, 132, 190, 191, 209,

211, 216, 217, 234, 235Cecil, Sir William, Lord Burghley, 7,

15, 65, 74 (n.21), 80, 82, 88, 90,91, 92, 127, 174, 188, 190, 191,201, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,214, 215, 216, 217, 219 (n.36),220 (n.61)

Cecil, Thomas, 160, 161Chamberlain, John, 130, 140 (n.34)Charles I,

prince of Wales, 107, 119 (n.81), 134, 223

king of England, 1, 2, 13, 20 (n.1), 66, 159, 161

Charles II, king of England, 2, 8, 20(n.1), 120

Cheke, Lady Mary, 229Colfe, Isaac, 145Collinson, Patrick, 6, 44, 150, 197

(n.45), 206, 214Cooper, Bishop Thomas, 156, 206Cotton, Bishop William, 206Cotton, Sir Robert, 81, 82, 86, 87, 91,

92Cox, Bishop Richard, 147, 205Cressy, David, 144, 159Croft, Sir James, 33–4, 50 (n.36)Curteys, Bishop Richard, 147–8

DDarcie, Abraham, 81, 85Dassier, John, 162, 163Davis, Bette, 1, 12, 245, 246, 247, 251,

252, 253, 254, 258Davison, William, 89, 90, 91Day, John, 174Day, Richard, 182–3, 184Day, William, dean of Windsor, 202,

208, 209Dekker, Thomas, 122, 137Deloney, Thomas, 28, 152Denny, Sir Edward, 209, 211Dering, Edward, 6, 44–5, 46Devereux, Robert, earl of Essex, 12,

59, 65, 106, 108, 118 (n.81), 127,179, 209, 211, 213, 217, 230, 233,

240 (nts 23, 31), 242, 243, 245,246, 250, 251, 252, 253

See also Essex rebellionDickson, Alexander, 189Dixon, John, 68Dodds, Mr, 123, 125Doran Madeleine, 120Drake, Sir Francis, 85, 187, 190Dudley, Robert, earl of Leicester, 14,

15, 38, 59, 87, 89, 90, 92, 96 (nts48, 55), 124, 135, 136, 207, 244,247, 255

Dutch War, 61, 108, 132

EEdward VI, king of England, 8, 11, 12,

40, 43, 124, 147, 148, 151, 152,157, 159, 161, 180, 185, 198(n.55), 203

Elizabeth I, queen of Englandchampion of Protestantism, 3, 6, 7,

8, 16, 19, 29, 35, 38–9, 40, 41, 47, 56, 143–4, 157, 159, 172, 179, 180, 186, 192

Church, 2, 5, 47, 68, 108, 109, 162, 179, 180, 214–5, 216–7

clergy, 5, 11–12, 37, 43, 58, 59, 200–17 passim

coronation day procession, 47, 110, 145, 147

court, 19, 46, 59, 224, 242, 245, 246, 249, 251, 252, 255

cult of, 4, 9, 13, 155, 172, 191–3, 194 (n.2), 222

as Cynthia or Diana, 57, 70, 155, 189–90, 191, 198 (n.72), 245

death and funeral, 84, 137, 234, 236

early life and imprisonment, 5, 8, 17, 18, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 44, 45, 122–3, 125, 128, 131–2, 223–4, 239 (n.8)

emblems, devices and symbols, 3, 174, 176–9, 186, 190, 193

in film, 1–2, 12–13, 16, 171, 242–58

foreign policy, 32, 99–101, 104, 110, 111, 112–3

264 Index

Elizabeth I – continuedgender and female rule, 9–11, 13, 18,

19, 10, 45, 63, 64, 71, 127, 128, 133, 146, 148, 153, 154, 171, 174, 184, 184–5, 186, 189, 193, 221, 230, 231, 234, 235, 243, 244–8, 249, 250, 252, 254, 255, 256, 258

‘Golden Speech’, 126, 145household before queen, 34, 39, 224iconic figure, 1, 13, 16, 248, 254marriage, 59, 61, 62, 68, 108, 132,

176, 187, 189, 228, 230monuments in churches of, 133, 157,

159myth, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,

17, 19, 21 (n.11), 84, 93, 113, 126, 137, 144, 146, 151, 154, 157, 159, 162–3, 171, 200, 238, 243, 248, 258

Old Testament models for, 43, 44, 101, 143, 144–53 passim, 155, 157, 159, 161, 162, 181, 182, 184

on medals, 153, 162, 163, 178, 192poem, 237portraits of, 1, 10, 13, 18, 19, 58,

153–4, 171–93privy chamber and maids of honour,

12, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 246, 251

privy council, 21–2 (n.13), 46, 90, 91, 189, 192, 214–5, 239 (n.14), 249

relationship with the common people, 47, 125, 126, 139 (n.22)

religion, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 39–40, 47, 101, 110, 124, 126, 144, 146–7

sexual defamation of, 24–15, 229succession, 5–6, 10, 59, 61, 72, 178,

188, 189, 227–8Tilbury speech and warrior queen, 1,

6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 128, 133–4, 135, 137, 161, 188, 189

Virgin Queen, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, 29, 56, 58, 61, 134, 135, 137, 155, 171, 172, 176, 177, 182, 186–9, 191–2, 225, 243, 244, 247, 258

warrant for Mary’s execution, 89–92, 230

See also providenceElton, G. R., 247Essex, earl of see under Devereux,

RobertEssex rebellion, 152, 233

FFaerie Queen, see Spenser, EdmundFenton, William, 226–7Fletcher, Richard, dean of

Peterborough and bishop ofLondon, 12, 86, 148, 200, 207,208–211, 212, 219 (n.59)

Flynn, Errol, 244, 245, 246, 251, 253Foxe, John, 5, 6, 8, 14, 19, 27–47, 58,

122, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137,157, 174, 208, 224, 256

Acts and Monuments, 27–47, 121, 136, 145, 147, 172, 173, 180, 223

Commentaries, 30Germany’s congratulations . . . , 29–30

France, 32, 100, 103, 104, 105, 110,111, 112, 186

Francis I, king of France, 193Freke, Bishop Edmund, 203, 206, 220

(n.59)Frye, Susan, 41, 133, 134

GGardiner Bishop Stephen, 30–1, 33, 35,

49 (n.23), 122, 123, 125, 131,132, 139 (n.19), 145, 157, 223

Garrett, Christina, 202Geminus, Thomas, 174‘godly’, 14, 37, 41, 42, 45, 58, 59, 87,

109, 148, 155, 160, 161, 209, 211

Goldsborough, Bishop Godfrey, 216Goodman, Godfrey, 159Godwin, Bishop Thomas, 206, 207Graziani, Rene, 191Greenblatt, Stephen, 4, 222Gresham Thomas Sir, 8, 122, 129, 130,

131Greville, Fulke, 7, 19, 99–101, 107,

1110

Index 265

Grey, Lady Jane, 122, 123, 125, 126,129, 214

Grey, Lady Katherine, 43Grindal, Edmund, bishop of London,

archbishop of York thenCanterbury, 59, 151, 201, 202,203, 204

Guest, Bishop Edmund, 203, 219(n.59)

Gurr, Andrew, 134

HHackett, Helen, 41, 172Hales, John, 42, 43Hampton Court, 34, 131, 185Harington, Sir John, 11, 12, 14, 19,

206–7, 208, 210, 216, 218–9(n.35), 219 (n.44), 221–38 passim,225

Metamorphosis of Ajax, 223, 230‘of little pity’, 233Orlando Furioso, 177, 223, 230, 234Tract on the Succession to the Throne,

223, 227‘Tragical Epigram’, 230

Harper, Sue, 250Hatfield, 31, 33, 34Hatton, Sir Christopher, 187, 190, 205,

228Hayward, John, 7, 101–113Hearne, Thomas, 83, 88Henry VII, king of England, 2, 20

(n.1), 69, 84, 177Henry VIII, king of England, 1, 2, 11,

39, 40, 43, 69, 110, 124, 156, 161,180, 185, 188, 226, 233, 243, 245,254

Henry II, king of France, 69Henry IV, king of France, 47, 106, 179Henry, prince of Wales, 7, 101, 105–7,

110, 113, 115 (n.38), 117 (n.52),206, 223

Henslowe, Philip, 122Heylyn, Peter, 161Heywood, Thomas, 14, 19, 120–37

passim, 157If You Know Not Me You Know

Nobody, 1, 8, 28, 120–37 passimHilliard, Nicholas, 177, 178

Holinshed’s Chronicle, 27, 47, 72, 85,125

Holland, Thomas, 155Hooker, Richard, 161Howard, Lord Henry, later earl of

Northampton, 7, 86Howard, Lady Mary, 226, 240 (n.23)Howard, Lady Mary, 227, 240 (n.23)Howard, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, 7,

86, 96 (n.48), 254Howarth, David, 179Howson, John, 156Hume, David, 18Humphrey, Lawrence, 37Hutton, Bishop Matthew, 205, 212,

213

IInnes, Arthur D., 247Ireland, 60, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74 (n.21),

80, 213, 233, 242, 243

JJackson, Glenda, 1, 13, 243, 247,

248James VI, king of Scotland and I of

England, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17,20–1 (n.10), 59, 65, 66, 69, 75(n.45), 80, 82, 86, 87, 88, 93(n.9), 99, 107, 128, 129, 130, 131,132, 137, 159, 160–1, 162, 193,234, 235, 236, 238 (n.5)

Jardine, Lisa, 127, 135Jewel, Bishop John, 203Jonson, Ben, 116 (n.52)

KKapur, Shekhar,

Elizabeth, 2, 13, 171, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 254–8

King, John N., historian, 49 (n.10), 197(n.45), 198 (n.57)

King John, preacher, 146Knox, John, 9, 18, 39, 42, 111, 214,

215Kyffin, Maurice, 153

LLatimer, Hugh, 35, 41, 255

266 Index

Lauretis, Teresa de, 251Lee, Sir Henry,Leicester, earl of see under Dudley,

RobertLeigh, William, 133, 146Leslie, John, bishop of Ross, 14, 87Lever, Christopher, 157London, 79, 88, 122, 124, 126, 128,

129, 130, 145, 157, 159, 160, 161,162, 210, 213, 234

Lopez, Dr, 152Lyly, John, 178

MMary I, queen of England, 8, 12, 18,

27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40,43, 45, 47, 69, 103, 107, 110, 120,121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129,131, 132, 137, 139 (n.15), 144,145, 148, 177, 179, 185, 186, 198(n.55), 203, 214, 215, 223, 233,255, 256

MacCaffrey, Wallace, 84, 86McCullough, Peter, 44, 59McLaren, Anne, 29, 149Marshall, Stephen, 161Mary Queen of Scots, see under Stuart,

MaryMassys, Quentin, 187Matthew, Archbishop Toby, 219

(n.39), 236May, Steven, 229Montrose, Louis, 176Morton, Thomas, 184Mulcaster, Richard, 125

NNeale, Sir John, 3, 85, 92, 126, 144,

221–2Newcomen, Matthew, 161Nixon, Anthony, 144Noot, Jan Van der, 59Norfolk, duke of, see under Howard,

ThomasNorthampton, earl of, see under

Howard, HenryNorthern Rising, 151, 156, 195 (n.19),

205Norton, Robert, 81, 83, 85

Nowell, Alexander, dean of St Paul’s,122, 147, 202

OOsbourne, Francis, 162Overton, Bishop William, 206Ovid, Metamorphoses, 70, 72Oxford, 37, 79, 83, 145, 155, 156

PParker, Archbishop Matthew of

Canterbury, 37, 38, 46, 201, 207,208, 214, 215, 220 (nts 61, 63)

parliament, 42, 47, 89, 126, 128, 130,144, 148, 149, 160, 201, 239(n.11)

Parry, Dr William, 8, 122, 124, 129,130, 152

Passe, Crispin van de, 179, 192Paulet, Amyas, 87Pepys, Samuel, 120, 121, 136, 142

(n.52)Perry, Curtis, 29, 126, 128, 129Persons, Robert, 14, 232Petrarch, 58, 187, 188Pettegree, Andrew, 39Philip II, king of Spain, 121, 131, 132,

133, 179, 185, 193, 248, 249, 250Piers, Archbishop John of York, 203,

204, 206, 212, 215–6, 220 (n.59)Pigeon, Renée, 252Pigge, Oliver, 153Pius V, 151, 156, 162Portman, Sir HughPrime, John, 28, 145Primrose, Diana, 157providence and providentialism, 5, 8,

16, 23 (n.26), 29, 30, 31, 32,34–6. 40–1, 42, 4 3, 47, 50 (n.31),53 (n.83), 112, 144, 145, 147,148–9, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157,159, 160, 161, 162

puritans see under godly

RRainolds, William, 155Raleigh, Sir Walter, 56, 57, 60, 62, 70,

198 (n.74), 206–7, 246Redgrave, Vanessa, 13, 243, 247

Index 267

Red Bull Inn, 124, 128, 130, 131, 138(n.14), 141 (n.39)

Reynolds, John, 160Ripa, Cesare, 135, 191Rishton, Edward, 155Robson, Flora, 1, 248, 249, 250Rogers, William, 186, 192

SSander, Nicholas, 155Sandys, Bishop Edwin, 149, 150, 200,

205, 214Scambler, Bishop Edmund, 205, 215Scot, Thomas, 160Scotland, 32, 39, 65–6, 80, 103, 104,

105, 110, 111, 112, 189, 228sermons, 6, 8, 44–5, 46, 59, 133, 145,

147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 155, 156,157, 161, 213, 229

Seymour, Thomas, 15Sharpe, Kevin, 81Sidney, Philip, 59, 102, 103, 105, 179

Arcadia, 99Smith, Thomas (Camden’s biographer),

82, 88Spacks, Patricia Meyer, 225Spain, 17, 61, 85, 100, 107, 108, 128,

130, 131, 132, 134, 151, 159, 179,180, 186, 188, 191, 192, 248, 249,250

See also Armada, Philip IISparke, Michael, 157Speed, John, 27, 136, 158Spenser, Edmund, 16–19, 56–73 passim

The Faerie Queene, 5, 6, 14, 56–73passim

Mother Hubberds Tale, 59, 65The Shepheardes Calendar, 59, 62A View of the Present State of Ireland,

67Squire, Edmund, 152Starkey, David, 39, 49 (n.10), 50 (nts

38, 42), 239 (n.8)Still, Bishop John, 207Story, John, 30,Strachey, Lytton, 227Strong, Roy, 4, 28, 45, 144, 171, 185Stuart Mary, Queen of Scots, 5, 7, 13,

17, 18, 19, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,

69, 71, 72, 80, 81, 85, 86–89, 90,92, 95 (n.36), 148, 150, 208, 230,231, 233, 243, 247

Stubbs, John, 59, 65

TTacitus, Tacitean, 80, 85, 87, 92, 96

(n.48), 105, 108, 111Taylor, John, 157Thou, Jacques-Auguste de, 80, 82, 83Thornborough, Bishop John, 200,

212–13Throckmorton, Elizabeth, 12, 62Tower of London, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36,

37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 50 (n.38), 82,91, 118 (n.81), 121, 125, 128,145, 224

Trevor-Roper, Hugh, 80, 83, 86, 87

UUdall, Nicholas, 147

VVerstegen, Richard, 14, 15vestiarian controversy, 37–8, 45, 58Vicars, John

WWaldstein, Baron, 185Walsingham, Sir Francis, 87, 88, 90, 55

(n.55), 185, 186, 198 (n.57), 212,219 (n.55)

Watson, Bishop Anthony, 210, 220(n.59)

Watson, Bishop John, 203Wentworth, Peter, 148West Benjamin, 16Whitgift, Archbishop John of

Canterbury, 156, 202, 204, 208,209, 211, 212, 216, 217, 219(n.36), 220 (n.67)

Whitney, Geffrey, 177, 186Wilkins, Elkin C., 3Williams, Sir John, 36Windebank, Thomas, 212Woodstock, Oxfordshire, 33, 34, 36,

37, 39, 54 (n.100), 126Woolf, D. R., 128Woolfson, Jonathan, 184

268 Index

Worcester, earl of, 135Wright, Robert,Wyatt, Sir Thomas, 36

The Famous History of Sir Thomas Wyatt, 122, 124,

Wyatt’s rebellion, 125

YYates, Frances, 3–4, 28, 32, 38, 45,

144, 171, 191Young, Bishop John, 206, 215

Index 269