ArticlePDF Available

Dudley Knollys: Elizabethan Gender Identification

Authors:
  • Emory University/University of Sheffield
This couplet follows Marston’s subscription ‘W.
Kinsayder,printedontheprecedingpage.The
strategic placement of these lines in The Scourge
revealed Marston from two angles. As the
mythic ‘scourge of just Rhamnusia’, Marston’s
satiric mandate appropriated an ancient prece-
dent. At the end of the volume, in a final address
to readers, he synthesized these pseudonyms—
‘Kinsayder’ and ‘the scourge’—in a new moni-
ker: ‘Theriomastix’ (‘the whipper of beasts’)
(I3v). He would consequently evoke the first
two pseudonyms at different times to distinguish
himself from Jonson. First, in Histriomastix,
Marston (‘the whipper of players’) boasts that
he alone, not Chrisoganus/Jonson, is entitled
to designate himself as the scourge of ‘just
Rhamnusia’. Then, in What You Will, written
several years later, he reversed himself in sug-
gesting that only Jonson could find Kinsayder’s
kind of criticism acceptable. Close readers of
Marston’s drama, attuned to these subtle shifts
of self-appraisal, will come to understand that he
conceived of Jonson in What You Will more as
an opposite than a double. The play stages a
comic fantasy in which Jonson is coaxed to
reject his most firmly held principles.
In the introduction to his edition of John
Marston’s What You Will, M. R. Woodhead
expresses regret that the comedy ‘has usually
been deemed of interest only insofar as it
touches on the ‘‘War of the Theatres’’ contro-
versy’.
20
A narrow scholarly focus identifying
‘Lampatho Doria’, a character in its subplot,
as a parody Ben Jonson, has, according to
Woodhead, distracted attention from the
play’s legitimate achievements. And almost in
a spirit of caprice, determined to shake off the
play’s historical trappings, he explains that
Quadratus, another character in the play,
seems just as viable as a stand-in for Jonson,
implying that such topical identifications might
only be arbitrary impositions on an otherwise
recalcitrant text. ‘If there is any literary parody
here’, he apologizes, ‘it is certainly not obtru-
sive, and should not blind the reader to the real
merits of the play’. But unless readers come to
terms with the play’s topical engagement with
Jonson, they miss a significant part of the
work’s ‘real merits’. Its allusions are immensely
significant because they publicize Marston’s
complex and evolving artistic concerns.
JAMES P. BEDNARZ
Long Island University
doi:10.1093/notesj/gjx184
ßThe Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University
Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions,
please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Advance Access publication 23 January, 2018
DUDLEY KNOLLYS: ELIZABETHAN
GENDER IDENTIFICATION
RECENT investigation into the prominent
Elizabethan family of Sir Francis Knollys and
his wife Katherine Carey Knollys has shed new
light on the identities of their children. Here, we
present new information regarding the identifi-
cation of the Knollys children, specifically of
Dudley Knollys, born 9 May 1562, who lived
less than two months and is represented as an
infant effigy lying next to Katherine Carey
Knollys on the Knollys funeral monument
in St. Nicholas Church, Rotherfield Greys,
Oxfordshire. The proposal is that Dudley
Knollys was female, not male, and in conjunc-
tion with new analysis confirms that Francis
Knollys and Katherine Carey Knollys had an
equal number of daughters and sons, as desig-
nated on both their Rotherfield Greys monu-
ment and Katherine’s Westminster Abbey
plaque, although the monuments differ on
whether the number was seven or eight.
Commissioned by William Knollys, the
second but oldest surviving son, the funeral
monument sits in its own chapel projecting
from the north side of the chancel. Records in-
dicate that the monument was installed in the
church in 1605. The canopy, with the two
kneeling figures arrayed in noble robes and cor-
onets, was a later addition to the memorial,
which can be dated between 1616 and 1625
when William was created Viscount
Wallingford and before his creation as Earl of
Banbury as he wears a viscount’s coronet, not
that of an earl. The structure of the canopy
resting on four pillars does not interfere with
the effigies or weepers on the base so it could
have been added without disruption to the
existing structure to celebrate William
Knollys’s elevation from Baron Knollys to
20
M. R. Woodhead (ed.), What You Will (Nottingham,
1980), iii.
110 NOTES AND QUERIES March 2018
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/65/1/110/4823513
by Acquisitions Dept Serials user
on 23 February 2018
Viscount Wallingford.
1
While the Knollys
family held considerable power under Queen
Elizabeth I, her reluctance to create peers left
William well-placed in terms of royal office, in-
heriting his father’s offices and leading the
Knollys faction in Parliament, but with no
noble titles.
2
In contrast, King James I of
England was generous in distributing titles
and created William Baron Knollys of Greys
on 13 May 1603 shortly after the Stuart house-
hold set up court in London with further titles
added in 1616 and 1626.
3
In April 1574, William Knollys married first
Dorothy Bray Brydges, Baroness Chandos,
4
the
daughter of Edmund, Baron Bray. Lady
Chandos was sixteen years William’s senior
with multiple children from her first marriage
to Edmund Brydges, Baron Chandos. Her
Knollys marriage was childless and seems to
have been more of a business transaction, bring-
ing considerable financial support to the union
as she was co-heir of her father’s estates and sole
executrix of Brydges’s will. She had served at
Mary I’s court and participated in the first
extant Elizabethan New Year’s gift exchange,
probably retiring from court about 1562. After
her 1574 marriage to William, she was a regular
gift exchange participant for the rest of
Elizabeth’s reign. When he was knighted in
1586, Dorothy’s title, as recorded on the gift
exchange rolls, was Baroness Chandos Knollys
instead of Baroness Chandos dowager. She died
31 October 1605 and is buried at St. Nicholas
Church, Rotherfield Greys.
5
On 23 December 1605 within eight weeks of
his first wife’s death and in need of an heir,
William Knollys, age 60, married Elizabeth
Howard, about age 20, daughter of Thomas
Howard and Katherine Knyvett Howard,
Earl and Countess of Suffolk.
6
Her parents,
although active during the reign of Elizabeth,
came to prominence under James I. Thomas
was created Earl of Suffolk and privy council-
lor and Katherine succeeded Mary Radcliffe
as keeper of the Queen’s Jewels for Queen
Anne. Another daughter Frances, successively
Countess of Essex and of Somerset, was in-
dicted along with her second husband Robert
Carr, Viscount Rochester for the murder of
Thomas Overbury.
7
Because of this scandal
both William and Elizabeth Knollys experi-
enced political set-backs from which they even-
tually recovered.
As the funeral monument was installed in
1605 and this second marriage happened
eight days before the end of that year, it
would be highly unlikely that the canopy in-
stallation depicting Elizabeth Howard Knollys
could have occurred simultaneously with the
installation of the base of the monument.
8
The style of the coronet worn by both
William and Elizabeth is that of viscount
rank as the silver, or in the case of this monu-
ment gold gilt, balls rest directly on the circlet
and are more numerous than on a baron’s cor-
onet. The coronet for an earl includes straw-
berry leaves and the silver balls are elevated
onto spires or spokes. The remains of such
spikes can be seen on the coronet of the first
female weeper on the side of the monument,
1
Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great
Britain and the United Kingdom, ed. G. Cokayne (London,
2000), I, 400–1. Cokayne identifies William Knollys’ mother
as Mary Boleyn Carey (his grandmother) instead of
Katherine Carey, who was niece, not sister of Queen Anne
Boleyn; correspondence with Adam White, 25 July 2017.
2
For a complete list of offices held see the second edition
of Titled Elizabethans: A Directory of Elizabethan Court,
State and Church Officers, 1558–1603, eds. A. Kinney and
J. Lawson (New York, 2014) and K. Bundesen, ‘‘‘No other
faction but my own’’: Dynastic politics and Elizabeth I’s
Carey Cousins’, unpublished PhD thesis (University of
Nottingham, 2008).
3
The History of Parliament: House of Commons 1558–
1603, ed. P. W. Hasler (London, 1981), 417–18.
4
Ibid. (1981). Dorothy Bray was Baroness Chandos
based on her first marriage. A woman with the rank of
‘lady’ or higher, attained either by marriage or by birth,
continued to hold this rank throughout the remainder of
her life. If she subsequently married a man of a lower
rank, she retained her superior title. See J. Lawson, ‘Bess
of Hardwick and Elizabeth St. Loe’, N&Q, lxi (2014), 206–
11.
5
The Elizabethan New Year’s Gift Exchanges, 1559–
1603, ed. J. Lawson (New York, 2013).
6
H. Causton, The Howard papers: with a Biographical
Pedigree and Criticism (Kent, 1862), 529–31. ‘Of this lady’,
writes Henry Howard of Corby, ‘the best I can say of her is,
that she was not so bad as her next sister’.
7
A. Bellany, ‘Howard, Frances, countess of Somerset
(1590–1632)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(Oxford, 2004), online edn, Jan 2008 <http://www.
oxforddnb.com/view/article/53028>, accessed 18 July 2017.
8
We have taken as fact that the 1605 date for the monu-
ment which has persisted throughout the subsequent centu-
ries is in the New Style instead of the Old Style in which 1605
would not end until Lady Day, 25 March, in what we would
now refer to as 1606.
March 2018 NOTES AND QUERIES 111
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/65/1/110/4823513
by Acquisitions Dept Serials user
on 23 February 2018
Lettice Knollys, whose first marriage made her
Countess of Essex and upon her second
Countess of Leicester. Additionally, the ar-
morial shield under the female figure atop the
canopy is replete with Howard heraldry. This
would indicate that the canopy was installed
after William was created Viscount
Wallingford in 1616 but before he became
Earl of Banbury in 1626.
9
A later installation
date for the canopy would also explain the dif-
ference in hair styles for the male weepers,
which includes William. The hair of the male
weepers on the main structure is longer and
wavy, as are the beards.
The base structure includes Sir Francis
Knollys and his wife Katherine Carey
Knollys in effigy lying on their backs looking
toward the underside of the canopy. On
Francis’s side kneel seven male weepers and
on Katherine’s seven female weepers.
Additionally, there is a very small effigy of
an infant lying next to Katherine’s effigy.
Katherine is wearing a pendant, which is also
portrayed in the 1562 painting of Portrait of a
Woman, probably Catherine Carey, Lady
Knollys, attributed to Steven van der
Meulen.
10
The presence of the unique pendant
in both the painting and on the effigy along
with the coincident dates of Katherine’s last
pregnancy seem to confirm the sitter’s identity
as that of Katherine Carey and the unborn
infant, Dudley.
According to Sir Francis Knollys’s Latin
Dictionary, in which he recorded the births of
his children, ‘Dudley Knolles was borne uppon
saterdaye the 9th of maye, halffe a qwarter of
an howre before 2 of the klocke at afternoonne
ao. 1562’.
11
Given the close relationship be-
tween the Knollys and Dudley families, espe-
cially Robert Dudley, later Earl of Leicester, it
was reasonable to assume that someone from
that family stood as godparent for this infant.
This was possibly Elizabeth Tailboys Dudley,
Countess of Warwick, second wife to Ambrose
Dudley, as one court source described the
child as Dudley Warwick, who was born
alive but died, or ‘was killed’, within two
months.
12
Custom decreed that there were
three godparents with two of the same sex of
the child and a third of the opposite sex. With
the Queen standing as one of the godparents
and the Countess of Warwick as a possible
second, the sex of the child could be confirmed
as female, although the identity of the third
godparent is not known.
The assumption that Dudley Knollys was a
male child has persisted and seemed to be based
solely upon the infant’s first name. However, the
chosen first name does not indicate gender. For
example, Douglas Howard, born 1542, daughter
of William Howard and Margaret Gamage
Howard, Baron and Baroness of Effingham,
bore a family name as her first name. Her
gender is confirmed by her appointment as a
maid of honour to Elizabeth I and her subse-
quent marriages.
13
It has been conjectured that
thechoiceofDouglasforafirstnamewasgiven
in honour of her godmother Margaret Douglas,
Countess of Lennox.
14
In the same naming trad-
ition of a family name for a daughter, the first
name of Dudley was also chosen for the daugh-
ters of Sir Arthur Gorges and Lady Elizabeth
Clinton Gorges, William Hyde and Elizabeth
Shipman Hyde, and Sir John St Leger and
Lady Catherine Neville St Leger.
Confirmation that the infant Dudley Knollys
was female comes from the Elizabethan New
Year’s Gift Rolls where this item was recorded
9
Hasler, The History of Parliament; The House of
Commons 1558–1603, I (London,1981).
10
Meulen became active in England in 1560 and became
a naturalized citizen in 1562, the year of the portrait. See J.
David, Conservation Examination Reveals Lady Knollys’s
past. Yale Center for British Art <http://britishart.yale.
edu/featured-story/30/3110>(accessed 9 September 2017).
11
S. Varlow, ‘Sir Francis Knollys’s Latin dictionary:
new evidence for Katherine Carey’, Institute of Historical
Research, lxxx (2007), 315–23.
12
I. W. Archer, and S. Adams, G. W. Bernard, M.
Greengrass, P. E. J. Hammer, and F. Kisby, Religion, Politics,
and Society in Sixteenth-Century England,CamdenFifthSeries
(Cambridge, 2003), 22; M. Colthorpe, Elizabethan Court Day
by Day, <http://folgerpedia.folger.edu/mediawiki/media/
images_pedia_folgerpedia_mw/d/d9/ECDbD_1562.pdf
(accessed 26 July 2017)>.
13
C. Merton, ‘The women who served Queen Mary and
Queen Elizabeth: ladies, gentlewomen and maids of the
privy chamber, 1553–1603,’ unpublished PhD thesis
(Trinity College, Cambridge, 1990) She married John
Sheffield, Baron Sheffield, in 1560; Edward Stafford in
1579; and may have married Robert Dudley, Earl of
Leicester by whom she had Robert Dudley (1574).
14
R. K. Marshall, ‘Douglas, Lady Margaret, countess of
Lennox (1515–1578)’, ODNB (Oxford, 2004) online edn, May
2006 <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/7911>, accessed
19 July 2017.
112 NOTES AND QUERIES March 2018
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/65/1/110/4823513
by Acquisitions Dept Serials user
on 23 February 2018
under Sundry Gifts at Various Tymes on the
1563 roll: ‘Syr Frauncis Knolles—Gevon by the
Quene her Matie this xviij of Maye Anno quarto
Regni Regine Elizabeth at the Christeninge of
Syr Frauncis Knowlles his Doughter—Thre
guilt Bolles weith a couer bought of the
Goldesmythes poz xlvj oz di.’ The Queen’s role
as godparent is confirmed by this gift and in the
Audit Office record of the payment of twenty-six
shillings paid by warrant dormant delivered as
the ‘Q’s maties rewarde’ to the nurse and mid-
wife for their assistance with the birth.
15
There is
no mention of the sex of the child in either the
Audit Office record or in other news of the court.
From the Latin Dictionary, we know that the
only child born close to this date was Dudley
Knollys. This combined with the gift roll listing
confirms Dudley’s gender as female.
16
Misidentification of the gender of an infant
did occur in court documents including
Treasurer of the Chamber accounts and the
Privy Seal documents as well as in the New
Year’s Gift exchanges. In 1572, Privy Seal re-
cords a christening gift of a cup with a cover
gilt for Lord Paget’s daughter who was a son,
William. The Queen was godmother to the son
of Thomas Lord Paget and Nazareth Newton
Paget, widow of Thomas Southwell and a lady
of the Privy Chamber. In 1573, Treasurer ac-
counts record that the Queen was godmother
to Sir Henry Radcliffe’s daughter. This was a
son, Robert who became Earl of Sussex in
1593. In 1575, Thomas Wenman and Jane
West Wenman’s son was actually a daughter,
Elizabeth. The Queen was godmother and pre-
sented the child with a silver gilt cup with a
cover. While this was not the actual problem
with Dudley Knollys, these records demon-
strate that errors were bound to be made.
17
One last indication that this child was female
is the placement of the infant effigy alongside the
mother on the female side of the monument. We
suspect this simple key to the infant’s gender
identification has been clouded throughout the
last four hundred years by sentimentality.
Thinking that the close affection that a mother
would have for losing a child not yet eight weeks
old suits the placement of the figure close to its
nurturing mother but muddies the otherwise
clear layout and organization of the rest of the
monument of females on one side and males on
the other. The decision to place a male infant
effigy on the female side would have to have
been made by William Knollys when he commis-
sioned the monument which was thirty-six years
after Katherine’s death and forty-three years
after the infant’s death.
By acknowledging that Dudley was female,
the number of children along with their relative
genders, born to Sir Francis and Lady Katherine
can be confirmed. Lady Knollys’s plaque in the
Chapel of St. Edmund in Westminster Abbey,
where she is buried, says that she gave birth to
sixteen children equally male and female.
18
This
is two more than represented on the funeral
monument but accurately reflects even numbers
of males and females. The plaque was placed in
the Abbey during Sir Francis’s lifetime, and
therefore should be considered a contemporary
record, although its location within the chapel
was changed in the 1960s. Lady Katherine
Knollys’s monument is stylistically of the
period and fits the date of her death in 1569.
According to Adam White, the more delicate
architectural surround relates to that of good-
quality London work of the 1560s and 1570s,
with similarity to the monument to Frances,
Duchess of Suffolk in the Abbey which is
dated 1563.
19
Given the elaborate nature of
Lady Knollys’s funeral, paid for by Queen
Elizabeth, the small plaque installed in the
Abbey is understated. Her sumptuous hearse
sparkedaconflictoverwhowouldkeep
15
PRO AO 1/380/3; BL Yelverton MSS 4800–48196; ‘A
‘‘journal’’ of matters of state ...’, ed. S. Adams et al.in
Religion, Politics, and Society in 16th-Century England, xxii
(London, 2003), 35–136, at 103.
16
Varlow, ‘Sir Francis Knollys’s Latin dictionary’,
throughout; Bundesen, ‘No faction other than my own’,
and Lawson, Elizabethan New Year’s Gift Exchanges—all
followed the assumption that Dudley was male so could
not be the seventh daughter.
17
M. Colthorpe, ‘Elizabethan Court Day By Day’,
Folgerpedia,<http://folgerpedia.folger.edu/The_Elizabethan_
Court_Day_by_Day>,accessed22July2017.
18
Westminster Abbey web site. Katherine Knollys’s
page is at <http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/
people/katherine-knollys>(accessed 25 July 2017).
19
Varlow, ‘Sir Francis Knollys’s Latin dictionary, 317;
Katherine Knollys monument, Westminster Abbey, <http://
www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/katherine-
knollys>(accessed 25 July 2017); A. White, ‘Church
Monuments in Britain c. 1560–c. 1660’, unpublished PhD
Thesis, University of London, 1992); correspondence with
Adam White, 25 July 2017.
March 2018 NOTES AND QUERIES 113
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/65/1/110/4823513
by Acquisitions Dept Serials user
on 23 February 2018
possession of it, requiring intervention by
Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk, Earl
Marshal of England.
20
Afterall,herbrother,
Henry Carey, Baron Hunsdon’s monument has
been called ‘breathtaking in its arrogance’ and is
the tallest in the Abbey.
21
In 1569 when Katherine was buried, Francis
was in a state of grief over the loss of his wife,
dealing with details of a large household, and
actively involved in government. He had just
transferred custody of Mary Queen of Scots to
the Earl of Shrewsbury, who commented to the
Earl of Leicester: ‘The Queen of Scots coming
to my charge will make me soon grey-
headed’.
22
It is unknown if Francis was con-
sulted for details of the memorial plaque. One
possibility could have been that he said he had
an equal number of sons and daughters. Based
on the known number of sons along with the
recently deceased infant, someone counted this
to be eight sons, which meant there had to be
eight daughters for a total of sixteen.
As of this writing, records have been con-
firmed for fourteen children, equally male and
female with Dudley as the seventh daughter.
The weepers on the monument in Rotherfield
Greys represent fourteen figures, equally male
and female, reinforcing Sir Francis’s personal
records of his children’s births in the Latin
Dictionary. It is possible that two other preg-
nancies ended in stillbirths, or died before a
christening could be arranged. If so, it might
explain why the births were not recorded in
the Latin Dictionary, which seems in all other
ways to be replete with details.
The seven female children in birth order were;
Mary (b.25 Oct 1542), Lettice (b.6 Nov 1543),
Maude (b.30 Mar 1548), Elizabeth (b.16 Jun
1549), Anne (b.19 Jul 1555), Katherine (b.21
Oct 1559), and Dudley (b.9 May 1562). The
seven male children in birth order would be
Henry (b.12 Apr 1541), William (b.20 Mar
1545), Edward (b.18 Oct 1546), Robert (b.9
Nov 1550), Richard (b.21 May 1552), Francis
(b.14 Aug 1553), and Thomas (b.2 Feb 1558).
23
The births come in very close succession. The
largest gaps are between Anne and Thomas,
thirty-one months, and Katherine and Dudley,
twenty-nine months. A possible explanation for
the gaps between births could have been still-
births, although the couple’s Marian exile be-
tween 1555 and 1558 likely had an effect. By
1555 Francis was in Basel, moving on to
Frankfurt where Katherine and the children
joined him. They returned to England upon
Elizabeth’s accession in November 1558. The
gap between Katherine and Dudley has no
such explanation as both husband and wife
were in England before Elizabeth I’s
coronation.
Further discrepancies in the historical record
derive from misunderstanding. Varlow argues
for eight sons, with Dudley as the eighth, draw-
ing support for this number from the line ‘I have
six sons living, besides my eldest’ written by Sir
Francis in a 1568 letter to William Cecil.
24
Six
sons plus the eldest is seven sons making Sir
Francis’s statement accurateandinalignment
with the figures represented on the monument.
Two sons predeceased their father but not until
1575 (Edward) and 1582 (Henry).
Two more hypotheses that bear reexamina-
tion include the seventh female weeper repre-
senting a daughter-in-law and the myth of a
daughter named Cecilia. Varlow suggests that
the seventh female weeper is William’s first
wife Dorothy Bray Brydges Knollys Baroness
Chandos and by 1605 also Baroness Knollys.
25
There is no available evidence for this. The
marriage did not occur until 1574. It was com-
panionable, but clearly not affectionate and
William’s hasty remarriage demonstrates an
eagerness to move on.
At the time of Lady Katherine Knollys’s
death, she had only one daughter-in-law,
Margaret Cave Knollys, who married her son
Henry Knollys in an elaborate celebration
on 16 July 1565 at Durham House with the
queen in attendance. ‘The Queen is still at
Greenwich. ... She will come hither on her way
20
For the sumptuous nature of Lady Knollys’s funeral
see Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, v.1,
1306–1571, p. 415 expenditure 9 July 1569. Her hearse was
so elaborate that the dean of Westminster and the heralds
both wanted to keep it.
21
L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558–1641
(Oxford,1965), 263–4.
22
Pepys, 144 per Colthorpe, ‘Elizabethan Court Day By
Day’.
23
Henry is recorded as Harry in the Latin Dictionary.
24
Sir Francis to William Cecil, 12 Sept 1568, Calendar of
State Papers, Scottish, 1563–9, II. 505, item 811.
25
Varlow, ‘Sir Francis Knollys’s Latin dictionary, 318.
114 NOTES AND QUERIES March 2018
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/65/1/110/4823513
by Acquisitions Dept Serials user
on 23 February 2018
to Richmond within seven or eight days, and will
be present at the marriage of the son of her Vice-
Chamberlain, who is called Knollys, with the
daughter of Ambrose Cave, of the Council. She
is rich and an only child’.
26
Margaret Cave
Knollys retired from court after her wedding
and spent most of her time managing the
family estates. As the monument was not in-
stalled in St. Nicholas Church in Rotherfield
Greys until 1605, any other daughter-in-law
might have been chosen by its patron, William
Knollys, but there is no evidence that he made
this decision in the interests of symmetry or
sentimentality.
The first female weeper is wearing ermine and
a coronet, although it has been damaged over
the years and the balls on elevated spires broken
off, yet the bases of the spires are still just visible.
Consensus is that this is Lettice Knollys who was
a countess twice over having married Walter
Devereux, Viscount Hereford and subsequently
Earl of Essex and then, without the Queen’s
knowledge or permission, married the favorite
Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. The remaining
six female weepers are dressed similarly in black
court dresses with circular French farthingales
andnoembellishmentbut are likely to represent
the remaining six Knollys daughters. Other
women who became daughters-in-law after
Katherine’s death included Katherine Vaughn
Knollys (m. Robert in 1585), Joan Higham
Knollys (m. Richard in 1578), Lettice Barrett
Knollys (m. Francis ‘the younger’ in 1588),
and Odelia de Morada Knollys (m. Thomas in
1590).
27
None of these women are known to
have had an especially close relationship with
William, nor, did any of them have noble titles
warranting a special place on the monument.
The suggestion that a daughter-in-law in the
mix is a hypothesis regarding a design decision
in favour of symmetry. Putting a first wife in the
position of weeper dressed in a plain court dress
in line with the Knollys daughters would have
undercut the message of grandeur and aspiration
that inspired the monument. Whereas, which-
ever date is valid for the installation of the
monument’s canopy, a daughter-in-law is
present as William’s wife. The idea of a daugh-
ter-in-law among the kneeling figures is echoed
by Norton but she does not speculate as to
which one.
28
Yet, there is no need for the inclu-
sion of a daughter-in-law to substantiate seven
daughters as seven daughters have been
identified.
An alternative theory is that one of the seven
weepers is Cecilia Knollys, a daughter not re-
corded in the Latin Dictionary and for whom
there is no evidence in the historical record.
Cecilia seems to have been invented in the
nineteenth century when a portrait listed in
an inventory of Knollys family belongings at
Fernhill Park is recorded as ‘Cecilia Knollys,
daughter to the Lord treasurer, afterwards
Lady Leighton, 1580’.
29
The author of the
list, General Sir William Knollys, is reported
to have qualified his identification claiming the
paintings were hung too high for him to accur-
ately read their identifications. This misidenti-
fication was then repeated in Violet Wilson’s
Queen Elizabeth’s Maids of Honour and Ladies
of the Privy Chamber, published in 1922 and
again in the Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography entry for Sir Francis Knollys. The
Latin Dictionary has no record of a daughter
named Cecilia, but does list a daughter named
Elizabeth and the painting in question has now
been identified as of Elizabeth Knollys, later
Lady Leighton.
30
Given these identifications, there would only
be two repeated figures amongst those repre-
sented on the monument. William Knollys is
represented once kneeling at the head of the
line of male weepers acknowledging his role
26
De Silva to Philip II, 9 Sept, 1565, Calendar of State
Papers, Spanish, I, 445–6.
27
See Bundesen, ‘No other faction but my own’,
throughout.
28
E. Norton, The Boleyn Women: The Tudor femmes
Fatales who changed English history (Gloucestershire,
2013), illustration 41 caption.
29
The list is printed in F. G. Lee, The History,
Descriptions and Antiquities of the Prebendal Church of the
Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame (England, 1883), 599–600.
30
Elizabeth Knollys (b. 16 June 1549) was a maid of the
privy chamber receiving livery for the queen’s coronation in
1559 and later serving as a gentlewoman of the privy cham-
ber. She married Thomas Leighton on 10 May 1579 in the
Chapel Royal. She consistently appears in the Gift Rolls.
She died c.1605 when her annuity was granted to
Elizabeth Howard Southwell Stuart Lady Carrick.
Presently the portrait is in the collection of Montacute
House. See Bundesen, ‘No other faction but my own’,
throughout; Lawson, Elizabethan New Year’s Gift
Exchanges; Merton, ‘The women who served Queen Mary
and Queen Elizabeth’, 263.
March 2018 NOTES AND QUERIES 115
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/65/1/110/4823513
by Acquisitions Dept Serials user
on 23 February 2018
as the accumulator of the most offices, titles,
and wealth, and patron of the monument. He
is represented again on the top of the canopy
which was a later addition to the monument
and which commemorated his further ennoble-
ment and second marriage. The other double
representation would be the daughter Dudley,
the last in the female line of weepers. Having
been christened, though living only a few
weeks, Dudley could have been called upon
to weep, or pray, for the matriarch and patri-
arch of this significant Elizabethan family.
We posit that the gender reassignment of
Dudley, as recorded in the Latin Dictionary
and the gift exchange records, brings the total
number of Knollys children into alignment
with the representation in the St. Nicholas
Chapel in Rotherfield Greys, while the plaque
in Westminster Abbey is half correct in report-
ing an equal number of male and female
children but incorrect in the total number
born. In designing a monument to his prolific
Elizabethan court family, William accurately
represented himself and his thirteen siblings
as weepers and subsequently further embel-
lished the monument as his own status
increased.
KRISTIN BUNDESEN
Walden University
JANE LAWSON
Emory University
doi:10.1093/notesj/gjx186
ßThe Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University
Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions,
please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Advance Access publication 24 January, 2018
THE SONG OF SONGS IN THOMAS
CAMPION’S WORK
THOMAS CAMPION’S use of biblical motifs
and language has been acknowledged by vari-
ous critics, and particularly by David Lindley,
who highlights the influence of the book of
Psalms on Campion’s poetry.
1
Yet, no scholar,
to my knowledge, has ever pointed out the in-
fluence of another biblical book on Campion’s
work: the Song of Songs, which appears
mainly in love poems, intertwining with the
Petrarchan and more generally Renaissance
tradition of love poetry. This use of the biblical
book is not unique to Campion, who, in refer-
ring to Solomon’s Song in his love poetry,
shared an intertextual practice with other
Renaissance poets. The fascinating and
ambivalent Song of Songs, simultaneously a
scriptural and allegorically interpreted text
and a sensual example of love poetry, held a
particular appeal for poets; it was used both in
accordance with the rules and premises of
Petrarchan poetry and as a contrasting elem-
ent, operating as an opposing force within the
Petrarchan code.
2
In fact, while the polyvalent
nature of the biblical book made it adaptable
to various poetic traditions, including the
Petrarchan one, the text could also be used—
for the very same reason—to negotiate and
play with these poetic models and with their
aesthetical, philosophical, and religious prem-
ises, or to diverge from them altogether.
Among the various Song-derived motifs
found in Campion’s work, some cannot be
considered as the outcome of a specific inter-
textual relationship with the biblical book.
Petrarchan poetry had assimilated some of
the topoi originating in the Song of Songs
and, by the time Campion wrote, they had
become so deeply integrated within the stan-
dardized amorous discourse of the period
that their biblical roots were no longer neces-
sarily acknowledged. These include the syntac-
tic topos of the ‘descending description’ that,
although perhaps originally inherited from
Alexandrine poetry, found its source of au-
thority in the biblical book; or the topoi of
the amorous wound (Song of Songs 4:9) and
of the woman as a flower, especially a lily and
rose (Song of Songs 2.1), which enjoyed an
extensive fortuna in Petrarchan love poetry.
Similarly, the topos of the beloved as the
most beautiful among women (Song of Songs
1:7), splendid as the moon and shining like the
sun (Song of Songs 6:9), and of her white and
red colours (Song of Songs 5:10) became
leitmotifs in the Petrarchan tradition. The
1
D. Lindley, Thomas Campion (Leiden 1986), 18–19,
30–5, 133.
2
Among the poets who make significant use of the bib-
lical Song of Songs, we can mention Edmund Spenser,
Richard Barnfield, William Shakespeare, Edward Herbert
of Cherbury, and Thomas Carew.
116 NOTES AND QUERIES March 2018
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/65/1/110/4823513
by Acquisitions Dept Serials user
on 23 February 2018
The History of Parliament; The House of Commons 1558-1603, I (London,1981) 10 Meulen became active in England in 1560 and became a naturalized citizen in 1562, the year of the portrait
  • Hasler
Hasler, The History of Parliament; The House of Commons 1558-1603, I (London,1981). 10 Meulen became active in England in 1560 and became a naturalized citizen in 1562, the year of the portrait. See J.
Conservation Examination Reveals Lady Knollys's past. Yale Center for British Art <http 11 S. Varlow, 'Sir Francis Knollys's Latin dictionary: new evidence for Katherine Carey', Institute of Historical Research
  • David
David, Conservation Examination Reveals Lady Knollys's past. Yale Center for British Art <http://britishart.yale. edu/featured-story/30/3110> (accessed 9 September 2017). 11 S. Varlow, 'Sir Francis Knollys's Latin dictionary: new evidence for Katherine Carey', Institute of Historical Research, lxxx (2007), 315-23. 12 I. W. Archer, and S. Adams, G. W. Bernard, M.
westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/katherineknollys>); A. White, 'Church Monuments in Britain c. 1560-c. 1660
  • Katherine Knollys Monument
  • Westminster Abbey
Katherine Knollys monument, Westminster Abbey, <http:// www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/katherineknollys> (accessed 25 July 2017); A. White, 'Church Monuments in Britain c. 1560-c. 1660', unpublished PhD Thesis, University of London, 1992); correspondence with Adam White, 25 July 2017.
Calendar of State Papers
  • De Silva
  • I I Philip
De Silva to Philip II, 9 Sept, 1565, Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, I, 445-6.
No other faction but my own
  • See Bundesen
See Bundesen, 'No other faction but my own', throughout.
The Boleyn Women: The Tudor femmes Fatales who changed English history (Gloucestershire, 2013), illustration 41 caption. 29 The list is printed in F. G. Lee, The History, Descriptions and Antiquities of the Prebendal Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame
  • E Norton
E. Norton, The Boleyn Women: The Tudor femmes Fatales who changed English history (Gloucestershire, 2013), illustration 41 caption. 29 The list is printed in F. G. Lee, The History, Descriptions and Antiquities of the Prebendal Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame (England, 1883), 599-600.