Henry VIII's Last Victim (63 page)

13
Poems
, 29, line 9.

14
Ibid., 31.

15
Sidney,
An Apology for Poetry
, p. 98. Also, p. 115.

16
See Worden,
LRB
, p. 14.

17
Poems
, 32.

18
See Davis, ‘Contexts’, pp. 45–6.

19
P. B. Shelley, ‘A Defence of Poetry’, in
Political Tracts of Wordsworth, Coleridge and Shelley
, ed. R. J. White (Cambridge, 1953), p. 201.

20
Poems
, 17.

21
Ibid., 3.

22
For an excellent analysis of Surrey’s poetry within the context of his public image, see Foley, ‘Honorable Style’.

23
Edwardes,
Introduction to Anatomy
, p. 54.

24
Castiglione,
The Book of the Courtier
, p. 54.

25
Poems
, 11. For an insightful reading of this poem, see Sessions,
Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey
(1986), pp. 81–3.

26
Strong,
Tudor & Jacobean Portraits
I, p. 307.

27
Poems
, 49.

28
Ibid., 44.

29
Ibid., 40.

30
LP
XVIII ii, 190.

31
Peacham,
The Complete Gentleman
, p. 95.

32
Burrow,
LRB
, p. 14.

33
The Aeneid
, tr. C. Day Lewis (Oxford, 1986), p. 179 (lines 662–3).

34
Clerke,
A certayn treatye.

35
Surrey’s studied economy is illustrated by the brevity of his text. Book IV of Virgil’s
Aeneid
is 705 lines long. Gavin Douglas, who rendered his
Eneados
in heroic couplets and was not interested in literal precision, required 1,374 lines. Surrey completed his translation in 943 lines. See Ridley (ed.),
The Aeneid of Henry Howard
, p. 36.

36
Warton,
The History of English Poetry
, vol. 3 (1781), p. 27.

37
It has been suggested that Nicholas Grimald’s blank verse poems, ‘The Death of Zoroas’ and ‘Marcus Tullius Ciceroes Death’, might predate Surrey’s translations. There is no way of knowing with absolute certainty whose came first, but Grimald’s reliance for his second poem on the work of Beza, first published in 1548 (one year after Surrey’s death), points to Surrey as the founder of English blank verse. Furthermore, Surrey’s translation of Book IV of the
Aeneid
was almost certainly published in 1554, three years before Grimald’s poems were published, and was therefore the first instance of English blank verse in print. See Hartman, pp. xii–xv; H. H. Hudson, ‘Grimald’s Translations from Beza’,
Modern Language Notes
, 39/7 (1924), pp. 388–94; Lathrop, ‘Translations from the Classics’, pp. 103–4.

38
A facsimile of the title-page is printed in Hartman.

39
For commentary, see the bibliography, in particular Oras, Jones (under
Poems
in abbreviations), Richardson and Sessions. For less complimentary readings, see Ridley, Mason and Lewis.

40
Hartman, pp. 50–1 (lines 844–72).

41
J. A. Symonds,
Blank Verse
(1895), pp. 16–17.

42
Cf.
Poems
, 39 and 40.

43
Mason,
Humanism and Poetry
, pp. 236, 240.

44
Lewis,
English Literature in the Sixteenth Century
, p. 234.

45
See Evans,
English Poetry in the Sixteenth Century
, pp. 33–4.

46
Ibid., pp. 37–8, 78; Nott, p. cxciv.

47
Turberville,
Epitaphes, Epigrams, Songs and Sonets
, p. 49. See too Sessions,
Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey
(1986), pp. 24–7; Davis, ‘Contexts’, pp. 40–55.

48
Turberville,
Epitaphes, Epigrams, Songs and Sonnets
, pp. 48–9.

49
Puttenham,
The Arte of English Poesie
, p. 60;
AH
I, no. 282;
Churchyardes Charge
, p. 2.

50
Camden,
Remains
, p. 183.

51
Tottel’s Miscellany
I, p. 2.

52
Ibid. II, pp. 4–5, 107–9, 121, 285 (quotation from Rollins on p. 4).

53
No autograph manuscript of Surrey’s poetry has survived, so it is impossible
to determine just how much revision took place. When Tottel later published Surrey’s translations of the
Aeneid
, it is evident from a comparison with the earlier Day-Owen text of Surrey’s translation of Book IV that the metres had been regularised by Tottel, or whoever edited the work for him. The same might be said for Tottel’s handling of Surrey’s poem ‘O happy dames’, previously inscribed by his sister Mary into the Devonshire Manuscript. That the editor of the
Songes and Sonettes
had no qualms about tampering with original texts is evident from a study of Wyatt’s poems, which have survived in autograph. See Hartman, pp. xvi–xxii; R. Southall, ‘Mary Fitzroy and “O happy dames” in the Devonshire Manuscript’,
The Review of English Studies
, new series, 45/179 (1994), p. 317;
Tottel’s Miscellany
II,
passim
; Padelford, ‘Manuscript Poems’, pp. 284–6. For the best assessments of the Tottel effect on Surrey’s literary reputation, see Heale, pp. 191–5; Duncan-Jones,
TLS
, pp. 26–7; Burrow,
LRB
, pp. 13–14.

54
Puttenham,
The Arte of English Poesie
, p. 60.

55
Scott,
Lay of the Last Minstrel
, canto VI, stanza XIII.

11 The Fury of Reckless Youth

1
APC
I, p. 17.

2
Furthermore, John’s uncle Sir John Legh of Stockwell (d. 1523), whose estate he inherited, was the second husband of Catherine Howard’s maternal grandmother Isabel née Worsley (Brenan and Statham,
The House of Howard
I, pp. 242–3). However, there is some debate over the nature of John Leigh’s kinship with Catherine Howard. See ‘Genealogical Notices of Sir John Legh and his Family’, in J. W. Burgon,
The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham
(2 vols., 1839), app. IX; PRO PROB 11/21, fos. 112–16; 11/22, fos. 143–4; 11/48, fos. 281–284v.

3
BL Cottonian MS Cleopatra E VI, fo. 395; PRO SP 1/158, fo. 68. For Leigh’s epitaph in St Margaret’s, Lothbury, see Stow,
Survey
I, p. 283. This definitely refers to John Leigh of Stockwell, as his will made it clear that he wanted to be buried either in St Mary’s Lambeth ‘or else in the parish church of St Margaret in Lothbury in the city of London where I do presently inhabit’ (PRO PROB 11/48, fo. 281v).

4
APC
II, pp. 111, 142.

5
APC
II, p. 384; III, pp. 54, 97, 108, 127, 301;
CSP Sp.
X, p. 9; M. Fléchier,
La Vie du Cardinal Jean François Commendon
(Paris, 1694), pp. 45–6.

6
Ambassades de Messieurs de Noailles en Angleterre
, ed. R. A. de Vertot and C. Villaret, vol. 2 (Leyden, 1763), pp. 244–5, 247. At the beginning of Mary’s reign Leigh helped the Pope’s secret emissary Cardinal Commendone, whom he had met at Rome, gain access to the Queen. See Fléchier, op. cit., pp. 45–6, and Burgon,
Gresham
, op. cit., I, pp. 122–6.

7
Strype,
Ecclesiastical Memorials
III ii, p. 181; Catholic Record Society,
Miscellanea
I (1905), p. 45.

8
That the John Leigh who had been in Italy with Pole was the same John Leigh who hailed from Stockwell is strongly inferred not only from the reference to Leigh of Stockwell’s travels in his epitaph, but also by a grant in May 1541, which pardoned ‘John Legh of Lambeth
alias
Stockwell . . . of all offences committed before 20 March, 32 Hen. VIII’, which is surely a reference to his illegal flight from England and his dealings with the traitor Pole (
LP
XVI i, 878 [28]).

9
BL Cottonian MS Cleopatra E VI, fos. 394–395v. See too Strype,
Ecclesiastical Memorials
I i, pp. 481–4;
St. P.
I, pp. 624–7;
LP
XV, 615, 697, 721; T. F. Mayer,
Reginald Pole: Prince & Prophet
(Cambridge, 2000), p. 80.

10
In the Public Record Office (SP 1/141, fo. 159), there is a curious letter from Leigh to Cromwell, in which he refers to the ‘ancient love’ he bears for Cromwell ‘and of duty likewise’, and signs off, ‘ever yours to command’. Leigh’s letter also makes it clear that Cromwell expected to receive regular newsletters from him. Anthony Budgegood, another exile in Italy, suspected Leigh of being there ‘for the King of England’ (
LP
XIV i, 1). See too
LP
XV, 615, Cromwell’s Remembrances, 1540: ‘For John a Lee and what the King’s pleasure shall be therein.’

11
PRO SP 1/158, fo. 74v.

12
E. H. Harbison,
Rival Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary
(Princeton, 1940), pp. 76–7, 93, 109–10. Also Harbison’s article, ‘French Intrigue at the Court of Queen Mary’,
The American Historical Review
, 45/3 (1940), pp. 542–5.

13
PPC
, pp. 288, 291, 303, 319.

14
Brigden, ‘Conjured League’, p. 532.

15
Herbert, p. 564.

16
BL Harleian MS 78, fo. 24.

17
APC
I, p. 19.

18
He set out with his father from Kenninghall on 11 September.
LP
XVII i, 729, 770;
Hamilton Papers
I, no. 153.

19
The Chronicle of Jhon Hardyng
(1543), dedication by the printer Richard Grafton to the Duke of Norfolk, stanza 8.

20
The Letters of King Henry VIII
, pp. 296–302;
Hamilton Papers
I, no. 204.

21
Poems,
20, lines 7–10.

22
Hamilton Papers
I, no. 221.

23
The Chronicle of Jhon Hardyng
, op. cit., penultimate stanza, lines 6–7.

24
Hamilton Papers
I, nos. 218, 226.

25
BL Additional MS 10110, fo. 237.

26
Hamilton Papers
I, no. 231.

27
C. M.
Barron,
London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People 1200–1500
(Oxford, 2004), pp. 4, 242.

28
Stow,
Survey
I, pp. 200, 211, 245; T. More,
The Answer to a Poisoned Book
, ed. S. M. Foley and C. H. Miller, vol. 11 of Yale
Complete Works
(1985), p. 12.

29
Peacham,
The Art of Living in London
, p. 243.

30
Stow,
Survey
II, p. 316.

31
Ibid. I, p. 270; PRO SP 1/176, fo. 178.

32
The resemblance to ‘the merry escapades of Prince Hal’ was first noted by Padelford (
Poems
, p. 22). For the following character sketches, see Bindoff and
DNB
. Also: Hussey: Gruffydd I, p. 60;
APC
I, p. 289;
CSP Domestic, Elizabeth 1601–1603 with addenda 1547–1565
, ed. M. A. Green (1870), p. 528. Pickering: Corp. of London Record Office Repertory 12, fo. 92;
LP
VII ii, 1672 (2);
Privy Purse Expences
, p. 220. Thomas Clere:
PPC
, p. 181. Stafford:
APC
IV, pp. 178, 185. Blagge:
LP
XVIII ii, 190; Foxe,
Acts and Monuments
V, p. 564.

33
Wriothesley I, pp. 145–6.

34
The Second Book of the Travels of Nicander Nucius
, pp. 48–9.

35
Stow,
Survey
I, p. 295; II, p. 338.

36
PRO SP 1/175, fo. 87; 1/176, fo. 156. Surrey and his fellows may have taken to the streets on other occasions. The Imperial ambassador reported to the Queen of Hungary that they had terrorised London for ‘two or three nights’ (
CSP Sp.
VI ii, 127).

37
PRO SP 1/176, fo. 156. Blagge was right to be concerned; his association with Surrey may have impaired his chances at gaining the mastership of the Weigh House, an office in the gift of the City. Despite a personal recommendation from the King on 6 March, Blagge was turned down. See Brigden, ‘Conjured League’, p. 519; Corp. of London Record Office Journal 15, fo. 20.

38
PRO SP 1/175, fos. 85–89v;
LP
XVIII i, 226 (50).

39
PRO SP 1/176, fos. 151–2, 155–6, 178.

40
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 76, Surrey to the Council, Dec. 1546. It is sometimes assumed that Surrey’s reference in 1546 to his previous examination relates to the John Leigh affair, but the names subscribed on the depositions of Mistress Arundel and Joan Whetnal (PRO SP 1/176, fo. 178) show that the four men who conducted the questioning over his misbehaviour in London were the same four that he requested nearly four years later.

41
APC
I, p. 104.

42
Ibid., pp. 104–6. It has been suggested that Edward Seymour intervened in Surrey’s case, arguing in favour of his committal to the Fleet. This is
based on a manuscript in the Sloane collection of the British Library, which contains a book of ‘maxims, sayings and short accounts of several eminent men who lived mostly in the reign of Henry VIII’. Under the heading
The Seymours
is the entry: ‘The Earl of Surrey & other nobility were imprisoned for eating flesh in Lent.’ The next two entries are as follows: ‘A secret & unobserved contempt of the law is a close undermining of authority; which must be either itself in indulging nothing or be nothing in allowing all’; ‘Liberty knows no restraint, no limit, when winked at’ (BL Sloane MS 1523, fo. 37). The provenance and reliability of the manuscript are difficult to ascertain. The handwriting does not accord with the Henrician period. Samuel Ayscough, the eighteenth-century compiler of British Museum manuscripts, ascribed it, without explanation, to one John Wright and to
c
.1607. However, folio 36v of the manuscript contains a passage entitled
Lord Herbert’s Character of Cardinal Wolsey
. This is extracted from Lord Herbert of Cherbury’s
Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth
(pp. 314–15), which was begun in 1632 and first published in 1649. The impression of the whole manuscript book, which also includes extracted notes on trees, is that each part has been transcribed from another source. There is a remarkable correlation between the Henrician maxim section of the manuscript and David Lloyd’s
The Statesmen and Favourites of England Since the Reformation
(1665). Not only are all the statements in the manuscript, including the Seymour maxims, present in Lloyd’s book, but also in exactly the same order (see esp. p. 148, where Lloyd explicitly states that Seymour had a hand in Surrey’s sentencing). Either Lloyd, who is described in the
DNB
as ‘a most impudent plagiary . . . a false writer and mere scribbler’, appropriated the manuscript and elaborated upon it for his own book or, more likely, the manuscript contains Lloyd’s own notes for his book, or someone else’s notes extracted from his book. The style of the manuscript does seem remarkably similar to Lloyd’s own, and we know that Lloyd made extensive use of Herbert’s
Life and Raigne
(cf. pp. 99–100 of Lloyd with Herbert, pp. 563–5, and fo. 32v of the manuscript). Whatever the provenance of the manuscript, its reliability cannot be confirmed, and unless further evidence comes to light about Seymour’s involvement in Surrey’s imprisonment, it would be advisable to treat the story with scepticism.