No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The first pamphlet issued in the Martin Marprelate controversy, the Epistle to the right puissante and terrible priests, represents the earliest experiment in the dissemination of printed matter in colloquial English for the purpose of influencing public opinion. In order to acquaint the common people with the Puritan criticism of the episcopacy, the author, calling himself Martin Marprelate, hit upon the idea of playing the buffoon in print. In a sort of monologue consisting of simple words and short sentences he mingles seemingly good-humored raillery with bits of scandal about various prominent clergymen. With this device to arouse the curiosity of his readers he attacks the basic organization of the Established Church. The Epistle set the pace for the whole fight.
1 R. B. McKerrow, The Works of Thomas Nashe, iv, 189; see also A. B. Grosart, The Works of Gabriel Harvey, i, 194.
2 McKerrow, op. cit., v, 177. The italics are mine.
3 Grosart, op. cit., ii, 131.
4 “An Introductory Sketch to the Martin Marprelate Controversy,” The English Scholar's Library of Old and Modern Works, No. 8 (London, 1879), p. 11.
5 McKerrow, op. cit., iii, 314–315.
6 Cambridge History of English Literature, iii, 450. As a matter of fact the last pamphlet in the controversy was Pasquil's Apology (McKerrow, op. cit., i, 109–136). But since it is a reply to Penry's Supplication, and since Wilson does not identify Penry as Martin, he ignores it.
7 Ibid., pp. 451–452.
8 The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, D.D. (Oxford, 1822), i, 549 ff.
9 “An Epistle to the Terrible Priests of the Convocation house: by Martin Mar-prelate Gentleman,” Puritan Discipline Tracts, ed. by John Petheram (London, 1842), p. iv.
10 John Penry, the Pilgrim Martyr (London, 1854), p. 223.
11 Ibid., p. 224.
12 Op. cit., p. 196.
13 Ibid., p. 195.
14 Op. cit., iii, 443.
15 “Did Sir Roger Williams write the Marprelate Tracts,” The Library, n.s. iv (1913) pp. 92–104.
16 John Penry: His Life, Times, and Writings (London, 1923).
17 Ibid., p. 222.
18 Ibid., p. 385.
19 Arber, op. cit., pp. 175, 195–196; Wilson, C.H.E.L., iii, 444; Pierce, John Penry, pp. 231–232.
20 C.H.E.L., iii, 443 n.
21 Arber, op. cit., p. 127.
22 Ibid., pp. 90–91. See also Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts 1588, 1589 (London, 1911), pp. 73 ff.
23 Ibid., p. 18.
24 Ibid., p. 125.
25 Ibid., p. 23.
26 Ibid., p. 31.
27 Ibid., p. 42.
28 Ibid., p. 86.
29 Ibid., p. 97.
30 Ibid., pp. 37–38. See also p. 140.
31 Ibid., p. 69.
32 Ibid., p. 92.
33 Ibid., p. 82.
34 Ibid., pp. 277–278.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., pp. 367–368.
37 Dictionary of National Biography, xliv, 346. Though Pierce denies Penry's Catholicism he offers no proof (John Penry, p. 7).
38 McKerrow, op. cit., pp. 366 ff.
39 John Penry, p. 77. The italics are mine.
40 Ibid., p. 22.
41 Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts, pp. 66–67. Even the parentheses in italics would suggest the writer's personal interest in Penry's case. The first is unmistakably a taunt; the second, an attempt to throw the reader off the scent.
42 Ibid., p. 281.
43 Op. cit., iv, 55.
44 Arber, op. cit., p. 94.
45 Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts, p. 36. See also p. 138.
46 Arber, op. cit., p. 63. Arber himself asserts (p. 55) that the Martin Marprelate controversy “arose out” of this tract, but he never clarifies Penry's part in it.
47 Ibid., p. 60.
48 Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts, p. 52.
49 From the Humble Supplication, Arber, op. cit., p. 55.
50 From the Epistle, Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts, p. 44.
51 McKerrow, op. cit., iv, 461.
52 Ibid., v, 53.
53 C.H.E.L., iii, 435.
54 McKerrow, op. cit., iii, 348 ff.
55 Arber, op. cit., pp. 89, 95.
56 Ibid., p. 170.
57 Ibid., pp. 95, 126–127, 129–130.
58 Ibid., pp. 97–99, 125, 127, 132.
59 Ibid., pp. 101–104, 127, 131, 133–136.
60 Ibid., pp. 81–82.
61 Ibid., p. 82.
62 Ibid., pp. 84–87.
63 Ibid., pp. 94–104. Both McKerrow and Wilson regard Sharpe's testimony as extremely valuable. McKerrow writes, “From the beginning of 1589 Sharpe seems to have had much to do with the publication of the Marprelate books, and his testimony with regard to them has every appearance of being accurate.” (op. cit., v, 188–189 n.) And Wilson, “This man Sharpe … is not the least interesting among those who were brought into contact with the Martinist circle. Personally I believe that he was one of the very few who knew the secret of ‘Martin's’ identity.” (“A Date in the Marprelate Controversy,” The Library N.S. [1907], p. 336).
64 Arber, op. cit., p. 182.
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid., p. 175.
67 C.H.E.L., iii, 444.
68 John Penry, pp. 231–232.
69 In Have With You, commenting on Harvey's advice to Martin, Nashe takes for granted that Penry was Martin: “A day after the faire when he [Martin] is hangd, Harvey takes him in hand, but if he had beene alive now, even as he writ More Worke for the Cooper, so would hee have writte Harveys whoop diddle, or the non-suting or uncasing of the animadvertiser.” (McKerrow, op. cit., iii, 137–138).
70 Arber, op. cit., p. 175.
71 Ibid., p. 94.
72 Ibid., p. 179.
73 Ibid., p. 172.
74 Ibid., pp. 88–89.
75 Ibid. See also p. 77.
76 Ibid., p. 123.
77 Ibid., pp. 90–92, 95.
78 Ibid., p. 176. The brackets are Arber's; the italics mine.
79 Ibid., p. 127; cf. p. 176.
80 Ibid., p. 134.
81 Ibid., p. 176.
82 Ibid., p. 176.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid., pp. 176–177.
85 Ibid., p. 131.
86 Ibid., p. 127.
87 Ibid., p. 101. Since Hodgkins' name is spelled “Hoskins” throughout Sharpe's deposition, Arber becomes confused and inserts “William” before it at this point, though actually it was “John.”
88 Ibid., p. 127.
89 Ibid., p. 177.
90 Ibid., p. 127.
91 Ibid., p. 134.
92 Ibid., p. 135.
93 Ibid., p. 177.
94 Ibid., p. 117.
95 Ibid., p. 177.
96 Ibid., p. 117.
97 Ibid., p. 176.
98 Ibid., p. 178. See also p. 117 for the opinion of the State regarding the two hands in this manuscript.
99 Ibid., p. 177.
100 Ibid., p. 127.
101 Ibid., pp. 94–95
102 Ibid., p. 134.
103 Ibid., p. 127.
104 Ibid., p. 176.
105 Ibid., p. 179.
106 Ibid., pp. 180–181.
107 Ibid., pp. 181–182.
108 Ibid., p. 183. The italics are mine.
109 C.H.E.L. i, 444, and Arber, op. cit., p. 175.
110 Ibid., pp. 180–181.
111 Ibid., pp. 103–104.