THE SCHOLARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
Revival of learning in the sixteenth century--Attitude of the
nobility towards Letters and Arts--No age so productive of
learned ladies--The Tudor princesses and Lady Jane Grey--Sir
Anthony Coke’s daughters--Mary Sidney--Learned women held
in esteem--Learning confined to the upper classes--A
sixteenth-century schoolmaster on women’s education.
The sixteenth century was England’s great literary renaissance. Fresh
streams of intellectual life were poured into the nation. There was
activity in all departments of thought. The study of poetry, of
theology, of the classics, went on apace. The printing press was
letting loose floods of knowledge. The tide swept the women of the
nobility along in its course. They stand out prominently among the
ranks of scholars. In place of the domestic arts, they are found
immersed in classics, divinity, and philosophy. Education was not
conducted on the easy, pleasant lines of our own day. Knowledge was
hard to obtain. It was locked up out of reach of the indolent in
languages to which there were none of the modern keys. Literature was
the great study, and familiarity with Greek and Latin essential. The
tree of science had only just begun to grow, and was sorely beset by
the brambles of superstition and mysticism. The arts in England could
scarcely be said to exist. Foreign painters came from time to time, and
rich noblemen went abroad and brought back treasures from Italy. All
decorative work other than tapestries, which were sometimes of English
make, was imported. Music, like dancing, was cultivated as a polite
accomplishment, for private uses; but there was not the stimulus of
excellent public performances by first-rate artists.
History was in the form of chronicles and romances. Stow was the great
contemporary writer engaged in recording for future generations the
events passing around him. Books in living languages were scarce,
though not so few as when the Dowager-Duchess of Buckingham left what
was deemed a notable legacy of four volumes to her daughter-in-law,
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond. French and Italian, especially
the latter, were studied by the nobility with continental masters, or
acquired by means of travel. Great courtesy was shown to visitors from
the continent by the English aristocracy, who delighted in having
intercourse with men of other nationalities, and often surrounded
themselves with foreign servants. In this way a taste was fostered for
the Spanish, French, and Italian languages. Nobles who did not want
to study themselves, liked to be surrounded by men of learning, and
willingly gave poor authors a seat at their table. It became customary
to dedicate every new book to some rich patron, and though it was a
practice that opened the door to abuses, it secured, on the other hand,
a subsistence to deserving authors who would otherwise have been unable
to pursue their studies.
Although the nobility extended their patronage to learned men, they
were not greatly given to study themselves. In the time of Henry VIII.
there was such a lack of learning among laymen, that ecclesiastics had
the governance of the country largely in their hands. The generality
of men among the upper classes deemed the labour involved in acquiring
knowledge unfit for gentlemen, who were better employed learning
to hunt, shoot, sing, and dance. Roger Ascham reproaches the young
gentlemen of England for their sloth in learning, and holds up for
imitation the Virgin Queen--
“whose example if the rest of our nobilitie would follow, then
might England bee for learning and wisdome in nobilitie a
spectacle to all the world beside.”
It was otherwise with women. They toiled over Latin and Greek,
frequently in manuscript, for there were not many printed books in
those languages; no classics had issued from Caxton’s press. Hebrew
was also studied, for divinity and theology occupied a good deal of
attention. A Florentine, Petruccio Ubaldini, who visited England in
1551, writes in his comments on social life--
“The rich cause their sons and daughters to learn Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew, for since this storm of heresy has invaded
the land, they hold it useful to read the Scriptures in the
original tongue.”
Dr. Wotton, in his “Reflections on Antient and Modern Learning,” says--
“that no age was so productive of learned women as the
sixteenth century.” “Learning,” he says, “was so very modish
that the fair sex seemed to believe that Greek and Latin added
to their charms, and that Plato and Aristotle untranslated were
frequent ornaments of their closets. One would think by the
effects that it was a proper way of educating them, since there
are no accounts in history of so many great women in any one
age as are to be found between the years fifteen and sixteen
hundred.”
Certainly England can show a roll during that period which is in
striking contrast to the records of the preceding and succeeding
centuries. For sound scholarship and solid acquirements, the women
of the sixteenth century may challenge comparison with those of any
subsequent period. It was not a time for brilliant authorship among
women. The productions of the most renowned are not such as would be
read in the present day. Latin distichs, translations of the classics
and of theological works, orations in Greek and Latin, are not the
writings which commend themselves to posterity, but they display a
degree of erudition which was not only remarkable for that period, but
would be highly commended in this age of university teaching and the
advancement of women along the paths of the higher education.
The following verses by a sixteenth-century writer well express the
feeling of the times:--
“You men yt read the memoryes
Of wonders done and paste,
Remember well the historys
Of women first and laste;
And tell me if I saye not true,
That women can do more than you,
“And more than any man can doo
So quicklie and so trym (fast?).
What counterpointes of pollycie,
Of arte and of artyfyce,
But women w^{th} facylitie
Can compas and forecaste.”
Perhaps queens should not be taken as examples, inasmuch as they
possess advantages peculiar to their position, and their acquirements
are apt to be overstated. Henry VIII., the Sovereign Bluebeard, showed
himself admirable as a father in at least one respect, and the care
with which his daughters were educated goes some way towards palliating
his crimes towards their mothers. If he had not obscured his own talent
by his passions and vices, we should be better able to appreciate the
encouragement he gave to literature and art, and his accomplishments
as one of the best-educated gentlemen of the day. The tastes of the
sovereign and the _personnel_ of the court had a more direct influence
on society than at the present time. Individual members of the nobility
who cultivated learning, did a good deal in raising the tone of their
immediate circle.
It may be that the excellence of the tuition given to the Princess Mary
was rather due to Queen Catherine of Aragon, who procured, among other
tutors for her daughter, a learned countryman of her own, Ludovicus
Vives of Valencia. This preceptor succeeded to the post held by the
first tutor of the princess, Dr. Lynacre, who died in 1524, when his
pupil was six years old. During the short time she was under his care,
he drew up a work for her on “The Rudiments of Grammar.” There are
probably few princesses now who are handed over to men of scholarship
and learning out of their nurses’ arms, as was the eldest daughter of
Henry VIII. After the learned Spaniard had instructed the princess a
short time, he returned to his own country, and the king then selected
Dr. John Harman.
The Princess Mary was specially proficient in Latin, for which she is
commended by Erasmus, who, always ready to fall a victim to female
charms, regarded learning as an extra embellishment. Speaking of this
period, he says, “It is pretty enough that this sex should now at last
betake itself to the ancient languages.” Mary wrote excellent Latin
epistles, and in later years translated Erasmus’ Paraphrase on the
Gospel of St. John. The preface to this work was written by the Master
of Eton, Udall, who, after a courtly eulogy of the royal translator,
speaks of her “over-painful study and labour of writing,” whereby she
had “cast her weak body in a grievous and long sickness.” The work had
apparently to be completed by other hands, as Queen Mary’s health was
in so declining a condition. She also wrote prayers and meditations.
Elizabeth shone more as a linguist. She is said to have been very
conversant with Latin, French, and Italian; to have had some knowledge
of Greek when quite a young girl; and at twelve years of age, to
have translated a series of Prayers and Meditations from English into
Latin, French, and Italian. Her first instructor was Lady Champernon,
a lady noted for her accomplishments. With Roger Ascham, she read
the classics; with Dr. Grindal, Professor of Divinity, she studied
theology; and, after she came to the throne, pursued her studies
with great diligence. Latin she both spoke and wrote with ease and
grace. In Italian she was instructed by Signore Castiglioni. Greek and
Latin she was accustomed to have read to her by Sir Henry Savil and
Sir John Fortescue. She was a great student of Plato, Aristotle, and
Xenophon; one of Xenophon’s Dialogues she translated and published, and
translated two Orations of Isocrates from Greek into Latin.
Lady Jane Grey is another notable example of learning and scholarship.
Fox writes of her--
“If her fortune had been as good as her bringing up, joyned
with fineness of wit, undoubtedly she might have seemed
comparable, not only to the house of the Vespasians,
Sempronians, and mother of the Grachies; yea, to any other
women besides that deserveth high praise for their singular
learning; but also to the University men, who have taken many
degrees of the Schools.”
Lady Jane Grey’s short and troublous life was lightened and cheered by
study. Roger Ascham commended her facility in Greek composition. Her
studies were very extensive, for Sir Thomas Chaloner said of her that
she was well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, French, and Italian.
None of these royal ladies were destitute of lighter accomplishments.
Elizabeth, as is well known, was a very graceful dancer, and could sing
and play exceedingly well; Lady Jane Grey was a musician, and clever at
needlework.
But it was not royal ladies alone who were celebrated for their
learning in the sixteenth century. The three daughters of Sir Anthony
Coke, preceptor to Edward VI., were as accomplished as Queen Elizabeth
and Lady Jane Grey, and attracted the attention of the great men of the
age. The eldest married Lord Burleigh, the Treasurer; the second, Sir
Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, and became the mother
of the celebrated Francis Bacon; the third became wife to Lord John
Russell, after the death of her first husband, Sir Philip Hoby. Sir
Anthony was a father much in advance of his time. He considered that
women should be educated on the same lines as men, and that they were
quite as capable of acquiring knowledge. So he imparted to his clever
daughters the lessons he gave to the precocious boy-king, Edward VI.
“It is,” says Lloyd,[39] “the happiness of foreigners that
their vocations are suited to their natures, and that their
education seconds their inclination, and both byass and ground
do wonders. It is to the unhappiness of Englishmen that they
are bred rather according to their estates than their temper;
and great parts have been lost, while their calling drew one
away and their genius another.”
Sir Anthony seems to have known how to suit his children’s education
to their “temper,” which was keenly studious. He was excessively
careful to set them a good example. “My example is your inheritance,
and my life is your portion,” he wrote to his eldest daughter. All his
daughters were good classical scholars, could correspond in Greek, and
were excellent translators.
Sir Thomas More’s daughters were educated in a similar way. Margaret,
wife of William Roper and her father’s favourite, is the most
celebrated; but all were clever, studious women, not content with light
and easy studies, but attaining great proficiency in abstruse subjects.
Jane Countess of Westmoreland, whose father was the famous Fox the
martyrologist, was said to be able to bear comparison with the greatest
scholars of the age. The three daughters of Edward Seymour, Duke of
Somerset, were much distinguished for their Latin distichs, and it was
said of them that if Orpheus could have heard them he would have become
their scholar.
Mary Sidney, afterwards Countess of Pembroke, sister of the famous Sir
Philip Sidney, was one of the most intellectual women of her age. In
the retirement of the fine old family mansion at Penshurst Place, Kent,
she passed a studious, happy girlhood. The companionship of her gifted
brother, and association with such men as the poet Spenser, no doubt
fostered her innate love of learning. By the great poet she has been
celebrated as--
“The gentlest shepherdess that liv’d that day,
And most resembling in shape and spirit
Her brother dear.”
Together with her brother she wrote a version of the Psalms, and on
her own account a poem in celebration of Queen Elizabeth. As a centre
of intellectual thought and literary life, Mary Sidney, when, in 1576,
she became the wife of Henry Earl of Pembroke, and mistress of his
establishment at Wilton, may be compared with Lady Holland or Lady
Blessington. Poets and statesmen gathered at her hospitable board,
for at Wilton Place a stately magnificence was maintained. Had the
Countess of Pembroke been merely a lady of rank, she would not have
left her mark on an age when there were so many illustrious names.
But her cultivation of mind made her the fit companion of the greatest
intellects of the day. It is no small thing to have entertained
Shakespeare, to have had Ben Jonson as a familiar guest, besides lesser
poets such as Massinger and Daniel, a poet laureate of Elizabethan
days, who was a great admirer of her talents. Sir Philip Sidney was
much attached to his distinguished sister, to whom he dedicated his
“Arcadia.” It was a grief to both that in after-life they were so much
separated. Dr. Donne, another poet, but more eminent as a divine, was
a friend whom Mary Sidney much esteemed. It was less for what she
did than for what she was that Mary Sidney is celebrated. Her great
nobility of character made her pre-eminent, and her influence on her
contemporaries was very marked.
There was no affectation of ignorance among the learned women of the
sixteenth century. Learning among women was held in esteem. It was
not thought unfeminine to speak good Latin, write correct Greek, or
translate from Hebrew. Unusual and extraordinary it was undoubtedly
deemed for women to show fine scholarship, but it was an unusual
and extraordinary merit. The absurd notion that the acquisition of
knowledge, or intellectual ability, are things to be ashamed of, was
one of the base products of eighteenth-century sentimentalism.
When we think of the great difficulties in the way of learning in the
sixteenth century, we cannot but wonder at the assiduity and patience
of the scholars of that period, both men and women. There were no
primers, exercise-books, or well-printed dictionaries of the classical
languages into English. Grammars were scarce, and were sometimes
composed by the tutors for their pupils. There were no carefully
prepared passages for translation with notes and explanations. The
scholar had to go straight to the original, and ferret out the meaning
unaided. Latin was the common medium of communication between scholars
and the polite world generally. At a time when every one with any
pretensions to education understood Latin, the standard of good
scholarship must have been fairly high, and when we find the daughters
of Sir Anthony Coke and Sir Thomas More, and other ladies, commended
for their pure Latin, we feel that the encomium was well deserved, as a
moderate degree of proficiency would not have attracted notice.
The learned ladies of the sixteenth century possessed the advantage
of having their attention concentrated on a few subjects. French and
Italian were commonly learned by the daughters of the nobility, and
these comparatively easy studies were facilitated by the constant
application to the classics. Music ranked with dancing and ornamental
needlework as an accomplishment. It was a fashionable study for both
sexes among the highest classes. Italy then was to England, in musical
matters, what Germany has since become; but there were also English
composers, among whom Henry VIII. himself was included. Vocal music
was extremely popular, instrumental music being in a comparatively
elementary stage. The English in the sixteenth century seem to have
been a very music-loving people; Erasmus says, “The most accomplished
in the skill of music of any people;” and the degree to which it
was practised at court in the time of Henry VIII. may be guessed
from the fact that singing at sight was then a common accomplishment
among the courtiers. Counterpoint was studied by those who aspired
to be connoisseurs; but musical literature was very scanty, and the
repertorium available for the lute and the mandoline, the clavichord,
or the virginals, must soon have been exhausted.
There was less arithmetic, history, and geography taught than is now
imparted in board schools to the poorest. The curriculum for a lady
of rank did not include many things which have now become matters of
common knowledge among the children of the working classes. On the
other hand, the education, if narrow according to modern ideas, was
thorough, and without the stimulus of college life, of competitive
examinations, without the prospect of rewards and honours in the
shape of degrees, the attainments of women in the sixteenth century
in the subjects to which they had access, were of a high order, and
their knowledge of the classics was more intimate and exact than that
produced by the higher education of the nineteenth century.
Learning was necessarily confined to women of position and wealth, who
could afford the luxury of private tutors and the equally great luxury
of books. There were, doubtless, here and there families of lower rank
whose daughters would have borne favourable comparison with the titled
ladies who are so conspicuous. But wide diffusion of knowledge and a
high standard of education among women generally, if it existed, did
not excite notice among contemporary writers as did the studious habits
of the upper classes. Udall, the master of Eton in Queen Mary’s reign,
speaks with admiration of--
“the great number of noble women at that time in England, not
only given to the study of human sciences and strange tongues,
but also so thoroughly expert in Holy Scriptures that they were
able to compare with the best writers, as well in enditeing
and penning of godly and fruitful treatises to the instruction
and edifying of realmes in the knowledge of God, as also in
translating good books out of Latin or Greek into English
for the use and commodity of such as are rude and ignorant
of the said tongues. It was now no news in England to see
young damsels in noble houses and in the courts of princes,
instead of cards and other instruments of idle trifling, to
have continually in their hands either psalms, homilies, and
other devout meditations, or else Paul’s Epistles or some book
of Holy Scripture matters, and as familiarly both to read
and reason thereof in Greek, Latin, French, or Italian as in
English. It was now a common thing to see young virgins so
trained in the study of good letters that they willingly set
all other vain pastimes at naught for learning sake. It was now
no news at all to see Queens and ladies of most high estate
and progeny, instead of courtly dalliance, to embrace virtuous
exercises of reading and writing, and with most earnest study
both early and late to apply themselves to the acquiring of
knowledge, as well in all other liberal artes and disciplines,
as also most especially of God and his holy word.”
Erasmus, in one of his discourses, gives us a glimpse of the view taken
by the Church of female scholarship. He introduces a conversation
between an abbot and a learned woman. The abbot contends that women
would never be kept in subjection if they were learned. They would
become wiser than men. “Therefore it is a wicked mischievous thing to
revive the ancient custom of educating them.”[40]
Taken in conjunction with a remark of Erasmus in one of his letters, it
is doubtful whether after all he did not deem learning wasted on women.
Describing Sir Thomas More, he says, “He is wise with the wise, and
jests with fools--with women especially, and his wife among them.”
A more liberal view was taken by Richard Mulcaster, the master of the
school founded by the Merchant Taylors’ Company in 1561, in the parish
of St. Lawrence Poultney. He says--
“I set not young maidens to public Grammar Scholes, a thing
not used in my countrie, I send them not to the universities,
having no president thereof in my countrie, I allow them
learning with distinction in degrees, with difference of their
calling, with respect to their endes wherefore they learne,
wherin my countrie confirmeth my opinion. We see young maidens
be taught to read and write, and can do both with praise; we
have them sing and playe: and both passing well, we know that
they learne the best, and finest of our learned languages, to
the admiration of all men. For the daiely spoken tongues and of
best reputation in our time who so shall denie that they may
not compare even with our kinde in the best degree.... Nay,
do we not see in our country some of that sex so excellently
well trained and so rarely qualified either for the tongues
themselves or for the matter in the tongues: as they may
be opposed by way of comparison if not preferred as beyond
comparison even to the best Romaine or Greekish paragones
be they never so much praised: to the Germaine or French
gentlewymen by late writers so wel liked: to the Italian ladies
who dare write themselves and deserve fame for so doing? whose
excellencie is so geason as they be rather wonders to gaze
at then presidentes to follow. And is that to be called in
question which we both dayly see in many and wonder at in some?
I dare be bould, therefore, to admit yong maidens to learne,
seeing my countrie gives me leave and her custome standes for
me. Their natural towardnesse should make us see them well
brought up.... Some Timon will say, what should wymend with
learning? Such a churlish carper will never picke out the best,
but be alway ready to blame the worst. If all men used all
pointes of learning well, we had some reason to alledge against
wymen, but seeing misuse is commonly both the kinds, why blame
we their infirmitie whence we free not ourselves.... And is
not, think you, a young gentlewoman thoroughly furnished which
can reade plainly and distinctly, write faire and swiftly, sing
cleare and sweetly, play wel and finely, understand and speake
the learned languages, and the tongues also which the time most
embraseth with some logicall helpe to chop and some rhetoricke
to brave.... Or is it likely that her children shalbe eare a
whit the worse brought up if she be a Lœlia, an Hortensia or a
Cornelia, which were so endued and noted for so doing.... The
places wherein they learne be either publike if they go forth
to the elementaire schole or private if they be taught at home.
The teacher either of their owne sex or of ours.... In teachers
their owne sex were fittest in some respectes, but ours frame
them best and with good regard to some circumstances will bring
them up excellently well.”