Sunday, March 1, 2015

Thomas Wyatt and William Shakespeare’s Forbidden Renaissance Romance

The Renaissance brought about a flourishing wave of poets. Sir Thomas Wyatt and William Shakespeare, poets with a minor time gap between them, both express their passions of a taboo love through their sonnets. Within both “Whoso List to Hunt” by Wyatt, and “Not Marble, Nor the Gilded Monuments” (Sonnet 55) by Shakespeare display their turmoil of a passionate, forbidden love that will last an eternity through their poetry. Both of these sonnets express a multitude of the same emotions that define the romance that was blossomed in the late Middle Ages and thrived in the 15th century Renaissance. The Renaissance brought with it a new definition of romantic love that caused much confusion for those who were in love with someone that society would not let them be with.
These sonnets are both deeply driven by love and depict an emotional struggle in which these poets are overwhelmed by their forbidden enduring love. There is speculation that Shakespeare wrote many of his sonnets to a man, rather than a woman. Whether or not they are intended to resemble friendship or a romantic relationship is unknown. This sonnet can be evidence of a homosexual romantic relationship that society forbids. The subject of this poem is not personified with pronouns but the only diction in the poem is rather masculine: princes, stone, war, masonry, mars, swords, fire. This diction can lead readers to believe the subject is a man. The love Shakespeare bears for the subject is also evident. Shakespeare tells his love that they shine more bright in the contents of his sonnet because they will not be deteriorated over time (3-4). He is expressing that the person he loves is so perfect at this moment, that the only way to encapsulate them is in writing, for if he did not save them in the writing, they would become victim to time. Because their perfection is captured in the writing, they will outlive marble, gilded monuments, princes, wars, and death.
Rather than boldly stating the subject will outlive all these elements, Wyatt expresses his love’s eternal perfection in his sonnet in another way. Like Shakespeare’s love, Wyatt’s is also forbidden. There is some guesswork that the subject of Wyatt’s sonnet is about the late Queen Anne Boleyn, with whom he had brief romantic relationship with before she married the king. Because of her premature death, Wyatt could have written this sonnet about her to encapsulate her in writing as well. It is known that he was madly in love with her. The sonnet is a metaphor of a love chase, rather than a hunt. “Whoso list to hunt, I know where is an hind” (1) infers that many hunt the subject, be Wyatt knows her better because he romantically loves her. It is also evident that he loves her because he makes mention to the fact that she cannot be had. Both of these sonnets exhibit the idea of new romance and passion that evolved in the Renaissance and complicated with a forbidden love.
The Renaissance’s social code required marriages to be arranged and only between a man and a woman. With the strife of arranged marriages still being prevalent in the Renaissance, the difficulty of not being able to be with the one you love is evident within these sonnets. Not only are marriages arranged, they are only to be between man and woman. Shakespeare’s lines “So, till the judgment that yourself arise, You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes” (13-14) reveal that he is dwelling in the eyes of his lover that he may not have. If he is dwelling, it does not reveal positive connotations. He must not be able to have his love if he can only dwell in their eyes until he dies. If this sonnet is written for a man, the taboo on homosexuality during the Renaissance could be the factor that is keeping them apart. It is very obvious that Wyatt cannot have the subject of his sonnet as well. He cannot have her because she belongs to the king (13). Shakespeare cannot be with his love because he is a man, while Wyatt cannot have his because she belongs to the king. Arranged marriages and homosexuality restrictions were abundant so the struggle of loving someone with the new romance ideas was more troubling than ever during this time.
“Til’ death do us part” is typical within wedding vows, although within these sonnets, the love lasts through death and through many other trails. Within both of these sonnets, the love is not just temporary, but everlasting. The love the writers bear for the subject will not be forgotten in time. Shakespeare states that his love will outlast “marble and gilded monuments” (1), that princes will die before it dies (2), and that sluttish time will not destroy it (4). He makes it very clear that time is no obstacle for his love. It is, however, less plain that Wyatt also means for his love to endure forever. By stating “and graven with diamonds in letters plain” (11), Wyatt infers that his love and the letters that keep his love from him are etched into diamonds. Diamonds are earth’s strongest mineral; the words would not fade in time. They are forever engraved. He is incessantly in love with her and she is forever not allowed to be his (13). Renaissance romance indulges in not just temporary love, but a love which can also be a great struggle.
The struggle within the sonnets is caused because they love someone that they cannot have. Because they love their subject so much and will for eternity, it is a struggle to prevail in the chase and in life. Within his sonnet, Wyatt is wearied so sore (3), wearied mind (5), and is fainting as he follows her (7). This shows us that this chase is really quite a struggle for Wyatt. He also understands the chase is in vain for he says “the vain travail hath wearied me so sore” (3) which could also make this rather depressing and even more of a struggle for him to continue on living. This also shows the perseverance of his love for the subject. Even though she “fleeth afore” (6) away from him and making it difficult for him, he keeps chasing. Wyatt also displays the impossibility of him capturing his love in the line “Sithens in a net I seek to hold the wind” (8). This is a direct line that compares his love to the wind: impossible to hold. Shakespeare’s struggle is not as apparent as Wyatt’s.
Shakespeare also shows the struggle within his sonnet as well. He depicts not only the struggle that the love has to prevail through time, but the struggle that the worldly elements are having in breaking the love. He says “and broils root out of the masonry” (6) and “than unswept stone, besmear’d with sluttish time” (4). The roots protrude out of the masonry which is not an easy feat for the plant; it is a struggle that the plant has which would overcome the love he bears for the subject. The unswept stone besmear’d with sluttish time is also no feat for the love he bears. It is not regular time, but sluttish time which infers that it is negative and a struggle. The struggle that time has breaking down the subject can be viewed as a metaphor for the struggle love has to prevail without being captured in poetry. Within the sonnet, the love will last forever and the struggle will not prevail. Through these lines, each of these sonnets demonstrates the struggles that Renaissance romantics had with their forbidden lovers.
            These sonnets not only a difficult struggle that lasts for eternity, they are also full of passion. The emphasis on the everlasting quality of Shakespeare’s sonnet shows passion. Rather than expressing it in one way, he shows numerous ways that the love will last. The passion continues on when he says “nor mars his sword no war’s quick fire shall burn” (7). This line is full of passion because soldiers fight with their swords with passion and fire is associated with it as well. The passion within this sonnet is evident, while it is more of a metaphor in Wyatt’s.
            Hunters are classically passionate about their sport, which indicates that Wyatt, too, has passion within his sonnet. While it is not as fierce and bold as Shakespeare’s, it is still evident. The underlying hunting metaphor within the sonnet speaks passion. The words “fleeth” (6) and “wearied” (5) are also words that can be associated with passion because fleeing takes much effort to do and if you flee, there must be passion behind it. Being weary is the end result of exerted passion. The last line within this sonnet also indicates passion as well. “And wild for to hold, though I seem tame” (14) clearly states that the subject is wild. Because this line also says she seems tame, it reassures the hidden meaning behind the hunting metaphor: passion. Renaissance romance was passionate and it is displayed within these sonnets.

            Within the fourteen lines of these sonnets, both of the authors demonstrate the turmoil and passion that Renaissance romantics had.  Because of arranged marriages, requirements of love to only be between a man and a woman, new ideas of love and romance, as well as the struggle to gain a love, these authors literate the struggle of love. Enduring love can cause passion, struggles, and despair. Shakespeare illustrates an illicit enduring love that survives all chaos of life, while Wyatt divulges the strained chase between two lovers that cannot be together. William Shakespeare and Sir Thomas Wyatt both illustrate the emotional struggle of loving someone that you can never have as long as the world exists which was a developing problem with the new romance ideas and old ways of love that were conflicting, as well as the restrictions in choice of lovers in the Renaissance. 

Major Advancements During the "Dark Ages"

Burkhardt is heartily incorrect in stating that there was little or no intellectual or cultural development in the Middle Ages. Educational developments began and more colleges and universities were founded. Church organizations changed and morphed, while trade and chivalry began to popularize.
Education was a large intellectual development that started in the middle ages. The development of Scholastic thought dominated teaching in universities from 1100 all the way until 1600. It had a strong emphasis on understanding through faith rather than reason. The discovery of classical works also became standard in teaching. Bonaventure relied heavily upon the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. Thomas Aquinas in Summa against the Gentiles writes a guide for missionaries to use when trying to convert the Muslims. The significance of this work is that it uses Aristotle logic and reason to back up its Christian demands. He uses approaches broad and significant topics systematically. Thomas Aquinas is a great example of Medieval Scholastism and educational development. More proof that education was starting to truly flourish in the Middle Ages is Dante Alighieri’s three piece epic poem. While Dante travels through the Inferno and Paradise, he runs into multiple people from history. Virgil is his guide, the classical roman historian. This work is proof that Dante was well educated in not only classical works, but contemporary (ish) ones as well. He knows of Guinevere and Sir Lancelot, Cleopatra, Saint Benedict, and many others. This Florentine’s education is not lacking. The Middle Ages truly had educational developments.
Not only did the Middle Ages have educational developments, but it also had religious (cultural) developments as well. Saint Benedict and Francis brought forth a new way of religious life by establishing their monastic orders with strict rules and ways of living. This created a culture in itself. Those who prayed now prayed without as much ‘deadly’ sin as before. They were more pious, honest, pure, and godly than their corrupt predecessors. The Abbey at Cluny is the best example of this pious lifestyle invented and perfected by these saints. In Saint Bernard’s Apologia he essentially outlines the proper way a monk should be living. He speaks against superfluity, fasting, pride, drinking, idolatry and other disturbing things that monks should not take part in and did not take part in at Cluny before it became corrupt. This defense of cultural change in Christian religious houses takes pride in its piety and good graces while belittling the ones who do not take part in the proper monastic way of life. Peter the Venerable in Miracles rebuffs Bernard’s remarks about the abbey’s poor condition. But it also shows the changes that it had to go through to become pious like it once had. Both of these monks show the importance and changes in the cultural that was practiced by the monks at Cluny. 
Another major cultural and intellectual change that came out of the middle ages is the flourishing of trade and awareness of other cultures. The crusades brought forth his major change. Because Christians were now regularly going to the Holy Land, they brought back with them goods and knowledge of the Moors, Saracens, and other Muslims. While the crusades were called by popes to save the Holy Land, others sponsored it. The Conquest of Lisbon (1147-8) is a persuasive sermon given to call people to the crusade. In it they depict the horrors that the Moors committed against the Christians and how they must be stopped. Stephen of Blois wrote a Letter to His Wife also describing the crusades and the battles that he faced. The crusades started a way of life culturally and intellectually. It saw the rise of Chivalry and Knighthood which was a major aspect of the middle ages. In Froissart’s Chronicles, he depicts the ways of knighthood and chivalry. He describes the glory that the knights brought with them from the war. This idea of glory is rooted in the crusades.
Interest in trade also developed out of the Middle Ages and crusades. Because people now know of the spices, goods, clothes, and other merchandise that resided in the east they wished to find a faster route to it. This lead to the exploration and founding of the new world. Without all the developments in the middle ages in education, chivalry, piety, and glory…. There may not have been a finding of the new world. The interest was sparked in the Middle Ages and it is important to know this because without the interest, the pursuit of these matters could have been non-existent. To say there was no development during the Middle Ages is blasphemy. As talked about in the previous essay, the development of governance in England truly started the rise of democracy with the Magna Carta as well as the People’s Republic cities in Italy. The middle ages cannot be viewed as “lay dreaming or half awake”. Indeed it was not a swift and quick as the developments made in the Enlightenment, but everything had to start somewhere!

Good Medieval Governance in England, HRE and Italy

How different were the ideals and practice of good governance and rule 1150-1450? Consider England, Holy Roman Empire, and Italy.
From the time period of 1150 until 1450 there were standards in every country in Europe that were considered for good governance and rule. Overall, these kingdoms all practiced the government and societal form of feudalism. The king ruled over his nobles while the nobles ruled over the peasants. The phrases “those who worked, those who prayed, and those who fought” rightly describes the system. The class of those who worked consisted of the peasantry; those who prayed were the clergy and church; those who fought were the kings, nobles, and lords who defended the other two classes. While each of these countries have similarities with their governance, they also have many differences. The differences between England, Holy Roman Empire, and Italy are vast and start with England’s rapid development of beuaucracy.
In England, the Christian king oversaw his entire country. Before 1150, William the Conqueror developed the first form of beurocratic governance that would hold in England for the rest of the middle ages.  The Doomsday book kept records of all the subjects, their estates, and what taxes they owed the king. Later, in 1154, Henry II came to power and instated an exchequer to keep track of the finances in the kingdom. Within the Dialog of the Exchequer, a thorough explanation of the duties explained the complex role the exchequer played in English governance. With John I, abuse of feudal rights led the barons to up rise and force John to sign the Magna Carta, a treaty between the two stating all the rights, obligations, limitations and customs that would define the relationship between the king and the nobles.  During the reign of Henry III, the English Parliament becomes a more prominent force in the government and is used more regularly. The Good Parliament of 1376 is a perfect example of how England’s medieval government functioned with a system of checks and balances by this time. The king called upon his vassals, the vessels called upon the clergy, the clergy called on the lower nobles and the lower nobles called on their subjects, all to decide whether or not they should help the king in his matters. This goes to show that the government in England relied heavily upon checks and balances between noble classes and offices (exchequer, chancellors) in order to retain peace and prosperity. If a king or noble did not do this, acting alone and wrongly, he was accused and forced to do the right thing; John I is the main example of this.
Unlike England, the Holy Roman Empire (mainly Germany at this time), did not rely heavily upon a line of succession. The nobles voted in their leader from the royal line who was not the direct heir. For centuries, the goal of this leader was to unify Germany. All the leaders were challenged with this task and all of them failed, leaving the pope and the subjects disappointed. Frederick I Barbarossa attempted to hold Italy as well as the German states which caused a great tension between the Pope and himself. In the Diet of Besancon (1157), we see the dispute between the two and the description of what a good Holy Roman Empire lord would be: dignified and honorable. Overall, good governance in the Holy Roman Empire consisted of strong lords and nobles (Princes) overseeing their counties or cities. In 1356, Charles IV wrote laws decreeing the way to choose the leader, as well as their rights, and the rights of the subjects beneath them. The Golden Bull describes the governance of the 14th century in the HRE and Bohemia. The Emperor is elected by a council of electoral princes and possesses full rights to all the mines discovered on their lands upon many other things. The electoral princes cannot be tried in their own courts, but by the Diet that was in the HRE government. Overall, the government in the HRE was much different than that of England. The Emperor was elected by princes, the princes controlled their own little territories, the diet was their form of a parliament, and they tried to rule over more than they could handle (Italy).
Italy’s governance is similar to that of the HRE in the aspect of the city governance. The HRE’s princes ruled over their cities, and the emperor over them; in Italy, local bishops or nobles ruled over a city, but no one ruled above them, save the Pope in religious matters. In Bruni’s Panegyric to the City of Florence, he depicts the way in which the city chose their leader and the goals of the government. In Florence, no one stands above the law. Like the English, the Florentines use a system of checks and Balances. Unlike England, they do not have a sole ruler. There are 9 magistrates elected for only 2 months. The goals of the government in Florence are to allow liberty to flourish and to protect its people. In Machiavelli’s opinion (On the Republic), the single ruled city republics are better than a monarchy because the people are better than princes because a prince could be corrupt while the people are good and glorious. In simple terms, princes lead to tyranny.

            The governments of England, the HRE, and Italy are all vastly different with one remaining factor: feudalism. England and Italy both practice checks and balances. Italy and the HRE elect their leaders from prestigious families. The HRE and England have a main king (Emperor) that oversees the lesser nobles while also having a parliament (diet) to oversee the laws and trials in the country. Good governance in these kingdoms all need a strong central leader, checks and balances (to some effect in the HRE with the princes checking on the Emperor), and a leader who follows the rules that the good government has in place.

The Just, Corrupt, Fair, and Tyrannical Lord Thomas Cromwell

The First Earl of Essex, Lord Great Chamberlain, Governor of the Isle of Wight, Lord Privy Seal, Master of the Rolls, Secretary of the State and Chancellor of the Exchequer are some of the many titles that Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540), a common born man, earned for himself. He appeared in the court of King Henry VIII as Cardinal Wolsey’s apprentice. This time in England was of great discord. A marriage to Catherine of Aragon for over twenty years had only produced one Tudor heir: Princess Mary. Henry was troubled at the lack of a male heir and believed the root of this problem was due to the fact that he married his brother’s wife after he passed away. Henry now sought another marriage in hopes of producing a male heir but he had to work around the Pope who refused to grant the annulment.
 As King Henry VIII’s chief minister, Cromwell ascended to his positions through determination, eloquence, and intellect. His rise to favor in the royal court transpired when he purposed the Protestant idea of the Pope not being superior to kings. This feat attained the annulment of King Henry’s marriage to Queen Catharine of Aragon and subsequently caused England to break away from the Church in Rome and Henry to be head of the new English Church. As a result of this success, Cromwell became the chief administrator for organizing the newly reformed Church of England. From 1534 until his downfall in 1540, Cromwell would be Henry’s main minister for nearly all matters. Cromwell was the most powerful man in the realm, save the king. While it is evident Cromwell had vast influence in England, it is not evident as to whether or not he used that influence for the benefit of the realm, himself, or the king. Through an examination of the dissolution of the monasteries, the reformed methods of preaching, the fall of Anne Boleyn, and the king’s marriage to Anne of Cleves, I will argue that Lord Cromwell used his power to advance both himself and his Protestant faith while securing the souls of the English people.
Many historians have debated the extent of Cromwell’s influence and for what purpose he used this influence. There are two main portrayals of Cromwell: one, a just ruler who became a martyr, and two, an ambitious and ruthless counselor to the king. Paul van Dyke notes the origins of these portrayals; John Fox categorized Cromwell as a martyr while Reginald Pole describes him as a “false counselor who helped the descent of a once innocent and pious king into tyranny, crime, and irreligion by flattering evil passions for his own gain.”[1] While Pole’s Catholicism led to this biased description of Cromwell, some historians have agreed with him in that Cromwell was indeed treacherous and deceitful. Historian Ethan Shagan, remarked that Cromwell was a stark heretic who ruled the king.[2] Contrarily, Charles Carlton considers Cromwell as one of England’s greatest statesmen.[3] G. R. Elton portrays Cromwell as a kind and caring, results-oriented minister who sought to be remembered through history.[4]
Thomas Cromwell, as the king’s chief minister, helped Henry VIII establish a Church of England independent from Rome based upon a Lutheran reformation of the English Church. Carlton views Cromwell as the “architect of the Reformation and the Tudor Revolution in government.”[5] G. R. Elton also argues that the underlying Reformation ideas emerged from Cromwell rather than the king and that those ideas embody his (Cromwell’s) view of Church and State.[6]  Elton claims that Cromwell was a devout man of the gospel and that his religion leaned on Protestant ideas that were neither desperate nor extremist but heavily emphasizing the supremacy of scripture.[7] Elton also decrees that Cromwell was sincere and sought to better the commonweal of the English.[8]
G.W. Bernard contends that Cromwell’s intentions were to benefit the king and himself rather than the realm. Bernard argues that the dissolution of monasteries, for Henry was a means emphasize royal authority, while for Cromwell it was a means to further religious change.[9] Elton agrees that there were economic incentives to the dissolution of monasteries, but that it was also a central element of Lutheran reform[10] In contrast to Carlton, Elton declares that neither Cromwell nor the king planned on retaining all the seized properties for the crown.[11] Elton believes the intentions behind the dissolution were Cromwell’s way of bringing the commonwealth to the gospel based faith.[12]
In his article, “Thomas Cromwell’s Patronage of Preaching”, Joseph Block argues that Cromwell’s control of preaching was a major part of the ecclesiastical policy that created the Church of England, and helped reform the ecclesiastical institutes and religious life of the commonwealth. Cromwell vigorously wielded his authority as a patron to fortify the voice of the government all through the kingdom.[13]  Elton enlightens us to Cromwell’s soft approach to reorganizing the realm. He says Cromwell “preached moderation, especially in innovation”[14] and warned the bishops against preaching the new teachings too radically. Elton describes Cromwell as less of a politician and more of a religious reformer.
While Elton describes Cromwell as a religious reformer, it is evident within the reform of canon law but it also required Cromwell to make political changes that enabled him to enforce the reforms; four historians have addressed the discussion of Cromwell’s involvement in the fall of Anne Boleyn. G. W. Bernard examines Cromwell’s reasons for the destruction of Anne and notes the possibility of a dispute over foreign alliance between the two; Anne favored a French alliance while Cromwell favored one with the Holy Roman Empire.[15] He also remarks that Cromwell not only brought Anne down, but also many members of the King’s Privy Council even though there was little evidence the condemned formed a coherent group.[16] E.W. Ives is certain that “Cromwell’s involvement remains a mystery” because the evidence from Chapuy’s letters is not sufficient enough to be determined as factual evidence.[17] Ives points out that there was “bad blood” between one of Anne’s accused fornicators, William Brereton, and Cromwell which could give us an explanation of why Brereton was accused. Ives also exposes the many political offices that Cromwell gained from pulling Anne out of power.[18] Retha M. Warnicke argues that Cromwell’s involvement with Anne’s fall was purely a political move toward bettering England’s imperial relations since both the King and Cromwell no longer favored King Francis, as Anne did.[19] Elton provides another prospective reason for Cromwell’s involvement with Anne’s fall.  He argues that Cromwell sought to eliminate the conservative faction at court – who were Catholics committed to a French alliance.  In the process, Cromwell could better promote an imperial alliance and Lutheran reform.[20]
            Advocacy of a German alliance prompted Cromwell to advocate Henry’s marriage to  Anne of Cleves, sister of the Duke of Cleves, after the death of Henry’s beloved Jane Seymour. Warnicke indicates that Cromwell was not Anne of Cleve’s friend and the reason for favoring the marriage was merely for the religious alliance. Cromwell sought to advance and solidify his religious ideas.[21]  Elton also agrees that Cromwell sought to create a grand northern alliance against Rome.[22]      
 Ultimately, it appears Cromwell’s own passion for religious reform and the needed alliances to advance this was the source of his downfall. Thomas Cromwell was a self-made lord with immense influence in the English realm. The fact that he controlled much of England is not disputable, but his motives for his actions while in power are. Did Thomas Cromwell use his power just to better himself? Yes, he did. Did he use it to better the king? Yes, he did. Were his choices in favor for the realm? Occasionally, yes they were. Was he a fair ruler or a corrupt tyrant? That is still open for debate. Lord Cromwell used his power to elevate himself, strengthen the king’s authority, and bring the English people to what he believed was the true faith.
Throughout this paper, there are three discussion topics: the Cromwell that helped himself, the Cromwell that asserted royal authority, and the Cromwell who was a reforming religious man. Each of these topics will be dissected by examining the four main aspects previously discussed within this paper: the reform and patronage of canon law, the Dissolution of monasteries, fall of Anne Boleyn, and arranged marriage to Anne of Cleves. By examining all of these, it is determinable that Cromwell was indeed a just, ambitious, fair religious reformer.
Because of his successful endeavor in annulling the marriage of Henry to Catherine of Aragon by creating a new church, it is only right that Cromwell was appointed to reforming the canon law in England. He assumed the posts of vicegerent in spirituals and vicar-general. These posts gave him immense power. It is typical of people in power to crave more. He assumed these positions and performed well in order to gain more promotions. He achieved the submission of the Clergy in May of 1532 and promised “in verbo sacerdotii” that the clergy would no longer attempt or create any canons or ordinances without leave of the king or his chief minister.[23] Other various reforms and proclamations were announced following this achievement which ordained that the clergy do submit to the new religious and not catholic rule of the Church in England. The royal proclamation “Enforcing Statutes Abolishing Papal Authority in England” was decreed in June 1535 which declares that the clergy of the realm have indeed agreed with the new reforms and renounced their ties with the Bishop in Rome. The end of this proclamation ends with a promise to the people of England that if they disobey and reject the king as their head of the church, they will be made and example of and punished by the just and lawful king.[24] With the official submission and proclamation to the people, Cromwell and Henry began the Dissolution of monasteries.
Cromwell was charged with the Dissolution of the monasteries to bring in more revenue. Cromwell transformed Royal supremacy into Parliamentary terms, causing Church lands to be property of the King, which in turn included the removal of many medieval features of central government. The Dissolution of monasteries was a display of power and an action to dispose of the Catholic clergy along with their wealth and power. If Cromwell achieved this for Henry, it would indeed impress the king, pushing Cromwell higher into favor. With more favor, came more responsibility. Cromwell was now charged with patronizing the preachers so they only preached what they were supposed to preach.
Even before Cromwell sought out to patronize the preachers, he was known to them. In a letter from Sir John Barkar, a priest, to Cromwell in 1531, the priest begs Cromwell for favor and offers him the price of a gelding for his assistance.[25] Later, during the final part of the Dissolution (January 1536), Thomas Prior of Christchurch in Canterbury wrote to Cromwell in thanks for restoring his brother as warden of their manors and that they have granted Cromwell as annuity of ten and if that is not what Cromwell wants, he may change it.[26] This letter is proof that Cromwell had power with the clergy of the realm. They have submitted to Cromwell and realize that he has the power to do what he wishes, so they may as well submit and let Cromwell know he can change the annuity if he wishes. On the 6th of January 1536, Roland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield wrote to Cromwell pleading for Cromwell’s help and permission to hang twenty unlawful men.[27] This is evidence that Cromwell had immense control, power, and respect of many of the clergymen in the realm. They sought to please him, get advice from them, and get permission from him to do things in the realm.
Because the much of the clergy respected Cromwell, he could use their respect to his advantage. In his letter to the Bishop of Llandaff, he writes explaining that the “people may be taught the truth, and not charged at first with overmany novelties... and remove out of their hearts the corrupt teachings of the bishop of Rome.”[28] This letter is very blunt in showing that Cromwell patronized preaching and made the clergy preach what he approved.
The parliamentary proclamations show Cromwell’s patronage of preaching and also the amount of power that Cromwell was gaining through them. His success is passing this proclamation in November of 1538 degreed there is to be no unlicensed printing of religious documents, Anabaptists could no longer be exiled, and St Thomas a Becket from the calendar.[29] This was a large feat in religious reform, which brought with it great success for Cromwell. After he wrote these laws, but right before they were passed, he was appointed to approve the new translation of the bible that would become known as the Great Bible and placed within every church.[30] This was one of Cromwell’s last great achievements before his downfall in 1540.
With one achievement after another, Cromwell gained power, reputation, and wealth. His great achievements in reform allowed him to become a great lord and without them, he may not have rose as high as he did. He used the reform to elevate himself. The letters from various clergy prove that Cromwell had power in the realm and that power was exercised in his reply to the Bishop of Llandaff. He not only used the Dissolution of monasteries and reform of canon law to elevate himself, for he also seized the opportunity when the king asked him to dispose of Anne Boleyn.
 Allied together, Cromwell and Anne climbed the courtly ladder, obtaining influence and the king’s trust. Because Cromwell secured Henry’s annulment to Queen Catherine, Henry was free to marry Anne. In time, Anne’s relationship, with both the King and Cromwell, turned sour. Imperial ambassador, Eustace Chapuys’ letters to Charles V divulge that he, Cromwell, and others used several means to promote the matter of exposing Anne’s disgrace.[31] Cromwell’s involvement is also evident in his letter to Gardiner and Wallop five days before Anne’s execution. In this letter he explains the exposure of Anne’s dirty lifestyle and his certainty that she and her brother will be found guilty. This letter is also evidence of the rewards to those who assisted in her downfall. Gardiner and Wallop are both receiving a large sum of money as well as Sir Francis Brian. Cromwell is essentially paying them off for helping him defeat the queen.
Chapuys’ letters describe the manner of the fall of Anne and what it meant to Henry. Rejoicing, feasting, and marrying Jane Seymour, was how Chapuy’s described the event.[32] Because Henry was so pleased with his new marriage, he wanted to thank Cromwell for the successful disposal of Anne. Cromwell gained personal advantage through the fall of Anne and the accused men of the privy chamber. Anne’s fall, intended or not, created a more powerful Cromwell. After her fall, he succeed her father, who had also fallen out of grace, as the first Earl of Wiltshire. He had also gained the titles of Lord Privy Seal, gave up the title of Master of the Rolls, and was raised, in yet another way, as a baron. Upon Anne’s death, he is now referred to as Baron Cromwell of Wimbledon, First Early of Wiltshire, Lord Privy Seal, as well as the other titles that he had acquired before his death. Because of the titles he received it is evident that Anne’s death created a strong Cromwell. It elevated him, which is why he brought down not only her, but her brother, father, and other men of the chamber as well. He gained their titles after they, too, had fallen out of grace with the king.
Cromwell’s involvement in the arrangement of the marriage of Henry to Anne of Cleves was very prominent. In his letters, he writes to Christopher Mont and Thomas Paynell charging them with the duty of delivering messages to the Duke of Cleves.[33] His is in charge of this matter and it is not disputable. The failure of the marriage of Henry to Anne of Cleves is seen as Cromwell reaching too far for himself and his religious reforms. Although, during the first few months of the marriage, while it was still successful, Cromwell was appointed as Great Chamberlain of England, Earl of Essex.[34] This initial success aided Cromwell, yet again, and had him promoted to the highest status in England, save the king. Many historians debate whether or not it was the failure of this marriage that was Cromwell’s ultimate demise. Warnicke blames Cromwell’s fall and execution on the fact that he exposed the king’s sexual problems to the lord chamberlain and, indirectly, Anne herself.[35] Elton states that Cromwell’s downfall came not from the mistake of arranging this marriage, but from the exposure of many other things he had done wrong.[36] The marriage did ultimately fail and create a domino effect that allowed Cromwell’s enemies to expose him of high treason and heresy, causing him to lose his head.
Whether all this evidence was intended to create a more powerful, self-risen Cromwell, it did. After Cromwell’s success in gaining revenue with the Dissolution and reform of canon law, he was appointed to approve the new translation of the Great Bible and titled vice-gerent in spirituals and vicar-general. The fall of Anne Boleyn created three new, prestigious titles for Cromwell: Baron of Wimbledon, Earl of Wiltshire and Lord Privy Seal. Finally, the achievement of arranging the marriage to Anne of Cleves and Protestant alliance that came with the marriage, he was awarded the titles Great Chamberlain of England and Earl of Essex. These titles proved the Cromwell was elevated by his success in all of these matters and he did not accept the titles and pay to appease others. It brought his family wealth, land, and respect, for a time.
Thomas Cromwell was a loyal servant of King Henry. He aided Henry in all matters, especially in asserting royal authority. Henry was a king that required the attention and respect of all the great kings in history. Cromwell helped him achieve this goal through his reforms, the Dissolution, fall of Anne Boleyn and marriage to Anne of Cleves.
If anything, the Dissolution of monasteries and reform of canon law was an assertion of royal authority. With the submission of the clergy,[37] Henry’s royal authority was higher than any king before him. Because Cromwell was the chief minister in getting the clergy to submit, he is responsible for this assertion of authority. Later that year, Cromwell called a parliament and passed the Treasons Act of 1534.[38] Within the act he truly asserted and defined royal supremacy.
“if any person or persons…do maliciously wish, will or desire by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent, practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the king's most royal person, the queen's or the heirs apparent [Elizabeth], or to deprive them of any of their dignity, title or name of their royal estates, or slanderously and maliciously publish and pronounce, by express writing or words, that the king should be heretic, schismatic, tyrant, infidel or usurper of the crown.”[39]
This act stated royal supremacy and decreed that anyone speaking out against the king, queen, or heir in any sort of way would be found guilty of treason. Cromwell truly affirmed the king’s absolute authority and supremacy that cannot be spoken against because of this act.
The Dissolution, too, was a mighty show of strength. Cromwell brought forth much revenue for Henry to fund his passions: wars and new buildings. Not only was the Dissolution a show of strength and authority, but the reaction to the rebels who opposed the Dissolution. Henry’s authority and command crushed them. Because Cromwell was the vice-gerent of spirituals, it was his duty to get the canon law reformed and make sure the preachers preach what was approved by the king.  Through these spiritual affairs, Cromwell not only gained for himself political power and respect, but he also elevated and exposed Henry’s royal authority in the realm.
Through the Dissolution, the king’s coffer grew exponentially. In Chapuy’s letter to the Emperor, he explains to the Emperor that the king and council are suppressing over 300 churches that should “bring in revenue of 120,000 ducats. The silver plate, chalices, and reliquaries, the church ornaments, bells, lead from the roofs, cattle, and furniture belonging to them” will all come to the king.[40] Cromwell succeeded in gaining much wealth for Henry, which allowed Henry to live a lavish lifestyle that a king should live. Although, because the money from the Dissolution went to the king’s coffer rather than education and charity, as Henry’s new Queen, Anne, caused a conflict between the king, his minister, and the herself.
Anne Boleyn reached too far, had humiliated Henry in multiple ways and was about to become a hopeless cause. After Anne Boleyn fell out of grace with the king, Cromwell was appointed to dispose of her. The power that the king bestowed upon Cromwell to perform this action was immense. He charged Cromwell with proving to the country and world that the king can do as he pleases. He will destroy anyone who does not satisfy him. Chapuys’ letters describe the manner of the fall of Anne and what it meant to Henry. Immediately, the king feasts and rejoices and only a few months later, officially marries Lady Jane Seymour. He is rejoicing because he and his family have “escaped the hands of that accursed whore, who had determined to poison them.”[41] Through his success in disposing of Anne, Cromwell showed everyone the power of the king. This power extended with the arrangement of a new royal wedding a few years later.
In 1539, King Henry VIII was now working on getting his fourth wife. It was Cromwell’s duty to find a suitable, royal match. Henry had tired of non-royals for wives and wished to find a wife that was. Anne of Cleves was Cromwell’s chosen candidate after two French women declined the offer. Upon Anne’s arrival to England, the King, according to Chapuys did not show any evident distaste or annoyance with the future queen. He depicts their wedding as a lush and lavish affair with “gowns of rich clothe of silver adorned with stones and pearls.”[42] The wedding itself spoke of the king’s wealth and naturally, Cromwell had to have planned it. Because the king chose to marry a woman who is over royal birth, it shows that the king is not a ditz or lustful man. He is not seeking for his own pleasure but for the pleasure of his realm’s peace and prosperity. Cromwell chose a royal alliance to elevate the king highness’s reputation in the realm and rest of Christendom.
Through all of his actions, Cromwell elevated and assisted the King Henry in many ways. He took charge of the newly reformed church canons, made sure the preachers preached what was approved to be preached, and asserted authority in the Dissolution of monasteries. These actions proved that Henry’s power in England was immense and that he intended to reform the church for not only personal reasons, but religious reasons as well. Cromwell covered Henry’s tracks in the reformation as well as in his displeasure with Anne Boleyn. Her downfall allowed the world to see the power that Henry had. That power extended yet again when Cromwell assisted Henry in finding a royal bride. While Thomas Cromwell aided the king profoundly and helped him create a powerful reputation in England and Europe, he also extended his arm to reform the religious law in England.
Above all things, Cromwell was a religious reformer. He may have been ambitious and helpful to the king, but his main purpose was religious reform. It is indisputable that Cromwell was a reformer. His reform of canon law and patronage of preachers is obvious proof of his reforms. He used the power Henry gave him to reform in protestant and nearly Lutheran ways. With the Submission of the Clergy in 1532, Cromwell was able to instate and regulate all of the reforms in the Church of England. He enforced this submission with the Treasons Act of 1534.[43] As Vicegerent and Vicar-General, Cromwell had the power to reform.
Cromwell started his process by investigating the monasteries in accordance with the Acts of Parliament. He sent envoys to “inquire into their condition both in spiritual and temporal matters.”[44] When they returned with news of misbehavior Cromwell removed and punished them accordingly. And so began this Dissolution of monasteries. The Dissolution of monasteries was started to eliminate prevalent corruption and inactivity of reformation. Cromwell asserted the power of the king and the power the king gave him in order to make sure the protestant reformation in England prevailed. The Ten Articles written in 1536 defined the new religion the country would live by under the new supreme head of the Church, the king.[45] With his new articles in tow, Cromwell proceeded in establishing the parliamentary acts. The Act Suppressing the Smaller Monasteries in 1536 suppressed all the small monasteries and ordered that the monks live a more humble life, accept and teach the supremacy of the king, and repudiation of papal claims. Overall, through the Dissolution and the reforms, Cromwell asserted his power in order to gain reform within the realm, dispose of bad clergy and instate policies that he approved of. One thing he eventually did not approve of was Anne Boleyn.
Anne began to interfere with Cromwell’s plans for reformation and revenue. Her dissatisfaction with him lead her to request her chaplain to give a sermon preaching against the kind’s ministers and council.[46] He warned the council on giving the king advice in altering ancient things and ceremonies, among other things against the council. A month and some days later, Anne was dead. Cromwell could not afford for people to speak out against him or his reforms. He got rid of her and continued on reforming as usual and officially publishing The Ten Articles. After Anne’s death he proceeded with the Dissolution, reforms and finding a new wife for the King.
It was two years after the death of the beloved Jane Seymour that Henry agreed to Cromwell’s suggestion to marry again. A royal match would be best suited for this marriage which followed two rather unsuccessful non-royal ones. Cromwell hoped the alliance with the Lutheran German princes would secure a protestant religious alliance as well. The treaty defined the marriage and alliance between England and the duchy of Cleves and promised the safe arrival of the Lady Anne, as well as her dowry provisions.[47] While this would have been a safe political and religious alliance for Cromwell, it ended six months after it was created. The end of the marriage was not hostile, for the Lady Anne humbly submitted to the king’s request for a divorce. Her response letter was gracious and understanding, yet appropriately disappointed.[48] Because of her response and the easy divorce, it is curious as to why some historians blame this failed marriage for Cromwell’s death. While it may or may not have been the cause, it was indeed enacted to retrieve a protestant alliance for England that would secure Cromwell’s reform’s, elevate him higher and assert royal authority.
  As Henry VIII of England’s chief minister in all matters from 1532 until 1540, Thomas Cromwell reformed the English Church, destroyed English monastic life, assisted in the execution of Anne Boleyn, and arraigned a royal failed marriage to Anne of Cleves. All of these events created a minister that England had never seen before. He was a powerful, self-risen, authority proving, religious reformer. He was no more a power hungry, selfish man than he was a royal brown nosing, religious tyrant. The significance of this finding is to clarify the man behind the names. Many believe Cromwell was a heretic, a tyrant, a selfish, horrible person, a terrible minister, or any of these more than the other, but in truth, he was merely a fantastic minister who did work for himself, his realm, and his religion.
 Bibliography
Primary Sources
Hall, Edward. Chronicle Containing the History of England. London: J Johnson, 1809.
Hanson, Marilee, ed., “Primary Sources: Eyewitness Accounts of People and Events in Tudor England,” EnglishHistory.net. http://englishhistory.net/tudor/primary.html, April 11, 2004.
Hughes, Paul and Larkin, James, ed., Tudor Royal Proclamations 1. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.
Institute of Historical Research ed. British History Online: Letters and Papers, Henry VIII. London: University of London, 2014.
Jokien, Anniina, ed., “The Ten Articles” in Luminarium: Encyclopedia Project, http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/, 2010.
Key, Newton and Bucholz, Robert, ed., Sources and Debates in English History: 1485-1714. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
Treasons Act of 1534, in Documents Illustrative of English Church History, ed. Gee, Henry and Hardy, William John. London: Macmillan, 1914.
Secondary Sources
Bainton, Roland H. The Age of the Reformation. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1956.
Bauman, Uwe. Henry VIII in History, Historiography and Literature. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang GmbH: 1992.
Bernard, G. W. "The Dissolution of the Monasteries." History 96, no. 324 (October 2011): 390-409. 
Bernard, G. W. “The Fall of Anne Boleyn.” The English Historical Review 106, no. 420 (July 1991): 584-610.
Bridgen, Susan. New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors, 1485-1603. London: Penguin, 2001.
Carlton, Charles. “Thomas Cromwell: A Study in Interrogation.” Albion 5, no. 2 (Summer, 1973): pages.
Clarke, Peter D. "Canterbury as the New Rome: Dispensations and Henry VIII's Reformation." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64, no. 1 (January 2013): 20-44.
Elton, G. R. “Thomas Cromwell’s Decline and Fall.” Cambridge Historical Journal 10, no. 2 (1951): 169-170.
Elton, G. R. England Under the Tudors. London: Methuen & Co, 1955.
Elton, G. R. Reform and Reformation: England, 1509-1558. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Elton, G. R. Reform and Renewal; Thomas Cromwell and the Common Weal. Cambridge: University Press, 1973.
Elton, G.R. “The Political Creed of Thomas Cromwell.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, no. 6 (1956): 69-92.
Fletcher, Catherine. The Divorce of Henry VIII: The Untold Story from Inside the Vatican. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012.
Henson, Hensley. The Church of England. Cambridge: The University Press, 1939.
Ives, E. W. “The Fall of Anne Boleyn Reconsidered.” The English Historical Review 107, no. 424 (July 1992): 651-664.
Kirby, Torrance. "Lay Supremacy: Reform of the canon law of England from Henry VIII to Elizabeth I (1529-1571)." Reformation & Renaissance Review 8, no. 3 (December 2006): 349-370.
Mosse, George L. The Reformation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
Ryrie, Alec. "Paths Not Taken During the British Reformation." Historical Journal 52, no. 1 (March 2009): 1-22. 
Shagan, Ethan H. Popular Politics and the English Reformation. Cambridge: University Press, 2003.
Smith, Herbert M. Henry VIII and the Reformation. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962.
Spitz, Lewis W. The Protestant Reformation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
Strype, John. Ecclesiastical Memorials 1. (1513-1546) Henry VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1733.
Van Dyke, Paul. “Reginald Pole and Thomas Cromwell: An Examination of the Apologia ad Carolum Quintum.” The American Historical Review 9, no. 4 (July 1904): 696.
Vella, John M. "The Centralization of Power in Reformation England." Modern Age 51, no. 3/4 (Fall 2009): 288-296. 
Warnicke, Retha M. “The Fall of Anne Boleyn Revisited.” The English Historical Review 108, no. 428 (July 1993): 653-665.
Warnicke, Retha M. "Anne of Cleves, Queen of England." History Review, no. 51 (March 2005): 40. 



[1] Paul Van Dyke, “Reginald Pole and Thomas Cromwell: An Examination of the Apologia ad Carolum Quintum,” The American Historical Review 9, no. 4 (July 1904): 696.
[2] Ethan H. Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation (Cambridge: University Press, 2003): 57.
[3] Charles Carlton, “Thomas Cromwell: A Study in Interrogation,” Albion 5, no. 2 (Summer, 1973): 116.
[4] G. R. Elton, Reform and Renewal; Thomas Cromwell and the Common Weal (Cambridge: University Press, 1973):
23.
[5] Carlton, 116.
[6] G.R. Elton, “The Political Creed of Thomas Cromwell,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, no. 6 (1956): 70.
[7] Elton, Reform and Renewal, 35-36.
[8] Elton, Reform and Renewal, 36.
[9] G. W. Bernard, "The Dissolution of the Monasteries," History 96, no. 324 (October 2011): 395-6.
[10] G. R. Elton Reform and Reformation: England 1509-1558 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), 237.
[11] Elton, Reform and Reformation, 244.
[12] Elton, Reform and Renewal, 36.
[13] Joseph Block, “Thomas Cromwell’s Patronage of Preaching,” Sixteenth Century Journal, (1977): 37-8.
[14] Elton, “Political Creed,” 76.
[15] G. W. Bernard, “The Fall of Anne Boleyn,” The English Historical Review 106, no. 420 (July 1991): 593.
[16] Bernard, 594.
[17] E. W. Ives, “The Fall of Anne Boleyn Reconsidered”, The English Historical Review 107, no. 424 (July 1992): 662.
[18] Ives, 652.
[19] Retha M. Warnicke, “The Fall of Anne Boleyn Revisited” The English Historical Review 108, no. 428 (July 1993): 661.
[20] Elton, Reform and Reformation, 219.
[21] Retha Warnicke, "Anne of Cleves, Queen of England," History Review no. 51 (March 2005): 39. 
[22] Elton, Reform and Reformation, 282.
[23] Newton Key and Robert Bucholz, ed., Sources and Debates in English History: 1485-1714 (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009) 60.
[24] Paul L Hughes and James F Larkin, ed., Tudor Royal Proclamations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964) 229-232.
[25] Sir John Barkar to Cromwell, London 10 January 1531, in British History Online: Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, ed. Institute of Historical Research (London: University of London, 2014).
[26] Thomas Prior of Christ Church to Cromwell, Canterbury 2 Jan 1536, in British History Online.
[27] Roland Lee to Cromwell, Lichfield, 6 Jan 1536, in British History Online.
[28] Cromwell to Bishop of Llandaff, London, 7 Jan 1536, in British History Online.
[29] Proclamations, 270.
[30] Proclamations, 286.
[31] Eustace Chapuys to Charles V, London, 2 May 1536, in British History Online.
[32] Chapuys to Charles V, London, 19 May 1536, in British History Online.
[33] Cromwell to Christopher Mont and Thomas Paynell, London, 10 March 1539, in British History Online.
[34] Edward Hall, Chronicle Containing the History of England (London: J Johnson, 1809) 383.
[35] Retha Warnicke "Anne of Cleves, Queen of England." History Review no. 51 (March 2005): 40. 
[36] G. R. Elton “Thomas Cromwell’s Decline and Fall,” Cambridge Historical Journal 10, no. 2 (1951): 169-170.
[37] Sources and Debates, 60.
[38] Treasons Act of 1534, in Documents Illustrative of English Church History, ed. Henry Gee and William John Hardy (London: Macmillan, 1914).  247-251.
[39] Treasons Act of 1534, in Documents Illustrative of English Church History.
[40] Chapuys to Charles V, London, 1 April 1536, in British History Online.
[41] Chapuys to Charles V, London, 19 May 1536, in British History Online.
[42] Chapuys to Charles V, Jan 1540, in englishhistory.net.
[43] Treasons Act of 1534, in Documents Illustrative of English Church History.
[44] Visitation of the Monasteries, London, 21 January 1535, in British History Online.
[45] The Ten Articles, in Luminarium: Encyclopedia Project, ed. Anniina Jokinen (2010).
[46] John Skip’s Sermon Notes, King’s Chapel, London, 2 April 1536, in British History Online.
[47] Treaty, 6 October 1539, in British History Online.
[48] Anne of Cleves to Henry VIII, London, 11 July 1540, in englishhistory.net.