III
In academia,there are different opinions about the political position of the English nobility in the Tudor period.Some considered that the English nobility was in crisis.‘The curbing of the nobility,it was alleged,together with the supposed Tudor penchant for middle-class advisers,entailed a rapid downgrading of the power of the nobility.’[53]Representative of this view was Lawrence Stone's The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641.This viewpoint has occupied the leading position for a long time,but more and more criticisms have emerged since the 1980s.
In my opinion,the viewpoint that the nobility was in political crisis during Tudor period was one-sided.There are three aspects worth discussing.
First,the policy of constraint and suppression which belonged to the Tudors didn’t largely strike the nobility.After the foundation of the Tudor dynasty,it carried out several measures to restrict and suppress the nobility in order to make sure the long-term stability of the dynasty and to avoid the pitfalls that the turbulence and instability resulting from the considerable power previously held by the nobility.It included breaking the power of the nobility by depriving them of titles and possessions,decreasing the quantity of the powerful grand seigneur,conferring the new nobility against the influence of grand seigneur,restricting and decreasing the quantity of the vassals held by the nobility,stopping the domestic servants from wearing the liveries,forbidding the construction of new castles,and forbidding the nobility from storing masses of new weapons.Furthermore,the Tudor Kings also tried to change the mind of the people,and to make the nobles believe that the use of violence was not only illegal,smart and dishonourable,but also an issue of morality.Furthermore,they sought to ensure that the valet and the tenant of the nobility believed that their loyalty shouldn’t expand to settle private conflicts with force,and in particular that no force should ever be used against the monarchy.
However,this problem wasn’t settled in a few years,but it would take a century for these various measures and untiring efforts in various fields.‘It called for a social transformation of extreme complexity,involving issues of power,technology,landholding,economic structure,education,status symbols,and concepts of honour loyalty.’[54]In addition,the effectiveness which resulted from the coercive measures that were carried out to the nobility in the early Tudor period was broken by the necessity of military service that the nobility had provided to the Tudor House.Whatever started the external plunder,or withstanding the foreign invasion,or else suppressing the internal rebellion,the kings had to appeal to the loyal nobility for assistance.The more detailed research has shown that the combination of the military power of the nobility,and their military attendant survived longer than the people had always thought.In the reign of Elizabeth,these types of grand seigneurs,such as the Duke of Norfolk and the Count of Leicester were still able to gather their private forces.We still notice that,in 1599,the Earl of Pembroke promised the Queen that when an emergency situation arose‘300 horse and 500 foote at the leaste of my followers,armed at myne own costs and with myne owne store’.[55]The well-trained troops established by the order of Elizabeth I were still controlled by the nobility.Nothing but the power which they executed belonged to the country,and neither did it belong to the personal power of the nobility any more.
When the Tudor Kings punished the nobility who rebelled,they didn’t resort the thorough tactics of the extermination.When he was on the throne,Henry VII deprived the titles and possessions of some nobles,but most of the nobility received them back from the king,although of course,not all of them did so.Elizabeth I applied for the different methods when she dealt with the noble rebellion.She understood the importance of these noble families,so when she dealt with the noble rebellion,she awarded the titles to the branches of the families.For example,the punishment to the Duke of Northumberland didn’t destroy the Percy family,because Northumberland's brother,Sir Henry Percy still worked for Elizabeth I and he became the 8th earl.Many other families maintained their titles and possessions through the same way.[56]In this period,though some noble families received punishments‘the rise and fall of some noble families had not destroyed the essential power system’.[57]
Second,the nobles still occupied quite an important position in the political framework during the Tudor Period.In the past,many scholars emphasized the factor of non-nobility which belonged to the organizations like the Privy Council and the Council,and also thereby thought that the nobles were excluded away from the core of power.The reformation of the Council really brought the changes which were to affects the nobility,although the nobles who had lost the position of the Council weren’t excluded from the organization..The Parliament was now fitter and more capable of incorporating them into the new political system.In Parliament,they could make laws and approve taxation.Their wealth and social influence is changed to the well-known power of Westminster.‘Every nobleman who attended parliament had the opportunity to express his views on any policy to be implemented by statute.’[58]
In the past,people had always thought that the Tudor Kings just depended on the new talents,but actually the nobility was still the most reliable social class and dominant power.Henry VII realized that he had to work and cooperate with the nobility in order to make sure that he was the only one who could provide the dependence and protection to gain the favour to the nobility.Henry VIII was more prudent than Henry VII on the problem about assigning the wealth and power.Though Henry VIII conferred extensively,the most important and profitable official position was still caught by the nobles,who has the closest relationship with Henry VIII.In the field where the identity of the nobility was a major condition,no one was able to challenge the nobility.Moreover,some official positions were still the proprietary right of the nobility.The reformation of Privy Council in 1530s immensely reduced the quantities of noble members,but did not restrict them absolutely.
There were nineteen members in the Privy Council from 1536 to 1537,nine of them were nobles.They were from Norfolk,Suffolk,Exeter,Sandys,the Earl of Oxford,the Earl of Sussex,Edward Seymour,Viscount Beauchamp and Thomas Lord Cromwell.[59]Losing their reputation was quite a considerable concern for the nobility.But almost half of Privy Council were nobles,and therefore the conception of the noble domination was hard to shake.The nobles,who always joined the House of Lord after that time,also later became the members of the Privy Council.Though it was a question as to the identity of the member of the House of Lord and whether it could bring them the position of Privy Council,at least,Privy Council was more open to the nobility.‘No government imaginable in sixteenth-century England could have excluded the nobility from power at the centre,but the terms on which power might be achieved had been transformed.’[60]All of dukes,marquises,almost all of earls and all of viscounts had joined the Council from 1509 to 1536.Eight barons who were conferred the nobility before 1536 were the members of the Council before being the nobility.They were Marney,Berkeley,Sandys,Vaux,Hussey,Windsor,Mordaunt and George Boleyn.Nine nobles who were conferred as barons before the reign of Henry VIII were members of the council,they were Herbert,Hastings,Darcy,Berners,William Blount,Lord Mountjoy,George Nevill,Lord Bergavenny,Thomas Lord Dacre of the north and his son William,the next Baron,John Bourchier,Lord FitzWarin.[61]Consequently,before 1536,the Council provided many nobles with chances which could help them to participate in the decisions of central government.
Though intolerable for the Tudor kings to grant independence to the noble powers,they also found that it was absolutely acceptable for the noble powers,which were in the kings’names to be carried out in kings’ interests.Accordingly,the development of the Tudor dynasty wasn’t at the cost of sacrificing the nobility,but it requested that the nobles changed their political functions.The historians had already unanimously thought that the Tudor kings didn’t really oppose the power of the nobility.The reign of Henry VIII saw noble families rule the vast region of England and Wales.These nobles were the agencies of monarchy in local areas.There was a place for nobility on the Council of the north and the Welsh marches.The Lords lieutenant was a permanent position,and was set up at all of the shires,and was not the interim arrangement for the troublesome regions.Owing to the establishment of this official position,the local government was firmly commanded by the nobility.This was the only first step in the process of nobles'thoroughly controlling the local government in the early 18th century.As Bush explains,‘Distinguishing the Tudor regime,then,was its abstemiousess in creating new titles and in granting private governmental and military rights,but not a disbelief in the political and social need for territorial magnates.’[62]
Third,the Tudor House didn’t have the special favour to the gentry.The viewpoint which supports the Tudor monarchy against the nobility had the inevitable consequence that the Tudor monarchy had a special favour to the gentry.To explain the politics of the Tudor monarchy,it not only included the decadence of the nobility but also included the rising of gentry.We could question its reasonableness from two aspects.Firstly,the Tudor kings established a passel of new noble families and used them in the system of government.Secondly,when the kings took action against the nobility,they didn’t have any special favour to the gentry.Thus continuing the traditional political functions were their tendencies instead of changing the gentry's traditional political functions.‘The Tudors used the gentry in the traditional manner.No attempt was made to equalize the grossly disproportionate privileges of the peerage and the gentry.’[63]The gentry were a main source which still supplements the members of national officials.But they just got the peerage to start a higher official position because of their traditional ways.This prominently showed with regard to the position of the advanced military general.The gentry undertook the governor who guarded the north marches in 1530s.But this was temporary,and purely owing to the shortage of the right person from the nobility.The military leadership was always limited to the noble families who obtained military achievements.In the early 1540s,Edward Seymour intruded into this field.This prevented others from taking part,just because he was a member of the nobility.At the same time,the failure which belonged to the Brandons and the Howards provided the opportunity for him to get an advanced military position.‘Some high administrative offices became newly available to the gentry at the centre of Tudor government but not at magnate expense.’[64]The Tudor kings actually didn’t stick to the family origin and collected some capable men to be the key person of government.They all came from the middle class,for example,Thomas Wolsey,Thomas Cromwell and William Cecil.However,they were just the power from which the monarchy drew support,and were not representative of the respective‘class’.Besides,the gentry who rebelled suffered the punishment as strictly as the nobility who rebelled.The returned opportunity of the declining gentry family was always smaller than a declining noble family.
Therefore,it is reasonable for us to think that the English nobility in the Tudor period still took an important position in political life.Although their position and effect was subject to unrest,this is the natural phenomenon of the social adjustment.This unrest never fundamentally shook the political position of the nobility.
【注释】
[1]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis(Manchester, 1984),102.
[2]阿萨·勃里格斯:《英国社会史》,陈叔平等译,北京:中国人民大学出 版社,1991年,第130页(Asa Briggs,A Social History of England,trans.CHEN Shuping et al.,Beijing:China Renmin University Press,1991,130)。H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility(Oxford,1986),7.
[3]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641(Oxford,1967),48.
[4]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,35.
[5]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,48-49.
[6]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,49.
[7]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,100.
[8]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,35.
[9]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,37.
[10]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,48.
[11]王晋新:《试论英国女王伊丽莎白一世的封爵政策》,《东北师大学报》1997年第3期(WANG Jinxin,‘An Approach to the creational policy of the Queen Elizabeth I’,Journal of Northeast Normal University,3(1997),24-28)。
[12]J.R.Lander,Monarchy and Nobility,1450-1509(London,1997),274.
[13]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,40.
[14]Lord Longford,The House of Lords(London,1988),42-43.
[15]J.R.Lander,Monarchy and Nobility,1450-1509,274.
[16]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,100.
[17]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,129.
[18]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,101.
[19]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,100-101.
[20]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,257.
[21]J.R.Lander,Monarchy and Nobility,1450-1509,274,292.
[22]J.R.Lander,Monarchy and Nobility,1450-1509,296.
[23]肯尼思·O.摩根:《牛津英国通史》,王觉非等译,北京:商务印书馆,1993年,第250页(Kenneth O.Morgan(ed.),The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain,trans.WANG Juefei et al.,Beijing:The Commercial Press,1993,250)。
[24]肯尼思·O.摩根:《牛津英国通史》,第251页(Kenneth O.Morgan(ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain,trans.WANG Juefei et al.,251)。
[25]R.B.沃纳姆主编:《新编剑桥世界近代史》(第三卷,反宗教改革运动和 价格革命:1559—1610年),中国社会科学院世界历史研究所组译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999年,第173页(R.B.Wernham(ed.),The New Cambridge Modern History,Volume III:The Counter-reformation and Price Revolution(1559-1610),trans.The Institute of World History of CASS,Beijing:China Social Sciences Press,1999,17)。
[26]J.R.Lander,Monarchy and Nobility,1450-1509,268.
[27]J.R.Lander,Monarchy and Nobility,1450-1509,268.
[28]J.Guy,The Tudor Monarchy(London＆New York,1997),332-335.
[29]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,29.
[30]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,164.
[31]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,200.
[32]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,196-197.
[33]温斯顿·丘吉尔:《英语国家史略》(上册),薛力敏等译,北京:新华出 版社,1985年,第567页(Winston S.Churchill,A History of the English-Speaking Peoples,Vol.I,trans.XUE Limin et al.,Beijing:Xinhua Publishing House,1985,567)。
[34]佩里·安德森:《绝对主义国家的系谱》,刘北成、龚晓庄译,上海:上海人民出版社,2001年,第128页(Perry Anderson,Lineages of the Absolutist State,trans.LIU Beicheng,GONG Xiaozhuang,Shanghai:Shanghai People's Publishing House,2001,128)。
[35]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,146.
[36]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,96.
[37]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,107.
[38]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,101.
[39]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,50.
[40]J.Dewald,The European Nobility 1400-1800(Cambridge,1996),147.
[41]J.Guy,The Tudor Monarchy(London＆New York,1997),287.
[42]钱乘旦:《英国王权的发展及文化与社会内涵》,《历史研究》1991年第5 期,第175-189页(QIAN Chengdan,‘The Development of the English Monarchy and its Cultural＆Social Connotation’,Historical Research,5(1991),175-189)。
[43]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,121.
[44]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,118.
[45]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,121.
[46]L.Stone＆J.C.F.Stone,An Open Elite?England 1540-1880(Oxford, 1984),398.
[47]S.N.艾森斯塔得:《帝国的政治体系》,阎步克译,贵阳:贵州人民出版社,1992年,第183页(S.N.Eisentadt,The Political System of Empires,trans.YAN Buke,Guiyang:Guizhou People's Publishing House,1992,183)。
[48]H.Zmora.Monarchy,Aristocracy,and the State in Europe 1300-1800 (London,2001),35-36.
[49]佩里·安德森:《绝对主义国家的系谱》,第41页(Perry Anderson,Lineages of the Absolutist State,trans.LIU Beicheng,GONG Xiaozhuang,41)。
[50]马克垚:《中西封建社会比较研究》,上海:学林出版社,1997年,第350 页(MA Keyao,A Comparative Study of the Feudal Society in China and West,Shanghai:Academia Press,1997,350)。
[51]佩里·安德森:《绝对主义国家的系谱》,第41页(Perry Anderson,Lineages of the Absolutist State,trans.LIU Beicheng,GONG Xiaozhuang,41)。
[52]P.Zagorin,Rebels and Rulers,1500-1660,Vol.Ⅰ:Society,States and Early Modern Revolution,Agrarian and Urban Rebellions(Cambridge,1982),96.
[53]J.A.Sharpe,Early Modern England:A Social History 1550-1760(London,1987),160.
[54]L.Stone,The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641,98.
[55]J.A.Sharpe,Early Modern England:A Social History 1550-1760,160.
[56]J.Black,Historical Atlas of Britain:The End of the Middle Ages to the Georgian Era(Stroud,2000),78.
[57]马克垚:《中西封建社会比较研究》,第256页(MA Keyao,A Comparative Study of the Feudal Society in China and West,256)。
[58]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,132.
[59]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,112.
[60]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,112-113.
[61]H.Miller,Henry VIII and the English Nobility,105-106.
[62]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,104.
[63]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,110.
[64]M.L.Bush,The English Aristocracy:A Comparative Synthesis,110.