^{page 63 note 1} Merriman, R. B., Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell (Oxford, 1902), vol. i. 86Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 2} Cavendish, George, The Life of Thomas Wolsey, ed. Ellis, F. S. (Kelmscott Press, London, 1893), P. 13Google Scholar. ‘The tyng was yong and lusty, disposed all to myrthe & pleasyr and to followe his desier and appetyt, no thyng myndyng to travell in the busy affayers of this realme.’

^{page 64 note 1} ‘Les historiens de l'Angleterre religieuse ont jusqu'à ce jour laissé presque entièrement de côté ce qu'on pourrait appeler l'aspect intellectuel du schisme… Mais on n'a jusqu'à present accordé que peu d'attention aux efforts tentés par Henri VIII et ses ministres pour faire du schisme, à ses différentes étapes, une construction satisfaisante pour l'intelligence, un système cohérent appuyé sur une tradition, pour faciliter la soumission des volontés en maîtrisant d'abord les esprits.’ (Janelle, Pierre, L'Angleterre catholique d la veille du schisme (Paris, 1935), 232Google Scholar.)

^{page 64 note 2} The story is told in Pole's ‘Apologia ad Carolum V Ceasarem’, printed in Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli S.R.E. Cardinalis, ed. Quirini, A. M., Pars I (Brescia, 1744), 66–171Google Scholar. The account of Cromwell begins on p. 117.

^{page 64 note 3} Had Sir Thomas More possibly a report of this or some similar conversation in mind when he gave his famous advice to Cromwell in 1532? ‘Now vppon this resignement of his office, came [Master] Thomas Cromewell, then in the king's highe favour, to Chelsey to him, with a message frome the kinge; Wherein when they had throughly commoned together: “Master Cromewell,” quoth he, “you are nowe entered into the service of a most noble, wise and liberall prince. If you will followe my poore advise, you shall in your councell gevinge vnto his grace, ever tell him what he owght to doe, but never what he is able to doe. So shall you shewe yourself a true faithfull servant and a right worthy Councelour. For if [a] Lion knewe his owne strengh, harde were it for any man to rule him.” ‘(Roper, William, The Lyfe of Sir Thomas Moore, knighte, ed. Hitchcock, E. V. E.E.T.S. (London, 1935), 56–7Google Scholar. Cf. Harpsfield, Nicholas, The life and death of ST. Thomas Moore, knight, sometymes Lord high Chancellor of England, ed. Hitchcock, E. V. E.E.T.S. (London, 1932), 147–8.Google Scholar) If any connection could be established, this would be an additional indication of the correctness of Pole's memory.

^{page 65 note 1} ‘Quia si libris haec ratio discenda esset saltem eos libros legerem, qui plus adhaerant experientiae, quam speculationi. Quo in genere se librum scriptum habere hominis moderni quidem, sed ingeniosissimi et acutissimi, qui non sua somnia est persecutus, ut ea, quae Plato scribit de Civitate sua, quae post tot saecula locum inter homines non invenit, sed ea, quae quotidiana rerum expenentia comprobat, ac vera esse ostendit. Quern, si ita mihi videretur, si promitterem me lecturum, pro sua erga me benevolentia libenter ad me missurum. Videre enim se, quanta periculo me committerem, si otiosorum tantum hominum scriptis instructus, quamvis doctorum, et non potius eorum, qui ad ingenii acumen usum rerum adhibuissent, ad tractanda negotia, praesertim Principum, me converterem.’ (Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli S.R.E. Cardinalis, ed. Quirini, A. M., Pars I (Brescia, 1744), 135–6Google Scholar.) See the summary of this Apologia in Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. Brewer, J. S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H. (London, 1864 sqq.), xiv (i), no. 200)Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 2} ibid., 136.

^{page 65 note 3} Dixon, R. W., History of the Church of England, vol. i (London, 1878), 47Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 1} Le V. Baumer, F., The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (New Haven, 1940), 169–70Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 2} See Merriman, op cit., i. 205 and 211.

^{page 66 note 3} Van Dyke, Paul, Renascence Portraits (London, 1906), 397Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 4} ibid., 401.

^{page 67 note 1} ‘And ffurthermore, this Boke off Machiavelle de Principe ys surely a very speciall good thing for youre Lordschip, whiche are so ny abought oure Soueraigne Lorde in Gounsell to loke upon for many causys, as I suppose youre self schall judge when ye have sene the same.’ (Sir Henry E. Ellis, Original Letters illustrative of English History, Third Series, vol. iii (London, 1846), Letter cclxxviii, p. 66.) The letter is calendared in Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII, xiv (1), no. 285. Gairdner dates it in 1539—it has no indication of date beyond the day and month, Feb. 13—Ellis in 1537.

^{page 67 note 2} For Van Dyke's full argument, see his appendix, Renascence Portraits, 377 sqq.

^{page 67 note 3} See Burd, L. A., Il Principe by Niccolò Machiavelli (Oxford, 1891), 1–2Google Scholar. Pole was one of those chiefly responsible for this change of opinion.

^{page 67 note 4} See Merriman, i. 9 sqq. Cf. 85–7.

^{page 67 note 5} There is a copy of this rare book in the Cambridge University Library presented by the late Sir Stephen Gaselee (Td. 52. 125). See on it Burd, op. cit., 43–5, and Nourrisson, J. Q., Machiavel (Paris, 1875), chaps, xiñxivGoogle Scholar. It was Nourrisson who made the discovery of its real nature. Nifo, incidentally, as Burd (p. 44) points out, may actually have thought Machiavelli's work a manual for tyrants.

^{page 68 note 1} Lib. IV, cap. xv. ‘Hanc ob causam prudens Princeps eis iniungere debet, ut nihil nisi uera dicant si contra opinionem Principis fuerint, ne propter discrimen falsa ac damnosa persuadeant.’ Nor might Cromwell have agreed with another remark of Nifo's in this chapter. ‘Ex hisce patet quam prauus sit hodie nostrorum Principum error, qui non his, aut philosophis, aut jureconsultis consiliariis utuntur, qui prudentia, et virtute, et benivolentia dari sunt, sed plerunque his, qui et prauui, et rerum omnium impend, et non Regis, sed suorum commodorum, amici sunt. Si enim praui homines sint, boni consiliarii esse non possunt.’

^{page 68 note 2} Letters and Papers, iv (3), 6346. Full text in Sir Henry Ellis, Original Letters illustrative of English History, Third Series, vol. ii, p. 178. Cf. Merriman, i. 85–6.

^{page 68 note 3} e.g. ‘I think then that the aim of the perfect Courtier, which has not been spoken of till now, is so to win for himself, by means of the accomplishments ascribed to him by these gentlemen, the favour and mind of the prince whom he serves, that he may be able to say, and always shall say, the truth about everything which it is fitting for the prince to know, without fear or risk of giving offence thereby; and that when he sees his prince's mind inclined to do something wrong, he may be quick to oppose, and gently to make use of the favour acquired by his good accomplishments, so as to banish every bad intent and lead his prince into the path of virtue. And thus, possessing the goodness which these gentlemen have described, together with readiness of wit and pleasantness, and shrewdness and knowledge of letters and many other things—the Courtier will in every case be able deftly to show the prince how much honour and profit accrue to him and his from justice, liberality, magnanimity, gentleness, and the other virtues that become a good prince; and on the other hand how much infamy and loss proceed from the vices opposed to them. Therefore I think that just as music, festivals, games, and the other pleasant accomplishments are as it were the flower, in like manner to lead or help one's prince towards right and to frighten him from wrong, are the true fruit of courtiership.

And since the merit of well-doing lies chiefly in two things, one of which is the choice of an end for our intentions that shall be truly good, and the other ability to find means suitable and fitting to conduce to that good end marked out,—certain it is that that man's mind tends to the best end, who purposes to see to it that his prince shall be deceived by no one, shall hearken not to flatterers or to slanderers and liars, and shall distinguish good and evil, and love the one and hate the other.’ (The Book of the Courtier by Count Baldesar Castiglime, trs. and annotated by Opdycke, L. E. (New York, 1902), Book iv, 5, p. 247Google Scholar.)

This is the direct opposite of the advice ascribed by Pole to Cromwell. Gf. also Courtier, iv, 5 ff. (Opdycke, pp. 247–51), where the Courtier is to correct lack of truth and humility in his prince, and Book ii, 18 (Opdycke, pp. 93–4), where anxiety to please is carefully distinguished from flattery and willingness to obey the prince in wrong commands.

Contrast also Book iv, 33 (Opdycke, pp. 270–1), which holds that the prince should not keep his subjects too much in bondage, with Cromwell's absolutist ideas (vide infra 71 ff.). On the other hand, Book iv, 31 (Opdycke, p. 269–70), speaks of the blessings of governo misto in which the Prince and two councils, one of nobility and one of common people, form together one body politic, which agrees closely with Cromwell's use of Parliament.

It may be noted here that Van Dyke (p. 403), who quotes a passage of the Courtier (Opdycke, pp. 284–5), referring to Plato and Aristotle's excursions into statesmanship, as a possible source of Cromwell's praise of experience joined to learning, omits part of it which speaks of Aristotle's education of Alexander the Great in virtue—which is not in accordance with Pole's report of Cromwell's notions. A more likely source is Machiavelli's claim to unite una lunga sperienza dells cose moderne ed una continua lezione delle antiche. (Cf. Burd's note ad loc, op. cit., pp. 171–2.)

^{page 69 note 1} Pole was in close touch with the circle of Pietro Bembo, whose sermons on Platonic love are immortalised in Book iv of the Courtier. Bembo's own dialogues, Gli Asolani, have the same ideas as Castiglione in similar form. See an article by Wilhelm Schenck (a young scholar of great promise whose premature death all who knew him will lament) on ‘The Student Days of Cardinal Pole’ in History, vol. xxxiii, no. 119 (October, 1948), pp. 211–25Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 2} Though the Apologia itself was not printed in his lifetime Pole made no secret of his attribution of Cromwell's policy to Machiavellianism. See Letters and Papers, xv. 721.

^{page 69 note 3} See D.N.B., vol. xv (London, 1909), 238–9.

^{page 70 note 1} ‘Your Lordship, I have oftentymes harde you say, hath been conversant among them [sc. the Italyans]: sene theyere factyons and maners. And so was I never. But yf they use such frauds, myscheves, treasuns, and conspyrasys, as he wryttyth that they do, I do not skant account them worthy to be nomberyd amongest Chrysten men.’ (Ellis, Original Letters, Third Series, iii. 64.) Another reason for Morley's gift was that he had noted in the History of Florence, which accompanied The Prince, instances of resistance to the Pope which he thought would be useful to the English government, which had then broken with Rome.

^{page 70 note 2} Merriman, i. 375.

^{page 71 note 1} Merriman, i. 313.

^{page 71 note 2} For lists see Janelle, op. cit., 346–9, and Baumer, op. cit., 211 sqq.

^{page 71 note 3} Merriman, i. 335–9.

^{page 72 note 1} op. cit., 183–4.

^{page 72 note 2} Letters and Papers, x. 254.

^{page 72 note 3} Letters and Papers, xiii (1), 120. See Merriman, i. 122–3.

^{page 73 note 1} Muller, J. A., The Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), 399Google Scholar. N.B. ‘To turn the cat in the pan: †3. To reverse the order of things so dexterously as to make them appear the very opposite of what they really are.” (O.E.D., vol. ii, Oxford, 1933.)

^{page 73 note 2} Merriman, i. 376.

^{page 74 note 1} See Il Principe, cap. xvii, and Burd's notes, op. cit., 297 sqq.

^{page 74 note 2} e.g. Merriman, (i) Letters, 65, 68, 76, 113, 122; (ii) Letters, 150, 189, 193, 195, 217, 218, 281, 307, 314.

^{page 74 note 3} Merriman, ii. 227.

^{page 74 note 4} Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, apparently adopted this latter explanation of Cromwell's attitude. See his letter to the Emperor of 19 Dec., 1534. ‘… Cromwell, who boasts that he will make his master more wealthy than all the other princes of Christendom; and he does not consider that by this means he alienates the hearts of the subjects, who are enraged and in despair, but they are so oppressed and cast down that without foreign assistance it is no use their complaining, and it will not be Cromwell's fault if they are not oppressed further, taking example of the Turk, who, he says, may well be called King and Prince, for the absolute authority he exercises over his subjects.’ (Letters and Papers, vii. 1554.)

[Since the above was written I have had the advantage of seeing W. Gordon Zeeveld's interesting book, Foundations of Tudor Policy (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1948), which was not available to me at the time. It includes a discussion of the influence of Machiavellianism in England during Henry VIII's reign and I am pleased to find that it support's my conclusions at certain points, bringing additional evidence. See especially pp. 77, 184–189, 239–241. T.M.P.]