The

Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

The College of the Liberal Arts

LANGUAGE, RHETORICAL EDUCATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL

IDENTITY IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND

A Dissertation in

English

by

Rebecca Wilson Lundin

2010 Rebecca Wilson Lundin

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of


Doctor of Philosophy


December 2010
 ii

The dissertation of Rebecca Wilson Lundin was reviewed and approved* by the
following:




Cheryl Glenn
Liberal Arts Research Professor of English and Womens Studies
Dissertation Adviser
Chair of Committee



Stuart Selber
Associate Professor of English and Science, Technology, and Society



Linda Woodbridge
Josephine Berry Weiss Chair in the Humanities
Professor of English



Dan Beaver
Associate Professor of History



Mark Morrison
Professor of English and Science, Technology, and Society
Interim Head of the Department of English





* Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
 iii

Abstract

Scholars of rhetoric and composition have readily applied the connections

between language, education, and national identity to conversations about modern

pedagogy. However, few have addressed the relevance of such connections to the study

of rhetorical and cultural history. The relationships between these three terms have

great capacity to enrich rhetorical history. Given that language is important in shaping

and expressing identities, it follows that historical attempts to form or control language

use reveal much more than disagreements over linguistic matters: they reveal

disagreements over cultural and political issues that language use affects.

In this dissertation, I use the triangulation between language, education, and

national identity to examine the ways these issues affected each other during the

extreme cultural upheavals of sixteenth-century England. Specifically, I ask: how did

sixteenth-century English rhetoric interact with the development of English national

identity?

By analyzing a series of English-language rhetorical treatises published in the

sixteenth century, I construct three overall arguments about such interactions. First,

that sixteenth-century rhetorical texts could be, and were, regarded as politically and

culturally important by their contemporaries. The influence of rhetorical texts was seen

to stretch far beyond the narrow educational boundaries of schoolrooms, and

understanding that fact is crucial to understanding the texts themselves. Second,

viewing a rhetoric text in its larger cultural context can reveal how what may appear to

be simple instructions on writing actually guide readers toward specific behaviors.

 iv

Ultimately, this guidance and shaping of readers encourages them to adopt and perform

a specific national identity, embodying Englishness through their language and

behavior. And third, the complex interrelationship between various facets of education

and culture in the early modern period means that attempts to analyze one must

necessarily take the others into account.

Ultimately, I encourage scholars of rhetoric (and of sixteenth-century rhetoric in

particular) to become more deeply attuned to the important influences rhetorical

education could have on the national identity of English speakers.

 v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... vii

Introduction. The Intersection of Language, Education, and National Identity in

Sixteenth-Century England ................................................................................. 1
Text Selection ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Methods and Methodologies...................................................................................................................................... 13
Overview of Chapters.................................................................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 1. The English Language and the English Nation................................. 21

Background and Scholarly Foundations............................................................................................................... 23
The Development of English National Identity .................................................................................................. 23
The Nature of Education in Renaissance England............................................................................................ 29
Cultural Effects of Renaissance Rhetorical Education.................................................................................... 36
Religious Change, National Identity, and Rhetoric........................................................................................... 42
The History of the English Language...................................................................................................................... 46
Nation, Nationalism, and National Identity ......................................................................................................... 51
An Illustration of My Analysis: Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique......................................................................... 57
Thomas Wilson and his Rhetorique........................................................................................................................ 59
Establishing Rhetoric as Politically Important .................................................................................................. 63
The Power of Rhetorical Styles.................................................................................................................................. 68
How National Identity Improves Understanding of the Rhetorique........................................................ 74
Conclusion: Contextualizing Rhetorical Treatises............................................................................................ 80

Chapter 2. Vernacular Rhetoric in Sixteenth-Century England......................... 81

Language and National Identity in England ........................................................................................................ 85
Linguistic and National Colonization: England Speaks French and Latin ............................................ 88
Two Views of the Rise of the Vernacular and the Rise of England............................................................. 95
A Rhetorical Approach to Vernacularization ..................................................................................................... 98
Sixteenth-Century Nationalism and the Growth of English .......................................................................102
Creating and Addressing an English Audience.................................................................................................103
Bringing Foreign Knowledge to England ...........................................................................................................111
English as Medium of Education; English as Object of Study.....................................................................116
Cultivating English as a Source of National Pride...........................................................................................125
Conclusion: Recognizing Linguistic Imperialism in Sixteenth-Century England..............................136
 vi

Chapter 3. Rhetorical Style and the Development of the English Nation ....... 138
Style and National Identity in England................................................................................................................142
Classical Revival and the Civic Importance of Rhetoric ...............................................................................143
Rhetorical Style as Expression of National Identity .......................................................................................149
English Letter-Writing Style ....................................................................................................................................154
The Development of Ars Dictaminis .....................................................................................................................157
Fulwoods Enemie of Idlenesse: Letters as Representatives of English Identity ..............................162
Day and the Power of Letter-Writing Style........................................................................................................173
Adapting and Rewriting Style Guides for English Use ..................................................................................179
Adapting Latin Style Guides to the English Language ..................................................................................181
Developing English Style and Teaching Children: The Style Guide of Richard Sherry....................186
Controlling Figurative Language: Peachams Cautionary Guide.............................................................191
Conclusion: Interpreting the Lessons Taught by English Style Guides .................................................199

Chapter 4. Rhetoric and English Social Order ................................................. 202

Social Order and National Identity in England ................................................................................................206
Sixteenth-Century Systems of Social Order ........................................................................................................208
The Role of Education in Establishing and Changing Social Order.........................................................219
Rhetorics Relationships to English Social Order............................................................................................223
Rhetoric as Originating Force: The Development of Nations and National Qualities ....................224
Rhetorics Political Lessons: Teaching Social Order through Rhetoric..................................................233
Rhetoric as Status Symbol: Performing Decorum...........................................................................................242
Conclusion: Understanding Rhetorics Relationships to Social Order...................................................254

Chapter 5. Nation-Building Rhetoric: Conclusions for the Study of the English

Language and the English Nation.................................................................... 256
Steps in Developing Linguistic National Identity............................................................................................259
Implications for the Study of English Literature.............................................................................................270
Implications for Further Rhetorical Study and Research............................................................................283

Bibliography .................................................................................................... 288

 vii

Acknowledgements

Through the course of writing this dissertation, I have incurred innumerable

debts: to the long line of scholars who offered intellectual support, past and current

colleagues who provided criticism and helped shape ideas, and friends who freely gave

encouragement through it all. Out of this abundance of supporters, a few names stand

out as particularly influential at various points in my career as a graduate student.

From the start of my time at Penn State, my thinking has been shaped by the

professors and colleagues whom I encountered in my graduate seminars. Long before

this dissertation was even imagined, my conversations with teachers and classmates

sparked an interest in the intersection of Renaissance literature and rhetorical history

and encouraged me to pursue that interest. I remember with particular gratitude my

Renaissance literature courses with Linda Woodbridge, who always pushed me (and

my ideas) further than I thought I could go. Other courses, such as those with Cheryl

Glenn, Stuart Selber, Garrett Sullivan, and Rob Hume, taught patterns of research,

thinking, and writing that have been invaluable to me in this project.

As I progressed through the program and the idea for this dissertation began to

take shape, I became particularly indebted to the two professors with whom I worked

most closely: Cheryl Glenn and Stuart Selber. I was lucky enough to take multiple

seminars with both Cheryl and Stuart, and those classes provided an amazing

introduction to the field of rhetoric. But I learned even more from these professors

outside of classes, working alongside them as a research assistant and constantly asking

for their feedback on my work. I have hundreds of pages of drafts, papers, and notes
 viii

marked with Cheryls deep and thoughtful comments, many of which sparked or refined

ideas that are contained in this dissertation. I dont have many of Stuarts comments in

writing; they were almost always offered on runs around campus when he encouraged

me to talk out problems I encountered in my research and writing (always, it seemed,

just as we started up big hills). I could not have started this project without their

listening, advice, and encouragement.

And I could not have finished without constant, friendly support from my fellow

graduate students (especially those who met with me in various writing groups), from

my family (who knew I could do this long before I figured that out for myself), and

particularly from Tom. Without you, I would have given up long ago.

Thank you.

Introduction. The Intersection of Language, Education, and National

Identity in Sixteenth-Century England

Besides being an act of knowing, education is also a political

act. That is why no pedagogy is neutral. Paulo Freire

(Shor and Freire 13)

In a spring 2010 campaign ad, Tim James (a Republican candidate for Alabama

governor) sternly asserts This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here,

learn it. This English Only sentiment supports Jamess argument that the Alabama

drivers license test should not be offered in any language other than English (its

currently available in twelve language variations). James points out that offering the

test in non-English languages creates an unnecessary financial burdenbut more

prominently throughout the ad, he argues that it poses a threat to the identity of

Alabamians. In Alabama, we speak English, and anyone who cannot or does not speak

English does not belong. Outsiders who want to make the state their home must learn

the language (a process that James implies, through a flippant tone, to be quite simple).

He continues, Were only giving that test in Englishif Im governor.

Jamess language policy is characteristic of politicians and policy-makers who

support the English Only movement (also known as the Official English movement). For

decades, the English Only movement has argued that English should be declared the

official language of the United States of America. Supporters of such legislation argue
 2

that linguistic unity creates and reflects national unity, pressuring those living in the

United States into linguistic homogeneity in service of strengthening the nation.

Enforcing the use of English in official settings could speed the process through which

immigrants become acclimatized to U. S. culture and could more firmly establish the

unified nature of that culture itself. Opponents counter that mandating the use of

English in official settings could easily force non-English speakers to forego full

participation in such institutions, leading to increased discrimination. Moreover, by

forcing non-English speakers to cease using their native languages, English Only

legislation pressures them to sacrifice important parts of their identity.1

Unsurprisingly, this controversy over language policy is often played out in the

official locations of language instruction: schools. Some school districts have instated

stringent English Only guidelines intended to help non-native speakers develop English

skills, and such districts do not allow bilingual education (or even allow students and

teachers to speak languages other than English while at school). But the enforcement of

these policies has been characterized by negativity that seems unrelated to language

learning: a teacher in Arizona physically punished students who were overheard

speaking in languages other than English, and a school district in Kansas suspended a

student for speaking Spanish in the halls (Ryman and Madrid, Reid). Such policies (and

possibilities for abuse or discrimination in their enforcement) are countered by

advocates for bilingual education, who argue that all students (not only those from non-

1 For a general overview of the politics and policies at stake in the English Only movement, see

Trimbur and Wible.

 3

English-speaking backgrounds) would benefit from the presence of more varied

language instruction in schools (Matsuda and Canagarajah, Toward and The Place).

Ultimately, the issue under debate in the current English Only discussions is how

the United States should treat and teach immigrants, speakers of languages other than

English, and non-native speakers of English. But despite otherwise immense ideological

disagreement, both sides of the debate agree on a fundamental assumption. Language

use, and language education, are inseparably connected to identity. In his ad, James

explains how ones state affiliation (certainly a facet of identity) relies on language: in

Alabama, we speak English, and if you want to belong, you need to learn it. On the

national scale that this language debate encompasses, the type of identity in question is

national identity. In America we speak English, English Only supporters imply, and so

we should teach in English, and to fully participate in this country you must use English,

too. In this view, using the language associated with a particular country is tantamount

to declaring your allegiance to that country. Thus, national identity can form an

important triangulation with language use and educationeach term has the capacity

to reflect, and affect, the others.

Since language change affects identity, language instruction is ultimately much

more than merely teaching a set of skillsit implicitly teaches cultural values as well,

despite the potential conflicts that can arise between those cultural values and

individual students. Using specific words, dialects, or rhetorical strategies can display

our identities, demonstrating that we belong to a certain group, are sensitive to a given

issue, or live in a particular area. Those practices can also shape our identities, for shifts

in the words and styles that are available to us in a given discourse shape the thoughts
 4

we are best able to express, not by predetermining those thoughts but by bounding

them (sometimes gently, sometimes harshly) within certain conventions. Learning new

language skills affects the identities of speakers, whether language instruction is

explicit (as when a student takes a school course that forbids her from using Spanish)

or implicit (as when an individual learns to speak like his friends), and whether it

involves shifting to a completely separate language (as from Mandarin to English) or

between stylistic communities in a given language (as from a home English to academic

English). Geneva Smitherman was one of the earliest scholars to call attention to the

potentially problematic results of ignoring the connection between language instruction

and identity. In Talkin and Testifyin, Smitherman observes that teachers who treat the

stylistic characteristics of African American Vernacular English as errors perpetuate the

stereotyping of black students as less linguistically adept than their white peers, and

she argues that teachers should not unthinkingly require students to abandon linguistic

practices that are connected to racial identities.

Rhetoricians have also studied in depth the relationship of language instruction

to other facets of identity, particularly ones identification with a nation or place of

origin. Gloria Anzalda argues that being required to use certain languages can entail a

denial of the complexity of ones association with multiple nations or spacesher

concept of borderlands epitomizes the linguistic and national duality that many

immigrants experience, for example. Similarly, A. Suresh Canagarajah contends that

instruction in the language of a dominant culture can further marginalize other cultural

voices, specifically when that language change occurs in the context of a

colonizer/colonized dynamic; forcing a colonized group to adopt a new language firmly

 5

asserts the rejection of their native culture (Resisting). The work of these scholars,

though merely a small slice of the literature on language instruction and national

identity, illustrates the importance of the instruction/identity connection across

rhetoric and composition studies. Whether looking at the contemporary politics of

English Only legislation or debating new course designs, the connections between

language, education, and national identity are an established part of our field.

But there is a problem with the ways in which scholars address this connection.

Although scholars of rhetoric and composition have readily applied the connection

between language, education, and national identity to conversations about modern

pedagogy, few have addressed its relevance to the study of rhetorical and cultural

history. The connection of these three terms has great capacity to enrich rhetorical

history, despite the scarcity of scholarly attention to the issue. Given that language is

important in shaping and expressing identities, it follows that historical attempts to

form or control language use reveal much more than disagreements over linguistic

matters: they may reveal disagreements over cultural and political issues that could be

affected by language use. Just as the current English Only debate reveals political and

ideological positions that go beyond interests in efficient education, so historical

developments in rhetoric may offer similar insight into the politics behind language

instruction. Rhetorical instruction does not operate in a vacuum; it shapes, and is

shaped by, the interests of instructors, learners, and others who inhabit positions of

powerand ultimately it can affect the identities of individual learners, along with the

broader culture it interacts with. Specific cultural effects may or may not be intended by

the author of a given rhetorical theory or pedagogical approach, and of course most
 6

cultural shifts are directed by dozens of other forces alongside rhetorical instruction.

But given the deep and broadly acknowledged connection between language use and

identity, examining rhetorical instruction as one constitutive part of historical cultural

shifts offers an important perspective. Such inquiry can provide insight into the effects

that choices about language have had on cultural development, writ large.

In this dissertation, I use the triangulation between language, education, and

national identity to examine the ways these terms interacted during the extreme

cultural upheavals of sixteenth-century England. Specifically, I ask: how did sixteenth-

century English rhetoric interact with the development of English national identity?

Sixteenth-century England is a particularly fertile ground for examining the

historical connections between language, education, and national identity. In order to

study the relationship between these terms, it makes sense to focus on periods when

there were great shifts in language instruction and use. Presumably, those shifts reflect

or cause (or do some of both) concurrent changes in society. In England during the

sixteenth century, the English language underwent some of its earliest and most drastic

developments in terms of use and structure.2 English morphed from an everyday

language considered unsuitable for academic or professional use to the language of

government, literature, and education. In addition, this period contained the first

published rhetorical instruction in the English language: rhetorical treatises were

published by Cox in 1524, Sherry in 1550, and Wilson in 1553. While many of these

2 For detailed descriptions of the growth of the English language during the sixteenth century,

see Baugh and Cable (199-252) and Barber.

 7

early books were at least partially translations of ancient works, they also offered

preliminary justifications of the adequacy (or supremacy) of the English language and

reasons for using it in a variety of settings. Moreover, they described how to shape and

regulate that use in ways that were particular to their time and placeand often had

political or cultural significance.

Alongside these linguistic shifts, a number of drastic cultural shifts were

occurring in sixteenth-century England. Some of the significant developments include

the Reformation and establishment of an English church (marked by Henry VIIIs split

from the Catholic church in 1534), the development of humanist education in both

English and Latin (illustrated by the opening of St. Pauls school in 1509), increasing

questions about the appropriateness of resistance and flexibility of social order (such as

evinced by the Marian exiles in the 1550s), and the Elizabethan explosion of English

literature. All of these cultural trends have been thoroughly researched in the scholarly

literature, and together they represent what scholars like Richard Helgerson refer to as

the development of English national identity: a set of characteristics and concerns that

mark English people and make Englishness itself an important identifying factor.

Scholars trace the causes and representations of a developing national identity

to cultural changes like those mentioned above, but the influence of language use and

education on such identity development is often an afterthought. Given the connections

between language, education, and national identity as observed by contemporary

rhetoricians, as well as the development of national identity in sixteenth-century

England as observed by Renaissance historians and literary critics, it is a problem that

scholarship in the history of rhetoric has not more completely drawn these discourses
 8

together. This project foregrounds the often-overlooked importance of language use

and education for explaining and understanding the cultural shifts that were occurring

in sixteenth-century England, further illuminating the important connections between

language use, education, and national identity.

Text Selection

In order to examine the relationship between rhetoric and national identity in

sixteenth-century England, I focus on sixteenth-century rhetorical treatises and their

historical contexts to examine the effects, intentional or not, that linguistic

developments may have had on the development of the nation of England as well as the

imagined community of English self-perception. Rhetorical treatises are ideal subjects

for this study for three central reasons. First, they offer direct instructions and

explanations of linguistic trends, explicitly telling readers how they ought to write or

speak. Additionally, the treatises frequently offer justifications for those assertions, and

even analyze counterarguments for more controversial recommendations. These open

discussions of language use provide direct insight into the reasoning of sixteenth-

century rhetors, clarifying their goals, as well as their perception of the effects of

language use. These early arguments for using certain types of English offered

straightforward justifications of how and why language use was important in particular

settings. Second, sixteenth-century English rhetorical treatises were remarkably

important, both during the time period I consider and for the history of the English
 9

language as a whole. During the sixteenth century, a number of the treatises were

frequently reprinted and used in educational and personal contextsscholars have

traced their influences through much of the creative literature produced during the

English Renaissance, including that of such recognizable authors as Shakespeare.3 The

texts were also considered politically important by their contemporaries. Thomas

Wilson, for example, was imprisoned and tortured for his texts on rhetoric and logic,

which Queen Mary judged to contain seditious content.4 And finally, the texts are

important insofar as they literally created the foundation upon which English language

instruction was built. Leonard Coxs The Art or Crafte of Rhetoryke was arguably the

first English rhetoric, appearing in 1524 and followed by Richard Sherrys Treatise of

Schemes and Tropes (1550), Thomas Wilsons The Arte of Rhetorique (1553), and a

flurry of books in the second half of the century. Peter Mack lists twenty English-

language rhetorical manuals published in the sixteenth century, at least four of which

(Wilsons two books, along with those by Fulwood and Day) were frequently reprinted

(76), and many of which had lasting influence over the development of the language.

Specifically, I focus on the political, religious, and cultural features of these

rhetorical treatises as the widespread circulation of such texts was made possible by

3 Many of the early scholarly work that analyzes such rhetoric texts focuses on their influence

over well-known authors of creative literature (see Joseph and Clark). Peter E. Medine also
explains in some detail how the texts influence spread. For example, he writes John Miltons
teacher Alexander Fill invokes the authority of Wilson as he ridicules the affectation of
pretentiously learned language, or inkhorn terms (55). He also explains that the authors of
the treatises themselves were familiar with and frequently referenced one anothers work.
Richard Rainolde wrote of Thomas Wilsons rhetoric that it was a learned work of rhetoric
compiled and made in the English tongue, of one who floweth in all excellency of art, who in
judgment is profound, in wisdom and eloquence most famous (qtd. in Medine 55).
4 The sedition in these books did not consist of direct challenges to Mary or to the country;

rather, Wilsons theories of language use were distinctly Protestant, which made them
objectionable to the Catholic Mary. I describe this episode in great detail in Chapter 1.
 10

the combination of printing and rising vernacular literacy. I discuss the growth of the

vernacular, arguments over appropriate English style, and the relationship between

language and social order as expressed in the treatisesoverall, exploring the

connection between language instruction and cultural identification as it was formed in

Renaissance England. It is important to note that I will largely avoid the question of

intentionality, focusing not on why authors may have tried to shape their

readers/culture in certain ways, but rather on how that shaping could occur, regardless

of authorial intent. Thus my response will be based in close reading of the treatises

themselves and an understanding of their historical contexts, taking into account the

broad implications that stylistic and rhetorical choices can have. Rhetorical treatises

can have implications both through their advocacy for use of a given language (e.g.,

using English vernacular in education) and through the specific rhetorical strategies

that they recommend or oppose (e.g., avoiding certain types of neologism). My response

to the critical question will necessarily take into account both of these aspects of the

treatises.

According to publishing records, there were roughly twenty English-language

rhetorical treatises published in the sixteenth century.5 Given the constraints of space, I

have chosen eleven of those texts as my primary focus (though many of the others are

mentioned throughout). A number of my choices are uncontroversial. Coxs and

Sherrys texts, recognized as the earliest English-language rhetoric manuals published,

5 It is difficult to be precise about this number given the unusual (to modern eyes) nature of

many sixteenth-century books. Often, a single book contained a variety of types of texts loosely
connected to a central subject but not clearly related. Mack offers the estimate of twenty
English-language rhetorical treatises; the number would be higher if all texts incorporating any
rhetorical instruction were included and lower if texts containing significant amounts of non-
rhetorical instruction were excluded (76).
 11

are notable for their extensive justifications of the project of composing a rhetorical

treatise in English. They also proved influential for many of the treatises that followed,

and thus form a crucial part of the story of sixteenth-century English rhetoric. In

addition, the three most frequently reprinted English rhetoric texts of the period were

Thomas Wilsons, William Fulwoods, and Angel Days. Given the breadth of their

contemporary influence and lasting popularity, I spend significant time analyzing each

of these texts, as well.

To supplement my analysis of these earliest and most popular treatises, I have

selected additional texts that represent significant trends in rhetorical work from the

time. For example, both Peachams and Puttenhams texts contain parts of a style guide

that was frequently published, revised, and republished throughout the sixteenth

century. Mack, in fact, argues that this style guide should be considered the most

popular of the English texts, having been printed twenty-one times (in a number of

different versions and contexts) before the end of the sixteenth century (77). While the

guide is also appended to the treatises by Sherry, Wilson, and Day, Peachams and

Puttenhams treatises are focused on their versions of the guide and contain significant

detail about the rhetorical figures discussed. Consequently, these texts provide insight

into possible modifications of the popular style guide. As a counterpoint to these texts, I

also include Rainoldes style guide, which offers a remarkably different stylistic theory.

Although the guide revised by Peacham and Puttenham was more popular than

Rainoldes stylistic theory, Rainoldes work further clarifies the cultural significance of

style by arguing against some prevailing stylistic trends, all the while explicitly

justifying why he argued in favor of his specific stylistic preferences.

 12

I have also included three primary texts that are not only rhetorical treatises but

that, nonetheless, merit inclusion in this grouping due to their popularity, influence on

sixteenth-century education, and rhetorical content. Thomas Elyots Boke Named the

Gouernor (1531) was published well before the first purely rhetorical text came out in

English, and it contains a significant amount of material pertaining to the education of

children and the development of political leaders that is unrelated to rhetoric. However,

the book does focus in parts on the importance of rhetorical education for a students

success, and moreover it argues persuasively for the importance of English in

educational materials. As such, the text neatly anticipates the rhetorical work that

follows, paving the way for more detailed examinations of rhetoric in English. Aschams

Toxophilus is a dialogue (modeled after Plato) extolling the nature and virtues of

rhetorical education. Together, these texts show how rhetorical education fit in with the

larger educational program of sixteenth-century England, and as such they help to

contextualize the more rhetoric-specific guides discussed elsewhere. And finally, I

include analysis of Thomas Hobys The Courtier for similar reasons. Like Ascham and

Elyot, Hoby includes descriptions of appropriate rhetoric within his book, which

translates and expands Castigliones explanation of how to be an effective courtier. The

rhetorical instructions are important particularly because of their context: Hobys

descriptions of why rhetoric is socially useful offer yet another layer of

contextualization to emphasize the importance of rhetorical study.

Ultimately, by focusing mainly on these eleven texts I am able to offer a thorough

and contextualized perspective of rhetoric as it existed in sixteenth-century England.

 13

Methods and Methodologies

As with many researchers studying the past, my methods have been limited to

library and archival research. In this I am much indebted to scholars such as James J.

Murphy and Lawrence Green who have made extensive study of rhetorical treatises

published in the Renaissance: their Renaissance Rhetoric Short-Title Catalog made it

possible to locate texts, gauge influence or popularity (judging by number of

reprintings), and examine publishing trends from the period. Similarly, the Early

English Books Online database provided photographs of every page of my primary texts,

meaning that I did not have to face the impossible choice between expensive travel to

archives or reliance on inaccurate republished versions of my primary texts. While

research into a time so long past is never easy, those resources made it possible to do

thoughtfully and well.

My methodology in studying these texts, their interactions with each other, and

their relationships to sixteenth-century English culture is a form of rhetorical

historiography. For my purposes here, I define rhetorical historiography as history-

writing that is mindful of and open about the biases of those who have constructed

historical narratives, including myself. In this, I align myself with what Sharon Crowley

calls the constructionist camp of rhetorical historiography. While the type of

rhetorical historiography I practice still deals with facts about historical events and

individuals (as best we can know them), it also pays close attention to the provenance

of those facts: Who has influenced what we know about a given period, and why? How

have inherited historical narratives shaped our approaches to current topics?

 14

Particularly, I model my own methodology after scholars of rhetorical history such as

Cheryl Glenn, Roxanne Mountford, and Susan Jarratt who retheorize traditional

historical narratives to make space for rhetorical analyses of new or understudied texts

or concepts, such as the influence of women in the history of rhetoric. In addition, this

vein of rhetorical historiography also calls writers to admit their own perspectives and

biases. As James Berlin argues in Revisionary Histories of Rhetoric (1994), and as

countless other rhetorical historiographers have mentioned, pretended objectivity can

only obscure presentations of our rhetorical historiesauthors should be open about

their biases, asking what has influenced them to choose a specific topic or to see facts

through a given lens. By facing these complicated questions, the method of rhetorical

historiography I support has potential to clarify questions about historical events while

consciously acknowledging its own limitations. I cannot know what authors intended

their words to do, particularly when they were writing in the distant past of sixteenth-

century England. But I can read the primary texts closely, and read broadly in the

period more generally, to better understand the connections that may have existed

between language use, rhetorical instruction, and the national identities of learners.

A brief but illuminating example of the type of rhetorical analysis I perform in

this project can be found in a justification of the use of English offered in a published

exchange between Thomas Hoby and John Cheke. Such justifications abound in the

early Renaissance, both in rhetorical treatises and in translations of other works, when

authors were struggling to explain their decisions to publish in a less-respected

language (the English vernacular) rather than the established scholarly languages of

Latin, Greek, or even French. These explanations of why English is a worthwhile

 15

language for scholarly work offer some of the most important and direct insights into

Englishs cultural importance. The prefatory matter in Thomas Hobys translation of

The Courtier (1561) offers lengthy justifications of Hobys translation projects, and the

treatise also includes a letter written by John Cheke discussing the relative value of

using foreign words or maintaining a simple English style. For both Cheke and Hoby,

the use of English is invested with great importance. It functions as an attempt to

overcome Englands linguistic inferior[ity] to well most all other Nations, which

naturalize sciences and philosophy into their respective languages (A.iv.r). The lack of

English academic work, Cheke worries in his letter, is connected to a lack of cultural

autonomy, which England must correct in order to gain independence from other

nations. Thus, although The Courtier is itself a product of Italy, as Hoby puts it the book

has become an Englishman through Hobys translation work and can thus be applied

to English concerns. It is a political choice to translate The Courtier, and as the

discussion between Cheke and Hoby illustrates, the language of the translation matters

a great deal.

As Chekes appended letter to The Courtier also indicates, not only the fact of

using English but also the type of English that is used contributes greatly to the cultural

impact that language can have. Cheke famously advocates for extremely plain English,

free of borrowed words and neologisms, as a more complete liberation from foreign

influence than Latinate or scholastic English could be. Dozens of rhetorical treatises

weigh in on the debate about appropriate English vocabularies and style: Wilsons

Rhetorique (1553), Days The English Secretorie (1586), and Coxs Arte and Crafte of

Rhetoryke (1524) (to name just a few). Such stylistic decisions ultimately influence a
 16

number of orientations, such as religion, social status, political alignment, and even

association with geographic areas (as through accents or colloquialisms). For my

project, these orientations affected by language ultimately fit under the umbrella of

national identity.

Overview of Chapters

Choosing how to divide and order the content for this project has been a

complicated process. While I initially planned to organize my chapters by individual

authors or by the decades in which various treatises were published, such organization

ultimately felt forced or arbitrary. The primary texts I will be dealing with are often

complexsome contain portions that were added or modified years after the original

text was produced, while others combine very distinct genres (for example, a

description of proper delivery, a guide to figures, and a translation of a famous

oration)and tend to resist easy categorization. In addition, the development of

English rhetoric throughout the sixteenth century was neither simple nor linear; some

early authors made claims that were dropped for decades before being taken up, and

others, late in the century, rehearsed arguments that had been initially made much

earlier. Thus, the chapters in this project are organized thematically, each chapter

dealing with texts that engage a particular type of issue or question. Some of the

primary sources will thus naturally fall into chronological groupings within a given
 17

chapter, but I will be free to discuss various parts of the same treatise, or different

works by the same author, or revisions of the same work, in different contexts.

Chapter 1 (The English Language and the English Nation) offers a deep

introduction to my project, defining terms and placing my own work within the context

of already-existing conversations in rhetorical history. Importantly, the chapter also

describes crucial information for understanding sixteenth-century England:

descriptions of educational systems, attitudes toward nationhood, Renaissance culture,

religious change, and the development of the English language itself. This background is

centrally important to the contextual claims I make in later chapters. Finally, Chapter 1

provides an extended analysis of one text, Thomas Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique. The

analysis not only exemplifies the methods I employ throughout the project, it also

demonstrates how analyzing sixteenth-century rhetorical treatises with an eye to their

cultural contexts provides significant insight into the meaning of the texts themselves

in this case, contributing to a longstanding scholarly debate about Wilsons political

leanings. Chapter 1 lays a foundation for contextualizing rhetorical treatises that each of

the following chapters will build on.

Chapter 2 (Vernacular Rhetoric in Sixteenth-Century England) is the first of the

thematic chapters, and it concentrates on primary texts that advocate the use of the

vernacular in education, politics, and other cultural situations. I discuss how authors

like Elyot initially introduced the vernacular as an audience-based choice, how others

like Hoby used translation to strengthen English education, and how Sherry and

Ascham focused on the empowering aspects of a nation writing in its own mother

tongue. Together, I argue that these treatises contend that using English will improve
 18

the state of English learning by reducing reliance on foreign models, improving the

reputation of English scholarship, and allowing for broader education. By using these

methods to improve English learning, the authors argue, the nation itself will ultimately

be strengthened. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on recognizing the growing sense of

linguistic imperialism in sixteenth-century England.

Once authors generally accepted that vernacular English was a language worthy

of use in official situations, many took on the task of establishing guidelines for

appropriate English style. Chapter 3 (Rhetorical Style and the Development of the

English Nation) focuses on texts that describe the features of that appropriate English

style, offering guidance about vocabulary, grammar, and the use of figurative language.

The letter-writing guides of Day and Fulwood demonstrate how using styles

appropriate to a given genre reflected on Englands national reputation; the remarkably

frequent reprinting of an English style guide gives various authors a platform from

which to describe how good style strengthens the English language (and, again,

improves the reputation of the nation associated with it); and finally, unusual claims

about style such as those of Ralph Lever focus on the necessity of purifying English from

foreign influence that may linger in Latinate words or turns of phrase. In the context of

these texts, using good English is a matter of national importanceproving the

adequacy and sophistication of the English language. Again, the authors consistently

link the reputation of the language with the reputation of the nation itself. And in the

case of genres like letters, a texts ability to stand in for an individual means that it is

crucially important for the written word to be able to convey Englishness as part of an

accurate reflection of an individuals identity. The chapter ultimately offers an

 19

interpretation of the lessons taught by style guides, through the lenses of language,

rhetorical education, and national identity.

In Chapter 4 (Rhetoric and English Social Order), I analyze texts that reveal the

complex relationships between rhetoric and one particular characteristic of the English

nation: social ordering. Rhetoric and rhetorical education had the potential to influence

subjects political leanings, to create and shape groups of people with shared identities,

and to demarcate individuals social status. As such, rhetoric was inextricably connected

to the social systems, official and unofficial, that operated to structure society in

Renaissance England. Focusing on texts by Elyot, Wilson, Rainolde, and Puttenham, this

chapter describes the nature of those connections, ultimately arguing that the ways in

which rhetoric interacted with social order were remarkably complex and sometimes

contradictory. What they had in common was that the authors perceived language use

and rhetorical education as meaningful ways to shape English social orderto create

and develop characteristics of the English nation. Understanding rhetorics complex

relationships to social order deepens, and often complicates, our understanding of the

treatises and time period in question.

The final chapter of this project, Chapter 5 (Nation-Building Rhetoric:

Conclusions for the Study of the English Language and the English Nation), offers a look

back at the previous chapters and a look forward to other implications for my work and

future possibilities for research. It describes the conclusions from previous chapters as

part of one unified story, in which the English language grows in use and popularity as

it becomes more deeply entwined with the English nation and English national identity.

The chapter then extends the implications of my projects earlier conclusions, using the
 20

example of Shakespearian plays to show how the association I describe (between

language and nation) can clarify the study of creative literature. Finally, the chapter

points toward questions for further research to deepen, expand upon, and apply the

conclusions I came to throughout the project.

 21

Chapter 1. The English Language and the English Nation

In 1558, English author Thomas Wilson was imprisoned and tortured for the

seditious content of his writings. At that time Wilson was in exile, so it was not the

English justice system but the Roman Inquisition in Italy that captured, interrogated,

and abused him (apparently at the request of Mary, the English queen). During the nine

months of Wilsons imprisonment Mary died, and shortly afterward the Pope himself

died, sparking days of riots that allowed Wilson to escape and, finally, to return to

England. What makes Wilsons story particularly unusual are the crimes that sparked

this political drama. Wilson was imprisoned because of two books he had written, but

they were not the type of political commentary that we might normally associate with

treason. Rather, they were textbooks. The Rule of Reason (1551) presented the first

English-language description of logic, and the Arte of Rhetorique (1553) offered the first

comprehensive English rhetorical treatiseand it was for these texts that Wilson was

persecuted.

To modern eyes, the two books look like straightforward adaptations of classical

logical and rhetorical theories; but to Wilsons contemporaries, the books were radical.

They were the earliest texts of their kind to use the English language, which was often

dismissed as inadequate for use in scholarship. Moreover, the books (particularly the

Rhetorique) offered instructions, examples, and theories that were indirectly associated

with the Protestant religion. Though the books were not openly Protestant, their use of

English as well as their stylistic instructions aligned with the priorities of that religion.
 22

At that time in England, under the reign of the Catholic Mary, Protestantism was under

attack. And given that Englands overall religious standing was in question (for years,

the state church had been in religious flux between Catholicism and reform), publishing

educational materials that had the potential influence to further popularize

Protestantism was even worse. Thus, Wilson was caught in the untidy conflict between

language use and education and the potential of those discourses to affect English

national identity. What was essentially a difference over perceived ideals in English

national identity (the Protestant Wilson supported reform within English religion,

while the Catholic Mary did not) not only brought Wilson to the queens attention, but

also led directly to his trial and torture over the issue of his educational treatises.

Rhetorical instructions could be politically influentialeven seditious.

Other sixteenth-century rhetoricians in England did not experience the same

drastic political consequences for their writing that Wilson did, but their books

nonetheless negotiated the same tricky terrain of language, education, and national

identity. Understanding the books, and the political influences that they held during the

time that they were published, thus requires a broad understanding of Renaissance

England, rhetorical history, and nationalism. In the following sections, I offer an

overview of some of the most important foundations for my own work, definitions of

the important terms I use throughout this project, and an extended example of how I

pull these pieces together into analysis of a text. Ultimately, the ideas presented in this

chapter serve as a cornerstone for the claims and arguments I make throughout this

project.
 23

Background and Scholarly Foundations

In this project, I knit together a number of discourses that relate to my central

question. In order to better describe these distinct but overlapping conversations, I

have divided them into five central areas: the development of English national identity,

the nature of education in Renaissance England, the cultural effects of rhetorical

education, the complex character of English religion, and the study of English language

change. Each area deepens my perspective on the texts that are my primary focus, and

all are necessary for a fuller understanding of how language, education, and national

identity intersected in sixteenth-century England. My approach to each area of

scholarship, and to the central questions it engages, is crucially important to my overall

examination of primary texts.

The Development of English National Identity

Like many scholars, I believe that the English Renaissance was an important

time for the formation of an English national identity. I do not claim that nationalism

necessarily developed during this periodElie Kedourie famously dates its emergence

to nineteenth-century Europenor do I argue that Renaissance individuals necessarily

grew to identify with their nation as a replacement for other identities they held.

Rather, I argue that a variety of huge social shifts in early modern England (including

Henry VIIIs break with Rome, the shift from scholasticism to humanism, the Protestant

Reformation, the exile of Protestants under Mary, and the flowering of national
 24

literature) came together to encourage English subjects to adopt a national identity

that is, to imagine themselves as parts of a community consisting of, and limited by,

England.1 An individual could self-identify with other groups as well, based on

profession, religion, or social standing, even when such identifications were in tension

with the idea of being Englishbut that idea of Englishness was increasingly part of

the spectrum of identifications that a person might experience.

Given the confluence of politically and culturally disruptive changes in

Renaissance England that led to its increasing separation from Continental Europe,

England developed a sense of itself as a nation (separate from others) by the end of the

sixteenth century. In an early but still influential piece, The Genesis and Character of

English Nationhood (1940), Hans Kohn attributes the growth of nationalistic

sentiment to the modernization that the Tudors affected politically, religiously, and in

other realms. Through the cultural changes that occurred under the Tudors, the nation

coalesced into a group separate from other countries. The religious changes overseen

by the Tudors had particularly strong effects on developing a sense of national

identityan argument that Liah Greenfeld convincingly explores in Nationalism: Five

Roads to Modernity (1992). Because of its newfound religious independence, sixteenth-

century England established an identity separate from and often in contrast with the

Catholic countries with which it had previously been unified under the banner of

Catholicism and the rule of the Pope. While Protestantism and Catholicism were still

competing for dominance within England long after Henry VIIIs first split from Rome,

1
I provide my own detailed definitions of nation, nationalism, and national identity in a
later section.
 25

the active question of which religion England would align with consistently emphasized

Englands independence and the existence of English identity apart from other nations.2

Even as sixteenth-century English subjects developed a sense of separation from

other nations, they also developed national identity while negotiating complicated

boundaries and divisions from within. The always-complex relationships between

England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were not simplified when England began to

develop a stronger identity, and even within England itself regional affiliations

occasionally competed with national affiliation for prominence. Ultimately, subjects

tended to identify both with the overall grouping of England as well as with their

individual home places. Thus, although London and its environs earned the reputation

as the center of English identity, even the far-flung residents of places like Lancaster

(for example) could be a part of the English national group. A large amount of

scholarship explores the specific relationships that developed between English regions

and among British countries as national identity emerged: For example, Brendan

Bradshaw and Peter Robertss edited collection British Consciousness and Identity

(1998) explores the connections and divisions between England, Wales, Scotland, and

Ireland. Scholars like Jane Dawson and Andrew Hadfield describe how concepts like

England and Britain formed, and became separate, during the sixteenth century,

allowing subjects to more finely nuance their identifications with various groups.

2
There is an enormous amount of scholarship connecting the development of this national
sentiment to specific cultural changes or historical developments. While there is not space to
extensively describe such literature here, I make use of it throughout my project. For example,
David Weil Baker focuses on the connection between the development of national political
identities and the imagined politically radical worlds of humanism; Andrew Escobedo
investigates national identity as it affects and is affected by the writing of history; and Claire
McEachern examines how national identity is embodied in Elizabethan literature.
 26

Behind all of these discussions of emerging national identity lies the question of

where motivating forces for cultural shifts and changing identities come from. Often,

scholars trace the origin of such shifts to one of two places: dissatisfaction among the

broad lower classes of society, or political maneuvering among the elite. For example,

popular historical understandings of the English Reformation have tended to

characterize it either as a bottom-up movement incited by sudden Reformed religious

fervor among English subjects, or as a top-down movement in which the government

pressured subjects into religious change for primarily political reasons. Similarly,

arguments about the origins of English identity tend to point to either popular

identification with the concept of England, or to Machiavellian maneuvering by people

in positions of power. In negotiating these complex causal arguments, I have followed

the example of Ethan Shagan. In his work, and particularly his Popular Politics and the

English Reformation (2003), Shagan negotiates the division between bottom-up and

top-down theories by arguing that significant political/cultural changes like the

Reformation were not completely controlled by the ruling class, nor were they sparked

by sudden genuine interest within English subjects in general. Rather, the government

and English subjects each had a hand in adopting and shaping such cultural changes,

responding to one another and, together, developing new trends. Shagan focuses on

how these cooperating or conflicting impulses shaped group identities in sixteenth-

century England (particularly religious identities) and how, ultimately, they contributed

to the shaping of English national identity. The balance Shagan offers between the

bottom-up and top-down models is appropriate to the tension about the origins of
 27

national identity that fits my project, and his description of that tension is foundational

to my own work.

My own approach to examining English national identity looks through the

lenses of language use and education, each of which responded to popular pressures as

well as official decrees during the sixteenth century. The scholarship on national

identity that most closely aligns with my own project is that of literary critic and

historian Richard Helgerson, whose book Forms of Nationhood (1992) focuses on the

complicated and intricate connections between various types of writing and national

identity. Helgerson argues that language plays an important part in the formation of

English identity, repeatedly citing the early modern hope that Englishmen will someday

have the kingdom of their own language as did the Romans and the Greeks.3

Helgerson looks at a wide variety of texts and discourses to paint his picture of this

developing identity: he examines laws, chorographies and maps, histories, and creative

literature to deeply describe what he considers the concerted generational project of

developing English national identity.

My own work expands on Helgersons in a number of ways. Unlike Helgerson, I

will focus on eras other than the Elizabethan. Though the flowering of creative

literature in the Elizabethan period makes it a tempting focus for scholars wanting to

relate that literature to the development of national identity, earlier historical periods

also had centrally important influences on the creation and shaping of the English

language itself. If, as Helgerson asserts, that language has deep and complicated

3
The phrase kingdom of ones own language comes from a letter written by Edmund Spenser.
It is used by Helgerson to indicate the increasing desire that English authors recognized for
control over their own language and its relationship to their national structure (Forms 1-3).
 28

attachments to the national identities it represents and shapes, scholarship ought to

address the early years of that languages increasingly common use for scholarly

purposes. Additionally, given Helgersons argument for the importance of the kingdom

of ones own language, it makes sense to examine educational and rhetorical tracts and

theories, not only creative literature and other discourses, for examples and texts

through which to analyze the language. Helgerson does give these materials cursory

place in his narrative of English identity, but the descriptions and analyses are short,

shallow, and rare. An understanding of the rhetorical instructions offered in the era

(which I present in my project) could thus augment and enrich Helgersons description

of how those techniques were later employed in imaginative literature. Finally, I offer

an alternative to Helgersons presentation of nation-building as a concerted

generational project among the young Elizabethans. This designation is limiting both

because it bounds nation-building temporally (to a single generation) and because it

assumes that any nation-building impulses were intentional. Some of the texts

Helgerson examines (such as Camdens Britannica [1586]) do make open gestures

towards defining and delimiting an English national identity. Others, however, are

significantly more vague. My project does not rely on establishing intention in the

growth of English national identity, but rather on identifying facets of that identity as it

emerges through instruction in and development of the English language.

Ultimately, the problem with this existing scholarship is not in its scope or

comprehensiveness, but in its inattention to rhetorical treatises as a crucial part of the

creation and development of the English language and thus, of English national identity.

Most of these treatises suffer from a negative reputation, considered less interesting
 29

than the vibrant literature soon to emerge at the end of the sixteenth century. But the

close study of early English rhetorical treatises has much to offer to all of the

conversations described above, enhancing not only our understanding of the origins of

the standardized English language but also throwing light on how that languages

development intersected with important political, social, religious, and cultural events

of the sixteenth century.

The Nature of Education in Renaissance England

In sixteenth-century England, just as today, education was not confined to the

schoolroom and university but rather occurred in a wide range of contexts. Religious

education often took place through churches themselves, overseen by clergy or

cloistered nuns and monks; education in the skills needed for a specific trade nearly

always came through a system of apprenticeships and training. A significant amount of

learning (both official and informal) occurred in homes, though the nature of this

education varied immensely: in upper-class homes, tutors might be brought in to offer

private lessons on a broad range of subjects to the children of the wealthy, while in

lower-class homes young boys and girls would be instructed in only the basic literacy

and arithmetical skills they would need for their future professions. However,

education in rhetoric (which extended beyond basic literacy education into more

sophisticated rhetorical strategies) was most likely to occur in schools, and some type

of rhetoric was taught at nearly every grade level. In fact, most of the rhetorical

treatises I examine in this dissertation were written as school texts, or potentially as

 30

outside reading or study aids for students in various types of school. Thus, an

understanding of the school systems that emerged in Renaissance England forms an

important part of the context for understanding how rhetorical treatises interacted

with the educational culture as a whole.

Overall, there was much variation in school styles and systems throughout

sixteenth-century England, but a few important matters remained constant. First,

education was a male-dominated field throughout the century. Leading up to the

sixteenth century, women had experienced only such literacy education as was

necessary for their household or religious endeavors, and that remained generally true

after 1500, as well (Balmuth 17). The tide did begin to shift during this time period,

though. As Miriam Balmuth summarizes, the influences of humanism and Protestantism

(both of which emphasized near-universal education) and the intellectual female

leadership provided by Elizabeth I combined by the end of the century to produce a

climate that was much friendlier to female learning. Some schoolmasters encouraged

women to enroll in their courses, and it became common practice for daughters from

wealthy families to study to quite advanced levels with personal tutors (18-20). But

despite the trend toward including women in education at the end of the sixteenth

century, particularly at lower social levels it remained a male-dominated field. Thus,

early English rhetorical texts assumed, and largely reached, a heavily male readership.

A second characteristic of sixteenth-century schools is that they were divided (as

today) into lower and higher levels: the grammar school and the university. Students

frequently started grammar school around the age of six (though this could vary quite

broadly) and spent approximately eight years progressing through school before being
 31

eligible to move on to university (Baldwin 285, 119). The grammar school curriculum,

though it shifted throughout the century, was notable for a continual, and heavy,

emphasis on the trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. More advanced schooling

might also introduce the fields of study covered by the quadriviumarithmetic,

geometry, music, and astronomybut these were secondary to the foundational skills

of the trivium (Clark). The grammar schools emphasis on the trivium is particularly

noteworthy for my purposes in that rhetoric was seen as the dominant factor in the

trivium: the early study of grammar (frequently emphasized during the first four years)

and the more advanced study of logic (during the latter years) were both primarily

valued for their contributions to students rhetorical education (Baldwin). Thus, from

the earliest Latin lessons they received in the first form to the more sophisticated

instruction in history and oratory that advanced grammar school students undertook,

students were continually reminded of the importance of language. The emphasis on

rhetoric continued in the highest levels of schooling, for at the university level students

were taught rhetorical skills particular to the careers they hoped to pursue. This

specialization is apparent in many of the rhetorical treatises from the period, which

often recommend themselves to students studying specific subjects (for example, Days

Englishe Secretorie claims to be essential education for secretaries and Wilsons Arte of

Rhetorique claims to support legal education). At all levels, rhetoric was crucial to

education.

A third characteristic that English schools of the period held in common is that

they were heavily influenced by early humanism, specifically by the educational ideals

of Erasmus and his immediate followers. (This influence explains, to some extent, the
 32

remarkable emphasis on rhetoric at all phases of educationthat emphasis was a

central component of most of Erasmuss pedagogy.) According to T. W. Baldwins

analysis, Erasmus was almost single-handedly responsible for establishing grammar

school curricula in England through his influence over the early formation of St. Pauls,

a grammar school founded in 1509 by John Colet (Dean of St. Pauls Cathedral). As a

friend of Colets, Erasmus had the privilege of shaping the schools early curriculum and

even writing its textbooks, and the schools reputation led to great influence over other

grammar schools of the time and throughout the sixteenth century.4 Thus, Erasmuss

humanism, his emphasis on teaching rhetorical skills, and his reformed religious

leanings were transmitted through St. Pauls and other grammar schools to generations

of English schoolchildren.

These generalizations about sixteenth-century English education provide a

starting point for any examination of rhetorical treatises from the period, offering at

least a general idea of the contexts in which such texts might often have been used. But

scholarship about education (and particularly educational texts) in the period suffers

from a significant drawback. Educational texts from sixteenth-century England have, on

the whole, earned little scholarly attention from either rhetoricians or literary

historians. In part, this is due to the negative comparison often made between such

texts and the vibrant imaginative literature that emerged late in the sixteenth century.

4
Modern understandings of grammar schools from the period are often based on St. Pauls,
given its enormous influence over the development of primary education in England. It is
important to note, however, that once curricula began to be standardized by the English
government (around 1529, through the interest of Cardinal Wolsey [Baldwin 164]) each
monarch placed his or her own priorities upon educational goals and methods. Baldwin
elaborates on what we know of these adjustments in significant detail, but the essentials of
what was taught in the grammar schoolas epitomized by early St. Paulsremained constant
well into the seventeenth century.
 33

C. S. Lewis epitomized this opinion when he dismissively wrote (in the influential

English Literature in the Sixteenth Century) of the Drab Age of English literaturean

obviously negative descriptor that Lewis used to justify his boredom with non-fictional

and educational texts, largely from the mid-sixteenth century. While other scholars may

not be as blatantly dismissive as Lewis, most have followed his lead in concentrating on

creative and late-sixteenth century texts rather than educational works that appeared

throughout the century, despite the significant influence that these educational texts

held.

Even when scholars did begin to read and analyze sixteenth-century educational

texts, often such analysis was secondary to the study of creative literature from the

Elizabethan period or the early seventeenth century. Early discussions of Renaissance

education (and the texts that supported it) were often used to illustrate or offer

background for arguments that ultimately focused on frequently studied literary

authors such as Shakespeare, Jonson, and Milton. A classic example of this trend (that

has also become a scholarly classic in its own right) is T. W. Baldwins William

Shakesperes Small Latine & Lesse Greeke (1944). The texts title is based on the famous

accusation of Ben Jonson that Shakespeare had small latine and lesse greekethat is,

that the famous playwright was not well educatedand the book explores the veracity

of Jonsons claim. The main section of the book focuses on analyzing the development of

grammar school curriculum in England, indeed providing much of the information that

leads to my general description of education in the paragraphs above. With great detail,

Baldwin makes distinctions between the different educational experiences a student

might have received at different types of schools and during different periods. Through
 34

all of this deep description of early schooling, however, Baldwin remains focused on his

central question of Shakespeares likely educational experiences. Thus, while he makes

mention of many of the most important educational texts of the period, he rarely

elaborates on their content beyond the specific context of how they were used in

grammar schools and thus, how Shakespeare was likely to have encountered them.

Baldwins book is infinitely valuable to a general understanding of education in the

period, but it does not offer deep insight into the texts that surrounded and supported

educational experiences.

Three years after Baldwins book was released, Sister Miriam Joseph offered

more specific insight into the place of rhetorical education in sixteenth-century schools

and the place of English rhetorical treatises in that education. In Shakespeares Use of

the Arts of Language (1947), Joseph outlines the rhetorical education that a student in

sixteenth-century England might have experienced, describing the trivium and focusing

on the extensive training in style that was part of composition instruction. She

elaborates on roughly two hundred rhetorical figures which students would have been

expected to learn. This deep description of an average Renaissance grammar-school

education is not the central focus of Josephs book, however. Rather, Joseph uses her

description of such education in service to a larger argument about Shakespeare:

namely, that his linguistic skills sprung from diligent application of the language

education that he was likely to have received. Joseph shows how Shakespeares

dramatic writing employed each of the rhetorical figures and styles that would have

been presented in a sixteenth-century education. Thus, while Josephs description of

Renaissance education demonstrates on a basic level why rhetorical treatises are

 35

valuable to modern scholars, it stops short of offering a deeper analysis of the texts

themselves. Similarly, Donald Lemen Clark makes comparable use of rhetorical

treatises in John Milton at St. Pauls School (1948), in which he provides an in-depth

description of the education Milton was likely to have received. While Miltons

education would have occurred slightly later than the time span I focus on (Milton was

educated in the early seventeenth century), Clarks book provides an analysis of the

history of grammar school teaching in England, going back as far as the founding of St.

Pauls school in the early sixteenth century. Thus, Clark offers a description of

educational trends that emerged throughout the sixteenth century, including the

development of English-language education and, specifically, English-language

rhetorical treatises. As with Josephs work, however, the fact that Clarks focuses on a

great author means that his analysis of rhetorical texts is somewhat cursory. For such

early scholars, the educational treatises were not worthy of study in and of themselves;

rather, they served as a context for better understanding the rhetorical strategies of

canonical literary figures.

More recent work on Renaissance rhetoric and literature still often uses

rhetorical treatises as starting points to explain or better understand other Renaissance

texts, though it does not focus exclusively on great authors as did Baldwin, Joseph, and

Clark. Peter Macks Elizabethan Rhetoric (2002) epitomizes this type of research: his

book consists of a strong, in-depth analysis of school and university rhetorical

education followed by descriptions of how learned rhetorical strategies were applied in

everyday writing, literary genres, political oratory, and religious discourse. Thus, the

book connects educational texts (and specifically, rhetorical treatises) to the range of
 36

discourses that they may have influenced. But like the earlier books, Macks stops short

of seeing the rhetorical texts as worthy objects of study in and of themselvestheir

primary interest is to lead to better interpretation of other texts.

Overall, my project builds on this line of scholarship in a number of waysmost

notably by relying on its sophisticated descriptions of what sixteenth-century English

students may have experienced in their education. But my project focuses on the

educational texts themselves, reading them in depth not for the illumination of creative

literature or other sixteenth-century texts but for the illumination of the educational

texts own relationships with their contemporary situation. Though they form part of

the Drab Age legacy, the influence and interest of sixteenth-century rhetorical

treatises extends beyond their relationship to other (presumably less drab) authors.

Ultimately, they reflect the political and cultural realities of their time, showing how

language and education were crucially important to nascent English national identity.

Cultural Effects of Renaissance Rhetorical Education

While it may seem natural to approach the study of sixteenth-century rhetorical

treatises by examining the educational contexts in which they were mainly used, it is

also possible to look at the broader cultural settings in which these texts had some

influence. For while the texts obviously taught readers rhetorical skills, they

simultaneously offered other sorts of instruction, as well. An analogy to modern

textbooks may help illuminate how various sorts of instruction coexisted in

Renaissance rhetorical texts. Consider, for example, that most modern composition
 37

textbooks give advice about composing situationally specific documents such as

resumes and cover letters. Embedded in such advice are not only rhetorical rules or

strategies but also more general guidelines about appropriate etiquette to follow in

professional situationsadvice on how to conduct oneself in a job interview, how to

physically present and deliver the documents, and how to best address the recipients.

These situational concerns are not separate from the rhetorical concerns; rather, they

support and enhance the overall chances of a documents success. Similarly, sixteenth-

century rhetorical treatises often gave readers contextual, cultural information that

could improve or further nuance the rhetorical skills taught alongside. Many rhetoric

texts dabbled in providing instructions in etiquette or negotiating complex social

situations, or even attuning a piece of writing to specific religious goals. These

instructions for rhetorics cultural contexts are an important angle from which to

consider the meaning and potential influence of the treatises.

Throughout the sixteenth century, the ability to cordially negotiate social

situations was highly prized, and (given the complexity of social status systems) it could

require a broad range of skills. A vast array of writing loosely called courtesy

literature emerged to address this need, teaching readers (and, indirectly, teaching the

illiterate) to observe and respect manners, whether those manners were born of long

social custom or relatively new trends. The texts were often translations of Continental

or Latin courtesy literature, and they ranged from basic manners-primers for very

young children to more specific instructions for adults of particular social status.5

5
For example, the 1532 A Lytell Booke of Good Maners for Chyldren offered a translation of
Erasmuss manners text, clearly aimed at the young. And Thomas Hobys English translation of
Castigliones Il Libro del Cortegiano was meant to be used by courtiers or others in positions of
 38

Generally, these books served the important function of communicating cultural rules

and norms that formed the foundation of most social exchanges.6

Importantly, courtesy literature often overlapped with other types of

educational literature, particularly rhetorical instruction (Bryson 4-5). Together, these

genres formed hybrid texts in which proper speaking and writing were considered

forms of appropriate social behavior, and in which appropriate social behavior was

seen to increase ones authority as a rhetor. Given the frequent overlap between early

English rhetorical treatises and courtesy literature, it is not surprising that significant

scholarly attention has been paid to how rhetorical instructions led readers to negotiate

social situations in very specific ways. (In fact, along with the studies of education and

creative literature mentioned above, texts in this model have been crucially important

in recovering under-studied rhetorical treatises and earning them a place in the history

of rhetoric.) Jennifer Richardss Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature

(2003) epitomizes this line of scholarship. Richards explains that the same Cambridge

humanists that encouraged the spread of English rhetorical treatises simultaneously

disseminated courtesy literatureboth supported the humanists goals of broadly

reforming English culture. More importantly, Richards observes that rhetorical prowess

came to be seen as a crucially important ingredient in social advancement. Thus,

rhetorical instruction was necessary not only for scholastic or business reasons, but for

political influence. Ultimately, the books that described manners catered to a broad range of
audiences with great variety of tone, length, detail, and subject matter (Bryson 4).
6
By codifying cultural practice, these texts clearly had an influence on emerging national
identity, just as rhetorical treatises did. For more information on courtesy literature and how it
shaped what is considered Englishness or English identity see Anna Brysons From Courtesy
to Civility: Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England (1998).
 39

social reasons as well. To successfully negotiate the upper levels of society, or even to

raise oneself to a higher social standing, nuanced control of language was essential.

Speech was understood as the essential bond of human societies (168); thus,

appropriate speech was foundational to a stable culture, and rhetorical instruction was

crucially important outside of the schoolroom.

Similar interpretations of the cultural importance of rhetorical education are

offered by both Frank Whigham and Wayne Rebhorn. Unlike Richards, however, these

scholars do not concentrate on how rhetoric could be used to connect and negotiate

within social contexts, but on how rhetoric could be used to politically dominate and

enforce existing social order. In Ambition and Privilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan

Courtesy Theory (1984), Whigham explains that rhetoric was used to justify and solidify

social orderingthrough persuasive language, the more powerful elements of society

could persuade the rest to obedience. Rhetorical instruction thus ordered the surge of

social mobility that occurred at the boundaries between ruling and subject classes in

sixteenth-century England (xi). Rebhorns The Emperor of Mens' Minds: Literature and

the Renaissance Discourse of Rhetoric (1995) similarly explains how rhetorical

education was not altruistic or even motivated by humanist educational goals, but

rather how through teaching social guidelines rhetorical education would solidify social

hierarchies. Such books address rhetorical treatises that explicitly deal with instruction

in social climbing (such as Angel Days The English Secretorie [1586] and Thomas

Hobys translation of The Courtier [1561]) as well as more general treatises like those

by Wilson and Sherry, though they tend to focus on the sections of the latter that can be

read as providing lessons in courtliness. These books offer important attention to the
 40

connection of rhetoric and identity in their descriptions of how rhetorical practices

(and rhetorical instruction) could affect social standing.

Studies of the relationships between rhetorical education and social ordering are

clearly pertinent to my project, for the establishment and negotiation of social order is

crucial to a sense of national identity. It is this connection to national identity that I

bring to the conversation, for while the authors Ive mentioned clearly describe the

ways in which rhetorical education could influence social change and development,

they rarely connect that to the development of national identity, a crucial effect of such

social change. This particular connection between rhetorical education and national

identity is complex, but ultimately quite strong. To many writers in the early sixteenth

century, the degree of social flexibility in English society was an open question. It was

possible that the humanism and rebellions that developed early in the century would

lead to increased egalitarianism, but it was also conceivable that ingrained notions of

the necessity of social hierarchy would be strengthened as those in power resisted

egalitarian impulses. Either way, the outcome would be integrally related to English

national identitywhether it became a nation of equality or of strict hierarchy.

Moreover, while rhetorical treatises and courtesy literature were by no means the only

factors influencing the development of social order in England, they played a central

part, teaching readers the appropriate ways for an English subject to communicate and

behave. Rhetorical education was an important part of shaping the fundamental social

structures of English society, and it is the connection between such education and the

formation of national identity that I offer to this line of scholarship.

 41

Other scholars have read rhetorical treatises with an eye to a slightly broader

scope of cultural influence. The primary example of this type of research, and a project

that is quite similar to mine in terms of subject matter, is Cathy Shranks Writing the

Nation in Reformation England (2004). Shrank argues that language is a centrally

important facet of the formation of political identitythat the development of English

as a valid language for education and creative literature played an important part in the

development of a national identity. Thus, Shrank offers readings of English educational

and rhetorical tracts that connect rhetorical education and practice to political events

and positions. For example, Shrank develops an argument that Wilsons Rhetorique is

devoted to enforcing strict social hierarchies, as evidenced in the texts myth of

eloquence and repeated negative mentions of political rebels.

While I agree with Shranks argument for the usefulness of attunement to

political realities, she overlooks the central importance of historically important

concerns such as religion to both political and rhetorical thought in the Renaissance.

Despite her use of the Reformation as a framework for the dates of her analysis, her

book focuses on politics to the exclusion of religion although the two areas were

complexly intertwined during the period she studies. In the case of Wilson,

understanding religions importance for the text would clarify how Wilsons concern to

preserve hierarchies coexists with his call to broader education and literacyan

apparent political contradiction (in that Wilson seems to propone both increased and

decreased social egalitarianism) that is explained by his Protestant concerns. Shranks

book offers a focused analysis of the connections between rhetoric and political

identity, but like those that focus only on social standing it does not broaden those
 42

connections to acknowledge the wide range of influences that contributed to a sense of

national identity.

Religious Change, National Identity, and Rhetoric

Englands religious identity changed drastically and repeatedly in the first half of

the sixteenth century, and these changes contributed to the general uncertainty

surrounding what it meant to be English in the period. Even a brief overview of the

religious developments in the period will demonstrate the religious confusion, as well

as the complex interrelationships between religion, politics, and nationalism. In 1521,

the Pope named Henry VIII Defender of the Faith for his Assertion of the Seven

Sacraments, a theological tract that directly opposed the religious changes suggested by

reformers like Martin Luther (Schofield 13). Less than a decade later, however, Henry

openly challenged the Popes authority by asking for an annulment of his marriage to

Catherine of Aragon. Clement VII flatly refused Henrys request. Thomas Cranmer,

Edward Foxe, Thomas Cromwell and other powerful reforming voices at court

encouraged Henry to divorce Catherine despite the Popes objections, hoping that such

an act would spark religious change (Guy 125-26). Ultimately, Henry was convinced by

their arguments (and, presumably, by his desire to marry Anne Boleyn); from 1532-36

a series of acts and statues effectively redirected ecclesiastical authority from the Pope

to the English king, giving Henry justification for his divorce and remarriage and

increased power over the church in England. Reformers generally saw this split from

Rome as a positive step, but before the decade was over Henry began to perceive
 43

radical Protestantism as a threat to his authority just as the Pope had been. The Act of

Six Articles (1539) effectively banned Protestantism from English pulpits and justified

the execution of radical reformists (Guy 136-37). Englands religious fate was further

complicated by Henrys declaration of his line of succession: first Edward (a Protestant),

then Mary (a Catholic), and finally Elizabeth (also a Protestant), each of whom

eventually ascended the throne and adjusted the countrys religious policies to match

his or her own convictions. English religion was thoroughly uncertain for much of the

sixteenth century, split from Rome but resisting reformation.

In the context of this religious unrest, the relationship between religion and

national identity becomes clear: England was contested ground in the conflict over the

Reformation. Many Protestants wanted to secure and finalize the process of reform

begun by Henry VIIIs split with Rome, establishing the English church as separate from

not only the Pope but also Roman Catholicism. Catholics were invested in a return to

the Catholic Empireor, at the very least, in a return to Catholic belief and worship

practices.7 And Henrys assertion that he held both ecclesiastical and political power

ensured that the Reformation would not merely be a matter of individual belief or

church alignment but a matter of national policy. Particularly due to the religiously

mixed series of monarchs that followed Henry, whether England would become

established as a Protestant country was an active question throughout the first half of

7
As Ethan Shagan and other historians have suggested, the Catholic/Protestant binary I suggest
here is a simplified version of the complex interests surrounding Englands religious alignment:
some Catholics, for example, supported Henry VIIIs bid for supremacy over the church (despite
his rejection of the Pope) while some Protestants, who supported separation from Rome,
nonetheless opposed Henrys declaration of headship of the English church. Despite these
complexities and in-group disagreements, the ultimate issue of whether England would be a
nominally Catholic or Protestant nation was remarkably important.
 44

the sixteenth century.8 Thus, the nations religious orientation was an important and

controversial part of its national identity.

Historians have long debated the relationship between individual religious belief

and Englands national religious identity. Was the Reformation based on a large-scale

change of faith in which thousands of English subjects converted because of personal

convictions and pressured their national religion to realign accordingly (as traditional

historians like A. G. Dickens would have it)? According to this theory, the English people

and their changing religious convictions were the root of the Reformation, pushing the

official church to adapt to support new beliefs that were already widespread. Or was

the Reformation a more political change in which powerful figures forced English

subjects to reshape their religious practices (as revisionist historians like Christopher

Haigh argue)? This theory portrays the religious changes as top-down, coming from

church authorities who pushed English people to change their religious beliefs and

practices. The difference between seeing the Reformation as personal or political is

important for a discussion of national identity: for the revisionists England can be a

Protestant nation, but not a nation of Protestants (qtd. in Shagan 2) whereas the

traditional historians would not separate the nations religious identity from that of the

majority of its subjects.

8
Henrys order of succession included each of his three surviving children (Edward, Mary, and
Elizabeth) and their heirs. Had Edward produced a son before his death, Mary would not have
become queen and briefly reestablished Catholicism. Had Mary had a son, Elizabeth would not
have become queen and promptly turned the nation to a more moderate Protestantism. Given
the uncertainties of each monarchs lifespan and potential offspring, there was enormous
tension surrounding the religious question in England during this period.

 45

It is important to recognize that, as opposed as these historical camps may at

first seem, they are not mutually exclusive. An understanding of a nations religious

identity should make room for both the religious convictions of the people and the

religious manipulations of those in power, particularly in a period like sixteenth-

century England where religion was so thoroughly involved in culture, more generally.

Ethan Shagan clearly describes the widespread importance of religion:

Europe's sixteenth century was an age of faith. Religion could be found

everywhere, not only in churches and liturgies but in financial

transactions, legal proceedings and scientific treatises if religion

permeated every aspect of sixteenth-century experience, that implies that

religion itself was not a rigid or self-contained sphere but rather was

structured through its interactions with the culture in which it was

embedded. (1)

Englands religious identity was not an issue in itself; it was inseparably connected with

a broad range of political, educational, and international concerns. Thus, the active

question of Englands religious identity in the early sixteenth century was played out in

a variety of arenas. Some were explicitly religious, such as the debate over which

versions of the Book of Common Prayer should be allowed and used in churches. But

the tension over religious alignment was not confined to explicitly religious discourses;

it spilled over into other discourses as well.

Rhetoric was one scholarly area with direct connections to Englands religious

identity. Unsurprisingly, scholars who wrote rhetorical treatises and handbooks

frequently alluded to religion; they employed Biblical stories and themes as examples
 46

and parsed scriptural sentences to illustrate stylistic concepts. But the intersections of

religion and rhetorical instruction went much deeper than those superficial

connections. Language is centrally important to Christian denominations, and many of

the conflicts (in both theology and religious practice) between Catholicism and

Protestantism originated in disputes over interpretation and use of language. Thus a

rhetorical text, while ostensibly offering religiously neutral instruction in the art of

rhetoric, could nonetheless be imbued with a deeply religious understanding of

rhetorical practice. (For example, the rhetorical style of plainness which advocates

use of simple words and easily understandable rhetorical forms is often associated with

Protestantism, which valued plainnesss ability to communicate with the less-

educated.9) Understanding the complex relationships between rhetoric, religion, and

English politics will inform the claims I make about the rhetorical treatises I analyze

throughout this project.

The History of the English Language

The vocabulary, grammar, and style of the English language evolved dramatically

through the course of the sixteenth century, adapting to changing contexts of use and

developing more universal standards of style. In fact, linguists often date the emergence

of modern English to the start of the sixteenth century, due to factors like educational

changes, the development of the printing press, and the changing social role of literacy,

all of which combined to make sixteenth-century English a significantly different

9 See Ryan Starks Rhetoric, Science, and Magic in Seventeenth-Century England.
 47

language than the middle English spoken for centuries before (Baugh and Cable 199).

Along with all of these changes came an increasing association of language with nation:

as the international language of Latin faded in comparison to vernacular, national

languages, the association between language and nation was strengthened and

languages became a matter of national pride.10 These drastic shifts in the contexts and

content of English, combined with the languages increased association with

Englishness, make the history of linguistic change in the sixteenth century a crucial

foundation upon which my research rests.

One of the most notable, and frequently remarked upon, developments in

sixteenth-century English was its increasing use in contexts that had previously been

reserved for Latin. The Reformation propelled this change: as the reformed religion

placed increased emphasis on the importance of an individuals relationship with God,

it became important for that relationship to be conducted in the language an individual

knew. Thus, English-language translations of the Bible, church services, catechisms, and

devotional literature grew to supplement their Latin counterparts.11 Additionally, the

Reformers (more than their Catholic counterparts) made a point of spreading their

religion through active proselytizingagain, a goal that could be accomplished more

easily in the native language of English subjects (34).

10
See the work of Charles Barber.
11
For more on the development of the English-language Bible, see Margaret Deaneslys work
(particularly The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Biblical Versions); for information about the
emergence of English preaching and services see G. R. Owst; and for descriptions of the
development of English catechisms and devotional literature see Ian Greens The Christians
ABC, 45-92, and Deaneslys Vernacular Books in England in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Centuries.
 48

Simultaneously with this increase in religious English, the language began to

augment or replace Latin as a language of instruction in various levels of schooling.

Historians of education are quick to observe that Latin remained a significant force in

education into the seventeenth century and beyond (for examples of this argument, see

Clark and Baldwin)but statistics about the increased number of educational treatises

and curricula in English demonstrate that the language had a growing influence, not as

a complete replacement for Latin education but as an increasingly noteworthy

supplement to it (Mack 76-77). Additionally, many such treatises published in English

offered persuasive arguments for their own existence, essentially explaining why Latin

was no longer adequate for all educational needs and how English could provide

instruction with equal sophistication, adding approachability and practicality to

curricula. Education in English became even more appropriate as English spread to

other realms (for example, the law, which had traditionally relied on Latin and French)

and it became important for professionals to gain fluency and eloquence in the

language. As Richard Waswo indicates, by 1600 many influential books were written in

English and only later translated into Latina neat reversal of the norm that existed

early in the sixteenth century (409).

As English went through this expansion in the contexts of its use, it also began to

be standardized on a number of levels. Compared to modern languages, Middle English

had remarkably few standardsauthors created their own spellings, grammatical

constructs, and punctuation habits to suit individual contexts. While traces of this

variability remain throughout the sixteenth century (witness the numerous spellings of

rhetoric in the titles of treatises I discuss), authors began in both intentional and
 49

unintentional ways to develop common standards for the language. Again, the printing

press had great influence here, serving as a significant causal factor in standardization.

With the press, thousands of identical copies of a book could be made and distributed, a

factor that increased individual subjects exposure to print and, through the creation of

near-perfect duplicates, made the language of a given text reproducible down to minute

details (Baugh and Cable 200). While not all English subjects had the money or literacy

skills to directly access such texts, sixteenth-century England was generally a literate

environment, permeated by the written word (Fox 50). As Adam Fox explains, even

for those who could not read for themselves, the popular activity (in and out of the

home) of reading aloud allowed people to access texts and the language that they

conveyed, so nearly all English subjects were exposed to written material and

influenced by the standards with which it increasingly constrained the language. As

standards emerged, individual authors pressed for specific vocabularies, styles, and

grammatical patterns to become part of the language. These debates over how English

should be standardized are reflected in English rhetorical treatises, many of which

advocate for their authors own preferences and habits, and by the end of the century

the language had developed universal standards for much spelling, punctuation, and

even stylistic choices (Robinson).12

Generally, many scholars have followed R. F. Jones in describing this series of

developments as The Triumph of the English Language (1953), through which a

language that was considered uneloquent and inadequate became eloquent and

12
For more on the arguments about English standardization during the period, see Chapter 3 on
English style.
 50

useful (3, 68, 168, 293). Joness characterization is accurate as long as the triumph of

English is not associated with a concurrent conquering of Latin. As Clark and Baldwin

remind us, Latin remained an influential language in England for centuries following the

blossoming of English. But during the sixteenth century, English triumphed in a way

that was separate from its occasional competition with Latin.

For while English was being used in more contexts and becoming a more

standardized language, it also became a source of pride in the English nation. Whereas

Latin had been a shared language, used by nations throughout Europe, English was

localized to England and thus inseparably associated with the nation (Barber, English

Language 176). Efforts to improve the language (such as debates about proper

standardization) were thus not only for the sake of linguistic clarity, but also matters of

national pride.

The increased association between language and identity was felt throughout

Europe as Latin was replaced and augmented by vernaculars (Waswo 416). Peter

Burkes books (particularly Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe [2004]

and The Fortunes of the Courtier [1996]) plainly demonstrate how language use and

group identity intersected during the Renaissancelinguistic differentiation became a

central marker of group belonging. Histories of English (such as those by Jones, Baugh

and Cable, and Barber) emphasize the connections between improving the language

and improving the nationit was seen as important for the language to be an adequate

representative of England. Charles Barber describes how changes in the English

language dovetailed with issues of nationalism. His Early Modern English (1976) and

The English Language: A Historical Introduction (1993) both serve to describe language
 51

change within a broad cultural context, pointing out how language change within

England intersected with political and cultural events and sentiments. By the end of the

sixteenth century, the language and the nation were inextricably linked.

My analysis of rhetorical treatises will contribute to what is known of the

connection between the English language and the English nation, for the ways in which

the language was taught correspond to the ways in which subjects were taught their

own national identities. Through the triangulation of language use, rhetorical education,

and national identity the history of English will be enriched with a deeper

understanding of how the language contributed to the heightened sense of nationalism

that characterized sixteenth-century England.

Ultimately, my project will draw on all of these areasthe study of national

identity, education, culture, religion, and languagein order to paint a fuller picture of

how early English rhetorical treatises functioned in the cultural context of early modern

England.

Nation, Nationalism, and National Identity

Scholars frequently disagree about the best ways to define and describe

nations, but it is important to explain how I am using the word (and its derivatives) in

the context of this project. Ultimately, I consider the word and the idea it represents

important insofar as they reflect the notion of a group identity arranged around a
 52

shared location and governmental system. Examining the historical developments in

the meaning of the word nation will clearly introduce the spectrum of meanings the

word has taken on, as well as how Ive arrived at my definition. As Leah Greenfeld

explains, the Latin root word natio initially carried a derogatory meaningit was used

to refer to groups of outsiders or foreigners, those who came from a shared location but

were not native to the Roman region. As such, nationality would not be a characteristic

one would assign to oneselfit was purely used for others or outsiders. The word

took on a different (and more positive) meaning as it was applied to medieval

universities, where groups of students would be categorized into nations by virtue of

their birthplace or primary language. At this point, the word developed some of the

meanings we associate with it todayindividuals would self-identify with a nation,

which (within the diverse university environment) functioned as a source of support

and comradeship. Greenfeld traces many more adjustments in the meaning of nation,

but ultimately argues that the word continually undergoes a zigzag pattern of semantic

change, shifting between positive and derogatory meanings based on new contexts of

use and (for more modern definitions) the political orientation of the speaker

(Nationalism 6).

According to Greenfeld, the most significant change in the meaning of the word

nation, when the idea of nation and its potency increased a thousandfold, occurred in

sixteenth-century England. At that time and place, Greenfeld argues, the word initially

shifted from referring to the elite who may have had governmental power to the larger

population of the countrythat is, the people as a whole (6). The English nation, then,

did not only refer to the physical kingdom of England, or to England as a political
 53

entityrather, it referred collectively to all of those who were born and lived in

England, regardless of social status. The concept of nation, then, is (and was)

important insofar as it provides an indication of group identity. While in earlier times

people may have been grouped by religion, educational level, or (most likely)

profession, by the sixteenth century the concept of nation was an important part of

ones identity.

Nationalism is a more complicated topic, particularly in the historical period

that is my focus. Many studies of nationalism or national identity focus on the

nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and for good reason. As Elie Kedourie famously

asserts (and many scholars agree), Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the

beginning of the nineteenth century (1). For Kedourie and his followers, the concept of

the nation and related ideas are specifically modern, and could only have appeared

after the French Revolution and Enlightenment philosophy set the stage for national

divisions to become naturalized and for citizens to feel entitled to national self-

government (1-3). Thus, much contemporary scholarship on nationalism asserts that

The discourse of nationalism is distinctively modern (Calhoun 212), and that it did not

exist (and could not have existed) prior to the French Revolution (Haas 709, Alan Smith

578). This timeline fits scholarship that associates the concepts of nation and

nationalism with a particular political consciousness, often associated with current

political philosophies and ideals. Scholarship on what I refer to as modern nationalism

tends to focus on nationalism as type of economic policy (Seers), an ideology (Alan

Smith), or an industrial principle of social organization (Gellner).

 54

In a more general sense, however, the sentiment of nationalism has existed as

long as citizens (or subjects) have had a sense of belonging to a nationof identifying

with a place and its culture. Earlier forms of nationalism did not necessarily imply belief

in a particular political system, or even conscious attempts to modify the nation itself.

Rather, they were simply a way of self-identifying with ones nation, of considering

ones own nationality to be an important component of identity. (To understand this

sense of belonging, consider how you might introduce yourself to a stranger, for

example by describing your occupation and homeplace. Describing your national origin

would indicate a sense of belonging to a particular nation.) Haas defines this type of

nationalism well, and succinctly, in a review article describing some of the most

important scholarship on nationalism: Nationalism is a belief held by a group of people

that they ought to constitute a nation, or that they already are one. It is a doctrine of

social solidarity based on the characteristics and symbols of nationhood (727).13

13
Haass corresponding definition of nation, though lengthy, is also fitting and clarifies why I
do not believe that nations can only exist within modern political contexts:
A nation is a socially mobilized body of individuals, believing themselves to be
united by some set of characteristics that differentiate them (in their own
minds) from outsiders, striving to create or maintain their own state. These
individuals have a collective consciousness because of their sentiment of
difference, or even uniqueness, which is fostered by the groups sharing or core
symbols. A nation ceases to exist when, among other things, these symbols are
recognized as not truly differentiating the group from outsiders. A nation is an
imagined community because these symbols are shared vicariously with
fellow-nationals over long distances, thus producing expectations of
complementary and predictable behavior from fellow-nationals. (726-27)
Again, this definition reminds us that the nation refers to the group of citizens, and that that
group must consider themselves as a unit (on some level) in order to be considered a nation. In
other words, while each individual may maintain allegiances to other groups (based on
profession, social standing, etc.) one aspect of their identity is tied to the group of the nation. An
understanding of that relationship between identity and nation, in turn, is Haass nationalism.
 55

People may become unified around the idea of their nation and symbols that represent

it; this is a form of nationalism.

Due to this focus on cultural solidarity and shared self-identification, nationalism

is distinct from related sentiments like patriotism. Though the concepts do overlap

(particularly in modern usage), patriotism is a more authoritarian sentiment, indicating

not only allegiance to the nation but also approval of its current policies and actions.

Additionally, nationalism is not as performative as patriotism, which demands active

support of policies rather than focusing on an individuals or groups sense of belonging.

Ultimately, what sets nationalism apart is its focus on culture, rather than civics,

concentrating on a broader sense of belonging that is not limited simply to support of

particular political decisions. Nationalism involves the feeling of cultural solidarity with

other members of your shared nation.

In order to avoid confusion between the more narrow, modern definitions of

nationalism which are common in contemporary scholarship and the broader definition

that I use here, I frequently employ the term national identity. National identity

emphasizes what I consider the most important facet of nationalism, that is, the sense

that an individual has of belonging to a nation, and that that belonging is an important

component of ones identity. A persons national identity, or the national identity of the

nation itself, consists of a spectrum of characteristics that are considered important or

even essential for membership in that particular national group. As such, national
 56

identity is central to the imagined community of a nationit is the characteristic (or set

of characteristics) that all members of the community are perceived to share.14

Importantly, and unlike some other scholars, I do not insist that national identity

be the primary identity with which an individual is concerned. In other words, any

individual may participate in a broad range of possible identity groups, associating

herself not only with people of identical national origin but also with those who share

her religion, social standing, or profession. National identity is not the sole or even

primary mode of identification experienced by peopleit is one among many, and

there may be significant clashes between them sometimes. (In fact, those clashes [for

example, between religious and national identity] form some of the most interesting

conflicts illuminated in this project.) This is an important distinction to make, as many

of the scholars who insist that nationalism and national identity are particular to

modern societies argue that in older societies (such as sixteenth-century England)

religious identification was important enough to eclipse national identification.

Anderson is perhaps the best-known proponent of this opinion, arguing that while the

seeds of nationalism and national identity were developed throughout the Middle Ages

and the Renaissance, during that period Christendom superseded any nascent

national identification, which is naturally secular. Andersons separation of national and

14
Benedict Andersons term imagined community is so commonplace in studies of nationalism
as to not require definition, but his description of the term provides a useful reminder. All
nations are imagined due to the fact that, in all but the smallest national groups it is impossible
for all members to be acquainted with all of their fellow-nationals. And nations are communities
because regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation
is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship (6-7). That is, the perception of ones
nation is importantly different from actual life in that nation, both because each member is
engaged in imagining the others and because the brotherly concept of nationhood belies
inequality.
 57

religious identification, however, ignores the immense potential for overlap between

the two identity categories: the conflicts over the Catholic Marys accession to the

throne, for example, led many Protestants into exile, but the exiles nonetheless asserted

that their religious beliefs were more true to Englands ideals. Their national identity

remained, even when it was in literal conflict with the religious standing of the nations

monarch.

National identity works as a particularly salient focus for this project because of

its relationship with language use and education. Particularly, the close relationship

between rhetoric and any national sentiment (nationalism, patriotism, or national

identity) has been well-establishedGellner even goes so far as to define nationalism

as essentially the transfer of the focus of mans identity to a culture which is mediated

by literacy and an extensive, formal educational system (757) (see also Calhoun). The

common cultural values on which national identity relies are communicated through

language, through rhetoric which simultaneously includes and excludes people, ideas,

and beliefs from a group. Rhetorics power as a tool of national sentiment should not be

underestimated, and thus the texts that taught rhetoric to early English audiences also

held the potential to influence readers perception of national identity.

An Illustration of My Analysis: Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique

Throughout this dissertation, I weave together the definitions and areas of

scholarship Ive just described, showing how national identity, language, and education
 58

formed a complex nexus in sixteenth-century England. On a basic level, those

connections can be illustrated by one extended example: an analysis of Thomas

Wilsons influential Arte of Rhetorique. This text is particularly well-suited to exemplify

the type of analysis I perform in this project. As the first complete English rhetoric

(that is, the first to address all five ancient canons of rhetoric), Wilsons text was

influential in the development of subsequent English rhetorical texts. Moreover,

Wilsons lengthy book encompasses all of the cultural concerns embodied in the

rhetorical texts it preceded: it discusses religion, vernacularization, courtliness, English

pride, educational techniques, and more.

Through analysis of Wilsons text, I also hope to illustrate three arguments that

underlie my overall claims in this project. First, that sixteenth-century rhetorical texts

could be, and were, regarded as politically and culturally important by their

contemporaries. The story of Wilsons imprisonment and torture (narrated at the

opening of this chapter) clearly shows that point. The influence of rhetorical texts was

seen to stretch far beyond the narrow educational boundaries of schoolrooms, and

understanding that fact is crucial to understanding the texts themselves. Second,

viewing a rhetoric text in its larger cultural context can reveal how what may appear to

be simple instructions on writing actually guide readers toward specific behaviors.

Ultimately, this guidance and shaping of readers encourages them to adopt and perform

a specific national identity, embodying Englishness through their language and

behavior. Again, attunement to how the texts communicate national identity improves

our ability to understand them accurately. And third, the complex interrelationship

between various facets of culture (particularly religion and politics) in the early modern
 59

period means that attempts to analyze one must necessarily take the others into

account. It is impossible to focus only, for example, on the political importance of

Wilsons text, for its influence in that realm is inextricably connected to its religious

import. A careful reading of the Rhetorique, illuminated by attention to its cultural

context, will demonstrate how important it is to read rhetorical treatises in the light of

their broader contexts.

Thomas Wilson and his Rhetorique

Thomas Wilson was born in Lincolnshire, the son of an unusually affluent

yeoman (Medine 1). He was educated at Eton and Cambridge (Kings College) where,

by 1549, he was awarded a Master of Arts degree (12). During the period Wilson spent

at Cambridge (as a bachelors and masters student and then as a tutor) he was likely

exposed to the religious and philosophical conflicts that formed an important part of

university life at the time. While the curriculum at the university remained thoroughly

traditional and quite Catholic in its leanings, many influential professors and tutors had

adopted the Reformed faith and were engaged in spreading and solidifying its presence

in England. Wilson emerged from the school a devoted humanist and Protestant,

associated with well-known adopters of those views such as John Cheke and Martin

Bucer (8-11). His early association with these Cambridge humanists played out

significantly in the development of his published work, which he began to produce in

the 1550s.15

15
Wilsons career following the Rhetorique is also worthy of mention. Upon returning from exile,
he served in the House of Commons, worked as a diplomat, and became a principal secretary
 60

Wilsons career as a writer began in earnest in 1551, with the publication of The

Rule of Reason, an English guide to logic. Like his later Rhetorique, the Reason was

notable largely for its use of the vernacularno previous scholar had undertaken the

task of translating logical theories into English. Wilsons theories of dialectic were

traditionally humanist: reliant on Aristotle, modifying medieval scholastic ideals, and

attentive to the important role that language plays in logical thought (31). As such, the

book was firmly part of a scholarly tradition, and its main distinction lay not in its

content but in the language of its expression. (It is because of the language choice rather

than the content of the book, Wilsons biographer Medine supposes, that the Reason

was so popular in the years following its release [54].)

The popularity of his English logic led Wilson to compose a second English text,

the Arte of Rhetorique. In the preface addressed to John Dudley, son of the duke of

Northumberland, Wilson explains how Dudleys liking of the Reason spurred Wilson on

to complete the Rhetorique: it pleased you emonge other talke of learnynge, earnestlye

to wyshe that ye myghte one daye see the Preceptes of Rhetorique sette forthe by me in

Englyshe, as I hadde erste done the Rules of Logique (A.ii.r).16 The Rhetorique met the

need for an English rhetoric that Dudley and others had perceived, and like the Reason

it grew quite popular, going on to a second edition and numerous reprintings before the

end of the sixteenth century. The text itself is, like the Reason, generally loyal to

humanist ideals. Renaissance humanism held that rhetoric was a crucially important art

for individuals in all fields of life; Wilsons text reflects this belief by including

and privy counselor to Queen Elizabeth. His deeply politicized life after the Rhetorique is
perhaps foreshadowed in that texts implication that all matters have some political import.
16 All quotes from Wilsons Rhetorique are from the 1553 version unless otherwise noted.
 61

instructions on a wide variety of types of discourse, including letters, sermons, and legal

writing (Medine 57). The Rhetorique also reflects humanisms affection for Cicero, as

Wilson treats all aspects of Ciceronian rhetoric in his lengthy book. Given the breadth of

material covered in the book, it is not surprising that the Rhetorique is not a unified

tome. Rather, it (like many other Renaissance rhetorical treatises) consists of a wide

variety of types and genres of writing serving different purposes throughout its 265

pages, ranging from an elaborate narrative description of the mythical origins of

eloquence to a practical listing of stylistic figures.

One centrally important feature of the Rhetorique is that it was written in

English, which was a very unusual choice for educational texts at the time. During

Wilsons lifetime, Latin was the primary language for education and publishing in

Englandbut English was growing in importance, influence, and popularity among

educators and authors. Choosing to use English rather than Latin, whether motivated by

pedagogy or politics, had political effects. Latin was associated with Continental

learning, Medievalism, and the Catholic churchall associations that the English

monarchy (starting with Henry VIII) strove to reject (or, as in the case of Continental

learning, strove to appropriate and claim for England). English, on the other hand, was

associated with a new sense of national independence, sparked by Henry VIIIs

declaration of Englands religious and political independence from Catholicism, and

with the conscious desire to value English learning rather than deferring to the

Continent. Authors frequently used just such arguments when justifying their decisions

to write educational materials in English (see, for example, Aschams letter to Stephen

Gardiner defending his use of English in Toxophilus [Vos]). Writing in English was
 62

associated with a support of Englands national strength. Additionally, Wilson himself

presented his use of English as a nod to the humanist/Protestant ideal of widespread

education. The Rhetorique emphasizes the importance of rhetorical plainness for

effective communication, and the use of English is one instance of such plainness.17 In

the books preface, Wilson promises to set forthe precepts of eloquence, that the

vnlearned by seinge the practice of other, may haue some knowledge them selues

(A.iii.v). Making the text available to the vnlearned by using the vernacular broadened

its potential audience and its scope of influencemeaning that the political message

entailed by the use of English could also be spread more widely.

The texts use of English is only one of many ways in which it can be linked to

political and national affairs. On close reading, it becomes clear that the book is imbued

throughout with attunement to the concerns of England in Wilsons day (for instance,

debates about theology or arguments about political issues like enclosure)and that,

through rhetorical education, it exercises some power to influence those concerns (a

fact clearly recognized by contemporaries like Queen Mary who sought to suppress the

influential text). Most particularly, the Rhetorique is, throughout, laced with indications

of the authors Protestant leaning and his hope that Protestantism will become a

prominent facet of English national identity. The ways in which the Rhetorique might

influence this identity are the topics of the subsequent sections.

17
The text also embodies this principle by using non-academic examples and anecdotes to
illustrate rhetorical tactics in ways understandable to an unschooled audience.
 63

Establishing Rhetoric as Politically Important

Within the elaborate sections that make up the Rhetorique, Wilson occasionally

offers explicit statements or narratives that describe the political importance of

rhetorical skill, often emphasizing how rhetoric can (or should) be used to draw a

nation together. These sections provide some of the clearest indications of the

relationship the Rhetorique shows between rhetoric and English national identity,

setting the stage for the push for that national identity to become Protestant. Wilson

establishes the political importance of rhetoric quite early in his text with two sections

in particular that deal with the power of eloquence: the myth of eloquence section and

the dedicatory epistle. Each contributes to an overall picture of rhetorics potential to

strengthen a national group.

Early in the Rhetorique, Wilson offers his version of the myth of eloquencea

story about rhetorics mythical origins that often features in rhetorical treatises from

the Renaissance. Understanding Wilsons version of this myth helps us appreciate the

larger narratives within which his rhetorical treatise operates: the myth illuminates

connections and causalities between rhetoric and the formation of political entities,

placing rhetoric squarely within the narratives of both English nationhood and the

Protestant Reformation.

Entitled Eloquence first geuen by God, after loste by man, and laste repaired by

God, the Rhetoriques myth of eloquence section presents a Christianized origins myth

for rhetoric (A.iii r). According to the narrative, humanitys initial resemblance to God

lay in its rationality and in its ability to express that rationality eloquently. After the fall,

humanitys rationality and eloquence were corrupted, and none did anye thing by
 64

reason, but most did what they could, by manhode. And therfore where as man

through reason might haue vsed order, manne throughe follye fell into erroure (A.iii r-

v). The redemptive turn in the story comes when Christ restores the relationship

between God and humanitybut Wilson doesnt focus on this salvific moment. Instead,

Wilson goes on to elaborate, at length, how God has appointed leaders among humanity.

Those leaders then use rhetorical skills (given by God) to eloquently persuade their

fellows to establish societies:

Therefore euen nowe when man was thus paste all hope of

amendemente, God still tendering his owne workemanship, stirred vp his

faythfull and elect, to perswade with reason, all men to societye. And gaue

his appoynted ministers knowledge bothe to se the natures of men, and

also graunted them the gift of vtteraunce, that they myghte wyth ease

wynne folke at their will, and frame theim by reason to all good order

And althoughe at firste, the rude coulde hardelie learne, & either for

straungenes of the thing, would not gladlye receyue the offer, or els for

lacke of knoweledge could not perceyue the goodnes: yet being somewhat

drawen and delighted with the pleasauntnes of reason, & the swetenes of

vtteraunce: after a certaine space, thei became through nurture and good

aduisement, of wilde, sober: of cruel, gentle: of foles, wise: and of beastes,

men. Suche force hath the tongue, and such is the power of eloquence and

reason, that most men are forced euen to yelde in that, whiche most

standeth againste their will. (A.iii v)

 65

God empowers eloquent individuals to establish civilizations, humanizing their

companions by overcoming the natural tendency to brutish behavior. The ultimate

humanizing occurs through the force of the tongue impelling men even to yelde in

that, whiche most standeth againste their will. The myth presents rhetorical talent not

merely as a useful social skill, but as the originating point of all social organization. The

force of eloquence is an integral component of a nations political poweras rhetoric

drew people together into the first society, so it is a crucial tool for keeping them

together in organized groups, preventing the disorder of pre-rhetorical erroure.

Wilsons telling of the myth does not only emphasize the central importance of

rhetoric for national formation; it also adapts the myth for specific application to

sixteenth-century England, in which politics and religion were continually connected.

Wilson borrows the fundamental storyline of his myth from Cicero: both narratives

explain rhetoric as a force used to convince individuals to fulfill societal roles they

would otherwise reject; both contain reference to certain individuals controlling others

through eloquence. The idea of rhetoric persuading men to society is thus not unique to

Wilson, though it is particularly forceful in his telling. But we do see Wilson modify the

classical rhetorical tradition in other aspects of the myth. The most significant

difference between Wilsons and Ciceros versions is that whereas Cicero refers to the

power of philosophy or wisdom, Wilson describes God as the operative force in his

narrative. This Christianizing of the myth places Wilson in the important religious

milieu of the Reformation, where God (rather than individual human leaders) is

credited with the initial spark of eloquence that caused societies to coalesce. Moreover,

by making this connection between God and nation Wilson solidly implies that the
 66

formation of national groups (through rhetoric) is approved by God and that religion

and politics are ultimately inseparable.

What, then, does Wilsons version of the myth finally tell us about the political

and religious functioning of rhetoric in a society? Rhetorics central place in the myth is

to unify a nation under a given set of identity traits (sober, gentle, wise, and men

rather than beasts), bringing individuals together into meaningful groups, under both a

united religion and a common government. The appeal of unification would have been

significant to Wilsons contemporaries, as England had been in a great state of religious

flux in the early sixteenth century. The potential of rhetoric to bring a nation together

under the banner of Protestantism, specifically, spoke to concerns about national unity

and separation from Catholicism that were extremely poignant. If rhetoric could

perswade with reason, all men to societye it also presumably held the power to

persuade them to a specific religious alignment. In consequence, English national

identity could, on a fundamental level, be shaped by rhetorical education.

The connection Wilson draws between national identity and rhetorical

education is deepened in the dedicatory epistle appended to the start of the treatise.

Like many dedications from this period, the Rhetoriques contains a justification and

explanation of Wilsons project, as well as allusions to the greatness of his dedicatee.

Also like many dedications, this one begins with a narrative that illustrates the social

and political importance of rhetorical education: the story of how Pyrrhus of Epirus

conquered Roman territories with the help of the orator Cineas. (In some senses, this

story offers a specific historical illustration of the rhetorically-governed societies in the

myth of eloquence.) According to Wilson, Pyrrhus augmented his military power via
 67

rhetoric, sending Cineas ahead of the army to reason eloquently with those in charge of

Roman military strongholds. Needless to say, this was a success:

And so it came to passe, that through the pithye eloquence of this noble

Oratoure, diuers stronge Castels and Fortresses were peaceablye geuen

vp into the handes of Pirrhus, whyche he shoulde haue founde verye

harde and tedious to wynne by the sworde. And this thinge was not

Pirrhus himselfe ashamed in his commune talke to the prayse of the

sayde Oratoure, openlye to confesse: allegynge that Cineas throughe the

eloquence of his tongue, wanne moe Cityes vnto him, then euer him selfe

shoulde els haue bene able by force to subdue. (A.i r)

Wilson praises Pyrrhus not only for his own military prowess but also for his foresight

in using eloquence as a weapon. He also explicitly praises Cineas for effective use of

rhetoric: Good was that Oratour whiche coulde do so muche: & wise was that king

which woulde vse suche a meane. For if the worthines of eloquence may moue vs, what

worthier thing can there be, then with a word to winne cities & whole countries? (A.i r-

v). Summing up the moral of the tale, Wilson specifically describes rhetoric as a tool

that is necessary for those in positions of political influence, writing no man oughte to

be withoute it [eloquence], whiche either shall beare rule ouer manye, or muste haue to

do wyth matters of a Realme. Rhetoric is a crucial skill for anyone in a position of

political power.

The dedication, like the myth of eloquence, enforces Wilsons claim for the

universal importance of rhetoric in political matters. Rhetoric organizes people, it

governs them, and it unifies them under common identitiesit is the substance that
 68

holds an assorted group of people together as one nation. As such, political and

religious leaders must be skilled in rhetoric to maintain order within the groups they

control. Of course, these general descriptions of the power of rhetoric do not offer

specific insight into how a given rhetorical technique might affect a groups identity,

and they do not clarify why Wilsons texts in particular were seen as threats to Catholics

in England. For that we must turn to analysis of specific instructions that Wilson gives.

The Power of Rhetorical Styles

Even in sections where Wilson is not so directly commenting on the social

importance of rhetoric, he makes the connection between rhetoric and national identity

quite clear. One of the better-known sections of the Rhetorique is where Wilson explains

and propones stylistic plainness. This section exemplifies how, for Wilson, specific

stylistic instructions often have deeply political and religious undertones, and it shows

how, by telling readers to follow specific rhetorical advice, he is also telling them to

relate to their nation in a specific way.

Plainness is a central concept for Wilson, one that takes on great importance in

his descriptions of rhetorical eloquence and, thus, in his descriptions of appropriate

behavior for members of the English nation.18 Wilsons initial descriptions of plainness

18
The theory of plainness was originally developed not as an overall aim for rhetors (as Wilson
presents it), but as one of a variety of styles, each of which was appropriate in different
situations and for different rhetors. The anonymous author of Rhetorica ad Herennium divided
discourse into the plain, middle, and grand styles (4.11-14); Cicero developed this idea,
explaining that a plain orator is to the point, explaining everything and making every point
clear rather than impressive, using a refined, concise style stripped of ornament and that plain
language is most appropriate for teaching (20).
 69

are notable primarily for their associations with Protestantism. Alongside a marginal

note announcing Plaines what it is, Wilson writes Emong al other lessons, this should

first be learned, yt we neuer affect any straunge ynkehorne termes, but so speake as is

commonly receiued (y.ii.r). Inkhorn terms are obscure, Latinate, or overly scholastic

words and phrases not in common English use. They tend to appear in learned,

scholarly work, particularly in the strongly scholastic discourse of the Middle Ages.

Thus, eliminating those words from a rhetorical style could reject the scholastic (and

pre-Protestant) history of medieval scholarshipand immediately make it more

comprehensible to the uneducated or less-educated listener. Wilson says as much in the

following quote:

Poore simple men are muche troubled, and talke oftentymes, thei knowe

not what, for lacke of wit and want to Latine & Frenche, wherof many of

our straunge woordes full often are deriued. Those therefore that will

eschue this foly, and acquaint themselfes with the best kynd of speache,

muste seke from tyme to tyme, suche wordes as are commonly receiued,

and suche as properly maie expresse in plain maner, the whole conceipte

of their mynde. And looke what woordes wee best vnderstande, and

knowe what thei meane: the same should sonest be spoken, and firste

applied to the vtteraunce of our purpose. (y.iii.v)

Unsurprisingly given his Ciceronian influence, Wilson echoes the contextual nature of
plainness: The folie is espied, when either we will vse suche wordes, as fewe men doo vse, or
vse theim out of place, when another might serue muche better (y.iii.v). The folly of misused
words occurs when, in a given place, another word would have served better. Fundamentally,
plainness is contextualthis was as true for Wilson as it is for us, and the style presumably
served slightly different purposes in different contexts.
 70

Here Wilson clearly acknowledges that inkhorn terms are particularly alienating to the

uneducated listeners (poore simple men), simultaneously calling rhetors to avoid

words that they are unfamiliar with and insinuating that they ought to take initiative in

making their speech understandable to their audiences. He repeatedly offers positive

characterization of the rhetor who eschews inkhorn terms in favor of a plain style,

neither sekyng to be ouer fine, nor yet liuyng ouer carelesse, vsyng our speache as

most men do, & ordryng our wittes, as the fewest haue doen (y.ii.r). Plainness is the

mark of a discerning rhetor who has ordered his wits and neednt distract the listener

with ostentatious inkhorn terms.

As he advocates for plainness, Wilson is participating in a longstanding

Protestant and proto-Protestant tradition. Plainness came to the foreground as a

religious issue in England for late fourteenth century proto-Protestants.19 Later,

plainness became a central part of the Protestant movement with the doctrine of sola

scriptura, which discouraged focus on any language other than that of scripture and

increased the importance of individual access to scripture (access that uneducated

individuals could have only through plain preaching in their vernacular language, not

Latinate sermons). The central importance of scriptural language, and individual access

to that language, meant that Protestantism generally supported the plain style and

vernacular publishing in an inclusive effort for religious evangelism.

19
John Wyclif, founder of the Lollard heresy, asserted that Christians ought to speak, write, and
translate plainly in order not to distract from the privileged word of God (On the Truth 42).
Lollard rationales for plainness were often explicitly inclusive. In the Prologue to the Wycliffite
Bible, the first full English biblical translation, the Lollard author justified his use of the plain
vernacular by claiming, Therfore cristen men and wymmen, olde and yonge, shulden studie
fast in the newe testament, for it is of ful autorite, and opyn to vndirstonding of simple men, as
to the poyntis that be moost nedeful to saluacioun (Holy 2).
 71

But as Wilson continues to describe and explain his theory of plainness, it

emerges that the rhetorical style is not only religiously important, but also inseparably

connected to Englishness. At first glance, Wilsons emphasis on plainness could be

taken for quite the opposite of a national sentiment: Protestantism was a pan-national

movement, and by supporting its spread and general evangelism he could have

contributed to the diminution, rather than the sharpening, of a distinctly English

identity. But as Wilson further develops the idea of plainness, it becomes apparent that

true plainness is not only a Protestant characteristic but also an English one. The most

compelling evidence of this interpretation comes from Wilsons numerous examples of

overly elaborate discourse, which often caricature foreign influences as undesirable and

incompatible with true plainness. In the following example, Wilson mocks individuals

who travel abroad and return with affected or changed accents and mannerisms:

Some farre iorneid ientlemen at their returne home, like as thei loue to go

in forrein apparell, so thei wil pouder their talke wt ouersea language. He

that cometh lately out of France, wil talke Frenche English, & neuer

blushe at the matter. Another choppes in with Angleso Italiano: the

lawyer wil store his stomack with the pratyng of Pedlers. (y.ii.r)

With these examples, Wilson indicates the central importance of plainness as a

protection of the English language and identity: a person speaking plainly cannot bring

foreign linguistic influences back to England. Cathy Shranks analysis of this passage is

perceptive: she characterizes Wilsons attitude here as fear of foreign contagion (191).

According to Shrank, this represents Wilsons desire to centralize English speech in the
 72

interests of uniformity (192)the uniformity of an established English national

identity.20

As Wilson presents it, plainness forms a part of English national identity because

it rejects foreign influence, focusing on the purity, adequacy, and eloquence of the

English language, and because it supports the theological and evangelical goals of

Protestantism. In addition, plainness serves to delineate who is included in (or excluded

from) the nation. Richard Helgerson observes that one of the primary conflicts within

and among Renaissance texts pertaining to national identity was the question of which

classes should be represented, and to what extent, in the nascent English nation (Forms

9-10). Wilson fits this trend neatly. His attempt to exclude foreign influence by

restricting possible meanings of plainness does not contradict his invitations to the

unlearned; Wilson balances his invitations to the unlearned to join in Englishness with

the strict exclusion of foreigners and foreign influence. Wilsons balance between

20
In places, Wilson turns his criticism against accents and verbal mannerisms from within
England itself, but even these sections ultimately align with his goal of communicating English
national identity through language. With trademark use of humor, he mocks a man from
Lincolnshire (Wilsons birthplace and the object of much ridicule throughout the Rhetorique)
who wrote an egregious example of an inkhorn letter containing phrases such as I obtestate
your clemencie, to inuigilate thus muche for me and I relinquishe to fatigate your intelligence
with any more friuolous verbositie (y.iii.r).
Inkhorn terms and local dialects can be mutually unintelligible and are therefore
antithetical to communication. Wilson asks rhetorically is not the tongue geuen for this ende,
that one might know what another meaneth? and responds Therfore, either we must make a
difference of Englishe, and saie some is learned Englishe, and other some is rude Englishe, or
the one is courte talke, the other is countrey speache, or els we must of necessitee, banishe al
suche affected Rhetorique, and vse altogether one maner of language (y.iii.r).
While Wilsons one maner of language is not as exclusive as, for example, the
scholastic tradition of the Middle Ages, it undeniably attempted to smooth over linguistic
difference in pursuit of a language standard that would favor native, urban, educated English
subjects.

 73

including and excluding groups of people in his ideal of the English nation neatly

dovetails when read in light of the Protestant nation-building projects that heavily

influenced a number of authors during his lifetime (Heal 109-115; Escobedo 26-27).

Plainness marks those who belong, invites the uninitiated to participate in learning, and

simultaneously excludes those whose foreign sympathies (as expressed through

language) might threaten the integrity or independence of England.

This emphasis on national identity is also evident in Wilsons continual return to

the idea of Englishness throughout the critique of inkhorn terms, which are presented

as the constant antithesis to plainness.21 Those who pepper their speech with inkhorn

terms deviate from proper English practice: Some seke so farre for outlandishe

Englishe, that thei forget altogether their mothers language. I dare swere this, if some of

their mothers were aliue, thei were not able to tell, what thei say, & yet these fine

Englishe clerkes, will saie thei speake in their mother tongue, if a man should charge

them for counterfeityng the kynges English (y.ii.r). Wilsons vocabulary here is clearly

evocative of national allegiance: the mother tongue, the kynges English. In calling

21
Even Wilsons choice of the phrase ynkehorne termes would likely have had nationalistic
and religious connotations for contemporary readers. The first use of the word inkhorn to refer
to obscure language occurred in the writings of John Bale, a Protestant polemicist who
published extensively in the decades before Wilsons Rhetorique. In Yet a Course at the Romyshe
Foxe (1543), one of Bales many anti-Catholic tirades, Bale uses the word to denigrate the
influence that foreign Catholics have had on English writing:
Bokes ye haue and that manye, which deryueth all princes powers out of the
popes auctoryte, as braunches out of the vyne, and small ronnynge ryuers out of
the head sprynge, secundum esse & exercitium (soche are your Ynkehorne
termes) onlye to execute in polytyque ordynaunces at hys holye mynde and
pleasure. (59v)
Here, escaping from inkhorn terms is metaphorically equivalent to protecting England from the
creeping vines of Catholic influence. Bale hopes to protect the English language in order to
defend the country and its Protestant identity.
 74

readers back to their plain style of English, Wilson invokes both his inclusive Protestant

background and the political steps necessary to establish England as an independent,

Protestant country. Purifying the language by adopting standards like plainness could

lead to the establishment of and increased respect for English as a national languagea

move that was necessary if England was decisively to establish its religious and cultural

independence from the rest of Europe.

Thus, what at first might seem to be a minor claim about rhetorical stylethat

rhetors should use plain language, avoiding foreign and overly-academic words and

stylesultimately represents an identity that readers are asked to adopt if they follow

Wilsons rhetorical advice. The national identity that underlies Wilsons concept of

plainness encompasses Protestantism, exclusion of foreign influence, and emphasis

upon the sufficiency and superiority of the English language, and these characteristics

combine to demonstrate how instructions like Wilsons in the Rhetorique could have

political consequences. By reading Wilsons text with an eye to such consequences, our

understanding of his theories and goals can be enhanced significantly. This is

particularly true in places where his rhetorical advice seems self-contradictory, as I

explain in the following section.

How National Identity Improves Understanding of the Rhetorique

My analysis of Wilsons text, arguing that he develops and spreads English

national identity through his teaching of rhetoric, adds a significant voice to the

scholarly conversation about Wilson and his text. In brief, scholarship on the Rhetorique
 75

has largely focused on the question of whether the text is primarily inclusive or

exclusivethat is, whether Wilson uses rhetorical instruction to offer widespread

social possibilities through education (including more people in public life) or to

maintain top-down hierarchies and traditional social order (excluding the uneducated

or lower classes). The same debate exists on a larger scale about the teaching of

rhetoric in Renaissance England, in general: scholars wonder whether the skill was

taught to broaden the reach of education or to better-equip those who were already

educated so that they could maintain political power. Using Wilsons text as an example,

I demonstrate how focusing on rhetorics support of national identity explains how

both (apparently contradictory) impulses can exist simultaneously.

Most critics of the Rhetorique at least touch on the connection between rhetoric

and nationhood in the text. Many take that connection as their central topic, based on

the large number of passages that implicitly or explicitly discuss the importance of

rhetoric for the development of national culture. Current debate, then, is not about

whether the Rhetorique should be read with an eye to its political implications, but

about the nature of the connection between rhetoric and national identity that Wilson

supports. Twentieth-century scholarship on Wilson has proposed two main lines of

thought with respect to this relationship. The most prevalent argument is that Wilson, a

dedicated humanist, understands rhetoric as an inclusive and democratizing force,

strengthening the commonwealth by educating a wide spectrum of individuals and

empowering them for meaningful political participation. The second line of argument is

markedly different, asserting that Wilson views standardizing rhetoric as a means for
 76

those already in power to keep control, both against foreign influence and against

internal rebellion.

Because of the books advocacy and use of plainness and its allusions to an

uneducated audience, scholars have traditionally characterized Wilson as a civic

humanist and interpreted the Rhetorique as an inclusive text intended to allow less-

educated individuals to take part in civic life. In this interpretation, Wilson is primarily

a humanist educator who focuses on developing English culture through widespread

rhetorical education. Albert J. Schmidt and Russell H. Wagner (both of whom were

foundational in recalling Wilson to attention in the twentieth century) typify this line of

argument, both using Wilsons biography to support their readings.22 Wagner describes

Wilsons rise from relative poverty through the educational ranks in the language of a

bootstraps narrative, which he credits as the underlying motivation for Wilsons writing

an inclusive version of rhetoric that would allow other aspiring scholars to follow his

path:

Coming from the middle class as he did, Wilson could not have failed to

see how appropriatenay, how supremely importantwere the lessons

rhetoric had to teach the great mass of unlearned but rapidly rising

members of that group. That he, who had but recently been one of the

22
Wagner observes that many biographers of Wilson rely on G. H. Mairs introduction to the
1909 edition of the Rhetorique, much of which was drawn from two unreliable early accounts:
Thomas Fullers The History of the Worthies of England (1662) and David Lloyds State-Worthies,
or, The States-Men and Favourites of England (1670). Despite Wagners identification of Fuller
and Lloyd (and therefore Mair) as unreliable, modern scholars nonetheless continue to refer to
these sources (resulting, for example, in the common misconception that Wilson was knighted).
For a detailed account of the reliability of various biographical sources on Wilson, see Wagner
(3 n.1). Despite their unreliability, it is important to note that Mair, Fuller, and Lloyd would each
categorize Wilson as primarily an inclusive educatorthus (for my purposes) arguments that
rely on them often fall into the same categorization as Wagner and Schmidt.
 77

mute and inarticulate, should be chosen to unlock and display abroad the

treasures of eloquence hitherto unavailable to his own class, cannot have

failed to call forth his best efforts. (7)

For Wagner, Wilsons social climb (facilitated by education) gave him an understanding

of rhetoric as both empowering and unifying for persons of all types and classes, an

argument that Wagner supports mainly through Wilsons characterization as a

humanist.

Recently, however, a number of scholars have gone against this line of thought

by insisting that the Rhetorique is an exclusive text. In this interpretation, the

Rhetorique reflects an almost-dictatorial notion of rhetoric in which adherence to a

national language is important primarily because it reinforces existing power

structures and demonstrates Wilsons portrayal of rhetoric as a tool to be wielded by

authority. Cathy Shrank is the most noteworthy representative of this view. Through a

close reading of the Rhetorique, Shrank argues that rhetoric is a tool with which the

ruling class can unify and control the rest of the nationand that Wilson provides his

rhetorical treatise specifically to aid in a quest for domination that she characterizes as

the prioritization of obedience over fellowship (219). Although Shrank acknowledges

that Wilsons works consequently seek to unify the nation by establishing standards of

thought and behavior, she rejects the ideal of unification through the rise of the lower

classes. Instead, she argues, Wilson promoted the rhetor as an authoritarian figure, and

rhetoric as a means of instilling obedience in a restive population, which Shrank

categorizes as a top-down viewin which rhetoric is primarily intended for those in

government (183). Similarly, Thomas O. Sloane reads the Rhetorique as blatantly

 78

concerned with the power of rhetoric to elevate already-educated individuals over their

peers, which was (according to Sloane) precisely Wilsons goal in composing the

Rhetorique (238). Although Sloanes argument relies fundamentally on Wilsons

personal opportunism while Shranks relies on an interpretation of Wilson as primarily

interested in preserving established social order (a significant difference), both assert

that Wilson understands rhetoric as able to increase the political force not of the

underprivileged, but of those already in positions of political influence.23

Overall, disagreement over whether to emphasize the inclusive or exclusive

aspects of Wilsons text is understandable. Throughout its hundreds of pages, the

Rhetorique contains passages that seem to indicate blatant contradictions within

Wilsons politicssome suggest an inclusive humanism while others reveal an

exclusive elitismand prevent scholars from understanding Wilsons political

motivations for writing or the potential political effects of the work. Both positions are

represented in the book; both appear to have influenced Wilsons thinking. By exploring

the tension between these ideas, however, I believe we can more accurately understand

the sense of national identity that the text is appealing to (and, simultaneously,

creating).

Reading Wilsons text in the light of national identity explains the apparent

contradiction in the texts simultaneous inclusive and exclusive impulses. The identity

23
Wayne Rebhorns The Emperor of Mens Minds lacks a sustained description of Wilson, but his
passing and incidental descriptions of the book fall strongly into this line of argument, as well.
Interestingly, unlike many critics of Wilson Rebhorn does admit the complexity of the
Rhetorique, acknowledging the variety of types of passages, levels of context, and apparent
arguments with which it presents its readers. His overall evaluation, however, rests on seeing
Wilson as support of a general trend: Renaissance writers emphasize the need for the control
of the many by the few (28).
 79

that the Rhetorique is imbued with and instructs its readers in negotiates both traits,

simultaneously including less-educated English subjects while excluding any hints of

foreign influence. Seen in this light, the coexisting impulses are not contradictory at

allrather, they combine to support the texts vision of what England should be. This is

particularly true given the texts repeated emphasis on supporting Protestantism as a

facet of English national identity. As Timothy Rosendale explains in his article Fiery

Tongues: Language, Liturgy, and the Paradox of the English Reformation, educative

impulses often coexist with forceful ones in discourses of Renaissance Protestantism. In

the Rhetorique, the context of potential Catholic encroachment on England is one in

which rhetoric should serve as an exclusive weapon, unifying and protecting the nation

against foreign influence. At the same time, within the nation rhetoric could be more

inclusive, pulling English subjects together with a common language to build a common,

Protestant culture, also united in the goal of protection from foreign influence.

Reading Wilsons theories in the Rhetorique as tools for nation-building,

supporting and spreading a sense of national identity, connects the religious and

political contexts Wilson was writing within and offers a solution to a long-standing

scholarly debate about the text. Attunement to how various theories of national identity

are presented and supported in rhetoric texts can accordingly improve our

understanding of the texts purpose, as well as their perceived influence at the time of

their publication.
 80

Conclusion: Contextualizing Rhetorical Treatises

Analysis of Wilsons text exemplifies how the various strands of scholarship I

draw onwork about education, nationalism, and sixteenth-century social contexts, for

examplecan come together to deepen our understandings of complex texts. Language

is an important component of identity, for individuals as well as groups like nations.

Texts that teach readers how to use language thus have the potential for significant

influence over their readers identities, encouraging certain alignments and ways of

thinking while discouraging others. Given the deep-seated concerns with dramatic

changes in English culture during the sixteenth century, it makes sense that rhetorical

education in that period was particularly invested in delineating and encouraging

particular identity types and alignments.

By illuminating the relationship of language to national identity, in this project I

will show how early developments in the English language shaped not only the

language itself, but also the identities of those who used it. Reading rhetorical treatises

in light of national identity thus makes an offering to two fields: it brings the idea of

rhetorics connection to identity formation into a historical period, and it deepens the

range of factors seen as evidence of changing national identity in the sixteenth century.

And ultimately, it increases our understandings of early English rhetorical textbooks

some of the earliest precedents for the textbooks we write and use today.
 81

Chapter 2. Vernacular Rhetoric in Sixteenth-Century England

In the introduction to his 1899 reprint of an early English rhetorical textbook,

Frederic Ives Carpenter describes the complex attitudes English writers held toward

the English language at the start of the sixteenth century. Carpenter writes:

The first steps in the formation of modern English prose are strangely

timid and groping. Strong practical needs drive men to seek the means of

ordered and effective expression in the prose vernacular. But native

models of expression are lacking. Hence there is a movement of education

and a resort to foreign teaching and aid. All England is at school to foreign

models. (7, emphasis mine)

For Renaissance England, being at school to foreign models was nothing new. English

was the language of choice for everyday matters, but at the start of the sixteenth

century it was considered an inferior language, not eloquent enough for literary

purposes and not elaborate enough to express complex ideas. Poet John Skelton (1460-

1529) lamented at the start of the sixteenth century that English was rude rustye,

and dul, and his comments were echoed by many contemporaries (qtd. in Jones 11).

Instead of using the English vernacular in their academic work, Renaissance scholars

used the lingua franca of Latin, establishing international community by continually

circulating ideas, texts, and even the scholars themselves between intellectual centers
 82

such as those in Florence, Paris, Tbingen, and Cambridge.1 Scholars often even took on

Latin names, further disguising their own nations of origin. Young scholars were taught

Latin, which was the linguistic medium for everything else they hoped to learn, during

the first years of their schooling and thus educational materials and rhetorical

handbooks in England were written in Latin.2

However, throughout Europe vernacular languages had gradually been

augmenting and then replacing Latin as primary languages for education and

scholarship. This shift came to England in the sixteenth century. The strong practical

needs mentioned by Carpenter, those incitements to English vernacularization, came

in the shape of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation (Barber, Early Modern

68). With the increased ease and affordability of moveable type printing, it became

profitable to publish and widely circulate written textsnot only to the university and

monastic libraries at Europes centers of learning, but also to a broader (though still

limited by modern standards) group of educated men and sometimes women.

Suddenly, published books had an audience that spoke English along with, or even

instead of, Latin. Similarly, Reformers emphasized the importance of sacred texts

reaching a broad audience. Reformed theology focused on individual relationships with

God, not necessarily mediated by established church hierarchies or by priests who

1 Sometimes the term vernacular is used to refer to a home dialect, as in the distinction James

Paul Gee makes between vernacular and specialist varieties of English (17). In the study of
Renaissance England, however, vernacular refers to the native, home language of English, as
opposed to the powerful and international language of Latin. For a discussion of various dialects
within English, see Chapter 4.
2 See Baldwin, Clark, and Mack for a description of Latin use in early childhood education.
 83

could translate Latin and Greek scripture. Holy works had to be available in the

vernacular so that they too could reach a broader audience.

Both printing and Protestantism have been extensively studied as contributors

to the shift to English vernacular, but a third and more amorphous incitement to

vernacularization has been paid less attention. This is the sentiment scholars refer to as

nationalism or national feeling. As Charles Barber explains, an increase in national

feeling accompanied the rise of the modern nation-state in the fifteenth and sixteenth

centuries. Barber explains that this national feeling weakened the international

communities based on scholarship and shared religion, replacing them with the

modern feeling that a person is English or French or Italian. And in turn, this sense of

belonging to an individual nation, what I refer to as a sense of national identity, led to a

greater interest and pride in the national languages, while the language of international

Christendom, Latin, slowly fell into the background (English 176). In the case of

England, this shift from international to national identity meant that a country that had

long been at school to foreign models and that perceived its native tongue as lacking

was increasingly identified with its own vernacular language. The mother tongue,

disrespected and marginalized from English scholarship, was growing to be seen as a

part of Englishness and, potentially, a source of national pride.

Early in the sixteenth century many scholars began to assert for nationalist

reasons that education and communication in England ought to occur in English.

Specific justifications offered for this turn to the vernacular varied, but each related to

the authors vision for an ideal English nation. Moreover, these defenses of English

scholarship often grew into defenses of English itself, as a language worthy of use,
 84

study, and capable of rhetorical sophistication. In the first half of the century authors of

treatises about language went from being at school to foreign models, to rejecting

those models in favor of the adequate vernacular, to declaring the supremacy of the

English language over others. The eloquence and usability of vernaculars became a

matter of international rivalry, sparking English writers to advocate for and improve

English when possible (Greenfeld, Nationalism 42). Richard Waswo refers to this

transition from Latin to English as cultural decolonization, a rejection of the Latin,

French, and Catholic empires that had conquered England and an establishment of

native English culture (411). R. F. Jones calls it The Triumph of the English Language.

And although Jones admits that many years, even centuries, passed before it [the

triumph] was fully realized, the process of vernacularization made dramatic progress

during the sixteenth century (272).

In this chapter I discuss printed defenses of English that justified the use and

study of the English vernacular. Specifically, I focus on the connection between the

vernacular and perceptions of the English nation and its relationship to other countries.

While it is outside the scope of this dissertation to examine the larger claims that

changing perceptions of national identity caused vernacularization, or vice versa,

authors of early vernacular treatises frequently and explicitly explained their political

reasons for using English and the effects they hoped that use would have on the English

peopleparticularly, that using and refining English would increase the prestige of

English scholarship and improve the countrys international reputation. It is those

explanations that I focus on here, showing that the vernacular was one tool English

rhetors used to persuasively address their countrymen. Taking a rhetorical approach to

 85

vernacularization, that is, analyzing the shift to the vernacular as part of the overall

rhetorical situation and cultural climate of sixteenth-century England, helps explain the

complex connections between language and nation that sixteenth-century writers

perceived.

The chapter begins by providing historical background on language use in

England through the Middle Agesbackground that is particularly important for

understanding how language and nationality were related in the sixteenth century. It

then describes a series of rhetorical texts in English that make claims about the political

importance of English writers using English. Overall, this chapter describes how English

authors began to set England itself up as a model of education to replace the foreign

models it had been at school to for centuries, and how the English language itself grew

to be a crucial factor in English national identity.

Language and National Identity in England

Of all the ways in which English-language texts influenced the development of

English national identity, changing attitudes toward the vernacular are the most well-

researched. It has long been understood that across Renaissance Europe, vernacular

languages gradually became more common for scholarly work, despite the periods

emphasis on reviving classical learning.3 The increased use and importance of

3 According to Erich Auerbach, this apparent contradiction may not in fact be contradictory at

all. It may be the case that the revival of classical learning partially caused the decline in use of
classical languages. As Auerbach explains, the Renaissance reverence for classical Latin is what
 86

vernacular languages is often associated with a concurrent increase in the importance

of national community. Using a common language can draw a community together,

reflecting shared cultural references and experiences by providing texts meant for the

speakers of a specific, local language. Moreover, languages are associated with the

nations that use them. Language historians Albert C. Baugh and Thomas Cable clearly

explain the relationship that develops between a language and regions that use it:

The importance of a language is inevitably associated in the mind of the

world with the political role played by the nations using it and with their

influence in international affairs; with the extent of their business

enterprise and the international scope of their commerce; with the

conditions of life under which the great mass of their people live and with

the part played by them in art and literature and music, in science and

invention, in exploration and discoveryin short, with their contribution

to the material and spiritual progress of the world. (4)

At the start of their book A History of the English Language, Baugh and Cable use this

perceived connection between language and nation to explain the modern day

international influence of the English language. According to the authors, English is the

mother tongue of nations whose combined political influence, economic soundness,

commercial activity, social well-being, and scientific and cultural contributions to

civilization give impressive support to its numerical precedence (4). English, as a

made Latin a permanently dead language, distantly removed from daily practicalities. The
revived, classical Latin emphasized linguistic aesthetics over practicality and resisted
neologisms to the point where it was difficult to express some contemporary ideas in Latin,
presumably encouraging scholars to rely on their vernacular languages to discuss concepts that
hadnt existed in ancient Rome (136).
 87

language, gains prestige from the international power of the countries that speak

English.

But during the late Middle Ages, the English vernacular was not associated with

national pride or prestige at all. Fifteenth-century writers apologized for the vernacular

as rude, comyn, and symple (qtd. in Jones 5). Even as late as 1580, Edmund

Spenser still lamented that English culture was lacking (in comparison to other national

cultures) because Englishmen did not have the kingdom of our own language (16).

Renaissance scholar Richard Helgerson and others have latched onto this phrase as a

succinct indication of at least three ideas about language in Renaissance-era society: the

perceived connection between language and national power in the sixteenth century,

the perception that English was inferior to other languages (and thus, that England

risked being inferior to other nations), and the causal implication that Englishmen

could have better control of their political kingdom by paying attention to the virtual

kingdom of their language. As Helgerson argues, Spensers sentence provides a

dramatic expression of ambition, cultural envy, and frustration, emotions that spurred

Spenser and his contemporaries to aspire to govern the very linguistic system, and

perhaps more generally the whole cultural system, by which their own identity and

their own consciousness were constituted (Forms 3). This reverses the causal chain

Barber describes (in which a nations prestige influences its language), and it is this

reversal that makes the sixteenth-century advocates of English unique and interesting.

The sixteenth-century development of the English vernacular was spurred by authors

who, like Spenser, sought to change England by changing English.

 88

In order to fully understand the tense relationship between the English language

and the English nation in the sixteenth century, it is necessary to look further back into

Englands linguistic history. This history of both language change and international

conquest shows that language and political power were deeply connected throughout

Englands history and explains the uncultivated state of English itself at the beginning of

the Renaissance.

Linguistic and National Colonization: England Speaks French and Latin

Changes in empire and changes in language have long gone hand-in-hand in

England. Varieties of Celtic languages were spoken by the earliest inhabitants of the

islands, but the northward expansions of the Roman empire brought the earliest

challenges to those native languages. Tentatively in 55 B.C.E and more forcefully in 43

C.E., Roman invasions of England brought Roman culture, and along with it the Latin

language, to England (Baugh and Cable 44-45). Though Latin did not entirely replace

the Celtic languages in daily use, it quickly became the powerful language of the upper

classes, setting a precedent in which the language of the politically powerful colonizers

contrasted with the daily language of native inhabitants. By the fifth and sixth centuries,

the Roman empire in England had faded, to be replaced (again through violent

invasion) by the Germanic Jutes, Angles, and Saxons (47). Concurrently, the influence of

Latin faded to make way for the Germanic dialects, which penetrated much of England

and grew into what we now know as Old English.

 89

Old English developed for centuries before once again being replaced by

expansion and colonization from the Continent. And it was this invasion of England,

arguably the last successful invasion of England by a foreign power, that had

particularly resonant linguistic effects in the sixteenth century. The Norman Conquest

of 1066 was devastating to the developing English language. As in earlier language

shifts, William the Conqueror and his Norman troops brought their language with them

and quickly established a version of French as the language of power in England. But

unlike the earlier, Roman conquests, Williams control of England was complete, and

the English nobility was almost entirely replaced by French landowners in the following

decades.4 The government was run in French, education occurred in French or Latin

(but never English), and legal and ecclesiastical proceedings were in French.

French control of England lasted long enough (until the thirteenth century, at

least) that the French language was firmly established in the region. Most children in

landowning families of any rank grew up speaking French, not English. Thus, not only

was French the official language for many proceedings, it was also the first language

the mother tongue, in the literal sense of the language taught by ones motherof a

significant proportion of the English population. English was relegated to use only for

everyday matters, and only by the lower classes. As Baugh and Cable describe the status

of English in the twelfth century, English was now an uncultivated tongue, the

language of a socially inferior class (116). Though the upper classes and nobility may

have had some acquaintance with English, Baugh and Cable point out that they did

4 Percy Van Dyke Shelly rightly points out that neither England nor France was a strictly

organized political entity at this time, claiming that up to the time of the conquest England had
never been united (17).
 90

not cultivate English because their activities in England did not necessitate it and

their constant concern with Continental affairs made French for them much more

useful (117). English was thus thoroughly separated from matters of importance and

neglected by the nobility and the cultural elitea powerless position that set the stage

for its negative sixteenth-century reputation.

By the thirteenth century, English was again regaining some influence in

England, though it still lacked cultural power or association with the upper classes.

Children of the nobility were once again raised speaking English, though French was

still frequently used in official settings (134-135). And by the fourteenth century,

English was once more known by everyone (143). A benchmark for the erasure of

French from England came in 1362. In that year, the Statute of Pleading declared that

legal proceedings would occur in English rather than French because the French

tongue is much unknown by those involved in lawsuits (Baugh and Cable 149).

While indicating a step towards vernacularization, the Statute of Pleading also indicates

how entrenched non-English languages were in the government: though the Statute

called for legal cases to be conducted in English, the cases were to be recorded in Latin,

and the Statute itself was written in French.

The influence of the Norman Conquest on English and its cultural status lasted

far beyond the everyday use of French in England. Baugh and Cable allude to this lasting

influence when they write:

In the Middle Ages the development of English took place under

conditions which, because of the Norman Conquest, were largely peculiar

to England. None of the other modern languages of Europe had had to

 91

endure the consequences of a foreign conquest that temporarily imposed

an outside tongue upon the dominant social class and left the native

speak chiefly in the hands of the uncultivated. But by the close of the

Middle English period English had passed through this experience and,

though bearing deep and abiding marks of what it had gone through, had

made a remarkable recovery. (202)

The recovery Baugh and Cable speak of is the return of English to daily use, even for

the nobility, and of laws like the Statute of Pleading that acknowledged English as a

language of mutual understanding within England.

But despite Englishs re-emergence as the mother tongue of England, the

Conquest still had lingering effects: English was still not a powerful or well-respected

language. Baugh and Cable note that the last step which the English language had to

make in its gradual ascent was its employment in writing. For here it had to meet the

competition of Latin as well as French (152). Although Latin had not been used as an

everyday language in England since the Roman conquests, its influence in England and

throughout Europe was solid. Indeed, part of its appeal was that it was no longer used

as the native language of a specific communityunlike vernaculars, Latin was fixed

and useful for communicating across cultures as well as for accessing ancient

scholarship (152). English was not cultivated during French control of England and

was therefore associated with everyday matters and low culture. Latin, on the other

hand, experienced the complete opposite treatment. Cultivated throughout Europe by

the educated and literate, it was associated with high ideals, moral and theological
 92

truths, and sophistication.5 James J. Murphy writes that Medieval culture was, of

course, essentially a Latin culture (Rhetoric 116). This is not the same thing as saying

that the medieval world generally used Latinit was only in the realms of culture and

prestige that Latin prevailed. And it is this association, of Latin with prestige and

English with lack thereof, that both incited and complicated sixteenth-century attempts

to use English in scholarship.

It is here, in the conflict between civilized Latin and uncivilized English, that

sixteenth-century authors found themselves. Their native tongue was weak in

comparison to the well-established dominance of the classical languages. Richard

Waswo has aptly described vernacular languages as feminized, in opposition to the

masculine languages of power. Introduction to the masculine language, often occurring

very early in a scholars education, was the first phase of initiation into a cultural elite.

Waswo explains the implications of a young scholars education in the masculine

language of power:

If you found Latin too tough or boring, you dropped out; if not, you went

ahead and took your place in one of the cultural bureaucracies where all

members understood perfectly that culture was what came from

somewhere else, was conducted, transmitted, and administered in the

language that you had so painstakingly learned, that separated you from

5 Margaret Deaneslys study of medieval wills shows that when books were bequeathed, they

were nearly always in Latin rather than the vernacular, and that the vernacular books that did
exist were mostly religious devotional books, not academic or scholarly works. Those who were
privileged enough to own books in the first place were well versed in Latin.
 93

hoi polloi out there in the streets and gave you a status and income

(maybe just a little) better than theirs. (410)

In this model, culture is permanently associated with what came from somewhere

else. The elite are separated from the masses not just by their language, but by the

access that language gives them to international learning. In this way, though Latin was

no longer the tool of an empire controlling England, it had a similar influence

nonetheless. Just as the French language and French culture marked the English elite

following the Norman Conquest, so the Latin language and international scholarly

culture marked the elite at the start of the Renaissance. The English language, and thus

English culture, did not require initiation into a cultural elite and was therefore

considered inferior. The power of Latin in early Renaissance Europe has been

appropriately described as an imperial conquest. This was recognized even in the

Middle AgesItalian humanist Lorenzo Valla, in his 1440 Elegantiae Linguae Latinae,

identifies the spread of the Latin language as the most durable conquest made by

imperial Rome (Rebhorn 35). The Latin influence on England was a type of cultural

imperialism, perpetuating the separation between low culture (that which came from

England) and high culture (that which came from elsewhere) with a linguistic barrier.

Therefore, movements that encouraged the use of vernacular English in formal

settings pushed against the foreign influence of using another countrys language for

official business. Waswo refers to the vernacular as speaking with ones own mouth

and explains:

To have learned to speak with ones own mouth means to value that

speech as both an object of knowledge and the embodiment of a culture

 94

worth having. It is to declare that the materials and processes of daily life

are as fully cultura as the ruined monuments and dead languages of the

ancient world. It is to overthrow the internalized domination of a foreign

community, to decolonize the mind. (415-16)

Reclaiming the vernacular, speaking with ones own mouth, or having the kingdom of

ones own language would increase the value not only of the English language, but also

of the culture it represents. It would decolonize England from the traces of French and

Roman influence, as well as from the history of the culturally lacking Middle Ages. Just

as the Normans forced the use of French when they conquered England, so could the

English improve their country and culture by using their own language.

A number of complex influences aligned to spark the sixteenth-century

burgeoning of English as a culturally powerful tongue. In England particularly, use of

the vernacular has been attributed to educational, technological, and religious

developments, a complex set of factors that I will discuss only briefly here. Renaissance

humanism altered medieval educational practices, allowing for both a broader audience

for education and a greater emphasis on early-childhood education, both of which

encouraged production of English educational materials to supplement Latin texts.6 The

nearly-simultaneous development of more affordable printing practices enabled

authors to reach a broader spectrum of readers, including a wider audience of English

speakers than had been available for extremely expensive manuscripts or early printed

6 For a description of the limited roles English might have played in education before the

Renaissance, see the discussion between T. M. Pearce and James G. McManaway in Renaissance
News. Broadly, scholars agree that English may have been employed in the education of young
students in extremely limited ways, but that Latin was by far the dominant language of
educational discourse.
 95

volumes (Eisenstein, Deanesly). Church reforms of the period were also focused on the

importance of the vernacular. Debates raged over the possibilities for government-

approved English Biblical translations, and Edward VIs reign saw the establishment of

an English Book of Common Prayer, as well as an increasing number of English sermons

and catechisms (Balmuth, Deanesly Bible, Ian Green, Collinson). As Edward Hale

observes, There was good reason for using English despite the perception that it was

linguistically inferior to Latin. With the loss of the French provinces, the French

language has ceased to be a rival. With the invention of printing Latin had ceased to

reach all readers. The spirit of nationality demanded English: the opportunities of

circulation rendered it a possibility (425). Scholars who study the relation of

vernacularization to national identity frequently take one of two views of the

connection. The following two sections explain those views and then offer my rhetorical

approach to the connection between vernacularization and national identity.

Two Views of the Rise of the Vernacular and the Rise of England

One description of the development of the vernacular and its use in sixteenth-

century England can be referred to as the rise narrative. In the rise narrative, both

English and England are described as triumphant in the sixteenth century: as England

separates religiously from the Catholic church and politically from European provinces,

English triumphs over Latin and other languages, effectively rejecting the remnants of

the empire of Latin culture. According to the traditional narrative of the rise, through

the course of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, English dramatically and
 96

almost completely displaced Latin in English education, religion, and nearly all other

arenas (Hale, Jones). Waswo characterizes this shift throughout Europe as the major

vernacular languages having dislodged the monopoly held by Latin on all forms of

serious, written or printed, enquiry (409). He goes on to assert:

The general history of this displacement [of Latin by the vernaculars] has

long been known, and its causes not far to seek: the rise of nation-states

and consciously cultivated national literatures, the explosion of literacy

made possible by print and mandated by Protestantism. The rise of

vernaculars fits seamlessly into the story of our progressive modernity; it

seldom detains us. (409)

A similarly triumphant picture of Englishs emergence is painted by Jones, whose 1953

book The Triumph of the English Language has become the universal representative of

the rise narrative. Jones traces the rapid development of English from being

uneloquent and inadequate to being eloquent, ruled, and useful.7 English

replaces Latin as the language of power and influence.

The connection between vernacularization and nationhood in this historical

understanding is fairly straightforward. English replaced Latin, drastically and almost

completely, at the same time that England was emerging as a powerful and influential

nation. The linguistic community offered by a shared and local language reflected and

7 The chapter titles in The Triumph of the English Language give a birds eye view of this

development: The Uneloquent Language, The Language of Popular Instruction, The

Inadequate Language, The Misspelled Language, The Eloquent Language, The Ancient
Language, The Ruled Language, and The Useful Language.
 97

encouraged the development of national political unity. Rejecting the power and

influence of Latin was both an incitement to, and a reflection of, growing nationalism.

More recently, literary and cultural historians have begun questioning the

narrative of Englishs rise and the connection between vernacularization and English

nationalism. Like many historical revisions, this movement aims to complicate the

earlier and simpler vision of Englishs rise. Revisionists observe that characterizing

sixteenth century linguistic change as the rise or triumph of English implies a

concurrent fall or demise of Latin and classical languages, but historical language

change was complicatedmore complicated than is implied by the argument that

English universally replaced Latin. Similarly, despite significant advances in English

independence throughout the sixteenth century, it was not conceived of as a nation in a

modern sense until long afterward.8

In his 2004 study Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe, Peter

Burke describes the rise narrative as a Whig history of language, implying its

political investment in a patriotic story of Englishs triumph (61). Burke lists five

counterarguments to the over-simplified rise narrative: the persisting use and

importance of Latin, the stylistic variations even among a vernacular language, the

medieval foundations for vernacularization, the possibility that scholars are projecting

a modern understanding of nationalism onto historical events, and the teleological

implications of words like rise (62-64). Though Burke admits that noticeable changes

in use of vernaculars did occur during the Renaissance (especially in England), these

counterarguments lead him to temper the rise narrative.

8 See Chapter 1.
 98

For my purposes, the most important weakness Burke identifies in the rise

narrative is that related to the connection between language change and nationalism.

Burke warns there is a danger of projecting back into the early modern period the

close associations between language and nation that only became common at the end of

the eighteenth century. Linguistic pluralism was commonplace in early modern Europe

at official as well as unofficial levels (63). The continued existence of linguistic

pluralism threatens the language/nation relationship described in the rise narrative

English cannot have thoroughly triumphed (in Joness sense) if it still frequently shared

an audience with other languages, particularly international languages like Latin. Thus,

those who revise the narrative of Englishs rise question the relationship between

national identity and the vernacular.

A Rhetorical Approach to Vernacularization

My approach to the relationship between the English vernacular and English

national identity builds on both of those described above. Like Jones, I argue that

increasing use of the vernacular signaled a change in attitudes toward English, and thus

toward England itself. But like Burke, I acknowledge the lasting prevalence and power

of Latin throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In other words, I do not

believe that it is necessary to establish Englishs triumph or replacement of Latin to

discuss the importance of the vernacular to English national identity. Instead, I focus on

the decision to write in the vernacular as a rhetorical choice, made continually by

authors throughout the period when both Latin and English were used for scholarly
 99

communication. The fact that English became a valid choice for authors writing in

certain situations reflects changing attitudes about the suitability of the language itself,

which began to be understood as an acceptable medium of written communication.

The increased use of English also indicates another change, one more directly

related to issues of national identity. Treatises written in English assumed a different

audience than those written in Latin. Latin has been lauded as the international

language, a language in search of a community (Burke 43). English, on the other hand,

had a comparatively local community. Scholars and non-scholars alike spoke English

throughout England, but given Latins use as an international scholarly language and

the paucity of scholarship in English before the sixteenth century, it was not necessary

for international scholars to know and understand English. By writing in English, an

author establishes or acknowledges or imagines a community, consisting of those who

understand English, and excluding those who do not. Thus, vernacular texts, unlike

their Latin counterparts, are purposefully addressed to a uniquely English audience.

The issues dealt with in such a text would necessarily relate to the concerns, values, and

issues that the author sees (or hopes to see) reflected in Englandthus, to a vision of

English national identity. Essentially, increased publishing in English reflects a change

in the rhetorical situation, in which English readers can be considered worthy readers

of published works, and in which published works have messages that are considered

worthy of uniquely English attention.

The importance of this rhetorical approach is made clear by looking briefly at

the example of John Cheke. Cheke was famous at Cambridge for his work in classical

languages. He published Latin texts eulogizing theologian Martin Bucer (1551) and
 100

explaining his own theory of correct Greek pronunciation (1555). One of Chekes best

known works, and his only lengthy composition in English, is The Hurt of Sedicion, How

Greueous It Is to a Commune Welth (1549). The Hurt of Sedicion praises social order and

political obedience, and it simultaneously condemns rebellion. Since many texts from

the same time period make similar arguments in Latin, and since Chekes other

scholarly work concentrates on classical languages, Chekes decision to publish in the

vernacular may seem unusual. On reading the text, however, it becomes clear that

Cheke did not intend it for an international audience. In fact, while it offers general

philosophical reflection on obedience, the primary purpose of The Hurt of Sedicion is to

calm the uprisings that occurred after Henry VIIIs death.9 This was, clearly, a

specifically English problem. Chekes decision to publish the text in English did not

reflect Englishs replacement of Latin, or a personal preference for Englishit reflected

his perception that this text needed to be heard and understood specifically within

England. Through it, he was shaping English national identity, arguing (explicitly in

places) that rebelliousness is not an appropriate trait for Englishmen.10 Thus, for a

9 When Edward VI became king in 1547, he was only nine years old. For the first years of his

reign, England was actually controlled by Edwards uncle, the Duke of Somerset. In 1548 and
1549, there were significant uprisings protesting unpopular policies of this protectorate.
Chekes book was written specifically in response to Ketts rebellion, which protested the
enclosure of public lands (Wood 223). As Andy Wood asserts, Chekes argument was clearly
directed to the literate property-holder: precisely the group from which the leadership of the
revolts had sprung (224).
10 Cheke specifically connects his recommendations with nationality, as in a passage where he

compares Englishmen to Lacedemonians:

For even as the Lacedemonians for the avoiding of Drunkennesse, did cause
their sonnes to behold their servants when they were drunk, that by beholding
their beastlinesse, they might avoid the like vice: even so hath God like a
mercifull father staid us from your wickednesse, that by beholding the filth of
your fault, wee might justly for offence abhorre you like Rebels, whom else by
nature we love like Englishmen. (A.ii.r-v)
 101

scholar like Cheke, Latin was useful to speak to the international scholastic community,

while English was necessary and useful for communicating within the national

boundaries of England.

During the sixteenth century, English continued to develop as a valid linguistic

choice for authors, just as printing had emerged as a valid alternative to manuscript

circulation. And just as authors throughout the Renaissance chose to print their

writings or circulate them in manuscript, depending on the audiences they were hoping

to reach, so authors chose languages to reach and influence certain communities.

English did not have to be the only, or even the dominant, language of scholarly

publication for English writings to have significant implications for national identity. In

Forms of Nationhood, Helgerson examines this connection of language and nation in the

concerted generational project of Spenser and his contemporaries who influenced the

sudden flowering of English literature in the second half of the sixteenth century.

However, the desire for the kingdom of our own language arguably began much

earlier than Helgersons work implies, and while the flowering of literature was

undoubtedly focused on the Elizabethan era, the transition to English education was

occurring in the first half of the century. Beginning with Leonard Coxs 1524 Art or

Crafte of Rhethoryke, educators and rhetoricians began arguing in support of English

translations, education, and rhetorical study. Like their counterparts in Helgersons

study of Elizabethan literature, these scholars frequently and explicitly connected their

desire to use and shape the English language with a desire to control the English nation.
 102

Sixteenth-Century Nationalism and the Growth of English

Developing attitudes toward English and England in the sixteenth century

moved from extreme hesitance about Englishs appropriateness for scholarship to

advocating not only its use, but also its study as a subject of scholarship. While the

transition was by no means linear, with various authors rehearsing old arguments late

in the century or offering forward-thinking ideas in its early years, the general trend

toward valuing English and associating it with Englands national identity is evident in

rhetorical treatises and other educational texts throughout the century.

Though negative attitudes about Englishs suitability persisted, in the 1530s

educators like Thomas Elyot began to use (and advocate for the use of) English in

specific situations. For Elyot and many of his peers, English first became an acceptable

language for publication as a tool for addressing a specifically English audience, rather

than the international scholarly community. Elyot did just this in his description of

educational systems that were geared towards preparing students for roles in English

governmentit was a national matter, not an international one, and consequently it

was presented in English. Thus, whether to use the English language became one of the

rhetorical choices that authors controlled. Building on this early work, authors and

rhetoricians like Leonard Cox and Thomas Hoby began to argue that foreign scholarship

should be translated into English in an effort to bring the positive effects and reputation

of scholarly sophistication home to England. Englishing the words of foreign works

effectively Englished their ideas as well, making international learning more accessible

within England itself. Such translations defended the English language not because it
 103

was a worthy object of study, but because (in various ways) it allowed England to

benefit from, borrow from, and adopt already-acknowledged scholarly and rhetorical

truths and incorporate them into Englishness.

And finally, along with tentative steps toward using English as a means to the

end of claiming scholarship as belonging to England, authors like Richard Sherry and

Roger Ascham began slowly advocating that the English language itself was worthy of

study. If English were able to effectively communicate with English audiences, as well as

to translate Latin and Greek, might English also be a rhetorically sophisticated language

worthy of study? And if English translations of Latin texts glorified English learning,

might a study of English bring further respect to the language and the countrys

scholarship? As the sixteenth century progressed, scholars increasingly answered yes

to these questions, developing rhetorical treatises that analyzed English as their

predecessors had studied Latin and, in the process, emphasizing a sense of English

national pride that was tied up in the success and usefulness of the vernacular. Overall,

the progression of this scholarship led to increasing acceptance of English and the study

of English as appropriate pieces of education and as important features of a nation

testing its independence and creating its own national identity.

Creating and Addressing an English Audience

Part of the early bias toward classical languages and against English was due to

the perception that the English language did not have the resources to clearly and

poetically express complex ideas. This argument was often, and unsurprisingly,
 104

proponed in Latin educational treatises. However, even English texts expressed concern

over the inability of English to articulate ideas that could be explained in classical

languages, and the hesitancies in the English texts offer insight into the particular ways

in which English was seen to be lacking.

Thomas Elyot, who was responsible for some of the earliest and most well-

known forays into English as an educational language, repeatedly wrote about doubts

over his chosen linguistic medium. In fact, Elyots published wonderings about the

status of English make him a perfect example to introduce the issues that surrounded

English, because throughout the course of his English-writing career he shifted from

broadly doubting Englishs efficacy to advocating for its use as a means to address a

specifically English audiencea potential audience that had largely been ignored in the

years where almost all scholarship was presented in classical languages for

transmission to international audiences.

In The Boke Named the Gouernor (1531), Elyots treatise on educating children of

nobility as preparation for political work, Elyot includes numerous translations of

phrases and passages from classical works, often with apologies for the inadequacy of

his English translation. The wordes of Alcinous, whereby he declareth the maiestie,

that he noted to be in Ulisses, I have putte in englishe he writes, nat so well as I found

them in greke (108.r). Elyot similarly apologizes as he introduces a translation of

Homer: the sentence whereof [Homer] ensueth as well as my poore wytte can expresse

it in englishe (26.v). Such apologies occur throughout The Gouernor and Elyots other

work.
 105

Apologies for an authors inadequacy are common in Renaissance writing; the

humility topos carried great weight as a means for authors to establish their

indebtedness to classical work, their scholarly peers, and noble patrons. The apologies

for the inadequacy of English translation are not mere shows of humility on Elyots part,

however. It is clear in other places that he criticizes not just his translating skills but the

very ability of English to echo the poetic clarity and deep meaning of classical

languages. For example, a lengthy passage in The Gouernor defends poetry against

accusations that it causes moral decay. Throughout the passage, Elyot translates

classical examples into English to illustrate the wisdom and moral education that can be

gained through reading poetry. However, he also declines to translate other pieces of

poetry, writing I could recite a great nombre of semblable good sentences, out of these

and other wanton poetes, whiche in latine do espres them incomparably, with more

grace and delectation to the reder, than our englishe tonge may yet comprehend

(51.v). Here the language itself, not Elyots translation abilities, is explicitly presented as

lacking. English is personified into an entity that cannot comprehend complicated

ideas.

Despite his denials of Englishs suitability for some purposes, Elyots decision to

write in the vernacular at all reflects his sense that English could, in certain situations,

be more useful or appropriate than Latin. Understanding Elyots position and

motivation for writing The Gouernor goes some way towards clarifying his motivations

for using English in this text. Elyot was both an educator and a political figurea

common pairing in his time and one that he shared with many other authors of

rhetorical treatises discussed in this project. Early in his career, Elyot had been favored
 106

and promoted by Cardinal Wolsey, the most powerful man in England aside from Henry

VIII himself. However, when Wolsey opposed the annulment of Henrys marriage to

Catherine of Aragon, Wolsey was stripped of his title and accused of treason. His

employees and favorites at court, including Thomas Elyot, quickly fell from favor,

threatened with accusations of heresy and treason. Attempting to recover from this

dramatic misfortune, Elyot set out to prove his loyalty to Henry. The Gouernor was one

step in this plan. The text is dedicated to Henry VIII and explicitly praises him

throughout. Even more than these blatant appeals for approval, the subject of the text

itself demonstrates Elyots loyalty. The book proposes to educate children not just for

any purpose, but specifically to function as governorsa generalized term for

politically influential figures in England. Elyot applies humanist educational principles

to a political issue, demonstrating how humanist education can support an effective

national government.

Moreover, the book conveys this message of political education in English,

meaning that it is focused on a specifically English audience rather than being offered

up for any nation to take advantage of. Elyots justifications for writing in English

represent his understanding of the connection between his chosen language and his

audience: English, despite its weaknesses, is used to address and enlighten a

particularly English audience. This connection is nowhere more apparent than in the

introduction to Elyots Gouernor. Attempting to flatter Henry (and condone for his

association with Wolsey) Elyot repeatedly praises England in the books brief

introduction, continually referring to my naturall countrey and this my countrey.

 107

Elyot expresses concern for Henrys realm and subjects, and in this telling passage

connects concern for the English nation with the language of his book:

Wherfore taking comfort & boldnes, partly of your graces most

beneuolent inclination towarde the vniuersall weale of your subiectes,

partly inflamed with zeale, I haue nowe enterprised to describe in our

vulgar tunge, the forme of a iuste publike weale: whiche matter I haue

gathered, as well of the sayinges of most noble autors (grekes and latyns)

as by myn owne experience: I beinge continually trayned in some dayely

affaires of the publike weale of this your most noble realme almoste from

my childehode. (Proheme)

Elyots choice of English here connects to his intent. He hopes to explain the forme of a

iuste publike weale, and this text is not intended for an international audience but

rather for the vniuersall weale of English subjects alone. Even the publike weale

described is not an international ideal, but inspired and heavily influenced by the most

noble realme of England. Elyots decision to express this in the vernacular, despite the

already-acknowledged deficiencies of vernacular English, indicates a perceived

relationship between the treatises language and the audience Elyot hopes to reach and

influence with his ideas. His patriotic text, intending to praise Henry and England to win

back the kings favor, is appropriately also a tribute to the national language. English

allowed Elyot to direct his treatise to English audiences particularly, strengthening

English government while not offering the same service directly to an international

audience.
 108

A few years after publishing The Gouernor, Elyot again used the English language

to address political content to a specifically English audience. But in this instance, he

refines his justification of scholarly English by directly exploring how it compares to

classical languages and asserting that vernacular English can, in fact, equal classical

languages in its expressive ability. In 1533 he published the Doctrinall of Princis, a short

book that translates an oration from Isocrates about the characteristics of an ideal king,

using Solomon as a model. Though this book does not offer much explicit rhetorical

instruction, like the Gouernor it combines a focus on political leadership with an

emphasis on education. And language plays an important part of the text throughout:

nearly the entire introductory passage of the Doctrinall is dedicated to an explanation of

the choice to translate the work into English. Elyot begins by pointing out that the

central purpose of the treatise is to ascertain whether English can adequately express

complex ideas originally formulated in Greek:

This little booke (whiche in mine opinion) is to be compared in cousaine

and short sentence with any booke, holy scripture excepted, I have

translated out of greeke, not presuming to contente with theim, which

have done the same in latine: but to thintent onely that I would assaie, if

our Englisshe tunge mought reveive the quicke and proper sentences

pronounced by the greekes. (2.r)

Elyot expresses his initial concern about Englishs ability to comprehend classical

languages; this translation project is a way to test the vernacular to see whether it can

transmit the same meaning as Greek. As he reports the findings of this experiment in

English translation, Elyot points to a number of ways in which English more closely
 109

mirrors the Greek than does Latin, the other language into which this text had been

translated. He writes:

in this experience I have founde (if I be not muche deceived) that the

forme of speakynd, used of the Greekes, called in greeke, and also in

latine, Phrasis, muche nere approcheth to that, whiche at this daie we use:

than the order of the latin tunge which I doubte not shall be affirmed by

them, who sufficiently instructed in all the saide three tunges, shall with a

good judgement read this worke. (2.r-v)

Here Elyot seems to rethink some of the doubts that peppered The Gouernor, arguing

that English word order in fact allows for a closer translation from Greek than Latin

word order might. Like The Gouernor, the Doctrinall reflects on the characteristics of an

ideal civic leader. Translating such reflections into English not only tests the English

language but also, as in The Gouernor, focuses Elyots political advice on an English

audience.

Elyots advocacy of English as a peer of Greek, able to express the same ideas and

even translate texts, represents a first step in the growing support of the vernacular as a

valid means of scholarly communication: it was appropriate and adequate for

communication with limited, English audiences. During the first turbulent decades of

the sixteenth century (and in the microcosm of Elyots work) English was developing a

reputation for being at least somewhat comparable to classical languages in terms of its

expressive ability.

Elyot was not alone in advocating English for English audiences, nor in his

growing appreciation for the languages ability to translate classic texts. For example,
 110

educator and royal tutor Roger Ascham succinctly makes such a comparison and

describes its implication for the study of English in his text The Scholemaster. He

compares the Greek, Latin, and English versions of a verse praising Ulysses, arguing that

the English translation in fact supersedes the versions by Homer and Horace. Which

verse, bicause, in mine opinion, it was not made at the first, more naturallie in Greke by

Homere, nor after turned more aptlie into Latin by Horace, than it was a good while ago,

in Cambrige, translated into English, both plainlie for the sense, and roundlie for the

verse (36). As Ascham notes, this side-by-side comparison should convince those who

remain skeptical of Englishs beauty or suitability for translation to change their minds.

He continues, therfore, for their sake, that haue lust to see, how our English tong, in

auoidyng barbarous ryming, may as well receiue, right quantitie of sillables, and trewe

order of versifiyng (of which matter more at large hereafter) as either Greke or Latin, if

a cunning man haue it in handling (36). For Ascham, as for Elyot in his later texts,

English was suitable for use just as classical or Continental languages. This perception

of Englishs suitability opened it to be useful for authors like Elyot, composing texts on

proper government and education that were particular to England. It also paved the

way for the blossoming of English translations of foreign and Continental works

translation works that, by using English to address English people, assured that English

learning would not lag behind foreign scholarship.

 111

Bringing Foreign Knowledge to England

Once it had been established that English was a potentially useful language for

scholarship, the question of when and how to use it grew more important. Justifications

for translating important texts from other languages into English demonstrate the

complex interplay of national pride and international envy that infused an author or

translators choice of languages. During the Middle Ages, the literary activity of

translation was marginalized by its association with female translators and the

feminized native tongue, and translations were frequently written for personal use or

very limited circulation.11 But as the English vernacular became more acceptable for

scholarly work, translations of foreign works into English grew more common, and

some were widely circulated. Thomas Hobys 1561 translation of The Courtier is one

such text, and it is of particular interest within the context of this project because it

instructs readers in appropriate behavior, including appropriate use of language.12 The

original version of the text was published as Il Cortegiano in 1528 by an Italian

humanist named Baldassarre Castiglione. Castigliones Cortegiano, a guide to behaviors

and attitudes appropriate to a highly educated courtier, became remarkably popular,

first in Italy and then throughout Europe. It was reprinted in dozens of editions, and by

11 As Cheryl Glenn observes, translation was an acceptable activity for women because it was

not original but rather derivative. Glenn writes, Translation provided the educated woman
an outlet for her rhetorical skills, as well as a voice and an identity as a writer, decorously
concealed in the work of a known and accepted male author (Rhetoric 146-47). It was seen as
less creative, and less important, than authorship.
12 I offer a more detailed reading of the rhetorical instruction within The Courtier in Chapter 4.
 112

the time of Hobys translation in 1561 it was available in at least three other languages

and already popular among highly educated readers in England.13

Like Elyots work, Hobys begins by asserting the appropriateness of using

English to circulate the information in his text. As introduction to The Courtier, Hoby

begins with an analogy, briefly describing Themistocles the noble Athenien, who was

banished to Persia. Despite the Persian kings desire to hear Themistocless story,

Themistocles refused to use a translator to describe life in Greece to the king; instead he

demaunded respite to learne the Persian tunge to tell his owne cause (A.iii.r). Here

Hoby connects the story to his translation project by personifying the text as a

Courtier whose experience is analogous to that of Themistocles. Like Themistocles,

living in Persia and waiting to tell his story until competent in its language, so

[honorable Lorde] this Courtier hath long straid about this realme & the fruite of him

either little, or vnperfectly receiued to the commune benefite (A.iii.r). In this analogy

the book itself becomes an actual Courtier, wandering through England but unable to

speak fluently except to those who already know his (foreign) tongue. Despite his

popularity with those men skilful in his tunge who haue delited in him for their owne

priuate commoditie, the foreign Courtier could not speak to England, more broadly,

and was thus limited in his ability to influence and interact with English people. Hobys

translation has overcome that barrier, incorporating the figurative Courtier into

13 In The Fortunes of the Courtier, Peter Burke includes an appendix with the publishing history

of the book in the century following its initial publication, during which time it was printed in
about sixty different editions (55, 158-161). For more information about Il Cortegiano and
Hobys translation, see Richards 43-64.
 113

Englishness by translating his text into the English language. The extent to which Hoby

emphasizes the Englishing of the text is striking:

But nowe, though late in deede, yet for al that at length, beside his [the

Courtier/texts] three principal languages, in the which he hath a long

time haunted all the Courtes of Christendome, hee is beecome an

Englishman [whiche many a longe tyme haue wyshed, but fewe attempted

and none atchieued] and welwilling to dwell in the Court of Englande, and

in plight to tel his own cause. (A.iii.r, emphasis mine)

Through translation, the Courtier is become an Englishman. The personified book has

been given a national identity, adopted into Englishness through the process of

translation, and because of his newfound English status he can now confidently address

audiences of Englishmen, bringing to them learning that was previously only available

in Continental languages. Hoby goes on to describe how the newly English Courtier

should be accepted with enthusiasm into English society. Hoby invokes his dedicatee,

Lord Henry Hastings, hoping that Hastings will use his influence as an Earls son to

introduce the Courtier to a greate meany (A.iii.v). Now that the Courtier is an

Englishman, Hoby fervently hopes that other English men and women will grow

acquainted with him as with one of their countrymen, sharing their national identity as

they share a language.

At this point, Hoby begins to reveal the reasons it is important for the Courtier to

become English, reasons that have as much to do with international scholarly rivalry as

they do with the benefits of English men and women learning from The Courtier.

Throughout his introduction Hoby makes comparisons between the English reception
 114

of The Courtier and its overseas popularity, as when he hopes that the personified

Courtier will gete him the reputation now here in Englande which he hath had a good

while since beyonde the sea, in Italy, Spaine and Fraunce (A.iii.v). Hobys comparisons

here hold a hint of Sherrys implications that England must keep current and

competitive with other European nations in order to maintain national independence

and international power.

This hint becomes a blatant assertion when Hoby bemoans that Englishmen who

read and enjoyed Il Cortegiano failed to translate it into English, a failure for which he

ridicules England and even calls Englishemen muche inferiour to well most all other

Nations (A.iiii.r). The comparison he draws between England and other nations is

telling:

For where they [scholars of other nations] set their delite and bende

themselues with an honest strife of matching others, to tourne into their

mother tunge, not onely the wittie writinges of other languages, but also

of all the Philosophers, and all Sciences bothe Greeke and Latin, our men

weene it sufficient to haue a perfecte knowledge, to no other ende, but to

profite themselues, and [as it were] after muche paynes in breaking vp a

gap, bestow no lesse to close it vp againe, that others maye with like

trauaile folowe after. (A.iiii.r-v)

In the picture Hoby paints, English scholars selfishly hoard knowledge, not openly

sharing it with their countrymen because they dont publish in English. Hoby criticizes

this as inefficient (because each scholar must do his own translation work) and limiting

(because learning can only extend as far as those scholars who are experts in both the
 115

language and the subject matter of the texts in question). With such limitations, he

implies, how will English scholars be able to compete with their international

counterparts? Translating foreign works into English neatly solves this problem,

bringing international learning to a specifically national audience.

Hobys most forceful argument for translation into English stems from this sense

of international competition. He explains that our learned menne for the moste part

think that using English translations will weaken English education. They argue to

haue the sciences in the mother tunge, hurteth memorie and hindreth lerning (A.iiii.v).

However, Hoby observes, the Greeks and Latins who are revered for their learning

used, translated into, and taught with their own vernaculars. This is a clever argument:

while Hobys contemporaries argued that English scholarship should follow Greek and

Latin models by using those classical languages, Hoby asserts that to truly follow those

models English scholars ought to begin using their own national language, just like the

Greek and Latins did. He makes a similar comparison with other modern countries such

as Italy, listing well-known Italian authors and scholars and asserting that they geue a

sufficient testimonye that knowledge may be obtained in studying onely a mannes

owne natiue tunge (A.iiii.v). Other nations, ancient and modern, serve as Hobys proof

that vernacular scholarship is far from lazy but can in fact be beneficial for

strengthening intellectual communities within a country.

The effects of vernacular scholarship, then, as presented by Hoby, are to increase

education in England and thus to increase the countrys international standing. That is,

Hoby and other scholars hope that the national identity of Englandthe assumptions

made about England and the Englishwill be more positive and praiseworthy as
 116

learning increases. Hoby explains that translating scholarly works allows the vnlatined

to come by learning, which gives them an education greater than they could have

without vernacular translations (B.i.r). Individuals will be wiser once English

vernacular is in wide use because they will have access to classical learning and the

work of the best European scholars. And additionally, this spread of learning through

the vernacular will, according to Hoby, impress other countries which previously held a

low opinion of English learning and of England as a nation: And so shall we perchaunce

in time become as famous in Englande as the learned men of other nations haue ben

and presently are (B.i.r). Hoby argues that increased vernacular translation will

facilitate that international esteem, literally bringing learning home to England.

English as Medium of Education; English as Object of Study

The next step in this winding progression from English as underprivileged to

English as language of power came as English was increasingly introduced to

educational settings. As the language slowly gained respect as a substitute for Latin and

Greek, teachers of rhetoric began to explore vernacular education. During the sixteenth

century, education and the vernacular tended to intersect in two distinct but

overlapping ways. First, English could serve as a medium, a way to teach students

rhetoric and other subjects before they were fluent in the classical languages that made

up more traditional teaching methods. Second, English could become an object of study,

a rhetorically sophisticated language that (like the classical languages) was eloquent
 117

and powerful enough to be worthy of scholarly attention in its own right.14 These two

means of focusing on English in education are not opposed (they often exist in the same

treatise), but most authors primarily concentrate on one justification or the other,

either proposing English as a means to an end or concentrating on how study of the

language can be an end in itself. Both reasons for using English have implications for

English national identity: enforcing the necessity of education within the English nation

and, ultimately, increasing the scholarly reputation and esteem of English vernacular.

The more reserved justification of English made by the first camp is explained in

Leonard Coxs 1524 Art or Crafte of Rhethoryke, the first English rhetorical treatise. Cox

is careful to specify that his modest treatise is intended to benefit those who have

begun their education but lack proper familiarity with classical rhetoric. He writes:

I haue partely translated out a werke of Rhetorique wryten in the Latin

tongue: and partely compyled of myn owne: and so made a lytle treatyse

in maner of an Introductyon into this aforesayd Science: and that in our

Englysshe tongue. Remembrynge that euery good thyng (after the

sayeng{is} of the Philosopher) the more comon it is: the more better it is.

14 Interestingly, the split between English as a medium of education and English as a subject

itself worthy of rhetorical study has recurred throughout the history of English rhetoric. In his
article on the origins of college English, Thomas P. Miller points out a similar split in English-
speaking countries in the eighteenth century:
Prior to the development of English as a field of study, students learned to read
and write the vernacular by studying Latin, and professors were lecturing in
English before they were lecturing on it. Sometimes English was even used to
teach rhetoric, but English itself was not the object of study, as in the case of
Ward and John Lawson (Professor of Oratory and History at Trinity College,
Dublin from 1750 to 1758), both of whom remained bound to classical models
and generally ignored English composition and literature. (52)
Conducting scholarship in English and studying English itself are discrete steps in the evolving
importance of the language.
 118

And furthermore tru stynge therby to do som pleasure and case to suche

as haue by negligence or els fals persuacions be put to the lernyng of

other sciences or euer they haue attayned any meane knowlege of the

Latin tongue. (A.iii.r)

Through English instruction, students who havent yet learned Latin will be able to

benefit from the wisdom of classical rhetoric before they are fluent in its languages. Cox

repeatedly clarifies that this translation work is specifically for the benefit of yonge

begynners, for whome all onely this booke is made, because more advanced students

can find the information they are looking for in Hermogines, Cicero, or Trapesoncein

their original languages (g.i.v).

Coxs rationale for using English is then largely pedagogical in nature. Young

scholars can begin education earlier, and be exposed to sophisticated ideas more

quickly, if they are not required to gain fluency in classical languages before any other

education can take place. As Cox implies, this pedagogical strategy aligns with the

humanist educational tendencies emerging in England at the time, prioritizing

education as a necessary means to prepare young people who will soon hold influential

positions within the nation. Like Elyot, Cox connects education with the future of the

country: better-educated pupils will be better-educated rulers, which will lead directly

(according to humanist reasoning) to the nations flourishing. Early education in

English is one step in this process.

A quarter century after Coxs first tentative push to use English in rhetorical

education, Richard Sherry implies that rhetoric should be translated into and conducted

in English not just in order to improve rhetorical education overall, but specifically to
 119

improve English itself. In Sherrys 1551 Treatise of Schemes and Tropes, in other words,

English is not only a medium of rhetorical study, but also the subject of the study. By

studying and publishing work on English rhetoric, Sherry is improving the language.

Herbert Hildebrandt describes this purpose clearly and sympathetically: The real merit

of the Treatise is then its endeavor to make the language of Englishmen distinctive; it is

an attempt to provide them with means of expressing a thought flexibly, clearly, and

vividly (209). Offering this benefit to young students was a priority for Sherry just as it

had been for Cox. As T. W. Baldwin explains, Sherrys concentration on the vernacular in

education was ahead of its time; his compromise with the vernacular was rejected, as

he himself suspected it would be. The sixteenth century grammar school was still

primarily intent upon pure Latin, and strove as much as possible to avoid the

contaminating touch of the vernacular" (38-39).15 Despite the perception of his peers

that the vernacular was contaminating, Sherry doggedly advocated not only for its use

in education, but also for its importance to Englands relationships with the

international scholarly community.

Sherrys justification for his translation and adaptation of rhetoric into English is

much more complex that merely providing a support for students who have no Latin

or else better English, and it is this deeper and more complex set of goals that makes

Sherrys treatise important for a sense of developing English nationalism (Baldwin 36).

Sherry claims that his inspiration to write A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes came from a

15 Peter Mack argues that Sherrys treatise was less important than others (like Thomas

Wilsons), given the small number of editions it went into during the sixteenth century (76).
Both Hildebrandt and Baldwin observe, however, that the reason for the treatises popular
failure was likely its early adoption of English as a language for education (Sherry 209; 38).
Thus the very reason for its failure makes it an interesting object of study in this context.
 120

letter written by Rudolph Agricola, who argues that scholars should translate into their

owne language anything that they read in straunge tongues (A.iiii.v). By doing so,

Agricola and Sherry argue, scholars will become more familiar with their vernacular

tongue and able to perceiue if there be any faute in our speaking, and howe euerye

thynge eyther rightly hangeth together or is darkelye, ruggishly, and superfluously

wrytte (A.iiii.v-A.v.r). What sets this vision of translation apart from that offered by

Elyot or Cox is that it is clearly connected to positive results for the vernacular.

Translation exercises will help scholars recognize the faults of the vernacular, and once

the faults are recognized they can be corrected, overcoming Englishs deficiencies as an

academic language and increasing its expressive power.

Improving English is an important task for Sherry because it neatly aligns with

improving the English nation itself. The comparison of English to other languages, and

of England to other nations, in Sherrys work begins to illustrate the important

connection between attitudes about English and attitudes about England. A number of

Sherrys arguments resort to comparison between nations, for example where he

proposes the necessity of having an English-language rhetoric. No lerned nacion hath

there bene but the learned in it haue written of schemes & fygures, which thei wold not

haue don, except thei had perceyued the valewe (A.v.r). Other lerned nacions have

written rhetorical treatises in their vernacular languages because those nations

understood the value of rhetoric. The implication is clear: if England intends to be

competitive with those other nations as a source of scientific and humanistic learning, it

must claim, study, and enhance its own linguistic medium as one in which that scholarly

work can occur. Translating works and developing rhetorical theories in the vernacular
 121

then becomes more than a way of understanding classical authors; it also has payoff for

improving the vernacular language itself. Rhetorical study of English will benefit the

language, as well as the scholars who study it and the reputation of their country.

In order to support his assertions that the English language is worthy of study,

Sherry must overcome some of the early prejudices against Englishthat it lacked

sophistication, was necessarily rude or common, or that it was not as able to express

figurative language as were Greek and Latin. In response to this criticism, Sherry

repeatedly asserts that English can be complex, poetic, and figurative just like Greek

and Latin, and that it is only through lack of study that Englishs complexity is not better

understood. He argues that to improve English we muste nedes runne to the helpe of

schemes & fygures: which verely come no sildomer in the writing and speaking of

eloquente english men, then either of Grecians or Latins (B.ii.r). Indeed, Sherrys text

follows his own advice by adapting a variety of Latin style guides to serve the purpose

of the English language.16 Like Elyot in the Doctrinall, Sherry convincingly asserts that

English is figurative and complex like Latin, finding English examples to illustrate

classical tropes. For example, in a discussion of antithesis Sherry offers this simple

description of the trope: of two diuerse thynges confirmeth ye one bryefely and

easelye and two plain examples of its use: For he that alwayes wyll be an enemy to

hys owne rekenyngs, how shuld a man trust that he wold be a frind to other mens

matters? He that in familiare co~municacion and company of hys friendes wyl neuer

say truth, thinkest the~ yt he wil absteine from a lye in a co~mon audience (D.iiii.v-

16 For a detailed discussion of Sherrys sources and modifications thereof, see Mack, Chapter 3

and Baldwin 36.

 122

E.i.r). His English examples and models of tropes prove his assertion that the language

is complex, can convey figurative meaning, and is essentially equal to more accepted

scholarly languages.

Sherrys attitude toward enriching the English language, like his attitude toward

the language itself, also has distinctly nationalist undertones. This is particularly

evident in an important passage in which Sherry justifies expanding the English

vocabulary with words and phrases taken from other languages, such as scheme and

trope:

These words, Scheme and Trope, are not vsed in our Englishe tongue,

neither bene they Englyshe wordes. No more be manye whiche nowe in

oure tyme be made by continual vse, very familier to most men, and come

so often in speakyng, that aswel is knowen amongest vs the meanyng of

them, as if they had bene of oure owne natiue broode. Who hath not in

hys mouthe nowe thys worde Paraphrasis, homelies, vsurped, abolyshed,

wyth manye other lyke? (A.ii.r)

Sherry observes that some words of foreign origin are in continual vse and familier

to most men. He accepts those words into the English language, using the simile of a

family to point out that those foreign words have become part of oure owne natiue

broode through repetition and familiarity. Newer adoptions like scheme and trope

are not yet part of that brood, though, and Sherry addresses their newness as he

proposes adding them to the language. He asks, And what maruail is it if these words

haue not bene vsed here tofore, seynge there was no suche thynge in oure Englishe

to~gue where vnto they shuld be applyed? In other words, given that there was no
 123

English rhetorical theory, there was no need to use words like scheme and trope

but the expansion of English learning calls for development or adoption of new terms.

Such terms must be selected in order to enable the study of English rhetoric, and they

must be commonly used within England to be accepted into oure owne natiue broode.

Sherry elaborates on his discussion of neologisms, and again connects it to his

nationalist concerns, when he discusses the scholars who laid the foundation for his

current work on English rhetoric. According to Sherry, augmenting the content of

English learning and the vocabulary of the English language go hand in hand, and it is

thanks to scholars who have done this hard work that he is able to share his own

rhetorical theories:

Good cause haue we therefore to gyue thankes vnto certayne godlye and

well learned men, whych by their greate studye enrychynge our tongue

both wyth matter and wordes, haue endeuoured to make it so copyous

and plentyfull that therein it maye compare wyth anye other whiche so

euer is the best. It is not vnknowen that oure language for the

barbarousnes and lacke of eloquence hathe bene complayned of, and yet

not trewely, for anye defaut in the toungue it selfe, but rather for

slackenes of our cou~trimen, whiche haue alwayes set lyght by searchyng

out the elegance and proper speaches that be ful many in it. (A.ii.v-A.iii.r)

Again Sherry asserts that English itself is a powerful language, the equal of any other

and furthermore, he argues that the scholars who are incorporating new words and

ideas into English are responsible for helping the language realize its potential. For

instance, the fact that there is no native English word for trope is not a sign of
 124

inferiority; it merely takes a scholar like Sherry to propose adopting the new word into

the natiue broode in order for the word and idea of trope to become a part of the

English language and English scholarship. Sherry cites the precedent of other scholars

who naturalized foreign words and concepts into English, listing our au~cie~t

forewriters, Gower, Chawcer and Lydgate as well as ye right worshipful knight syr

Thomas Eliot (A.iii.r).17 While English may need modifications in order to represent all

of the meaning available in other languages, the study of English itself will allow

scholars to improve it. And such improvement is necessary for a broad range of ideas,

expressions, and knowledge to become firmly part of the natiue broode of English

learning, which can (through the power of its own national language) equal its

Continental counterparts.

Together, these efforts to increase the power and prestige of English (from

Elyots use of the language for specific audiences to Sherrys glorification of it as an

object of study) combined to improve the standing of the vernacular, proving that it

could be a valid language for education as well as an object of study. In the process, due

to the association between England and English, the nations own scholarly status could

improve, and pride in the national language could develop. The following section

describes in more detail just that complex relationship between England and English.

17 For more on the connection between neologisms and national identity, see Chapter 4.
 125

Cultivating English as a Source of National Pride

The idea of English as a subject of study and source of national pride and power

influences many later sixteenth-century arguments for creating English literature, such

as Spensers lamentation about the kingdom of our own language. Earlier in the

century, this idea shows up in arguments that rhetorical education in the vernacular is

centrally important to English nation-building. One of the most explicit arguments for

English supporting England shows up in a surprising place: a treatise ostensibly about

archery, Roger Aschams Toxophilus, The Schole of Shootinge (1545).

Toxophilus was written while Ascham was at Cambridge, notably under the

tutelage of Sir John Cheke, who also famously advocated use of the vernacular. At first

glance, the treatise may seem an unlikely place to find commentary on use of vernacular

English. As the title implies, Toxophilus discusses longbow shooting, explaining that it is

a pastime, honest for the minde, holsome for the body, fit for eueri man, vile for no

man (A.iii.r). Throughout the book, which takes the form of a dialogue between two

characters, Ascham covers such subjects as the inuention of shootinge, Shootyng in

war, and Hitting the marke (Contentes). What makes Toxophilus such an

astonishing work, though, is that simultaneously with this argument about shooting

Ascham is creating an elaborate argument for the national importance of the

vernacular. Aschams focus on England and Englishness is evident from the very start of

the text, where he proudly announces that he has vvritten this Englishe matter in the

Englishe tongue, for Englishe men (A.iii.r). References to England and Englishness
 126

abound, and the relationships between shooting, vernacular English, and Englands

international power develop throughout the text.

The connections between shooting and writing in English emerge early in the

treatise; the connections between those activities and national identity emerge

somewhat later. As he introduces the book, Ascham repeatedly indicates that it is about

education and language as well as shooting. In the epistle of dedication to King Henry

VIII, he explains that the book is a signe of my minde, tovvardes honestie and

learninge as well as a sure token of my zeele to set forvvarde shootinge, offering

opinions about both education and shooting (A.iii.v). The role that language education,

in particular, plays in Toxophilus begins to be apparent in the same epistle, where

Ascham defends his decision to write in English. He argues that most English writings

are meanly done, because scholars with rhetorical education do not write in English

but instead favor the classical languages (A.iiii.v). This leaves English with a lack of

examples of good writing, and Ascham offers his treatise as a good example written by

one who could wryte well in any tongue but chooses to folowe thys councel of

Aristotle, to speake as the co~mon people do (a.i.r). So the treatise contains Aschams

opinions on education (as well as longbow shooting) and serves as an example to model

English style to students of the language.

But the book is about language in more ways that simply as an example of good

vernacular style. Throughout, it develops an extended analogy between English writing

and shooting. The analogy is foreshadowed in the introductory material, where Ascham

introduces comparisons between Englishmens writing and shooting: In our tyme

nowe, very many do write, but after suche a fashion, as very many do shoote (a.i.r).
 127

He goes on to explain that some archers use stronger bows than they ought and cant

aim properly. The analogy implies that some authors use languages that they do not

have mastery of and thus cant clearly argue their theses. Again, lack of rhetorical

education in English prevents English writings from metaphorically hitting their

targets, that is, convincing their audiences.

The main body of the book continues to develop this analogy on multiple planes.

The text consists of a dialogue between two young men. Philologus, walking out to

shoot with a group of friends, is surprised by Toxophiluss absence until he notices him

nearby, reading. The opening of the dialogue is already a reference to classical rhetoric,

strongly reminiscent of Socrates and Phaedruss meeting over a book outside the city.

Indeed, the book Toxophilus is so absorbed in is none other than the Phaedrus, only one

of the hundreds of references to classical rhetorical and philosophical texts throughout

Toxophilus.18 Clearly, this literary reference as well as the names of the characters

(Toxophilus for lover of bows and Philologus for lover of books) indicate an

early comparison between archery and verbal arts. The conversation between

Toxophilus and Philologus quickly evolves into a discussion of the benefits of archery

and scholarship, respectivelyToxophilus regrets that he spent a beautiful day

engrossed in a book while Philologus respects his friends devotion to learning.

Toxophilus convincingly argues that shooting, like learning, is a worthwhile pastime.

Far from interfering with scholarship, he argues, archery can support learning both by

18 Indeed, as K. J. Wilson observes, Ascham indicated the importance of classical sources to his

schole of shootinge through an apparatus of marginal references. The references suggest, in

particular, that Ascham relied heavily on Cicero as a model and a source, again strengthening
the connection between the art of shooting and the art of rhetoric (109).
 128

providing a necessary and fruitful break from work (as with a farmer who must let the

la~d lye sometime falloe [A.ii.v]) and by offering practice in self-discipline and

training. Toxophilus proceeds, through the lengthy dialogue, to describe proper

practices of shooting and learning to shoot and to continually justify the usefulness of

shooting.

From this overall argument, it is superficially simple to read the treatise as a

story of Philologuss education in shooting. However, the analogy Ascham creates and

repeatedly enforces encourages us to read the dialogue as a commentary on education,

in general, as well. K. J. Wilson, in a book on Renaissance dialogues, clearly explains

Toxophilus often seems to be not so much a treatise on shooting as a treatise on

learning any skill or body of knowledge. And as Toxophilus describes an education in

shooting, so Philologus describes an education in rhetoric. Wilson describes how the

orientation of the entire dialogue is recast if the reader places himself in the position

of Toxophilus, learning from Philologus In the field of rhetoric, it is the bow-lover

who is the amateur (111). Philologus offers a rhetorical education in the Ciceronian

style, instructing Toxophilus to describe perfect shooting just as Cicero had attempted

to portray the perfect orator (112). Wilson sums up their mutual education: While

Toxophilus is intent on the exposition of and apology for shooting, Philologus is no less

assiduous in relating its principles to eloquence, both recognizing the double meaning

of their words (113). Rhetoric, importantly taught and exemplified in the vernacular, is

a central part of Toxophilus.

How, then, do both shooting and the vernacular connect to national identity in

this text? Like Hobys defense of English as a means of staying competitive with other
 129

nations, so Aschams justifications of both shooting and the vernacular are largely

focused on international power and even imperialism. The books celebration of

longbow archery is, in itself, a patriotic subject, and the connection between shooting

and England must be explained before the analogous connection between English

education and England makes sense. Historically, some of Englands most famous

military victories had relied on the longbow. A notable example is Henry Vs victory

over the French at Agincourt in 1415. Some historians, and much English legend, credit

Englands victory in the face of Frances far superior number of troops to Henrys use of

thousands of longbow archers (Chaplin 85-86; Hardy 115-19). In fact, the English were

known internationally for their archery skills. In a description of different countries

military capabilities, Renaissance Italian Giovanni Botero explained that English

soldiers were particularly formidable with their long bowes (qtd. in Chaplin 86).

Ascham references this reputation, asserting that the English are so praysed of there

frendes, so feared of there ennemyes because of their talent for and historical success

with archery, in particular (M.i.r).

Advocating for the longbow in Toxophilus was particularly timely in that a year

before its publication Henry VIII had come back from a new victory in France, inspiring

comparison with Henry V, glorification of English archery, and renewed discussion of

Englands superiority over France and other nations (Sloane 152).19 Longbow shooting

19 Ascham had sent an earlier version of Toxophilus to a printer before Henry VIII left to fight in

Boulogne. In a letter to William Paget, he explained that the book would prove useful to
Englishmen at home and in wartime so that every Englishman may learn it [archery] fully and
completely. However, Ascham recalled the text before Henry left and did not release it until he
had returned triumphant (Vos 58). Given that Ascham alludes in a later letter to his hopes that
Henry would accept his dedication of Toxophilus and provide him an annuity (Vos 70-72), it is
reasonable to suggest that he may have purposefully waited until the successful outcome of the
 130

was, historically and contemporarily with Ascham, particularly associated with

Englishness and English military triumph. Aschams praise of shooting and shooting

education as pastimes appropriate for Englishmen both proponed a traditionally

English sport and aimed to increase Englands military power by advocating military

training.

Ascham uses this association between archery and Englands military triumphs

at great length, and explicitly, to justify his plan for teaching shooting. In a section that

the table of contents refers to as Lacke of learnynge to shoote causethe Englande lacke

many a good archer, Toxophilus explains that All Englishe men generally, be apte for

shotyng (L.iii.r). With education to enhance this native talent, England would benefit

from archery even more than it currently does:

if the youthe of Englande being apte of it selfe to shote, were taught and

learned how to shote, the Archers of England shuld not be only a great

deale ra~ker, and mo then they be: but also a good deale bygger and

stronger Archers then they be so if a man be neuer so apte to shote, nor

neuer so wel taught in his youth to shote, yet if he giue it ouer, and not

vse to shote, truly when he shalbe eyther co~pelled in warre tyme for his

countrye sake, or els prouoked at home for his pleasure sake, to faule to

his bowe: he shalbe come of a fayre archer, a stark squyrter and dribber.

(L.iii.v)

siege of Boulogne to capitalize on national fervor and renewed importance of his text on
archery.
 131

Toxophilus asserts that English boys have a natural aptitude for shooting, but that

aptitude is not enough without training to complement and enhance it. If archery

training becomes a popular pastime (and even a subject of school education), even in

leisure Englishmen will be training for war. And such training is necessary, Toxophilus

argues, particularly given that other countries practice military skills as sports. He

personifies the sport of shooting and outrage at its underappreciation in England:

Yf shotyng could speake, she would accuse England of vnkyndnesse and

slouthfulnesse, of vnkyndnesse toward her bycause she beyng left to a

lytle blynd vse, lackes her best maintener which is cunnynge: of

shouthfulnesse towarde theyr owne selfe, bycause they are content wyth

that whych aptnesse and vse doth graunt them in shootynge, and wyl

seke for no knowlege as other noble co~mon welthes haue done: and the

iustlier shootynge myght make thys complaynt, seynge that of fence and

weapons there is made an Arte, a thynge in no wyse to be compared to

shootynge. (M.i.v)

Other countries advocate for training in military skills even in times of peace, Ascham

argues, while the English are content to rely on their natural talent. But Toxophilus is

Aschams attempt to correct the English complacency through education. The

implication is that England will be a nation of strong archers, allowing when necessary

for repetitions of Henry V and Henry VIIIs victories in France.

Given the analogy created and enforced throughout the book, in which learning

archery parallels learning English, rhetorical education is given similarly patriotic

purposes as longbow education. The passages about archerys benefit for England,
 132

quoted above, neatly align with Aschams complaints in the introduction that English is

written rudely, by unpracticed authors. Just as English men have natural talent in

archery but are untrained in the finer points of the art, so they grow up speaking

English but receive little or no rhetorical education in English. Indeed, throughout this

section such a near parallel exists that shooting could be replaced in nearly every

instance with the vernacular. In one such passage Philologus quickly understands the

necessity of education to shore up natural skills, echoing Toxophilus in his assertion,

And in dede I thought a fore, English me~ most apte for shoting, and I sawe them

dayelye vse shotyng, but yet I neuer founde none, that woulde talke of anye knowlege

whereby a man might come to shotynge (M.ii.v). Just so, English people are apt with

and dayelye vse the English vernacular, but almost none talke of anye knowledge

whereby a man might come to sophisticated English rhetorical education. As Brent L.

Nelson argues, The patriotism that moves Ascham to promote the weapon that enabled

Henry V to win the battle of Agincourt similarly provides his impulse to improve the

state of English letters. Toxophilus encourages vernacular education at the same time,

and for the same nationalistic reasons, that it encourages archery education.

The assertion that Toxophilus emphasizes the importance for national identity of

education in the vernacular is not merely implied; Ascham explicitly acknowledges the

connections between language and Englishness in a letter to Bishop Stephen Gardiner.

In the letter, Ascham explains that he was inspired to write Toxophilus not only by the

lamentable state of English archery training, but by the lamentable state of the

vernacular. Much of the letter consists of a diatribe against the current state of

vernacular scholarship. Ascham rants, I understand that mostly unlearned and

 133

thoughtless men have undertaken this sort of study [scholarship in or study of the

vernacular]. The relatively uneducated men currently writing in the vernacular do not

understand or address the topics of classical literature and philosophy, and they

completely lack rhetorical education:

Moreover, they are ignorant of metaphor and of words suited to the

true splendor of the subject. And then they are unskilled and ignorant of

how to organize it correctly. Dialectic for reasoning and rhetoric for

adornment have not even touched their lips, and so in our vernacular

they study to be not native and appropriate, but rather outlandish and

bizarre. (Vos 71)

Despite the English peoples natural knack for speaking English, akin to their knack

for archery, that aptness has not been trained, educated, or shaped into a sophisticated

understanding of how language can and should be used to make an argument, educate,

or even entertain. In a passage that clarifies both Aschams depth of feeling and the

perceived connection between the vernacular and English identity, Ascham writes I am

terribly upset that Englishmen are empty and barren of the ability to write English, yet

rush into it heedlessly. For some years only the more audacious, not the more skilled,

have given themselves to this matter, which fact has introduced great confusion into

our language and filled our realm with all kinds of crazy books (Vos 71). The comment

about our realm is telling. Poorly written English works are associated more closely

with the English nation than poorly written works in Latin might be, even if they were

written by Englishmenthe influence of the crazy English books is confined to

England, as is the harm they might do to learning. Since English, like longbow archery, is
 134

a potential source of international power, it must be protected and taught as the

important part of English identity that it is.

Finally, Ascham observes that the current lack of English rhetorical education

has resulted in the deplorable state of English learning. In the introduction to

Toxophilus, he explains his decision to write in English even though writing the treatise

in Latin would have been more appropriate for his scholarly aspirations:

And as for ye Latin or greke tonge, euery thyng is so excellently done in

them, that none can do better: In the Englysh tonge contrary, euery thinge

in a maner so meanly, bothe for the matter and handelynge, that no man

can do worse. For therin the least learned for the moste parte, haue ben

alwayes moost redye to wryte. And they whiche had leaste hope in latin,

haue bene moste boulde in englyshe: when surelye euery man that is

moste ready to taulke, is not moost able to wryte. (A.iiii.v)

English is being used poorly because only those scholars not intelligent enough to

compose in Latin are using it. And as Jones points out, by using the vernacular for

scholarship authors like Ascham had the power to greatly increase the prestige of the

native tongue (14). By advocating that Englishmen, in general, ought to improve their

natural talent for speaking English through rhetorical education, Ascham hopes that the

vernacular will be worthy of higher esteem, within and outside of England. As Sherry

argued, an increase in prestige for the English language would allow England to be

intellectually competitive with other countries, spreading education within the nation

via vernacular learning and establishing a native scholarly tradition to rival those
 135

developing in other European nations. Just as archery will increase Englands military

power, so will vernacular learning increase its intellectual power.

As Thomas O. Sloane observes, the patriotism of Aschams effort is patent

throughout Toxophilus (156). Throughout the book he returns, again and again, to the

assertion that England will benefit from education, particularly in archery and in the

vernacular. A poem on the title page of Toxophilus neatly captures the patriotism of the

book:

Reioyse Englande, be gladde and merie,

TROTHE ouerco~mmeth thyne enemyes all,

The Scot, the Frencheman, the Pope, and heresie,

OVERCOMMED by Trothe, haue had a fall;

Sticke to the Trothe, and euermore thou shall

Through Christ, King Henry, the Boke and the Bowe

All maner of enemies, quite ouerthrowe.

The boke and the bowe appear (along with Christ and King Henry) as weapons that

England can use to overthrow its enemies. The boke of vernacular education, alluded

to throughout Toxophilus and described in detail in Aschams writing to Gardiner, has

the power to serve England. Like the longbow, the book (and the English language it is

composed in) can represent and protect the nascent nation.

For sixteenth-century England, the growth of the vernacular corresponded with

a rejection of the control or influence of international forces. Richard Helgerson

observes that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the English came to think of

themselves and their language both as having been colonized and as potentially
 136

colonizing others (Language Lessons 289). Waswo similarly refers to the growing

use of the vernacular as decolonization of language and culture (411) and points out

that Western Europe began thus to decolonize itself from antiquity during the

sixteenth century, at just the moment when it also began to colonize the rest of the

world (416). The spread of the English language to Englands colonies reflects the

important association growing between language and nation. And once the English had

the kingdom of their own language, the language and kingdom spread in concert with

one another.

Conclusion: Recognizing Linguistic Imperialism in Sixteenth-Century

England

Looking back on the sixteenth century, with its reputation for the flowering of

Elizabethan literature and many developments in English culture and learning, it is easy

to forget that the century began with deep hesitance about the use of English in any

formal setting. Growth of English, first as an acceptable medium for teaching and

translations and later as a subject worthy of rhetorical study in its own right, reflected

changes in the perceived national status of England. English education would allow

more students to be well educated, increasing the overall educational level of the

country. Translating works into English would effectively naturalize their ideas into

English identity, making them available for those who could not speak foreign

languages and lessening the language barrier even for those who could perform the
 137

translation tasks. Studying English as a complex and figurative language would increase

its ability to express sophisticated ideas, improving its reputation alongside the

reputation of the nation that uses it. And advocating for the widespread use of English

would protect the country from foreign influence, improving the skills for which English

people have a natural talent.

Broadly, authors claimed that the study of English was a necessary complement

to Englands developing international reputationthat perceptions of the English

language directly and indirectly influenced the perceptions and strength of England as a

nation. As Aschams poem demonstrates, the Boke of the vernacular is a powerful

marker of Englishnessand as such, a protection from all manner of enemies.

 138

Chapter 3. Rhetorical Style and the Development of the English

Nation

For a sixteenth-century rhetorician, Ralph Lever had noticeably extreme

opinions about style. Though Lever is not as well known as many of his contemporaries,

he followed similar educational and employment patterns: like Thomas Wilson, for

example, he was educated at Cambridge, exiled during Mary Tudors reign, and

appointed to an ecclesiastical position at Durham cathedral (Howell 57-58). Also like

his contemporaries, Lever was concerned about the implications of English style,

particularly about issues such as borrowing from foreign languages.1 But unlike other

rhetoricians, Lever unapologetically advocated for completely pure English, free from

phrases, words, and roots that originated with linguistic sources other than true &

auncient english words. When faced with the problem of finding language for scientific

advancements and concepts that were not expressible in older versions of English, he

asserted that all new words (specifically academic vocabularies) should be created from

existing English words, not foreign borrowings. In fact, the guide to logic and rhetoric in

which he presents this stylistic theory doesnt even use the words logic or rhetoric,

but replaces both with the invented English term witcraft. Latinate words like

1 In discussing the similarities between Lever and his contemporary rhetoricians, especially

Wilson, Howell observes that, had things turned out a bit differently, Levers work on logic
and rhetoric would have attained the prominence we now associate with Wilsons (57).
However, given that Wilsons Rule of Reason was published a few years before Levers work on
logic and rhetoric, Wilsons piece earned the distinction of being the first complete logic in our
language and gained for itself the authority that any original effort usually commands (57).
 139

conclusion are replaced with invented English words like endsay, and even

sophisticated philosophical terms are recreated from English roots and influences.2

The reasoning behind Levers substitutions of English words for their foreign

counterparts is simple: using pure English, he argues, will lead to the development of

learning within England, strengthening the nations international presence and

influence. Lever argues that the flourishing of English scholarship in the sixteenth

century is a direct result of scholars using the English vernacular more frequently. He

exclaims, [W]hat man of experience and wit seeth not, that learning did neuer so

flourishe in England in our forefathers dayes, as it doth now, and hathe done of late,

euen since men haue begon to write of Artes in our englishe tongue? (*.vii.v). The

logical extension of this causal chain, according to Lever, is that further purification of

English will make the language easier to learn, and thus lead to even more widespread

education within England as well as additional improvement in English scholarship. Just

as using the English vernacular (rather than Latin) was a means to demonstrate that the

nation need not rely on outside languages or learning, so purifying English style could

serve as the next step in cultivating Englands international scholarly standing, assuring

that English national identity was associated with learning. It would prove that English

was just as versatile and sophisticated a language as Latin or its Continental rivals.

2 Predictably, while many of Levers neologisms make sense, his heavy use of new words makes

his text difficult to read. He includes a glossary at the end to aid readers in understanding his
newly-created English words, but nonetheless readers must muddle through passages like
When the foresette and backset of a shewesay, haue eyther of them a contrarye terme, then
those foure contrarye termes, may two seuerall wayes be coupled togyther, to make contrarie
sayings (202). It is worth noting that none of his newly-proposed English words became
established in the languagepossibly the result of Wilsons earlier and popular descriptions of
logic and rhetoric using Latinate terms (Orten).
 140

Lever was a purist, and his extremism on the issue of pure English style and

vocabulary was unusual (Barber, English 178). But his concern with style, and its

importance for England as a nation, was shared by many other sixteenth-century

rhetoricians. As discussed in the previous chapter, language was a central marker of

identity, and to speak and write English indicated a connection to or membership in the

nation itself. It followed that the particular variety or style of English that a speaker

used had the potential to reflect on that nation as well. Throughout the sixteenth

century, controversies about neologisms, foreign borrowings, inkhorn affectations, and

specific tropes were common.3 And these stylistic concerns were consistently related to

larger issues. Foreign borrowings, for example, signified Englands reliance upon other

nations and thus implied its inferiority. Inkhorn language (the erudite, Latinate

language of medieval scholasticism) was related to Catholic values, and was

consequently opposed by Reformers who were attempting to solidify Englands

connection to Protestantism. Other medieval influences were rejected as humanist

educators attempted to modernize England, turning to classical examples rather than

medieval precedents. (The shift from medieval to classical models can literally be seen

in English art and architecture from the period: picture the difference between the

gothic arches and vaults of medieval cathedrals and the classical domes and columns of

Renaissance cathedrals.) English style, far from being a superficial concern, was related

3 For a general overview of these stylistic debates, see Edward Hales PMLA article Ideas on

Rhetoric in the Sixteenth Century. Hale describes how authors took sides over such issues as
whether scholastic, inkhorn words were appropriate additions to the English language, and
whether English vocabulary should rely on foreign borrowings or neologisms formed of English
root words.
 141

to deep questions about what sort of nation England was becoming, and to concerns

about what it would mean to be an English subject.4

Despite these concerns with the importance of style, sixteenth-century English

was relatively bereft of agreed-upon stylistic guidelines, having only come into frequent

use for scholarly and professional purposes during the fifteenth century. Thus, the

authors who, like Lever, were making arguments about English style in the sixteenth

century recognized their opportunity to shape the language before it was solidified in

practices. Since English was not yet standardized, popular textbooks and teaching

methods had significant potential to influence the development of the language. Using

appropriate style was important, but teaching appropriate style was even more crucial.

Models for teaching style were plentifulCicero, for example, had set Latin stylistic

standards that were still widely taught and respectedbut their English equivalents

were only just emerging. Texts meant to be used by students or young professionals,

practicing such traditional rhetorical skills as the arts of letter-writing and composition

of speeches, proponed sometimes-contradictory theories of style in attempts to direct

and influence the development of English itself.

In this chapter, I will discuss how sixteenth-century developments in English

style were related to the development of the nation itself. Rhetoric texts encouraged or

discouraged specific styles based on how they represented (and thus, constructed)

English identitywhether they were perceived to aid Englands struggle for respect in

4 For an overall description of the importance of style in Renaissance England (including more

discussion of foreign borrowings, inkhorn terms, and modernizing language) see Howells Logic
and Rhetoric in England, Rebhorns The Emperor of Mens Minds, and Macks Elizabethan
Rhetoric. See also Renaissance Eloquence (ed. James J. Murphy), particularly the chapters by Paul
Oskar Kristeller, John O. Ward, Richard J. Schoeck, and Heinrich F. Plett.
 142

the international scholarly community, how they could affect the religious leanings of

English people, and how they would present English subjects to outside observers

(among other concerns). After a general description of how English rhetorical education

came to be connected with perceptions of the English nation, this chapter will examine

two important sub-types of stylistic rhetoric texts: letter-writing manuals and basic

guides to rhetorical figures. Letter-writing manuals, the first group of primary texts I

will address, argued for improvements and refinements in English style in order to

increase the clarity and usefulness of the language for scholarship and commerce. Style

guides, described in the subsequent section, focused on the need to develop and solidify

specifically English style in order to decrease foreign influence and add to Englands

linguistic and academic autonomy. Together, these sections will demonstrate just a few

of the many ways in which sixteenth-century English stylistic instruction related to the

development of England as a nation.

Style and National Identity in England

To understand the connection between rhetorical style and the English nation, it

is first necessary to understand the nature of sixteenth-century English education and

its deep emphasis on classical scholarship. Along with the educational content of the

classics, Renaissance scholars often adopted classical points of view regarding such

issues as politics. In the case of rhetoric, specifically, the classical connection between

rhetoric and civic life made an important reappearance in Renaissance education and
 143

became centrally important to humanist schooling, such as that in sixteenth-century

England. Moreover, the civic importance of rhetoric was often attached, in fairly explicit

ways, to stylistic choices as well as other aspects of rhetoric. The following sections will

describe how the revival of classicism, as well as other educational developments, led to

the connections between style and national identity in sixteenth-century England.

Classical Revival and the Civic Importance of Rhetoric

The rebirth or revival of classical works was a characteristic of the

Renaissance throughout Europethe word Renaissance itself refers to just that

rebirth. Classical precedents began to influence architecture, science, and even

philosophy.5 But particularly important for the subject at hand was the vibrant revival

of classical rhetoric. Heinrich F. Plett explains that the revival of rhetoric during the

Renaissance was particularly noteworthy because during that period rhetoric regained

an importance which it did not possess before or after (Rhetoric 13-14). In other

words, not only was classical rhetoric revived during the period, but it was revived with

a fervor that was not matched by earlier glimmers of revival (such as that represented

by Augustine) or later ones (such as the development of rhetoric and logic in

eighteenth-century Scotland). Rhetoric became a central concern for educators during

the Renaissance.

5 Any general overview of learning in the Renaissance will further describe the concept of

rebirth and how it spread throughout various scholarly and artistic fields. For example, the
introduction to The Sixteenth Century in the Norton anthology on sixteenth and seventeenth
century English literature details how, through humanism, the rebirth of classicism touched
numerous fields.
 144

A series of discoveries throughout the late medieval period set the stage for this

revival of rhetoric: religious men and scholars such as Petrarch, Salutati, Landriani, and

Bracciolini found works by Cicero and Quintilian that had been missing since classical

times (Plett, Rhetoric 16). From these found works came rediscovered rhetorical

conceptsclassical ideas, such as the division of rhetoric into five arts or canons,

that had been lost during the medieval period but were once again championed for

their educatory and explanatory power (Howell 66-115). This renewed interest in

classical rhetoric led to the rebirth not only of specific rhetorical concepts, but also of

classical beliefs about the power of rhetoric. One such belief that regained prominence

at the start of the Renaissance was the idea that rhetoric could powerfully influence

civic lifea salient idea in the writings of Greek and Roman rhetoricians.

This connection between rhetoric and civics largely resulted from new

perspectives on Cicero. In Petrarchs revival of Ciceronian rhetoric, Ciceros image

changed drastically from the medieval understanding of the orator as a rather dry

theoretician. Instead, with new works discovered and attributed to him, Cicero

emerged both as the author of theoretical writings on rhetoric and simultaneously as

its practitioner as a lawyer and statesman (16). He used his rhetorical skills and

theories to negotiate Roman politics, demonstrating the power that effective rhetoric

could have on a large, national scale. De Oratore (one of the more influential of the

recovered Ciceronian works) consists of dialogues between men discussing how

rhetoric can be used in civil matters; how knowledge of law is essential to effective

rhetoric; and how rhetoric can effect changes in the course of a countrytopics typical

of Ciceros insistence that rhetoric is an essential tool for a citizen and can be used to
 145

shape national life (64, 105, 134). Through this text and others, Plett explains, Cicero

unit[ed] the the qualities of both vita activa and vita contemplativa, showing that

rhetorics influence and importance stretched far beyond the confines of universities. It

was related to citizenship, to politics, and to nations. Rhetorical education, then, was

central to building communities and shaping individuals as members of those

communities. Cicero, who served as the ultimate classical authority for many

Renaissance scholars, encouraged education as a necessary step for an individual to

become a political leaderor even just a thoughtful citizen.

Humanists throughout Europe took this rediscovered connection between

rhetoric and civic affiliation deeply to heart. Referring to the use of Cicero in the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Joseph F. Freedman explains Cicero was

universally regarded as a major authority yet he was also an ancient authority whose

individual writings could be used and interpreted in a variety of different and often

contrary ways (241-42). For example, although Dutch scholar Erasmus and the English

humanists both relied heavily upon Cicero, Erasmus applied his theories of connection

between rhetoric and civic life quite differently from how the English humanists

ultimately would. Erasmus emphasized that education (specifically rhetorical

education) could unify the Christian church (which, it is important to note, was

inseparable from politics at the time and functioned, to some extent, like a national

group). To Erasmus, the newfound power of rhetoric to affect national and civic

affiliations meant that widespread education could be used to connect learners in a

pan-national group. If rhetorical education were widespread and somewhat

standardized, he argued, people would cross national boundaries in favor of

 146

international scholarly and religious communitiestheir identities would adjust with

their learning. With such international community, Erasmus hoped that the church

(which was already, in the fifteenth century, showing signs of the stress and division

that later led to the Reformation) could be reunited and saved. Essentially, Erasmus

took the inspiration of classical rhetoric to indicate that through rhetorical education,

organizing systems like churches and nations could be shaped and reshaped in

significant ways.6 If rhetoric and civic identity are intimately connected, then rhetorical

education can lead to changes in civic orientation.

The same Ciceronian idea about the connection between rhetoric and national

and civic life was taken up quite differently in England, where the rebirth of classicism

that characterized the pan-European Renaissance emerged in the sixteenth century.

Erasmuss educational ideas were quite influential in England, but his pan-national view

of the unifying power of rhetoric was not adopted by the English humanists. Rather

than emphasizing Catholicism and universal use of Latin, English humanists used the

connection between rhetoric and civic life in support of a more restricted English

nationalism and (in some cases) reformed religion. As Erasmus had hoped to use

rhetorical education to strengthen international Catholic communities, so the English

humanists used rhetoric to tighten national allegiances to England and to

Protestantism. They adhered to Ciceros emphasis on the importance of education for

6 As is demonstrated in his satirical piece Ciceronianus (1528), Erasmus balanced his

admiration for Cicero with a conviction that the classical authors pagan rhetoric needed to be
Christianized. Following a pagan example too closely, Erasmus argued, would threaten an
individuals Christianity (Henderson, Erasmian Ciceronians 273-74).
 147

developing members of a particular communityand in this case, that community was

the nation of England.

But the civic influences of rhetoric were not confined to the humanist enclaves of

Oxford and Cambridge; rather, the educational developments taking place in those

centers of learning spread outwards to reach a much broader swath of English society.

Plett neatly explains how the humanists established trends and developments that

began to affect all of English education:

In the eyes of the humanists, rhetoric is equivalent to culture as such, the

perennial and substantial essence of man, his greatest ontological

privilege. Renaissance rhetoric was, however, not confined to the cultural

elite of the humanists but became a substantial factor of a broad cultural

movement which had great impact on the educational system of the

humanities and encompassed increasingly more social groups and strata.

(Rhetoric 14)

While the movement connecting rhetorical education to English nationalism may have

begun at universities, humanists pushed for it to expand beyond the bounds of such

formal education. In England, the Renaissance was marked by rising levels of education,

as well as an increased emphasis on the importance of education for the flourishing of

the English nation (Clark, Baldwin). The focus on education in the English Renaissance

has been broadly attributed to a number of causes. Reformation theology, which

prioritized each individuals personal relationship with God, encouraged literacy so that

believers could read at least enough to puzzle through English Bibles without the help

of a priest. Economic changes during the period contributed to the growth of

 148

professions that required education, and shifting structures of social position

(sometimes referred to as the birth of the middle class) allowed more students access

to basic education.

Education in sixteenth-century England could be experienced in a variety of

ways. Alongside what we think of as traditional school education (consisting of

grammar schools and universities, available to the wealthy and to those who showed

enough academic promise to win sponsorship), English subjects in the Renaissance may

have experienced personalized tutorship, religious education, professional training in

the form of apprenticeships, behavioral or courtliness education, or domestic education,

depending on their gender, social standing, wealth, and location in the country.7 As

described in the previous chapter, the increasing vernacularization of English scholarly,

religious, and political life meant that such language education was increasingly

occurring in English. But far from solving the problem of what types of language to use,

vernacularization raised new questions about what varieties of English were the best,

or most appropriate, to use in various situations. Unsurprisingly, since rhetoric and

civic life were increasingly seen as intertwined, these questions of appropriate style

were deeply connected to questions about the most appropriate characteristics for

English subjects and for England itself.

The relationship of education and civic life extended far beyond noble

individuals or those with direct political influence. Even those who were not directly

involved in politics were nonetheless seen as part of the increasingly prominent idea of

English national identitythe concept that English subjects shared some fundamental

7 For a more detailed description of education in Renaissance England, see Chapter 1.
 149

set of characteristics. Thus, subjects who were not directly associated with civic life

could be drawn into it secondarily by their association with English identity. The body

metaphor, an increasingly popular way to describe government during the English

Renaissance, is a telling example here: while royalty and nobility (essentially, those

invested with direct political power) serve as the head of the body, controlling and

directing the rest, the other English subjects form necessary support without which the

head could not survive.8 Enacting English identity, then, is an important civic activity

regardless of an individuals level of direct involvement in politicsand that enactment

is inseparably connected to rhetoric.

Rhetorical Style as Expression of National Identity

As I describe in the first chapter, the type of national identity I refer to here can

be read and enacted in a variety of realms, ranging from religious adherence and

education to more superficial issues like clothing and diet. But language remains one of

the most central ways in which a subject could enact, or demonstrate, his or her

Englishness, and appropriate English style was a crucial component of that

8 Publications throughout the sixteenth century illustrate this increased interest in English civic

life. The Mirror for Magistrates (1559) was a collection of poetry about historical English rulers,
largely providing negative examples (of unsuccessful rulers) whose cautionary tales were
meant to serve as warnings to current political figures. As Jessica Winston observes in a
perceptive analysis of the piece, the Mirror was not merely a warning to politicians but also a
text that could encourage conversation about the obligations and responsibilities of those
who rule the commonwealth (382). Moreover, the popularity of texts like the Mirror indicates
that such conversation had a large audience which included the nobility and members of the
universities and Inns of Court as well as women and merchants. Such popular interest in a work
covering all rulers throughout British history shows an involvement on the part of a growing
reading public with questions about the history of the governance of the nation (400). This
type of concern with English history and politics is one of many indications that English
subjects were increasingly interested in their nation.
 150

demonstration. Since English authors wanted the English language to be powerful and

comparable to European languages, it needed to be stylistically clear, useful, and

appropriate. While those sound like obvious qualifications for a language, clarity had

not been highly prized in medieval English. In fact, some Renaissance writers accused

their predecessors of privileging obscurity over clarity, intentionally complicating the

language to restrict understanding to the highly educated (Lundin 140). English needed

to be understandable in order to be useful, and used. As education spread to the lower

classes, and people with less formal education had access to writing, simplicity was

clearly favorable over alternatives. Through stylistic choices (like word choice, accents,

and the presence or absence or figurative language) individuals could indicate whether

they belonged in certain groups.

In a study of mid-sixteenth century English rebellions, Andy Wood offers a

particularly clear description of how linguistic style can be used to indicate

memberships and allegiance in a community. He writes:

the interrelationship of language, social relations and place has a

special resonance for the early modern period. Contemporaries were well

aware of how accents and dialects designated countries and

neighborhoods and hence how speech patterns represented the

conjunction between social identity and local belonging Local

knowledge, then, was intermixed with local speech. (135)

Language style is ubiquitous and telling as a way to indicate belonging. Moreover, Wood

continues by explaining that that local speech and local knowledge may encompass

a large area, even a macro-political community. The common locality might span a
 151

neighborhood, a county, a region or the realm (136). Because of the connections

between style and identity, standardizing English style was one way that authors could

propone or control the identities offered to their students through education.

Largely, modern critics agree that style was a remarkably important category of

education in the English Renaissance. Many of the best-known descriptions of the

periods rhetoric include stylistic education as a particularly prominent facet of

rhetorical understanding. For example, W. S. Howells well-known division of types of

English Renaissance rhetoric into the Ciceronian, the stylistic, and the formulary types

shows the prominence of style: Stylistic education is central to the stylistic and

formulary types, and is also a component of Ciceronian rhetorical education (65).

Overall, in Howells division style appears as the most important rhetorical canon in the

period.9 Similarly, many books about rhetoric from the period focus on levels or types

of style as important rhetorical identifiers. Debra Shugers study Sacred Rhetoric: The

Christian Grand Style in Renaissance Rhetoric asserts that stylistic choices were more

than superficial: they were seen to connect deeply to subject matter and to affect the

message being conveyed by treating it with tropes appropriate to its level of

seriousness. Kenneth Graham offers a similar read of stylistic levels in his discussion of

the Performance of Conviction, in which he argues that stylistic plainness was used by

sixteenth-century English authors as means of persuasiona way to perform

9 Howell defines Ciceronian rhetorical education as that which focuses on the five canons of

rhetoric, as introduced in Ciceros De Oratore (65). Stylistic rhetoric is similarit also considers
all five canons to make important contributions to the study of rhetoricbut privileges style as
the most important aspect of training in communication (116). And finally, formulary rhetoric
is less complex, consisting of example texts for students to follow without the explanatory
theory found in the other types (138).
 152

conviction. Overall, it is clear that education about, and practice of, various types of

style factored centrally into communication in Renaissance England.

Despite the overall importance of style in the period, the texts that contributed

most directly to that stylistic education are often undervalued in studies of English

rhetorical history. Style handbooks that offered lists of figures, for example, can be seen

as less sophisticated or rhetorical than their more theoretical counterparts.10 Early in

the twentieth century, Edward Hale expressed the dismissive attitude that would

characterize much scholarship on sixteenth-century style guides: The greater number

of rhetorics of the sixteenth century are without any ideas at all. For example, he

explains that Sherrys book is just what it pretends to be, namely, a treatise upon the

Figures of Grammar and Rhetoric (439). As such, Hale implies, Sherrys treatise (and

others like his) cannot contain meaningful rhetorical instruction aside from lists of

rules.11

Some of the negative attitudes modern scholars hold toward stylistic rhetoric

are likely influenced by the prominence of Ramism in the later sixteenth century.

French humanist Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) famously separated the five canons of

rhetoric, declaring that rhetoric was merely a study of style and delivery, while the

canons of invention, arrangement, memory belonged more properly in the domain of

10 See, for example, Howells brief discussion and dismissal of formulary rhetorics such as those

by Peacham, Rainolde, Lever, and Fulwood (138-145) compared to his extended analysis of the
more sophisticated (and modern-looking) Ciceronian textbooks (66-115).
11 Hale is similarly dismissive of other authors of style guidebooks: Like Sherry, Peacham

writes on Figures; like him he throws little light on the literary movement of the time (439).
His praise is reserved for authors who, like Wilson or Elyot, wrote texts that more thoroughly
resemble classical or modern rhetorical instruction, with emphasis on each canon and
theoretical material to support examples and formulas.
 153

logic or philosophy. Understandably, this version of rhetoric is significantly weakened,

making rhetoric itself an afterthought that follows the more advanced and meaningful

thought processes that precede verbal expression. Ramuss ideas increased in

popularity in England in the second half of the sixteenth century, and they ultimately

laid the foundation for the windowpane view of language, in which truth can be

accessed through the clear window of language, without interference from words and

styles (Ong, Ramus). As Howell observes, many of the English style guides that can be

dismissed as formulary belong to the period that followed the invasion of Ramistic

doctrine into English learning (145). Through their association with Ramism, then,

such style guides are easily dismissed or overlooked as being less rhetorical than their

counterparts that reflect all five canons of Ciceronian rhetoric. However, the

remarkably negative attitude towards Ramism has unfairly shaded attitudes towards

some of the sixteenth-century style guides, which were quite sophisticated rhetorical

texts despite their heavy emphasis on style. Using a division similar to Howells

categorization of texts, Sister Miriam Joseph explains that, while they might initially

seem less sophisticated than their counterparts, the figurists were in fact

comprehensively treating the whole of rhetoric. Joseph argues that while the figurists

(including such authors as Sherry, Peacham, Puttenham, and Day) may appear to write

only about style, their definition of style is so inclusive that it really includes all parts of

rhetoric (34). The fact that current rhetorical theory has roundly rejected the Ramistic

division should not imply that style and delivery are unimportant parts of rhetoric, and

that certainly was not true in the period under consideration.

 154

The stylistic texts discussed in this chapter will demonstrate how, for sixteenth-

century English authors, the canon of style was invested with significant importance,

both as a central part of any rhetorical education and as a meaningful demonstration of

the strength of the English language. When viewed in the context of classical revival, the

ways in which style was seen to influence civic or national life will be particularly

apparent. Style was far from mere ornament. It was a sophisticated tool for indicating

and influencing national identity.

English Letter-Writing Style

Of all the reasons sixteenth-century authors offered for refining English style, the

most straightforward was that stylistic clarity would make English a more practical

language in the official realms in which it was increasingly being used. Better style

could help English replace Latin as the language used for official settings within

England. During the medieval period, English had been mostly restricted to use in

everyday, unofficial settings, while Latin and French had been the languages of

education and scholarship, legal and judicial matters, religion, and politics. Early

English did not even have the vocabulary necessary to express ideas in such settings,

nor did it have the stylistic standardization or sophistication necessary to be precise.

But the growing use of the vernacular, discussed in Chapter 2, broadened the range of

areas in which English was the primary form of communication. Improving Englishs

usefulness in a much larger sense was particularly important as the sixteenth century
 155

progressed, and English was employed in even more sophisticated fields calling for new

vocabularies and increased linguistic precision. English style had to be refined to assure

that the language would be adequate for its new primacy in these settings and that it

could be mutually intelligible, and clear, to communicators.

Letter writing was one culturally important setting that had to adopt new

stylistic guidelines given the increased use of English. As Judith Rice Henderson

explains, letters were central to education in Renaissance England. Although the letter

may seem a trivial genre to the twentieth-century scholar, she cautions, it was one of

the principal composition exercises in Renaissance and Reformation schools, as central

as the essay is to composition training today (Erasmian Ciceronians 274). The

letters importance in schools directly reflected its importance in society as a whole.

Like email today, letters were used to conduct personal relationships, but also business

transactions. More importantly, letters were also used for political correspondence,

announcements, and proclamations. As Peter Mack asserts, in sixteenth-century

England letters were not only essential to the maintenance of family life but also

crucial to the conduct of business (116)personal and national business. Without the

ease of verbal contact, people at a distance from one another had to resort to letters to

convey messages of any sort.12 And unlike verbal interactions, letters were saved and

could serve as permanent records of messages. As English grew more common in

12 Messengers were another possible means of communication at a distance, but involved great

cost. For centuries, English nobility had been able to use a very basic postal system designed to
serve the needs of the royal family and national mattersit was during the fifteenth century
that this system was first opened up to public use. While it certainly lacked the sophistication
and reliability that we think of with modern postal systems, it did allow individuals to send
letters at a relatively low cost, making letters a much easier means of communication than
personal travel or personal messengers (Key Dates).
 156

scholarly work, business, and politics, written correspondence in English also

increased. Whereas letters had previously been composed only by upper class subjects,

and then usually in Latin or French, written correspondence (and particularly that in

English) grew with spreading literacy.

Along with the surge in letter writing came a genre of rhetorical texts that

addressed stylistic concerns specific to the English writing of correspondence. The

letters relative permanence (compared to oral speech), as well as the increased

vernacularization of letter writing during the Renaissance and the growth of a

population well-educated enough to write letters, made the development of letter-

writing guidelines a necessity. The books that contained stylistic guidelines for letter

writing were among the most popular English rhetoric texts of the sixteenth century. As

Peter Mack observes, two of the four English rhetorical texts that were reprinted most

frequently in the sixteenth century were letter-writing manuals: William Fulwoods

Enemie of Idlenesse (1568) and Angel Days The English Secretorie (1586) (76).

Although scholars have recognized the importance of these letter-writing

manuals for Renaissance education, few have described how developments in English

letter writing directly connect to concerns about English national identity. In this

section, I will briefly discuss the history of letter-writing manuals to underscore the

importance of the genre and indicate how it was adapted to the English language. This

history is crucially important, because it is in adaptations made from medieval letters

that the new national importance of letters becomes apparent. Changes in letter-writing

style and instruction reflected increased recognition of the civic and national

importance of lettersrecognition that came with the rediscovery of Ciceros letters, a

 157

pivotal moment in this history of English letter-writing manuals. As English authors

emulated Ciceros style and rhetorical strategies, they also adopted, and adapted, his

vision for the interconnectedness of rhetoric and civic/national life. Following the

discussion of historical precedents, I will explain how Fulwood and then Day connected

their stylistic instructions to larger political, social, and educational concerns in the

model of Cicero, drawing out the implications of translating letter-writing manuals, and

their stylistic conventions, into the English language.

The Development of Ars Dictaminis

English letter-writing manuals drew from a long history of similar books. The ars

dictaminis, or art of letter writing, was an extremely important part of rhetorical

education during the medieval period.13 Even when classical rhetoric was largely

ignored throughout England and Europe, the ars dictaminis was still taught, studied,

and written about; it was a primary focus of rhetoric throughout the medieval period

(Murphy, Rhetoric).14 The importance of this rhetorical art may be difficult to perceive

from a modern standpoint, but it was essential to medieval life. The necessity of

correspondence, and its primacy as a written medium before the publication and

spread of books became possible and relatively affordable, made letter writing a crucial

13 The phrase ars dictaminis refers both to the theory of writing prose letters and to texts that

served as guides to the subject of writing prose letters (Murphy, Rhetoric 219).
14 Richardson finds examples of dictaminical letters as far back as Anglo-Saxon times. The

thirteenth century marked the beginning of the teaching of Latin letter-writing on a

significant scale with the extensive scriptorium known as the Chancery (Fading Influence
226), and throughout the following three centuries letter-writing became even more prevalent
(though Richardson observes that one particular form of letter, which he calls the dictamen, had
significantly decreased in popularity by the sixteenth century) (225, 227).
 158

part of any scholarly or political endeavor. Malcolm Richardson also points to

situational factors that emphasized the importance of letter writing. The general

deterioration of civic life and the decay of the Roman-built road system increased

reliance on letters, rather than personal travel, for all varieties of communication

throughout the medieval period (Ars Dictaminis 54). Ultimately, letter-writing

instruction was so prominent in medieval education that rhetoric itself was in some

universities taught as a subfield of letter writing (52). The dominance of letter writing

as a form of rhetorical education and practice characterized the study of rhetoric in the

centuries leading up to the Renaissance.

Letter writing, like most fields of scholarship, developed significantly with the

larger educational changes that characterized the Renaissance. For many literate people

in sixteenth-century England, their most frequent contact with the written word was in

the reading and writing of letters (Mack 103).15 Letters formed an integral part of the

daily life of running a household and navigating personal relationships: Mack recounts

letters recommending servants, conveying congratulations or condolences, appointing

replacements to represent one at an important event, and otherwise contributing to the

organization of personal life (114-16). He continues to describe how letters played an

important role in more public domains, as well: news of wars and political intrigues

were passed by letters, as were requests for legal action, recommendations for political

appointments, and exhortations for influential court figures to propone certain policies

(116-19). Ultimately, given the deep importance that letters were invested with in a

15 Of course, access to letters was not entirely limited to the literatepeople who could not

write for themselves, or who were unable to read handwriting (a more complex skill than
reading print) could, and did, have friends or employees conduct their correspondence (Fox).
 159

variety of social and civic realms, the ability to cogently and persuasively write a letter

was seen as a crucial rhetorical skill, one that reflected both the educational and social

standings of the writer. The style a letter was written in registered rhetorical

competencies or the lack of such competencies, and as such had an important ability to

inform readers about the letters writer (103).

A particularly important step in the sixteenth-century development of letter

writing came with the rediscovery of works by Cicero, many of whose writings had

been lost and were unknown throughout the medieval period. Just as the rediscovery of

Ciceros rhetorical texts renewed and reshaped interest in rhetoric, so the discovery of

his personal letters spurred scholars to emulate his letter-writing style. Ciceros letters

were first reintroduced to European scholarship by the early Italian humanist Petrarch

in 1345. Almost fifty years after Petrarchs discovery of a set of Ciceronian letters,

another collection was found by Coluccio Salutationly adding to the fervor to imitate

and learn from Ciceros writings (Burton 88).

Ciceros letters are notable (now as much as in the English Renaissance) both

because of their content and their style. The existing letters come mostly from Ciceros

later life, directly following his consulship. As Evelyn Shuckburg observes, this timing

means that the letters completely cover the most momentous period of Roman

history: the fall of the Republic. In fact, the dates of Ciceros letters neatly match the

important boundaries of the fall. The letters are more-or-less continuous from 62 B.C.E.

until Ciceros death, and Shuckburg explains that those dates correspond with

Pompeys return from the East in B.C. 62, and [end] with the appearance of the young

Octavian on the scene and the formation of the Triumvirate in B.C. 43, of whose victims
 160

Cicero was one of the first and most illustrious (xiii). Within this span of time, Cicero

wrote almost every sort of letter, including personal and humorous letters to friends

and family, meticulously crafted political statements, emotionally vibrant discussions of

his feelings on political trends, and debates with both enemies and allies (including

some of the most prominent figures of the day: Caesar, Pompey, and Brutus, for

example). Through the scope of the letters, then, the personal and political sides of

Ciceros life are revealed, and readers can see how the famous rhetor and statesman

conducted all sorts of relationships.

Adding to the letters appeal is their style. Although most were probably not

written to be published or circulated widely, they were consistently written with a high

degree of literary sophistication (Hutchinson). In many ways, they illustrated and

exemplified the rhetorical strategies and guidelines discussed in Ciceros more directive

works, such as De Oratore. To English humanists, rediscovering Ciceros letters was

equivalent to modern day literature scholars unearthing a previously-unknown

collection of personal and public correspondence from a favorite author. The letters

provided insight into Cicero the man, as well as Cicero the statesman and orator

(Shuckburg xv).

Letter-writing manuals quickly adopted Ciceros letters as examples and guides

illustrating appropriate correspondence.16 Additionally, the broader revival of

Ciceronian rhetorical principles (discussed above) influenced some of the medieval ars

16 Ciceros letters were particularly useful in education because of their varying levels of

complexity (in terms of both style and content). For example, a sixteenth-century Jesuit
textbook specifies that the most simple of Ciceros letters are appropriate for teaching young
children, students at a middle level could be taught out of any of Ciceros Epistolae Familiares,
and particularly advanced students could use Ad Atticum and Ad Quintam Fratrem as models
(Boswell 250).
 161

dictaminis, for example by introducing the idea of the five canons of rhetoric

(Richardson, Ars Dictaminis 52). As Ronald Witt observes, it can even be argued that

letter-writing manuals were the main conduit through which humanism, and

Ciceronian rhetoric, were revived in Europe (3).17 But regardless of the manuals level

of importance in initiating the spread of Ciceronian rhetoric, it is certain that they

contributed to the renewed interest in classical rhetoric that characterized Renaissance

education.

During the late medieval and early Renaissance periods, however, the surge in

letter-writing manuals and their renewed focus on Cicero was specific to Continental

Europenot England. The more popular European guides often made it to England in

their original languages of publication, but there were few, if any, style guides written in

English during this time, and none of those had significant lasting influence.18 Lawrence

Green sums up the overwhelming significance of Continental, as opposed to English,

letter-writing manuals when he writes that at the start of the sixteenth century English

letter-writing culture was more Latin than English, more Continental than native, more

oriented toward manuscript than toward print, and heavily reliant upon imported

imprints (102). These characteristics slowly began to change, particularly in the

second half of the sixteenth century.

17 Witt begins with Kristellers well-known assertion that the first Italian humanists were

rhetoricians and proceeds to show that, in addition, early humanist efforts were centered on
that medieval focus of rhetoric, the ars dictaminis.
18 For more detail about the partial and insignificant letter-writing manuals published early in

the sixteenth century in England, see Green 104-105. The single manual Green mentions in this
category that may have had significant influence is a pirated translation of Erasmuss De
Conscribendi Epistolis (1521). Apparently an upstart Cambridge printer located and published
an early draft of the work, and given the indebtedness of later letter writers to Erasmuss early
text, this pirated version may have had some influence on English letter writing (105-106).
 162

While Latin and Continental letter-writing guides remained popular in England,

a new trend of English-language letter-writing manuals began to emerge. Ciceros

influence, traveling northward along with the other trends of the Renaissance, was

solidified in England when his letters were first printed there in 1571 (Green, Print

102). Despite immense historical precedent, the ars dictaminis of sixteenth century

England were also the start of a new, and drastically different, type of letter-writing

instruction. English letter-writing instruction, like much of English rhetorical

instruction more generally, taught readers more than simply how to write, speak, or

compose letters with appropriate style. The English letter-writing manuals also

contained instructions, warnings, and explanations of how appropriately written letters

could bolster the reputation of the English nation, bringing a new level of importance to

the manuals themselves. In this section, I will concentrate on two authors who

exemplified the connections between education in English letter-writing style and

strengthening England as a nation: William Fulwood and Angel Day.

Fulwoods Enemie of Idlenesse: Letters as Representatives of English Identity

In 1568, Fulwoods Enemie of Idlenesse began the process of Englishing letter-

writing manuals, bringing letter-writing instruction into the English language and

making it applicable to sixteenth-century English concerns. Fulwood based his text on

the popular French epistolary, Le Style et Maniere de Composer Toute Sorte dEpistres

which, like many ars dictaminis of the times, was originally influenced by Erasmuss De

Conscribendis Epistolis (Mack 77). Using these books as models, Fulwood wrote new,
 163

English descriptions of the various types of letters (many represented in these

Continental precedents) and included English translations of existing sample letters.

Thus, Fulwoods book is a transitional piece: it is in English, but it relies heavily

(especially for the sample letters themselves) on Continental and Latin precedents.

Despite its reliance on earlier books, Enemie clearly adapts letter writing to the

concerns of Fulwood and his contemporaries. Throughout, the text alludes to the

necessity of good letter-writing style for strengthening, and modernizing, England itself.

Modernization is a particularly important concern in the period. Renaissance writers

were eager to jettison medieval influence and instead cling to the rebirth of (ironically

even older) classical values and precedents that made up modern sixteenth-century

ideals. Given the shifts in letter-writing manuals from formulary medieval manuals to

more rhetorically sensitive Ciceronian versions, using appropriate style in a letter could

signify whether the writers education was current or mired in the medieval past. The

letter is a particularly powerful form of rhetoric in this respect: letters literally replace

the face-to-face interaction between individuals, cementing their deep links to the

writers identity. And given increasing concern with the relationship between

individual identity and national identity, something that reflects poorly on a writer

could also reflect poorly on his or her country. Through these connected issues of

modernization and personal identity, Fulwoods book sets the tone for future manuals

(such as Days) that have even more direct implications for English national identity.

The following section will offer a general description of Fulwoods book, as well as more

detailed description of how he makes explicit the ways in which letters can embody and

represent English identity.

 164

Enemie is divided into four Books. The first, which makes up the bulk of the text,

describes the importance of letter writing and proceeds to explain dozens of situations

in which a letter might be necessary. For example, Fulwood describes how a merchant

might write letters giuing generall commission and charge of businesse or affaires

when away from his home or business (L.iii.v). For each situation, Fulwood lays out a

brief description of the necessary considerations while writing such a letter and offers a

rough template of parts that the letter-writer should follow. This combination, of

offering a rough template as well as describing situational variables a writer should

consider, is typical of how Fulwood adapted medieval practice for more current stylistic

trends. He combines the medieval, formulary standard (in which letters could be

reduced to boilerplate-type templates) with a more nuanced attention to rhetorical

situation and detail (characteristic of Ciceronian revival letters and rhetoric).

A sense of Fulwoods balance between formulary and rhetorical letter-writing

instructions can be found in his description of an invective letter, in which the writer

reprimands the recipient for inappropriate behavior. The example also offers an idea of

the general guidelines and divisions of letters that Fulwood offers to readers

throughout his guide:

First, we must get beneuolence of our own behalf, saying that not

willingly but by co~straint we haue written it vnto him, & ye we haue long

time co~cealed it, but bicause he stil co~tinueth from euill vnto worsse,

we haue thought good not to endure any more of so euil a man, whose

wickednesse might do great hurt, if they were not corrected. Seco~dly, to

declare the matter whereof we will reprehende him, in alleaging resons

 165

fit for that purpose. Thirdly, if he be our frend, to declare it with gentle

language, admonishing him louingly, and shewing the inco~uenie~ces

which might ensue if he should hereafter doe any such matter. And if he

be an enimie, to get beneuolence on our behalf, saying that we doe not

disdayne him, nor that wee would any more inuey againste him, to the

ende that he shoulde not think that we haue done that through hatred,

which in deede we haue vprightly done, still deseruing to speake

somwhat more amply an other tyme when place and tyme shall serue.

(59.v-60.r)

The quasi-formulary template is clear: Fulwood offers readers phrases to use in the first

part of the letter, telling them to write that by constraint we have written it vnto [the

recipient]. The later instructions are similarly formulary, offering a strict breakdown of

sections and additional phrases for inclusion. But at places, in this description and

others, Fulwood offers his readers situational cues to making their own adjustments.

Here, for example, he admonishes writers to consider the rhetorical situation of their

letter and to choose resons fit for the purpose of the letter, to consider their

relationship with the recipient, and to modify their style accordingly. These rhetorically

sensitive considerations modernize the tradition of medieval formulary letters.

Fulwoods description of what should be included in a letter, like those in the

French and Latin texts that influenced Enemie, is followed by example letters that

demonstrate how the appropriate template can be adjusted for a given situation. The

sample letters consist generally of well-known letters (such as those by Cicero or those

previously published in Continental manuals) that Fulwood translates for inclusion in

 166

his guide. The fact that Fulwood translated previously-written letters rather than

composing his own was criticized in future manuals, such as Days, for relying too

heavily on foreign counterpartsessentially, for failing to be English enough.19 But

the relationship between letter writing and England extends beyond concern with the

national origin of example letters.

Another link between letter and nation that appears in Fulwoods text begins

with the letters ability to transmit the words and style of its writer verbatim, an

exactness that was unlikely with use of a personal messenger to communicate over a

distance. As a means of communication, letters plainly differ from verbal speech. The

letter stands in for its author, figuratively transporting an authors presence to another

person by literally and exactly transmitting the authors words. The separation of the

presence and the words can imbue the language of the letter with even deeper

importance, as there is no actual person present to confirm or clarify the

communications understood meaning. The letters wording must stand on its own. The

importance of a letter, and its exact wording, is apparent in one of Fulwoods poems

explaining the usefulness of letters over other means of communication:

Our stede at home in stable standes,

our purse also we spare,

When louing letter trots betwene,

and mynde to mynde declares.

It blabbeth not abrode the hid

19 The perception that over-reliance on foreign scholarship is detrimental to England echoes

criticisms I discussed in Chapter 2, that using foreign languages rather than English results in a
similar threat to the supremacy of England.
 167

and secrete of our mynde,

To any one, saue vnto him

to whome we haue assignde.

And looke what so we charge it tell,

it misseth not a iote:

When messenger by word of mouth

might hap forget his note,

And either tell somewhat to much,

or else leaue some vntold:

Therefore the littel Letter well

to trust we may be bolde. (A.iii.r-v)

Letters are to be trusted even above personal messengers, and as Fulwood clarifies, the

reason for that trust is that the letter misseth not a iote. Every word and phrase can be

crafted stylistically, because it will be transmitted to the recipient verbatim,

consequently guaranteeing accurate transmission of even long and complicated

messages. (This is something that personal messengers could aspire to, but not

necessarily guarantee.) Perfection in transmission of individual words and phrases

increases the importance of crafting each word appropriately. The writer knows that

each word she composes will be conveyed to the audience, and thus each stylistic

decision is invested with a new importance. Moreover, the letter conveys its message

directly from mynde to mynde, again emphasizing the ways in which it allows people

to speak directly from a distance. The letter stands in for its writers mind, words, and
 168

actual presencemeaning that those words must be crafted into accurate

representations of the writer and the writers message.

The letters ability to stand in for an author goes beyond an accurate

transmission of meaning. The letter was also seen as a representation of the writers

personality or identity, and it is with this connection between written style and identity

that the relationship between style and the English nation begins to emerge. The letter

is a mode of presence in which the writer can be figuratively present with the letters

reader (Goldberg 249). As with many letter-writing trends during the period, this

understanding of letters as transmitting identities can be attributed to renewed interest

in Cicero. With the rediscovery of Ciceros familiar letters, Lawrence Green explains,

[humanist authors] felt they had recovered the human presence of a lost world (102).

The authors felt a more personal connection to Cicero while reading his letters than

they had while reading his other publicationsthe letters had opened insight into the

idolized authors personal identity. Thus, Green continues, letters written in imitation of

Cicero sought to use the resources of rhetoric to create and project the human

presence of the writer. Stylistic choices in letters reflected the identities of their

writers (or at least the identities that those authors wanted to project).20

But what would it mean, at the time, to say that a letter represented an

individuals identity? The identity of a letter writer in sixteenth-century England would

encompass a number of categories, ranging from gender and social standing to religious

20 Of course, included in the idea that a letter could represent the writers identity is the idea

that a letter could misrepresent identity. Green explains that this connection was not
immediately apparent in the sixteenth century, however; it was not until decades after
humanists began to emphasize the letters ability to transmit identity that significant anxiety
was raised about the possible transmission of fictional identities through letters (102).
 169

and regional affiliation.21 In fact, letters and letter-writing guides frequently contained

lengthy instructions on how to negotiate such identity categories: how a person of

lower social status should write to a superior, for example, or how to address specific

categories of professionals.22 The connection between letters and identity called for the

social rules and patterns that smoothed face-to-face relationships to be continued in

written form, as well. For instance, a lawyer writing a letter was called to observe

guidelines and rules appropriate to his position as a lawyer. His letters, reflecting his

identity as a lawyer, could potentially offer information about the entire category of

lawyers.

Another of the identity categories potentially represented in a letter is that of the

authors nationality. Just as the lawyers letter represents the lawyer himself, so the

letter of an English person reflects, among other things, the nature of English identity.

In seeking to accurately capture his identity in a letter, the writer would include

indications that that identity is English. And that letter-writers identification with the

nation meant that each writer and each letter was, in some sense, a representative of

England. Thus, the style and type of language used in a letter could reflect on the nation

just as it reflected on the individual writera letter could influence perceptions of

21 As Linda C. Mitchell asserts, English letter-writing manuals often included instructions

specific to female writers, indicating that women were active participants in both the business
and personal types of letter writing and indicating that letters were expected to reflect the
writers gender. While many of Mitchells examples come from the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, she also includes discussions based on sixteenth-century authors like Day, and
repeatedly observes that the later guides often include content originally published centuries
earlier, including sample letters to and from women.
22 The emphasis on negotiating social differences is partially responsible for the emphasis, in

the formulary tradition, on the salutatio, or salutation, of a letter. The salutation had to include
appropriate titles for addressees as well as model opening phrases of deference in order
clarify the power relationship between the letters writer and recipient (Burton 88).
 170

English and of English people. By using polished and sophisticated English, the writer

could demonstrate that English was an appropriate language for important

communication (a point of international contention that I discuss at length in the

previous chapter). By adopting modern, Ciceronian rhetorical forms within the letter,

the English writer could show distance from the medieval precedent, associated in the

sixteenth century with non-progressive or under-educated populations. Ultimately,

given Fulwoods argument about the relationship between letters and identity, the

stylistic choices a letter writer makes may offer readers much more than the

informational content of the letter: they represent the author and the identities

associated with him.

The idea that letter-writers (and thus, their letters) might represent the nation is

supported by an analysis of the audiences of Fulwoods manual. As with many early

English educational texts, it is likely that Fulwoods actual audience and the audience he

claims to write for were somewhat different. Fulwood repeatedly refers to his

audiences simplicity, even claiming to focus on teaching the unlearned sort: For

know you sure, I meane not I / the cunning clerks to teach: / But rather to the

vnlearned sort / a few precepts to preach (A.iii.v). This claim aligns, of course, with the

more general Renaissance emphasis on widespread educationoften claimed, if not

always enacted. It is important to take claims about his audience with a grain of salt,

however; despite Fulwoods declaration that he writes for the unlearned sort, the

content of the letters speaks to a higher level of sophistication for his audiences. Many

of the letters pertain to legal matters, either written from the viewpoint of a lawyer or

someone with enough property to justify hiring a lawyer. Others describe such political
 171

concerns as how to recommend an acquaintance for knighthood or to request aid while

in exile, and the sample letters throughout the book (whether written by historical

figures or fictitious individuals) almost universally concern politicized, upper-class

matters. It is likely, therefore, that Fulwoods audience is not the broad category of the

unlearned, but rather students, professionals, or nobles who may not have received

the basic English rhetorical education they were expected to get in grammar schools or

from private tutors.

By improving the written English style of these people, Fulwoods manual could,

like the translated texts covered in the previous chapter, increase the respectability and

usability of the English language. More significantly, proper English style in letters that

represent the authors identities could further the project of distancing the language,

and consequently the nation and its inhabitants, from medieval precedents and values.

As Gideon Burton explains, for an audience like Fulwoods the style in which one

composed a letter had real consequences (97). Even while composing Latin letters

before English letter writing gained in popularity, humanists were concerned with

developing the eloquent Latin associated with Cicero rather than the stilted or overly

academic Latin associated with medieval manuals. Burton goes on to say that

humanists, like Erasmus and his later English followers, idealized classical stylistic

instructions over those of the medieval period because of what discourse had been able

to do in antiquity. According to Cicero, rhetoric was a central cog in the development

and maintenance of national entities and civic life. The glorification of Cicero led the

English humanists to adopt his belief in transforming their own time and place through

linguistic and rhetorical means (98). For writers like Fulwood, the most direct way to
 172

effect such a change was through the extremely influential art of letter writing,

particularly as it was used by his relatively influential audience.

The rest of Fulwoods Enemie bears out this audience analysis and its

implications for the English nation. The second book is simply a series of letters written

by sundry learned men (Cicero, Pope Innocent, etc.) that Fulwood has translated into

English as examples for his readers. Again, the letters focus on mostly professional and

noble concerns, instructing readers (by example) in how to conduct the types of civic

business that characterized Ciceros description of rhetorics power. The third book

focuses on writing responses to letters, and the fourth briefly treats the genre of love

letters. While these books generally contain examples of more intimate lettersthose

exchanged between friends, among family members, and between loversthey too

demonstrate potential significance outside the immediately personal realm. Most of the

personal letters explain how to properly negotiate professional and personal

relationships between people of different social status. Even love letters could play into

this social negotiation: as an important part of court life, such letters could directly

affect political advancements and decisions (Richards).

Essentially, the importance of Fulwoods book lies in its use of English and the

fact that there was a perceived need for an English letter-writing manual: individuals

who could not read the popular Latin or French manuals were nonetheless eager to

write. And according to Fulwood, they needed guidance in the proper methods of

writing in English. The skills to produce such correspondence, in English, are both

profitable, and needeful for this our present time and will profit [Fulwoods] native

Country (To the well disposed Reader). Fulwood attempted to assure that writers
 173

used appropriate style, since their written words would at the very least reflect on

Englands reputation, and at the most significant they could shape the nation through

the types of civic rhetoric described by Cicero.

Day and the Power of Letter-Writing Style

If Fulwoods text was an intermediary between medieval ars dictaminis and the

wholly English letter-writing manual, then Angel Days was the fully-developed English

form. Like Fulwoods book, Days The Englishe Secretorie was one of the four most

frequently reprinted rhetoric books in the sixteenth centurythis despite the fact that

the first edition was not published until 1586. Also like Fulwoods text, Days continued

the mission of developing English letter-writing style. But unlike his predecessor, Day

insisted on and bragged about the thoroughgoing Englishness of his guide. Even the

books title reflects this priority: the book is specifically meant for the Englishe

secretorie, not for readers with any other national affiliation.23 Days emphasis on

Englishness is manifest in another difference between his text and Fulwoods: Day

composed his own sample lettersin Englishrather than relying on translations of

foreign letters. Days assertion that English letter writing is substantively different from

23 In sixteenth-century England, a secretary was a person employed specifically to write for

someone elseoften to write the employers correspondence. Moreover, the position of

secretary implied a trusting relationship in which the employer would confide deeply in his
secretary. The applicable definitions for secretary from the Oxford English Dictionary clarify that
a secretary was 1a. One who is entrusted with private or secret matters; a confidant; one privy
to a secret and 2a. One whose office it is to write for another; spec. one who is employed to
conduct or assist with correspondence, to keep records, and (usually) to transact various other
business, for another person or for a society, corporation, or public body. The close
relationships and sharing of secrets between sixteenth-century employers and secretaries is
important to note: secretaries were necessarily in powerful and influential positions.
 174

that translated from other languages, and that England needs to create its own manuals

to better assert its independence from other countries, characterizes his manual and

demonstrates an increasing concern with the state of English style and its larger

significance.

Englishe Secretorie was originally published in 1586, though Day expanded and

changed the contents for editions in 1592, 1595, and 1599.24 Like Fulwoods text (and

many other rhetorical treatises of the time), English Secretorie was clearly influenced by

Erasmus, particularly his letter-writing manual De Conscribendis Epistolis (1522). It

treats demonstrative, deliberative, judicial and familiar letters much like Fulwoods

text, providing descriptions and examples of letters divided by purpose and type of

writer and recipient. Later editions of Days book include a separate style manual that

was reprinted in numerous rhetoric texts from the time as well as generalized

instructions on proper behavior for individuals filling the trusted role of secretary.25

Day also broadens the education available through his letter-writing text by annotating

the margins of the book to point out classical rhetorical figures as they occur in sample

letters.

Days observations on rhetorical and stylistic techniques are frequently tinged

with the concerns of nationalism, alluding to the connection between the English nation

and English style. Where Fulwood focused on how a letter could present (or fail to

present) its authors nationality, Day concentrated on the possible effects that stylistic

24 The 1592 edition is generally considered the most complete; all quotes come from that

edition except where otherwise noted.

25 The attached style manual is discussed in detail in the following section of this chapter, and

the section in which Day describes appropriate behavior is treated more thoroughly in the
following chapter.
 175

choices could have on the reader of a letter. For example, one stylistic area in which the

connection between style and nation is clearest is when Day explains vividness as an

aspect of description. He asserts that vividness is a particularly powerful rhetorical tool,

and that that power has the potential to threaten a readers contentment with his own

country by painting attractive word pictures of foreign landscapes. An eloquent letter-

writer is like a painter, Day explains, creating verbal images of scenes that are

remarkably realistic and potent. When the letter-writer explains foreign countries, the

images he creates may [acquaint] vs with the vnknown delightes, situation, plentie and

riches of countries whiche we neuer saw, nor happely may euer approche vnto (44).

Letters can effectively introduce their readers to landscapes and countries that they

have never been exposed to.

While this travelling-by-letter does not necessarily seem dangerous, Day

pinpoints how it can be threatening to the nascent English nation. Through such vivid

description, Day warns, the author may bring in contempt the pleasures of our owne

soyle, causing readers to long for foreign countries rather than their English home

(44). The power of rhetorical vividness is strong enough, even, to affect a readers

attitude toward her native land. Desire for the vividly described otherness of foreign

countries can endanger the growing connection between individual English subjects

and their associated English identity. Moreover, contempt for England and what is has

to offer is an even more serious threat to England: if its own subjects lack loyalty, the

nation will be further held back in its race to catch up with the more advanced

European countries and their developed scholarship.

 176

The power that Day ascribes to such stylistic language is so intense that it

borders on the magical. Day repeatedly ascribes to the model of the magician orator, a

figure whose rhetorical skills hold immense sway to control the thoughts and attitudes

of his audience. Describing how Day invokes the magician orator, Rebhorn explains that

In Day's conception, vivid writing brings the things described right before our eyes

(150). Rhetorics power is not merely abstract or dependent on the imagination of the

listener, but relies heavily on the stylistic prowess of the writer. The readers

imagination is strongly guided, enticed by the strength of the magician orator, to certain

conclusions and feelings. Thus, rhetors must be aware of the intense power their words

can convey.

The potential magic of this oratory, Rebhorn explains, directly relates to an

individuals perception of his or her own nation. [Vivid writing] provides us with

such a powerful vicarious experience of the wonders of alien places that we are no

longer satisfied with our native soil (150). Language transmitted between English

people, in situations such as letter writing, can lead them to dissatisfaction with

England and with English things. As such, style is a powerful tool that must be used only

in ways that accord with the goal of national loyalty and support for the superiority of

England. England, and English writers, must be able to defend their owne soyle

against the persuasive powers of foreign writers and orators.

Throughout his text, Day repeatedly offers such strictures on styleguidelines

that will prevent stylistic power from becoming a threat to England. One general

stylistic guideline that he returns to again and again is to turn to English models

whenever possible. The emphasis on English models is most evident in Days newly
 177

written sample letters. Fulwood had boasted that his treatise included translated texts

from sundry learned men; in contrast, Day is proud of his letters English origins,

prominently explaining that he wrote the sample letters in English himself so that they

could be better ordered and invented to their several examplesthat is, fitted to the

specific language, stylistic guidelines, and traits Day tries to explain (4.v).

Day also argues that potential letter writers should look for English models

outside of his book to support the English models he offers within it. His overall

instructions for writing letters call the author to logically reason through the message

he wants to convey, to find an equivalent letter in the examples Day provides, and to be

well studied and read in the purest and best kind of writers, (whereof great plenty do

now remaine in our English tongue) (5). Days ideal version of rhetorical education

includes extensive reading of English authors, not Continental or classical precedents.

This emphasis recurs throughout the book: where Day asserts that writers should look

to letters that demonstrate perfection on which to model their own writing, he

assures readers that theyll find such examples in our englishe toong thereunto

leading, and those of excellent good penning being so plentiful as they are (41).

Essentially, Day pushes to restrict his readers to using material from within England,

narrowing their focus to avoid the distractions of models from other languages and

areas.

But it is not only the national origin of examples and models which shows how

Days text focuses on English identity. The content of Days sample letters also

frequently points to the potential importance of rhetorical style for the English nation.

For example, one letter details the story of a loyal secretary who was able, through well-
 178

written letters, to dissuade his master from treason. Similarly, another of the sample

letters pleads with a noble gentleman to avoid acts that might be seen as rebellious. The

letter lists classical precedents of the glories of loyalty and the dangers of rebellion,

then abruptly breaks off and (in what is noted in the margin as an example of transitio)

redirects the readers attention toward England. What need we search abroade for

such forraine examples, and why draw we not rather home into our owne soyle of

England? (117). Day then gives immense detail to an English story of loyalty, that of Sir

William Walworth, evoking the type of oratorical magic and vivid description that

makes this thoroughly English story of loyalty and bravery seem superior, and more

interesting, than those classical narratives just mentioned.

Such emphasis on England, which reoccurs throughout the text, aligns with what

is known of Days involvement in contemporary political concerns. The Englishe

Secretorie and his other texts are dedicated to prominent courtiers, such as Edward de

Vere. Additionally, shortly after the publication of The Englishe Secretorie, Day wrote a

poem idealizing Queen Elizabeth that was notable for its extreme nationalism, even

when compared to other poems praising the monarch (Henderson, Angel Day). Given

this larger picture of Days concern with England and Englishness, it is fitting to

understand his letter-writing manual as part of a larger agenda.

Ultimately, the ways in which English national sentiment permeated English

sixteenth-century rhetoric are clear through the work of authors like Fulwood and Day.

As national identity became a more prominent identity category, the ability of texts to

reflect an authors identity grew to national importance. Improving the state of English
 179

scholarship (in the context of ever-present international competition, and the pressure

to adhere to modern rather than medieval models) was a politicized goal as well as an

educational one. And rhetorics persuasive powerswhich could threaten or

strengthen an audiences bond and loyalty to Englandhad to be checked, or at least

guided, by English nationalists like Day who would instruct readers on the proper use

of rhetorics persuasive stylistic power. As a widespread and popular feature of

rhetorical education in the period, letter-writing guides were crucial conduits for these

important stylistic guidelines.

Adapting and Rewriting Style Guides for English Use

Letter-writing guides issued stylistic instructions specific to a certain genre of

writing, but numerous other rhetorical treatises from sixteenth-century England

offered more general stylistic guidelines. And many treatises, while not entirely focused

on style, appended style guides as part of their content. These hybrid texts (like

Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique) sometimes offered descriptions of classical rhetoric,

instructions for various contemporary genres, and figure-based style guides all within

one text. The style guides did not always stand alone, but they were crucial factors in

English rhetoric nonetheless.

The style guides published in this period were closely interrelated, borrowing

from the same classical models and medieval texts, and even adopting words and ideas

directly from other English style guides. The classical style manuals of Institutio
 180

Oratoria (by Quintilian) and Rhetorica ad Herennium were taken up by a number of

influential Latin style guides in the early Renaissance period, including Erasmuss De

Copia (1512), Melanchtons Institutiones Rhetoricae (1521), and (particularly)

Sustenbrotuss Epitome Troporum ac Schematum (1540). Together, these texts were

translated and adapted into an English style manual, versions of which are found in the

rhetoric handbooks of Sherry, Peacham, Puttenham, Wilson, and Day.26 As Peter Mack

points out in his detailed study of these shared style guides, The material which these

treatments share (the bulk of the manual) therefore went through twenty-one editions,

making it easily the most widely circulated rhetoric text of the period (77).

While the versions of the English style guide in each of these texts are not

identical, the similarities are extensive enough to consider them variants of one text: an

evolving and expanding English adaptation and rewriting of classical and Latin style

guides. In the following sections, I will first describe how the guides negotiate the

linguistic transition, taking Latin material and adapting it to be used within the English

language. Second, I will explain in more depth how the content of the guides was

26 Mack traces, in detail, the complicated relationships between these versions of the guide and

their Latin and classical predecessors. The English versions were not strict translations, or
loose adaptations, but rather combinations of translation and adaptation. Macks description of
how the English authors used one anothers guides, as well as the Latin work of Sustenbrotus,
gives a sense of these complicated interrelationships:
Wilson writing in 1553 made use of Richard Sherrys Treatise of Schemes and
Tropes (1550), who was himself there following Sustenbrotus. Henry Peachams
Garden of Eloquence (1577, revised 1593) used Sustenbrotus, Sherry and
Wilson. Puttenham adds new English names and many examples of his own to
the account of the figures in The Arte of English Poesie (1589), but the
framework of his entries usually comes from Sustenbrotus. Day (1595) normally
works directly from Sustenbrotus. (87)
Most frequently, the authors borrow the lists of figures from other texts, but create some (if not
all) of their own explanations, examples, and additional material.
 181

changed and rewritten not only for the English language, but also for English audiences.

The adjustments that the English style guide underwent clearly demonstrate how the

guide served as a proving ground for the English language: a setting in which authors

could assert that English was just as versatile and sophisticated a language as Latin. The

guides authors went far past a mere translation of Latin texts, ultimately working to

make the guide suitable for use specifically within sixteenth-century England.

Adapting Latin Style Guides to the English Language

Though each author adjusted the guide to fit his own text and purposes, several

features were common through all instances of the English style manual. At the most

basic level, each version of the guide essentially consists of a list of rhetorical figures

(variously called figures, schemes, and tropes by the authors).27 Each version

augments these lists with a variety of other pieces of information about the figures,

including descriptive definitions, long and short examples, and comments on the

appropriate use of each figure (Mack 88). A typical example of the entry for one figure

can be found in Days version of the style guide (which was appended to later editions

of his letter-writing manual):

Allegoria, a kinde of inventing or chaunge of sence, as when we shew one

thing in words and signifie another in meaning, a Trope most usuall

amongst us even in our common speaking, as when we say, Bow the Wich

while it is greene, meaning to correct children whilest they be yong: or,

27 There are slight variations in the list of figures treated by each author, but ultimately the lists

are quite similar (Mack 84).

 182

There is no fire without smoake; meaning that there is no ill conceipt

without occasion: or, I smell a Rat, that is, I know your meaning. (85)

Days brief definition and commonplace examples are fitting for this trope; for more

unusual figures of speech, he and the other stylebook authors sometimes offer longer,

more detailed descriptions and guides to use. Days description and explanation of

antipophora, for example, covers well over a page and offers lengthy examples to fully

convey the appropriate use of this obscure trope (94-95).

Despite the fact that these texts are in English, the guides still contain artifacts of

their Latin origins. They describe tropes that are not specific to any particular language,

such as allegory, paroemia, and sarcasm, as well as tropes that work equally well in

Latin and English, like parentheses and epanaphorabut the guides also include a

number of tropes that are specific, or much better-suited, to the Latin language than to

English. For example, the trope of anatiptosis (also called enallage) refers to a change in

the case, gender, or mood of a given word. Such changes were no longer applicable to

English linguistic structure, which (well before the sixteenth century) had ceased to

decline words based on those grammatical categories (Mack 95). Nonetheless,

anatiptosis was included in the Latin guides from which English guides took the basics

of their material, and many of the English guides faithfully include it as well. Sherry,

Peacham, and Puttenham all include the figure, and Sherry and Peacham even go so far

as to provide English examples of the impossible figure. (As Mack points out, the

English examples are certainly not acceptable as valid instances of the figure [95].)

Puttenhams treatment of anatiptosis even admits that the figure is ill-suited to the
 183

guides language, stating that we haue little or no vse of this figure in Englishbut

it is included and explained nonetheless (142-43).

At first, it may seem inexplicable that the authors chose to include such figures

despite their inappropriateness to English. But there are at least two motivations for

the inclusionone scholarly and one nationalistic. Anatiptosis, particularly as

represented by Puttenham, displays the scholarly motivation. Since Puttenham openly

admits that the figure does not apply to English, it stands to reason that his guide has

motivations outside of merely instructing readers in English rhetoric. English authors

may have included Latinate tropes as a demonstration of the authors own ethosto

show that they are well-educated enough to understand the Latin texts in their entirety.

In addition, the guides may have been used to help those learning Latin rhetoric. Mack

proposes that the English manuals could be used as guides to the reading of Latin

authors and perhaps even for Latin composition (96). Given that the overlap between

individuals literate in English and those literate in Latin was significant, Macks theory

seems quite reasonablereaders may be interested in the possibilities for English and

Latin rhetorical figures simultaneously.

But there are other Latin figures included in the guides that are not as easily

explained by the scholarly motivations detailed above. Homioptoton (also called

homoioteleuton) is another trope grammatically specific to Latinit refers to the

repeated use of words of similar case, or similar case endings. Though English has

remnants of the case system, nouns and pronouns are no longer declined based on their

placement in a sentence, and thus this trope is obsolete for English. Mack argues that,

like anatiptosis, homioptoton is included in the guides in order to assist readers as they
 184

decipher or compose Latin texts. But unlike anatiptosis, homioptoton is treated in more

detail by the guide authors, and it is much more convincingly adapted to the English

language. Sherry and Day explain that the figure refers to multiple instances of the same

part of speech having the same ending, as in Days example Weeping, wailing, and her

hands wringing (qtd. in Mack 96). Wilson and Puttenham depart even further from the

tropes Latin origins, describing it as rhyme. The transition to describing homioptoton

as rhyme is an important one: rhyme (as we know it in English) was unknown to

classical Latin rhetoric (97). Thus, describing the trope as rhyme makes it irrelevant to

Latin, but quite plainly relevant to English. Teaching readers about homioptoton as

rhyme would not aid their Latin reading or comprehension, as Mack implies. Rather,

the authors have taken a Latin-specific figure and truly anglicized it: converting it into a

stylistic device specific to English.

The advantage to teaching readers an English version of tropes like homioptoton

is more directly related to nationalism. Attempts to include these tropes in English style

guides again demonstrates concern with proving the adequacy of the English language:

in order to assert that important affairs can take place in English as well as they can in

Latin, it is crucial to establish that English is just as versatile and powerful a language as

is Latin. As I discussed in Chapter 2, there was great concern that vernacular English

could not be used for the same purposes as Latinthat it did not contain the necessary

breadth or sophistication of expression. Removing tropes from a style guide because

they were not available in English would only seem to enhance the perception that

English was inferior. But adapting the tropes for use in English, and keeping them in the

guides despite their sometimes-dubious suitability, could easily enforce the idea that
 185

English is equal to Latin in all waysincluding the variety of available tropes. Adapting

tropes like homioptoton would clearly support this argument.

And homioptoton is not the only figure given this treatment. A number of other

tropes are anglicized as well, in a variety of ways. Some are given much more positive

connotations than in Latin precedents (such as paroemion/alliteration, which

Sustenbrotus dismissed [97]); others are introduced to the English language only as an

result of their prominence in Latin (such as zeugma [99]). The English authors

consistently tried to adjust, delete, or modify these figures to make them fit the English

language, with occasionally nonsensical results. Nonetheless, these repeated efforts to

include each Latin trope in English versions of the guides points to the close

interrelationship between the languages at the time, as well as the complex tension

involved in proving English to be a suitable, and sophisticated, language. Adaptation

of such tropes was one means of absorbing the perceived advantages of Latin into

English.

The process of anglicizing the style guides went much further than simply

adapting Latin-specific tropes, however. Authors detailed how English readers might

use the language to improve English scholarship and how making appropriate stylistic

choices could prevent serious logical errors. Additionally, the authors traced how ones

spoken or written style was a means of communicating identitya way of representing

oneself to audiencesfurther increasing the importance of appropriate style. The

following section will look at two examples of the guide, essentially bookending the

period under discussion: Richard Sherrys early version, and Henry Peachams much
 186

later revision. Each of these versions demonstrates how the guide was rewritten and

recontextualized as a tool specific to the English language and thus, the English nation.

Developing English Style and Teaching Children: The Style Guide of Richard Sherry

Richard Sherrys version of the style guide is the first English adaptation, and as

such it demonstrates some of the earliest phases of how style guides were naturalized

to England and to the English language. Sherrys guide (written for schoolchildren)

clearly shows the place that style guides were seen to play in English education, and it

frequently alludes to the nationalistic importance of such educational endeavors. More

importantly, Sherry explicitly describes how the improvement of the English language

(through advances in stylistic education and using the vernacular for scholarly

pursuits) will lead to increased international respect for England as a country. Sherrys

rationales for arguing so strongly for the importance of style offer insight into the

significance, for sixteenth-century rhetoricians, of anglicizing style guides and the

linguistic advice they offer.

Much scholarship about Sherry has focused on how his apparently dissimilar

writings (he produced two tracts on rhetoric and two on religion) were part of a unified

scholarly agenda: an over-arching concern with understanding language (Sharon-

Zisser, Baldwin). The rhetoric texts clearly display attention to language through their

very subject matter. His best-known work, A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes (1550)

offers English explanations of hundreds of rhetorical figures, and A Treatise of the

Figures of Grammer and Rhetorike (1555) offers similar content, updated and
 187

augmented for use by schoolchildren as they learn Latin alongside English. But even

Sherrys other texts, an exposition of John 6 (1550) and a translation of a letter between

church fathers (undated), evince at least as much, if not more, preoccupation with

language as with theology (Sharon-Zisser). The exposition of John is particularly clear

in its connection of religion and language: it discusses the importance of words as a

means of understanding spiritual matters and describes how language plays an

important role in human spirituality. Language, and figurative language especially, is of

central importance to Sherrys written work.

Sherrys insistence on the importance of figurative language often takes the form

of defending the English language. In his earliest version of the style guide, the 1550

Treatise of Schemes and Tropes, Sherry asserts that stylistic instructions need to be

adapted to English because figurative language is as common, and complex, in English

as it is in Latin and Greek. He claims:

we muste nedes runne to the helpe of schemes & fygures: which verely

come no sildomer in the writing and speaking of eloquente english men,

then either of Grecians or Latins. Many thinges might I brynge in to proue

not onely a great profyt to be in them but that they are to be learned euen

of necessitie. (A.vii.r)

Schemes and tropes, Sherry is careful to assert, are not mere adornments to the

language but are necessary to proper understanding. He goes on to specify that the

figures are necessary to comprehend both readinge of holye scripture in English and

for reading prophane authors [that] without them [figures] may not be wel

understand (A.vii.v). Such repeated assertions appear throughout the text, when
 188

Sherry admonishes readers to pay particular attention to a figure because of its

frequent appearance in the works of English authors.

Despite his insistence on the importance of understanding and using figurative

language when communicating in English, Sherry admits that prior to his writing, there

had been little study of figurative language in English. In fact, he even argues that the

concept of figurative language is new to English. Commenting on the words scheme

and trope as well as names for individual figures, he writes, And what maruail is it if

these words haue not bene vsed here tofore, seynge there was no suche thynge in oure

Englishe to~gue where vnto they shuld be applyed? (A.ii.v). While this is certainly an

exaggeration (figurative language clearly exists in much earlier English writings), it is

interesting that Sherry admits that English was, until recently, inferior in sophistication

to the languages he compares it to. But such admission of Englishs possible inadequacy

is quickly qualified: It is not vnknowen that oure language for the barbarousnes and

lacke of eloquence hathe bene complayned of, and yet not trewely, for anye defaut in

the toungue it selfe, but rather for slackenes of our cou~trimen (A.ii.v-A.iii.r). Indolent

or uneducated countrimen, in other words, are the cause of any perceived lack in

English; the languages inadequacies can be corrected through scholarly work.

Moreover, the countrimen also have the power to adapt the language,

increasing its sophistication and enabling it to express more complex ideas. Sherry

points out that such scholars should be given credit for using more sophisticated

versions of English and, ultimately, setting it on par with the classical languages. Good

cause haue we therefore to gyue thankes vnto certayne godlye and well learned men,

whych by their greate studye enrychynge our tongue both wyth matter and wordes,
 189

haue endeuoured to make it so copyous and plentyfull that therein it maye compare

wyth anye other whiche so euer is the best (A.ii.v). English scholars have the ability to

continue aiding English, increasing its sophistication (largely by naturalizing such

advanced rhetorical techniques as figurative language) and improving its reputation

when compared to other languages.

Sherrys English adaptation of the style guide clearly works to meet this goal, of

allowing English writers to more readily access, and thus use, advanced figurative

language in English communication. By compiling a list of figures and their

explanations, translated and adapted into English, he is supporting exactly the type of

scholarship that he credits as enrychynge our tongue and enabling it to compare with

anye other. This description of Sherry, as writing for the betterment of the English

language, also may help clarify one of the central criticisms that rhetoric scholars have

made against him. Often, his position as a rhetor has been belittled because of his

emphasis on education, and specifically the education of children, rather than refined

and privileged adult audiences (Sharon-Zisser). While some of his contemporaries

(such as Wilson and Puttenham) wrote for audiences that included courtly figures,

merchants, and lawyers, Sherry focused his texts on the education of children. Sherrys

attitude toward early childhood education is clear in material appended to his first

rhetoric text (Treatise of Schemes and Tropes). At the end of his style guide, Sherry

includes a translation of an Erasmian treatise on education, which he introduces as a

declamacion, That chyldren euen strayt fro~ their infancie should be well and gently

broughte vp in learnynge. Erasmuss treatise on early childhood education asserts that

children ought to be exposed to learning at an early age, both because they need strong
 190

moral guidance and because they will more easily assimilate knowledge than adults

might.

This line of reasoning fits perfectly with Sherrys avowed interest in increasing

knowledge of the English language as a means to improve the language over time. By

teaching children, he is accessing the audience who may be able to have the greatest

long-term effect on the use and expansion of the language. Sherrys second rhetoric text,

A Treatise on the Figures of Grammer and Rhetorike, improves on the educational goals

of the first treatise by taking much of the same material and arranging it into a text

aiming directly at grammar school (Baldwin 37). As a textbook published in a time

when Latin education was still the overwhelming norm, this book combines Latin and

English text to allow Latin and English education to occur side-by-side, on equal

ground.28

Ultimately, Sherrys attention to early childhood education is not a marker of his

lack of sophisticated understanding, but a conscious result of his firm belief that

instruction was most necessary and most effective in the early, formative stages of life,

when a person is an infante and yonge babe whose mind is still voyde from cares and

vices and susceptible to impression (Sharon-Zisser). Lessons taught to young children

would not easily be forgotten, and presumably such children could grow up to be the

countrimen that Sherry argues will eventually prove the adequacy of the English

28 Baldwin suggests that Sherrys attempt to mediate between Latin and English education in his

textbook was unpopular. Instead of taking up Sherrys text, educators of the period relied
heavily on Sustenbrotuss all-Latin text. Baldwin explains, Sherry's compromise with the
vernacular was rejected, as he himself suspected it would be. The sixteenth century grammar
school was still primarily intent upon pure Latin, and strove as much as possible to avoid the
contaminating touch of the vernacular" (38-39). But given the success of Wilsons English Arte
of Rhetorique, published around the same time, Baldwins assertion is debatable.
 191

language for all scholarly endeavors. Style, for Sherry, sets the stage for linguistic

sophisticationteaching style to young children will lead those children to admire and

improve the English language as they move further in their scholarship.

Controlling Figurative Language: Peachams Cautionary Guide

After Sherry first anglicized the style guide, many other authors expanded on his

original project, using Latin originals and the early English adaptations as foundations

on which to craft their own versions of the guide. Wilson, Day, Puttenham, and Peacham

all included style guides like Sherrys in their more comprehensive rhetorical manuals.

While each of these guides demonstrates the individual authors perception of how

appropriate English style can support the goals of emerging English nationhood,

Peachams provides a particularly good example of how style was imbued with political

and social importance as English became a more powerful and prevalent language.29

Peachams guide repeatedly admonishes readers that, through their stylistic choices

and use of figurative language, they are communicating far more than the superficial

content of their speech and writing: they are serving as representatives of England.

Peachams guide is similar to other versions of the English style guide, though

his frequently extends discussions of individual figures to include more information.

Peacham published Garden of Eloquence in 1577, and (like many authors of rhetoric

29 Peacham is sometimes referred to as Henry Peacham the Elderhis son (born in 1578)

with whom he shares his name was also an author and references to the two are sometimes
confused. The Henry Peacham who wrote Garden of Eloquence lived from 1547 to 1634 and
worked as a clergyman in the Church of England. He published only one other work, a set of
sermons. His son is better-known as an author and wrote a number of important behavioral
manuals, educational materials, and nationalistic tracts in the seventeenth century.
 192

texts at the time) he significantly revised and updated the book years later, in a 1593

edition. The book expands significantly on its sources, covering hundreds of rhetorical

figures in extensive detail. Each figure includes a lengthy definition/explanation, a

section describing The vse of this Figure, and a section simply called The Caution

which warns readers about possible negative consequences of misusing the given

figure. Like its contemporaries, Peachams book is more than a textbook its contents

can be seen to reflect broadly the cultural, social, political, and religious concerns with

rhetoric in Elizabethan England (Shawn Smith).

One of the places in which Peacham most directly addresses such concerns

appears early in the text, when he explains his reasons for writing. His first reason is

that the text will profyte this my countryan early indication of the strain of

nationalism that runs throughout the book. Like many of his contemporaries, he

emphasizes the possible connections between rhetoric and political power:

But the man which is well furnished with both: I meane with ample

knowledge and excellent speech, hath been judged able, and esteemed fit

to rule the world with counsel, provinces with lawes, cities with policy,

and multitudes with persuasion: such were those men in times past, who

by their singular wisdom and eloquence, made savage nations civil, wild

people tame, and cruell tyrants not only to become meeke, but likewise

merciful. (AB.iii.r-v)

Effective rhetoric allows people to exert political power, shaping nations and even

the world with their persuasive language. More specifically, Peacham explains, the

text will be useful for young English scholars and for readers who do not know Latin. He
 193

explains that his English audience will benefit deeply from the knowledge conferred by

the text (AB.iv.r). He implies that eloquence is a necessary partner to philosophical

wisdom, and that the translation of stylistic guides into English must augment the

philosophical works increasingly appearing in that language. As T. W. Baldwin asserts,

these noble goals were not likely to have been the only motivation for Peachams

writing: by writing in English when the demand for English style guides was

significantly high, Peacham stood to profit financially from the guide, as well. But other

clues throughout the book lead to a deeper appreciation of the importance Peacham

saw for stylistic educationwhat he thought that stylistic education in English could

do.

One segment of each figures description is unique to Peachams book: while

nearly all the guides provide definitions and examples, only Peacham offers separate

and extensive Cautions to the reader. These cautions explain, in detail, how a figure

could be misused and what the potential consequences of such misuse might be. The

cautions are a significant part of the text: frequently as long as or longer than the

explanation of the figure itself, each caution provides insight into the perceived power

of figurative language and the possible consequences of its misuse. It is in these sections

that Peacham is most explicit about the power he sees in individual tropes. By reading

Peachams cautions carefully, the connections between English style and various facets

of English identity emerge: figurative language can represent the state of English law

and scholarship, the character of individual rhetors, and even the state of English social

order. Appropriate use of figurative language offers positive impressions about all of

these aspects of England, but as Peacham repeatedly warns readers, linguistic mistakes
 194

can offer similar, though negative, impressions. Inappropriate language may be taken to

demonstrate the inadequacy of English scholarship, social organization, and more.

Language, for Peacham, is a key method of Englands representing itself, both to other

English speakers and to the outside world.

A frequent theme throughout the cautions emphasizes the connection between

language and the respectability of various fields of English knowledge. The reputation

of English scholarship seems deeply important to Peacham, and his cautions repeatedly

stress that verbal gaffes or inappropriateness can be detrimental to that reputation. A

number of his examples and cautions apply to the use of language in legal situations,

and he goes out of his way to explain how readers ought to caution against their

figurative language being misconstrued legally. The emphasis on legal language seems

fitting, as around the time of Peachams writing legal documents and discourse were

increasingly using English, rather than Latin or French (the traditional languages of the

law in England [Baugh and Cable 116-17]). For example, in his treatment of zeugma,

Peacham cautions that the figure is inappropriate in legal matters. Zeugma is a figure in

which a word appears only once in a sentence, but nonetheless governs multiple

phrases in that sentence. (e.g. I ate my sandwich, and he his soup. The word ate

controls both phrases despite occurring only once.) Peacham explains that the figure

can cause vagueness of meaning:

It is good to avoyd this figure in writing of testaments and evidences,

least it may breed ambiguitie and contention. As for example: I bequeath

to my son Ambrose an hundreth pounds, to my sonne Robert fiftie, and to

my servant N. ten. Here pounds is the word exprest in the first clause, but
 195

not in the other: nowe that the same word is understood in the other it is

likely, but not proved: and therefore may breed a question. (52)

Effective legal language is, as Peacham observes, crucial to the functioning of an

effective legal system.

Clarifying when and how figurative language could be legally appropriate (or

inappropriate) has much deeper ramifications than the possibility of a given will

remaining vague, as in the zeugma example. The effectiveness of the overall system,

now that legal work is frequently occurring in English, relies on the foundation of the

language itself. For English to be an effective legal language, its figurative strategies

must be adjusted for legal use. Similar cautions that relate to legal effectiveness of

language can be found in the descriptions of euche (a figure of promising or making a

vow) and orcos (a related figure that makes a promise and invokes a witness, as in I

swear by god). Such swearing, Peacham warns, must only be used when a speaker is

willing to be legally bound to the promises she has made. Again, the power of figurative

language to affect relationships and laws must be considered when speaking and

writing. English as a legal language, and the smooth function of Englands legal system,

are inseparable from the linguistic styles employed by those within the system.

Peachams cautions apply to other fields of English scholarship, as well. His

descriptions of a number of the figures are careful to delineate how and when they are

appropriate in scientific studiesand when they might lead to unscientific results or

assertions. For example, the figure ominasio is a forme of speech, by which the Orator

foretelleth the likeliest effect to follow of some evill cause (O.i.v). Peacham offers

numerous examples, such as that of a verse from Proverbs in which the author warns a
 196

lazy worker that his sloth (the evill cause) will lead directly to his poverty (the

likeliest effect). Peacham explains that the trope also has clear application in various

scientific fields: A physician predicting the effects of an illness may use ominasio, as

might a farmer predicting the effects of weather on a crop. For this figure, Peacham

gives a lengthy description of five cautions against its inappropriate use. The first

caution simply warns rhetors not to use the figure out of anger, for such

Prognostications seldome take effect and the false Prognostcator is commonly

derided. The four following cautions relate much more directly to English science and

scholarship. In these cautious, Peacham warns against the belief in superstitions, signs

and portents that might cloud legitimate scientific predictions of cause and effect. He

warns readers not to fall into the trap of using ominasio to present beliefs based on

superstitious reasoning supported by false sciences such as astrology, palm-reading,

and physiognomy (only a few of the long list of quasi-sciences that Peacham rejects

here). Similarly, he denigrates predictions arising from non-scientific signs like the

stumbling of a horse or a hare crossing the way. Peacham cautions against each of

these examples with warnings that it is not scientifically supported, and that wise men

will beware how to beleeve such predictions. They are nothing else but mere illusions

and vanities more worthy to be abhorred than to be beleeved" by English scholars. By

controlling the use of figures, Peacham has some influence over the use of such un-

scientific arguments; his advice for appropriately tailoring English style can shape the

sorts of arguments people are encouraged to make.

Along with this concern for figurative language adding to the legitimacy of

English scholarship, Peacham demonstrates how stylistic choices reflect on individual

 197

English subjects. In Peachams text, misuse of figurative language could demonstrate

not only lack of education, but also moral ineptitude: an impression that he certainly

does not want English subjects to project. For Peacham, as for the authors of letter-

writing manuals, language has the ability to convey the personality of the author. With

such power comes the responsibility to use language to present ones best self, and

accordingly to represent England appropriately. In a description of onedismus, a figure

that is used to accuse or reprimand an adversary, Peacham warns readers that the use

of the figure will clearly reflect on their personalities, and that overuse could be

considered morally inappropriate. He writes, Wisdome and charity ought to direct the

use of this figure, lest it be used for every little displeasure as foolish persons are wont

to do, making a new account of an old reckoning, which is an absurditie offending

against good manners, a folly repugning wisedome, and an effect of malice opposed

against charitie (74). Similarly, among Peachams warnings about orcos he cautions

that overuse diminisheth the credit of the speaker (76). By guiding readers in their

use of figurative language, Peacham is simultaneously coaching them on self-

presentation. Reining in possible misuse of such figurative language may prevent

English subjects from presenting themselves poorly.

More directly relevant to English identity are the tropes and figures which,

Peacham cautions, can persuade audiences to act inappropriately toward their own

nation. Protrope, which Peacham defines in general terms as a forme of speech, by

which the Orator exhorteth and perswadeth his hearers to do some thing contains the

threat embodied in all persuasive language: that a persuasive orator could convince her

audience to act inappropriately (77-78). For Peacham, it is telling that all of the
 198

examples of inappropriate persuasion that he gives threaten the English nation.

Protrope could be misused to convince people to do unlawfull things, to sow

sedition or tumult among English subjects, or even to incite rebellion. In a passage

reminiscent of Days magical rhetoric, Peacham describes paradoxon, a descriptive

trope often used by travelers, that risks describing foreign wonders inappropriately,

exaggerating their importance or impressiveness compared to features of native

England. And in cautions about such tropes as taxis and catacosmesis, Peacham asserts

that maintaining appropriate verbal order (saying king and counselors rather than

counselors and king, for example) reflects and enforces the same social order.30 Again,

the rhetor acting on Peachams advice is exercising power far greater than it may seem

at first. By manipulating words and figures, he has the ability to manipulate the

representation of English societyor, as Peacham goes so far as to imply, to manipulate

the society itself.

Together, Peachams many cautions about the possible misuse of figurative

language serve to demonstrate both the perceived power of figurative speech and the

ways in which that power was guided and shaped by the books that offered rhetorical

instruction. By placing detailed cautionary advice alongside his list of figures, Peacham

reminds readers of a central truth about perceptions of rhetoric in the period: that

language is deeply powerful, and that learning to use language effectively can earn

control of that power. The power of language is not simply persuasive or

argumentative, though. Language, as Peacham reminds us, is also indirectly persuasive,

through the ideas and personalities of the authors that it presents. As such, even such

30 For more on the connections Peacham draws between verbal and social order, see Chapter 4.
 199

seemingly superficial concerns as style and appropriate use of figures have deep

potential to reflect back on a rhetor and the groups and nations he is associated with.

Thus, controlling the style of the English language can also affect the national identity it

expresses.

Conclusion: Interpreting the Lessons Taught by English Style Guides

As they taught lessons about style, sixteenth-century English style books were

simultaneously teaching more complex lessons. They taught readers to present

themselves appropriately (as with instructions to use emotionally strong tropes with

great care). They instructed readers in negotiating proper behavior and cultural norms

(as with descriptions of letter-writing etiquette between persons of different social

stations). And even the stylistic instruction enfolded more complex motivation:

showing readers how to use complex tropes could increase the perceived sophistication

of English as compared to rival languages. Ultimately, stylistic instruction was deeply

integrated with a sense of English nationalism. The use of the English language, and its

ability to represent English people, could have widespread effects on international

opinion and reputationimportant matters for sixteenth-century England.

The association of English style with the English nation by no means ended with

these few examples of stylistic instruction in rhetorical handbooks. Controversies over

neologisms and inkhorn terms occurred and grew in strength throughout the sixteenth

century. For example, rhetorician Ralph Lever (whose extreme opinions about
 200

neologisms I explained at the start of this chapter) also offered perceptive insight into

the deeper significance of the inkhorn controversy. In recommending that rhetors avoid

using inkhorn terms whenever possible, Lever states As for straunge and inkhorne

terms, (used of many without cause) they argue a misuse to be in the speaker: but they

prove not directly, that there is anye lacke in oure language (Forespeache). What is

notable in this quote is not Levers instruction to avoid inkhorn terms; many of his

contemporaries would offer similar stylistic advice. Rather, Levers defensiveness on

behalf of the English language is noteworthy. He proudly asserts that, even when

inkhorn terms are used, they do not indicate any lacke in the English language itself.

Levers concern that usage of certain vocabularies could be taken to indicate a lack in

the language demonstrates the tenuous relationship between style and national

reputation played out in the periodthus, again, stylistic instruction has effects

reaching far beyond superficial changes in style.

The reputation of the English language was deeply important for Englands

national reputation, and the association between England and English was only growing

stronger in the sixteenth century. This association can be seen particularly clearly when

examining the use of English outside of England, particularly in the context of

colonization and the early spread of the English empire. In Language Lessons:

Linguistic Colonialism, Linguistic Postcolonialism Richard Helgerson explains that

Englands history of being colonized with foreign languages (see Chapter 2) made

English subjects aware of the power of linguistic colonization. By controlling language

use, a political entity could colonize a group of people, subsequently controlling cultural

orientation and solidifying its hold on the group. Helgerson writes, English linguistic
 201

nationalism was closely tied up with a postcolonial/colonializing dynamic, a dynamic

in which the English came to think of themselves and their language both as having

been colonized and as potentially colonizing others (288). As England explored and

conquered new territories, linguistic colonization formed an important part of the

method for projecting English national identity onto new groups.

The implications for this growing association between language and nation

during the sixteenth century were quite significant. A mere century after English was

first introduced as a viable official and academic language, it was well on its way to

being used in a variety of places and settingsnot just in England itself. Lessons taught

by these early English style guides could be widely influential, strengthening Englands

reputation and thus increasing the nations international influence.

 202

Chapter 4. Rhetoric and English Social Order

In his 1577 Garden of Eloquence, Henry Peacham neatly summarizes a simile that

had been implied (and sometimes directly stated) in rhetoric texts throughout the

sixteenth century: rhetoric is like a weapon. Peacham writes that rhetorical figures are

as martiall instruments both of defence & invasion, and he exhorts his readers to hold

those weapons alwaies readie in our handes (AB.iv.r). By teaching rhetoric, Peacham

arms readers with a potentially violent power, a power that he claims is useful for the

same purposes as military strength.

This analogy between words and weapons is not new; it goes back at least as far

as Ciceros De Oratore, which frequently uses military metaphors to explain

persuasion.1 But the purposes to which Peacham suggests his audience apply their

rhetorical weapons are telling, and they stretch far beyond the realm of civic persuasion

that concerned Cicero. Peacham explains that words, when used as weapons, can

defend our selues, inuade our enemies, reuenge our wrongs, ayd the weake, deliuer the

1 Ciceros character Crassus refers to eloquence as a weapon to shield yourself and take

revenge (1.32), and the character Antonius claims that rhetoric has value for both the
gladiator and the soldier (2.84). Such references and similar analogies can be found
throughout De Oratore.
More recently, throughout the Middle Ages and in the early fifteenth century, the association
between rhetoric and weaponry was epitomized by handbooks called enchiridions. One of the
best-known of these handbooks was Erasmuss Enchiridion Militis Christiani (1503), translated
as the Handbook of the Christian Soldier. The word enchiridion is used here as a pun: it means
both handbook and sword. Thus, the very word indicates that knowledge (particularly
rhetorical knowledge) could be a powerful weapon (Himelick 13).

 203

simple from dangers, construe true religion, & confuse idolatry (AB.iv.r). Together,

these descriptions constitute the argument that rhetoric can be used forcefully to create

and structure social order: it can protect the separation between insiders and outsiders

(our selues and our enemies); it can organize interactions within the community

(offering reuenge and ayd); it can define and defend the communitys religious

practices. Rhetoric can be used to organize and control groups of people, shaping what

is acceptable within a community and ultimately protecting that communitys identity

against outside pressures.

Like the weapons metaphor, this attention to rhetorics importance in organizing

groups of people into nations was a frequent subject of the classical texts upon which

Renaissance authors based their works. Ciceros De Oratore and De Inventione were

likely the most influential of the classical resources Renaissance writers employed;

many of the Renaissance texts incorporate translations and rewritings of these texts.

The most important similarity between the Renaissance texts and their ancient

counterparts is, arguably, the emphasis on rhetorics power to structure social

interactions on both personal and political levels. Rhetoric structured classical societies,

and authors invested in the idea that it could be used to structure English social order

and therefore the English nation. But despite this important similarity between

Renaissance texts and their classical models, there were noticeable differences in how

the relationship between rhetoric and national social order played out in the texts.

Sixteenth-century authors not only translated the classical languages but also Englished

the texts content. And it is those differences that most clearly illuminate the important

social functions of rhetoric as perceived in sixteenth-century England. Ultimately,

 204

Peacham and his contemporaries argue that rhetorical weapons will be an essential

ingredient in shaping the emerging English nation.

This attention to rhetorics social purpose in sixteenth-century English rhetorical

treatises is not limited to Peacham. Echoes and extensions of the argument that rhetoric

creates social order can be found in Elyot, Cox, Ascham, Wilson, and others. In fact,

according to many of these authors, rhetoric lays the foundations for stable societies in

the first place: it is through communication that people are able to organize themselves

into communities, and eventually nations. In another reprisal of De Oratore, Peacham

explains how rhetoric can marshal chaotic groups into sophisticated nations, writing

men in times past, by their singular wisdom and eloquence, made sauage nations

ciuil, wild people tame, and cruell tyrants not only to become meeke, but likewise

mercifull (AB.iii.v). By eloquently persuading savages to submit to their leadership,

persuasive rhetors were able to establish systems of government and social rank.

Rhetoric then helped to maintain these strict hierarchies by investing the powerful with

verbal skills through which they could persuade the masses to remain subservient and

with which they could indicate their membership in elite groups. In this view, rhetoric

is indeed the emperor of mens minds, a phrase originated by Peacham and frequently

taken up by scholars of Renaissance rhetoric to indicate the use of rhetoric as a tool to

manipulate and shape people and nations.

However, the ideal shape of English social structure, and rhetorics place within

it, was much debated among Renaissance rhetoricians. Rhetoric could be seen as a

weapon with which to solidify and protect existing hierarchies, but it could just as easily

be perceived as a force of potential social upheaval. As a force of social upheaval,

 205

rhetoric could allow the lower classes to pass as educated or high-born, and it could

help eloquent and rebellious leaders rally support for insubordinate causes. Indeed, if

rhetoric is a weapon with the properties that Peacham attributes to it, that weapon

could be useful to the powerless, as well as those already in positions of power.

Individuals who were less-privileged within Englands current social system could use

rhetoric to threaten established order by inciting rebellions or to overturn existing

hierarchies by pretending to high social status.

Such concerns were particularly directed toward humanist movements that

advocated for widespread education: if rhetoric is a weapon with power to shape social

order and national identity, offering that weapon to the less-powerful through

widespread education was deeply threatening to social hierarchies. As Wayne Rebhorn

observes, Renaissance rhetoric is profoundly ambiguous: a conservative instrument

that allows rulers to maintain the status quo, it is simultaneously imagined as a

subversive force that threatens social stability (xii). Even in this time of burgeoning

growth and development in rhetorical education, it was unclear whether the weapon

of rhetoric would be more useful in the hands of the powerful, for keeping order, or in

the hands of the weak, for threatening that order.

This theme, of tension between rhetorics perceived powers to enforce social

order and to upset it, runs through sixteenth-century English rhetoric books as well as

twenty-first century scholarly responses to those texts. But despite differing viewpoints

about whether a given text focuses on rhetorics conservative or revolutionary

potential, most texts agree that rhetoric is fundamentally important to creating and

shaping the systems of social order that would prevail in England and, thus, English
 206

national identity. Whether Englands national identity would be associated with strict

hierarchy or more social mobility relied, in part, on how rhetoric was used to control,

persuade, and manipulate English subjects. Rhetorics perceived ability to change the

shape of English society gave it influence over the nature of English national identity

through these rhetorical texts.

It is the nature of rhetorics structuring of social order, and the identities that it

could support, that I propose to examine in this chapter. Beginning with background on

social systems and the nature of order and resistance in sixteenth-century England, I

then analyze a series of texts from the period that comment on rhetorics power to

influence social ordering in the emerging English nation. These texts explain that

persuasive rhetors can assemble people into national groups, create systems of social

hierarchy, and threaten those same systems. And while the texts are explicitly based on

classical models that sometimes make similar claims, those classical sources and claims

have been repurposed to specifically suit the national context of sixteenth-century

England. The texts dramatically show how language instruction could shape English

national identity.

Social Order and National Identity in England

The connections between social order and national identity were strong and

clear to writers in sixteenth-century England, as Richard Helgerson explains in Forms of

Nationhood. Helgersons book analyzes a broad selection of sixteenth-century English

 207

texts, across genres, all of which concern England or national sentiment. He explains

that nearly all of the texts engage two central political issues: the inclusion or exclusion

of various social groups from privileged participation in the national community and

the nature of monarchical power (9). Together, these political concerns indicate that

authors questioned the absolute nature of established hierarchies and speculated about

other sources of authority and identity as a nation. Helgerson explains that, while the

established social hierarchy (with the monarch as its ultimate head) was one focus of

most sixteenth-century texts, some other interest or cultural formationthe nobility,

the law, the land, the economy, the common people, the churchrivals the monarch as

the fundamental source of national identity (10). Authority and social order were

deeply linked, and authors who speculated about social systems, rebellions, or

obedience often emphasized their ideal vision of England, privileging their preferred

interest or cultural formation through the inclusion or exclusion of various social

groups.

Englands identity as a nation, as well as the individual identities of English

subjects, could be quite different depending on the interest[s] or cultural formation[s]

which were seen as central to that identity. Authors who focused on religion, for

instance, pushed for a specific set of religious beliefs to be central to Englishness.

Authors who concentrated on education placed similar emphasis on the importance of

widespread learning. And many authors, whose treatises addressed authority,

hierarchies, resistance, and rebellion, focused on how specific systems of social order

could (and should) be central to English identity. Given the classical connections

between rhetoric, civic participation, and nationalism, rhetorical education was an

 208

important means through which ideas about appropriate English social order could be

spread. The following sections first begin to explain the nature of social groupings and

resistance that sixteenth-century authors were responding to, and then introduce

modern perspectives on those sixteenth-century attitudes toward social order.

Sixteenth-Century Systems of Social Order

Modern discussions of social order and its relationship to nationalism often rely

on class as an identity marker and social category, but the concept of class is

anachronistic for sixteenth-century England. The word class wasnt recorded as a part

of the English language until the seventeenth century, and it didnt come into its

modern usage until the eighteenth.2 Before this point, writers referred to individuals by

their occupation, using words like rank or station to group related occupations

togetherfor instance, merchants were of one social rank or station, landowning

farmers of another, and tenant farmers of a third. Peter Calvert points out that these

concepts differ from the concept of class because they were essential to the

individual rather than the collectivity. That is, while an individuals status could be

understood in part as a function of their rank or station, the categories of rank and

station were rarely, if ever, used to refer to groups of people but rather to describe

traits of a given individual.

2 According to Peter Calvert, the word class first came from Latin into English in 1656, when it

was defined in Thomas Blounts dictionary as an order or distribution of people according to

their several Degrees (12). Even then, the word was not used to refer to contemporary social
distinctions in England itself, but to describe historical social differences, specifically in Roman
society (14).
 209

But Renaissance England certainly had systems of social ordering that were

comparable to the modern class system. Texts from that period refer to people roughly

grouped by sorts. The meaner sort consisted of non-professional, non-property

owners (the vast majority of English people) whereas better sorts consisted of people

variously working in the professions, owning land, or even having attained the ranks of

nobility. Of course, given the complexity of any class system and particularly of the

Renaissance system in which ranks were primarily thought of as individual rather than

collective categories, this ranking by sorts is an over-simplification. Literacy historian

Nigel Wheale explains that social position in the early modern period, as now, was a

complex mixture of wealth and status that affected, and was affected by, other factors

such as education level and family relationships (20). Also like now, there was much

debate over how fluid the system of social positions was, or should be. Could someone

of the lower sort, through education or money, rise to belong to a middling or higher

sort?

Rising through the social status system in Renaissance England was difficult at

best, partly because of economic, legal, and educational systems that reinforced existing

status divisions. For example, under the peerage system an individual or family could

earn a place in the nobility (and a title like Duke, Marquis, or Earl) only by a specific

order from the monarch. Understandably, such orders were hard to come by. Although

the number of families in the peerage fluctuated slightly, for most of the sixteenth

century only about fifty families were in this most privileged rank, and those fifty

families held approximately ten percent of English land. Elizabeth promoted very few

families to the peerage, purposefully maintain[ing] the peerage as a select caste for
 210

men of ancient lineage and obviously a social group that individuals could rarely if ever

hope to gain entry to (Guy 46). Knighthood was only a slightly more achievable rank.

There were roughly ten times as many knights as peers, and men could be promoted to

knighthood due to military achievements. But again this promotion required the

decision of a monarch or commanding military officer, and since knighthood was not

heritable it remained a remarkably elite status. Sons and descendants of knights were

named Esquires, and together with gentlemen they rounded out the bulk of the

significant landowners in Englanda group that was difficult, if not impossible, to join

if one was not born into it.

Ultimately, according to historian John Guy, social rising was possible only for

certain groups in ideal conditions:

The chance of a significant upgrading in status was confined to males able

to obtain enough land, gain entry to an urban elite, or enter one of the

professions, and to persons able to engineer a marriage well above their

existing standing The question of status is complicated by the fact that

economic status was not equivalent to social status. Prosperity was the

test of the former, but gentility of the later. Often the two overlapped, as

in the case of landowners, but sometimes they did not. (44-45)

Twin pressures of money and the system of rankings prevented easy social status

shifting, for while money was a crucial ingredient in social standing, it wasnt enough. A

merchant could become wealthy, even wealthier than some members of the gentry, but

he could not simultaneously become a gentleman if he could not trace his family

lineage to members of the gentry. Womens roles were even more limited. A womans
 211

status came from her father or, if she was married, her husband. Given restrictions on

female ownership of land and property, a womans ability to affect her own social

standing was severely restricted. Overall, this extremely fixed social structure meant

that a very small percentage of the English population controlled the vast majority of

the countrys resources and could greatly influence policy and otherwise shape the

evolving nation.

The fixity of social hierarchy was part of a larger belief system, widespread in

medieval and Renaissance England, that prioritized order and structure. Philosophers

and scientists during the medieval period believed that the world was organized into

orderly levels, each rank of which rightly held power and authority over the lower

ranks. This structure, sometimes referred to as the great chain of being, began with

God, and below God ranked all other things in existence, from supernatural beings like

angels to physical matter like rocks. The ranking was not arbitrary, but related to

beliefs about degrees of life. For example, animals were thought to have purely material

life and angels to be purely spiritual; humans were seen as a mixture and so ranked in-

between. Moreover, the rankings inherent to the great chain were thought to be

designed and ordained by God, lending them religious importance and fixing them even

more firmly in the minds of Renaissance thinkers. Predictably, social rankings were also

mapped onto the great chain. Monarchs were closer to angels and to God; the lowest

ranks of society were just above animals.

The great chain is important not only for the insight it offers into systems of

ranking, but also because it embodies the degree to which such social order was

perceived as necessary, natural, and essential to the proper functioning of the world
 212

and societies. The great chain was ordained by God; attempts to change ones ranking

or resist higher-ranking authorities could be perceived as religiously disobedient.

Hierarchies were seen as natural and correct, an essential part of a smoothly-

functioning social system. In The Boke Named the Gouernor, a text intended as a

handbook for future political leaders, Thomas Elyot goes so far as to make social

stratification the central point in his definition of a prosperous country. He writes a

publike weale is a body lyuyng, compact or made of so~dry astates and degrees of men,

whiche is dysposed by the order of equytye, and gouerned by the rule and moderation

of reason (A.i.r). In this definition, ordered degrees of status are crucial to publike

wealea phrase which simultaneously refers to a collective group of people (i.e., the

nation) and the well-being of that group.3 In the same passage, Elyot explains the fear of

disorder prevalent during his lifetime:

More ouer, take awaye Order from all thynges, what shulde than

remayne? Certes nothynge finally, excepte somme man wolde imagine

eftsones, Chaos, whiche of some is expounded, a confuse mixture. Also

where there is any lacke of order, nedes muste be perpetuall conflycte.

And in thynges, subiecte to nature, no thyng of hym selfe onely maye be

nourysshed: but whan he hath distroyed that, wherwith he doth

participate, by the order of his creation, he hym selfe of necessitie muste

than perysshe, wherof ensueth vniuersall dyssolution. (A.ii.r-v)

3 Elyot offers different, and sometimes contradictory, synonyms for publike weale, using the

phrase as a translation of the Latin respublica in places. More generally, though, and in the
passage quoted here, Elyots publike weale refers not to a form of government but to a
collective entity, nearly synonymous with the current meaning of nation (9-10 di).
 213

Chaos and perpetual conflict would result from challenging order. And individuals who

dare to step outside of their socially prescribed roles must perysshe.

Although strict social structures were central in Renaissance society, such rigid

authoritarianism was not universal. Alongside the strict emphasis on the fixity of social

order ran a current of resistance against that order and the authority structure it

implied. While individuals had little power to affect their social standings, groups of

people sometimes unified against unpopular policies and treatment through open

resistance or even rebellion, upsetting hierarchies by asserting their power to change

policies dictated by their social betters. For example, in 1549 alone, two significant

rebellions against new policies gathered thousands of protesters. Near Norfolk, a small

group protesting the policy of enclosure (in which the government or wealthy

landowners fenced off land that had previously been open for public use) swelled to

thousands in what is now known as Ketts Rebellion. That same year, thousands more in

the southwest of England protested the government-mandated Book of Common

Prayer, which replaced Catholic Mass in Latin with Protestant liturgy in English (Wood).

Like many instances of resistance to authority in the Renaissance, both 1549 rebellions

ended badly: the protestors demands were not met, and the leaders were painfully

executed. Ketts Rebellion and the Prayer Book Rebellion also demonstrate how

changes in government policy can influence popular conceptions of appropriate

obedience and social order.

When a government is perceived as unfit or tyrannical, subjects may argue that

it cannot be ordained by God and thus does not demand obedience. A particularly apt

illustration of the influence that governmental change can have on social order came in
 214

the middle of the sixteenth century. Throughout the early sixteenth century, Englands

religious alignment had been shifting dramatically. Henry VIII split from the Catholic

church in 1534, and through the Act of Supremacy declared himself head of the English

church (a declaration that was controversial to both Catholics and Protestants). Henrys

son Edward VI intensified the change in English religion, effectively reforming the

national church. And when Edward died in 1553, his Catholic half sister Mary ascended

the throne and undid many of her brothers and fathers reforms. Marys Catholicism

was a welcome change for English recusants who had been hoping for a return to the

old religion, but Protestants were predictably alienated. This sense of alienation, in

turn, developed into arguments about the religious permissibility of resistance against

ungodly monarchs that suggested a changing tide in Englands social order.

The persecution of Protestants under Marys reign (1553-58) compelled many of

them to leave England, creating exile communities in cities like Geneva that were

friendly to reformers. But despite their physical distance from England, the exiled

Protestants maintained intense loyalty to their vision of a Protestant England. This

loyalty was expressed through attempts to reshape English identity so that, once again,

it aligned with Protestant values. For many of the exiles, loyalty to an idealized England

meant preaching sermons and circulating texts that called for direct disobedience to

Mary, sometimes to the extent of asking for an overthrow of the government in order to

remove the Catholic monarch. Such calls for direct disobedience were new at the time,

for while Martin Luther had advocated for passive resistance in the 1530s, religious

writings had not yet condoned the possibility of active resistance against governmental

authority (Skinner 196).

 215

The Marian exiles changed the reformed stance on resistance, offering religious

justifications for threatening the social order or even deposing a monarch. John Ponets

1556 Shorte Treatise of Politike Power calls listeners to seke what God will haue [them]

doo, and not what the subtiltie and viole~ce of wicked men will force [them] to doo,

even when the wicked are part of the government (D.i.v). Similarly, Christopher

Goodman preached a sermon in Geneva (later published and circulated as a booklet)

called How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed (1558), with the lengthy and telling

subtitle and Wherein they may lawfully by Gods Worde be disobeyed and resisted.

The title page further promises to reveal the cause of all this present miserie in

England, and the onely way to remedy the same. Unsurprisingly, like Ponet, Goodman

offers a religious defense of resistance against an unfair ruler. For Ponet, Goodman, and

their contemporaries, their identity as Protestants was that which rival[ed] the

monarch as the fundamental source of national identity. It was clear from their

writings that they were willing to threaten established ideas about social order and

obedience in order to be faithful to what they felt should be characteristic of England;

they were willing to risk a great deal by such publications in order to try to bring

Protestantism back to England.

Englands religious alignment shifted once again in 1558, when Mary died just

five years after she was crowned. Upon Marys death, the Protestant Elizabeth ascended

the throne, much to the delight of the exiles who were welcomed back. Once the

monarch and their preferred religious identity realigned, the exiles were once again

willing and able to adopt and praise an English national identity. But the debates about

resistance that the Marian exiles had sparked far outlasted Marys reign, and the
 216

question of when (or whether) it was appropriate to resist a ruler deeply informed

English writings about social order even after the 1550s.4

Between mid-century debates about resistance and characteristic insistence on

the necessity of social hierarchy, it is clear that social order was a contentious topic

throughout sixteenth-century England. If even the monarchs power could be

questioned, what about the power of the nobility or other better sorts? Might those

also be subject to critique, or even overthrow? How could social order be reconceived

to align with ideal visions of the English nationas democratic or authoritarian,

Catholic or Protestant, exclusive or inclusive? Modern scholars who study this period

have consistently asked such questions.

Literary historians disagree on the degree of flexibility in Renaissance Englands

systems of social positioning. Early influential work on the subject decreed that social

orders in the Renaissance were inflexibly strict, with individual subjects believing

almost universally in the importance of keeping to their own role in society. In 1944 E.

M. W. Tillyard provided the most prominent example of this type of scholarship. He

describes The Elizabethan World Picture, a worldview he argues English subjects in the

Renaissance shared, involving a deep belief in social and natural hierarchies and in the

importance of keeping their place within those hierarchies. Tillyard claims that in

Renaissance England the conception of order is so taken for granted, so much part of

the collective mind of the people, that it is hardly mentioned except in explicitly didactic

4 In fact, many of the exiles resistance writings were reprinted nearly a century later, when

England was once again debating the appropriateness of dethroning a monarch. Interestingly,
when the tracts reappeared their religious alignments were reversed: they were often used by
religious conservatives against extremely reformed groups like the Anabaptists.
 217

passages of literature from the period (7). Tillyards arguments had strong

implications for literary criticism, and like many theories about social order in the

Renaissance it was heavily based on history plays from the period. He offered a

particularly interesting interpretation of plays like Shakespeares second tetralogy, a

series of four history plays that portray social mixing and threats to established

hierarchies (Tillyard, Shakespeares History Plays). And despite the criticism of some

contemporaries that Tillyards theory was overly simplistic, it has held a great deal of

influence over scholarship about social order in Renaissance England (Felperin,

Lander).

Modern scholars who study Renaissance social order still invoke Tillyard, if only

to oppose him. A particularly important wave of reaction against Tillyard came with the

new historicists, specifically Stephen Greenblatt. Greenblatt and other new historicists

rejected Tillyards assertion that all English subjects shared a particular worldview.

Instead, they argued, some lower-status subjects recognized their repression and

attempted to resist, only to be forced into submission by political authorities.

[C]ontemporary authorities tried to contain or destroy what they considered

subversive elements, but the idealistic suppression of rebellion presented in dramas

from the period didnt indicate widespread belief in the divine necessity of social order

(Shakespearean Negotiations 39). Rather, the new historicists recognized a desire for

resistance and changing social order in the period, even when strict authoritarianism

made such resistance impossible.

Ultimately, most current scholars agree that there were strong tides of

resistance pushing against, and occasionally overturning, the dominant emphasis on

 218

social order and obedience in Renaissance Englandbut that the emphasis on order

was so strong, and supported by such powerful institutions, that individuals had only

very limited ability to influence their standing.5 Moreover, modern scholars recognize

that the question of how strict social ordering should be was highly contentious during

the Renaissance itself (see Rackin, Helgerson, and Greenblatt). As writers and

politicians worked to shape the emerging nation of England, they each attempted to

establish an appropriate type of social order that accorded with their own vision for

what English national identity ought to represent.

The questions of how strict social ordering should be and the appropriateness of

resistance were central to the formation of a sense of English national identity. Among

the wide spectrum of sixteenth-century texts analyzed by Richard Helgerson

(narratives, poetry, chorographies, and historiographies, to name a few), all engage the

issues of monarchical power and the inclusion or exclusion of various social groups

(Forms 10). In most of the writing, Helgerson claims, some other interest or cultural

formation rivals the monarch as the fundamental source of national identity (10). If

values other than obedience were prized as nobly English, social order could be

threatened and Englishness redefined to align with those other values. Throughout

the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, English authors examined possibilities

for resisting the rule of a monarch with whom they disagreed. During the Renaissance

5 For more significant scholarship on resistance and social order, particularly as represented in

the history plays that both Tillyard and Greenblatt use as examples, see Bulman, Pierce,
Knowles, Rackin, and Levine. For more on the particular development of systems of social order
in England, see Patricia A. Cahills Nation Formation and the English History Plays. Cahill
argues that the history plays dramatically represent a shift in social bonds: whereas medieval
societies were held together primarily with family ties, in the Renaissance class systems
emerged and became the dominant system of social order.
 219

such theories of resistance developed from authors hesitatingly questioning

monarchical authority, to those suggesting that Christian subjects could passively reject

ungodly rulers, and finally to those who argued for and actually performed the

execution of Charles I. Although this simple narrative reflects the general trend of the

literature, the progression of arguments was hardly so linearvoices of obedience and

arguments against resistance continually rose in opposition to the more rebellious

voices.

The Role of Education in Establishing and Changing Social Order

Rhetorical education relates to these concerns about hierarchies, resistance, and

social order in number of ways. As literary historian Jennifer Richards has observed,

speech is recognized in the sixteenth century as the basic building block of society

(67). Access to that building block, provided in part by rhetorical handbooks that

instructed users in how to speak or write effectively, was remarkably important.

Rhetoric formed an important part of established social hierarchies in a number of

ways. First, eloquence was one of the traits that marked nobles and courtiers as

different and worthy of their higher standing. In addition, rhetorical skill could be used

to persuade subjects to remain obedient and to unify the nation. However, rhetoric also

held potential to be deeply threatening to the social order. If rhetorical prowess could

be translated into political power, and education and literacy were spreading to those

of lower status, rhetoric could potentially become a weapon of upheaval, allowing

 220

individuals and groups to incite resistance or even pass for members of a higher social

rank.

Scholarly approaches to rhetoric and nationhood differ depending on which of

these functions of rhetoric they concentrate on. Many rhetorical historians focus on the

potential that rhetorical education offered: a person skilled in speaking might be able to

pass as, and eventually become, a member of a higher social order than the one he

was born into. Some of the first scholars who carefully studied sixteenth-century

rhetoric texts fall into this camp, concentrating on the liberating potential of

broadening rhetorical education. Arguing that civic humanism was central to

sixteenth-century learning, scholars of rhetorical history like Albert J. Schmidt and

Russell H. Wagner saw early rhetoric books as spreading education, providing readers

with the potential to improve their social situations by entering educated professions.

In a telling description of Thomas Wilsons 1553 Arte of Rhetorique, Wagner explains

that Wilsons own biography mirrors how his rhetoric text might help others. Schmidt

makes this point even more forcefully, arguing not only that Wilsons Rhetorique was

empowering to the uneducated, but also that that empowerment was its primary

purpose. Schmidt writes the goal that he [Wilson] established for himself was less to

teach Englishmen logic and rhetoric than to teach citizenshipa goal that Schmidt

equates with individual rights and responsibilities within a nation (Thomas Wilson

and the Tudor Commonwealth 50).6

6 The characterization that these scholars apply to Wilson also applies to other authors of

rhetoric textsa group that Albert J. Schmidt refers to in general as civic humanistsbut
Wilsons text is often used as an example because of its early fame as the first complete
rhetoric in English (Wagner 1). See also Chapter 1.
 221

Others focus on the even more radical potential inherent in rhetoric texts. Frank

Whigham, in a study of courtesy literature in general (of which rhetorical instruction is

an important part), explains that while these rhetorics were being written and

circulated an exclusive sense of aristocratic identity was being stolen, or at least

encroached upon, by a horde of young men not born to it (5). Most importantly, the

means of that encroachment were rhetorical. The texts [make] possible a new

conception of the hierarchical social order: not as a set of sealed ranks, nor even as an

order based on merit (another new strategy with its own problems), but as a system

dominated by those who can convince others that they ought to submit. Wilson, in

particular, exemplifies this as he effectively uncouples the existing order from

transcendent authority and refounds it on the sheerly formal, learnable, vendible skills

of persuasion (3). For Whigham, the growing number of rhetorical textbooks available

in English throughout the sixteenth century pointed toward a more open, inclusive

model of English national structure.

In some ways, this ideal of civic humanism may seem a return to rhetorics roots

in the democratic deliberation of early Greek and Roman society. Rhetorician Wayne

Rebhorn is careful to caution against such a reading, though, and Rebhorns explanation

of the differences between classical and Renaissance understandings of rhetoric and

society forms a useful foundation for the second scholarly approach to Renaissance

rhetorical texts. Rebhorn explains that while superficially, Renaissance descriptions of

rhetoric and its power might resemble those that glorified rhetoric as the deliberative

cornerstone of Greek democracy, in reality Renaissance authors held a much more

violent and authoritative view of rhetoric: such texts served to enforce existing
 222

hierarchies and patterns of power. They saw the orator primarily as a ruler, not as a

participant in the give-and-take of parliamentary debate (4). Thus rhetorical

education, far from the inclusive gesture idealized as civic humanism by scholars like

Wagner and Schmidt, is a means of maintaining power. It instructs the already-

privileged (those able to be educated and afford books) in how to maintain their

positions of privilege through rhetoric.

Like Rebhorn, a number of other scholars also present rhetoric as primarily, or

at least importantly, a method of control that could solidify existing social divisions.

Cathy Shrank, for example, argues that rhetoric is a tool with which the ruling elite can

unify and control the rest of the nation. She focuses on Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique and

asserts that Wilson and his contemporaries prioritiz[e] obedience over fellowship

(219) and present the rhetor as an authoritarian figure, and rhetoric as a means of

instilling obedience in a restive population, which Shrank categorizes as a top-down

viewin which rhetoric is primarily intended for those in government (183). In the

hands of those in government, the already-powerful, rhetoric lacks liberatory potential

and instead functions to enforce the existing, strict social divisions of Renaissance

England.

Ultimately, my arguments in this chapter build on both views of rhetoric. Like

Rebhorn, I argue that rhetoric can function as both a weapon of the powerful and as a

potential source of social upheaval. And in addition, rhetoric and rhetorical educations

ability to affect hierarchies make them an important factor in any vision of an ideal

English nation. Language use and education can have some effect over whether the
 223

nation develops into a socially flexible place, or one of strict hierarchy. The weapons of

rhetoric have significant power.

Rhetorics Relationships to English Social Order

My primary claim about the relationship between rhetoric and English social

order is that the relationship is complex and occasionally contradictory. Descriptions of

rhetorical education simply functioning to maintain or threaten existing social order

cannot fully describe the connection. Rather, sixteenth-century Englands social system

held a variety of relationships with rhetoric and rhetorical education. The common

theme among this variety is that, whatever nature these relationships took, the practice

and teaching of rhetoric were consistently viewed as important means of negotiating

English social life.

In the following sections, I focus on three of the many ways in which rhetorical

treatises reveal the interplay between rhetoric and social order. First, I show how

sixteenth-century rhetorical texts presented rhetoric as an originating force for group

identities. As such, skillful use of rhetoric could not only coalesce groups such as nations

but also could cause groups to conform to certain characteristics (such as, in the case of

England, Protestantism and educational independence). In this view, rhetoric created

and shaped the characteristics of national social order. Second, I examine treatises that

show rhetorics use as a form of political persuasion, employed purposefully by groups

wishing to obtain and wield the power to control other English subjects. And finally, I
 224

demonstrate that rhetorics use as a system of social markers (indicating social rank

through style, accent, vocabulary, and other rhetorical characteristics) played an

important role in allowing subjects to perform (and possibly even threaten) social

hierarchies. Together, these three sections represent the larger complex of possibilities

for connection between language and social life in Renaissance England and show how

crucially rhetoric functioned as part of developing and performing English identity.

Rhetoric as Originating Force: The Development of Nations and National Qualities

Frequently, sixteenth-century rhetorical treatises begin by recounting rhetorics

initial power in leading people to form social groups, societies, and ultimately nations

with systems of social hierarchy and specific identity characteristics. (Presumably,

these rehearsals of rhetorics power justify the educational goals of the treatises

themselves.) Some of the clearest descriptions of rhetorics power as an originating

force appear when authors present origin myths that explain the sources of rhetorical

skill and of organized nations.7 Nearly all sixteenth-century rhetorical treatises contain

such myths, often as part of an introduction or section establishing the importance of

rhetorical skill and explaining why rhetoric is politically and socially powerful. The

myths are based on classical works: Isocrates, Horace, and Quintilian all function as

source texts, but, as with most Renaissance rhetoric, Ciceros De Oratore and De

Inventione are the most important models (Rebhorn 25).

7 Wayne Rebhorn refers to these origin myths as the myth of the orator-civilizer in reference

to the eloquent figure who generally leads groups of people to form and shape nations (24).
 225

While sixteenth-century versions of the myth tell the same story as Ciceros, they

also offer slight alterations of content and emphasis, highlighting the concerns of

Renaissance authors and audiences by adapting understandings of rhetoric to the

contemporary political climate. As idealized descriptions of the relationship authors

perceived between rhetoric and social order, these origins myths provide particularly

useful texts for learning how rhetorical education was related to social hierarchies. The

types of changes made in Renaissance versions of the myth can be explained by two

representative examples: Thomas Wilsons retelling emphasizes the potential for

national unity under Protestantism (unity made possible by the persuasive force of

rhetoric) and Thomas Elyots version explains how rhetoric can be used to establish

and then negotiate sixteenth-century English social boundaries.8

To understand how Renaissance authors adapt the origins myths, it is first

necessary to understand the models they used. According to Rebhorn, Ciceros De

Inventione offered [t]he most important and extensive of the ancient versions, and

many of the sixteenth-century English versions borrowed directly from that text (25).

De Inventione simultaneously explains the origins of rhetoric and of civilized society,

introducing themes and relationships that occur throughout Renaissance retellings.

Like most of his Renaissance followers, Cicero begins his treatment of rhetoric with

reflections on the importance and moral orientation of his subject, asking whether

fluency of language has been beneficial or injurious to men and to cities and using the

origins myth to clarify the benefits of rhetoric. He goes on to narrate, there was a time

8 Other versions of the myth are discussed elsewhere; for example, George Puttenhams

interpretation clarifies that an ideal nation would rely constantly on the rhetorical production
of culture.
 226

when men wandered at random over the fields, after the fashion of beasts (I.II). Like

animals, they were guided only by instincts and immediate pleasures, with no

education, no sense of religion, and no social organization. Eventually, a great and wise

man (the prototype of Ciceros citizen-orator) emerged, who recognized the potential

of the human mind if it could be improve[d] by education and society and attempted

to convince his fellows that they should change their way of living. The others initially

raised an outcry against this mans ideas, but gradually they became more eager to

listen to him on account of his wisdom and eloquence with which he educated them

and persuaded them that his ideas were sound. Ultimately, because of this eloquence,

he made them gentle and civilized from having been savage and brutal, establishing

systems of laws and education to support the newly formed civilization. Ciceros

version of the myth ends by moralizing: eloquence, along with the wisdom found

through philosophical inquiry, is responsible for all the benefits of civilized life and,

thus, is a most worthy topic of study. Ciceros myth clearly establishes the connection

between rhetoric and civic life that was enacted in the forensic civic rhetorics he and his

contemporaries participated in.

Renaissance versions of this myth contain numerous adaptations, in emphasis

and in content, from the version presented by Cicero. And as Rebhorn has convincingly

argued, those adaptations reflect differences in the perceived relationship between

rhetoric and society in the Renaissance, particularly the increased politicization of

rhetoric (27, 29). But whereas Rebhorn focuses on adaptations of the myth throughout

Renaissance Europe, drawing general conclusions about widespread changes in

rhetorical theory, I offer a closer analysis of changes in English versions of the myth,
 227

contextualized within and responding to concerns particular to sixteenth-century

England.

One of the most straightforward differences is illustrated by Thomas Wilson,

who offers a version of the myth in his Arte of Rhetorique. Chapter 1 discusses this

version in the context of Wilsons texts larger arguments about rhetoric and

nationality. Here, I describe more particularly how Wilsons version of the myth reflects

attitudes toward the relationship that rhetoric can have to social order, in particular.

Wilsons version follows the general progression of Ciceros, even echoing his language

in parts. But as described in Chapter 1, Wilsons version introduces a significant

emphasis on religion into the myth, altering both the origins of rhetoric and the means

to which it can be used in society. Wilson marries the myth with Christianity, and with

Renaissance England, in a number of ways. First, according to Wilsons version humans

were created as rational and eloquent creatures, and it was only through the fall that

they descended to the level of beasts. This relatively straightforward change follows the

Christian narrative of the fall and the doctrine of original sin, clarifying that humans, not

God, are responsible for their own fall from eloquence. Wilson explains that because of

sin, humanitys rationality and eloquence were corrupted, and none did anye thing by

reason, but most did what they could, by manhode And therfore where as man

through reason might haue vsed order, manne throughe follye fell into erroure (A.iii r-

v).

The second change Wilson makes to the myth is more significant and indicative

of rhetorics social purposes. After mentioning that Christ restored the relationship
 228

between God and humanity, Wilson focuses in much more detail on Gods goodness in

appointing leaders to eloquently persuade their fellows to establish societies:

Therefore euen nowe when man was thus paste all hope of

amendemente, God still tendering his owne workemanship, stirred vp his

faythfull and elect, to perswade with reason, all men to societye. And gaue

his appoynted ministers knowledge bothe to se the natures of men, and

also graunted them the gift of vtteraunce, that they myghte wyth ease

wynne folke at their will, and frame theim by reason to all good order

these appoynted of God called theim together by vtteraunce of speache,

and perswaded with them what was good, what was badde, and what was

gainefull for mankynde. (A.iii v)

Whereas in Ciceros myth an individual person was responsible for perswade[ing]

men to societye, in Wilsons version Gods ministers are the bearers of eloquence,

rationality, and those with the ability to civilize. God empowers eloquent individuals to

establish civilizations, humanizing and uniting their companions by overcoming the

natural tendency to brutish behavior. Therefore, rhetorics power to unite groups under

a common religious banner is ordained and controlled by God himselfrhetoric is an

originating force not only for the national group, but also for the unified religious

identity of that group.

Wilsons emphasis on unity is particularly important to his telling of the myth.

His Christianized version offers not only social unity (through the creation of civilized

society) but religious unity, with all believers unified under one God. This added

emphasis on rhetorics potential to encourage religious unification would have been

 229

significant to Wilsons contemporaries, given the great state of religious flux in the early

sixteenth century. The possibility that persuasive preachers could bring a nation

together under the banner of Protestantism, specifically, spoke to concerns about

national unity and separation from Catholicism that were extremely poignant, and

reflected mid-century Protestantisms emphasis on evangelism through preaching.

Reforming movements were often criticized for threatening religious unity, since they

broke from the Catholic church. In response to such criticisms, reformers pushed even

harder to unify believers under the new religion, claiming that Protestantism was the

true faith and even making claims to historical unity with the early church.9 By

emphasizing religious unity, Wilson translated the myth into a sixteenth-century

English context, presenting rhetoric as a powerful force in shaping the nation.

Another important departure from Cicero emerges when we look at the

idealized visions of society presented in the origins myths of Renaissance English

authors. Generally speaking, Renaissance retellings of the myth support the idea that

rhetoric is not a democratic force, but a weapon to be used by people in positions of

power to maintain order by preventing social flexibility. Thomas Elyots Boke Named

the Gouernour clearly establishes this connection. He describes the origin of rhetoric as

follows:

in the fyrste infancy of the worlde, men wandrynge lyke beastis in

woddes and on mountaynes, regarding neyther the religion due vnto god,

9 As Felicity Heal has observed, Protestantisms lack of history presented a problem to

reformers. Many Catholics were convinced that historical precedent favored their own religious
convictions over the new Protestant religion. Interestingly, the question of history was directly
related to group identity and unity: if Protestantism could be presented as an outgrowth of the
early church and thus could claim early church history as its own, the Reformation could be
represented as a return to unity rather than a split from historical faith.
 230

nor the office perteynynge vnto man, ordered all thynge by bodyly

strength: vntyl Mercurius (as Plato supposeth) or somme other man

holpen by sapience, and eloquence, by some apt or propre oration,

assembled them to gether, and perswaded to theym, what commoditie

was in mutual couersation and honest maners. (Fol. 48.r)

In a state of nature, humans are lyke beastis because they lack the communication

skills that could allow them to cooperate and form societies. It is only through the

wisdom of individuals that the beasts are pulled together and ordered, by apt or

proper oration, into what is presented as the only way for humans to live

harmoniously: strict social ranks.

This description of rhetorics importance occurs in a section where Elyot defines

the nature and role of an orator. Importantly, Elyot notes, the orator is more than

simply one skilled in language. Orators must be educated far beyond mere linguistic

skill, and most importantly they must have the ability to control groups of people with

their words. Elyot describes the skills (in addition to eloquence) that his ideal orator

must possess:

to hym belongeth the exply catynge or vnfoldinge of sentence, with a

great estimation, in gyuynge counsaylle concernyng matters of great

importaunce: also to hym apperteyneth the sterynge and quickenynge of

people, languysshynge or dyspeyryng, and to moderate them that be

rashe and vnbrydled. (Fol. 48.r)

The orator, then, is essentially a courtier, advising and counseling the powerful while

calming, persuading, and ultimately controlling those lower in the social hierarchy. For
 231

Elyot, true skill in rhetoric implies the ability and power to use words for their original

purpose as presented in his origins mythto maintain order.10 Wilsons myth contains

similar emphasis on rhetoric as a means of social control, explaining Suche force hath

the tongue, and such is the power of eloquence and reason, that most men are forced

euen to yelde in that, whiche most standeth againste their will (A.iii.v). Thus, one

aspect of rhetorics relationship to social order is that eloquence can facilitate the

strengthening and maintenance of systems of order.

According to Rebhorn, this focus on rhetoric as a way to enforce social divisions

was not present in classical versions of the myth but rather is a new addition to English

rhetoric. He explains that Cicero was a republican who envisage[d] a state in which

an entire class of human beings rule themselves, competing with one another for

preeminence by means of rhetoric whereas Renaissance writers emphasize the need

for the control of the many by the few and think of the original orator as a prototype

of the ruler (28).11 This switch Rebhorn observes confirms his larger argument, that in

the Renaissance rhetoric has become political with a vengeance (29). But along with

becoming increasingly political, Renaissance rhetoric has been updated and translated

to fit the needs and concerns of sixteenth-century England, and it is important to see the

new emphasis on rhetorics power in that specific context.

10 Like many writers, Elyot opposes this true skill in rhetoric to mere rhetoric, a reference to

stylistic skills separated from wisdom. He writes Euery man is not an oratour, that can write an
epistle or a flatterynge oration in latin (Fol. 48.r).
11 Rebhorns portrayal of classical society as equitable and republican neglects those groups

that were excluded from public life, including slaves and most women. The republican ideal he
refers to existed only for privileged men.
 232

Given his time period and the purposes of the Gouernour, Elyots strict and

hierarchical perception of maintaining order is more understandable.12 He wrote in a

society that maintained strict social hierarchies, often fearing resistance from the

disempowered but numerous subjects with lower social standing. Social orderings, and

particularly the empowerment of the nobility and royalty, were seen as acts of God,

investing individuals with divine authority. Opposing the king was tantamount to

opposing God, and opposing other high-standing individuals was similarly

inappropriate. But despite these deep-seated beliefs in order, fear of rebellion ebbed

and flowed throughout the sixteenth century as political and religious changes sparked

and inspired groups to refuse to follow official policies. Debate raged over when, and

whether, it was ever appropriate for individual subjects to disobey orders given by a

social superior, and a series of rebellions and episodes of resistance deeply threatened

what had been established social systems. Thus, Elyots emphasis on order can be read

as an attempt to use the originating forces of rhetoric to establish and maintain a

society that adheres to the strict ideals of social order, not falling prey to the increasing

threats of rebellion that stirred throughout the century. Rhetoric can be used to solidify

order in an increasingly chaotic situation.

12 The context for his writing of the Gouernor is described in greater detail in Chapter 2.

Essentially, the Gouernor was a gesture demonstrating Elyots loyalty to Henry VIII, despite his
unfortunate association with Cardinal Wolsey whom Henry had executed as a traitor. This
context, in addition to the Gouernors purpose as a sort of handbook for future political leaders,
explains the books support for a strict social hierarchy with the king at the top. Elyots audience
of future leaders must learn rhetoric because it is a powerful weapon allowing them to maintain
order.


 233

Together, Elyot and Wilson offer perceptive insight into how rhetoric was seen

to create the foundations of social groupings and to allow for those groupings to be

shaped to adhere to certain identity characteristics (in these cases, Protestantism and

strict social hierarchies). Rhetoric created nations, and once created the nations could

be influenced by rhetoric to develop specific identities. In this view, rhetoric

(particularly during the time of a nations initial coming-together and emergence as a

power) is immensely powerful, and those who possess rhetorical skills have access to a

world of influence.

Rhetorics Political Lessons: Teaching Social Order through Rhetoric

As the previous section demonstrated, rhetorical texts from the sixteenth

century showed that rhetoric could be deeply involved in the formation and

organization of societies. But the connections between rhetorical education and politics

werent limited to just the formation of societies. In many places, the texts teach

contemporary political values alongside rhetorical skills, using examples, comments

and arguments that make claims about appropriate political behaviors and beliefs.

Unlike the origins myths, these texts demonstrate not how rhetoric was useful to

initially shape societies, but how rhetorical education might be used to manipulate or

change attitudes about contemporary political issues. Thus, instruction in rhetoric and

appropriate social order could be woven together, to simultaneously teach readers how

to keep their places in society and how to best use rhetoric to strengthen social systems.
 234

Nearly all Renaissance rhetorical treatises contain references to rhetorics use in

political persuasion, but Richard Rainoldes Foundacion of Rhetorike is notable for the

frequency and explicitness of its political allusions, clearly demonstrating rhetorical

educations perceived potential to influence English social order. First published in

1563, the Foundacion provides instruction in a basic series of written and spoken

rhetorical skills through the presentation of a series of speeches. Throughout its

instruction, analysis, and the sample speeches themselves, the Foundacion frequently

references sixteenth-century English social structures and alludes to the important role

of rhetorical education in shaping those structures. Rainolde explains that, like the

Greek authors who wrote early rhetoric texts, his ende and purpose in writing the

Foundacion was to plante a worke profitable to all tymes, my countrie and common

wealthe (a.ii.v). Throughout, Rainolde holds to this goal. His presentation of rhetorical

education is imbued with civic significance, particularly relating to levels of social status

and forms of government. Rainolde encourages readers in the introduction, claiming

that effective rhetors can:

by pleasauntnes swetenes of their wittie and ingenious oracion, to drawe

vnto theim the hartes of a multitude, to plucke doune and extirpate

affeccio~s and perturbacions of people, to moue pitee and compassion, to

speake before Princes and rulers, and to perswade theim in good causes

and enterprises, to animate and incense them, to godlie affaires and

busines, to alter the cou~saill of kynges, by their wisedome and

eloquence, to a better state. (A.i.v)

 235

Ultimately, Rainoldes book trains readers in the rhetorical skills they could use to

create this better state.

The places in which the Foundacion most clearly demonstrates the connections

between rhetoric and social order are in its sample orations. Most rhetoric texts from

this period include samples, in the form of letters, orations, or general arguments. But

unlike many of its contemporaries, the Foundacion does not present examples based on

the traditional five canons of Aristotelian rhetoric (like Cox or Wilson) or on a list of

stylistic tropes and figures (like Sherry, Fraunce, or Puttenham). Rather, the Foundacion

is organized around, and bases its examples on, the progymnasmata, an ordered series

of ancient rhetorical exercises designed to develop students persuasive skills. A basic

understanding of the origins of the progymnasmata and its role in Renaissance rhetoric

is necessary to understand Rainoldes use of the form.

Progymnasmata means preliminary exercises, and as a student worked

through the stages of the progymnasmata he would encounter increasingly complex

rhetorical tasks. Generally, each exercise of the progymnasmata describes a specific

rhetorical skill (such as narrative or encomium), offers an example based on that skill,

and instructs students to write their own version, copying some of the features of the

original example. During the Renaissance, the most popular version of the

progymnasmata was a Latin text created by Agricola in the fifteenth century. In turn,

Agricolas progymansmata was a translation of Aphthonius s Greek version, which

contained fourteen model exercises. Rainoldes Foundacion is part of this tradition,

based on Aphthoniuss original version, probably by way of Agricolas Latin translation

(Williams). Like Aphthonius, Rainolde explains fourteen model exercises in his

 236

progymnasmata. Both authors begin with simpler forms, starting with the fable,

narrative, chreia, gnome, refutation, confirmation, and commonplace. As the exercises

progress, they incorporate skills from the earlier exercises and build upon those skills,

developing into more complex rhetorical talents. The next exercises are encomium,

vituperation, comparison, impersonation, ekphrasis, thesis, and law. Clearly thesis and

law are the most advanced, and the exercises that most resemble a complete oration of

the sort that would have been presented as part of Greek civic life.

Indeed, in Aphthoniuss version, these final two exercises are the only ones that

include examples of complete orations. The other exercises offer only a short sample

text to illustrate each exercise. Those paragraphs might be used as part of a larger

oration, but are presented on their own, independent from a deeper context or

elaborating argument. This is one of the main differences between Rainoldes text and

that of his predecessors, for Rainolde expands the sample text in every exercise to the

length of a full oration. For instance, Rainoldes sample text for fable is a lengthy

persuasive oration that incorporates a fable, whereas Aphthoniuss sample text was

limited to a brief recounting of a fable itself. This change may not seem significant, but it

is important both because it increases the depth and specificity of Rainoldes sample

texts and because it indicates a slight difference in Rainoldes audience. Whereas the

classical model of the progynasmata begins very simply, with relatively plain and short

texts that would be appropriate for beginning students, Rainoldes text appears to be

geared to more sophisticated rhetors throughout. According to Grant Williams, this

difference indicates that Rainolde was less concerned with elementary pedagogy than

with offering rhetorical education to courtiers or professionals.

 237

Another important change in Rainoldes version of the progymnasmata occurs in

the topics of various speeches. Whereas Rainolde largely models his content directly on

that originated by Aphthonius and translated by Agricola, he does revise the subjects of

many sample orations to be more topical and current. The fable and commonplace are

especially drastic revisions, and ones that neatly indicate this texts concern with social

order in sixteenth-century England.

Rainoldes retelling of a fable is a particularly noteworthy example of how his

new sample texts are culturally appropriate to sixteenth-century England and

emphasize the social significance of rhetorical education. Aphthoniuss sample fable

briefly retells the well-known story of the ants and the grasshoppers. Rainolde includes

this as his second example of fables, but his first sample text (the very first sample

oration in the book) is significantly longer and is not based on material from

Aphthonius. Instead, this first sample oration retells, and expands significantly upon,

Aesops fable of the shepherds and wolves. In Rainoldes telling, the narration of the

fable itself takes a mere sentence: a pack of wolves persuades a group of shepherds that

they will no longer attack sheep and should be given control over the sheep dogs.

Predictably, the wolves then murder the dogs and attack the unguarded sheep. The

moral is also explained succinctly: Rainolde admonishes all menne to beware and take

heede, of cloked and fained frenship (B.i.v). But in the context of the larger oration

Rainolde builds around this simple fable, the story takes on greatly increased

significance.

In expanding the simple fable into a full, persuasive oration, Rainolde explains

that the lessons of the fable are particularly important for nations to heed. Describing
 238

the fables significance, he writes Citees, and common wealthes, maie learne out of his

fables, godlie concorde and vnitee, by the whiche meanes, common wealthes florisheth,

and kingdoms are saued (B.i.v). And ultimately, Rainolde presents this godlie

concorde and vnitee as the central protection against the wolves of the fable. The

fained frenship of the wolves is analogized to the feigned friendship of other nations

that might not have Englands best interests at heart. In the same extended analogy, the

concorde and vnitee which protect England rest in a firm system of social order. Using

an image that was common in Renaissance writing, Rainolde explains that the body of

people living together in England is analogous to a physical body, and he explains that

just as every part of the body is necessary for the correct functioning of the whole, so is

every level of social distinctionevery sort of person. At first, this message of unity

appears inclusive, gesturing to the importance of the lower levels of society, including

the shepherds like those in the fable. Rainolde writes:

As concernyng the Shepherde, he is in his state and condicion of life,

thoughe meane, he is a righte profitable and necessarie member, to serue

all states in the commo~ wealthe, not onely to his maister whom he

serueth: for by his diligence, and warie keping of the~, not onely from

rauenyng beastes, but otherwise he is a right profitable member, to all

partes of the common wealth. (B.ii.v)

Following this description of the shepherds importance, he goes on to explain that just

as the bodie of man without concord of the partes, perisheth So likewise in a

kyngdome, or common wealth, the moste meane and basest state of man taken awaie,

the more principall thereby ceaseth The Prince and chief peres doe decaie, and al the
 239

whole multitude dooe perishe: the baseste kinde of menne wanting (B.ii.v). The unity

of the nation is clear in this telling; even the higher ranks depend on the lower to

provide basic necessities of life.

This sample oration shows how Rainolde uses rhetorical education to

simultaneously educate audiences about political issuespersuading them to certain

attitudes regarding social ordereven as they learn how to use a fable effectively.

Rainoldes attitudes toward the strictness of social hierarchy become even more clear

towards the end of the fable. Ultimately, Rainoldes explanation of a nations reliance

upon the lowest social orders requires that those people stay in their low status. It

precludes them from rising through the ranks, gaining rights, or improving their own

situations. Rainolde writes The wisest Prince, the richest, the mightiest and moste

valiauntes, had nede alwaies of the foolishe, the weake, the base and simplest, to

vpholde his kingdomes, not onely in the affaires of his kyngdomes, but in his

domesticall thinges, for prouisio~ of victuall, as bread, drinke, meat, clothyng, and in all

soche other thynges. For Rainolde, the necessity of these various social levels

corresponds with the necessity of obedience. The social levels must remain inflexible:

[t]here must be nobles and peres, kyng and subiect: a multitude inferiour and more

populous, in office, maners, worthines altering (B.iii.v). He exhorts each listener to

frame hymself, to serue in his state and callyng (B.iii.v), in other words, to be obedient

and not to aspire to a status higher than the one he or she has been born into.13 Again,

rhetorical education and political education coexist.

13 With an audience of courtiers, this call for the lower ranks to remain obedient and

subservient seems less like a directive intended to inspire obedience than a pleasant fiction
Rainoldes readers can imagine that the disempowered are content with their status.
 240

And through the means of the fable, this emphasis on necessary obedience is

connected to fear of foreign invasion. Rainolde explains this connection:

The state of euery one vniuersallie would come to pardicion, if the

inuasion of foraine Princes, by the wisedom and pollicie of counsailers,

were not repelled the Prince and counsailours, by wisedome forese, to

kepe of, all these calamites, daungers, miseries, the whole multitude,

and bodie of the Common wealthe, is without them maimed, weake and

feable, a readie confusion to the enemie. (B.iv.v-C.i.r)

The unity of the nation and its protection from the wolves of foreign enemies rely on

obedience, on the poor people obeying their social superiors.

The issues of resistance and obedience to power had grown quite significant in

the years preceding this texts publication, and it is reasonable to read this book as

participating in the wealth of literature about resistance that was circulated in the

1550s and 1560s. Rainoldes ideas about order and resistance become even clearer

later in the book where he offers an example of An Oracion vpon a sentence (E.iv.v).

As an example of a compound maxim, or sentence, Aphthonius writes It is not good to

have many rulers; let there be one ruler but does not elaborate on this idea at all. In

contrast, Rainolde creates an entire oration on that particular sentence, expanding it

across many pages and incorporating in-depth arguments by historical and natural

examples. Rainolde asserts, In a common wealthe or kyngdome, many kynges to beare

rule, is verie euill, let there be but one kyng (E.iv.v). This idea becomes even more

harsh when Rainolde condemns democracy and other forms of government that

empower individual subjects (or even lesser magistrates) to have some say in a nations
 241

governance. [T]he gouernme~t of many, can not prosper, he writes. For, bothe in

quiete state, their counsailes must bee diuerse, and vncertaine: and where thei so differ,

the kyngdome standeth in great ieopardy and daunger (F.i.r). Rainolde uses the sample

texts to preach his own political views about the ideal state of social life in England

strictly hierarchical and nationalistic.

Ultimately, in the examples that Rainolde uses to teach his rhetorical precepts

(examples that students would have been expected to copy and possibly even

memorize) he teaches a political philosophy that relies firmly on obedience and

structure in society. As the obedience to one ruler and chief gouernour, sekyng a

common wealth, is in the hartes of the subiectes: feruent and marueilous with loue

embraced, the Maiestie of hym is dreade, with loue serued, and with sincere barte,

and fidelitie obeied, his maners folowed, his lawes imitated (F.i.r-v). It is important to

remember that these lessons appear not in a political pamphlet, but in the context of a

text supporting rhetorical education. It is possible to read this as Rainolde using his

rhetorical text as a platform for his political viewssuch accusations would certainly

be levied against a modern textbook that made similar political claims. But a more

accurate description of Rainoldes work would observe that the political and rhetorical

instruction coexist in the text. Rhetorical education can serve as a conduit for political

ideals and, in fact, is an ideal setting for such political arguments. For even as he teaches

students to use rhetoric for their own persuasive purposes, Rainolde enacts just that

skillhe has simultaneously worked to persuade readers to agree with his political

views and to equip them to persuade others. Rhetoric, in this setting, is again a powerful

tool for controlling social order within the country.

 242

Rhetoric as Status Symbol: Performing Decorum

The previous sections have shown the possibilities for rhetorics use in effecting

drastic social and political change, either through the formation and shaping of societies

or by persuading readers to adopt new attitudes. But rhetoric also related to social

order in a number of subtler ways in the context of sixteenth-century England.

Particularly, rhetorical skills were one way in which individuals could differentiate

between members of disparate social groups. Such differentiation was crucial to the

development of English systems of social order: if people were to be grouped into

classes or sorts, it was essential to be able to tell them apart. Along with such

behaviors as dressing habits, mannerisms, and daily activities, an individuals rhetorical

practice was one way to ascertain her place in society. And crucially, this meant that

rhetorical educationthe process of changing or improving ones rhetorical practice

could affect perceptions of that place in society, allowing people to present themselves

as of a higher status than they legitimately held.

This section describes how the focus on rhetoric as an element of decorum, or

proper behavior, gave it significant power over moderating social class distinctions.

While many treatises from the period offer some discussion of manners alongside

rhetorical education (see Chapter 3), certain treatises focused exclusively on this social

function of rhetoric. One such example is The Arte of English Poesie, a small treatise

published by George Puttenham in 1589 that describes and explains the social purposes

and strategies of eloquent speech. As Peter Mack points out, Puttenhamss Arte of

English Poesie has received a disproportionate amount of scholarly attention given that

it was printed in a small number of editions. Despite its relatively narrow circulation,
 243

however, the book was influential for its contemporaries: Ben Johnson, John Harington,

William Camden, and Richard Carew are just a few of the authors who mention

Puttenhams text as an influence on their own rhetorical development (Nash). In

addition, the books limited circulation may, in fact, be directly related to its subject

matter. Unlike the broad, educative treatises of Sherry, Cox, or Wilson, Puttenhams Arte

of English Poesie did not address all of England as an audience, but rather focused on a

subset of readersthose who were interested in the connection between skills in

eloquence and life as a courtier or noble. By explicitly focusing on the courtly uses of

rhetoric, Puttenhams treatise provides glimpses of how rhetoric could be used in

England to draw distinctions based on social station (how nobles speak differently than

commoners, for example). Decorum, a central emphasis of Puttenhams rhetoric,

functions not only as a behavioral trait but as a rhetorical skill that allows one to

respond to social contexts.

Before clarifying the treatises attitudes towards rhetoric and social order, it is

necessary to explain Puttenhams uses of the terms rhetoric and poetry. While

Puttenham rarely uses the word rhetoric, his attitude toward the discipline is woven

throughout his treatise on poetry. In fact, for Puttenham the terms rhetoric and poetry

can indicate precisely the same set of verbal skills in eloquence. Puttenhams early

definitions of a poet apply to any verbal composer: a Poet is as much to say as a

maker; the very Poet makes and contriues out of his owne braine both the verse and

matter of his poeme, and not by any foreine copie or example, as doth the translator

(C.i.r). Poets are also equivalent with rhetors in their use of words for persuasion. And it

is this, Puttenhams focus on poetry as persuasive, that ultimately makes his

 244

declarations about poetry applicable to what we consider rhetoric, as well. Puttenham

writes Vtterance also and language is giuen by nature to man for perswasion of others

For speech it selfe is artificiall and made by man, and the more pleasing it is, the more

it preuaileth to such purpose as it is intended for (C.iii.r). All speech aims to be

persuasive, and as Puttenham notes the most pleasant speech is most likely to

successfully persuade.

This understanding of rhetoric and persuasion explains why Puttenham

presents poets as an ideal type of rhetor rather than as something distinct from rhetors:

Speech by meeter is a kind of vtterance, more cleanly couched and more

delicate to the eare then prose is, because it is more currant and slipper

vpon the tongue, and withal tunable and melodious, as a kind of Musicke,

and therfore may be tearmed a musicall speech or vtterance, which

cannot but please the hearer very well. (C.iii.r)

Poetry serves the same purposes as prose, but is more effectively persuasive because it

is more pleasant to the listeners. Finally, Puttenham explains that figurative language is

an important hallmark of poetry and another similarity between the study of poetry

and the broader study of rhetoric:

[Poetry] is beside a maner of vtterance more eloquent and rethoricall

then the ordinarie profe, which we vse in our daily talke: because it is

decked and set out with all maner of fresh colours and figures, which

maketh that it sooner inuegleth the iudgement of man, and carieth his

opinion this way and that whither soeuer the heart by impression of the

eare shalbe most affectionatly bent and directed. (C.iii.r)

 245

Figurative language lends both rhetoric and poetry their persuasive power and,

importantly, sets both apart from the ordinarie profe of daily use. Eloquent prose

composed by a skilled rhetor would, in fact, be much more like poetry than like this

ordinarie profe that is weakened with frequent use. Thus, for Puttenham poetry is

rhetoric: the best kind of rhetoric.

Having established his definition of poetry and its relationship to other

rhetorical skills, the rest of Puttenhams book explains why poetic eloquence is a

powerful social and political skill and how to use it appropriately. The book is divided

into three sections, on poets and poesie, proportion, and ornament. The first is

largely concerned with explaining the history and purpose of eloquent speech; the

second describes Puttenhams concept of verbal balance; and the third repeats the style

guide printed in a number of rhetoric texts from this period (see Chapter 3) along with

expanded descriptions of how such stylistic guidelines can be used to enhance decorum.

Together, the books paint a picture of rhetorical eloquence as both foundational to any

civilization and as a particularly necessary quality for nobles and courtiers. Eloquence

allows a civilization to be ordered in the first place, and verbal decorum (like other

varieties of proportion and decorum) demarcates the behavior of the better sort.

These overall claims about the nature of rhetoric and society are followed,

throughout the treatise, by descriptions of their specific relationships to England and

English society. To keep order within England, those in power must once again

recognize the importance of eloquence and poetical skill in governing a country. To

rival other nations in political power and cultural sophistication, nobles must adhere to

rules of verbal decorum, ordering their words, actions, and subordinates

 246

simultaneously. Descriptions of verbal decorum serve as sorts of conduct manuals to

instruct readers in appropriate rhetoric for those in positions of power.

Initially, like many of his contemporaries Puttenham tells a version of the myth

of eloquence to explain why rhetoric is foundational to social order. Puttenham

rehearses this myth in his claims that Poesie is most ancient from the beginning, and

not as manie erroneously suppose, after, but before any ciuil society was among men

(C.ii.r). Before leaders organized societies through sweete and eloquent perswasion,

humans were hardly different from the very brute beasts of the field (C.ii.v). So far,

this description is typical of retellings of the origins myth of rhetoric. But unlike many

of his contemporaries, Puttenham extends the description of the relationship between

rhetoric and social organization to explain how eloquent speech is responsible for all

other arts and sciencesessentially, for culture itself. Puttenham patiently explains

how Poets were the first priests, the first prophets, the first Legislators and politicians

in the world and goes on to explain that they were also the first philosophers, the first

Astronomers and Historiographers and Oratours and Musitiens of the world. Poets

also preceded religion and scholarly inquirytheir curiosity about the world around

them, Puttenham writes, led them to [search] after the first mouer and to an

obseruation of nature and her works (C.ii.v). Not only is eloquence responsible for the

foundations of civil society (an origins story that Puttenhams book shares with many of

its contemporaries), but also eloquence is prior to and superior to other branches of art

and learning.

This twist on stories of rhetorics origin is important because it helps Puttenham

historically support why rhetoric is uniquely important for those in positions of social
 247

and political power. For example, Puttenhams description of eloquences relationship

to history shows that poets and rhetors are essential to engendering respect for the

nobility and increasing the distinctions between nobles and commoners. Early poets,

inspired by the liues and noble gests of Princes, and of the great Monarkes of the

world, recorded those deeds in the earliest examples of historiography, preserving the

reputation and increasing the renown of the royalty thus memorialized (C.iii.v).

Eloquence also established and lauded the best in artistic and scientific pursuits,

creating hierarchies and division not only in society as a whole but also in scholarly

disciplines. For Puttenham, eloquent rhetoric was the earliest instrument of social and

cultural ordering.

The connection between eloquence and social order forms a background for

Puttenhams claim that the better sorts of people must be skilled rhetors. For social

order to be maintained once established, it was essential that those in positions of

power had access to the important skills of rhetoric. Offering lengthy historical

examples, he explains that in all former ages and in the most ciuill countreys and

common wealthes, good Poets and Poesie were highly esteemed and much fauoured of

the greatest Princes. Moreover, eloquence was seen as a support to other skills that

were important for courtiers and nobility. Poets were not only eloquent but also:

were thought for their vniversall knowledge to be vary sufficient men for

the greatest charges in their common wealthes So as the Poets seemed

to haue skill not onely in the subtilties of their arte, but also to be meete

for all maner of functions ciuill and martiall, euen as they found fauour of
 248

the times they liued in, insomuch as their credit and estimation generally

was not small. (D.iii.r)

Puttenham traces this courtly favor of poets even to the court of Henry VIII, who

handsomely rewarded certain poets.

As Puttenham explains, however, the relationship between eloquence and

political life had become more complicated at the time he was writing his treatise in

England. Poets and rhetors were being ridiculed and, far from being associated with the

civic and military responsibilities that they historically held, were being described as

phantasticall or light headed (D.iii.v). Puttenham blames this change in attitudes

toward eloquence on the barbarous ignoraunce of the time and says that it is in fact

those who are disdainful of poets who are lightheaded and nonsensical. For Puttenham,

skill in eloquence goes with other academic and social skills; one cannot be a good

teacher, philosopher, or ruler of troops and countries without having eloquence. But his

contemporaries have grown so disdainful of eloquence that very many notable

Gentlemen in the Court that haue written commendable, and suppressed it agayne, or

else suffred it to be publisht without their owne names to it: as if it were a discredit for

a Gentleman, to seeme learned, and to shew himselfe amorous of any good Art

(D.iiii.v). This attitude is what Puttenham writes against. His treatise, by explaining both

the skills that underlie eloquence and the important effects that eloquence can have,

intends to overcome the negativity that has been attached to the idea of poetry and

rhetorical skill, and by doing so, to improve the reputation and power of poets in

England.
 249

The specific relationship of Puttenhams treatise to England itself becomes

apparent when he writes about the strides English scholars have made to improve the

English language, and through that, the reputation of England as a nation. Scholars who

have by their thankefull studies so much beautified our English tong improved the

reputation of the English language to the point where as at this day it will be found our

nation is in nothing inferiour to the French or Italian for copie of language, subtiltie of

deuice, good method and proportion in any forme of poeme, but that they may compare

with the most, and perchance passe a great many of them (H.iiii.v). For Puttenham, the

improved reputation of the English language is directly related to the countrys

improved international standing, for (as he describes in great length) skill in eloquence

is closely related to skills in government and leadership. Ideally, England would return

to its historical recognition of eloquence as a necessary skill for government and social

power. And he aims to accomplish this return by correlating poetry to the idea of

decorum: eloquence is a tool which mediates social interaction, especially the highly

charged social interactions of the court.

According to Puttenham, the English language must be made equal to others not

only through increased vocabulary and scholarly use, but also by being used

decorously. The words decorum and proportion appear throughout the Arte and are

used almost interchangeably. Both refer to balance, appropriateness, and order, and

both apply to verbal skills as well as behavior. Decorum can be violated verbally, as

when ignorant rhetors may make the mistake of using high style for low subjects or vice

versa. Puttenham instructs them to keepe their decorum and good proportion in euery

respect by memorizing his description of which matters be the hie and loftie, which be
 250

but meane, and which be low and base, to the intent the stiles, may be fashioned to the

matters (S.i.r). Behavioral decorum also belongs to the consideration of the Poet or

maker, and despite his books primary goal of describing language Puttenham explains

that appropriate behavior is necessary:

for the good maker or poet who is in decent speach & good termes to

describe all things and with prayse or dispraise to report euery mans

behauiour, ought to know the comelinesse of an action aswell as of a

word & thereby to direct himselfe both in praise & perswasion or any

other point that perteines to the Oratours arte. (Hh.ii.r)

Proportion in behavior and in verbal skill are inseparable to Puttenham; decorum

resteth in writing, speech and behauiour (Gg.i.r).

Due to this emphasis on decorum and attention to behavior, the Arte has often

been classified as a conduct manual, written specifically to the nobility to instruct them

in courtliness. Conduct literature was geared toward subjects of higher social standing

in England, instructing them in new ideas about personal merit and promotion (many of

which were based on Italian humanism). The circulation of such ideas increased the

importance of enacting and exhibiting status in new ways, performing the behaviors

that symbolically indicated membership in certain groups. And according to Frank

Whigham, conduct literature like the Arte attempted to control the surge of social

mobility that occurred at the boundaries between ruling and subject ranks in late

sixteenth-century England (xi). By facilitating distinctions between ruling and subject

ranks, conduct literature helped enforce those boundaries and attempted to strengthen

existing social hierarchies in England.

 251

Puttenhams book fits this description, offering extensive behavioral guidelines

alongside rhetorical instructions. Moreover, the Arte often explicitly acknowledges that

the purpose of such guidelines is to facilitate social distinctions, as in the following

passage where Puttenham offers an explanation of decorum in choice of clothing:

And in the vse of apparell there is no litle decency and vndecencie to be

perceiued, as well for the fashion as the stuffe, for it is comely that euer

estate and vocation should be knowen by the differences of their habit: a

clarke from a lay man: a gentleman from a yeoman: a souldier from a

citizen, and the chiefe of euery degree from their inferiours, because in

confusion and disorder there is no manner of decencie. (Ii.i.r)

Wearing proper clothing serves as a behavioral cue to distinguish people based on

profession (soldier from citizen), social standing (gentleman from yeoman), and fine

social gradations (chiefs from inferiors).

The Artes discussion of decorum extends beyond comments on clothing and

appropriate behavior. Rhetoric, too, must be practiced decorously. Verbal decorum

insists that language be correct and demands that poetry adhere to conventions of

genre and meter. However, far more than a catch-all concept for correctness in

language, decorum also relates to those aspects of communication that shape and

reflect social organization. Just as fashion choices helped to maintain social order by

delineating divisions between ranks, so rhetorical practices enforce and structure social

divisions.
 252

One of the clearest places that Puttenham connects decorum to social order is in

an overall description of proper English. Puttenham explains, at length, that the only

appropriate variation of the English language is that spoken by the nobility in London:

This part in our maker or Poet must be heedyly looked vnto, that it be

naturall, pure, and the most vsuall of all his countrey: and for the same

purpose rather that which is spoken in the kings Court, or in the good

townes and Cities within the land, then in the marches and frontiers, or in

port townes, where straungers haunt for traffike sake Neither shall he

take the termes of Northern-men, such as they vse in dayly talke, whether

they be noble men or gentlemen, or of their best clarkes all is a matter:

nor in effect any speach vsed beyond the riuer of Trent, though no man

can deny but that theirs is the purer English Saxon at this day, yet it is not

so Courtly nor so currant as our Southerne English is, no more is the far

Westerne mans speach: ye shall therfore take the vsuall speach of the

Court, and that of London and the shires lying about London within lx.

myles, and not much aboue. (R.iii.r)

Rural forms and accents, as well as dialects near Englands borders or shipping towns

(which are influenced by foreign neighbors), are inappropriate. This detailed

geographic outline of appropriate English is directly connected to social rank and a

sense of native Englishness, uninflucenced by outsiders or by the worse sorts.

Puttenham makes the connection to social order explicit:

Neither shall he follow the speach of a craftes man or carter, or other of

the inferiour sort, though he be inhabitant or bred in the best town and
 253

Citie in this Realme, for such persons do abuse good speaches by strange

accents or illshapen soundes, and false ortographie. But he shall follow

generally the better brought vp sort, such as the Greekes call [charientes]

men ciuill and graciously behauoured and bred. (R.iii.r)

Thus, Puttenhams book worked as a handbook for people to recognize and perform

good behavior, of which verbal sophistication was an important part. It

comprehensively educated the higher ranks in the skills that would enable them to

differentiate themselves from the lower social groups.

However, the very act of publishing such instructions in a book made subversion

of those same hierarchies possible. The potential for lower sorts to use books like

Puttenhams to undermine the system of social ordering was great, and was even

reflected in the treatise itself. Indeed, Puttenham offers a few examples where

persuasion and eloquence are used as tools of social climbing (Rebhorn 82-83).

Presenting rhetorical eloquence as an art that can be learned, as opposed to a part of

the natural order, implies that a student can learn how to perform behaviors that lead

to inclusion in superior social groups. Discussing the division between natural and

learned verbal skill, Puttenham acknowledges that learning is important for individuals

across the social spectrum. Learning and arte teacheth a scholar to speake, so doeth it

also teach a counsellour, and aswell an old man as a yong, and a man in authoritie,

aswell as a priuate person, and a pleader aswell as a preacher, euery man after his sort

and calling as best becommeth (R.i.r). Presumably, the verbal skills taught by the Arte

could similarly be used by students of all sorts. And despite Puttenhams insistence

that such learning will only extend to that which best becommeth, the spread of
 254

printed works and increasing literacy levels make apparent how this very text could

threaten the natural connection of language styles to sorts of people. This selection

highlights the ambiguous relationship between rhetoric and social ordering within the

Arte: eloquence is simultaneously praised as a way to tell an individuals social

standing and as a way to change or improve ones own standing through education.

Rhetorical skill is, thus, at the very foundation of a system of social order.

Conclusion: Understanding Rhetorics Relationships to Social Order

The relationships between rhetoric and England were complex and sometimes

contradictory, but there were continually deep connections between the nation and the

rhetorical skills and practices of its inhabitants. Seen in the light of the classical

rhetorical revival, such connections make sense: as humanists emphasized classical

learning, they adopted its tendency to align rhetoric and civic life. And through growing

educational systems, that connection was very easily spread. Any English subject

receiving rhetorical education, then, could affect systems of social order.

Rhetorical style was a powerful weapon, and authors who taught its use wrote

with continual attention to its potency. Through their speech and writing they could

shape the overall character of the nation, persuade their compatriots to a given political

stance, and manipulate their own places (and those of others) within the nation itself.

Ultimately, rhetorical practices (and the educational treatises that described and taught
 255

them) could affect English life at every level, shaping and reflecting the systems of social

order emerging within the new nation.

 256

Chapter 5. Nation-Building Rhetoric: Conclusions for the Study of the

English Language and the English Nation

The English language has expanded dramatically between the early sixteenth

century and now. Early on, it was a localized vernacular used only within England and,

even there, confined mostly to homes and other informal settings. During the sixteenth

century, the language expanded to be used in almost all areas of English life, becoming a

viable language for educational, legal, and ecclesiastical discourses. As I have argued

throughout this project, that expansion of the vernacular language was integrally

related to the English nation, which was growing more independent at the same time

that it was gradually lessening its dependence on Latin. On a basic level, a persons

identity as an English subject was symbolized through use of the English language; on a

deeper level, the style of English used could inform listeners about specifics of a

persons identity, or even reflect on the characteristics of the nation itself. But

throughout the period that this project focuses on, spoken English was largely confined,

geographically, to England itself.

That confinement is no longer the case. On the contrary, English is currently one

of the most widely-spoken languages in the world: roughly four hundred million people

have been raised speaking English as a first or second language, and approximately a

billion people total are fluent in the language.1 As Charles Barber observes, now that

1 See, for discussion of these figures, Baugh and Cable (4-8) and Barber, English (236-242).

Barbers description of the difference between speakers of English as a second language and
 257

English is such an established world language it requires an effort of the imagination to

realize that this is a relatively recent thing:

Shakespeare, for example, wrote for a speech-community of only a few

millions, whose language was not much valued elsewhere in Europe and

was unknown to the rest of the world. Shakespeares language was

pretty-well confined to England and southern Scotland, not yet having

penetrated very much into Ireland or even Wales, let alone into the world

beyond. (English 234)

It is important to remember that Englishs evolution from a parochial vernacular to an

internationally powerful language was both dramatic and rapid.

While the drastic spread of English is not the central subject of this chapter, it is

worth mentioning specifically because it illustrates an overall theme of this project: the

connection between language and nation. For, of course, the initial mechanism of

Englishs spread throughout the world was English national imperialism, the push of

England to win more colonies, thereby expanding (figuratively and literally) its power

and international influence. As early as the end of the sixteenth century, English settlers

were colonizing North America. Throughout the seventeenth century, England

developed strong and lasting colonial presences in various spots throughout North

America, fighting the Dutch, French, and Spanish for control of various regions and,

particularly, for control of the Caribbean islands. In the following two centuries, English

English as a foreign language is particularly illuminating: second language speakers use English
within their local communities (though they may speak another language, or some combination
of another language and English, at home) whereas speakers of English as a foreign language
use it mainly to communicate with foreigners.
 258

imperialism continued, with British rule being established over India, Australia, parts of

Africa, and other areas literally around the world (Barber, English 235).

Along with British rule and settlement came the imposition of the English

language. The language spread both through British subjects relocating to these far-

flung colonies and through the imposition of English teaching. And frequently, the

colonizers were remarkably aware of, and intentional about, spreading their language

along with their political influence. Early English colonizers thought and wrote of the

Indian language and various North American tribal languages as gibberish, lacking in

basic linguistic form and unable to express sophisticated, logical thought (Greenblatt,

Learning 564-65). Thus, the process of making these areas and peoples appropriate

English colonists necessarily involved spreading the use of the English language. In

literature that discusses the growth and establishment of English colonies, the English

language is figured as a gift or treasure, with native groups seen as a tabula rasa

ready to take the imprint of European civilization, and the most prominent marker of

that imprint is language (562). Stephen Greenblatt famously terms this linguistic

colonialism, the idea that language is tied up with colonial expansion and that a native

groups language must be replaced (colonized) in order for an outside power to

effectively gain control. Thus, it is through the nationalist enterprise of imperialism that

English spread from a local, national language to an international one.2

2 In more recent centuries, the breadth of Englishs spread has begun to disconnect it from firm

ties to its national originsscholars speak of Englishes rather than English because the
language has taken on new identities as it has been adopted and adapted into a wide range of
cultures (Barber, English 236-39).
 259

As is clear from the example of English imperialism, the language and the nation

had become so tied together that the one was a clear symbol and representative of the

other: English stood in for Englishness. But, as the previous chapters have shown, that

connection did not emerge immediately; it was established over a period of time in

relatively complicated ways. This conclusion chapter briefly reviews how that

connection was established, re-framing the content of the previous chapters as a series

of steps that led from Englishs initial status to its ascendancy. I next offer a deeply

descriptive example of one of the implications of this research, showing how my work

on rhetoric can clarify closely related work on creative literature from the same period.

And finally, I point to further questions this project has raised for the study of sixteenth-

century rhetorical history and the teaching of rhetoric in general.

Steps in Developing Linguistic National Identity

The emerging connection between language and national identity in sixteenth-

century England was neither simple nor straightforwardthe tensions, scholarly

arguments, and non-linear developments described in the previous chapters speak to

that fact. Nonetheless, the story of that connection can be imperfectly summarized

through a series of steps that brought the inadequate English language to a place of

privilege, international respect, and undeniable association with the English nation

itself. Here, I present my conclusions through a framework of three steps that brought

the language increased prestige and power. Before it could become internationally
 260

powerful, English first had to be more widely used within England, particularly for

official purposes like scholarly and legal work. This first step is the process of

vernacularization that I discuss in Chapter 2. As vernacularization occurred, and again

once the vernacular was already a well-established feature of English life, the language

was refined and shaped to better fit its new uses, to be more eloquent, and generally to

be able to rival classical and Continental languages in terms of sophistication,

complexity, and artistry. This second step, renewed focus on creating an English style, is

the subject of part of Chapter 2 and most of Chapter 3. Finally, once English was both in

widespread use and linguistically sophisticated, finer points about its use and versions

began to be connected with particular aspects of English identity; language use became

a means of both indicating ones Englishness and of indicating ones place within the

larger English social system. This third step is the subject of Chapter 4, and its

implications and effects also form part of the present chapter. Together, these steps

(while neither as simple nor as straightforward as they seem in this brief summary)

offer a general characterization of the immense shifts that occurred in the English

language throughout the sixteenth century and how those shifts definitively connected

the language to English national identity.

The first step in the development of Englands linguistic national identity was the

growth of vernacular English. This growth refers to two separate changes: the

increasing use of English (particularly in official and scholarly settings) and the

augmentation of the language itself, which expanded to accommodate words and styles

appropriate to its new settings of use. Each of these changes was gradualthe result of
 261

trends that began long before the sixteenth centurybut came to fruition in the early

and middle years of the sixteenth century.

The process of beginning to use English in official and scholarly settings was

particularly controversial early in the century, when the languages negative reputation

and the international precedent of educated people using only Latin were difficult to

overcome. Slowly, by using English in limited settings (such as when addressing an

audience specific to England, in the case of Elyot and Cheke, or when introducing very

young schoolchildren to a new topic, as in the case of Cox and Sherry), the language

began to be seen as an acceptable counterpart or support to classical languages. From

there, it was a small step for authors to argue that English could also adequately

translate classical languages and, ultimately, to argue that it could contain the same

figurative and complex meanings associated with highly-respected classical literature.

These arguments, proponed mainly by Elyot and Hoby, set the stage for the Englishs

ultimate emergence as a sophisticated and capable language.

Importantly, the shift from Latin to the vernacular was more than a simple

linguistic change; it also had deep implications for changing perceptions of the English

nation itself. Richard Waswo refers to the linguistic shift as a cultural decolonization

in which the English nation, by beginning to rely on its own native language rather than

outside influences, simultaneously rejected the historical influence of Latin and

contemporary association with the international Latin-speaking community. Thus

decolonized of the influence of Latin (which carried with it the influence of the Catholic

church, as well as the history of Roman and French colonization of English land),

England was free to build its own national identity, developing characteristics
 262

(linguistic and otherwise) that set English subjects apart from their Continental

neighbors. Accordingly, growing use of English was both an indicator of affiliation with

this new national identity and was itself a feature of the identity: English people

increasingly used English. The nation was emerging as self-reliant, linguistically as well

as in other senses.

Another important feature of this linguistic decolonization can be seen in the

development of scholarly life specific to England. Increased use of English led to the

development of English scholarship that was separate from international communities

of learning. While such separation was never complete, the use of English to speak to

English audiences about scholarly matters established, both within and outside

England, a renewed appreciation for English scholarship as sophisticated and highly

developed, not necessarily subservient or secondary to international scholarship. The

language allowed English identity to be increasingly associated with advanced scholarly

pursuitssomething that had not been seen as particularly English when Latin had

been the language of choice.

Ultimately, the drastic growth in the use and scope of English during the

sixteenth century was crucial to the process of developing Englands linguistic national

identity. Mack summarizes this change with great precision, claiming that during the

sixteenth century, there was:

a broad tide of linguistic nationalism. By making important educational

works available in English, scholars hoped to improve the usefulness of

English. The struggle to acquire vocabulary and structures in which to

express the content of subjects would expand the possibilities of the

 263

language. At the same time the new technical vocabulary associated with

rhetoric and dialectic would increase awareness of what could be done in

the language and prepare the way for more successful imitation of

classical and continental writing. (79)

English and England were deeply connected, and the connection only grew deeper as

the English language improved.

The second step in the growth of Englands linguistic national identity came with

the refinement of the English language in general, and of English style in particular. As

authors advocated for the vernacular, they also suggested modifications that would

make the language more suitable for its new contexts, and at the same time they

asserted that the vernacular needed to be used properlya value-laden term defined

differently by different authors, but one that universally pointed to the important role

style played in English expression. This is one of the areas in which rhetorical treatises

are particularly crucial to the growing connection between English and England: they

were the main advocates for developing and solidifying English stylistic trends in the

sixteenth century, and they generally offered nationalistic rationales for their stylistic

advice.

In order to play its increasingly important roles in scholarly and civic life, the

English language itself had to undergo a significant amount of growth. For, while the

languages bad reputation at the start of the sixteenth century was largely the result of

vague bias toward Latin, there was some truth to the claims that English was not as

sophisticated a language as the classical or Continental languages. Given that its use, for

centuries, had been confined to day-to-day matters of households, it lacked the

 264

vocabulary to express some of the more sophisticated thoughts that it would need to

convey as the main language of English scholarship and civic life. Consequently, many of

the same rhetoricians who advocated for Englishs use also developed theories about

how best to adapt the language to its new settings, generally by either borrowing and

anglicizing words from foreign languages (Elyot and Ascham) or by creating new

words from existing English words and roots (Lever). Though the language generally

followed the first trendthat of adopting foreign wordsthe controversies that

emerged surrounding the possible overuse of foreign borrowings pointed, once again,

to the languages growing importance as a vessel of English identity. Overuse of foreign

words, or of scholastic words associated with Latin, was seen as threatening the purity

of the English language and undermining the nation itself. The languages growth was

monitored, shaped, and debated as authors attempted to increase linguistic

sophistication without relying too heavily on outside influences.

As with texts advocating for the vernacular, those that argued for certain

guidelines in English style demonstrated a vested interest in the power and success of

the English language that connected the success of the language to that of the nation as

a whole. Encouraging authors to write in English was one thing; encouraging them to

use consistently good English would further increase the languages prestige and

sophistication. The importance of English style emerged in both specific debates (such

as those over neologisms and inkhorn terms) and in general trends in sixteenth-century

rhetoric. Two particularly influential examples of those trends, which began emerging

through the middle and end of the sixteenth century, encouraged refinement of English

as it would be used in specific contexts and polishing of the language (particularly its
 265

figurative aspects) in the vein of classical linguistic style. Both trends support the idea

that the English language was increasingly connected to the English nation in the minds

of authors and, quite likely, in the minds of their audiences and contemporaries.

These trends were exemplified in two types of texts that circulated broadly in

sixteenth-century England: letter-writing guides and general style guides. The style

guides are understandably important: as guides to the whole of the language, they

followed classical precedent set by authors like Cicero and, as a genre, still have

counterparts in modern rhetorical education. The letter-writing guides are a bit more

difficult to understand from a modern perspective. While the letter-writing guide may

seem like an oddly specific genre to carry such influence and cultural weight, it is

important to remember the essential functions that letters served during the time and

the newly spreading trend of literacy, both of which would encourage such books to

circulate and hold cultural influence. The letter-writing treatises were used as guides to

specific contexts; the general style guides were used to increase the overall efficacy of

the English language to better mirror, and therefore rival, the classical languages it was

replacing.

Letter-writing guides, such as the well-known versions written by Day and

Fulwood, are particularly connected to identity because the genre they deal with was

intended to use writing to substitute for the writers physical presence. As indicated in

the guides themselves, letters were increasingly viewed as a way to be present at a

distance, to represent ones own thoughts and ideas without the intermediary of a

traveling messenger and without undergoing lengthy travel oneself. But the ability to

represent oneself through writing meant that the writing had to be clear and relatively
 266

unambiguous, and to adequately express the most essential components of ones

identity. In the case of sixteenth-century England, this increasingly meant that letters

represented their authors national identities. A letter, like a person, could serve as a

representative of England. As such, polished and sophisticated English was necessary to

ensure that the representation was flattering to the nation. But the language of a letter

was not only capable of reflecting information about the author; it was also able to

influence the ideas and opinions of readers. Days warning against overusing

vividness in letters clearly demonstrates the threat that compelling language could

present within a letter: it could convince English readers to be dissatisfied with their

own country. As a result, letter-writing style needed refinement, boundaries, and

guidelines for appropriate style in order to protect both writers and readers from

threats to their national identity. With letters as a newly central means of

communicating throughout a nation, the details of their styling were invested with

enormous importance.

General style guides were similarly important to the languages development,

though they lacked the attention to a specific genre and its features that characterized

the letter-writing guides. The style guides (which were all variations on a thememost

shared some content and some borrowed significantly from the same sources and from

each other) were important for how they brought classic Latin and Greek texts into

English, anglicizing not only the linguistic features but also the general concerns of the

texts. Sherrys guide, intended largely for an audience of schoolchildren, furthered the

goals of the vernacularizers by improving the quality of written English so that it was

more capable of replacing Latin, even in such sophisticated features as figurative

 267

language. For Sherry, it was particularly important that such stylistic education

occurred at a young age, encouraging even scholars at the very beginnings of their

careers to use English carefully and to recognize its expressive ability, thereby (he

hoped) improving the language and the state of English scholarship. Similarly, other

authors of versions of the style guide focused on improving Englands strength and

reputation by making readers aware of the potential power of figurative language.

Peacham, for example, continually offers his readers cautions about the possible

negative effects that could ensue from the misuse of figurative languageeffects that

often directly relate to Englands international reputation, internal stability, or political

system. Language, for Peacham, must be used correctly to maintain order. Guides to

appropriate style were one way to transmit those messages, and formed an important

counterpart to the initial vernacularization movement.

Once English had been established as a powerful language within England, and

its stylistic boundaries were being constructed through rhetorical treatises, the

language was even further refined in its ability to reflect (or possibly create) a rhetors

identity, both as an English subject and as a member of specific groups within England.

This third step in the langauges rise to power, while possibly less intuitive than the first

two, is essential to explaining the social importance of rhetoric within England,

particularly towards the end of the sixteenth century.

Given the immense political and cultural changes that characterized sixteenth-

century English life, it should not come as a surprise that national discourse from the

time was largely concerned with questions of hierarchy and social order. Throughout

the century, developments like Protestantism and humanism (with their emphasis on
 268

widespread literacy and the increased importance of the individual) raised the specter

of social mobility, calling the relatively fixed social systems of medieval England into

question. Academic authors frequently debated and reflected on whether the nation

should maintain relatively inflexible social systems or allow for more inter-class

movement, and authors of rhetorical treatises were no exception to this trend. In fact,

given the developing relationship between rhetorical skills and identity, rhetorical

treatises were particularly fertile grounds for discussions of social order. A rhetors

identity consisted in part of his national and social alliances; thus, rhetorics ability to

reflect that identity meant that rhetorical skills played an important role in the systems

of social order that were prominent in sixteenth century England.

In rhetorical treatises, rhetoric itself was portrayed as interacting with the

nation in a variety of different ways. Rhetoric was shown to be crucial to the initial

formation of a nation and its social systems (as in the myth of eloquence, presented in

treatises by Wilson, Elyot, and others). It was shown to be a significant ingredient in

maintaining order among groups of peopleparticularly national groupsas in

Rainoldes work. But most important in these works and others is the portrayal of

rhetoric as a presentation of a rhetors identitya presentation that rhetors should

remain constantly aware of and attuned to. Rhetorical texts offering instruction in

courtesy and decorum are particularly clear sources of this connection between

rhetoric and identity. In the process of instructing readers on how to speak and write

appropriately for their given social roles, the texts demonstrate great concern with

rhetorics ability to reflect on ones social standing. Acting like a courtier (or a
 269

nobleman, or an academic, or another given role) is important; but using language like a

courtier is a crucial component of that acting.

The connection between ones language and ones identity invests rhetoric, and

rhetorical education, with great national importance. Not only does the use of fluent

English demonstrate English identity, but also using language to indicate ones position

within social systems allows such identities to be presented even at a distance and to be

quickly recognized by various audiences. As Puttenham clarifies in his guidelines for

rhetorical behavior, individuals should shape their speech with awareness of what their

choices might say about them. Provincial terminology or even rural accents, for

example, could appear to indicate a lower level of education than standard usage of big

cities like London.

This connection between rhetoric and identity, of course, raises the interesting

possibility of individuals using rhetoric to misrepresent their identities. If the ability to

speak like a courtier is a crucial element of that profession, then it is also a potential

way to masquerade as belonging somewhere you might not. The threat to social order

inherent in rhetorical education, then, is more sharply visible in these texts that it had

been in texts primarily concerned with vernacularization or style. Rhetoric remains a

powerful tool, in more ways that one.

Ultimately, while these steps are an oversimpification of the story of Englishs

development in the sixteenth century, they do demonstrate how the language grew into

such a powerful force, and how its association with the nation of England solidified so

remarkably. The language was not merely an indication of ones birthplace; it became
 270

an indication of belonging, a source of pride for the country, and a marker of Englands

ability to rival (or surpass) other nations. The language was not just a part of the

nationit was part of what the nation represented.

Implications for the Study of English Literature

In this project, I have focused mainly on the emergence of connections between

language, rhetorical education, and English national identityan emergence that, I

argue, occurred mainly during the sixteenth century. But once those connections were

already becoming established, toward the end of the sixteenth century (and well into

the following years), the complex associations of language and nationhood expanded in

surprising and sometimes unprecedented ways. In this section, which serves as a sort of

coda to my own research, I will offer one example of how the connections of English and

England played out after their emergence, as the nation and its language began to

mature both independently and in association to one another. Particularly, I will focus

on the connection of language and nation as it unfolded in an area of particular

significance for scholars of the English Renaissance: the flourishing of English literature

in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

A disproportionate amount scholarship about Renaissance England focuses on

the flourishing of literary writing that occurred towards the end of the sixteenth

century and the beginning of the seventeenth. There is good reason for this focus: the

creativity and eloquence of authors like Spenser and Sidney stands in contrast to the
 271

sometimes-awkward forays into English writing made by authors earlier in the century.

Importantly, this period of literary flowering occurred just as the English language itself

was being popularized for widespread use and honed to a more sophisticated and

expressive tool. The simultaneity of English literary developments and the development

of the language is certainly not a coincidence: improvements in the language were part

of what enabled the literary developments, and literary authors contributed

significantly to the development of the language during this period.3 Given these

interconnections, studying Renaissance English literature through the lenses offered in

this projectthose of language, rhetorical education, and national identityhas great

potential to deepen understandings of how the connections between rhetoric and

national identity developed.

Using creative literature for insight into the rhetorical lives of sixteenth-century

English subjects differs, in terms of accuracy and method, from examining rhetorical

handbooks. Imaginative literature is more likely than educational handbooks to invent

or exaggerate depictions of the use of language, and there is no completely reliable way

to know whether a given characters rhetorical mannerisms accurately reflect those

used by actual English subjects of the time. However, as Wayne Rebhorn observes in

The Emperor of Mens Minds, creative literature has the decided advantage of showing

language usedemonstrating how language could be used in contextual interactions.

Thus, it could teach contemporary audiences how to use language (and teach modern

3 Barbers history of English reminds readers of the influence Shakespeare had on the evolving

English vocabulary: he is the first recorded user of such ordinary words as invitation,
laughable, and sportive. Interestingly, Barber also calls attention to the failed neologisms that
peppered the literature of the period. Shakespeare is also the first known user of many words
that have never been recorded since, like chapeless without a sheath, invised unseen, and
offenceful (Early Modern 195).
 272

readers how language was used) rather than simply telling readers about language use

(as rhetorical treatises did). Seen this way, creative literatures ability to present scenes

of language use, as opposed to descriptions and explanations of language use, could

educate readers and audiences just as effectively (and more entertainingly) than

rhetorical handbooks. And whether or not the scenes of language use in literature from

this period accurately reflect the precise reality of language use in England, they

certainly do offer useful (though indirect) commentary on the perceived nature and

power of the English language.

In addition to representing actual rhetorical situations, Elizabethan and

Jacobean literature was often thematically concerned with representations of England

and Englishness. As Andrew Hadfield argues in Literature, Politics, and National Identity,

Elizabethan authors created a justification for their creative work by arguing that

literature was a necessary part of the formation and value of English culture. Similar

justifications occurred simultaneously in rhetorical treatises, which constructed and

justified the cultural values of early modern England, particularly explaining the

development and importance of a national literature. Sir Philip Sidneys Defense of

Poesie demonstrates this argument, as does George Puttenhams The Art of English

Poesie. Puttenham glorifies the poet (a role he conflates with the rhetor) above all other

professions, providing a lengthy narrative of cultural formation in his introduction

which ultimately finds its foundation in the poet/rhetor. According to Puttenham, a

worthwhile nation must have rich cultural traditions in a variety of disciplines. And

since skill with language is the ultimate basis for each of these disciplines, language

forms an important part of a nations identity. Skill with language, for Puttenham, is the
 273

basis of culture and cultural sophistication and must inform the development of a

country.

Even Latin literature from earlier in the sixteenth century began this inward

focus on England and Englishness. Thomas Mores Utopia presents a heavy description

of social problems in Mores England before describing Utopia, an idealized nation that

has solved all such threats to national strength and unity. The presence of concerns

with the English nation in English literature grew more complex as authors began

writing in the English language. Hadfield explains that some of the first writers to

compose literature in English were deeply concerned with how English literature

should compare to classical and Continental counterpartswhether it should establish

its identity as similar to, or distinct from, those important influences. He explains that,

as with rhetorical treatises, the issue of national identity was particularly important to

creative literature from the sixteenth century because of the Reformation and the

consequent stress on the vernacular, as well as because of overall developments in

Englands social systems.

Early writers, like John Skelton and John Bale, developed the idea of speaking for

England and formalized the concept that English literature could have some sway over

the development of English culture. Later authors took this up, expressing their own

ideas for a public national culture and often working to justify their own enterprise

(literature) as an essential component of Englishness. Later in the century, writing in

English developed even less ambiguous nationalistic concerns as writers like Spenser,

Sidney, and Shakespeare (along with many of their lesser-known colleagues) wrote
 274

pieces in which Englishness and foreignness were major themes.4 Monarchs featured

frequently in these pieces of writingconsider presentations of Elizabeth in The Faerie

Queene and Sidneys poems, for exampleand setting books and plays in foreign

countries often offered pointed comparisons between those countries and England.

Overall, concern with Englishness was an abiding theme of literature from the period.

Thus, as a locale in which concerns with language and concerns with the nation

were combined, creative literature (like rhetorical treatises) can offer useful insight

into how language and nation were connected in the English national imagination. A

particularly fruitful example of how the study of creative literature can expand on the

theories Ive presented in this project is offered by a selection of Shakespearian plays. I

offer this detailed example to illustrate how the sort of analysis, and attention to

language and nation, that Ive exercised throughout this project can be applied to a

specific set of literary works: in this case, the four history plays of Shakespeares second

tetralogy. This series of plays, read with attention to the connections between language

and nation that they present, demonstrates the implications of my project for the study

of creative literature.

Shakespeares second tetralogy consists of four plays: Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2

Henry IV, and Henry V. Together, these plays tell the story of the start of the War of the

Roses, a series of conflicts between rival families fighting for the English throne and

part of the Hundred Years War between England and France. Against this background

4 For general discussions of nationalism in Renaissance literature, see Baker, Greenblatt,

Hadfield, Helgerson (Forms), and McEachern. For discussions of the specific authors mentioned
above and how their work represents and comments on the English nation, see Patricia A.
Cahill, Andrew Escobedo, Jean E. Howard, Willy Maley, Annabel M. Patterson, and Blair Worden.
 275

of civil and international conflict, the plays introduce a series of characters, both from

powerful royal and military families and from the lower classes of fifteenth-century

London. Many of these characters have noticeably distinct language practices, and they

often reflect openly on their linguistic skills and how those skills empower or weaken

them as they move throughout the plays. Language consistently appears as an

important skill for establishing social order, negotiating international relationships, and

proving or enacting ones national identity.

A clear example of the importance of language in the plays comes early in the

first play, Richard II, when the character of Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, is exiled from

England. After receiving news of his exile, language is the first aspect of his lost

Englishness that Mowbray mourns. His imagined loss of English is significant on a

number of levels, both personal and societal, and represents not an effect but a cause of

the isolation he will face in exile:

The language I have learnt these forty years,

My native English, now I must forgo,

And now my tongues use is to me no more

Than an unstringed viol or a harp

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Within my mouth you have enjailed my tongue

Doubly portcullised with my teeth and lips,

And dull unfeeling barren ignorance

Is made my jailer to attend on me.

I am too old to fawn upon a nurse,

 276

Too far in years to be a pupil now.

What is thy sentence then but speechless death,

Which robs my tongue from breathing native breath? (I.3.154-167)

Associating language with life itself, Mowbray describes his figurative death as

primarily a result of speechlessness. This is an appropriate image for exile as it

highlights Mowbrays loss of relationships. Unable to live with English-speakers and

unable to learn any new languages (fawn upon a nurse), Mowbray is confined within

the limits of his own mind even as his tongue is enjailed in his mouth.

The mapping of language onto the physical self heightens its importance even

more: as soon as Mowbray represents language as part of his body (his tongue), we see

that exile will not only isolate him from relationships, but also reshape his physical

existence even as it reshapes his social identity. In Mowbrays case, of course, the

identity most directly in question is his status as an Englishman and all that entails. For

example, his privileged position within the English social hierarchy is destroyed when it

can no longer be upheld by maintaining relationships through language. Losing his

English identity (through exile) is directly equated with losing his language, and both

are understood as causes of isolation, physical disfigurement, and a general loss of self.

Since Mowbray commands no other languages, his loss of English (and the English

identity it embodies) effectively kills him.

The plays contain dozens of moments like this, where a characters practice of or

reflections on language and national identity combine. Although nearly every

characters actions and characteristics imply some comment on his or her national

identity, the character of Henry V (called Hal in the earlier plays) is both central to the
 277

tetralogy and an excellent example of how language and national identity are deeply

entwined in creative literature from the period. In 1 and 2 Henry IV, Hal is portrayed as

a disobedient prince, spending more time in bars and brothels (with a rowdy crew

including the infamous Falstaff) than he spends with his father (King Henry IV)

studying politics and war. Only in Henry V does Hal truly come of age, taking on the role

of king as he conquers the French at the Battle of Agincourt, in one of the best known

and most patriotic scenes in all of Shakespeare. Throughout the plays, Hals

development into an appropriately patriotic character, and ultimately to the royal

embodiment of England in the figure of the king, is repeatedly linked to his linguistic

education and use of language.

But before we see how Hal uses language to ascend to these lofty heights, we see

him using language to explore another social levelthat of the residents of Eastcheap,

where he frequents bars and brothels. Specifically, we learn that Hal delights in learning

to fit in, linguistically and behaviorally, with his licentious companions. Hals ability to

merge with this lower social group is apparent in the first scene in which we meet him,

where his exchange with Falstaff displays both of their wits. His process of education in

Eastcheap manners, however, is more evident later, when we see him delighting in his

ability to adopt new ways of speaking and interacting. In 1 Henry IV Act II scene 5, Hal

joyfully describes his education via three bartenders who teach him a number of slang

terms that give him the ability to effectively mingle with the common people, and

potentially to pass as a commoner himself. Hal rejoices:

I have sounded the very bass-string of humility. Sirrah, I am sworn

brother to a leash of drawers, and can call them by their cristen names
 278

They call drinking deep dyeing scarlet, and when you breathe in your

watering they cry Hem! and bid you Play it off! To conclude, I am so

good a proficient in one quarter of an hour that I can drink with any

tinker in his own language during my life. (II.5.6-17)

Hal befriends the three bartendersgaining a level of intimacy at which they consider

one another brothers and use first namesand eagerly learns the vocabulary

associated with their profession and social standing. Moreover, Hal uses the occasion to

praise his own speed and aptness to learn, indicating that a mere quarter-hour is

enough to enable him to speak the bartenders language whenever he wants, for the

rest of his life. His ability to learn new language practices thus matches with his ability

to take on new roles and identities.

Hals Eastcheap companions not only provide him with a new language (of

bawdy puns, slang, and common references) but also allow him to practice other

dialects in the safe linguistic playground of the taverns. Indeed, the ability to rapidly

switch between voices and registers is a skill essential to success in Eastcheaps verbal

play and also to Hals eventual success as a monarch. In 1 Henry IV Act II scene 5, Hal

rapidly cycles through a number of different voices and styles, each of which is modeled

by Falstaff or another Eastcheap resident: the bartenders slang, joking puns, both

ornate and plain styles of storytelling, and finally imitations of courtly rhetoric. This last

step is particularly important. Hal and Falstaff exchange turns playing the role of King,

and while each retains common references and slang (and neither speaks in the

elevated blank verse), both self-consciously manipulate their style in imitation of high

courtly rhetoric. Falstaff starts this trend when he explicitly plans to speak in passion,
 279

and do it in King Cambyses vein (352). He proceeds with elaborate metaphors,

parallelisms, and somewhat archaic language: for though the camomile, the more it is

trodden on, the faster it grows, yet youth, the more it is wasted, the sooner it wears

Why, being son to me, art thou so pointed at? Shall the blessed sun of heaven prove a

micher, and eat blackberries?A question not to be asked. Shall the son of England

prove a thief, and take purses?A question to be asked (365-375). Throughout this

lengthy speech, Falstaff adheres quite closely to a Eupheuistic style, and while

overdone, the speech does accurately represent what the king would be likely to accuse

Hal of and the manner of that conversation.5 The exchange reflects Hal and Falstaffs

perceptive awareness that a crucial part of a characters identity is represented in his

speech.

Through his time in Eastcheap, Hals attempts to learn the language of the

commoners influences him more than he intends. Early in 1 Henry IV, the prince

predicts that his education among the commoners will not affect him at allhe will be

able to discard such influences whenever he wants and easily emerge into his rightful

royal roles. He assures his father, I shall, hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord, / Be more

myself, implying that his real self is the noble prince, concerned with courtly rather

than base matters (III.2.92-93). Hals reflective confession in 2 Henry IV significantly

complicates matters, however. In an unusually serious conversation with a low-class

friend, the prince admits that he misses aspects of his Eastcheap existence and cannot

see how to mesh his experience there with his courtly identity. Concerned, he asks

5 For a discussion of how Falstaffs overdone speech performs a perceptive mockery of high styles while

offering criticism of the monarchy, see MacDonald (32-33).

 280

Doth it not show vilely in me to desire small beer? and recognizes that my appetite

was not princely got; for, by my troth, I do now remember the poor creature small beer.

But indeed, these humble considerations make me out of love with my greatness. What

a disgrace it is to remember thy name! Or to know thy face tomorrow! (II.2.5-6, 9-13).

This scene demonstrates that while Hal may be calculating in his adoption of friends

and his self-education, he nonetheless cannot perfectly control how and where his

multiple identities manifest themselves. Having learned the language and lifestyle of the

Eastcheap residents, those thoughts and desires are permanent parts of his identity that

he cannot completely reject.

Thus, we can characterize what happens to Hal thorough his time in Eastcheap

as an education, both in the literal sense (he delights in learning and practicing new

ways of speaking) and a more abstract sense (his widened range of experience

fundamentally changes his identity, teaching him to have the tastes of a commoner

alongside his noble tastes). This correlation of language and identity is consistent with

the importance of language in the tetralogy as a whole, and its connection to national

identity, in particular, becomes apparent as Hal moves on from his Eastcheap associates

and begins to take up his role as a member of the royal family.

From the start of his reign Hal is consistently adept in his use of language to

manipulate and respond to shifting situations. King Hals facility with language is first

represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose glowing praise of the kings

speech demonstrates that rhetorical skill has earned Hal respect as a thinker and

scholar:

Hear him but reason in divinity

 281

And, all-admiring, with an inward wish

You would desire the King were made a prelate;

Hear him debate in commonwealth affairs,

You would say it hath been all-in-all his study;

List his discourse of war, and you shall hear

A fearful battle rendered you in music;

Turn him to any cause of policy,

The Gordian knot of it he will unloose,

Familiar as his garterthat when he speaks,

The air, a chartered libertine, is still,

And the mute wonder lurketh in mens ears

To steal his sweet and honeyed sentences:

So that the art and practice of life

Must be the mistress to this theoric. (I.1.39-53)

Canterbury marvels that Hal is able to sound so learned, despite his misspent youth.

And while Canterbury takes Hals rhetoric as proof of his ultimate wisdom and virtue, a

different interpretation is equally plausible and somewhat more likely given what we

saw of Hal in the earlier plays: that Hal may be able to represent himself linguistically in

a number of ways, selecting the register that is appropriate for a given situation. In this

reading, his eloquent reasoning in divinity to the Archbishop is no more surprising or

true to himself than his ability to talk with a tinker. I do not mean to represent Hal as a

scheming dissembler, or indicate that he is untrue to some real identity when he

speaks either to the commoners or the nobility. Rather, Hals sometimes-sophisticated

 282

manipulation of his flexible identity is an asset, and one that protects him (to some

extent) from the fate of other nobles in the plays. Mowbrays speechless death is only

inevitable because he lacks access to languages or dialects other than courtly rhetoric;

Hal protects himself from such impotent speechlessness with a wide range of linguistic

knowledge and ability.

In fact, it is just this prowess with language that characterizes Hals most

impressive moment in the tetralogy: his speech before the Battle of Agincourt, in which

he uses his verbal skills to inspire his vastly outnumbered army to success against the

French. In this famous band of brothers speech, Hal focuses on the honor due to

valiant English soldiers. And his attunement of the speech to English national pride goes

past its subject matter. David Steinsaltz suggests that, in this speech, Hal departs from

his normal language patterns. He resorts to a vocabulary that consists nearly entirely of

simple Germanic and Anglo-Saxon words for this speech, in contrast to the highly

Latinate and French-derived language of much court discourse in the play (328). The

type of words Hal uses here are calculated to inspire a sense of national pride; they are

both free from foreign influence and representative of Englishs linguistic virility (327).

Interestingly, two of the benefits of success on the battlefield that Hal promises to the

brave soldiers are also linguistic: they will be able to tell the tale of their bravery, and

others will repeat the tale and thus shore up their reputations (IV.3.48, 59). These

linguistic actions may well be the occasion for the common soldier to gentle his

condition, showing again the connections between language and social order (63). This

speech is Hals best weapon against the French. In order to stand a chance against their
 283

superior forces, he must inspire his men to overcome their fear, and his ability to do so

is occasioned by his ability to present Englishness through language.

Shakespeares second tetralogy is just one of hundreds of pieces of creative

literature from the sixteenth century that demonstrate attention to both language and

national identity. As my brief analysis here shows, reading such literature with an eye

to the importance of education, language, and national identity can reveal additional

layers of meaning, highlighting authors concerns with the power of language and the

importance of characters identifying with, and often representing, their given nations.

Implications for Further Rhetorical Study and Research

Any research into rhetorical history, particularly into texts that are generally

under-appreciated (like sixteenth-century rhetorical treatises), often raises more

questions than it answers. The current project is no exception: through the process of

research and writing I have become aware of dozens of areas that are in need of

research in order to reach a fuller understanding of the development of the English

language and how it related to the early years of the Englands life as a nation. Along the

way, Ive also been reminded that even the study of fairly remote historical periods may

have implications for how we teach and practice rhetoric in our contemporary settings.

So as an end to this project, let me offer what I see as possible beginnings for a myriad
 284

of other possible research endeavors concerning the study of rhetorical history and the

modern teaching of rhetoric.

First, much remains to be learned about sixteenth-century English rhetorical

texts themselves. Some work has been done to trace the usage patterns of the texts, but

knowing in more detail about the settings in which the texts were used would add

significant weight to our understanding of the texts purposes and potential cultural

influences.6 To what extent were the texts used in schools, and which texts were used

for which groups of students?7 Did the texts form important parts of home learning,

where children were taught by parents, siblings, or tutors? The books often assume a

male audience, but to what extent would they have been used by female students or

independent learners, as well? While it is impossible to achieve positive answers to all

of these questions, there are surprising amounts of historical documents that remain

unexamined, or at least unexamined with regards to these specific questions. Many

schools from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries maintained archives that are

available to this day to those willing and able to travel for research. And the copious

correspondence of certain families from the period could offer insight into the

educational practices of their children. Better information about how the books were

used and circulated could have significant ramifications for their studyrevealing to us

(for example) which texts were most broadly read, which were used only by specific

cultural groups, which were popular for brief periods or maintained lasting influence,

6 See, particularly, Macks work for details on the use of such rhetorical texts.

7 Clark and Baldwin both begin to approach this question, and their books are able to offer

detailed analyses of the use of some texts. More work like theirs should be done to clarify the
curriculum and use of textbooks in a broader sample of English schools.
 285

and which were approved by those who selected texts for use in schools. Together, this

information would give scholars a much more detailed account of these somewhat-

obsolete texts. Moreover, it would allow for greater discernment as researchers with

questions like mine select primary texts.

An even trickier, but possibly more interesting, line of inquiry about the use of

the texts pertains to reading habits. Once readers had access to individual rhetorical

texts, how did they make use of them? Did they read them through linearly (as we read

novels) or consult them sporadically (as we skim through textbooks)? Did they

annotate their copies? The answers to such questions may be lost, but researchers with

access to archival texts may be able to offer some insight. And again, letters written by

the users of the texts also have potential to reveal some of these practices.

Understanding the reading practices would, of course, affect how we read the texts

whether we assume that a student would be exposed to a given passage within the

larger context of the work, or whether she might read it independently of such a

context.

A second area for further research concerns the relationship between these

early English rhetorical texts and the historical development of English rhetorical

education as a whole. Often, modern rhetoric textbooks will trace their origins to

classical rhetorical figures such as Aristotle and Cicero.8 But it is rare for textbooks to

acknowledge the possible influence of the authors who first brought such classical

8 For example, consider Edward P. J. Corbetts Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, a

textbook that obviously and whole-heartedly relies on the classical foundations of rhetorical
theory to provide a basis for modern educational experience. While other modern textbooks are
not so explicit, they often gesture back to such classical influences.
 286

rhetorical traditions into the English language. The writers of the first English rhetorics

did, however, make important steps in the process of introducing classical rhetorical

traditions to the English language, and along they way they frequently modified those

classical precedents. As such, early English treatises are an important link between

rhetorics foundations in the classical period and current teaching. Further research

into those connections could deepen our understanding of the origins of current

composition theory and teaching practices. For example, which of the sixteenth-century

rhetorical treatises were used as models for textbooks that were produced in the

following century? Being able to trace such lines of influence would help us see which

texts were important in setting precedent and establishing early trends for how English

rhetoric was understood and taught. It would also offer important insight into trends in

rhetoric, such as Ramism and Ramistic thought, that emerged early in the history of

English rhetoric but have nonetheless persisted in influence. Thus, such questions could

shed light on the history of English rhetorical instruction and textbooks in all periods

since the sixteenth century. Tracing the evolution of English rhetoric as an evolution,

instead of as a series of texts that are based largely on classical rhetoric, could offer

insight to the field of comparative rhetorics as well.

Finally, a third important area for further research lies in the modern

connections between rhetorical education and identity. Early English rhetorical texts

recognized that speech patterns can represent a persons identity, and thus that

teaching certain types of speech has the potential to affect what identities can be

represented. That is no less true today than it was in the sixteenth century. The ways in

which we teach our students to speak and write reflect the identities we expect them to
 287

assume. This is particularly important when we evaluate student writingas Geneva

Smitherman has argued, treating vernacular or ethnic speech patterns as errors can

be fundamentally threatening and insulting to students. Increased awareness of the

deep connections between language and identity can help us to become better

educators. In the light of current debates, this awareness is particularly important with

regard to national identity.

At the start of this project I introduced the English Only debate as a modern

example of how politically important rhetorical education can be, and of the deep

connection we continue to feel between language, education, and an individuals

national identity. Resolving political debates about what should be taught in American

classroomswhether the issue in question is the language of instruction or the overall

nature of language instructionis impossible without attunement to the connections

that exist between language and national identity. Changing theories of language use

and teaching affect not only the language itself, but also those who use it. We would do

well, as teachers and scholars of rhetoric, to remember the important and complex

connections that exist between our subject matter and identity.

 288

Bibliography

Agnew, Lois. Rhetorical Style and the Formation of Character: Ciceronian Ethos in

Thomas Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique. Rhetoric Review 17 (1998): 93-106. Print.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006. Print.

Anzalda, Gloria. Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute

Books, 1987. Print.

Ascham, Roger. The Scholemaster. London, 1570. Renascence Editions. Web. 21 July

2008.

---. Toxophilus, The Schole of Shootinge Contayned in Tvvo Bookes. London, 1545. Early

English Books Online. Web. 23 March 2009.

Auerbach, Erich. Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the

Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993. Print.

Baker, David Weil. Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England.

Cambridge: U Massachusetts P, 1999. Print.

Baldwin, T. W. William Shakesperes Small Latine & Lesse Greeke. 2 vols. Urbana-

Champaign: U of Illinois P, 1944. Print.

Bale, John. Yet a Course at the Romyshe Foxe. Antwerp, 1543. Early English Books Online.

Web. 21 July 2008.

 289

Balmuth, Miriam. Female Education in 16th & 17th Century England: Influences,

Attitudes, and Trends. Canadian Woman Studies/Les Cahiers de la Femme 9.3-4

(1988): 17-20. Print.

Barber, Charles. Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1997. Print.

---. The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.

Print.

Baugh, Albert C. and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 3 ed. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1978. Print.

Berlin, James A. Revisionary Histories of Rhetoric. Vitanza 112-127.

Bolton, W.F. Shakespeares English: Language in the History Plays. Cambridge: Basil

Blackwell, 1992. Print.

Boswell, Grant. Letter Writing among the Jesuits: Antonio Possevinos Advice in the

Bibliotheca Selecta (1593). The Huntington Library Quarterly 66.3-4 (2003):

247-262. Print.

Bradshaw, Brendan and Peter Roberts, eds. British Consciousness and Identity: The

Making of Britain, 1533-1707. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1982. Print.

Bryson, Anna. From Courtesy to Civility: Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern

England. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.

Bulman, James C. Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeares

History Plays. Ed. Michael Hattaway. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. 158-176.

Print.
 290

Burke, Peter. The Fortunes of the Courtier: The European Reception of Castigliones

Cortegiano. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1996. Print.

---. Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,

2004. Print.

Burton, Gideon. From Ars Dictaminis to Ars Conscribendi Epistolis: Renaissance Letter-

Writing Manuals in the Context of Humanism. Poster and Mitchell 88-101.

Cahill, Patricia A. Nation Formation and the English History Plays. A Companion to

Shakespeares Works: The Histories. Ed. Richard Dutton and Jean E. Howard.

Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. 70-93. Print.

Calhoun, Craig. Nationalism and Ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology 19 (1993): 211-

239. JSTOR. Web. 28 January 2009.

Calvert, Peter. The Concept of Class: An Historical Introduction. 2 vols. London:

Hutchinson, 1982. Print.

Camden, William. Britannia. London, 1587. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July

2008.

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization

Continued. College Composition and Communication 57.4 (2006): 586-619. Print.

---. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.

---. Toward a Writing Pedagogy of Shuttling between Languages: Learning from

Multilingual Writers. College English 68.6 (2006): 589-604. Project Muse. Web.

21 May 2010.
 291

Carpenter, Frederic Ives. Introduction. The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke: A Reprint Edited

with an Introduction, Notes and Glossarial Index by Frederic Ives Carpenter. By

Leonard Cox. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1899. Print.

Chaplin, Joyce E. Subject Matter: Technology, the Body, and Science on the Anglo-

American Frontier, 1500-1676. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2001. Print.

Chatterjee, Partha. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse.

Minnesota: U Minnesota P, 1998. Print.

Cheke, John. The Hurt of Sedicion Howe Greueous It Is to a Commune Welth. London,

1549. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July 2008.

---. A Letter of Syr J. Cheekes. The Courtyer of Count Baldessar Castillo Diuided into

Foure Bookes. By Baldassarre Castiglione. Trans. Thomas Hoby. London, 1561.

N.pag. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July 2008.

The Hurt of Sedicion Howe Greueous it Is to a Commune Welth. London, 1549. Early

English Books Online. Web. 21 July 2008.

Cicero. De Inventione. Trans C. D. Yonge. Peithos Web: Classic Rhetoric and Persuasion.

Web. 20 October 2006.

---. Orator. Trans. H. M. Hubbell. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1962. Print.

Clark, Donald Lemen. John Milton at St. Pauls School: A Study of Ancient Rhetoric in

English Renaissance Education. North Haven, CT: Archon Books, 1964. Print.

Collinson, Patrick. The Reformation: A History. New York: Random House, 2003. Print.

Corbett, Edward P. J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 4 ed. Oxford: Oxford UP,

1998. Print.
 292

Cox, Leonard. The Art or Crafte of Rhetoryke. London, 1532. Early English Books Online.

Web. 21 July 2008.

Crowley, Sharon. Let Me Get This Straight. Vitanza 1-19.

Cummings, Brian. The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace. Oxford:

Oxford UP, 2002. Print.

Dawson, Jane E. A. The Politics of Religion in the Age of Mary, Queen of Scots: The Earl of

Argyll and the Struggle for Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.

Print.

---. Scotland Re-Formed, 1488-1587. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2007. Print.

Day, Angel. The English Secretorie. London, 1586. Early English Books Online. Web. 21

July 2008.

---. The English Secretorie. London, 1592. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July 2008.

Deanesly, Margaret. The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Biblical Versions. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1920. Print.

---. Vernacular Books in England in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. The

Modern Language Review 15.4 (1920): 349-358. Print.

Dickens, A. G. The English Reformation. 2 ed. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP,

1989. Print.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge

UP, 1980. Print.

Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations.

Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. Print.

 293

Elyot, Thomas. The Boke Named the Gouernor. London, 1531. Early English Books Online.

Web. 21 July 2008.

---. The Doctrinall of Princis. London, 1533. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July

2008.

Escobedo, Andrew. Nationalism and Historical Loss in Renaissance England: Foxe, Dee,

Spenser, Milton. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2004. Print.

Felperin, Howard. Shakespeares Henry VIII: History as Myth. Studies in English

Literature, 1500-1900 6.2 (1966): 225-246. Print.

Fraunce, Abraham. The Arcadian Rhetorike: Or the Praecepts of Rhetorike Made Plaine by

Examples. London, 1588. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July 2008.

Freedman, Joseph S. Cicero in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Rhetoric

Instruction. Rhetorica 4.3 (1986): 227-254. Print.

Fox, Adam. Oral and Literate Culture in England 1500-1700. Oxford: Oxford U P, 2000.

Print.

Fulwood, William. The Enemy of Idlenesse: Teaching a Perfect Platforme How to Indite

Epistles & Letters of All Sortes. London, 1568. 21 July 2008.

Gee, James Paul. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Falmer

P, 1990. Print.

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1983. Print.

Glenn, Cheryl. Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity Through the

Renaissance. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1997. Print.

---. Unspoken: A Rhetoric of Silence. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Print.
 294

Goldberg, Jonathan. Writing Matter: From the Hands of the English Renaissance.

Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990. Print.

Goodman, Christopher. How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects and

wherein They May Lawfully by Gods Word Be Disobeyed and Resisted. Geneva,

1558. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July 2008.

Graham, Kenneth J. E. The Performance of Conviction: Plainness and Rhetoric in the Early

English Renaissance. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1994. Print.

Green, Ian. The Christians ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England c. 1530-1740.

Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.

---. Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

Green, Lawrence D. John Rainoldss Oxford Lectures on Aristotles Rhetoric. Newark: U

of Delaware P, 1986. Print.

Green, Lawrence D. and James J. Murphy. Renaissance Rhetoric Short-Title Catalogue,

1460-1700. 2nd ed. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Print.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Invisible Bullets: Renaissance Authority and its Subversion, Henry

IV and Henry V. Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism. Ed.

Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1985. Print.

---. Learning to Curse: Aspects of Linguistic Colonialism in the Sixteenth Century. First

Images of America: The Impact of the New World on the Old. Vol 2. Ed. Fredi

Chiappelli with Michael J. B. Allen and Robert L. Benson. Berkeley: U California P,

1976. 561-180. Print.

---. Shakespearean Negotiations. Berkeley: U California P, 1988. Print.

 295

Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus, eds.

The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition. New York: W. W. Norton &

Co, 1997. Print.

Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992.

Print.

---. The Spirit of Capitalism: Nationalism and Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard UP,

2001. Print.

Guy, John. Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990. Print.

Haas, Ernst B. What is Nationalism and Why Should We Study It? International

Organization 40.3 (1986): 707-744. JSTOR. Web. 14 January 2008.

Hadfield, Andrew. Literature, Politics and National Identity: Reformation to Renaissance.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Print.

---. Shakespeare, Spenser and the Matter of Britain. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Print.

Haigh, Christopher. English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors.

Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993. Print.

Hale, Edward E., Jr. Ideas of Rhetoric in the Sixteenth Century. PMLA 18.3 (1903): 424-

444. JSTOR. Web. 8 May 2008.

Hardy, Robert. Longbow: A Social and Military History. Somerset: Patrick Stephens Ltd.,

1992. Print.

Heal, Felicity. Reformation in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. Print.

Helgerson, Richard. Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England. Chicago:

U Chicago P, 1992. Print.

 296

---. Language Lessons: Linguistic Colonialism, Linguistic Postcolonialism, and the Early

Modern English Nation. Yale Journal of Criticism 11.1 (1998): 289-299. Project

Muse. Web. 3 August 2010.

---. Writing Empire and Nation. The Cambridge Companion to English Literature, 1500-

1600. Ed. Arthur F. Kinney. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. 310-329. Print.

Henderson, Judith Rice. Angel Day. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 236:

British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500-1660, First Series. Ed. Edward A. Malone.

Bruccoli Clark Layman, 2001. 99-107. Gale Database. Web. 22 April 2009.

---. Erasmian Ciceronians: Reformation Teachers of Letter-Writing. Rhetorica 10.3

(1992): 273-302. JSTOR. Web. 24 February 2009.

Hildebrandt, Hilbert W. Sherry: Renaissance Rhetorician. Communication Studies 11.3

(1960): 204-209. Print.

Himelick, Raymond. Introduction. The Enchiridion. By Desiderus Erasmus. Bloomington:

Indiana UP, 1963. Google Book Search. Web. 17 September 2010.

Hoby, Thomas, trans. The Courtyer of Count Baldessar Castillo diuided into Foure Bookes.

By Baldassarre Castiglione. London, 1561. Early English Books Online. Web. 21

July 2008.

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, With the Apocryphal Books, in

the Earliest English Versions Made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His

Followers. Ed. Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford UP,

1850. New York: AMS, 1982. Print.

Howard, Jean E. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. London:

Routledge, 1994. Print.

 297

Howell, Wilbur Samuel. Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700. Princeton: Princeton

UP, 1956. Print.

Hudson, Anne. The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History. Oxford:

Clarendon, 1988. Print.

Hutchinson, G. O. Ciceros Correspondence: A Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.

Print.

James, Tim. Alabamas Tim James Wants English Only Driver License Exams. 2010.

YouTube. Web. 23 June 2010.

Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale:

Southern Illinois UP, 1991. Print.

Jones, Richard Foster. The Triumph of the English Language: A Survey of Opinions

Concerning the Vernacular from the Introduction of Printing to the Restoration.

Stanford: Stanford UP, 1953. Print.

Joseph, Sister Miriam. Shakespeares Use of the Arts of Language. Columbia: Columbia

UP, 1947. Print.

Justice, Steven. Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381. Berkeley: U California P, 1996.

Print.

Kedourie, Elie. Nationalism. 4 ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1993. Print.

Kennedy, George A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from

Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: U North Carolina P, 1980. Print.

Key Dates: The British Postal Museum and Archive. Postalheritage.org.uk. The British

Postal Museum and Archive, 2010. Web. 20 January 2010.

 298

Knapp, Jeffrey. Shakespeares Tribe: Church, Nation, and Theater in Renaissance England.

Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002. Print.

Knowles, John. 1 Henry IV. A Companion to Shakespeares Works: The Histories. Ed.

Richard Dutton and Jean E. Howard. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. 412-431.

Print.

Kohn, Hans. The Genesis and Character of English Nationalism. Journal of the History

of Ideas 1.1 (1940): 69-94. JSTOR. Web. 6 May 2008.

Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Rhetoric in Medieval and Renaissance Culture. Murphy,

Renaissance Eloquence 1-19.

Lander, Jesse M. Crackd Crowns and Counterfeit Sovereigns: The Crisis of Value in 1

Henry IV. Shakespeare Studies 30 (2002): 137-61. Print.

Levine, Nina S. Women's Matters: Politics, Gender, and Nation in Shakespeare's Early

History Plays. Newark: U Delaware P, 1998. Print.

Lever, Ralph. The Arte of Reason, Rightly Termed, Witcraft Teaching a Perfect Way to

Argue and Dispute. London, 1573. Early English Books Online. Web. 21 July 2008.

Lewis, C. S. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century: Excluding Drama. Oxford: Oxford

UP, 1954. Print. Oxford History of English Literature Series.

Lundin, Rebecca Wilson. "Rhetorical Iconoclasm: The Heresy of Lollard Plain Style."

Rhetoric Review 27.2 (2008): 131-146. Print.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation: A History. New York: Penguin, 2003. Print.

MacDonald, Ronald R. Uneasy Lies: Language and History in Shakespeares Lancastrian

Tetralogy. Shakespeare Quarterly 35.1 (1984): 22-39. Print.

 299

Mack, Peter. Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,

2002. Print.

Maley, Willy. Salvaging Spenser: Colonialism, Culture, and Identity. New York: St. Martins

P, 1997. Print.

Martin, Henri-Jean. The History and Power of Writing. Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane. Chicago:

U Chicago P, 1994. Print.

Matchinske, Megan. Writing Gender and State in Early Modern England: Identity

Formation and the Female Subject. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Matsuda, Paul Kei. The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U. S. College Composition.

College English 68.6 (2006): 237-651. Project Muse. Web. 21 May 2010.

McEachern, Claire. The Poetics of English Nationhood, 1590-1612. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.

Medine, Peter E. Thomas Wilson. Boston: Twayne, 1986. Print.

Miller, Thomas P. Where Did College English Come From? Rhetoric Review 9.1 (1990):

50-69. Print.

Mitchell, Linda C. Entertainment and Instruction: Womens Roles in the English

Epistolary Tradition. The Huntington Library Quarterly 66.3-4 (2003): 331-347.

Print.

More, Thomas. Utopia. Trans. Paul Turner. London: Penguin, 2003. Print.

Mountford, Roxanne. The Gendered Pulpit: Preaching in American Protestant Spaces.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2003. Print.

Murphy, James J., ed. Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of

Renaissance Rhetoric. Berkeley: U of California P, 1983. Print.

 300

---. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the

Renaissance. Berkeley: U California P, 1974. Print.

---, ed. Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts. Berkeley: U California P, 1971. Print.

Nash, Walter. George Puttenham. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 281: British

Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500-1660, Second Series. Ed. Edward A. Malone.

Bruccoli Clark Layman, 2003. 229-248. Gale Database. Web. 22 April 2009.

Nelson, Brent L. Roger Ascham. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 236: British

Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500-1660. Ed. Edward A. Malone. Bruccoli Clark

Layman, 2001. 3-11. Gale Database. Web. 22 April 2009.

Norton, Glyn P., ed. The Cambridge History of English Literature: Volume III, The

Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. 2nd ed. New York:

Routledge, 2002. Print.

---. Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of

Reason. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1958. Print.

Orten, John D. Ralph Lever. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 236: British

Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500-1660. Ed. Edward A. Malone. Bruccoli Clark

Layman, 2001. 177-187. Gale Database. Web. 22 April 2009.

Owst, G. R. Preaching in Medieval England: An Introduction to Sermon Manuscripts of the

Period c. 1350-1450. New York: Russell & Russell, 1926. Print.

Patterson, Annabel M. Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and

Reading in Early Modern England. Madison: U Wisconsin P, 1984. Print.

---. Shakespeare and the Popular Voice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1991. Print.
 301

Peacham, Henry. The Garden of Eloquence. London, 1593. Early English Books Online.

Web. 17 July 2008.

Pearce, T. M. and James G. McManaway. The Vernacular Tongue in English Education.

Renaissance News 4.1 (1951): 11-14. JSTOR. Web. 11 December 2007.

Pierce, Robert B. Shakespeares History Plays: The Family and the State. Columbus: Ohio

State UP, 1971. Print.

Plett, Heinrich F. The Place and Function of Style in Renaissance Poetics. Murphy,

Renaissance Eloquence 365-375.

---. Rhetoric and Renaissance Culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Print.

Ponet, John. A Shorte Treatise of Politike Pouuer and of the True Obedience Which

Subiectes Owe to Kynges and Other Ciuile Gouernours, with an Exhortacion to all

True Naturall Englishe Men. Strasbourg, 1556. Early English Books Online. Web.

21 July 2008.

Poster, Carol and Linda C. Mitchell, eds. Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from

Antiquity to the Present: Historical and Bibliographic Studies. Columbia: U South

Carolina P, 2007. Print.

Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. Contriued into Three Bookes: The First of

Poets and Poesie, the Second of Proportion, the Third of Ornament. London, 1589.

Early English Books Online. Web. 17 July 2008.

Rackin, Phyllis. Stages of History: Shakespeares English Chronicles. Ithaca: Cornell U P,

1990. Print.
 302

Rainolde, Richard. A Booke Called the Foundacion of Rhetorike Because All Other Partes

of Rhetorike Are Grounded Thereupon. London, 1563. Early English Books Online.

Web. 21 July 2008.

Rebhorn, Wayne A. The Emperor of Mens Minds: Literature and the Renaissance

Discourse of Rhetoric. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1995. Print.

Reid, T. R. Spanish at School Translates to Suspension. Washington Post. Washington

Post, 9 December 2005: N. pag. Web. 23 June 2010.

Rhetorica ad Herennium. Trans. Harry Caplan. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1954. Print.

Richards, Jennifer. Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

Richardson, Malcolm. The Ars Dictaminis, the Formulary, and Medieval Epistolary

Practice. Poster and Mitchell 52-66.

---. The Fading Influence of the Medieval Ars Dictaminis in England after 1400.

Rhetorica 19.2 (2001): 225-247. Print.

Robinson, Ian. The Establishment of Modern English Prose in the Reformation and the

Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.

Ryman, Anne and Ofelia Madrid. Hispanics Upset by Teachers Discipline. AZCentral.

The Arizona Republic, 17 January 2004: N. pag. Web. 23 June 2010.

Schmidt, Albert J. Thomas Wilson and the Tudor Commonwealth: An Essay in Civic

Humanism. Huntington Library Quarterly 23 (1959): 49-60. ProQuest. Web. 27

September 2007.

---. Thomas Wilson, Tudor Scholar-Statesman. Huntington Library Quarterly 20

(1957): 205-218. JSTOR. Web. 25 September 2007.

 303

Schoeck, Richard J. Lawyers and Rhetoric in Sixteenth-Century England. Murphy,

Renaissance Eloquence 274-291.

Schofield, John. Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation. Aldershot: Ashgate,

2006. Print.

Secretary. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2 ed. 2009. OED Online. Web. 20 October

2009.

Seers, Dudley. The Political Economy of Nationalism. New York: Oxford UP, 1983. Print.

Shagan, Ethan H. Popular Politics and the English Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge

UP, 2002. Print.

Shakespeare, William. The History of Henry the Fourth (1 Henry IV). Greenblatt et. al.

1147-1224.

---. The Life of Henry the Fifth. Greenblatt et. al. 1445-1523.

---. The Second Part of Henry the Fourth. Greenblatt et. al. 1293-1379.

---. The Tragedy of King Richard the Second. Greenblatt et. al. 943-1014.

Sharon-Zisser, Shirley. Richard Sherry. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 236:

British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500-1660. Ed. Edward A. Malone. Bruccoli

Clark Layman, 2001. 235-246. Gale Database. Web. 24 March 2010.

Shelly, Percy Van Dyke. English and French in England 1066-1100. Diss. U of

Pennsylvania, 1921. Google Book Search. Web. 30 September 2009.

Sherry, Richard. A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes Very Profytable for the Better

Vnderstanding of Good Authors. London, 1550. Early English Books Online. Web.

21 July 2008.
 304

---. A Treatise of the Figures of Grammer and Rhetorike Profitable for Al that Be Studious

of Eloquence, and in Especiall for Suche as in Grammer Scholes Doe Reade Moste

Eloquente Poetes and Oratours. London, 1555. Early English Books Online. Web.

21 July 2008.

Shor, Ira and Paulo Freire. A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming

Education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1987. Print.

Shrank, Cathy. Writing the Nation in Reformation England, 1530-1580. Oxford: Oxford

UP, 2004. Print.

Shuckburg, Evelyn S., trans. The Letters of Cicero: The Whole Extant Correspondence in

Chronological Order. 4 vols. By Cicero. London: George Bell and Sons, 1904.

Google Book Search. Web. 20 October 2009.

Shuger, Debora K. Sacred Rhetoric: The Christian Grand Style in the English Renaissance.

Princeton: Princeton U P, 1988. Print.

Sidney, Sir Philip. The Defense of Poesy. The Norton Anthology of English Literature:

The Sixteenth Century, The Early Seventeenth Century. Vol 1b. 7 ed. Ed. George M.

Logan, Stephen Greenblatt, and Barbara K. Lewalski. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company, 2000. 933-954. Print.

The Sixteenth Century: 1485-1603. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The

Sixteenth Century, the Early Seventeenth Century. Vol 1b. 7 ed. Ed. George M.

Logan, Stephen Greenblatt, and Barbara K. Lewalski. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company, 2000. 469-496. Print.

Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol 2. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1978. Print.

 305

Sloane, Thomas O. On the Contrary: The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric. Washington

D.C.: Catholic U of America P, 1997. Print.

Smith, Alan G. R. The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-

1660. 2ed. London: Longman, 1997. Print.

Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York UP, 1979.

Print.

Smith, Shawn. Henry Peacham, the Elder. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume

236: British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500-1660, First Series. Ed. Edward A.

Malone. Bruccoli Clark Layman, 2001. 188-201. Gale Database. Web. 22 April

2009.

Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Detroit:

Wayne State UP, 1986. Print.

Spenser, Edmund. The Works of Edmund Spenser: A Variorum Edition. 11 vols. Ed. Edwin

Greenlaw. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins P, 1932-1957. Print.

Stark, Ryan. Rhetoric, Science, and Magic in Seventeenth-Century England. Washington

D. C.: Catholic U of America P, 2009. Print.

Steinsaltz, David. The Politics of French Language in Shakespeares History Plays.

Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 42.2 (2002): 317-334. Print.

Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage, 1959. Print.

---. Shakespeares History Plays. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969. First published 1944.

Print.

Trimbur, John. Linguistic Memory and the Politics of U. S. English. College English 68.6

(2006): 575-588. Project Muse. Web. 21 May 2010.

 306

Vos, Alvin, ed. Letters of Roger Ascham. Trans. Maurice Hatch and Alvin Vos. New York:

Peter Lang, 1989. Print.

Vitanza, Victor J., ed. Writing Histories of Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press, 1994. Print.

Wagner, Russell H. Thomas Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique. Speech Monographs 27

(1960): 1-32. Print.

Ward, John O. Renaissance Commentators on Ciceronian Rhetoric. Murphy,

Renaissance Eloquence 126-173.

Waswo, Richard. The Rise of the Vernaculars. Norton 409-416.

Watt, Tessa. Cheap Print and Popular Piety 1550-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1991.

Print.

Wheale, Nigel. Writing and Society: Literacy, Print and Politics in Britain 1590-1660.

London: Routledge, 1999. Print.

Whigham, Frank. Ambition and Privilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtesy

Theory. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984. Print.

Wible, Scott. Composing Alternatives to a National Security Language Policy. College

English 71.5 (2009): 460-485. Project Muse. Web. 21 May 2010.

Williams, Grant. Richard Rainolde. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 236:

British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500-1660, First Series. Ed. Edward A. Malone.

Bruccoli Clark Layman, 2001. 223-234. Gale Database. Web. 22 April 2009.

Wilson, K. J. Incomplete Fictions: The Formation of English Renaissance Dialogue.

Washington, D. C.: Catholic U of America P, 1985. Print.

 307

Wilson, Thomas. The Arte of Rhetorique, for the Vse of All Suche as Are Studious of

Eloquence, Sette Forth in English. London, 1553. Early English Books Online. Web.

1 October 2007.

---. The Arte of Rhetorique, for the Use of All Soche as Are Studious of Eloquence, Set

Forthe in Englishe. London, 1960. Early English Books Online. Web. 1 October

2007.

---. The Rule of Reason, Conteinyng the Arte of Logique, Set forth in Englishe. London:

Richard Grafton, 1551. 1 October 2007.

Winston, Jessica. A Mirror for Magistrates and Public Political Discourse in Elizabethan

England. Studies in Philology 101.4 (2004): 381-400. Print.

Witt, Ronald G. Italian Humanism and Medieval Rhetoric. Durham: Duke UP, 2002. Print.

Wood, Andy. The 1549 Rebellions and the Making of Early Modern England. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.

Worden, Blair. The Sound of Virtue: Philip Sidneys Arcadia and Elizabethan Rhetoric.

New Haven: Yale UP, 1997. Print.

Wyclif, John. On the Truth of Holy Scripture. Trans. Ian Christopher Levy. Kalamazoo:

Western Michigan U, 2001. Print.



Rebecca Wilson Lundin Curriculum Vitae

rebecca.lundin@gmail.com The Pennsylvania State University

Education
Ph.D. English, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.
December 2010.
M.A. English, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.
May 2007.
B.A. English, Cum Laude, Wheaton College. Wheaton, IL.
December 2004.

Publications
"Rhetorical Iconoclasm: The Heresy of Lollard Plain Style." Rhetoric Review 27.2 (2008):
131-146.
Teaching with Wikis: Toward a Networked Pedagogy. Computers and Composition 25.4
(2008): 432-448.

Selected Presentations
Remixing Reading Contexts: eReading in Academic Settings Conference on College
Composition and Communication. Louisville, KY 2010
Developing Learner-Centered Undergraduate Internships International Society for
Exploring Teaching and Learning. Philadelphia, PA 2009
"Vernacular Rhetoric as Nation Building: Thomas Wilson's Stylistic Instruction"
Rhetoric Society of America. Seattle, WA 2008
"Invoking the Examinations of Anne Askew" Conference on College Composition and
Communication. New Orleans, LA 2008
"Linguistic Iconoclasm: The Heresy of the Lollard Plain Style" Conference on College
Composition and Communication. New York, NY 2007

Awards and Certificates
Wilma R. Ebbitt Graduate Fellowship in Rhetoric in the College of the Liberal Arts, 2010
Teaching Support Grant from Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence, 2008-2009
Inter-Departmental M.A. Teaching Award, 2007
Teaching with Technology Certificate, 2007

Selected Professional Experience
Academic Consultant for First-Year Testing, Consulting, and Advising Program, Summer
2010
Affiliate Member CLGBTE, Summer 2009-Present
Invited Member of Bedford/St. Martins T.A. Advisory Group, Summer 2009
Public Writing Initiative Co-Coordinator, Summer 2008-Summer 2009
Research Assistant to Stuart Selber, Fall 2006-Spring 2009
Research Assistant to Cheryl Glenn, Summer 2007-Spring 2009
Public Writing Initiative Member, Fall 2007-Spring 2008
Writing Assistant to Cheryl Glenn, Online Writing chapter of The Writers Harbrace
Handbook 4e, Spring 2008
Rhetorics and Technologies Conference Committee Member, Spring 2007
Teaching Assistant for Writing in HDFS 312W, Spring 2007