This is a copy of a lecture I gave at Sheffield University- it may not make sense, but I was proud of it so I thought I'd put it on here. Happy to answer questions if anyone is interested.
Video et Taceo- the Silent Language of the 1575 Kenilworth Entertainments
The 1575
Kenilworth Entertainments have garnered the reputation as the legendary celebration
of Elizabethan spectacle, in an age that is characterised by lavish displays of
patronage, pageantry and chivalric devotion towards the queen. For eighteen
days from the 9th to the 27th July 1575, the queen, her
courtiers and guests of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester were treated to
fireworks that apparently travelled underwater, bountiful gifts from Greek and
Roman gods, the improbable spectacles of a talking holly bush, a floating barge
shaped as a mermaid, and even an Arthurian rapist amongst the characters
created for the queen's delight. The entertainments have come to be accepted as
an elaborate plea for Dudley to illustrate his material and dynastic
suitability as a marriage partner for the queen, whose ability to bear an heir
was rapidly dwindling due to her advancing age.
Much
attention has been paid to the public elements of the entertainments such as
the marriage of the 'ill smelling bride', (perhaps a veiled reference to the
queen), the ill fated masque of Diana and Iris and the meeting of the Savage
Man; examining their meaning as Dudley's political and personal negotiations.
The two surviving accounts of the entertainments were written by contemporary
witnesses Robert Laneham and George Gascoigne, with extensive colourful
descriptions of the castle's gardens, grounds and publicly performed pageants
and plays including transcripts of key moments penned by Gascoigne and other
members of the royal court. The only two recoverable texts about the event deal
with these exterior festivities, I would argue, primarily because their authors
were not of great enough import to be granted privileged access to interior
spaces. Laneham's obsession with the castle's 'arabl, meado, and good ayrz'
illustrates a latent insecurity about not being able to describe the interior
of the castle.
One
of the most notable recent studies of the entertainments have tended to examine
the idea of the entertainments depicting a 'competition for representation'
where a power struggle between the Queen and her host took place played out
against such a dramatic, public backdrop. Susan Frye has convincingly argued
that Dudley sought to push on the Elizabethan neo-Chivalric system of courtly
love in a hugely public forum, not only to plead his case for her suit, but a way
for him to argue his case for intervention in the Protestant Netherlands (being
persecuted by the Spanish at the time). The central tenet of Frye's argument is
that in order to make any kind of social or political advancement it was
necessary for the queen's courtiers, servants, foreign dignitaries and
ambassadors to engage with the Elizabethan discourse of gender politics
and manipulate such discourse for their own suit. However, in doing so, in the
case of the Kenilworth Entertainments, Dudley's allegorical messages undermine
Elizabeth's own position as queen, engendering such distaste that she either
shows no response to the spectacles played before her, remains silent, or
actually refuses to allow them to be enacted to her in the way intended. The
necessity to use gender politics and the discourse of virginity whilst
simultaneously expressing desire and advancement sets up a dichotomy it's
almost impossible to overcome.
There
are two key aspects of silence that I will examine in this paper. Firstly, I wish
to discuss how the queen used silence to express a latent dissatisfaction with
Dudley's overt displays of devotion. Secondly, I wish to illustrate that the
interior, private messages that may have taken place away from public eyes
complimented the public performances, and how a conjunction of public and
private silent language of performance and allegory intimated Dudley's desire
to form a military and marital alliance. However, central to this will be the
somewhat schizophrenic nature of what Dudley was trying to achieve-
simultaneously the queen's hand in marriage, but also a desire to be free from
bondage as the queen's favourite to make possible his ambition for military
advancement. Sandra Logan's 2007 account has argued that the entertainments were
a plea by Dudley to the queen to allow him to be free from being her 'fall
back' suitor in the complex marriage negotiations between her and François,
Duke of Anjou in an account driven by semiotic theory- the opposite to Susan
Frye's assertions. The aim of the paper will be to highlight that both of these
readings are in some way correct- but also the fact that the two aims are
incompatible in the vernacular of courtly love.
Part of the
basis for the discussion will be the Gascoigne and Laneham accounts, along with
the 1578 inventory of Kenilworth Castle only recently documented by University
of Warwick scholar Dr. Elizabeth Goldring.
The manuscript was only transcribed fully in English Heritage Historical
Review in 2007, meaning it hasn't received a great deal of attention for some
truly extraordinary findings. A sumptuous list of tapestries, furnishings,
instruments and over 50 paintings, (a truly astonishing number at the time),
the inventory gives us a unique insight into the domestic interior of the
castle, and clearly shows Dudley's desire to assert his dynasty- his blazon the
bear and ragged staff is emblazoned upon textiles and objects throughout the
castle. It is not known when in 1578 the Kenilworth inventory was taken,
however it could be that Dudley's marriage to Lettice Knollys would have
necessitated a re-evaluation of his accounts and personal affairs. Whilst it
cannot be conclusively proven that the inventory illustrates how the castle
would have appeared in 1575, the inventory clearly distinguishes several items
that had been purchased or given to the household after the death of Lady
Lennox on 9th March 1578, lending credence to the proposition the
other items were in place at the time of the 1575 spectacles.
Defining
something that is by nature, silent, can be problematic. I would characterise
this as the most difficult aspect of academic enquiry- the difficulty of
pinning down the subtleties of unspoken and unwritten cultural dynamics that
must be examined though the written word or material objects- our primary
source materials. Alex Davis suggests 'it is a mark of the success of the
entertainments that what would be clear to the courtly insider has to be
construed from the outside out of hints and suggestions.' Every aspect of courtly
life from church services, the objects in and artistic techniques of portraits
as well as the choice of clothing, colours, shapes and textures were all shaped
by the social, economic and political influence from the world around it.
Objects and rituals carried meanings that would not have been and did not need
to be transcribed- making pinpointing such silent language a slippery task.
Mary E. Hazard illustrates that rather than decorum manuals used on the
continent 'Elizabeth's courtiers were not governed by explicit prescription;
the decorum of presence required decoding unwritten preventions and
unfavourable approaches... citizens were finely attuned to the proxemic decorum
during the visit of the monarch.' As ritual and decorum remain unwritten, there
is space for those in her presence to act inappropriately and for the queen to
gain power through others transgressions.
Susan Frye
asserts that the first ten days of the Kenilworth entertainments- the welcome
the queen receives at the castle by the Sibyl, Herculean Porter, the oration by
the lady of the lake, the gifts from the Gods, the meeting of the Savage man
represent the success of Dudley in manipulating the Elizabethan discourse of
chivalry to serve his dynastic purpose and aggrandize his social standing. She
also states that the second half of the entertainments- the military skirmish
and the episode of 'deepe desire'- Sylvanus and the Holly Bush begging the
queen to be a 'suter for him unto the heavenly powers' present the apotheosis
of the queen's ability to reinstate her authority. Certainly I would agree that
the early parts of the entertainments represent the 'traditional' role that
Dudley played as the queen's natural and suitable marriage partner, and the
entertainments were successful in cementing Dudley's reputation as the queen's
favourite. However, I don't believe those to be an unqualified success; through
both the Gascoigne and Laneham accounts we encounter how the queen censures or
undermines any attempt to place Dudley's ambitions above her own from the
start, through the prudent use of silence and absence. It is when Dudley then
addresses the issue of the Netherlands conflict in the 'military skirmish' that
will be discussed later that the incompatibility of his desires to be husband
and warrior become apparent and dooms his double quest for marriage and
military advancement to failure.
Upon
arriving at the castle, having been met eight miles from the castle the queen
'rideth but alone,' and she accepts the keys to the castle presented to her by
the Herculean porter without any speech recorded by Laneham or Gascoigne. When
Elizabeth encounters the welcoming from lady of the lake, she does not move
towards her, Laneham shows that lady 'attending her highness coming in the
midst of the pool, whereupon a moouable Iland... she floting to land, met her
Majestie.' (The thought of the lady hastily paddling the floating island to
meet the queen is a rather amusing one.) The content of the lady's speech,
according to Laneham echoes 'how she had kept this lake syns King Arthurz
days... most allweyz in the handes of the Earls of Lecyster,' prompting the
queen's retort 'we had thought indeed ye Lake had been ours, and do you call it
yourz now?' Elizabeth can neuter Dudley's ambition with a few simple
words- interestingly, Laneham only
references speech from the queen that shows dissent. Dudley's wealth, property
and success had all been granted by the queen- his lucrative cloth trading
empire, the very castle where the entertainments took place had been gifted to
Dudley, but his obsession with creating a suitable Arthurian dynasty to
highlight his marital suitability as communicated through the lady of the lake
actually undermines all the queen has gifted him.
No thanks
are given as far as is recorded, she retires to the castle and does not emerge
(as we understand) for another 45 hours. Felicity Heal's study on the decorum
of progress illustrates 'the circulation of benefits was reified in the welcome
provided by the Queen's hosts and in the thanks she offered in return.' Such
lack of thanks may have been a humiliating sting to Dudley. The Laneham letter
also illustrates other elements of passive resistance- at the Ambrosial banquet
the queen eats 'smally or nothing', in contrast to the other guests who
'disorderly wasted and coorsly consumed, more courtly me thought than
curteosly.' The Laneham letter seems to have a silent language of its own-
without overt criticism, through it's subtle method of undermining court
machinations, the account shapes our understanding and provides a critical
voice. Laneham's discussion of the violence of bear-baiting 'by playn tooth and
nayl a to a side & toother such expen~s of blood and leather waz thear
between them' also intimates a silent disapproval of the violence and waste of
the entertainments. Laneham's over ebullient praise of Dudley's extravagance;
playing flagrant regards as it does to the sumptuary laws renders the expense
ridiculous: 'Such a wizdom and cunning in acquiring things so rich, so rare,
and in such aboundans; by so immense and profuse a charge of expense... what
may this express... But only a magnifik mind, a singular wizdoom, a princely
purs, and an heroicall hart?'
No
reference is made to the queen taking part in the following day's events such
as 'the divine service and preaching at the parish church... [the] dauncing of
the Lords and Ladyez' and we do not know if she witnesses the fireworks that
signified unquenchable desire. Without the queen's presence, Gascgoine even
says 'on the next day there was nothing done until the evening.' The queen's
notable absence could be seen as an indication of displeasure- and means that
literally nothing is seen to happen despite clear indication to the contrary.
This episode shows that any action or event may lose its intended meaning if
the queen does not show approval or concur with the message. In the subsequent day's meeting with the
Savage Man who is overawed by the majesty's presence, again, the queen remains
silent- the only recorded response to the encounter is when the queen's horse
is disrupted, causing her to cry out 'no hurt, no hurt.' Tellingly, the queen
doesn't remain silent at other performances, when she views the country play
put on by local players, albeit delayed, she enjoys it, and Laneham shows she
'laught well,' and she rewards the players by allowing them to continue playing
it, having been banned under the enforcement of Protestant regulations.
The Diana
and Iris masque intended to have been played is the nadir of Dudley's romantic
devices depicting a debate between goddesses Diana, Juno and Zabeta who had
been lost for seventeen years (the length of her reign). Zabeta, (a derivation
of Elizabeth) is extolled the virtues of marriage, 'O Queene, O Worthy queen/
Yet never wight felt perfect bliss,/ but such a wedded beene.' The play is
never put on, Gascoigne claims, due to lack of seasonable weather; however it
seems clear that the real reason is in fact because the queen had received word
of the contents and would not allow it to be played in front of her. Dudley's
decision to attempt to put such a play on is a curious one, as the last time a
Diana and Juno masque was played out in front of her in 1565, she declared to
the Spanish ambassador 'this is all against me.' Notably, the Gascoigne account
publishes the masque in full, whilst claiming to be a 'true copie' of the
events, it actually illustrates the way Dudley would have wished them to be
performed- rewriting the queen's silent language by publishing what should have
been. In censoring the masque, the queen is able to assert her power over
Dudley during Kenilworth's precise historical moment, reminding him of his
position and underlining the process of re-appropriating control- the precise
opposite of Dudley's desired outcome. What this illustrates is that the queen's
behaviour and responses are consistent throughout Dudley's histrionic displays,
whilst Dudley's desire to re-enforce his message becomes even more overt.
It is when
we come to the episode of the intended rape of the Lady of the Lake by Sir
Bruce Sans Pitie that an examination of the interior of Kenilworth Castle
unlocks the greatest meaning. The queen, returning from hunting crosses the
bridge over the castle moat where she is greeted by Triton and Proteus who recite
the story of the lady's threatened rape by Sir Bruse who wants to wreak revenge
for Merlin's banishment to a rock due to his lusty advances towards her. Sir
Bruse has 'sought by force, hir virgin's state/ full fowlie to deface.' Proteus
asserts that the queen's presence as a 'worthier maid than she' has made Sir
Bruse realise the error of his lustful ways; with her mere presence the queen
has changed Sir Bruse's mind.
The 1578
inventory's portraits can help unlock the key meaning of this episode. As well
as four portraits of the queen and Dudley on display, there were a number of
other portraits that illustrate a clear motivation to position Dudley's
religious views and his desire to push a military agenda. The portrait list
shows a surprising number of sitters that had been involved in religious plot
or scandal- setting up a clear religious dichotomy. The portraits include key
figures on both sides of the Netherlands/Spanish conflict which had been slowly
burning in the Netherlands since 1566. All the players in the early stages of
conflict are afforded a depiction- many also, with corresponding pictures of
their wives illustrating the formidable power exerted by opportune marriages.
It is worth
a short aside here to mention that Goldring has also recently suggested that
the now not extant Federico Zuccaro portraits from 1575 (though we do still
have the preliminary sketches in the British Museum), and the unattributed
painting of Dudley in the National Portrait Gallery and an unattributed painting
of Elizabeth I in Reading Museum are the portraits of the queen and Dudley
commissioned for the occasion. Dudley is depicted in full armour in the Zuccaro
portrait, whilst in the Reading portrait the queen wears a white dublet, a gift
that Dudley had given to her in the New Year. 1575 was the year of the phoenix
and pelican portraits, both symbols used the by queen to signify devotion to
her people, humility and re-birth, yet neither of these symbols are
incorporated into the portraits- again subjugating the queen's representation
to suit Dudley's motivations. In the Reading Museum and National Portrait
Gallery paintings, the suggestion seems to be that both Dudley and the queen
are standing in front of thrones- though Dudley didn't quite have the gumption
to commission them facing each other- a noted technique to show a married
couple. The fact that these portraits were placed alongside other couples of
considerable power clearly illustrates Dudley's motivations that marriage
between he and the queen would serve purpose on a military level. As mentioned,
Dudley's impresa of the bear and ragged staff was ever present on objects and
textiles throughout the castle, including an enormous four poster bed, draped
in purple brydges satten, the acknowledged colour of royalty and nobility. The
conjunction of the colour of royalty and his emblazon on such an object
illustrates the indivisibility of his physical desire and overarching
ambitions.
The
inventory shows that on display are portraits of Protestant Counts Hoorn and
Egmont, both of whom opposed the entry of the Spanish inquisition into the
Netherlands by Spanish Catholic Cardinal Granvalles, (also depicted) and were
beheaded in 1568 for condoning iconoclastic riots, causing outrage and
precipitating the war of attrition in the Netherlands. Their Protestant allies
Counts Hocstrae and Brederodes, William of Orange and their Catholic enemies
King Phillip II, the Dukes of Parma and Alva are also represented, along with
Elizabeth's ill fated cousin, Mary Queen of Scots. The inclusion of the Queen's
cousin's depiction is of great import in terms of the historical context. In
the summer of 1575 the Mary poisoning plot had recently surfaced, or been
invented as an excuse to prevent her from travelling freely across the country,
having been kept under house arrest since 1567 to avoid any possible threat of
a Catholic uprising. This made the issue of the queen's sovereignty all the
more precarious in her unmarried state without an heir to the throne. Dudley's
manipulation of her cousin's image brought both the threat of the Netherland's
conflict and Elizabeth's dynastic instability literally home, and is
breathtakingly bold. Unknown to those outside the royal inner circle, the queen
had been offered the sovereignty of the Netherlands in exchange for support. In
the summer of 1575 the Spanish army were in revolt due to a financial crisis –
meaning that time was of the essence for a favourable campaign which may
explain Dudley's unsubtle messaging.
All the portraits of those involved in the
Netherlands conflict are covered by silk curtains, suggesting the possibility
of a show, masque or performance having been created around them. Whilst it is
impossible to prove this unless a new eye-witness account comes to light, Roy Strong
asserts that Sir Henry Lee used the Ditchley portrait to re-write his wrongs to
the queen when he fell out of favour for living with his mistress, Anne
Vavasour. Intimate domestic displays could restore favour or communicate an
issue that pushes an individual agenda. The inventory
also indicates that there were 'cardes or maps of cuntryes' on display, the
details of which are unfortunately not recorded. However, it seems likely that
they would have represented the Netherlands- Goldring shows that Dudley had map
collections at his other residences- at Leicester House, there were a similar
number to those at Kenilworth, with four of those of the low countries. The
display of such maps could only have served to make Dudley's ambitions more
clear and indicates beyond reproof that the episode of Sir Bruse Sans Pitie is
a plea asking for Dudley to be free to engage in military activities in the
Netherlands.
The
Gascoigne account allows us to understand that the device with Sir Bruse as
performed was a truncated version; if it had been performed as intended then
Dudley would have skirmished with Sir Bruse in an attempt to protect the
chastity of the lady, a clear indication of his military and romantic prowess.
According to Gascoigne:
'it was
first devised, that.. a Captaine with twentie or thyrtie shotte should have been sent from the Hearon House... and that
Syr Bruse shewing a great power upon the
land, should have sent out many or moe shot to surprise said Captayne and so they should have skirmished...
At last (Syr Bruse his men being
put to flight) the Captaine should have come to her Majestie at the Castell window, and have declared more
plainly the distresse of his mistress... And
that thereupon he should have besought her Majestie to secure his Mistresse...'
The
distinction between the two versions does need to be emphasised. Should Dudley
have played the part of the Captain and attempted the dramatic rescue of the
Lady of the lake then the message would have been far more overt- rather than catching
the queen as she returned from the hunt, the intention would have been to draw
Elizabeth into the action- for she would have been called down from the castle
window to intervene on actions on the barge with the damsel. To be quite clear,
the queen would have then been an active agent in the proceedings, lending
approval to Dudley's desire that military intervention was necessary in the
Netherlands. Laneham shows that the queen has to be asked to remain rather than
continue her movement into the castle 'at which petition her highness
remaining.' The fact that the play is performed impromptu when she returns from
the hunt, with Gascoigne illustrating she does not respond to Triton's oration
and the Laneham letter keeping her interesting silent intimates an unspoken
understanding that she will not be drawn into the debate.
Here,
Dudley clearly oversteps the mark. This episode, rather than illustrating an
acceptance of his position as favourite and the necessity for lavish praise and
devotion required by members of the court, provides an overt critique of the
queen's foreign policy decision. This seems to be a turning point in the
entertainments- it is notable that the next day, the queen re-asserts her
authority by knighting five of her prominent courtiers and cures nine people of
scrofula, the 'king's evil.' Elizabeth uses the silent language of public
ritual as a counter-point to Dudley's allegorical critique – this illustrates
that her actions are capable of being transformative- but on her terms, not
Dudley's.
The final
part of the entertainments involves the episode of the God Sylvanus and the
talking holly bush, hastily performed impromptu by Gascoigne as the queen
begins to trot away. It seems this was quickly penned and in contrast to other
parts of the entertainments; here it seems that Dudley is re-writing his
wrongs, and is a return to an expression of marital desire in a far more
didactic way than previous episodes, communicating an understanding that his
military ambitions will not be fulfilled. The queen's departure has caused the
'flowing teares of the Gods', a reference to the rain as she leaves. The queen
is entreated to 'remember her [Zabeta, from the cancelled marriage masque] did
never cease to use imprecation, invocation... until she caused him to be turned
into this Holy bush... So he is now furnished on every side with sharpe
pricking leaves, to prove the restlessness of his privie thoughts.' The episode
follows the conventional lamentation upon the queen's departure, but acts as a
way to continue to press Dudley's suit through the voice of Sylvanus, using the
gods as a coded way of professing Dudley's acknowledgement of his inappropriate
behaviour, with the holly bush metaphor allowing the continuation of the the
pursuit of marriage through a subtle reminder of her teasing ways. Dudley's
'privie' thoughts are no longer concentrating on his military desires – which
had been communicated in such a public forum. Ironically, such bawdy, private
thoughts are not deemed inappropriate in a public setting as they illustrate a
return to the courtly love vernacular.
In conclusion, it appears that through public
display, Dudley reveals to us his private dichotomy. Ironically, Dudley's use
of public and private messaging seems to be using his privileged, physical
proximity to the queen to ask for a release from bondage. It seems that the
Kenilworth Entertainments were a turning point for Dudley- after his 1577 offer
to go on progress to the castle again was rejected, Dudley specifically disobeys
his mistress through his unauthorised marriage to Lettice Knollys in 1578. It
is worth posing the question- was Dudley even sufficiently self aware to
realise that dichotomy within the messages that he was trying to impart?
Dudley's necessity to be by the queen's side actually constrained the
possibility of military or social progression, yet the language of the
favourite was the only way for him to communicate this desire for further
advancement. Through doing so, Dudley
inadvertently rejects all that the queen has gifted him, causing silence and
upset. The Kenilworth Entertainments were built around symbolism interlaced
with the queen's own self representation; therefore Dudley's suit, which
appropriated Elizabeth's representation for his own personal gain, to the
detriment of hers, was bound to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment