INTRODUCTION

DATE AND TEXT

The first of Kyd's plays to be published was his undisputed masterpiece, The Spanish Tragedy. Most scholars date it to a period before the Spanish Armada, variously 1583–4, 1583–7, 1585–7 and 1587.1 Had it been written after 1588, they argue, it could hardly not have mentioned this famous victory in a drama that represents a war between Spain and Portugal, especially since Hieronimo presents a masque portraying three English warriors who allegedly defeated the Portuguese and Spanish forces (1.5.23–32).

In 1592 the first appearance of the text in print became the object of an extended dispute between two London stationers, Edward White and Abel Jeffes. Jeffes had got into trouble with the authorities in July, as the Court Book of the Stationers’ Company recorded on 7 August, ‘for that he contemptuously proceeded in printing a book without authority contrary to our Master his commaundement’, and for violently refusing to ‘deliver any of the Bookes’ for official scrutiny. Jeffes was ‘committed to ward’, remaining in prison until December. The book that Jeffes had been printing was Arden of Faversham, which had been legitimately entered to Edward White on 3 April 1592. White, in reply, seems to have taken the law into his own hands by printing The Spanish Tragedy, apparently from a more complete manuscript, according to the claim on the title page of the one surviving copy, now in the British Library:

The tit-for-tat nature of this dispute is shown by the fact that, on 6 October, while still in prison, ‘Abell Jeffes Entred for his copie … a booke whiche is called the Spanishe tragedie of Don Horatio and Bellimpera.’ On 18 December the Court of the Stationers’ Company punished both men:

[fol. 139r]

***

***

***

Pro <statu> gentis Anglie.

Sunt de sanctis inaudita

Cunctis <passis> in hac uita

Quemquem passum talia,

Manus, pedes, amputari

Capud, corpus, uulnerari

Abscidi uirilia.

Sis pro nobis intercessor

Apud Deum qui defensor

In terris extiteris.

Salue Symon: motet (216)

Cambridge, Jesus College, Old Library Manuscripts, Old Library, QB5, fol. 139r

*** for the sake of the English people. [5] None of the saints who suffered in this life knew any such suffering: to have hands and feet severed, head and body wounded and genitals cut off. [11] May you, who lived as our defender on earth, be an intercessor for us with God.

[fol. 162r] [Prologus.] Anno Domini M°CC° < sextodecimo quinto primo die > augusti dominus Edwardus <primogenitus regis et Gilbertus> de Clare ***c Quo peruento dominum Symonem de Monteforti iuniorem et exercitum suum in prioratu et papilionibus suis extra castrum inuenerunt inermes et dormientes. Dominus autem Symon de Monteforti in castrum cum difficultate non modica susceptus euasit. Et paucis interemptis ibidem captiuati sunt Gilbertus de Graunt, comes Oxonie, Willelmus de Mouncheinysy, Ricardus de Gray, Adam de Newmarche, Baldewinus Wake, Walterus de Colevile, Iohannes de Gray filius Ricardi de Gray, Hugo Nevill ***d quod uia pacis inueniri non potuit. Dominus rex et dominus Symon comes Leycestrie cum exercitu suo de Kemesey ante horam diei primam apud Evesham uenientes ***e circa horam diei tertiam audito de aduentu dictorum dominorum Edwardi et Gilberti de Clare et eorum exercitus qui de ciuitate Wigorniensis profecti fuerant ***f Caligauit enim terra sub nubilo et celum tenebris inhorrens inconsuetam et procellosam set breuem imbrium emisit tempestatem. [fol. 162v] <Demum declinata>g terribili tempestate predicta factus est aer serenior et aura clementior. Exeuntibus igitur domino rege et domino Symone comite Leycestrie et eorum exercitu extra uillam Eueshamie Vnfredus de Boun cum omnibus peditibus quoniam ductor eorum [erat]h constitutus in acie posteriori extra uoluntatem dicti Symonis comitis Leycestrie moratus est. Prenominati domini Edwardus et Gilbertus de Clare cum exercitu suo ut alios

The Evesham abbey miracle book

London, British Library, Cotton MS Vespasian A VI, fols 162r–183r

[Prologue.] In the year of our Lord 1265 on the first day of August Sir Edward, the king's first-born, and Gilbert of Clare *** On reaching there, they found Sir Simon de Montfort the younger and his army in the priory and in their tents outside the castle, unarmed and asleep. But Sir Simon de Montfort, with considerable difficulty, escaped into the castle. Few were killed, but Gilbert de Gaunt, the earl of Oxford, William de Munchensi, Richard de Grey, Adam of Newmarket, Baldwin Wake, Walter de Coleville, John de Grey son of Richard de Grey and Hugh de Neville were taken prisoner there *** that the ‘way of peace’ could not be found.

393. Milne to Dunlop

[Milne Mss MLN/116/3 [8]]

Halifax

1 November 1861

My dear Commodore

The Milan French Steamer sails today for Havanah via Bermuda[.] I therefore write by her instead of via New York[.]

Ariadne has no doubt fallen in with you and gone on to Vera Cruz, but with reference to any operations on that coast I have not as yet received any definite orders, but I Expect them next mail[.] I had a hint to move south towards V[era] Cruz and therefore go to Bermuda about [the] 18th unless detained by Mail from England[,] which is due here [on the] 17th[,] and if I get orders to go to V Cruz I may probably be off Havanah Early in Decr[,] but of this I would send you notice[.] France is sending 5 Frigates from Europe and some of the French Squadron on this Station will Join. Emerald I Expect Every hour and 2 Sail of the Line from England are coming to Bermuda[.] I will be obliged to leave a Squadron there to watch the American Coast. Matters with us are not so satisfactory, Therefore be on your guard, but say nothing about it[.]

Immortalite sailed yesterday for New York[.] If Lord Lyon's wishes it she will accompany the U.S. Expedition to the South. I send you a Copy of Hancock's orders1 for your information. I am not quite comfortable at having a Ship so Employed[,] dogging The Expedition[.] St. George & Mersey go to Bermuda to wait my arrival[.]

Diadem[,] Jason & Rinaldo are to remain until next mail when[,] if I have orders to move South[,] I will send one of the Ships on to Jamaica to order the Colliers to V Cruz[,] also some 500 Tons more [sic]. Provisions I will bring down[,] as much as the ships can stow.

I have no special news for you from this. we are all well …

The probable squadron for V C will be Nile[,] St. George[,] Mersey[,] Ariadne, Diadem, Challenger, Immortalite and some small vessels.

394. Milne to Lord Lyons

[Lyons Mss Box 192]

HMS Nile, Halifax

4 November 1861

[received 14 November]

Private

My dear Lord Lyons

I have been disappointed by the French Steamer of War not going to Boston as I was led to Expect, having delayed writing to you in detail with the intention of doing so by that opportunity.

Following the introduction of the 1912 Novelle, Watson perceived a change in the fortunes of the German ‘Large Navy Party’. In his view, the evident resolve of Britain to maintain her maritime supremacy in the face of the German challenge finally discredited those arguing for the further build up of the German fleet. Thus, this period sees several reports stressing the decline in the power and influence of Admiral Tirpitz and the ‘Large Navy Party’ [181, 183, 190, 205]. The chapter also includes several more reports on technical matters such as airships [179, 180, 186, 187, 188, 204] and submarines [185].

175. Hugh Watson, Germany N.A. No.49/12

Berlin, 12 June 1912

General Meeting of the German Navy League

I have the honour to forward herewith a translation of the report of proceedings at the General Meeting of the German Navy League, which was held at Weimar on the 9th of June.

2. The new demands that are presumably to be made into a propaganda are:–

• (a) Substitution of 2 Armoured Cruisers for the 2 small Cruisers of the Novelle of 1912.

• (b) Addition to the Navy by 1917 of some 5000 more Active Personnel, and 5 Armoured Cruisers.

3. The speech is reported in some Papers at greater length than in the North German Gazette. It is interesting to see how quickly the Navy League express their discontent with the Novelle; and also to see how quickly the idea of fresh Naval increases follow hard on the heels of the Naval Novelle of 1912.

4. I would submit for attention that the Meeting was attended by Representatives of the Reichs-Marine-Amt, one of whom (Kapitän zur See Hollweg) is the Head of the Admiralty Nachrichtenbureau. It will be remembered that this Bureau was recently the subject of much criticism for its political activity and manipulation of the Press. (Vide my previous Letters on this.)

5. I have before called attention to the Royal patronage the German Navy League enjoys, and to the semi-official encouragement it is reported to receive.

This chapter begins and ends in Ireland. An extract from the Irish Council register [II.14] is possible only because the MS was already in private hands when most of Ireland's public records were destroyed in 1922.

The entries which follow come mostly from the State Papers, Domestic, and concern the war with France which began in 1557. Once again, Pepys Library copies supply gaps in missing originals [e.g., II.48]; they also enable the reconstruction of a command list from two fragments of the original which had been bound in separate volumes of the State Papers [II.20], a connection which eluded the editor of the Calendar of State Papers. In contrast to the documentation of Edward's Scottish war, the correspondence here is mainly outgoing. The copies which survive in the Secretaries’ files are mostly corrected drafts; in some cases the correction is so extensive that we have supplied an additional version of the text, as presumably sent [II.22, 30]. There are only a few despatches from the commanders, mostly concerning the raids on the Breton coast which were the navy's chief contribution to this unwanted war [II.63, 70, 74].

Also included are extracts from the correspondence between the King and his agent in England, Count Feria, [II.58, 62, 65–6, 69]. These and some other entries derive from originals in the Archivo General de Simancas, mostly printed in extenso in the nineteenth century by Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, and translated almost as fully in what is commonly called the Calendar of State Papers, Spanish. All the Simancas papers used in the present volume have been checked and retranslated by Professor Rodríguez-Salgado. In the process there came to light a fleet list not in the Calendar, clearly devised before the assault on Brittany [II.55]. This supplies a gap in the English records, and is of particular interest in identifying the small Cornish ports which furnished ships and men for this little burst of licensed hooliganism. The Breton raids were in any case only a sideshow, designed to draw some French forces away from the main contest with Philip's armies in Flanders. Not much heed should be given to the Spanish denigration of the English war effort.

• 1. Imprimis, that no bishop shall make any ministers, but first shall give public notice thereof, and shall make none but such as be of his own diocese or of the universities, and that they bring with them good testimony of their conversation and former life, and shall be thoroughly examined by the bishop himself and other of the learned clergy, whether they have been students of divinity and are able in the Latin tongue to show forth the Scriptures, whereupon the articles of religion agreed upon in the synod are grounded. And that this action of admitting any into the ministry be done in public place, according to the order of the book of making of ministers in that behalf provided and established. And that none be admitted into the ministry but such as do know where presently to be placed. The bishop that will not danger his soul must be careful herein: ‘Ne cito cui manus imponas’ saith Paul, for the making of unworthy ministers hath turned to the great slander of this Church of England.

• 2. Item, that the censure of excommunication be avoided so much as may be in trifling matters, for this high censure of the church is to be executed chiefly in great and criminal causes.

• 3. Item, that no commutation of penance be used, but only by the bishop, and then when he shall evidently perceive that the offender may rather be won thereby than by corporal punishment; yet let it be known openly in his parish church that he acknowledged his fault before his ordinary, submitted himself, and given such a piece of money for the relief of the poor, as a fruit of his repentance; the whole sum whereof shall be delivered to the minister and churchwardens; they to distribute the same amongst also the poor of the parish, and to certify the bishop of their doing therein.

• 4. Item, that no dispensations for not asking banns of matrimony be granted, but under sufficient and large bonds, with these conditions following:

  • i. That afterward there shall not appear any lawful let or impediment by reason of any precontract, consanguinity, affinity or any other lawful means whatsoever.

The initial response of the British government to the conclusion of peace in October 1801 – actually, as noted in the letters, the ‘Preliminaries’, and so awaiting ratification – was, as usual, to reduce expenses [676, 685], of which the First Lord, Earl St Vincent, was an enthusiastic practitioner. But the news took almost two months to reach the West Indies, and Duckworth's correspondence continued on the same subjects as ever, notably on convoys and their escorts. Meanwhile, two developments increased interest in the region. In September the Commanderin-Chief at Jamaica, Lord Hugh Seymour, died of disease. In October a coup d’état in Guadaloupe brought Pelage to power [687]. Captain General LaCrosse was expelled from the island and was picked up by a British ship [688]. Then the news of the peace arrived [699], and LaCrosse could be sent to Europe rather than being used in vague plans to stimulate a French colonial civil war [698].

Duckworth now asked to be replaced [712, 713, not knowing that his letter crossed with one from the Admiralty appointing him as Seymour's replacement at Jamaica [700–702, 704]. This was then followed by the realisation that the French were intent on reasserting their control over all their islands and colonies, including St Domingue, by means of a major fleet sent from Brest and another from Toulon [705]. This was a typical action of Bonaparte’s, exploiting the moment between the truce and the ratification of peace – exactly the tactics he was to employ in extending his power in Germany and Italy during the interval of peace. The instant reaction in Britain was to send out a comparable fleet to Jamaica [705, 715–719], to which Admiral Saumarez at Gibraltar added four more ships when he saw a French squadron pass through the Gut [722]. In the end Duckworth commanded no less than twenty-two line of battle ships, though not for long.

He established a tenuous contact with Admiral Villaret-Joyeuse (his enemy at the First of June fight, and now commanding the French naval expedition). Even without instructions from Britain he refused to allow the French to resupply in British colonial ports [740, 741, 744]; this also evoked from the Admiralty one of the more pointless letters, surely produced for the purpose of covering the Admiralty from any future criticism [764].

These quotations appear to give an insightful picture of the narrative art of the Icelandic family sagas.

Except they do not: all these comments are about the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, written by scholars with little or no knowledge of Old Norse. Yet one only has to omit the word ‘biblical’ to repurpose them as a convincing description of the sagas. While biblical scholars have long realised that the Icelandic sagas are a useful analogue for the stories in the Hebrew Bible, this interest has not really been reciprocated. In the many discussions about the origins of the sagas and their distinctive style, biblical narrative has always been eclipsed by hagiographical and homiletic writing. In many ways, this is obvious and understandable: while the earliest manuscripts in Iceland and Norway contain homilies and saints’ lives, there is no manuscript evidence of translations from the Old Testament before c. 1300. It is less obvious and understandable why later biblical translations have been neglected, but this apparent oversight is carried over into many handbooks and companions to Old Norse-Icelandic literature, only one of which to my knowledge contains a whole chapter on the Bible. It is more usual for biblical translations to be relegated to a few pages or a brief reference in chapters on learned literature, as for example in McTurk’s Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture and, more recently, in The Routledge Research Companion to the Medieval Icelandic Sagas.

England's rulers have only occasionally resorted to sea power in their attempts to coerce their northern neighbour. England's own Conqueror did so in 1072, and was followed by Edward I, as the previous contribution has illustrated, and by the future Richard III in 1480. Where the aim was prolonged occupation, the main force always had to travel overland. But when in 1544 Henry VIII intended a swift savage attack, a seaborne strike on Scotland's capital was the obvious strategy. The political and military history of this invasion is familiar, and recently rehearsed in two valuable studies. The present collection looks at the specifically Naval aspects of the operation, which would be repeated to even greater effect in the invasion of 1547. It also focuses on the role of the newly appointed Lord Admiral, John Dudley, Viscount Lisle – best remembered as Duke of Northumberland in Edward VI's reign, but whose work for the Royal Navy is now properly credited.

This collection includes several documents here printed for the first time from the State Papers. Our knowledge of the operation as a whole derives chiefly from the MS collection of the Duke of Hamilton now in the British Library. Since these papers are already published in full transcript, only relevant extracts are printed here. Apart from the documents, the chief contemporary source is a printed tract written by an unknown soldier in the English army.

The 1544 campaign was essentially a punitive expedition, the context of which originated in Henry VIII's desire to renew his alliance with the Emperor Charles V by making war on France. An agreement for that purpose had been signed in June 1542, committing Henry to a campaign in France the following summer. The King, however, was mindful of what had happened when he had launched a similar war 30 years before. Louis XII had invoked the ‘auld alliance’ and the Scots opened a second front by invading Northumberland. This ended with the English victory at Flodden, but Henry VIII did not want the scenario repeated. His quarrel with the papacy put a further strain on Anglo-Scottish relations, since James V had refused all inducements to follow his uncle into schism. Henry therefore decided upon a pre-emptive strike in the north before committing his main army across the Channel.

This brief essay explores some central puzzles in Christian doctrine and practice. As its title indicates, it addresses hermeneutics and violence, writing and killing. It does so by attending to Jesus Christ's challenging but luminous teaching on enemy-love. And despite its brevity, it also seeks to suggest why diachronic study is as important as James Simpson has been showing for many years and across many substantial books. Purely synchronic history, encouraged by institutionalized period divisions in university departments of history and literature, diminishes our ability to understand the historical moment or writer that the synchronic specialist studies. One common consequence is the abundance of false claims about origins, innovations, and novelty. It begets an inability to discern, let alone study, the complex ways in which traditions develop, transform, and encounter rivals, either assimilating them or being defeated by them and, in the process, becoming unintelligible. Of course, diachronic work is as risky as it is demanding. The demands are obvious, but what are the risks? The risks are those of working against the specialized compartmentalizations of period and coterie boundaries. We can only be grateful that James Simpson has so exuberantly and so eruditely taken these risks.

I should also note that this essay is in dialogue with a central preoccupation of James Simpson's work from Burning to Read to Permanent Revolution: namely, the relation between the distinctive hermeneutics of the Reformation, and the practices of persecutory violence (and vehement legitimizations of such violence) germane to the period. In Permanent Revolution Simpson shows, often in dismaying detail, how the Reformation continued to produce an “unending, uncompromising, physical, cultural, and psychic violence grounded on an entirely new and revolutionary understanding of divine textuality” (p. 260). He demonstrates, as in his discussion of Bunyan's Grace Abounding (pp. 292–98), “[t]he violence unleashed by Lutheran and Calvinist reading programs,” first against Catholic Christianity but then becoming “a practice of permanent revolution, dividing Protestantism from itself much more vigorously than it divided Protestantism from Catholicism” (p. 263).

One of the most important documents to become available to Naval historians in recent years has been the memoir of Captain Alexander Grant who, as a Chief Gunner, was the Warrant Officer in charge of the armament of HMS Lion before and during the Battle of Jutland on 31 May 1916. What his account revealed was the shockingly lackadaisical manner in which ammunition was handled in the Battle Cruiser Fleet and in the Grand Fleet as a whole at the time of Jutland. This, more recent historians have argued, rather than intrinsically poor protection was the reason the three battle cruisers, Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible, blew up when hit in their ammunition systems. Only Grant's courageous insistence on proper precautions in Lion prevented the flagship and Battle Cruiser Fleet's ebullient commander David Beatty sharing the same fate. The effect of such a loss, coming in addition to the losses actually suffered, would have made Jutland even more of a disappointment than it was. It is also a sign of the less than perfect staff system in the BCF that Grant's improved system was not imposed on the other ships of the Fleet before the battle. Leaving those vessels to continue in their old and dangerous ways allowed the Germans their major successes of the engagement.

Grant came from the whisky area of Speyside in North East Scotland. Born on 7 March 1872, the son of a poor but upright miller forced into other work by ill health, Grant was able to exploit Scotland's educational opportunities before his family's financial problems forced him to begin work on the land at the age of 11. Grant's imagination was caught when a temporary farm hand who knew an old sailor in the Coastguard Station at Lossiemouth showed him a booklet about the Royal Navy. In 1888 Grant went to the Station to enlist being sent to the boys’ training ship HMS Lion on the Tamar via HMS Clyde, guardship at Aberdeen, sea passage to London and train to Plymouth. After two years of rigorous training that he always regarded as ‘most valuable’ he was drafted in 1890 to HMS Penguin, a composite sail and steam sloop being used for surveying duties on the Australia Station.

The invasion of Ethiopia – often referred to as Abyssinia at the time – in October 1935 by Fascist Italy under the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini was a major test of the League of Nations to which Ethiopia belonged. The failure of the League to protect one of its members was a major step in the decline of the League as a serious institution for the preservation of peace and a blow to the concept of collective security. The British Government and a sizeable segment of British public opinion were strong supporters of the League and a concentration of British naval forces in the Mediterranean resulted. As Malta was considered vulnerable to air attack, the majority of British naval forces were based at Alexandria. There was much talk of war should the League enact painful sanctions against Italy. Nevertheless, support of the League was not as strong as it seemed. The British Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare and his French counterpart Pierre Laval in December 1935 seemed ready to enter into an agreement with Mussolini that would have resulted in a partial dismemberment of Ethiopia, the so-called Hoare-Laval Pact. When news of this leaked out, there was great public indignation and Hoare was forced to resign, although in June 1936 he was back in the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty. Nevertheless the Hoare-Laval Pact was a preview of things to come. The League enacted sanctions against Italy but failed to enact those that would be truly effective or likely to provoke war. The French government, in theory an equally strong supporter of the League, was anxious to maintain good relations with Italy in the face of a resurgent Germany. The Fascist conquest continued unchecked and by late April 1936 the Italian army was closing in on Addis Ababa, the capital of landlocked Ethiopia. The question of the fate of Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia now became acute. At first the Emperor asked the British to ensure the safety of the Empress and his younger children and grandchildren but then extended the request for himself and a larger entourage [1, 4]. With the consent of the French government, the imperial party was to be evacuated in a British warship through Djibuti, the major port of neighbouring French Somaliland [5].