edmund spenser and the development of an anglo-irish identit

8/18/2019 Edmund Spenser and the Development of an Anglo-Irish Identit

1/20

Edmund Spenser and the Development of an Anglo-Irish IdentityAuthor(s): Nicholas CannySource: The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 13, Colonial and Imperial Themes SpecialNumber (1983), pp. 1-19Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3508109 .

Accessed: 23/04/2014 10:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

to The Yearbook of English Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 186.18.213.129 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:42:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhrahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3508109?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3508109?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra


2/20

PART I

COLONIAL

AND IMPERIAL

THEMES

Edmund

Spenser

and

the

Development

of

an

Anglo-Irish

dentity

NICHOLAS CANNY

University

ollege, alway

Spenser's

View

f

the

resent tate

f

reland,

omposed

in

1596,

has

long

been

accepted

as a fundamental

contribution o

the

theory

f

colonization,

but it

has

not been

adequately

appreciated

as a

political

textbecause

commenta-

tors have

at once

exaggerated

and

diminished

ts

originality.1

he

exagger-

ation has

happened

because scholars

have

contended that

Spenser's opi-

nions

were

altogether

more advanced than

those

held

by any

ofhis

contem-

poraries

in

Ireland,

and the

diminutionhas resulted

from he attribution

f

these

advanced

opinions

to the

nfluence f

Machiavelli,

Montaigne,

Bodin,

and,

most

recently,

of Calvin.2

It

is

argued

in

this

paper

that

neither

exaggeration nor diminution is warranted; both tendencies can be

accounted

for

by

the

application

of

that

approach

to

intellectual

history

whereby

the

scholar

who

proceeds

from he

assumption

that

all

ideas

can be

traced to

a fundamental

thinker sets himself

the

task of

identifying

he

influence

xerted

by

one

of

these

great progenitors pon

his

chosen author.

This

method

has

frequently

been

challenged,

and

the

most

convincing

alternative

approach

to the

study

of

intellectual

history

has been well

demonstrated

n

Quentin

Skinner's Foundations

f

Modern

olitical

Thought.3

Here

Skinner

proceeds

from he

assumption

that all

political

theorists

re

acquainted witha broad range of deas, and thatit is theforceofcircum-

stances

which

compels

each author to select

from

hose available to him

that

body

of deas which

provides

him

with sense

of

purpose

and direction.

hus,

as

Skinner ees

it,

the ntellectual istorian

hould continue

he

effort

o

trace

influences,

ut should also seek

to

relate

ach

text o the

context

n which

t

was

produced,

with

view

to

explaining

he author's

process

of

election.4

1A

View

f

he resent

tate

fIreland,

dited

by

W.

L.

Renwick

Oxford,

970),

s referredo hereafter

s

View,

ith

age

referencesn the ext.

2

See

View,

p. 88-90o;

rendan

Bradshaw,Sword,

Word nd

Strategy

n

theReformation

n

reland',

HistoricalJournal,

1

1978), 475-502,

nd The Elizabethans nd the rish:

A

Muddled

Model',

Studies,

0

(1981),233-44.3Two volumes Cambridge, 978).

4

See

Foundations,

,

x-xv,

nd

Meaning

nd

Understanding

n

the

History

f

deas',

History

nd

Theory,

(1969),

3-53.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

2

Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irish

dentity

When

Spenser's

Views

analysed

n this ashion t

mmediately

ecomes

evident

hat

t

was

a tract

esigned

o serve he nterestsf those

ngaged

upon

the

conquest

nd

colonization

f

reland at

the

end of the sixteenth

century,

nd that he dvanced

opinion

obe found here an be

explained

by

the

peculiar,

ot o

say

precarious,

ircumstances

n which hese ndivid-

uals found themselves.

urthermore

t

becomes evident

that the ideas

expressed

here

were

the

product

f a

conscious

process

of

selection

nd

rejection

by

the

author,

nd a

glance

at the

letters

nd

political

texts

composed

by

Spenser's

English

ontemporaries

n

Ireland

hows hat

hey

resorted

o similar

deas

n

response

o

the

hallenges

hat

onfronted

hem.

This

last

observation

erives

penser

f

ny

claims

o

uniqueness,

ut

his s

still hemost

legant

nd

coherent

xpression

f

that

particular

et

of

deas

which hose ngageduponthe onquest f relandfound articularlyseful

during

he

final

decades

of the

sixteenth

entury.

ut,

as

will

be

argued,

these

deas were

considered elevant ot

onlyby

Spenser

nd his contem-

poraries

ut

by

uccessive

enerations

f

English

ettlers

n

reland,

t

least

until

he nd of

he eventeenth

entury.

hese

had resort

o

Spenser's

deas

(and they

ven referred

o and

imitated

is

View)

with

uch

frequency

hat

we

can

accept

the

deas enunciated

y

him

s

having

rovided

hem

with

n

identity

nd sense ofmoral

purpose

which

ustained hem

hroughout

he

travails

f

he

eventeenth

entury.

When

placed

under

scrutiny

t

appears

that

Spenser's

View

omprisesthree

eparate

butrelated ections. he central ection

pp.

37-95),

devoted

to

describing

he

barbaric

ondition

f

theGaelic

Irish,

has little

y

way

of

description

hatwas

not to

be

found

n

literally

cores

f

compositions

y

English

or Old

English

authors

from he time

of

Giraldus

Cambrensis

forward.

n

delineating

series

of

stages

of

social

development,

nd

in

situating

he rish

with

heir

upposedprogenitors

he

Scythians)

t the

least

developed

tage,

Spenser

was

advancing

notion

hathad

become

commonplace

mong

those

ngaged

upon

the

conquest

f

reland

for

he

previous

hirty

ears.s

Of morerecent

doption

mong

English

ettlers

n

Ireland was the contentionhatmostof the Old Englishpopulationhad

degenerated

rom

heir

riginalplacing

of about

midway

n

the scale of

social

development

o

a

position

o

lowly

s to allow

the onclusion hat

the

chiefestbuses

which

re

now

n

that ealm

re

grown

rom

he

English,

nd

the

English

hatwere re

now

much

more

awless nd licentious

han

the

very

wild rish'

View,

.

63,

and see

p.

151).

In

making

his ssertion

penser

was

clearly ttempting

he

denigration

f

that lement

f he

population

f

reland

which

had

most

nfluence ith

he

queen

and her

government

n

England.

That he

should

seek to

do so is

consistent ithhisconcernnthefirst ection fthebook todiscredit he

s

See

Nicholas

Canny,

The

lizabethan

onquestfIreland:

Pattern

stablished,

565-76

Brighton,

976),

pp.

I16-36.




4/20

NICHOLAS

CANNY

3

policy

favoured

by

the

Old

English

for he reform ftheirGaelic

neighbours.

But while

dismissing

the Old

English

as unfitto

undertake

any

work of

reform,

penser

also declared

as

hopeless

the reform

trategy hey

favoured,

because it failedto take

cognizance

ofthe cardinal

assumption

aroundwhich

the

View

was

organized:

that man's

social condition

is

determined

by

his

environment

p.

68,

and see

pp.

151-53).

To

seek

the

uplift

of a

socially

backward

or a

degenerate population

without

first

estroying

hose environ-

mental

factors which

imprisoned

it in

its backwardness

was,

in

Spenser's

opinion,

a futile

exercise,

and

was

more

likely

to occasion

revolt

than to

promote

social accommodation

(pp.

94-95).

Lest

any

should miss

the

driftof his

argument,

Spenser

devoted

the

lengthy

first ection of his work

(pp.

1-37)

to

demonstrating

he

specific

shortcomings fthe Old Englishreformtrategy,nd hereturned epeatedly

to these

points

throughout

his discourse.

By

sponsoring

the

regnal

act

of

1541

and

by encouraging

the

government

o

engage

in

compacts

with

Gaelic

chieftains,

he

Old

English

members

of

that

parliament

had

'instead

of

so

great

and meritorious

service as

they

boast

they

performed

o

the

king

n

bringing

all

the

Irish to

acknowledge

him

for

their

iege,

[done]

great

hurt

unto his title

nd

[had]

left

perpetual

gall

in the

mind of

hat

people' (p.

9).

This dramatic

rejection

of

developments

in

which

the

Old

English

took

pride,

and which a

recent

historian has elevated

to

the

plane

of

a

constitu-

tional

revolution,6

was

justifiedbySpenser's

assertion

that

Henry

VIII

had

inheritedfromhis

predecessor

clear title to all of Ireland

by

the

right

of

conquest,

and that

the

recognition

fthisfacthad

made the

rish

population

'bound

to

his obedience'. Now that this

reality

had been

cast in

doubt

by

the

act of

kingship,

and

now

that the

government

had

sought

to win

by

persuasion

the

allegiance

of the Gaelic

chiefs,

t was

being

suggested

to them

that

they

were bound to the

English

crown but withterms'

where

previously

they

recognized

that

their

ives,

their

ands,

and

their

ibertieswere in his

free

power

to

appoint

what

tenures,

what

laws,

what

conditions

he would

over

them,

against

which

there

could be no

rightful

esistance;

or if

there

were, he might when he would establish them with a strongerhand'

(pp.

9-I

o).

The

extension

of

the

English

common

law to

the

entire

population

of

Ireland

which

followed

upon

the

events

of

i541

had,

in

Spenser's opinion,

inflicted

further urt

upon

the

king's

nterests ecause

it

enabled those

who

bore

no

respect

forthe

common law to

exploit

its

safeguards

to

serve their

own

advantage.

Several

instances

ofhow such

exploitation

ould occur were

cited

by

Spenser,

and

almost

all of

these

related to

trial

by

ury.

This

system,

which

could

operate

successfully

n

England,

was

totally

unsuited to Irish

conditionswhere people considered themselvesbound in conscience more

by

the will of their

lord than

by

their

oaths. Under

such

circumstances,

6

Brendan

Bradshaw,

The rish onstitutional

evolution

f

he

ixteenth

entury

Cambridge, 979).




5/20

4

Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irish

dentity

Spenser

averred,

the

rish

had no

scruples

over

presenting

alse evidence or

returning

nfair

verdictswhen

this

served their

own or their

master's

ends.

As

a

consequence, Spenserclaimed,grave injustice

was

being

inflicted like

upon

the crownand

upon

English

settlers n

Ireland,

and these

examples

supported Spenser's

more

sweeping

contentions

hat each

system

f aw

was

appropriate

only

for hat

society

which

produced

it,

and that

njustice

would

invariably

result

from

any

attempt

to transfer

aw from

one

society

to

another

according

to the

simple

rule

of

right'

pp.

Io0-I

, 21-31).

Having

thus

disposed

of

the

Old

English

reform

trategy,

nd

having

dismissed

the Old

English

as

potential

reformers,

he

way

was clear for

Spenser

in the third section

of

his work

(pp.

91-170)

to

advance his own

proposals.

Like the Old

English, Spenser

stressed that the Irish

were amenable to reform, ut having rejectedthe notion that the English

common law

might

be

applied

to

them

to achieve their

regeneration

he

set

himself

o describe

how it

was

possible

'to

apply

the

people

and fit hem to

the aws'

(pp.

141-42).

The

programme

outlined

by

Spenser

involved

the

pursuit

of five

equen-

tial

processes

before the Irish

population

would attain

a

level of

social

development

sufficiently

dvanced

to enable

them

to derive

benefit rom he

English

commom

law,

the

application

of which

would thereafter

revent

them from

elapsing

to theirformer

ondition. The

first

rocess, asting

for

about eighteenmonths,was themilitary ne,wherebytheEnglishgovern-

mentwould

provide

a

force

f

Io,ooo

foot nd

I,ooo

horse which would

move

against

the

principal

seats of rebellion

in

the

country

(p.

98).

It was

recommended

that the rebel

leaders

should be

given

an

opportunity

to

submit,

but

that

no

quarter

should be

given

n

the

eventof

heir

ejecting

his

overture

for unconditional

surrender. Those

remaining

n

arms would

be

those who would

'never be

made dutiful

nd

obedient,

nor

brought

o abour

or

civil

conversation',

and

Spenser

had no

scruple

about

recommending

he

summary

execution

of

those

who

were

so

addicted

to a

licentious ife'

that

there was 'no

hope

of their

amendment

or

recovery'.

Having

said

this,

he

expressed himself satisfied that the amount of blood-lettingwould be

negligible,

nd

he

predicted,

on

the basis

of his

experience

n

Munster,

that

far

more

people

would die as

a

consequence

of he famine

which

would

result

from

the

persistence

of the rebel

leaders with

a

hopeless struggle.

Spenser

considered

this the most

unfortunate

spect

of

his

programme,

nd

he

was

clearly

moved to

pity

by

the terrible scenes

of

starvation

which

he

had

witnessed

during

the

previous

war

in

Munster,

and

which

he

graphically

described

(p.

104).

But

in

describing

this

episode

Spenser

defendedthe

actions of Lord

Grey

de Wilton,who had been accused byhis enemies ofbeing 'a bloody man'

who

regarded

the lives of the

queen's

Irish

subjects

'no

more

than

dogs'.

During

that

war,

Spenser professed,

there

perished

not

many by

the

sword',

and even then it was 'the

necessity

of that

present

state of

things

[which]




6/20

NICHOLAS CANNY

5

enforced

him

to that violence'. Since the

greatest

loss

of

life

among

the

Irish had been effected

by

the

extremity

f

famine,

which

they

themselves

had

wrought', Spenser

found ittle

difficulty

n

citingGrey's

military

ndea-

vours as an

example

of the

campaign

that he

envisaged

for all of Ireland

(pp.

104-06).

In

doing

so,

however,

Spenser

indicated how

the beneficial

onsequences

of

Grey's

actions

had

been

defeated because the

queen

had

hearkened

to

those

who criticized

his

actions,

with

the

resultthat

the noble

ord eftsoons

as

blamed,

the

wretched

eople pitied

nd

new

counsels

plotted

n

which

t

was

concluded hat

general

ardon

houldbe sent

verto all

thatwould

accept

of

t;

upon

which

ll

former

urposes

were

blanked,

he

governor

at a

bay,

and not

only

ll

that

great

nd

longcharge

which

he

had before een

at

quite

ost nd

cancelled,

ut lso

all

that

hope

of

good

which

was even t the

oor

put

backandcleanfrustrate.p. io6)

Thus,

as

Spenser

saw

it,

there

was no

point

n

the

government

ndertaking

the

war

against

the

crown's rebels

in

Ireland unless

there

was

a firm

determination o

proceed

to the second

process,

which

involved

placing

the

subdued

country

under

military

ontrol nd

introducing

English

settlers o

the confiscated ands of the erstwhile

ebels

(pp.

125-29).

The

purpose

behind the

second

process

was to

substitute new

focus

of

power

and

authority

or

he ords whose

tyrannical

ule

was

held

responsible

for

orrupting

he environment

n

which the rish

population

lived.

Existing

septs

and

kinship

groups

weretobe

dissolved,

and theIrish

population

was

to be resettled

n

seignories,

r

in

towns to be situated close to

the

proposed

fortifications.

here

they

were to be

intermingled

with

English

settlerswho

would instruct

them in

the

ways

of civil

living

and

acquaint

them

with

manufacturing

kills and

advanced

agricultural

methods. In

this

way

an

apparently

military

arrangement

could become

a

first

tep

towards

the

erection

of 'that

perfect

stablishment and new

commonwealth'

(p.

121)

which

Spenser envisaged

for

reland.

Once

organized

within this

new

framework,

penser

recommended

that

each Irishman should be sworn to thecrown,and become a pledge forthe

loyalty

of his

neighbours.

All

would

be

obliged

to

pay

a

composition

rent

to

the

crown,

which would meet the cost of

maintaining

oldiers n the

country,

and

each

province

should be

subject

to

a

president

nd council

who

would

have

responsibility

or

he maintenance

ofcivil

order.

The

people,

organized

in

hundreds,

would be

required

to 'assemble

themselves once

every

year

with their

pledges,

and to

present

themselves

before

he

ustices

of

the

peace

which shall be thereunto

appointed

to be

surveyed

and

numbered'. The

purpose

of

these

annual

surveys

was to detect

any

defectors

from

he

new

dispensation,

and

to

ensure

that

every

ndividual

would

have

a

surname

peculiar

to

himself,

s

well as

'a

certain

trade of life'.

By

thus

promoting

individualism

and

self-sufficiency,

nd

by insisting

hat

English people

be

intermingled

with

the

Irish

population,

it was

hoped

that the

Irishman




7/20

6 Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irish

dentity

would

not

only

not

dependupon

the

head

of

his]

sept

s now

they

o but

also

[would]

n

short ime earn

uite

to

forget

is

rish

nation'.

This,

t

was

believed,

would

bring

he rish o

dentify

ith heir

nglish uperiors,hus

effecting

an union fmanners nd

conformity

f

minds,

o

bring

hem obe

one

people'.7

Idlenesswas tobe

prohibited

ithin hisnew

rrangement,

nd

thosewho

had hithertoed

an

idle

ife,

r who had concentratedn

pastoral arming,

wereto devote hemselveso ntensive

arming

r

be

cutoff

y

martial

aw.

This

stage

of the

reform

rocess

would thus

open

the

way

for he

proper

development

nd

exploitation

f Ireland's natural

resources,

nd it

was

required

hat

hefirst

eneration

f

rishmen orn ntothis

new condition

wouldbe instructedt school

in

grammar

nd

n

the

principles

f ciences

..

wherebyhey

will n

short ime

row

up

to hat

ivil

onversation

hat oth

he

hildren

ill

oathe he

ormer

udeness

n

which

hey

were

red,

nd

also their

arents

ill,

ven

by

the

nsample

f

their

young

hildren,

erceive

hefoulness ftheir wn

brutish

ehaviour

ompared

o

theirs,

or

earning

ath

hat

wonderful

ower

f tself

hat t an often

nd

temper

themost ternnd

avage

ature.8

Once

this

stage

had

been

attained he

way

was

open

for

he

missionary

endeavour

f

some discreet

ministers f

their

ountrymen'

ho

by

their

mild

persuasions

nd

instructionss also

by

their

ober ife nd

conversa-

tion,maydrawthemfirst o understand nd afterwardso embrace the

doctrine

f their alvation'

p.

16i).

Finally

t

was

conceded hat

upon

the

successful

ompletion

f this

missionary

ndeavour

he Irish

population

would

have

been

sufficiently

dvancedto

appreciate

nd derive ull

enefit

from he

operation

f

he

English

ommon

aw.

The

novelty

of the

proposals

being

advanced

by

Spenser

becomes

apparent

when we

compare

hemwith

he

ssues that

concerned

olitical

theorists

n

contemporary

ngland.

Like

Spenser,

hey

onsidered eform

o

be a

worthy

bjective

f

government,

ut

heir

rincipal

oncern n

advocat-

ingreform as toupholdthe tatus uo byforestallingocialdislocation.9

Spenser

on the

otherhand

was

dismissing

he

social

order

that

he had

witnessed

n

Ireland as

unacceptable,

nd was

providing

formula

or

ts

overthrow

nd for

he rection f

new ocialorder o

replace

t.

n

doing

o

Spenser

was

recommending

nnovation s

a

desirable

nd,

and

he cited

necessity

s

a

justifiable

retext

or

mploying

uestionable

means to the

attainmentf

hat nd.

This

strictly

ecular

pproach,

which

ears

triking

resemblance

o

Machiavellian

hought,

as

provided

with

humane

ppea-

rance

by

Spenser's

nsistence hat the

employment

f

the

sword as an

V7

ew,

pp.

140-56

(pp. 153,

156).

8

View,

p.

156-59-

(P.

159).

9

See G.

R

Elton,

Reform

nd Renewal:

Thomas

Cromwell nd theCommon

Weal

(Cambridge, 1973);

Felix

Raab,

The

English

Face

ofMachiavelli

London,

I964).




8/20

NICHOLAS CANNY

7

instrument

freform

as

altogether

ess

destructive

f

human

ife han

ts

alternative,

hehalter.10

penser

lso

reiterated is claim

that

his

objective

was an

essentially

umanistic

ne,

and

his

uxtaposing

he

barbarism f

Ireland with hecivilityfEngland suggested hat twas also a Christian

objective.

By

thus

focusing

ttention

n

the

desirability

f

the

ends which

were held

in

prospect,

e

hoped

to

divert ttention

rom

ny

doubts

that

might

e fosteredverhis

citing ecessity

s

ajustification

or ction.

Then,

for

hebenefit

f

hosewhose

aintheartednesserived rom

oncern

ver

he

costs

nvolved,

penser

aid

emphasis

n thematerial

enefits hich

would

accrue

to

England,

no

less

than

to

reland,

from

he

mplementation

f

his

programme.

The advanced

haracter

f

he deas enunciated

y

Spenser

will

be

evident

from

his

nalysis,

ut t

will

now be shown hat

hese

deas

were

ommon-

place among penser's nglish ontemporariesn reland nd thattwasthe

circumstances

n which

hey

ound

hemselves hich

orced

hem o

adopt

ideas

which,

nitially

t

least,

hey

id not

find

articularly

ongenial.

Almost

very nglish-born

uthor

writing

f

reland

during

he

158os

nd

1590s

was insistent

pon

the

development

f a

clearly-defined

adical

programme

freform hich

would

nvolve

he rection f

completely

ew

commonwealth

pon

firm

oundations.

Most,

like

Spenser,

had

resort o

surgical

rhorticultural

etaphors,

ut

one

original

pirit

ikened

reland

o

an old cloakwhich

had been

patched

nd mended

o

frequently

hat t

would

bear with no furtherepairand requiredreplacement.'1 his insistence

upon

novelty

mplied rejection

f

the

conciliatory

easures avoured

y

the

Old

English

n

Ireland,

but

many

writers

ent

beyond

mplications

o

launch an

open

attack

upon

the Old

English

and

to

question

their

very

civility.

hese were mostvulnerable o attack

on

accountof

their ack

of

enthusiasm

or he

established

hurch,

ut

Barnaby

Rich,

who

had

been

berating

he

Old

English

or his ver

ince

he

i56os,

was

(and

saw

himself

to

be)

an

isolated

figure

mong

the New

English

n

Ireland.12

Then

suddenly,

n

the

158os,

ccusations uch

s

Rich

had

always

been

ssociated

with became

a

standard

ngredient

n

the letters nd

tracts f the

New

English.The most tridentritic f heOld English, gainstwhomBarnaby

Rich

soundsmoderate nd

tolerant,

as

Andrew

rollope,

who

composed

two

lengthy

racts

on

Ireland

during

the ate

158os.13

In

the

first f

these

he

proved

himself he

most

negative

ritic ftheGaelic

Irish

population,

nd

his urid

description

f

their

arbarism

ed

him

to

the

conclusion hat

hey

10

See

Skinner,

oundations,

,

128-38;

Felix

Gilbert,

Machiavellind

Guicciardini

Princeton,

965);J.

G.

A.

Pocock,

TheMachiavellianoment

Princeton,

975),

especially

p.

156-82;

View,

.

95.

11

See,

for n

example

f hemore

ommon

reatment,

he

nonymous

Discourse or he

Government

f

Ireland'

P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/87/81,

.

28).

12

See, 'Book ofBarnaby Rich on theReformation n Ireland', 1589 (P.R.O., S.P. 63/144/35,ff.

04-13);

Rich to

Burghley,

20

May

1591

(P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/158/12,

ff.

21-23).

13

Andrew

Trollope

to

Walsingham,

12

September

i585

(P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/85/39,

ff.

6'-o12r');

Trollope

to

Burghley,

26 October

1587

(P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/131/64,

ff.

20V-204r).

2




9/20

8

Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irish

dentity

were

not

thrifty

nd civil

r human

reatures,

ut

heathen

r rather

avage

and brute

beasts'

(f.

97r).

When

launching

n this

description

rollope

excluded,

n conventional

ashion,

heresidents

f

the walled towns'

from

his blanket ondemnationf he rish,buttheir xclusionwasignoreds he

proceeded,

s

whenhe remarked

fthe

Old

English

hat when

hey

might

get opportunity

they]

pared

not

the

committing

f

ny

kind

of

treason

r

mischief

nd

manifestedhemselves

o

burning

atred

nd malice

gainst

ll

the

English

nation'.

Support

or his

harge

was

provided

y

reference

o

an

onslaught

made

by

a mob

in

Waterford

'one

of the civilest

owns

n

Ireland')

upon

thewife

f irWilliam

Drury,

nd

to the

popular

xpectation

in Dublin

that

the throats

f all the

English

nationhad been

cutat

one

instant'

ff.

8v-99r).

Incidentsuch s thesewere ufficiento atisfyrollope hat he utward

appearance

of

civility

resented

y

the

Old

English

awyers

was no

more

than

a veneer

o

cloak their vil

ntent.

hose

who

attended

ervice

were

declared

hypocrites,

nd those

Old

English

fficials

ho

partook

f

ommu-

nion,

nd even

Old

English

ishops,

were

ound

nadequate

ecause

ome

of

their elatives

were

notorious

atholics.

The

advances

made

by

the

Coun-

ter-Reformation

mong

the

Old

English

ustifiedTrollope's

remark

to

Burghley,

.

204r)

thathe

would

undertake

ooner eform

f

religion

of]

a

country

mong

the

wild Irish

than

the

English

Pale',

and he cited the

chronicles

nd common

xperience'

s

proof

hat here ad

never een Irish

man n

authority

hich

pon

trialhad

proved

true

ubject'.

This meantn

effect,

laimed

Trollope

to Walsingham,

f.

9V-Ioo ),

that reland

would

never

be

reformed

ntil true

English

hearts

would]

rule

there',

nd he

called

for

he

summary

ismissal

f

all Irish

councillors,

rish

udges,

and

all

Irishofficers'

s the

first

tep

owards

eform.

But

as well

as

dismissing

he

Old

English

strategy

or

reform

nd

denouncing

he

Old

English

s would-be

eformers,

he New

English

had

come

ncreasingly

o nsist n

their

ight

o

tep

utside

he aw

when

eeking

to

implement

heir

programme.

ichard

Beacon,

who had served

with

Spenser s anofficialn theprovincialouncil fMunster, evoted nentire

pamphlet,

ntitled

olon

His Follie

Oxford,

1594),

to the defence

f

Sir

Richard

Bingham,

who

had

acknowledged

hatwhen

erving

s

president

f

Connacht

he

had

ignored

egal

niceties

to

prosecute

those

whom he

suspected

f

plotting

nsurrection

gainst

he tate.

n Beacon's

allegorical

account

of this

episode,

Bingham

n Connacht

was likened

o a Roman

general

who was

forced

y

necessity

o take

summary

ction

against

the

rebellious

Gauls

who,

f

given

time,

would

have been able to achieve

his

overthrow.

The defencefBingham ecame s importants thedefencefLordGrey

de

Wilton

to the New

English

in

Ireland,

and

the fact that one

John

Merbury,

a

captain

who

had served

under

Bingham

in

Connacht,

could

advance

rationalizations

similar

to those of

Spenser

and Beacon is

one




10/20

NICHOLAS

CANNY

9

measure

of the

popularity

these views

enjoyed

even

among

the less well

educated of the New

English. Merbury

was

concerned

with

proving

'it

necessary

to make war

in

Connacht',

and

hejustified

Bingham

in

taking

the

offensive ecause war was themeans to have thatprovince, nd her realm of

Ireland

replenished

with

people'.

'Rigour',

averred

Merbury,

hath

his

time

in

all

governments',

nd its

employment

n

the

particular

circumstances

was

justified

because

the

number

who

would suffer as 'so small

in

respect

of

the

multitude of the

rest

that

in

good

policies

and

in the

use

of

many

old

commonwealths the lives of so few

have

been

thought

well

given

for

the

preservation

of

so

many'.

Realizing,

however,

that this

secular

argument

would

provoke

moral

objections,

Merbury

posed

the

rhetorical

uestion

if

t

was

'against

Christian

policy

for he

safety

f

all

the restto

punish

by ustice

and utterly orootout a few nveterate yrants aveningrobbers and violent

murderers

f

mankind?'. The

question required

no

answer for

Merbury,

but

by way

ofconsolation for

hose whose

consciences

were not

yet

put

at

rest

he

protested

that:

If

thecustoms

hey

retend

an

standwith

ny

aw

divine,

natural r

civil,

f

hey

can

convey

nto hemselves

ny

title f nheritance

y

uccession

awful,

r

by

good

purchase

o those ands

they

laim,

say

God forbid

hey

hould

e

taken rom

hem;

yea

I

say

more

f

they

an

present

n

good

reason

and

not

as rebels

.. of

fresh

memory

t

might

e

thought rong

o take uch their

iving

rom

hem.But on

the

otherside

f

hey

whom

hey

ave

dispossessed

y

meer

wrong

make

ontinual

laim,

have the

help

of he aw on their

ide,bygood

means

repossess

heir

wn,yield

heir

duty o God firstndtoherMajesty heir rince ndcountryext.Whereforehen

say

hath God ordained her

Majesty

prince

over

them,

but

to defend hem

nd

maintain hem

n

their

ight gainst

he

destroyer?

Thus,

as

Merbury

saw

it,

the

government

was

required

by

moral not

less

than

pragmatic

considerations

to

dispense

with

due

legal

process

whenever

circumstances dictated

that this

best served

its

purpose.

'These carrion

crows

devour the

seed,

these weeds

choke

the

corn:

why

should

they

not

be

killed and weeded

out

in

time?'14

While

Merbury recognized

that

conflict

could

occur,

between the moral code

by

which

officers

f

the

crown

should

always be bound and the secular expedients that seemed to provide a

solution

to their

difficulties,

thers

did not admit of

this

possibility.

Some

even

went so far s

to

suggest

that

no tensionwould exist

as

long

as men

were

guided

by

reason

in

choosing

their

nds.

SirJohn

Perrott,

who

served

as

lord

deputy

of Ireland

in

1584-88,

remarked

that when

discussing

secular

expedients

'a man should

set aside

God,

who

in

government

dmitteth

no

policy

that is

besides,

much less

directly

against,

His

will',

but he

then

proceeded

to demonstrate that when

argued

'with

good

reason'

the

policy

that would

emerge

would

be

in

full

onformity

ith

Christian

principles.'s

14

Captain

John Merbury

on

Revolt

in

Connacht,

27

September

1589

(P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/146/57,

ff.

177-79).

15s

.C.S.,

The

Government

flreland

nderir

John

errott,

584-8

(London,

1626),

ig.

D'-D2.




11/20

So

Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irishdentity

Besides

his

concern o

dovetail henew

English

eform

rogramme

ith

Christian

morality,

errott,

gain

ike

penser

nd

his

contemporaries,

rew

attentiono thematerial

enefits

hat

wouldderive rom he

mplementationof he

programme

ndcited hese s evidence f ts

godly

urpose.

estmen

thinkthat his

call

for severe correction' e

considered

a

more cruel

sentence'than he

intended,

errott

mphasized

hat t

was

farfrom

his

purpose

to

desire

ny

expiration,

ut rather hat ll

might

e saved that

were

good

for

the

country

o be saved'.

While

stressing

he humane

considerationshat

dictated

estraint,

errott lso

conceded hatmodera-

tion was essential

because 'otherwise herewould

be such a

vacuity

of

ground

here

as

it

s

already

oo

great)

hat

your

ealm f

England hough

t

be most

populous

..

were

not

ble

to

sparepeople

to

replenish

hewastes'.

Developing hispointPerrottsserted hat

scarce

he ourth

oot

f

reland

was]

t this our

manured;

ndof hat

carce he

fourth

enny rofit

adethat he oilwould

yield,

f

hrough

reformationhe

husbandman

ight

ave

safe nd

peaceable

seboth f t ndhis

attle. nd

yet

say nothing

f

mines,

nd

a

number f other idden ommoditieshat

civil

reformed'government

ould

bring

with t.

sig.

A4,

B3)

Thus,

as

Perrott

aw

it,

nothing

houldbe

permitted

o stand

n

the

way

of

reformationecausethe

xisting

ondition f reland

was neither

odly,

or

honourable',

whereas a reformation ill

breed

competent

wealth,

and

competentwealthcontainethmen n a liking bediencewheredesperate

beggary

unneth

eadlong

o rebellion'

sig.

D').

Much the

ame

point

was

developed

y

Andrew

rollope

to

Walsingham

f.

98)

and,

as was

noted,

hisutilitarian ationalization

lso

characterized

Spenser's

text. But while it

is

possible

to demonstrate

hat several of

Spenser's

deas

enjoyed

common

urrency

mong

his

contemporaries

n

Ireland,

hemost

onvincing

vidence

hat

penser's

View

as

a

representa-

tive statement s the

striking imilarity

etweenhis

argument

nd that

developed

n

the treatise

roftus,

ivedeHibernia

omposed

by

Sir

William

Herbert, close neighbour nd fellow lanterwith EdmundSpenser n

Munster.16

Insufficiency

nd

degeneracy

f

the earlier

English

ettlers

n

Ireland was

thought

by

Herbert to be

principally

esponsible

or

the

barbaric ondition f

reland, nd,

like

Spenser,

he

advocated

thorough

conquest

ollowed

y

plantation

s the

nly

means o

achieve

regeneration

of rish

ociety.

erbert lso dentified

arious

tages

n

the

process

f

uplift,

and he

differedrom

penser

nly

n

advancing

he

missionary

ndeavour

y

two

tages.

This

was

possible

n

Herbert's cheme

ecausehe

recognized

he

possibility

f

training

missionaries

o

preach

n

the

rish

anguage

and of

translating

he

Bible

and

religious

iscourses

nto

rish.

n

recommending

this ourse f ction, nd ngivingtpractical emonstrationnhisMunster

16

Edited

by

W. E.

Buckley

London,

1887).




12/20

NICHOLAS CANNY

I

I

estate,

Herbert

made

it

quite

clear

(pp.

54-55)

that

he was

merely

xploiting

the Irish

language

as

an

instrument o hasten

the

Irish

population

to

a

level

of

civility

qual

to that of

the

English,

at which

point they

would

abandon

theirnativelanguage in favourof that ofthe

conqueror.

These few

examples

serve to

sustain the

point

that

Spenser's

opinions

were

quite

typical

of

those

engaged

upon

the

conquest

of

reland,

and also

make it clear that

the View an no

longer

be

regarded

as

the

quick

response

of

one individual to

the overthrow

by

Irish

rebels of

the

recently-established

English

settlement

n

Munster. The

elegance

of

the

discourse

suggests

that

Spenser's

View

was

composed only

after

ong

cognition,

nd

the

coincidence

of

opinion

between himself nd

his

contemporaries

n

Ireland

suggests

that

Spenser engaged

in

discussion with

his fellow

planters

and

officials

efore

he

committedhimelf opaper. The outbreak ofrebellion nMunster n 1594-95

may

have added a

new

urgency

to

the

composition

and

may

explain

its

appearance

in

1596,

but

we

can

safely

assume that

Spenser's

View,

ike

Herbert's

Croftus,

ould have been

written ven

without

he

overthrow

f

his

plantation

in

Munster:

a

suggestion

that

becomes all

the

more

plausible

when it s

recognized

that t

was the civil

Old

English

of

the

Pale,

rather han

the

rebellious

population

of

Munster,

who

were

isolated

by

Spenser

for

particular

criticism.

In

seeking

for

the context in

which

the

View

was

produced

we must

ook

therefore

eyond

the

outbreak of

rebellion

n

1594

to

seek

for a

general

breakdown of

relations

between

the

more

articulate

members of the Old

English community

and the New

English

settlers n

Ireland.

Tension

between these two

elements had

been

evident

since at

least

the

middle

decade

of

the sixteenth

century,

nd

the

Palesmen had

repeatedly

displayed

their

ability

to

exert

influence over

the

queen

and

bring

her

to

recall

a

lord

deputy

whose

policies

did

not

meet

with

their

pproval.

Such

endeavours

had

naturally

produced

friction

etween the

Pale

community

and the

English

followersof the

particular

lord

deputy,

but

did

not

have

lasting

effects,

nd successive

governors

were

forced

willy-nilly

o

combine

whatever policy they favoured for Ireland with some variant upon the

surrender nd

regrant trategy

hat

had become an

idiefixe

ith

Old

English

reformers.

his did

much to

win

the

acquiescence

of

political

spokesmen

from the

Pale with

continued

rule from

England;

the

alienation

of

the

Palesmen from

English

rule

was

also avoided

because most

administrative

and

judicial posts

in

Dublin

were held

by

people

of

rish birth

nd

because

some

English-born

officials

dentified

losely

with

the

interests

nd

ideas of

the Pale

community.

This last

development

was

facilitated

by

the

conform-

ity

of most

prominent

rish-bornofficialswith

the

established

church,

and

whatevertheirdifferences verpolicy,Old and New Englishwereunitedby

their

mutual

contempt

forthe Gaelic

inhabitants of the

island.

Interest

rather than

principle explains

the occasional

breakdown in

relations

between the Pale

community

nd

their uccession of

governors

hat

usually




13/20

12

Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irish

dentity

occurredwhen

the

governor's

all for financial

upport

from

he Pale

towards he

maintenance

f he

rmy

xceeded

he

ommunal

erception

f

what

was

ust

and

equitable.

This tensebuthighly redictable elationshipetween overnmentnd

communityuddenly ave way

n

1579

to

a

collapse

which

resulted

n

the

alienationof the

Pale

community

rom ll

English-born

ervitors

n

the

country.

Events

of

the

following ears

exacerbated

n

already

difficult

situation,

nd

by

the

mid

I58os

it

was

acknowledged y

both sides that

mutualtrust nd

understanding

ould never

gain

be

restored. ach side

strove

or he

otal

ictory

hich

ould

only

esult rom hedestructionf

he

other,

nd

it

was

against

his

background

nd in

this

tmosphere

f

mutual

recrimination

hat

Spenser's

View

nd

theother

iscourses

hat

have

been

discussedwereproduced.

Religious

onsiderations

the

ncreasing

ttachment f

English

ervitors

to

a

more

stridently

rotestant

osition,

nd the

gradual

penetration

f

Counter-Reformation

deas within he

Pale)

contributedo

the

polarization

between

overnment

nd

community,

ut f

ar

reater

onsequence

was

the

chain of

events hat followed

pon

the outbreak f

the second

Desmond

rebellion

n

I579.

Gerald

Fitzgerald,

he

fourteentharl

of

Desmond,

had

long

resented

what

he

regarded

s

the

ntrusion

pon

his

authority

hat

resulted rom he ntroductionf

provincial residency

n

Munster,

ut

he

had

studiously

eld

back from

he

brink,

nd

the

government

ad made

some tactful

ompromises

oretain is

allegiance.

Butofficialoncernwith

compromise

was

abandoned once the

earl's

cousin,

James

Fitzmaurice

Fitzgerald,

eturned rom

he continent acked

by

a

Papally

appointed

force,

nd once

the earl's

brother,

ohn

of

Desmond,

symbolized

his

rejection

f

English

ule

by

the

murder

f

Captain

Henry

Davells. Here

was

evidence,

rotested

he

English-born

fficials

n

Dublin,

f

general

evolt f

the Irish

populationagainst English

rule,

and their

case

for

a

general

conspiracy pearheaded

by

the

Pope

was

substantiated

y

theoutbreak

n

July

58o

of a

second

religiously-inspired

evolt,

his ime

within he

Pale

itself nd led by JamesEustace,Viscount

Baltinglass.17

No opportunity

should

be

ost,

t

was

averred,

omake n

example

f

hose f

English

escent

who

had

so

flagrantly

ade

manifestheir isobedience

o

the

crown,

nd

the

government

ressed

home ts

dvantage

o

track own

nd

prosecute

ll

who

had

engaged

n

the

Munster

ebellion.18

The ruthlessness

ith

which he

Earl

of

Desmond nd

his followers

ere

pursued

nd the

plans

that

were outlined

or

he

future

eorganization

f

Munster eft he ntire ld

English

ommunity

n

disarray:

irst ecause

the

clear

distinction hat had

previously

een

maintained

n

the

treatment

17

See

A

New

History

flreland,

dited

by

T.

W.

Moody,

F. X.

Martin,

nd

F.J. Byrne,

olume

im,

arly

Modern

reland

1534-169i

(Oxford,

1976),

pp.

105-15,

107.

18

For

the

government's

etermination

n

this

espect

ee

Geoffrey

enton o

Burghley,

December

1583

(P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/106/4).




14/20

NICHOLAS

CANNY

13

accorded

Gaelic

and

Old

English

lords

was now

being

suspended;

and

secondly

because the

mplementation

f

the

proposed

plantation

n

Munster

threatened

to

strengthen

he

position

of

the

New

English

in

Ireland,

thus

enabling them to challenge the dominantpositionhitherto njoyed by the

Old

English

in

parliament

and

government.

hus,

as the Old

English

saw

it,

their

very

survival as a

privileged

elite

depended

upon

their

ability

to

frustrate he intentionsof

the New

English,

and the

only

means that

they

could see to

achieving

this

was

to

seek to

discredit ll

New

English

servitors

in

the

eyes

of

the

queen.

The severe

measures

taken

by

Arthur

Lord

Grey

de

Wilton

in

the

suppression

of the

rebellions

in

both

Munster

and

the

Pale

provided

the Old

English

with an

ideal

subject

on

which

to

base

their

allegations,

and

they

pressed

also

for

n official

nvestigation

f

the

conduct

of Sir Richard Bingham as presidentin Connacht.19 The essential point

being

made

was that no

conspiracy

existed,

but that

the

Old

English

lords

(who

were

well

disposed

towards the

crown)

were

being

goaded

into

rebellion

by

the

harsh,

ill-advised,

and

frequently

llegal

actions of

English

officials nd soldiers

whose

only

concern was

self-advancement.

This

argu-

ment,

and

the

nvestigations

hat

produced

evidence to

substantiate

t,

were

pursued

with such

persistence

hatthe

New

English

were thrown ack

on

the

defensive,

and literature

such as we have

been

considering

was that

pro-

duced

in

defence

of

their ctions and

ambitions.

The

discussion

of

the context

in

which

Spenser's

View

and

other

such

works were

produced

will

explain

why

the Old

English

were isolated for

particular

attack.

But since the Old

English

had

taken

the

nitiative,

he

New

English

authors

were forced o

defend

themselves

n

the

terms hat

had

been

selected

by

their

opponents,

and

the

extent

to

which

the

terms of

the

exchange

were set

by

the Old

English

will

become

evident

from

study

of a

letter

omposed

in

1581 by

Sir

Nicholas

White,

an

Irish-born

barrister

who

served as Master of the

Rolls

during

the

late

sixteenth

entury.

Borrowing

the medical

metaphors

so beloved

by

the

New

English,

White

contended

that his

long

service

in

Ireland had

taught

him

by

experience

what

things

the stomach ofthatbody can and cannot digest'. The reform ftheGaelic

Irish

was,

he

admitted,

an

intractable

problem

that

called for

severe

measures,

and

his

purpose

in

writing

was to

persuade

the

queen

that

the

'violent and warlike

government'

which

might

be

appropriate

for he

Gaelic

Irish should

not

be extended

to

the

Old

English

population.

The

policy

being

pursued

by

the

queen's

officers

n Ireland

would,

he

averred,

exhaust

her

Majesty's

treasure,

waste her

revenue,

depopulate

the

Pale,

weaken

her

[Old]

English nobility,

hat

have been and

may

be

made

the

security

f

this

state,

leave

the wild

Irish

to their

desires

that

be

the

peril

thereof,

nd

consume

with

misery

of

the wars

her soldiers

which

she

sendeth

hither'. Of

19

On Connacht

during

his

period

ee Bernadette

unningham,

Political nd

Social

Change

in

the

Lordships

fClanricard nd

Thomond,

569-1641'

(M.A.

thesis,

niversity

ollege,

Galway,

1979).




15/20

14

Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irish

dentity

these

possible

consequences,

the

most serious

in White's

eyes

was

that

of

losing

the traditional

allegiance

of the

Old

English

nobility,

nd

he

empha-

sized 'what

a

strong garrison

without

pay

the

seed

of

English

blood

hath

made to her

crown since

their

first

lanting,

which

are easier

reformed

han

supplanted

and

more to be

esteemed

for

the

priority

f their

tenures

than

othersthat

seek

by

posteriority

o

go

before'.20

The others

being

referred

o

by

White were

the

New

English

servitors,

nd

as

well as

proyiding

details

of their

corruption

and

insensitivity,

White

questioned

tht motives

that

underlay

their

military

policy.

Those

who

advised

the

queen

'to

spare

forno cost

to translate

this

kingdom

of

the

new'

were ikened

by

White

to artisans

that

persuade

owners

of

ancient

houses to

pull

them

down for

altering

of fashion

wherein

they

seek more their

own

setting work than to do the owners' profit'As Whitewarmedto his theme

he contrasted

himself,

native

of reland

who

through

years

of service

had

proved

his concern

forhis

country,

with the New

English

malcontents'

who

would 'seek to better

[their]

state

by change',

and he

concluded

with the

aphorism

that

innovations

hath

been

in

all

ages

accounted

dangerous,

and

the busiest men

that

way

be

not the

profitablest

ministers'.

By

thus

accusing

the New

English

of

being

innovators,

White was

in

effect

dentifying

hem

with

the

political philosophy

of Machiavelli

which

he knew

to be

repugnant

to the

queen

and her

advisers

in

England.

The

queen

should,

he

claimed,

avoid committingthe governmentof Ireland 'to such as cannot govern

themselves',

est

it lose her

the

oyalty

of her

subjects;

she should

avoid 'the

rooting

out

of

ancient

nobility'

est

it

alter

the situation

whereby

he

was 'of

all

her

nobility

feared

for

ove,

and

not loved

for

fear';

she

should avoid

the

appointment

of

judges

that be

bloody'

lest

their severe

udgements

'work

things

of

dangerous

effects';

nd he

warned that

the

queen

should

above

all

avoid

extending

the uttermost

f her correction'

o those

who were

wanting

in

duty

est

it

may

so

happen

that,

thinking

ll

law were

ended,

there

might

arise other men' more difficult

o

control.

n

other

words,

while

advocating

the

merits f'a

temperate

nd

peaceable

government',

White was

hoping,

by

drawingattention o thechaos thatwould resultfromnnovation, o deflect

the

queen

from the

policy

being

recommended

to her

by

her officials

n

Ireland.

That

Nicholas White was

not alone

in

implying

hatthe

New

English

were

being guided

by

the

godless

Machiavelli

is evident

from

William

Herbert's

curt

denial

of the

charge

of

'being

Italianated',

stating

that there was

'nothing

more

swerving

from

his]

conscience

and course

of ife'.21 ut

deny

what

they

would,

the

New

English

could not conceal

the

fact hat nnovation

was

their

ambition and

necessity

their

guiding

principle,

which

explains

theirneed to argue thata policyof nnovationwas dictatedand justifiedby

20

NicholasWhite o

Burghley,3

December

581

(P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/87/55,

f.

51r-52v).

21

Sir WilliamHerbert to

SirValentine

Browne,

I

January 158/9

(P.R.O.,

S.P.

63/140/14).




16/20

NICHOLAS CANNY

15

the moral

imperatives

of

the the

particular

situation.

Then,

as if

by way

of

consolation

to

those

who were not

fully

atisfied,

he

New

English

laid

stress

on

the

material

benefits hatwould derive from

heir

hosen course of

ction,

and they ookedforward othedaywhen the rishpopulation,once relieved

from the

tyranny

f

their

ords,

would

recognise

the

good

that was

being

placed

before

them and would

thus

come to

embrace

English

culture

and

civility.

The New

English

were,

as we have

seen,

forced to resort

to

these

rationalizations

in

order to

vindicate themselves

n

the

eyes

of

the

govern-

ment

n

England,

but

t

s

also

probable

that the various

arguments

erved to

sustain

those

who

engaged

in

the

more

gruesome aspects

of the

Elizabethan

conquest.

That

the deas of

Spenser

and his

contemporaries

did

provide

the

New English with a sense of moral purpose is also suggested by the

continued

popularity

of

these

ideas

throughout

the

seventeenth

century.

John

Davies,

who

had witnessed

the

completion

of

the

conquest

and

was

responsible

both

for

arranging

a

plantation

in

Ulster and for

extending

English

common law into the

hitherto ebellious

provinces,

dhered

rigidly

to the ideas

of

Spenser

when

outlining

his

Discovery

f

the True

Causes

why

Ireland was Never

Entirely

ubdued

ntil

the commencement of the

reign

of

James

I.

Davies chose

a historicalframework

or

his

work,

nd

explained

the

failureof

all

previous attempts

to

bring

reland

to

subjection

by

reference

o

the failure of successive

monarchs to

recognize

the

parallel

between

good

husbandry

and

good

government:

For

the

husbandmanmustfirst reak

the and before

t

be made

capable

of

good

seed:

and

when t

s

thoroughly

roken

nd

manured,

f e

do not orthwithast

good

seed

into

t,

t will

grow

wild

again,

and

bear

nothing

ut weeds. So a

barbarous

country

must

be first roken

y

a war beforet willbe

capable

of

good government;

and when

t

s

fully

ubdued nd

conquered,

f

t be notwell

planted

nd

governed

after he

onquest,

t

will

ftsoons eturn o theformer

arbarism.

The first

o

recognize

the

parallel,

claimed

Davies,

was

Queen

Elizabeth,

who

duly

broke the

country

y

war and who thus made it

possible

for

him,

as

theattorney eneralofKingJames I, tosetabout planting nd governing he

country.

There was

no

doubt

in

his

mind that

the

plans

laid

by

himself

or

mixed

plantation

of

settler

and native

in

the

province

of

Ulster would

produce

a more

prosperous

and harmonious outcome

than

any

previous

effort

t

colonization

in

Ireland.

But

since

Davies,

like

Spenser,

believed the

principal

mark and effect f

a

perfect

onquest'

to be

the extension

of

laws

to

a

conquered

people',

he took

special

satisfaction

fromthe

eagerness

with

which

the

Irish

population

availed

themselves

of the

benefit of

English

common

law. Even

then,

Davies

realized that he

operated

in a

period

of

transition

nd that

it would continue

to be

necessary

for aw to

'make her

progress

and circuit

about

the

realm,

under the

protection

f

the sword

(as

Virgo

he

figure

of

Justice

is

by

Leo

in

the

Zodiac)

until the

people

have

perfectly

earned

the esson

of obedience and the

conquest

be established

in




17/20

16

Edmund

penser

nd

Anglo-Irishdentity

the hearts

f all men'.

Judging

rom

he

evidence f

mprovement

hathe

witnessed

bout

him,

Davies did not

think

t

long

before his

would

be

accomplished,

nd he looked

forward

agerly

o the next

generation'

who

would intongue ndheart, ndeverywayelse becomeEnglish; o as there

[would]

be

no

difference

r

distinction

utthe rish

ea

between

s'.22

Belying

he

ptimism

fDavies

was,however,

is

uspicion

f

losely-knit

kinship roups

he members

f

which

would

assemble nd

conspire,

nd

rise

n

multitudes

gainst

he

crown',

nd would

even

now,

n

the

time

f

peace',

hinder

an

indifferent

rial .. between he

king

nd the

ubject,

r

between

arty

nd

party,

y

reason

f

his

eneral

indred nd

consanguin-

ity'

pp.

172 73).

This,

we

will

recall,

was seen

by

Spenser

s

the

principal

obstacle

n

the

way

of

eform

n

reland,

nd

Davies's

acknowledgement

hat

Irishkinship roupswere tilldominantnparticularreas was an admis-

sion on his

part

hat

penser's

rescription

or eform ad not

beenadhered

to

n

every

etail.

This was so

obvious o

one ofDavies's

contemporaries

hat

he donned he

mantle f

Spenser

under he

pseudonym

E.S.' and

presented

ingJames

with

A

Survey

f

the

resentstate

f

reland,

nno

615.

The

purpose

of

the

author's

urvey

was

to

measure

he extent o which

Spenser's

dvice had

been

followed,

nd he

concluded,

n thebasis of

his

knowledge

f

onditions

in

Munster,

hat he

conquest

had notbeen

fully

mplemented

nd

that he

educative and

missionary spect

of the

programme

had been

totally

neglected.

This meant thatthe

indigenous

ordsstill

enjoyed

excessive

authority

ver

he

population

nd were

ble to

provide

upport

nd

patron-

age

to

seminary

riests

who,

n

turn,

were

taking

t

upon

themselves o

adjudicate upon disputes

between

he

king's subjects.

The

extension f

common

aw,

the

dvancement

f

English

o

displace

rish s the

dominant

language

f

he

ountry,

nd

the

progress

f

hereformation

n

reland

were

all

thought

o be hindered

y

these

mpediments

o

reform.

ven

more

disastrous,

n

the

opinion

f

E.S.,

was

the

decay

of

the

recently-established

plantation

n

Munster

because

the

settlers,

aving

been

situated

n an

environmenthichwas still orrupt, ad succumbed o that orruptionn

the

same

way

that all

previousEnglish

ettlers

n

Ireland

had

done.

If

anything

as

to survive f

he

Munster

lantation

t

was

essential,

laimed

E.S.,

that he ettlers

e

strictly

egregated

rom

he

natives ntil uch

time

as those

had beenfreed rom

he

yranny

f heir

ords

nd had

edmund spenser and the development of an anglo-irish identit

Documents