Martin Marprelate: Difference between revisions
add scholarly consensus; change text closer fit source |
restore deletion |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Martin Marprelate''' (sometimes hyphenated as Martin Mar-prelate)<ref>http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/tract6m.htm</ref> was the name used by the anonymous [[author]] or authors of the |
'''Martin Marprelate''' (sometimes hyphenated as Martin Mar-prelate)<ref>http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/tract6m.htm</ref> was the name used by the anonymous [[author]] or authors of the [[Marprelate Controversy|Marprelate tracts]]. These circulated illegally in the years 1588 and 1589. Their principal focus was an attack on the [[episcopacy]] of the [[Anglicanism|Anglican Church]]. In 1583, the appointment of [[John Whitgift]] as [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] had signalled the beginning of a drive against the [[Presbyterian]] movement in the church, and an era of [[censorship]] began. In 1586, by an edict of the [[Star Chamber]], the archbishop was empowered to license and control all of the printing [[apparatus]] in the country. |
||
The true identity of "Martin" has long been speculated upon. For many years, the main candidate was seen as [[John Penry]], a [[Wales|Welsh]] [[preacher]] and author of several impassioned [[polemic]]s against the state of the church. |
The true identity of "Martin" has long been speculated upon. For many years, the main candidate was seen as [[John Penry]], a [[Wales|Welsh]] [[preacher]] and author of several impassioned [[polemic]]s against the state of the church. The most recent primary candidate is [[Warwickshire]] [[squire]] and MP, [[Job Throckmorton]] (who earned the appropriate nickname "jibing Job").<ref name = Auchter>Auchter, Dorothy. ''Dictionary of Literary and Dramatic Censorship in Tudor and Stuart England'' (2001), 231.</ref>. |
||
As the tracts had to be printed in secrecy, some sort of organisation was clearly involved to handle their production and distribution. Penry was definitely involved in the printing, and the press was frequently relocated to different parts of the country in order to avoid the authorities. Penry himself denied any involvement in the actual authorship. |
As the tracts had to be printed in secrecy, some sort of organisation was clearly involved to handle their production and distribution. Penry was definitely involved in the printing, and the press was frequently relocated to different parts of the country in order to avoid the authorities. Penry himself denied any involvement in the actual authorship. |
||
The government was concerned enough at the virulence of the attacks on the ecclesiastical hierarchy to respond in kind, hiring professional writers such as [[Thomas Nashe]], [[Robert Greene (16th century)|Robert Greene]] and [[John Lyly]] to write counter-tracts. Like most polemics, the tracts are full of hatred of their opponents, describing the bishops as representing the [[Antichrist]], and equally convinced of the righteousness of their own cause. The most prolific and effective of the anti-Martinist's went by the colorful sobriquet, "[[Pasquill Cavaliero]] |
The government was concerned enough at the virulence of the attacks on the ecclesiastical hierarchy to respond in kind, hiring professional writers such as [[Thomas Nashe]], [[Robert Greene (16th century)|Robert Greene]] and [[John Lyly]] to write counter-tracts. Like most polemics, the tracts are full of hatred of their opponents, describing the bishops as representing the [[Antichrist]], and equally convinced of the righteousness of their own cause. The most prolific and effective of the anti-Martinist's went by the colorful sobriquet, "[[Pasquill Cavaliero]]." Although the traditional belief is that these were written by Thomas Nashe, recent scholarship attributes them instead to [[Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford]],<ref>''Elizabeth Appleton, An Anatomy of the Marprelate Controversy 1588-1596: Retracing Shakespeare's Identity and that of Martin Marprelate. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001.''</ref> who is also the leading [[Shakespeare authorship question| alternative candidate for the works of William Shakespeare]].<ref>Gibson, H. N. ''The Shakespeare Claimants: A Critical Survey of the Four Principal Theories Concerning the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays'' (2005) 48, 72, 124; Love, Harold. ''Attributing Authorship: An Introduction'' (2002), 194–209; Samuel Schoenbaum. ''Shakespeare's Lives'', 2nd ed. (1991) 430–40.<br /></ref> |
||
Some of the Marprelate pamphlet's were reprinted in the seventeenth century, and an extensive scholarship has commented on their historical and literary significance. The anti-Martinist literature, including the Pasquill pamphlets, by contrast, has suffered from relative neglect by early modern scholars. |
Some of the Marprelate pamphlet's were reprinted in the seventeenth century, and an extensive scholarship has commented on their historical and literary significance. The anti-Martinist literature, including the Pasquill pamphlets, by contrast, has suffered from relative neglect by early modern scholars. |
||
Revision as of 14:37, 14 April 2010
Martin Marprelate (sometimes hyphenated as Martin Mar-prelate)[1] was the name used by the anonymous author or authors of the Marprelate tracts. These circulated illegally in the years 1588 and 1589. Their principal focus was an attack on the episcopacy of the Anglican Church. In 1583, the appointment of John Whitgift as Archbishop of Canterbury had signalled the beginning of a drive against the Presbyterian movement in the church, and an era of censorship began. In 1586, by an edict of the Star Chamber, the archbishop was empowered to license and control all of the printing apparatus in the country.
The true identity of "Martin" has long been speculated upon. For many years, the main candidate was seen as John Penry, a Welsh preacher and author of several impassioned polemics against the state of the church. The most recent primary candidate is Warwickshire squire and MP, Job Throckmorton (who earned the appropriate nickname "jibing Job").[2].
As the tracts had to be printed in secrecy, some sort of organisation was clearly involved to handle their production and distribution. Penry was definitely involved in the printing, and the press was frequently relocated to different parts of the country in order to avoid the authorities. Penry himself denied any involvement in the actual authorship.
The government was concerned enough at the virulence of the attacks on the ecclesiastical hierarchy to respond in kind, hiring professional writers such as Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene and John Lyly to write counter-tracts. Like most polemics, the tracts are full of hatred of their opponents, describing the bishops as representing the Antichrist, and equally convinced of the righteousness of their own cause. The most prolific and effective of the anti-Martinist's went by the colorful sobriquet, "Pasquill Cavaliero." Although the traditional belief is that these were written by Thomas Nashe, recent scholarship attributes them instead to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford,[3] who is also the leading alternative candidate for the works of William Shakespeare.[4]
Some of the Marprelate pamphlet's were reprinted in the seventeenth century, and an extensive scholarship has commented on their historical and literary significance. The anti-Martinist literature, including the Pasquill pamphlets, by contrast, has suffered from relative neglect by early modern scholars.
The Marprelate tracts are important documents in the history of English satire: critics from C. S. Lewis to John Carey have recognised their originality. In particular, the pamphlets show concern with the status of the text, wittily guying conventions such as the colophon and marginalia.
References
- ^ http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/tract6m.htm
- ^ Auchter, Dorothy. Dictionary of Literary and Dramatic Censorship in Tudor and Stuart England (2001), 231.
- ^ Elizabeth Appleton, An Anatomy of the Marprelate Controversy 1588-1596: Retracing Shakespeare's Identity and that of Martin Marprelate. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001.
- ^ Gibson, H. N. The Shakespeare Claimants: A Critical Survey of the Four Principal Theories Concerning the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays (2005) 48, 72, 124; Love, Harold. Attributing Authorship: An Introduction (2002), 194–209; Samuel Schoenbaum. Shakespeare's Lives, 2nd ed. (1991) 430–40.
See also
External links
- For the full texts of the tracts, see http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/
- For a long, if dated, discussion in the Cambridge history of English Literature, see http://www.bartleby.com/213/1701.html