Marprelate controversy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marprelate controversy is the dispute between one or more Puritan writers and the Church of England in the years 1588 / 89 .

The Marprelate controversy was triggered by puritanical satirical pamphlets published between October 1588 and September 1589, which had been secretly printed under the pseudonym Martin Marprelate and which sharply attacked the Church of England and its bishops such as John Whitgift , Archbishop of Canterbury. The name Martin Marprelate (also written Mar-prelate ) can be translated into German as “Martin Hau-den-Pfaffen” or “Martin Misch-den-Pfaffen-auf”.

During this time the following diatribes were published:

  • October 1588: Oh Read Over Dr. John Bridges - The Epistle (John Bridges was Dean of Salisbury)
  • November 1588: Oh Read Over Dr. John Bridges - The Epitome ; Certain Mineral and Metaphysical Schoolpoints
  • March 1589: Hay Any Work for Cooper (Thomas Cooper was Bishop of Winchester. Hay, any work for cooper was the call of the London tinkerers)
  • July 1589: Theses Martinianae and Martin Junior's Epilogue ; The Just Censure and Reproff of Martin Junior
  • September 1589: The Protestation of Martin Marprelate

It is not considered accidental that the first diatribe appeared a month after the death of the Earl of Leicester . Leicester was close to the Puritans. His protégé, the theologian Thomas Cartwright , was the great antagonist of John Whitgift and mouthpiece of the Puritan direction within the Anglican Church. With the loss of Leicester's protection, Thomas Cartwright also lost importance and in the vacuum he left behind, Martin Marprelate, who rose to become the new adversary of John Whitgift, no longer in the learned and solemn tone of theology, but in a bizarre, mocking manner. Archbishop For Martin Marprelate, Whitgift was no longer My Lord or My Grace , but was often addressed under various mock names, such as Pope of Lambeth . Lambeth Palace was the London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Martin did not shrink from repeating Christ's words on the cross Eli, Eli, lama asabathani ('My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?', Matthew, 27:46; actually Aramaic שְׁבַקְתָּנִי 'eli,' eli, lema schewaktani or ܐܹܝܠ ܐܹܝܠ ܠܡܵܢܵܐ ܫܒܲܩܬܵܢܝ 'il,' il, lmana schwaktan , replaced in the Luther Bible by the incorrect Eli / Eli / lama Asabthani , in Hebrew actually אֵלִ֣י אֵ֭לִי לָמָ֣ה עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי 'eli,' eli, lama 'asawtani , replaced) as a joke : “(Bishop of) Eli, Eli, why did you leave me? "In Hay, Any Work for Cooper , he defended his approach:" The Lord created both fun and seriousness. And then it shouldn't be right to choose this way and that way for the sake of the truth, especially when the circumstances make it right? "

For the bishops, such attacks by a solitary "joke archangel" represented an attack on their dignity and drew them into an argument in which they threatened to lose face if they accepted Martin Marprelate's rules. Not even the Whitgift opponent, Thomas Cartwright, favored by Martin, took a liking to this cabaret variant of the theological dispute. In a letter to Lord Chancellor of the Exchequer Burghley, he condemned Martin's “disorderly discourse” and expressed his regret “at this sloppy approach”.

The English Church secretly commissioned contemporary writers to write against these pamphlets with similar satirical means. The initiator of the plan for the "official" counter-offensive is Whitgift's chaplain, who later became Bishop of London and, from February 1604, Whitgift's successor, Richard Bancroft . Writers were hired who in turn paid Martin back with the same coin, partly in pamphlets (which have survived), partly in plays (which have not been preserved, but to which Martin alludes). Certainly are likely to John Lyly , Thomas Nashe and Anthony Munday participated, maybe Robert Greene . Only Anthony Munday is mentioned by Martin Marprelate.

The anti-Martinist pamphlets have been divided into five groups by Ronald B. McKerrow:

  • I. The Pasquil Pamphlets
The view that the Pasquil pamphlets: "Countercuff for Martin Junior", "Return of Pasquill" and "First Part of Pasquil's Apology" by Thomas Nashe has been contradicted. The author is not to be looked for in Greene or Nose's circle; Richard Bancroft himself would be more likely.
  • II. Papp with a Hatchet ("Mash with the ax")
"Papp with a Hatchet" (1589) was written by John Lyly. Lyly identifies himself through the attack it contains against Harvey, who can by no means be Martin Marprelate, as Elizabeth Appleton suspects.
  • III. Martin's Month's Mind ("Martins Monthly Memory Mass")
As the author of "Martin's Month's Mind" u. a. Anthony Munday suspects who, according to Martin Marprelate, was involved and who as the author of I., II., IV. And V. does not seem to come into question. This assignment is not secured.
  • IV. An Almond for a Parrot ("An almond for a parrot")
"An Almond for a Parrot" is assigned to Thomas Nashe. Nashe is approaching his style of the coming years and obviously nourishing him from Martin Mar-prelate, which is why he acquitted his later opponent Gabriel Harvey of being the author of the Marprelate writings, because, according to Nashe, Gabriel Harvey did not have that much wit.
  • V. Mar-Martin and A Whip for an Ape ("A whip for a monkey")
Both pamphlets are attributed to John Lyly, especially for stylistic reasons.

Martin Marprelate's exact identity has never been clarified. John Penry , a Puritan from Wales, has long been believed to be the author. Penry was certainly somehow involved in the Martin Marprelate writings, and certainly also the printer Robert Waldegrave, who was able to move to Scotland. John Penry also fled to Scotland but returned and was sentenced to death and executed.

More recently, consensus has moved towards Job Throckmortons, a Warwickshire Junker and MP. He was also suspected by the authorities. The authorities never found sufficient evidence. But stylistic investigations have corroborated the suspicion against him.

The Martin Marprelate scandal was one of the most obvious rebellions against the Church of England and against repressive tendencies in Elizabethan England at that time. Strangely enough, contrary to his intention, Martin Marprelate had a more lasting influence on literary than on religious development. He shaped a style that people like Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe adopted. And Shakespeare's Falstaff should, in the opinion of some, be in his debt. A very interesting thought that is not so absurd.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ John Strype: Annals of the Reformation. Volume III.2. Oxford 1884, p. 67 and p. 73
  2. ^ RB McKerrow (Ed.): The Works of Thomas Nashe. 5 volumes. 1904–1910, Reprint: Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1958. (The standard edition.)

literature

  • Elizabeth Appleton: An Anatomy of the Marprelate Controversy 1588–1596: Retracing Shakespeare's Identity and That of Martin Marprelate. 2001, ISBN 0773474900 .

Web links