Arbella

by Sarah Gristwood

  65 ‘was wont to have the upper hand’: CSP Dom 1581–90, 689.

  66 Heavy restoration in the early part: The latest restoration work was carried out for the National Trust in 2000. It was then discovered that earlier operations had virtually destroyed the original painting of the face, and what appears now is essentially a reconstruction, with features modelled upon those of other family members.

  67 ‘As the strict band’: CSP Scottish 605. For commentary on the different drafts, see Steen Letters 276–7.

  68 ‘Given 27th of July’: for Bess’s accounts and details of the London sojourn, see Durant Bess 167–74.

  69 Few records of Arbella leaving Derbyshire: This is not, of course, to say that she did not spend any time with relatives in London or elsewhere – though had she been much present at court, the fact (given the intense interest in all Elizabeth’s possible heirs) would surely have been noted. Strickland envisages her as being at court in the 1590s, and McInnes (103–4) says she was there in 1597; neither, however, gives any source. A document in the Folger collection (X d 428 (24)) from Arbella’s uncle William Cavendish to Bess mentions her being at Edmonton (and ‘very well’); it has been provisionally dated as c.1600. Other papers, alas, lack even the most speculative date (or place of writing) – like the letter at Longleat (Talbot ii f. 294) from Elizabeth Wingfield to an unnamed recipient, possibly Bess of Hardwick. The writer had unexpectedly met Arbella, come to church to collect her ‘sweet cousin’, whereupon Arbella ‘looked very strangely’. Arbella begged Mistress Wingfield to ask [Bess] not to be offended, since she had only come there by chance, a Mrs Humfreson swore she knew not of Arbella’s coming … One would give much to know the locality of this incident, and still more the date, though some point between Arbella’s adolescence and her liberation from Hardwick in 1603 would seem to explain the tone most readily. On the one hand, the letter seems to show Arbella as out and about, at a time when she still felt the need to explain her actions (to Bess); on the other, it reinforces the impression that her social contacts were monitored very carefully.

  70 ‘all the old holidays’: Trease 25–6.

  71 ‘I have little’: BL Lansdowne lxxi; cited by Handover Arbella Stuart 98; quoted in full by Hardy 65–7, Cooper i 119–23, Lefuse 52.

  72 ‘It is Arbella’: CSP Dom 1591–4 259–60. (Handover Arbella Stuart 91–2, also cites Strype iii 142).

  73 ‘one young lady’: Cooper i 115–6; Handover Arbella Stuart 92 (citing Strype iii 148).

  74 ‘simply no contemporary agreement’: Nenner 13.

  75 James, by contrast: as James himself feared, there was also the danger that he could have been debarred by the Act of Attainder, which ruled that the connections of a traitor could not succeed to the throne.

  76 Soon after the old earl’s death: For the letters concerning the Talbots’ religion, see Batho H 463, 469, 813; M 342, 410.

  77 ‘In 1580 there were 66 English peers’: Stone Crisis 741.

  78 One Catholic commentator: R. Doleman (or Parsons), author of A Conference about the Next Succession to the Crown of England.

  79 William Seymour: For more on William’s religion, see notes to Part V below.

  80 ‘all platforms fell to the ground’: CSP Dom Add. 1580–1625, 269.

  81 ‘one Morley’: BL Lansdowne lxxi; cited by Handover Arbella Stuart 98; quoted in full by Hardy 65–7, Cooper i 119–23, Lefuse 52.

  82 A Catholic letter: CSP Dom 1591–4 106.

  83 If he really were the model: The identification of Essex as the subject of Hilliard’s picture was made by Roy Strong in The Cult of Elizabeth.

  84 Arbella herself: For Arbella on Essex, see Cecil Papers 135 ff. 130–8.

  85 Sara Jayne Steen: Steen ‘Crime of Marriage’ cites a considerable body of earlier work establishing the connection between Arbella and Malfi.

  86 ‘No simple word’: Ben Jonson, ‘Inviting a Friend to Supper’, Epigrams (1616).

  87 In 1589: For Barnes, see CSP Dom. Add. 1580–1625 270, 272, 275.

  88 ‘at the rate of Arbella’: Hatfield iv 626.

  89 ‘England is gone’: Hatfield iv 335.

  90 ‘the traffic of Arbella’: Hatfield iv 625.

  91 ‘small account made’: Hatfield xiii 494; quoted in Handover Arbella Stuart 101.

  92 ‘in the briars’: CSP Dom 1598–1601, 460; quoted by Hurstfield in Bindoff et al. 378.

  93 In years to come: The letter from the anonymous observer is quoted in full in Handover’s notes: Arbella Stuart 309–13.

  94 ‘The queen here daily’: Handover Arbella Stuart 113.

  95 ‘all the plagues’: Calendar of Talbot Papers at Longleat 119.

  96 ‘My Lady Arbella’: Harington Tract on the Succession 42.

  97 one John Brystone reported: Hatfield iv 551.

  98 Thus, against Arbella: Doleman ii 126; see also 124–9 on Arbella’s claim.

  99 ‘in that she is a young lady’: Doleman ii 249.

  100 ‘hath only the Cavendishes’: Doleman ii 129.

  101 ‘time, survival and delay’: Lacey Baldwin Smith Elizabeth Tudor: Portrait of a Queen (Boston 1975) 218, quoted in Nenner 17.

  102 Amid the mass of documents: For Williamson’s declaration see Hatfield v 251–4 (also other correspondence through the volume; and Williamson also in CSP Dom 1595–7).

  103 One Edward Thurland: Batho I 212.

  104 ‘how beautiful’: Hatfield xiv 18.

  105 James in Scotland was said to suspect: CSP Scottish xii 267; quoted in Handover Arbella Stuart 115.

  106 ‘I should have no objection’: Handover Arbella Stuart 115, Cooper i 127.

  107 It is a pleasant room: For the contents of Bess’s and Arbella’s chambers, see Of Household Stuff 53–5.

  108 ‘the marriage treaty’: CSP Dom 1598–1601, 327–8; quoted in Handover Arbella Stuart 124.

  109 ‘a goodly young lady’: Harington Tract on the Succession 43.

  110 At that time, a gentleman: For David Owen Tudor’s letter, see Hatfield xii 605.

  111 Still, James in Scotland told: Nenner 24–5; also ibid. 17, 22, 24 for other contemporary speculations.

  112 Essex was brought to trial: For the trial and execution, CSP Dom 1598–1601, 545–9.

  113 But a later letter: For Arbella on Essex, see Cecil Papers 135 ff. 130–8.

  114 Cecil suffered a fresh wave: For Sir John Byron’s report, Guy 59.

  115 Father Parsons had been told: Hurstfield in Bindoff et al. 377, Thomas Wilson quoted ibid. 373.

  116 In the summer of 1601: For Wilson’s list of candidates, see CSP Dom 1601–3 60. Wilson calls Lord Beauchamp’s brother ‘Henry’ (instead of Thomas). Henry Seymour was in fact brother to the earl of Hertford.

  117 ‘It is least likely’: Harington Tract on the Succession 43–4.

  118 An anonymous letter from 1600: CSP Dom Add. 1580–1625 406–7.

  119 ‘Sir R. Cecil intends to be king’: CSP Dom 1601–3, 37.

  120 One Captain North: Bradley i 90, Hardy 73.

  121 ‘higher by as many steps’: Cooper i 158.

  122 In 1600 the Fugger newsletters: Fugger News-Letters, 2nd series 324, 325.

  123 ‘His Highness perceives’: Cooper i 131–45.

  124 Another observer: Handover 309.

  125 an English king: the Catholic letter is quoted by Hurstfield in Bindoff et al. 378.

  126 ‘Lady Arbella is a notable puritan’: CSP Dom 1601–3, 180; quoted in Handover 133, Bradley i 95.

  127 In the spring of 1602: For a report of the duke of Nevers’ visit, see Handover 132.

  128 Arbella Stuarta: tu rara es et bella: Manningham 69.

  129 ‘Why should my muse’: Handover 135, Bradley i 96.

  130 ‘of great beauty’: CSP Ven ix 541. It is only fair to point out that the Venetian envoy had not at this time seen Arbella. The French ambassador, who had, described her as only ‘sufficiently’ handsome.

  131 She gave several gifts: For Bess’s gifts to Arbella, see Du
rant Arbella Stuart 77–80.

  132 In 1601 Bess the provident: For Bess’s will, see ibid. 90.

  133 ‘thought of all means’: For Starkey’s confession, see Hatfield xiv 258.

  134 Anne Newdigate: Newdigate-Newdegate 4–5. This is the only known letter written by Arbella which does not appear in Steen’s edition, and was brought to my attention by James Daybell. In a brief note Arbella thanks ‘sweet Mrs Newdigate’, as Anne Fitton had become, for ‘your fine cuffs and kind remembrance of me, hoping this our acquaintance newly begun shall continue, and grow greater hereafter’. Undated, it has at one point been annotated as 1615 but this is clearly impossible, since Arbella signs it from ‘Chessey’ – presumably Chelsea. Lady Newdigate-Newdegate’s estimate of the early 1590s seems more likely.

  Part III

  The sources for this section are concentrated to an unusual degree, since almost all the essential documents are held in the Cecil Papers at Hatfield House. Almost all Arbella’s own letters from these months are there, in volume 135; the sole exception being her letter to Edward Talbot, referred to see here – and even then, Robert Cecil kept a secretary’s copy, along with Talbot’s comments.

  The Cecil Papers, moreover, also include the letters sent from Hardwick by Bess and by Brounker; the statements of Dodderidge, Starkey and Owen Tudor; statements relevant to the escape attempt of 10 March; notes on intercepted letters; and Chaworth’s intercepted letter to Arbella. These are all reproduced in full, though in modern orthography, in the Calendar (described below as ‘Hatfield’). Unusually, the bulk of Arbella’s letters are not included in the Calendar, which merely referred the reader to Bradley, with a list of corrections (Hatfield xii 683). Today, of course, one would turn instead to Sara Jayne Steen’s 1994 edition of Arbella’s letters.

  The single other most interesting source for these months of Arbella’s life is the gossipy reports of the Venetian envoy. Having kept no representative in England for most of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, towards its end the doge dispatched Giovanni Scaramelli, who arrived – to complain about the piratical behaviour of English seamen – in the last weeks of the queen’s life. From this point onwards, a succession of Venetians (Scaramelli – technically a secretary rather than an ambassador, but I keep the more usual appellation – being succeeded in November 1603 by two ambassadors extraordinary, Duodo and Molin, and they, in due course, by Correr, Contarini and Foscarini) provide an invaluable commentary upon the crises of Arbella’s career. The obvious reference point is the Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English Affairs Preserved in the Archives of Venice (cited here as CSP Ven), but the necessity of translation (and the fact that large passages were also in cipher) inevitably opens up questions of interpretation; also, the translations sometimes vary from those in Art. X of the Edinburgh Review 1896 (‘Lady Arabella Stuart and the Venetian Archives’). The difference is usually one of adjective and emphasis: I note specifically any observed discrepancy as to fact.

  135 ‘She told me I must go a hundred miles’: For Dodderidge’s confession, see Hatfield xii 583–6.

  136 Old Sir John Byron: It is possible that these were the Byrons whose kin – a family called Starkey – saw their children cursed by a warlock in a famous witchcraft trial a few years before; and also possible that this was the background of Arbella’s Starkey. But either would be hard to prove at this distance of time.

  137 Dodderidge, Arbella wrote: For Arbella’s instructions to Dodderidge, see Cecil Papers 135, f. 107.

  138 ‘my entertainment here’: Cecil Papers 135 f. 108.

  139 Brounker’s report: Hatfield xii 593–7.

  140 ‘May it please’: Cecil Papers 135 f. 146.

  141 ‘A feigned answer’: Hatfield xii 609.

  142 ‘seeing she hath been content’: Ibid. 593.

  143 ‘the incongruity of his grandchild’s years’: Ibid. 626.

  144 ‘most gracious interpretation’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 144–5.

  145 ‘the bad persuasions’: Ibid. 624.

  146 The first of her self-explanatory letters: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 139–41.

  147 ‘whether it be her Majesty’s pleasure’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 147–9.

  148 ‘I know not how’: Hatfield xii 658. James’s undated letter to (Henry Howard for) Cecil, expressing concern about Arbella’s supposed conversion, was dated May 1602 by Lord Hailes, who edited the Secret Correspondence in 1766; but scholars have since taken liberty to question this, since James’s reference to Arbella’s mishaps then appear to make no sense.

  149 ‘For my own part’: Hatfield xv 253–5.

  150 ‘being sorry’: Hatfield xv 252–3.

  151 ‘the real claimants’: CSP Ven ix 541–2.

  152 Few documents: For the ‘Exposition’, see Cecil Papers 135 ff. 153–5 (version in Brounker’s and Arbella’s hand), 156–8 (secretary’s copy).

  153 ‘It is not unknown to you’: Bradley ii 135.

  154 ‘Soon after Sir H. Brounker’s departure’: Ibid. 136; also Hardy 116–17.

  155 ‘Writing was a mechanism’: Steen Letters 42.

  156 ‘What I have written’: Cooper i 244.

  157 ‘At last wounded to the heart’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 159–60 (Arbella’s own hand), 161–3 (secretary’s copy).

  158 ‘I went up to the great chamber’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 159–60.

  159 ‘I protest to Almighty God’: Edward Talbot to Cecil, Hatfield xii 685.

  160 ‘And although they say’: CSP Ven ix 554.

  161 ‘Whether Madame Arbella’: Hardy 135, Cooper i 248.

  162 ‘In the context’: Steen Letters 37.

  163 ‘I take Almighty God to witness’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 142–3.

  164 ‘and come attended with 500’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 159–60.

  165 ‘First I will never’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 142–3.

  166 Damnata iam luce ferox: The translation and interpretation are from Steen Letters 155.

  167 ‘this my prison’: Ash Wednesday letter, Cecil Papers 135 ff. 130–8.

  168 ‘that my troubled wits’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 130–8.

  169 ‘transported by some Archimedes’: Cecil Papers 135 ff. 159–60 and 161–3 (secretary’s copy).

  170 ‘I have conquered’: Ibid.

  171 ‘one Harrison’: For Bess’s letter of 1592, see Cooper i 119–23, Lefuse 52.

  172 John and Matthew Slack: The statements of the Slacks, Dove and the vicar are given in Bradley ii 172–5.

  173 ‘For that Arbell’: Hatfield xii 689.

  174 ‘I presently departed’: Hatfield xii 694–6.

  175 He carried a letter: Hatfield xii 690–2.

  176 ‘There is no fear’: Hatfield xii 692–3.

  177 ‘Every man’s mouth’: Hatfield xii 693–4.

  178 ‘I am verily persuaded’: Ibid.

  179 ‘as the situation is growing more serious’: CSP Ven ix 552.

  180 ‘The report’: Dekker 33.

  181 ‘All agree that she is worse’: Hardy 136, Cooper i 250.

  182 Perhaps James needed: the official in Berwick was Sir John Carey; see Hatfield xii 699.

  183 Lord Beauchamp: For the rumour that Arbella was betrothed to Beauchamp, see CSP Ven ix 564.

  184 ‘a false alarm’: CSP Dom 1603–10 1.

  185 ‘sayeth that all things’: Handover Arbella Stuart 167.

  186 But not that feeble: Manningham 217.

  187 ‘in the west’: CSP Ven ix 566.

  188 ‘The younger’: CSP Ven x 3.

  189 ‘a lady shut up in her chamber’: Harington Tract on the Succession 51.

  190 ‘feigns herself to be’ half mad: CSP Ven ix 557.

  191 ‘they give out’ that Arbella is mad: Handover Arbella Stuart 161.

  192 The Venetians added: For Scaramelli’s reports on Scottish machinations, see CSP Ven ix 559. This letter, however, was (like a number of the others) written in cipher – which may be why the other available translation, that in Art. X (4
90–1) differs quite significantly, spelling out the Scottish aims far more directly.

  Part IV

  The first source of information about Arbella’s years at court is obviously her own numerous letters. Those she wrote to Gilbert and Mary Talbot in this period – that is, the great majority of the letters quoted in this section – are all in the Talbot Papers at Longleat. The exceptions are: her notes to Cecil at the beginning and end of the section (quoted see here and here); the letter to Gilbert quoted see here and here; that to Gilbert quoted see here and here; that to Prince Henry quoted see here; and her formal correspondence with the Danish court, quoted see here.

  There are, however, a handful of other individuals whose correspondence is particularly relevant here – whose names figure repeatedly in the text, not because of any particular relationship with Arbella, but because the lengthy correspondence in which they exchanged court news with friends and contacts has been preserved and in several cases published. Thus the Ralph Winwood who received the report of Arbella’s flight given in the prologue was a career diplomat then doing service in the Netherlands, where John More wrote regularly to him. Dudley Carleton was another career diplomat, who wrote to his friend (and Winwood’s) John Chamberlain, first from the court and then from Venice, where he was posted in 1610 – receiving in return a flood of information from Chamberlain; a man whose letters were most likely his source of income, and certainly his posterity.

  There is obviously no shortage of information about James’s court, or about life in the city around it. (Contemporary dramatists found both a particularly luscious target.) Lawrence Stone is only one among many modern historians vividly to delineate the court’s chaos and consumption. Some of his conclusions have inevitably been challenged in the thirty-five years or more since he wrote, but his books are still a rich source of information and analysis. None the less, the Jacobean era remains ground less familiar than the Elizabethan – often lost (as Linda Levy Peck points out in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court) between its Elizabethan predecessor and the Carolean years which preceded the Civil War. The traditional view is of a court David Starkey described as being one of the least attractive in history; a court Anne Somerset’s Unnatural Murder paints all too clearly. This view has to some extent been modified in recent years, with Peck’s book a leading example of the school of thought which points out the many intellectual and artistic advances which grew out of this world; a world which, in its very chaos, provided a fertile nursery for change.