Fighting Satire with Satire: The Martin Marprelate Controversy

TItle page of Marprelate's "Epitome"

Jamie Ferrell

Professor Jennifer Miller

UC Berkeley English 115

13 December 2017

Fighting Satire with Satire: The Martin Marprelate Controversy

I. Introduction

Between 1588 and 1589, a puritan writer under the pseudonym Martin Marprelate published a series of satirical anti-Anglican pamphlets. In response, the church hired writers of a similar clever style to Marprelate, including John Lyly and Thomas Nashe, in the hopes that their work would be more engaging and effective against the anonymous dissenter. After reading about these events, I began to wonder how Renaissance satirists like Marprelate were challenged in their own witty style based on their writings, and what implications this “fighting fire with fire” method might have for the development and legacy of a genre as particular as satire. Is satire buildable?

Using the Marprelate controversy as my foundation, I will research the development of its own “response” pamphlets in order to determine how they expanded on Marprelate’s original satirical style. I will then investigate their similarities and differences through systematic close reading and comparison of Marprelate’s Epistle, Lyly’s Pappe with an Hatchet, and Nashe’s An Almond for a Parrat. I will apply my research to published responses to other popular satirical works of the day, using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to track references to dissidents the original authors may have had. Satire, itself being a popular method of response, will therefore be further investigated through careful analysis of its own responses. I hypothesize that the use of satire as a buildable medium will be evident in similarities between multiple original texts and response texts. If proven as such, this compounding of satire would have implications for the depth of the genre in its ability to respond to itself as effectively as other persuasive mediums.

II. Historical Context: The Martin Marprelate Controversy

The English Renaissance was a time of rapid expansion in literacy due to the development of printing press technology, creating a newly democratized publishing platform and preserving more diverse ideas in print than ever before. This was an ideal environment for the birth of pamphlet wars, through which people could argue with and respond to each other in pamphlets, or short books, ranging between eight and ninety-six pages. Pamphlets were often simply printed and distributed in the streets, spreading newfangled and controversial ideas among all levels of society. The most famous pamphlet war of the English Renaissance is arguably the Martin Marprelate controversy, in which a puritan writer under the pseudonym Martin Marprelate published a series of witty, satirical pamphlets dissenting with the established church and Anglican dignitaries that were quickly dispersed and consumed by the public during 1588 and 1589. The penname Marprelate, from “mar” and “prelate,” virtually summarizes Martin’s main arguments, as his primary objective was to vilify bishops and other highly ranked ecclesiastical figures. The church hired Thomas Cooper, Bishop of Winchester, to condemn Marprelate’s promotion of episcopacy and other controversial ideas in a lengthy, dull response, which received little attention and had little effect. When Marprelate responded in characteristic clever fashion to widespread public entertainment, the church commissioned other well-known writers of the day, including Thomas Nashe and John Lyly, to write response pamphlets and attack Marprelate in his own sharp style with the hope that imitating his work would attract the attention of his readers and destabilize his following.

Marprelate’s first publication, Epistle, was printed in October of 1588 in East Molesley, Surrey, at the home of Mistress Crane, a puritan religious activist. Printer Robert Waldegrave and pamphleteer John Penry, both puritan sympathizers, published the tract. Epistle was a response to A Defence of the Government Established in the Church of Englande by Dr. John Bridges, Dean of Salisbury, itself a response to other puritan writings. In this publication, Marprelate “sought to broaden awareness of the Presbyterian platform through a strategy of serious jesting…wielding the weapons of mockery, parody, [and] colloquial prose…” (Black) It received notable attention for its entertaining, clever attack of the episcopal office, a style quite startling for the time:

And Martin drew the amused attention of all classes of society by treating the Bishops, even the chief of them, with jocular familiarity... and in the glow of his just anger calling them harsh names; yet suddenly reverting to his quips and quiddities. Never, since priests had inspired awe in the minds of men by claiming the possession of supernatural powers had Bishops been so treated. Wise men saw, moreover, that the satiric humour was but an advertisement; the clanging of the bell to call attention to the sermon; that the real purpose of the tract was most serious, most grave, most undeniably religious... (Pierce 149)

The public response was such that Marprelate went on to publish Epitome in November 1588 at the home of Sir Richard Knightley at Fawsley with the continued help of Waldegrave and Penry. It contained a similar, if not more serious argument than Epistle, but once again was the subject of enough public attention that a reply on behalf of the church was published shortly afterward in January of 1589 called An Admonition to the People of England, written by Thomas Cooper, Bishop of Winchester. Cooper’s pamphlet was so long and dull that it did little more than fuel Marprelate’s fire. Penry’s press was again moved to Whitefriars, Coventry, the home of John Hales, Knightley’s nephew, and Marprelate’s response, Hay Any Work for Cooper, was published in March. It was part of a series of other “Martins” published during the next few months: Certain Mineral and Metaphysical Schoolprints, Theses Martianae, and The Just Censure and Reproofe of Martin Junior, the latter two of which were often referred to as Martin Junior and Martin Senior, respectively. Martin Junior and Martin Senior were supposed to be the sons of the original Martin Marprelate, although Marprelate himself almost certainly wrote them.

The public response to Marprelate’s controversial and scandalous rebukes of the church was sensational. Speculation about the possible author or authors was cast in all directions at every distinguished writer that had voiced opinions on church reform, and censorship of the press and search for secret presses was relentless. The government imposed harsher restrictions and dispatched spies to track the publishers and distributors of the proliferous Martins, often idling outside booksellers near Fleet Street and St. Paul’s Churchyard. Rather than quash public attention, however, this rigorous repression of Martins actually increased public curiosity and desire to purchase and read them: “they were read at Court, they were read at the universities, they were secretly sold at markets and fairs; the appearance of a fresh ‘Martin’ was an event of the greatest public interest” (Pierce 150).

It was at this point that an ecclesiastical committee led by Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, met to deliberate on more effective ways to silence and debase the Marprelate following. They ultimately decided to secretly commission several well-known writers of the day, among them John Lyly, Thomas Nashe, and Robert Greene, to respond to Martin in his own style on the church’s behalf. The first response, Pappe with an Hatchet, was likely written by Lyly and published in September 1589. It was followed by Lyly’s Rythmes against Martin Marprelate and A Whip for an Ape: or Martin Displayed, and Nashe’s An Almond for a Parrat, Mar-Martine, A Countercuffe given to Martin Junior, and Martins Months Mind. These satirical responses were received to varying degrees of success—their authors were not quite at the caliber of Marprelate’s wit.

John Lyly, grandson of famed grammarian William Lily, was a writer and playwright who accepted the church’s invitation to counter-attack Marprelate in his desire to please those in positions of authority. Despite his proliferation as a writer, he was not suited to the political satire genre. G.K. Hunter writes:

Perhaps the bishops thought that the lively satirical dialogues of the servant boys in the sub-plots of the plays provided a model he could draw on when attacking their enemies. But the effect in the plays is controlled by highly artificial, almost geometrical structures, quite opposite to the freewheeling inventiveness of Martin or Nashe. (Hunter)

Lyly’s comedic style as a playwright almost certainly ties him to the September 1589 Pappe with an Hatchet, in which he indicates disappointment about the restrictions on performing anti-Martinist plays. His ambition to write anti-Martinist discourse for the stage therefore opposed the Elizabethan doctrine that ecclesiastical matters should not be represented there. Thomas Nashe’s superior background in satire made him a more able responder to the Marprelate tracts, and although his name is attributed to multiple pamphlets, the only publication with evidenced ties to Nashe is An Almond for a Parrat, written under the pseudonym “Cutbert Curry-nave.” Despite Nashe’s opposition to Marprelate’s writings, Martin undeniably influenced his satirical style, and much public opinion actually denounced the anti-Martinists as being no better than the puritan extremists to whom they were responding.

John Penry’s press continued to operate throughout the Martin Marprelate controversy, although Robert Waldegrave, Penry’s associate, abandoned Marprelate activity in 1589 and subsequently avoided punishment. Penry himself was not so lucky; after publishing Martin Junior and Martin Senior, the government seized his press and halted the production of More Work for Cooper, a sequel to Hay Any Work for Cooper. Despite this, Penry avoided capture, even publishing the final Marprelate tract, The Protestation of Martin Marprelate, in September in Wolston or Haseley before fleeing to Scotland. However, he was eventually apprehended in London, charged with inciting rebellion, and hanged in May of 1593.

There is some evidence that Penry himself had a hand in writing the Marprelate tracts, even publishing a related pamphlet under his own name in March 1589 called View of Some Part of Such Public Wants. As a result of this and other possible leads, the true identity of Martin Marprelate is the subject of speculation to this day, but most experts attribute the controversial tracts to Job Throckmorton, an English politician with strong puritan beliefs. In October 1586, Parliament met during a religiously divisive time while England was at war with Spain, and puritans seized the opportunity to promote a Presbyterian revolution in the church. Throckmorton gained a seat in Parliament in order to present several speeches on the matter through a nefarious conspiracy described as “the most remarkable story in Elizabethan electoral history,” (Collinson) in which outside sources like the earl of Leicester supported him behind the scenes until he attained a seat. Once in Parliament, Throckmorton gave a series of contentious speeches promoting parliamentary free speech, denouncing Mary Stewart, and of course, endorsing puritanism. Evidence of Throckmorton’s involvement in the Marprelate tracts is quite abundant; not only did he live in Warwickshire, where most of the tracts were printed, but close comparison of his parliamentary speeches with the Marprelate tracts show undeniable similarities beyond those of other potential authors. Even at the time, Throckmorton was generally assumed to be the perpetrator of the Marprelate tracts, and he stood trial for his involvement in 1590. However, his social standing and legal trifles permitted him to evade the same fate as Penry.

III. Martin Marprelate’s Epistle

Martin Marprelate’s first published pamphlet was also one of his most incendiary. Epistle, published in 1588, incorporates rhetorical strategies in virtually every sentence to create Marprelate’s specific brand of provocative satire, including comments directed to individual clerics, self-referentiality, rhetorical questions, lists, repetition, anecdotes, and calls to action. A structured understanding of Marprelate’s chosen methods is a necessary precursor to evaluating the satire of his critics and how they may or may not have mimicked his style in an effort to vilify him. Epistle, a pamphlet of fifty-four pages, is characterized by a jovial and lively tone replete with point-blank insults and offensive metaphors directed at high-ranking members of church, whom he repeatedly accuses of being “pettie popes and pettie antichrists.” The pamphlet casts formalities aside as it caters to readers of virtually any social class.

Marprelate’s comments directed at church officials have a uniting terseness and condescension clearly meant to agitate their subjects. Near the beginning of Epistle, he calls out D. Copcot, writing,

…ha / ha / D. Copcot are ye there / why do not you answere the confutation of your sermon at Pauls crosse? It is a shame for your grace John of Cant. That Cartwrights bookes have bene now a dozen yeares almost unanswered: you firste provoked him to write / and you first have received the foyle. If you can answer those books / why do you suffer the puritans to insult and rejoyce at your silence. If you cannot / why are you an Archb. He hath prooved the calling to be unlawfull and Antichristian. You dare not stand to the defence of it. Now most pitifully complayneth / M. Marprelate / desireth you either to aunswere what hath beene written against the gracelesnes of your archbishoprick… (Marprelate image 4)

This is an example of Marprelate’s lackadaisical style when delivering direct insults in the second person to provoke a response. The singsong, childlike tone of “D. Copcot are ye there” quite literally demands a retaliation, and in the event that Copcot should ignore his incitements, Marprelate goes on to remark on the puritans’ readiness to “insult and rejoyce at [his] silence” before threatening his very position as an archbishop. The irony and satire here comes from Marprelate’s willing acknowledgement of his own uncouthness. He writes, “Now most pitifully complayneth / M. Marprelate / desireth you either to aunswere…” an underhanded way to feign submission and respect for the very person he has just defamed. Others of these instances cast a slightly more threatening and dark tone; after calling out several other dignitaries, he writes, “There is my judgment of you brethren / make ye most of it / I hope it will never be worth a byshopricke unto you: reply when you dare / you shall have as good as you bring” (Image 8). As evidenced, the repetition of “ye” and “you” is a common occurrence throughout Marprelate’s attack, but in this particular example, the threat becomes darker and more menacing. The phrase “reply when you dare” shows Marprelate’s readiness and willingness to manipulate his victims, and the satirical context permits him to be shamelessly brazen in doing so.

These excerpts include another distinguishing characteristic of Marprelate’s writing, which is his tendency to refer to and comment on himself, especially in the third person. These instances of self-referentiality are paradoxical because Martin Marprelate is clearly a fake name, so using it in the third person reiterates its drollery and adds insult to injury. Self-congratulatory comments like “Martin is a shrewd fellow” (Image 4) and “M. Marprelate…is able to make a yonger brother of you…” (Image 17) are permissible in their anonymity; Martin Marprelate is very clearly a character, so he may be as flamboyantly egotistical as he likes without doing harm to the actual content of his argument. He also has the freedom to characterize himself contradictorily; one minute he mercilessly threatens the wellbeing of an unlucky ecclesiastical, the next he dotingly speaks to the reader with the affectionate tone of a wise old friend, as in:

What an horrible heresie is this / wil some say / why? gentle Martin / is it possible ye these words of the French confession should be true? is it possible that there ought to be an equallity betweene his Grace and the Deane of Sarum / or som other hedge priest: Martin saith it ought be so / why then Martin if it shoulde be so / howe will the byshops satisfie the reader in this poynt? Alas simple fellow whatsoever thou art / I perceive thou dost not mark the words of the confession: My good brethren have long since taken order for this geare… (Marprelate image 7)

The character of Martin Marprelate is effectually more than just a name, as its flexibility facilitates the pamphlets’ prolificacy and appeal to a diverse audience. In treating his readers with blithe familiarity while also savagely tearing down the higher-ups, Marprelate’s success comes from his audience’s desire to be in on the joke.

The above excerpt contains several rhetorical questions, another trademark of Marprelate’s writing style. They often appear in repetitive lists as he catalogues various affronts on the church or issues with a specific person, quite literally punctuating his main grievance about unanswered questions. This strategy is used to maximum effect in his scathing disparagement of John Bridges, or “John of London.”

…Who made the porter of his gate a dumb minister? Dumbe John of London. Who abuseth her Majesties subjects / in urging them to subscribe contrary to lawe? John of London. Who abuseth the high commission / as much as any? John London (and D. Stanop to) Whoe bound an Essex minister / in 200.l. to weare the surplice on Easter day last? John London. Who hath cut downe the Elmes at Fulham? John London. Who is a carnall defender of the breache of the Sabboth in all the places of his abode? John London. Who forbiddeth men to humble themselves in fasting & prayer before the Lorde / and then can say unto the preachers / now you were best to tell the people / that we forbidd fastes? John London. Who goeth to bowles upon the Sabboth? Dumbe dunsticall John of good London / hath done all this… (Marprelate image 15-16)

Marprelate’s cleverness and ability to manipulate words is commendably put to use during this part of his argument, and the constant, berating repetition of the name “John of London” ensures that the real John of London will certainly hear about it, as everyone who reads Marprelate’s work will be hard pressed to forget his name. The finality of the alliterative phrase “Dumbe dunsticall John of good London” is the perfect cap on a paragraph of serious blows to John’s status, and essentially, the more sentences Marprelate phrases as questions, the more it appears that he has all of the answers.

It is not lost on Marprelate that listing and repetition are some of the most effective tools for constructing a persuasive argument due to their simplicity. Even someone who is only partially literate can follow a numbered list, such as Marprelate’s “List of conditions” outlining his requests at the end of the pamphlet, or catch the importance of a name like “John of London” repeated eight times in quick succession. Again, the genius of satire is in its simplicity and accessibility, and Marprelate’s rise to the top of the literary market came from his willingness to abandon all pomp and circumstance. Some of his most successful moments are accompanied by childlike insults, such as “I marvell whether he was not hatched in a goose nest” (Image 14), or amusing plays on words, for example, “gracious John / not graceles John / but gracious John. John / holy John / holy John / not John ful of holes / but holy John if he shewed not himselfe learned in this sermond / then hath he bene a duns all his life.” (Image 28). These moments of apparent absurdity are in fact quite deliberately implemented as vehicles for his argument; for example, the mix-up between “holy John” and “John ful of holes” is actually a cleverly hidden metaphor for the church itself and its questionable “holiness,” especially after Marprelate is through exposing its flaws.

Finally, Marprelate’s argument would not be complete without several anecdotes detailing the lamentable actions of the ecclesiastical dignitaries he is exposing. The anecdotes are also told in second person, directed at the person to whom they refer:

Wohohow / brother London / do you remember Thomas Allen and Richard Alworth / marchants of London / being executors to George Allen somtimes your grocer / but now deceased: who came unto you on easter wednesday last being at your masterdoms palace in London…who tolde you…we finde you indebted unto him / in the some of 19 pound and upward / desiring you to let them have the money… You answered them sweetly (after you had pawsed a while) in this manner: You are raskals / you are villaines / you are arraunt knaves / I owe you nought… (Marprelate image 23)

Marprelate’s use of anecdotal evidence in profiling the crimes of the church is essential to his argument because it is the greatest threat to their livelihood. In this excerpt, details like the names of the merchants who had been wronged and the specific amount of money owed lend credibility to Marprelate’s story, whether or not it is true. His technique of telling the story directly to the accused is also an effective way of holding them accountable and reminding the readers about who is at fault and who is in control. At the end of Marprelate’s pamphlet, he threatens to expose more disgraceful stories about other church leaders: “your learned brother Martin doth proclaime open war against you / and entendeth to worke your woe… First I will watch you at every halfe turne / & whatsoever you do amisse / I will presently publish it…” (Image 25). In hiding behind the character of Martin Marprelate, the anonymity surrounding the real accuser is demonstrated to be quite powerful, and the church has no choice but to formulate some kind of response. Marprelate’s ability to call on the public is not lost, either; open-ended comments towards the readers spark anxiety for the church about how they will be received, as evidenced by the cryptic aside: “Nowe judge you good readers / whether Martin sayth not true / that there is too much consenage now a dayes among the cleargie men.”

IV. Responses to Martin Marprelate

i. John Lyly’s Pappe with an Hatchet

The response pamphlet Pappe with an Hatchet was published in September 1589 on behalf of the church and the Anglican dignitaries Marprelate had affronted. Lyly’s pamphlet attacks Marprelate and his beliefs using a familiar lyrical tone, a great deal of animal metaphors, and various rhetorical strategies whose inspiration is easily traceable to Marprelate’s original writing. There are several instances in which he actually seems to piggyback off of metaphors and insults that Marprelate planted in Epistle; for example, he says “These Martins were hatcht of addle eggs, els could they not have such idle heads (Lyly image 5), perhaps a reference to Marprelate’s comment about one ecclesiast being “hatched in a goose nest.” Furthermore, as far as general rhetorical strategies go, it is clear that Lyly includes second-person point of view, listing, repetition, and rhetorical questions, all of which operate in an identical style to that of Marprelate.

Lyly often delivers comments in the second person directly to Marprelate himself. The text begins,

Good morrow, goodman Martin, good morrow: will ye anie musique this morning? What fast a sleepe? Nay faith, Ile cramp thee till I wake thee. O whose tat? Nay gesse olde knaue and odd knaue: for Ile never leave pulling, til I haue thee out of thy bed into the streete; and then all shall see who thou art, and thou know what I am. (Lyly image 5)

The falsely polite introduction greets Martin in his own jocular tone, at first feigning graciousness before threatening to throw him into the street and publicly berate him. The repetition of “Good morrow, goodman Martin, good morrow” exacerbates the singsong tone of his taunting, which is echoed by the later “olde knaue and odd knaue.” Lyly’s choice to begin the pamphlet with such theatrical sarcasm and spite is mostly a grab for attention as he knows the only way to take down Martin is through melodramatic savagery. His use of the second person, a direct imitation of Marprelate’s original attack, is useful in conveying a sense of boldness and directness behind each seditious comment, and he continues to make asides to Martin directly throughout the text as a constant reminder that the attack, although a highly public and entertaining one, is meant to fall on him alone.

Lyly also closely replicates Marprelate’s strategies in several instances of listing and repetition. These devices, frequently used for persuasive effect, are also often manifestations of the casual satirical tone, as in:

If Martin will fight Citie fight, wee challenge him at all weapons, from the taylors bodkin to the watchmans browne bil. If a field may be pitcht we are readie: if they scratch, wee will bring cattes: if scolde, we will bring women: if multiplie words, we will bring fooles: if they floute, we will bring quippes: if dispute the matter, we will bring scholers: if they buffet, we will bring fists. (Lyly image 13)

The repetition of these if/then statements is done in an effort to emphasize the church’s capacity and readiness to respond to any and all challenges. The church’s decision to retaliate against Marprelate’s comments in his own satirical style is thus only one example of their preparedness, as they have “cattes,” “women,” “fooles” and myriad other people and resources at their disposal to ensure that their power is implementable and recognizable in any form. An additional example of parallel structure and repetition comes at the end of Pappe with an Hatchet, in which Lyly lists all of the fools of the world that are still less foolish than Martin:

There is not such a mad foole in Bedlam, nor such a baudie foole in Bridewell, nor such a dronken foole in the stockes, nor such a scolding foole on the cuckingstoole, nor such a cosening foole on the pillerie, nor such a roaging foole in the houses of correction, nor such a simple foole kept of alms, nor such a lame foole lying in the spittle, nor in all the world, such a foole, all. (Lyly image 19).

This excerpt is evocative of Marprelate’s original “Dumbe John of London” bit, in which Marprelate lists a series of questions asking who is responsible for various affronts, each of which is answerable by one John of London. The lengthy list of people more foolish than Marprelate, while insulting, is coincidentally reminiscent of his universality. Marprelate markets himself as somewhat of a foolish character, but that foolishness is what appeals to people across the nation from Bedlam to Bridewell.

Another frequent occurrence in Pappe with an Hatchet is Lyly’s use of rhetorical questions, which often appear listed together in quick succession in the same style as Marprelate. Oftentimes they are directed at Marprelate himself, as in, “Martin, thinkst thou, thou hast so good a wit, as none can outwrangle thee? Yes Martin, wee wil play three a vies wits: are thou so backt that none dare blade it with thee?” (Image 6). Here, Lyly imitates Marprelate’s strategy of pointing out the other’s negligence and shortfalls in the form of a question so as to mock the other’s inability to answer. The derisive tone is a fitting way to deliver these remarks and provoke the receiver into responding rashly. On the following leaf, Lyly writes, “Whie are not the spawnes of such a dog-fish hangd? Hang a spawne? drowne it, alls one, damne it” (Image 7). These rhetorical questions are proposed toward the reader rather than Marprelate, and Lyly answers himself that instead of hanging the “spawnes” of a “dog-fish,” i.e., Martin Marprelate, he’d best be drowned. The phrasing of rhetorical questions to the reader helps make the argument seem more conversational and inclusive, as if by agreeing with Lyly, they gain some sort of approval.

It is also worth mentioning the multiple comments Lyly makes on the nature of the writing itself; that is, his duty to respond in Marprelate’s own style. He includes a letter at the beginning of the work, directed to “the Father and the two Sonnes, Huffe, Ruffe, and Snuffe, the three tame ruffians of the Church” (Image 2), presumably meaning Martin and his two sons, Martin Junior and Martin Senior, in which he writes, “My pen is prepared and my minde; and if yee chaunce to finde any worse words than you brought, let them be put in your dads dictionarie” (Image 4). In setting up this battle of wits, as it were, Lyly establishes himself as a competitor in the world of satire, suggesting that his work will be so superior to Marprelate’s that it will be teachable. Ironically, given that Lyly is not at all known for satire, he almost mimics Marprelate’s self-congratulatory remarks and builds credibility for himself that he has yet to prove. Later, one of his closing statements goes out as a warning to his readers: “Martin writes merely, because (hee saies) people are carried away sooner with jest than earnest. I, but Martin never put Religion into a fooles coate; there is great oddes betweene a Gospeller, and a Libeller” (Image 19). The irony in this statement is that the church has failed in “carrying away” readers with earnest, which is why they hired Lyly to write to them in jest, so his reprimand falls rather flat given that it is somewhat hypocritical.

ii. Thomas Nashe’s An Almond for a Parrat

Thomas Nashe is the presumed author of An Almond for a Parrat, published in 1589 under the pseudonym Cutbert Curry-knave shortly after Lyly’s Pappe with an Hatchet. As in Lyly’s work, there are several instances in which Nashe directly alludes to comments made by Marprelate; for example, he writes, “I tel you I am a shreud fellow at the uneasing of a fox, and have cats eyes to looke into everie corner of a Puritans house (Nashe image 16), which evokes Marprelate’s own remark, “Martin is a shrewd fellow” (Marprelate image 4), and his threat to follow various epistles at “every halfe turne” (Marprelate image 25). Nashe’s work has a decidedly more mature and refined overall tone than Lyly’s, but he still replicates a great deal of Marprelate’s strategies, including second person point of view (directed at both Marprelate and his readers), self-referentiality, repetition, and rhetorical questions. Many of these rhetorical strategies are notable not simply for their presence, but more so for their implementation, as they operate in a way that is undeniably traceable to Marprelate’s use.

The second-person point of view in An Almond for a Parrat is quite pervasive, especially in comments directed toward Marprelate himself, such as “I thinke, good-man Puritan, that thou art perswaded” (Nashe 10), and “Martin, how like you my stile…poore idiot…” (20). These frequent asides directed at Marprelate serve as reminders to the reader that Marprelate himself will read the same text they are reading, perhaps bringing them closer to the conflict and even putting them on the winning side of the insults. In fact, Nashe further caters to his readers with recurrent asides directed at them in the second person as well. For example, he invites them to analyze Marprelate’s work themselves, saying, “All you that be schollers, read but his last challenge,” (7), and later, “I, I, my maisters, you may mocke, on as you see cause, but I warrant you the good olde true-pennie Marprelate is not so merrie, hee sits ruminating under an oake, or in the bottome of a haystacke, whose bloud shall be first spilte in the reformation of the Church” (8). This knowing, jaunty tone is a raised eyebrow to his audience, creating a feeling of camaraderie between them in quite a similar style as Marprelate.

Nashe goes on to use repetition and listing in a way that is similarly analogous to that of Marprelate’s work. In one instance, he mimics Marprelate’s notorious “John of London” and “holy John” pieces, writing,

…looke, looke good people where that vile whooremaster John a Borhead comes in piping hot from Clayphams wife. Whose very sight put him so cleane besides himselfe, that he could neyther goe forward nor backward, but stil repeated, John a Borhead, John a Borhead, that vild whooremaister John a Borhead: to whom with the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, be al honor and praise both now and for ever. (17)

The repetition of “John a Borhead” is done in the style of name-calling that Marprelate crafted, wherein a name is repeated so many times that it will not escape even the gaze of a barely-literate reader. The structure of this particular sentence is rather songlike with a strong rhythm, adding a childlike element to the offensive insult. On the following leaf, Nashe again implements repetition, writing, “Pen. I . Pen. welch Pen. Pen. The Protestationer, Demonstrationer, Supplicationer, Appellationer, Pen. The father, Pen. The sonne, Pen. Martin Junior, Martin Martinus, Pen. The scholler of Oxford to his friend in Cambridge, Pen” (18). The technique of alternating various phrases and words with one repeated word, in this case, “Pen,” is again a clear imitation of Marprelate’s writing. It has an equating and leveling effect in that “Pen” may be applied to all of the different elements; his argument is that anyone may use a pen, be it Martin Marprelate, an Oxford scholar, or Nashe himself.

Nashe’s use of rhetorical questions mirrors Marprelate’s listing format as they are often placed in clusters throughout the work. Like Lyly, he often phrases them in the second person, as in, “Malicious hipocryt, didst thou so much malign the successeful thrivings of the Gospell, that thou shouldst filch thy selfe, as a new disease into our governement?” (6). The condescending delivery of this question, coupled with a demanding tone that need not be answered, bolsters Nashe’s authority more than anything, as it puts him in the position of authority and knowledge and suggests ignorance on Marprelate’s part.

Despite Nashe’s previous reputation as a satirist of the day, he at least partially concedes to Marprelate’s authority on the subject given his recreations of Marprelate’s strategies. The overall argument that Nashe constructs has a tone of superiority and disdain, but on close reading various excerpts, it is clear that he has carefully read Marprelate’s work and his responses are quite deliberately worded.

V. On the Nature of Response Satire and Beware the Cat

The Marprelate controversy is especially distinctive for the uproar it caused; given that the original satire was so incendiary, it provoked lively responses by order of the church. Other works of Renaissance satire did not as often invite satirical responses, or for that matter, any responses at all. After investigating the reception of various other satirists such as Joseph Hall and George Gascoigne to no avail, I found a noteworthy response to William Baldwin’s 1553 novel Beware the Cat, generally regarded to be the first novel published in English. Beware the Cat is a satirical work of horror fiction suggesting that, during times of religious controversy and secrets whispered behind closed doors, the one being that is privy to all conversations and unseen by many is the cat. The novel peruses the possibilities of animals and pets being able to expose their owners’ private doings. Despite the fact that this novel was abundantly popular and dispersed throughout England, there is only one published response to it from the time, which happens to be in the form of a satirical rhyming poem entitled “A Short Answere to the boke called: Beware the Cat.” The anonymous author details his various grievances about Baldwin’s novel via end-rhymed couplets suggestive of a nursery rhyme, which stand in stark contrast to rude lines such as “But in the mean season: content yourself with this, / For your bagagical boke, a warm a.r.s you may kiss,” and “The book (of ten leaves) was printed every word / Er Stremer saw any pice, to wipe away a t.o.r.d.” (“A Short answere” image 1). Given that the original novel was deliberately brazen and audacious in its satire, it comes as no surprise that its sole published response is similarly so.

VI. Conclusion

In both Lyly’s and Nashe’s responses to Marprelate, and even this short poetic response to Baldwin, we experience satire in an unusual way as it is turned on itself. By satirizing Marprelate’s satire, the authors offer fairly successful arguments through a debasement of Marprelate’s writing as well as his ideology. It is not unusual for an author to critique another’s writing style in order to discredit them, but the unique scenario here is the practice of adopting the author’s writing style in order to critique them. The nature of satire is to hold a mirror up to the thing it is criticizing, but when turned on itself, it actually gains another layer of credibility and faithfulness. In a way, satire has the faculty of increasing its own capacity and value by deliberately pointing out its pitfalls. When Nashe and Lyly replicate a strategy from Marprelate, they universalize it. And, given that criticizing their imitations would make it look like he can’t take a joke, the only possible response Marprelate can have is also satirical. The reflexive capacity of satire to deconstruct and reconstruct itself is quite unique, as it can be self-referential without conceit. Satire is distinctively buildable, because any signs of redundancy or hypocriticalness may be blamed on the genre itself rather than authorial error. When used to its full capacity, as Martin Marprelate did over four hundred years ago, it is clear that satire has stood the test of time as one of the most powerful and influential English literary traditions.

VII. References

“A Short Answere to the boke called: Beware the Cat.” Early English Books Online. Web. 11 December 2017.

http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=29641020&FILE=../session/1513195921_25134&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR

Baldwin, William. A maruelous hystory intitulede, beware the cat. 1561. Early English Books Online. Web. 11 December 2017.

<http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=99847961&FILE=../session/1513195921_25134&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR>

Black, Joseph. “Marprelate, Martin (fl. 1588–1589).” Joseph Black. Oxford Dictionary of

National Biography. Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 27 Nov. 2017

<http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/73908>.

Bowker, Margaret. “Cooper, Thomas (c.1517–1594).” Margaret Bowker. Oxford Dictionary of

National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Jan. 2008. 27 Nov. 2017

<http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6229>.

Collinson, Patrick. “Throckmorton, Job (1545–1601).” Patrick Collinson. Oxford Dictionary of

National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. May 2015. 27 Nov. 2017

<http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27391>.

Cranfield, Nicholas W. S.. “Bancroft, Richard (bap. 1544, d. 1610).” Nicholas W. S.

Cranfield. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian

Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Jan. 2008. 27 Nov. 2017 <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1272>.

Cross, Claire. “Penry, John (1562/3–1593).” Claire Cross. Oxford Dictionary of National

Biography. Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 27 Nov. 2017

<http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21894>.

Hunter, G. K.. “Lyly, John (1554–1606).” G. K. Hunter. Oxford Dictionary of National

Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. May 2008. 27 Nov. 2017 <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/17251>

Lyly, John. Pappe with an hatchet. Alias, a figge for my God sonne. Or cracke me this nut. Or a countrie cuffe, that is, a sound boxe of the eare, for the idiot Martin to hold his peace, seeing the patch will take no warning. VVritten by one that dares call a dog, a dog, and made to preuent Martins dog daies. Oxford, 1588. Early English Books Online. Web. 11 December 2017.

<http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=99847572&FILE=../session/1513065598_21561&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR>

Mann, A. J.. “Waldegrave, Robert (c.1554–1603/4).” A. J. Mann. Oxford Dictionary of National

Biography. Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 27 Nov. 2017

<http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28441>.

Marprelate, Martin. Oh read ouer D. John Bridges, for it is a worthy worke: or an epitome of the fyrste booke, of that right worshipfull volume, written against the puritanes, in the defence of the noble cleargie, by as worshipfull a prieste, John Bridges, presbyter, priest or elder, doctor of diuillitie, and Deane of Sarum. Fawsley, 1588. Early English Books Online. Web. 11 December 2017.

<http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=99847565&FILE=../session/1513065628_21590&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=DATE_ASC>

Nash, Thomas. An Almond for a Parrat, Or Cutbert Curry-knaves Almes. Fit for the knaue Martin, and the rest of those impudent Beggers, that can not be content to stay their stomakes with a Benefice, but they will needs breake their fistes with our Bishops. Rimarum Sum plenus. Therefore beware (gentle Reader) you catch not the hicket with laughing. 1589. Early English Books Online. Web. 11 December 2017.

<http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=99840134&FILE=../session/1513065298_21284&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR>

Nicholl, Charles. “Nashe , Thomas (bap. 1567, d. c.1601).” Charles Nicholl. Oxford Dictionary

of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Jan. 2008. 27 Nov. 2017 <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19790>.\

Pierce, William. An Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts: a Chapter In the

Evolution of Religious And Civil Liberty In England. New York: B. Franklin, 1964.