Introduction ii

The purpose of this introduction is neither to present new arguments about early Stuart political poetry, nor to rehearse arguments that the editors have made elsewhere, but rather to contextualize the material and explain the editorial methods. Like the edition as a whole, it is prepared with an interdisciplinary audience in mind, and attempts to situate these poems in relation to scholarly concerns in both historical and literary studies. The first section considers the cultural and political conditions of early Stuart England, and outlines the principal characteristics and functions of libels. The second section describes in detail the editorial decisions on which the edition is based, and summarizes the practices that have been employed throughout.

1. The conditions and practices of libelling

The early Stuart period was not the first time that poetry had been employed in politics, nor would it be the last. Nonetheless, this edition aims to demonstrate that the political poems of these years form a body of interconnected work, which is lent coherence by virtue of the activities of both writers and readers. These people were without doubt aware of what their culture was producing, and were keen to participate in a vital cultural and political practice. Consequently, when surveying the literary and political culture of the period it is possible to identify a number of converging factors which might explain not only the proliferation of libels, but also the principal characteristics of early Stuart political poetry. As becomes apparent from any consideration of the poems and their contexts, early Stuart libels participated in an increasingly contestatory culture, and in turn helped to refine the central conflicts and struggles of that culture.

One of the most popular poems contained in this edition may seem, with the questionable benefit of temporal distance, a peculiar and quirky achievement. “The Parliament Fart” (“Downe came grave auntient Sir John Croke”) records a fart emitted in the House of Commons in 1607. More significantly, however, it commemorates both an institution and a community, as it accumulates couplet after witty couplet attributing reactions to the fart to individual members of parliament. Though it seems innocuous enough politically, readers appear to have responded not merely to the display of wit, but also to the focus on an institution which became increasingly problematic in the course of the reigns of James and Charles. Indeed none of the early Stuart parliaments was an easy experience for the monarch, and by the late 1620s the evident tensions placed acute strains on traditional ideals of a politics of consensus and counsel. It was perhaps partly for this reason that collectors continued to transcribe “The Parliament Fart” into miscellanies in the 1620s and 1630s, making it one of the most popular poems in manuscript circulation during the early seventeenth century. The poem offered, simply, an unauthorized history of the Commons. It was perhaps also for this reason that the final lines (in our chosen version) seek to identify the poem as a libel: “Come come quoth the King libelling is not safe / Bury you the fart, I’le make the Epitaph”.