Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T06:58:36.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Juno versus Diana: The treatment of Elizabeth I's marriage in plays and entertainments, 1561–1581*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Susan Doran
Susan Doran
Affiliation:
St Mary's University College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the plays and entertainments performed before the queen from 1561 to 1578, the virginity of Elizabeth was not idealized but instead marriage was celebrated as a preferable state to chastity. Robert Dudley in particular commissioned such dramatic works to assist his courtship of the queen, but the earl of Sussex, and possibly others, used masques to press on her the suit of the Archduke Charles of Austria. The iconography of chastity appeared for the first time in 1578 when Elizabeth embarked on the Anjou marriage negotiations. During the queen's visit to Norwich in the summer she was offered entertainments which implicitly criticized the matrimonial project by idealizing her virginity. For the next three years, opponents of the match followed this lead and cultivated the image of the Virgin Queen as a means of sabotaging the royal marriage plans. Thereafter Elizabeth exploited the image for her own political purposes.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 257 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jean, Wilson, Entertainments for Elizabeth: studies in Elizabethan and Renaissance culture (Trowbridge and Esher, 1980), pp. 9–10Google Scholar; Bergeron, David M., English civic pageantry 1558–1642 (1971), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

2 David, Bevington, Tudor drama and politics: a critical approach to topical meaning (Cambridge, Mass. 1968)Google Scholar. Plays whose meaning is particularly obscure have been excluded from discussion here, e. g. Jocasta, performed in 1566. For differing critical interpretations of this play see Bevington, , Tudor drama, p. 164Google Scholar and Marie, Axton, The Queen's two bodies: drama and the Elizabethan succession (1977), p. 39.Google Scholar

3 Hartley, T. E., Proceedings in the parliaments of Elizabeth I, I, 1558–1581 (Leicester, 1981), 45.Google Scholar

4 P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice] SP 63/2, fos. 82–3.

5 B[ritish] L[ibrary] Add[itional] Manuscript 48023, fos. 354V–355. I would like to thank Dr George Bernard for drawing my attention to this manuscript.

6 Calendar of State Papers Spanish 1558–67, pp. 178–80, 199–203Google Scholar; B. L. Add. MS 48023, fos 345–345v.

7 B. L. Royal Manuscripts 13B, fo. 68b; Calendar of State Papers Foreign 1561–1562, p. 444.Google Scholar

8 No year appears on its frontispiece, but internal evidence suggests that it was written before St Paul's lost its spire in 1561. It was entered into the Stationers' Register twice: in the years beginning in July 1565 and July 1568; McKerrow, R. B. & Greg, W. W. (eds.), The Play of Patient Grissell by John Phillip (Malone Society, 1909)Google Scholar; Greg, W. W., John Philip, notes for a bibliography, reprinted from ‘The Library’ 1910 (1911).Google Scholar

9 The political allusions in the play were first noted in Wright, Louis B., ‘A political reflection in Phillip's Patient Grissell’, Review of English Studies, IV (1928), 424–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wright, however, mistakenly thinks that the play was promoting the suit of William Pickering.

10 For arguments against the Dudley match see Haynes, S., Collection of State Papers…Left by William Cecil (1740), p. 444.Google Scholar

11 Nichols, J. G. (ed.), ‘The diary of Henry Machyn’, Camden Society, XLII (1848), 273–4Google Scholar; Cauthen, Irby B. (ed.), Gorboduc or Ferrex and Porrex by Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton (Lincoln, University of Nebraska, 1970).Google Scholar

12 E.g. Levine, M., The early Elizabethan succession question 1558–68 (Stanford, 1966), pp. 38–44Google Scholar and Normand, Berlin, Thomas Sackville (New York, 1974), pp. 85–9.Google Scholar

13 Cauthen, Gorboduc; Machyn's Diary, pp. 273–4; Axton, , Queen's two bodies, p. 41.Google Scholar

14 Axton, , Queen's two bodies, pp. 40–5Google Scholar; idem, ‘Robert Dudley and the Inner Temple revels’, Historical Journal, XIX (1970), 365–78Google Scholar. The masque of Beauty and Desire has been reconstructed in Bland, D. S., ‘Arthur Brake's Masque of Beauty and Desire: a reconstruction’ in Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, XIX (1976), 49–55.Google Scholar

15 Hartley, , Proceedings, p. 92Google Scholar; Elton, G. R., The parliament of England 1559–1581 (Cambridge, 1989). pp. 359–60.Google Scholar

16 Smith's Dialogue on the queen's marriage appears in various manuscript collections including B. L. Add. MS 48047, fos. 97–135. It is printed in Strype, J., The life of the learned Sir Thomas Smith, appendix (Oxford, 1820), pp. 184–259Google Scholar. Dewar, M., Sir Thomas Smith, a Tudor intellectual in office (1964), p. 4Google Scholar, describes Smith's work as ‘one of the most widely copied tracts in Elizabethan England, read and reread as men culled arguments from it in the wearying debate on Elizabeth's duty to marry and the problems involved in her choice’.

17 B. L. Add. MS 48023, fo. 359v.

18 Col. S.P. Span. 1558–67, pp. 225–6.

19 Hartley, , Proceedings, pp. 90–3.Google Scholar

20 Ibid. pp. 94–5.

21 Susan, Doran, ‘Religion and politics at the court of Elizabeth I: the Habsburg marriage negotiations of 1559–1567’, English Historical Review, CIV (1989), 908–26.Google Scholar

22 It is worth noting too that Gorboduc was printed in 1566 and Patient Grissell was licensed for printing some time between July 1565 and July 1566, although there is no record that either of these plays was performed.

23 Cat. S.P. Span. 1558–67, p. 404; Feuillerat, A., Documents relating to the office of revels in the time of Queen Elizabeth (Louvain, 1908), p. 117Google Scholar, Richard C. McCoy thinks that Leicester was the patron of this masque, but it is unlikely. Not only was it performed at a time when the Habsburg marriage, and not a Dudley match, was the focus of interest at court, but also Grays Inn had closer patronage links with both Cecil and Sussex than with Leicester. Richard, McCoy, The rites of knighthood: the literature and politics of Elizabethan chivalry (California, 1989), p. 42.Google Scholar

24 John, Nichols, The progresses and public processions of Queen Elizabeth, I (1823), 212.Google Scholar

28 Bod[leian] L[library] Rawlinson MS 108, fos. 19V–35. The manuscript is printed in Michayel, Pincombe, ‘Two Elizabethan masque-orations by Thomas Pound’, Bodleian Library Record, XII (1987), 349–80.Google Scholar

25 Bevington, , Tudor drama, pp. 5 and 8–9Google Scholar, takes this line.

27 Col. S.P. Span. 1558–67, p. 404; Nichols, , Progresses, p. 212.Google Scholar

28 Pincombe, , ‘Two Elizabethan masque-orations’, p. 350.Google Scholar

29 Bevington, , Tudor drama, p. 143Google Scholar; Craik, T. W. (ed.), The Revels history of drama in English. II, 1500–1576 (1980), 22.Google Scholar

30 Nichols, , Progresses, pp. 197 and 212Google Scholar; Elliot, John R. Jr, ‘Queen Elizabeth at Oxford: new light on the royal plays of 1566’, English Literary Renaissance, XVIII (1988), 218–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Burke's, Complete peerage, VII (1929), 550Google Scholar; Dop, Jan Albert, Eliza's knights: soldiers, poets and puritans in the Netherlands 1572–1586 (Leiden, 1981)Google Scholar; Simon, Adams, ‘Queen Elizabeth's eyes at court’, in Lives and letters of the great Tudor dynasties: rivals in power, ed. David, Starkey (1990), p. 166.Google Scholar

32 Nichols, , Progresses, pp. 426–522Google Scholar; Cunliffe, John W. (ed.), The complete works of George Gascoigne, II (1910), 91–131Google Scholar. Not all critics think that Leicester intended marriage seriously. Among those who argue that his main purpose was marriage, see Axton, , The Queen's Two Bodies, pp. 61–6Google Scholar and Helen, Cooper, ‘Location and meaning in masque, morality and royal entertainment’ in The court masque, edited by David, Lindley (Manchester, 1984), p. 142Google Scholar. Philippa Berry and John N. King are more doubtful: Berry, , Of chastity and power: Elizabethan literature and the unmarried queen (1989), pp. 95–100Google Scholar; King, , ‘Queen Elizabeth I: representations of the Virgin Queen’, Renaissance Quarterly, XLIII (1980), 45.Google Scholar

33 Nichols, , Progresses, pp. 492, 496Google Scholar; Cunliffe, , George Gascoigne, p. 99.Google Scholar

34 Critics have disagreed in their interpretation of this masque and put forward a variety of reasons to explain its cancellation. Cooper, , ‘Location and meaning’, p. 143Google Scholar; Berry, , Chastity and power, pp. 98–9Google Scholar; Rosenberg, E., Leicester, patron of letters (New York, 1955), p. 168.Google Scholar

35 For a gender analysis of this sequence and that of the Lady of the Lake see King, , ‘Queen Elizabeth I’, pp. 45–6Google Scholar and Berry, , Chastity and power, pp. 98–100.Google Scholar

36 For the theme of liberation see Bergeron, , Civic pageantry, p. 35Google Scholar. For the link with the Netherlands see Berry, , Chastity and power, p. 98.Google Scholar

37 Pollard, A. W., The Queen's Majesty's entertainment at Woodstock 1575 (Oxford, 1903, 1910).Google Scholar

38 MacCaffrey, Wallace T., Queen Elizabeth and the making of policy 1572–1588 (Princeton, 1981), pp. 202–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Cal. S.P. For. 1578–1579, p. 8.

40 David, Kalstone, Sidney's poetry: context and interpretations (Cambridge, Mass. 1965), p. 46Google Scholar; Roger, Howell, Sir Philip Sidney, the shepherd knight (1968), pp. 155–6Google Scholar; Jones, Katherine Duncon, Sir Philip Sidney: courtier poet (Yale, 1992), pp. 148–9.Google Scholar

41 Montrose, Louis Adrian, ‘Celebration and insinuation; Sir Philip Sidney and the motives of Elizabethan courtship’, Renaissance Drama, VIII (1977), 9–15Google Scholar; Marie, Axton, ‘The Tudor mask and Elizabethan court drama’, in English drama: forms and development, eds. Marie, Axton and Raymond, Williams (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 37–41.Google Scholar

48 Axton, , ‘Tudor mask’, p. 41.Google Scholar

43 The text is printed in Katherine, Duncan-Jones and Jan Van, Dorsten, (eds.), Miscellaneous prose of Sir Philip Sidney (Oxford, 1973), pp. 21–32Google Scholar; and Robert, Kimbrough and Philip, Murphey, ‘The Helmingham Hall manuscript of Sidney's The Lady of May: a commentary and transcription’, Renaissance Drama, n.s. I (1968), 103–19.Google Scholar

44 de Lettenhove, Kervyn, Relations politiques des Pays-Bas de I'Angleterre, sous le règne de Phillippe II, X (Brussels, 1888–1900), 456–7.Google Scholar

45 Lettenhove, p. 659.

46 These are printed in Nichols, , Progresses, II, 115–210Google Scholar. Leicester's role in arranging the 1578 progress is mentioned in Diarmaid, MacCulloch, Suffolk under the Tudors (Oxford, 1986), p. 196Google Scholar. For his connections in Norfolk see Smith, A. Hassell, County and the court: government and court in Norfolk 1558–1603 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 39–41, 79.Google Scholar

47 For a different interpretation of the device see King, , ‘Queen Elizabeth I’, Renaissance Quarterly, XLIII (1990), 47.Google Scholar

48 Doris Adler examines the negative use of ‘frog’ and ‘toad’ references in printed works as code for opposition to the Anjou match. Doris, Adler, ‘Imaginary toads in real gardens’, English Literary Renaissance, II, 3 (1981), 235–60Google Scholar, Edmund Spenser's Mother Hubberd's Tale, which may be a warning against the Anjou match, was not published until 1590–1, while his Shepheardes Calendar was published anonymously.

49 Rosenberg, , Leicester, pp. 232, 330–41.Google Scholar

50 Adler, , ‘Imaginary toads’, p. 247.Google Scholar

51 Berry, , Chastity and power, p. 113Google Scholar; David, Norbrook, Poetry and politics in the English renaissance (1984), pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

52 P.R.O. SP 78/3 fo. 145; SP 78/4, nos. 6, 40; MacCaffrey, , Making of policy, pp. 271–2.Google Scholar

53 Nichols, , Progresses, II, 312–29Google Scholar; Norman, Council, ‘O Dea Certe: The allegory of the fortress of perfect beauty’, Huntington Library Quarterly, XXXIX (1976), 329–38Google Scholar; Berry, , Chastity and power, pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

54 Berry, , Chastity and power, pp. 106–7Google Scholar; Woodhaysen, Henry R., ‘Leicester's literary patronage: a study of the English court, 1578–82’. Unpublished D.Phil. (Oxford, 1980), pp. 318–44.Google Scholar

55 Frances, Yates, Astreae: The imperial theme in the sixteenth century (1975).Google Scholar

56 Axton, , ‘The Tudor mask’, p. 34Google Scholar; Christopher, Haigh, Elizabeth I (1988), p. 172.Google Scholar