Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:09:04.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English catholicism and the Jesuit mission of 1580–1581

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Michael L. Carrafiello
Michael L. Carrafiello
Affiliation:
East Carolina University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historians have misunderstood the fundamental nature of the English Jesuit mission of 1580–1. Beginning with A.O. Meyer in 1916 and continuing through John Bossy and Christopher Haigh in the 1970s and 1980s, historians have mistakenly characterized this mission as essentially pastoral. They have admired the Jesuit priests for their personal courage in the face of persecution but have simultaneously criticized them for their inability to sustain English catholicism among the laity. But in fact the mission was fundamentally political in nature, and Robert Parsons in particular hoped to use the mission to return England to the catholic fold, by force if necessary. Parsons's designs on Scotland and on James VI in the early 1580s are especially illuminating in this regard. The English mission failed in this its principal goal, and the exact nature of the missioners' failure must be understood for what it was.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 761 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Father Persons' [sic] autobiography,’ in The memoirs of Father Robert Persons, ed. Pollen, J. H., Catholic Record Society, II (1906), 30–1Google Scholar. The Jesuit General Aquaviva agreed to this mission on 6 Aug. 1581, and on 23 Dec. Critton and Edmund Hay were named to it.

2 Meyer, A. O., England and the catholic church under Queen Elizabeth. Translated by McKee, J. R.. Reprint with introduction by John Bossy. (New York, 1967), p. 202.Google Scholar

3 Ibid. p. 190.

4 Meyer, , Catholic church under Elizabeth, p. 189Google Scholar. The more recent critic is Christopher, Haigh in ‘From monopoly to minority: Catholicism in early modern England’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., XXXI (1981), 135–6Google Scholar. Haigh believes that many priests remained London because they hoped to be martyred; he speaks of a ‘growing martyr cult’. He finds this inclination less than admirable because he views it as part of the failure of the English mission to devote its energy to the strongholds of existing Catholicism in the North and West. A critical reader might conclude, however, that not all of these professions for martyrdom should be taken literally and that many were uttered during times of stress and excitement. On the other hand, the priests' words and actions are both heroic and dramatic. Little wonder that this kind of drama has so coloured our vision of these priests and of early modern English Catholicism. Meyer, for instance, could not help but admire them.

5 Meyer, , Catholic church under Elizabeth, p. 134.Google Scholar

6 Pollen, J. H., The English catholics in the reign of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1920), p. 292.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. p. 304. According to Pollen, Sander, unlike the careful and pious missionaries, was ‘the protagonist of the simple and spontaneous school of thought which preceded [Campion]. We may consider him as the last of the Pilgrims of Grace.’ Pollen also considered him the last representative of the ‘quasi-medieval mind’ (p. 306).

8 Hughes, Philip, Rome and the Catholic Reformation in England (London, 1942), p. 237.Google Scholar

9 Aveling, J. C. H., Northern catholics: the catholic recusants of the North Riding of Yorkshire, 1558–1790 (London, 1966)Google Scholar, information on the 1580–81 mission, p. 58; assessment of the missionary efforts, pp. 105–6; Aveling, Catholic recusancy in the city of York, Catholic Record Society, 1970, assessment of the missionary efforts, pp. 45, 70. A more general rendering of the above conclusions is found in Aveling, The handle and the axe: the catholic recusants in England from Reformation to emancipation (London, 1976), pp. 49–51Google Scholar; ch. 11, especially p. 52.

10 Bossy, John, The English catholic community, 1570–1850 (Oxford, 1976), p. 31.Google Scholar

11 Ibid. Bossy thinks that the gentry saw the Reformation as final and that they would not have accepted clerical domination again. It was the gentry's vision of the post-Reformation church which ultimately prevailed, giving to it an essentially ‘seigneurial’ character.

12 Haigh, , ‘From monopoly to minority,’ p. 129Google Scholar. The ‘fairy story’ in question is Parsons's ‘Storie of domesticall difficulties’, which will be discussed more completely below.

13 This line is from Haigh's follow-up article, ‘The continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation’, Past and Present, XCIII (1981), 37.Google Scholar

14 Haigh claims that Parsons was ‘aware of the [pastoral] needs of the North and West’ and therefore favoured the placement of priests in those areas [‘From monopoly to minority’, pp. 146–7]. But Parsons's reference to those regions are limited to one letter, and that letter is primarily concerned with politics and the ‘Scottish strategy’ [Parsons to the General, 21 Oct. 1581; see below, note 42]. Parsons is pre-occupied with the conversion of England in most other correspondence of this period, and he revelled in his contacts with ‘upper-class’ catholics. See below, note 52.

15 A further elaboration of this thesis is in Haigh, , ‘The church of England, the catholics and the people’, in The reign of Elizabeth I, ed. Haigh, C. (Athens, Georgia, 1987), pp. 195–220Google Scholar. Here Haigh argues that neither catholic missionaries nor protestant preachers swayed the masses so that most people wound up being unpersuaded one way or the other!

16 Patrick, McGrath, ‘Elizabethan Catholicism: a reconsideration’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XXXV, 3 (06 1984), 414–28Google Scholar. McGrath does not believe that the priests can be accused of having neglected the masses or having really ‘intended to abandon to damnation the majority of their countrymen’ (p. 426). Other assessments of the Haigh thesis include Alan, Dures, English Catholicism 1558–1642: continuity and change (London, 1983)Google Scholar, which for the most part straddles fence between Bossy and Haigh; and Rosemary, O'Day, The debate on the English Reformation (New York, 1986), pp. 134, 140–1Google Scholar, which offers rather general criticisms of Haigh's conclusions about the English Reformation.

17 It is not an exaggeration to say that they have been mesmerized by the dramatic memoirs and confessions of the missionary priests themselves. See below, note 26, for a more complete consideration of the nature of these confessions and how they must be read and understood today.

18 Other examples include Francis, Edwards, The Jesuits in England (London, 1985), pp. 20–1Google Scholar; Peter, Holmes, Resistance and compromise: the political thought of the English catholics (Cambridge, 1982), p. 36Google Scholar; and Arnold, Pritchard, Catholic loyalism in Elizabethan England (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1979), p. 189Google Scholar.

19 I am specifically thinking of Holmes, Resistance and compromise, ch. XIV.

20 Haigh, , in ‘The continuity of Catholicism’, p. 56Google Scholar, so identifies Allen, concluding that ‘The training given at Douai was designed to produce pastors, not controversialists or evangelists’. This assessment parallels Knox, T. F., The letters and memorials of William Cardinal Allen (London, 1882), especially pp. xxix–xxxiiGoogle Scholar, that Allen held off from active participation in politics until the spring of 1582.

21 Parsons, , ‘Domesticall difficulties’Google Scholar, in Pollen, , Memoirs, 64Google Scholar. Pollen provided original spelling, capitalization and punctuation; they are retained here.

22 Ibid. p. 78.

23 Quoted in Ibid. pp. 137, 141–2. These letters are also reproduced in Hicks, L.., ed., Letters and memorials of Father Robert Persons, Catholic Record Society, XXXIX (1942), 4, 7.Google Scholar

24 Parsons, , ‘Domesticall difficulties’Google Scholar, in Pollen, , Memoirs, pp. 161–2.Google Scholar

25 Ibid. p. 178.

26 Parsons, , ‘Confession of faith for the London magistrates’Google Scholar, in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, pp. 35–6Google Scholar. This confession must be read in the context of other confessions of the time which follow essentially the same formula, such as that of John Gerard [see John Gerard: the autobiography of an Elizabethan, translated by Philip, Caraman (London, 1951)]Google Scholar. First there is a profession of loyalty to the government and declaration of pastoral intent; then there is a confession of unworthiness for the high office of priesthood; this in turn is followed by a general apologia for the faith, including an endorsement of papal supremacy; finally there is a declaration to accept cheerfully whatever fate God and mortals intend for the priest. Little wonder that most historians of this century have come to sympathize with these priests; theirs is a compelling tale of bravery and sincerity. It is easy to see how catholic historians like Pollen and Hughes would be captivated by such professions of loyalty in the face of persecution, and it is equally apparent how others would view such confessions as relatively straightforward explanations of the mission's pastoral intent. But Parsons's ‘Confession’ contains more than submission and pastoral intent (see below) and therefore reminds us that our own sympathies and inclinations cannot always make sense of post-Reformation England.

27 Parsons, ‘Confession,’ in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, p. 36Google Scholar. It is worth noting that this kind of militant language is not found in Gerard's several confessions of faith made during the time he was in England. On the other hand, Gerard repeatedly stated that his goal, and the goal of the mission and his Society, was ‘conversion’, i.e. ‘ I want the whole of England to return to Rome and the Catholic faith’. He also declared that he was more than willing to die for that end (John Gerard, p. 124). Priests like Gerard tried to separate politics and religion in their minds, but others who lacked the sweet temperament of Gerard, such as Parsons, made clear in their thoughts and actions that the two in fact could not be separated.

28 Ibid. p. 38.

29 Ibid. p. 40.

30 Ibid. p. 38.

31 Parsons, , ‘The entrance of the Jesuits into England’Google Scholar, in Pollen, , Memoirs, p. 194.Google Scholar

32 Ibid.

33 Parsons to Agazzari, London, 17 Nov. 1580, in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, p. 61.Google Scholar

34 Ibid. pp. 60–1. The ambassador protested because he thought that the queen had sanctioned Francis Drake's raids on Spanish vessels as a means of punishing Philip for harboring the pope's ships bound for Ireland. When the queen condemned Philip's actions, the ambassador made this reply.

35 The idea that the English catholic exiles intended a catholic re-conquest of England as part of ensuring the very survival of the catholic church has been stated most recently by Elton, G. R., ‘Persecution and toleration in the English Reformation’, in Persecution and toleration, ed. Sheils, W. J., Studies in Church History, XXI (1984), 163–87Google Scholar. Elton is quite right when he points out that the ‘spiritual heads’ of English Catholicism worked for the return, forcibly or otherwise, of England to the catholic fold and that they in no way promoted or even countenanced ‘toleration’ for themselves or for their adversaries in anything approaching the modern sense of the term. As Elton so aptly puts it, the ‘real aim’ of the exiles was always ‘total victory for Rome in England’ (pp. 182–4).

36 Parsons to Agazzari, London, 5 Aug. 1580, in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, p. 45.Google Scholar

37 Parsons to Pope Gregory XIII, London, 14 Jun. 1581, in Ibid. p. 66. The commissioners from France arrived 21 Apr. 1581 to negotiate the queen's marriage with Alençon.

38 Parsons to Allen, London, 4 jul. 1581, in Ibid. p. 72. In fact Mendoza remained in England for over two years before being re-assigned to Paris.

39 Parsons, ‘A political retrospect’ [i.e. Parsons to Henry Garnet, 6 Jul. 1603], in Pollen, , Memoirs, p. 213Google Scholar. Parsons also conveyed his continuing antipathy towards and suspicion of the new king in this letter, foreshadowing to some extent the Gunpowder plot. For more information see Carrafiello, Michael L., ‘Robert Parsons' climate of resistance and the Gunpowder plot’, The seventeenth century, III, 2 (autumn 1988), 115–34.Google Scholar

40 ‘Persons’ autobiography’, in Pollen, , Memoirs, p. 30.Google Scholar

41 Parsons to Agazzari, London, 17 Nov. 1580, in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, p. 57Google Scholar. Parsons wrote that the government was stepping up its persecutions of catholics in part because it had ‘fear of Scotland, whose King, now grown up… may be more inclined to the Catholic faith, now that a Frenchman, d'Aubigny [later the duke of Lennox], who is a Catholic, has more influence with him than anyone else’.

42 Parsons to the Jesuit General (Aquaviva), 21 Oct. 1581, in Ibid. p. 107.

43 Morton had been executed in Jun. 1581; the duke of Lennox was in the ascendance.

44 Parsons to the General, 21 Oct. 1581, in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, pp. 108–9Google Scholar. In the meantime, the priests William Watts and William Critton had indeed gone to Scotland. But Parsons was aware that the road to England through Scotland would be a rocky one. In this same letter to the General, he acknowledged that the Scots ‘have not as yet that zeal for the Catholic cause which would make them spend any money on it. They think that they are doing a lot for our cause if they put horses at our disposal and afford us some sort of protection’ (p. 113). But he was not going to allow the lack of popular support to put a halt to these Scottish plans, either.

45 Bernardino Mendoza to Philip II, 9 Feb. 1582, Calendar of State Papers Spanish, 1580–86 (C.S.P.S.), no. 212, p. 285.

46 Mendoza to Philip II, 15 May and 25 Jul. 1582, in Ibid. nos. 263, 276, pp. 362, 367.

47 Parsons, , ‘Memorial for the pope and king of Spain’, May 1582Google Scholar, in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, pp. 158–66.Google Scholar

48 James VI to Pope Gregory XIII, 19 Feb. 1584, C.S.P.S., no. 371, p. 518.

49 Also see Allen's papers in Knox, Letters and memorials of Allen. For a recent view of James's overtures to the catholics in the early 1580s, see Maurice, Lee, Great Britain's Solomon (Chicago, 1999): p. 99.Google Scholar

50 See, for instance, Haigh, , ‘From monopoly to minority’, pp. 138–9Google Scholar, who refers to a Gerard account of missionary life in East Anglia. The present author cannot agree with Haigh when he suggests that ‘if… the mission should be judged by its ability to sustain existing commitment, it [the priests’ ‘preference’ for the gentry] was a strategy for disaster, for it dictated a concentration upon the least promising areas and a neglect of the majority of Catholics' (p. 139). The assumption is faulty; the conclusion is too simplistic. Both overlook the political purposes of the mission, and of the 1580–1 mission in particular. Even Haigh acknowledges ‘the magnetic effect of London [as a] result of the Catholic communications network there’ (p. 135). Any political plans for England with continental backing would have to originate in and around the capital, and so it is logical that priests, including Parsons, would risk death by remaining there. Such a concentration of priests does not necessarily denote a ‘growing martyr cult’, either. See above, note 4.

51 Parsons to Agazzari, 5 Aug. 1580, in Hicks, , Letters and memorials, p. 44.Google Scholar

52 Ibid. p. 46.

53 The Memorial for the reformation of England was circulated in manuscript form in the 1590s; it was finally printed a century later by the protestant Edward Gee. For Parsons's view of the upper orders of society, see The Jesuit's memorial [A memorial for the reformation of England] (1690), pp. 210, 213, 222–5, 238, 255Google Scholar. Manuscript excerpts and synopses include Stonyhurst MS N-2, pp. 96–102; Inner Temple Library, Petyt MS, 538.38, no. 121; Westminster Cathedral Archives, A.5, nos. 124–126, pp. 555–62. Parsons believed that the Tudors had corrupted the sixteenth-century nobility and gentry in order to prop up their regime. According to Parsons, this debasement more than anything else had made England into the discontented land which he thought he saw in the 1580s and 1590s. This, along with the political necessity of finding a catholic ruler, was one of the principal reasons why he and the select circle of friends who viewed the Memorial in manuscript form had wished to concentrate their efforts on the upper classes since at least 1580.

54 For example, Scarisbrick, J. J., ‘Robert Parsons' plan for the ‘true’ reformation of England’, in Historical perspectives: studies in English thought and society in honour of J. H. Plumb, ed. Neil, McKendrick (London, 1974), pp. 19–42Google Scholar. This remains the best single treatment of the Memorial.

55 Parsons admitted as much in the Memorial's introduction.

56 Parsons, , Memorial, p. 204.Google Scholar

57 Ibid. pp. 29–35. Parsons had given this topic much thought. He advocated a temporary toleration or, more aptly put, ‘amnesty’ for both heretics and schismatics. He did not want to ‘press’ men's consciences for the first few years, preferring to win them over to the faith by teaching and preaching. Nonetheless, he said that he would never sanction ‘liberty of religion to live as a man will’. He also limited this ‘amnesty’ by very precise conditions and exceptions, especially when it came to the protestant nobility. If conversion and reconciliation were not forthcoming, then coercion would be used. This was the quintessential Parsons: he was willing to try any number of means to attain his end of catholic restoration, but he did not intend to be deterred from reaching that ultimate goal.

58 Ibid. p. 95.

59 Ibid. p. 232. The ‘council of reformation’ was to serve as an English Inquisition, patterned after those of ‘Spain, Italy, or Rome’ (p. 98). I t was designed to offer counsel to king and parliament while enforcing religious conformity through the establishment of seminaries and schools Once again, Parsons did not intend to be deterred.

60 Ibid. pp. 243–52. Parsons had contempt for English juries (‘twelve silly men forced to give verdict in haste’); for lawyers (‘that talk of their fees’); and for court proceedings in general (‘nothing but confusion, partiality, and rhetorical amplification’). He thought that the system victimized the innocent and defenseless. Nonetheless, he did not here propose the abolition of common law, though he would later offer a more comprehensive challenge to it in his Answere to the fifth part of the reports of Sir Edward Coke (1606).

61 Ibid. pp. 226–7, 229–30. Parsons hoped to abolish wardship and primogeniture. He also wanted to protect wives’ dowries and claims on their husbands’ goods by compelling husbands to put the dowry out to rent without being able to touch the principal.

62 Aveling, however, provides information on apparent indirect contacts between Campion and the Fawkes family, who were related to the Harringtons of the North Riding. Campion stopped at the Harrington house, Mount St. John in Felixkirk, sometime in the early part of 1581 and remained there for twelve days. See Aveling, , Northern catholics, p. 59Google Scholar. In John Gerard, p. 145, Gerard writes of his associate Fr. Richard Collins, who, it so happens, was a cousin of Guy Fawkes.

63 Ibid. The Fawkes family belonged to ‘ t h e well-to-do professional and merchant class of York’. They served as registrars and attorneys in the ecclesiastical courts of York.

64 That social status has been most recently highlighted by Nicholls, Mark, Investigating Gunpowder plot (Manchester, 1991), pp. 53–4Google Scholar. Nicholls notes that at least four men of ‘ancient and honourable’ birth were tried in connection with the plot. Nicholls goes on to describe Digby as ‘a handsome, athletic, and wealthy young Catholic gentleman’ (p. 42) and to relate his protestation at his trial that he had always loved the ‘Catholic cause’ (p. 54). Also see below. As for the possibility of direct complicity by the Jesuits in the plot, a subject which must be debated elsewhere, Nicholls nevertheless says that ‘it is difficult to believe that any one [of the three proclaimed Jesuits, i.e. Garnet, Gerard and Tesimond], with the possible exception of Gerard, was ignorant of the plotters’ intentions’ (p. 51).

65 Digby's conversion during an illness is vividly described by Gerard, in John Gerard, p. 164Google Scholar. The two became so close that they came to refer to each other as ‘brother’ (p. 166). Gerard stated later that his ‘principal friends’ were involved in the Gunpowder plot (p. 197). The quotation is from Tracts (chiefly rare and curious reprints) relating to Northamptonshire with illustrations, ‘Digby's papers found in 1675 in Charles Cornwallis' house,’ no. 4, pp. 245–7.