civic life and religion in early seventeenth-century

Civic Life and Religion in Early Seventeenth-CenturyAuthor(s): Colm LennonSource: Archivium Hibernicum, Vol. 38 (1983), pp. 14-25Published by: Catholic Historical Society of IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487445 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 04:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Catholic Historical Society of Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchivium Hibernicum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 04:19:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chsi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487445?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CIVIC LIFE AND RELIGION IN EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY DUBLIN

by COLM LENNON

The study of religion in early modern cities has yielded many valuable

insights into the changing lives of urban-dwellers. Historians have used the

evidence of urban piety to explain the course of the Reformation and

Counter-Reformation, to describe conflict between clergy and laity and to

register the growth of a rational or ethical religion which responded positively to commerce and business. More recently there has been an attempt to

broaden the scope of these enquiries. Religion has been seen as a vital element

in the shaping of a sense of urban community and of urban solidarity. The

symbolic aspects such as liturgy, pious rituals and forms of organization have

come to assume greater importance in this analysis of the response of religion to urban life. It is clear that the traditional forms of religious expression could help the citizens to interpret their experiences of civic community.1

Early modern Dublin has been rather neglected in these studies* While

many aspects of Tudor and Stuart Ireland have received very full historical attention in recent times, the implications for the civic community of the

metropolis receive passing mention. Although this is true of the story of

religion in Dublin there have been some exceptions to the pattern. In the earlier half of this century Fr Myles Ronan produced many works illustrating some of the forms of piety in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Dublin.2

While he was content in most cases merely to describe institutions and their

functions, he did provide in an impressionistic way evidence for the vitality of

religion in pre- and post-Reformation Dublin. His writings can give a great stimulus to the student of the role of religion in the Dublin community in the

years after the Reformation of the 1530s, In this essay I wish to suggest some ways in which the study of the

religious disposition of the Dublin community can render more meaningful an

understanding of the shaping of the body social and politic there in the first

thirty years or so of the seventeenth century. In the context of explaining the

strengthening government pressure during that period I will identify the civic

leaders as a group which set the tone for the community and will describe its members' response to that pressure, The attempt to explain the response will be aided by the demonstration of the vibrant nature of the forms and prac tices of piety in the urban environment. To stress the continuity of religious experience from the pre-Reformation period I would like to take an

important example of a religious fraternity which survived the Reformation and may have helped to bind the Christian community of Dublin more

closely together to face the challenge of new forms of social, political and indeed religious organization.

14



Elizabethan Dublin was at one and the same time the centre of royal administration and a self-governing municipality. The activities of the former

did not really impinge upon those of the latter until the reign of James I.

Dublin was run by a group of wealthy citizens who acted within the bounds

of the liberties and privileges conferred by royal charters.3 While an ominous

distinction grew up between the personnel of the Irish government and the

civic administration, the municipality did not suffer seriously from state

religious or political policies. After early and sporadic attempts to enforce the

uniformity legislation of 1560 there were only a few recorded cases of citizens being punished for their religious convictions up to 1603.4 As long as the city remained loyal, or even neutral, in the turbulent period of conflict between the government and hostile elements outside the walls, it could

expect to be left unmolested in the enjoyment of its traditional liberties. In

fact, so highly did the government prize the goodwill of the prosperous mercantile class that it was prepared to amplify the corporation's control over

customs and trade in the golden charter of 1582.5 This freedom of the city's merchants from the payment of poundage represented an increase in the

municipality's independence from royal control.

Dublin and the other port cities of Ireland came under severe government pressure in the early years of James Fs reign. Already in the 1590s, as a result of the enormity of the threat of Spanish interference and the suspicions about the citizens' politico-religious loyalties, there were official rumblings about the freedom enjoyed by the ports.6 The time was right after 1603 in

the eyes of government officials to mount an attack on the religious, economic and political aspirations of Dublin and the other cities. In the

spheje of religion, the supremacy and uniformity laws of 1560 were rigorous

ly enforced, backed up by prerogative measures such as the Mandates and the

expulsion of priests. The use of the prerogative Court of Castle Chamber to

cow recalcitrant citizens was a feature of the period. In economic matters the

government determined to impose uniformity on the collection of customs

and revenues, thereby reversing the trend towards the alienation to corpora tions such as Dublin of the rights to the collection and use of these resources.

In general political terms, there was a very close scrutiny of the charters of

Dublin and other cities in an effort to tighten up on the power of the crown

within urban walls.

It was the group of aldermen of Dublin which bore the full brunt of

government pressure in the first decade of James Fs reign. There were twenty four aldermen in this prestigious coterie at any given time, appointment

(which was for life) being made from the ranks of the common council of the

guilds of the city. Together they sat in the full assembly at its quarterly meet

ings and they constituted a kind of standing committee of the corporation,

meeting weekly on Fridays in the Tholsell. The members of the twenty-four were people .of property, the vast majority of them being merchants.7 Family traditions of appointment to the twenty-four were strong: in the sixty-year

period from 1560 to 1620, 120 families provided aldermen.8 Among these

15



wealthy families there were close bonds. A study of the marriage patterns of the twenty-four in 1605 reveals that well over half of them were married to

daughters or sisters of fellow-aldermen while a small number were connected

with gentry families of the Pale such as the Luttrells, Barnewalls and

Sarsfields.9 One senior alderman, Walter Sedgrave, was married to a daughter

of an alderman, was brother-in-law to three aldermen and father-in-law of

two.10

Within the full city assembly the aldermen dominated the ordering of

business and the appointments to city positions. The mayoralty was

conferred on one of the twenty-four in strict order of succession. Up to the troubled period of the early seventeenth century the average span of years from appointment as alderman to selection as mayor was eight. While the

office was very expensive for the holder, a fact which necessitated an annual

subsidy being voted from city funds, it conferred prestige and power.11 Under the mayor, the aldermen filled the offices of treasurer and auditors, and manned the special committees set up to ensure the smooth running of the city. The records of the meetings of the aldermen's committee attest to

the concerns of the twenty-four in the period up to 1611.12 A striking feature of these minutes is the note of defensiveness regarding religion and

trade, as the level of government interference increased.

This group attracted the government's attention because it seemed to

embody the corporate particularism of the municipality. As leaders of the

community, the aldermen were recognized as arbiters of religious attitudes

within the city and the area of the Pale.13 As prosperous merchants they were closely connected with the Trinity Guild of merchants which controlled

trade and commerce through the port.14 As a powerful policy-making body within the corporation they orchestrated the business of the city assembly in^ its domestic affairs and in its relations with the royal authorities.

Before examining the details of the aldermen's response to the govern

ment's hard line, we may register the dislocation which occurred in the

pattern of civic life by referring to the disrupted process of succession to civic

offices. A dramatic reduction occurred in the average length of time from

appointment as alderman to selection as mayor: from eight years before 1600 to four in the period up to 1620. From Michaelmas 1604 when Alderman John Shelton refused the oath of supremacy and was therefore debarred from

the mayoralty, until the mid-1620s, at least ten aldermen declined the office,

despite the large fines and other penalties which this involved. During the same period, three aldermen held the office of mayor for a total of eight years between them: Sir James Carroll, Richard Forstcr and Richard

Browne.15 In 1613 a chronicler noted that the young mayor-elect, Richard

Forster, had leaped a salmon-leap, for that he saw many grave and gray

headed men there standing about him whose turn was to have been mayor

before him, but they would not take the oath of supremacy'.16 In fact. Forster had been appointed as alderman only in the year before his mayoralty and there were nine aldermen before him in the succession.17

16



Signs of concern among the aldermen themselves began to show in the

autumn of 1603, Alderman William Gough was reluctant to undertake the

mayoralty, 'alleging disability and impediments'.18 He was threatened with a

fine of ?2,000 if he refused to accept his responsibilities. This was ten times

the amount decided upon in 1560 for such a refusal.19 At the Michaelmas

meeting of the assembly in 1603, seven aldermen were fined for absenting themselves, apparently as a protest.20 With one exception, these were leading recusant figures during the next twenty years. It fell to Alderman John

Shelton to feel the force of the government's stringent application of the

recusancy laws. He refused to take up the mayoralty in September 1604 and

in November, the city assembly was directed by the lord deputy to apply the

statute of 1560, debarring Shelton from the liberties of the city. He was fined

?300 and imprisoned.21 The deputy's intervention in this manner was highly unusual. Shelton was held in prison for at least two years and was regarded as

an exemplary case, with many attempts being made to win him from his

recusancy.22 Shelton was joined in jail in 1605 by a large number of his

fellow-aldermen and -citizens on foot of proceedings in the Court of Castle

Chamber.

The use of this prerogative court represents the government's strongest effort to dissuade the Catholic civic leaders from their course.23 In a series of

cases from November 1605 to July 1606, a total of twenty-four aldermen and

prominent citizens were charged with refusing to obey the Mandates of 3

November 1605. The accused stated that 'they had been brought up in the

Romish religion, and it was against their consciences to go to church to hear

service or sermons*. The recusants were fined from ?50 to ?100 and were

imprisoned in the Castle during pleasure.24 At one stage there were thirteen

of the twenty-four aldermen in jail along with four who were to achieve that

rank within the next six years. The government was able to claim that four

aldermen had 'conformed themselves': Nicholas Borran, John Arthur, John

Cusack and George Young.25 Despite a powerful petition of the gentry of the

Pale to the king in December 1605, appealing against the use of Castle Chamber as a 'spiritual consistory', and detailing the distress suffered by the

families of the imprisoned aldermen, the government stuck to its course for about a year.26 During that time one old alderman, James Bellew, was

released from prison to die at home on the appeal of his wife.27 The government rightly suspected that John Shelton and his fellow

recusants were being guided by 'divers priests and Jesuits which haunt this

town [of Dublin] 'J28 The letters of the Jesuits, Christopher Hollywood,

Henry FitzSimon and others attest to the* fruits of their confirmation of the

leading citizens. Hollywood wrote in 1604 that 'by our exertions wc have

frustrated their [the government's] efforts [to undermine Shelton]; and thus

his steadiness has consoled the faithful of the whole kingdom'.29 In a letter of

1606 Fr Hollywood claimed that he had assembled the 'chief senators' of the

city in a certain country house in September 1605 to strengthen their resolve

'to do their best to protect the weaker citizens from the fury of the wolves'.30

17



He later sent to them answers which could conveniently be made to the

questions which the lord deputy and council were likely to put to them. He

claimed that 'they have stuck most religiously and scrupulously to this

instruction9. While the aldermen were in prison, Hollywood wrote to them,

confirming them and helping them to steer clear of blandishments which they

might be offered to apostatize. Only one *weakminded' old man gave way and

held conference with a Calvinist minister'. Hollywood relayed the more

resounding answers of the tempted ones to his Father General.31

By October 1607 the government had relaxed the pressure to some extent,

admitting that efforts to coerce the leading citizens were futile while the

priests continued to work among them. Aldermen continued to refuse office as mayor but the city assembly managed to reorder the succession quietly. In

1608 negotiations over the government's plans to redeem the farm of the

Irish customs involved the city's representatives in a legal defence of its

charters in London.32 The findings of a commission were against the city's case and a bargaining process for concessions began. When negotiations failed

the government acted again under prerogative order to impose poundage and in 1612 the Privy Council proceeded to set up a consolidated farm of the

Irish customs. Hans for a parliament to assert government control in this and

other areas were well afoot when the aldermen of Dublin set up a sub

committee of nine in 1610 to meet twice weekly to 'consider what is meant to be provided in parliament for the good of the city*33 Events in the years

immediately preceding the meeting of parliament were ominous for the

Catholic majority in the twenty-four: in July 1611 a proclamation against Jesuits and priests was reissued and in February 1612 Bishop Conor

O'Devany and Father Patrick O'Loughran were publicly executed in

Dublin.34 The writ authorizing the holding of an election was directed to the mayor

of Dublin in early I613.35 He was Sir James Carroll, a Protestant who had

agreed to take up office in place of his Catholic father, Thomas.36 The first

election took place in Carroll's absence, and the Catholic majority elected

Aldermen Francis Taylor and Thomas Allen, both Catholics.37 When the

mayor returned to Dublin he declared two Protestants, Alderman Richard

Barry and Recorder Bolton, elected, and they subsequently sat in parliament. The overturning of the results of the first election led to a riot which resulted in the imprisonment of some of the citizens and the execution of one of

them. A formal Catholic protest ensued but a royal commission of enquiry did not return a verdict about the Dublin election.38 Alderman Francis

Taylor, a veteran city councillor, was left to languish in prison until his death in 1621.^ Commenting on the events of the election, Sir Robert Jacob, the

solicitor-general, saw a confederation for the dashing of the law which the recusants understood would be propounded against the priests. The sheriffs and freemen to that end 'made choice of two of the most Spanish and

seditious schismatics in all the city [Taylor and Alien] V40

18



While the establishment of the Jesuit residency in Dublin by the early seventeenth century was important,41 the activities of the members merely served to confirm the strong recusant stance of the leading citizens. Some

examples will show how the religious outlook of the aldermen was established. John Shelton's recusancy was seen as a model for the rest of the community. Fr Hollywood regarded him as 'a man of great courage' but thought he was in

danger of being won over by the parsons who 'daily disputed about religion with him in his cell'. Shelton was, according to Hollywood, 'very poorly instructed in matters of religion, a thing that we experienced two years ago

when he was almost seduced into apostasy by Dr Challiner'.42 Clearly Shelton was a man of the old faith and not versed in Tridentine Catholicism. The mother of Alderman Nicholas Ball, Margaret, had been arrestee! and

imprisoned for her overt profession of Catholicism in the early 1580s, a time of unrest throughout Ireland.43 She had died a prisoner and her memory was

fresh in the early seventeenth century to judge by a reference to her by Fr Fitzsimon.44 Nicholas's will, proved in 1609, shows his Catholic convic

tions. He requested that he be buried in St Audoen's church with his mother

and family, and he left ?10 to Father Hollywood and Mr Thomas Allen to be

disposed of 'among Christ's faithful priests'.45 Nicholas's brother-in-law, Alderman Walter Sedgrave, who had been arrested in 1584 and charged with

supplying arms to the Baltinglass rebels, stipulated in his will that part of his estate be given over to the education of priests.46

There is evidence to suggest that the religious convictions of the civic

leaders pervaded their general approach to urban life. Their adaptability in

the years after the initial onslaught was hinted at in January 1609 when a

merchant named Peter Dermot was fined ?10 by the aldermen for alleging that for the previous five years one of the two sheriffs appointed annually

was 'but a cipher' who went to church for Protestant service, while the other

who was regarded as the real sheriff did not go to church 47 Another hostile

witness, Barnaby Rich, an ex-soldier, accused the Catholic aldermen of dis

criminating against Protestant citizens in a number of ways. The sheriffs

could harass with impunity those like Rich who were Protestant. One

particular sheriff who had caused Rich to be imprisoned for a night about

1610 was seen by Rich coming out of a Mass-house in Hangman's Lane the

following Sunday. Protestants were forced to pay the unpopular levy of cess

for the quartering of soldiers at the rate of ten shillings to every six pence

paid by the Catholic freemen.48 In their approach to the legal contest about

customs rights the agents of the townspeople were accused by Patrick Strange of being abettors and relievers of Jesuits and of having learned from them

'good store of equivocation'.49

The firm religious stance of the aldermen is perhaps both a cause and a

symptom of a flourishing though circumspect piety among the civic commun

ity in the first three decades of the seventeenth century. The leading citizens

provided for the support of the Counter-Reformation clergy, and afforded

locations for the celebration of Mass. In 1618 it was reported that there were

19



at least seven places where Mass was celebrated regularly in the city, among them being the Baker's Hall in the College at St Audoen's, backrooms of

Mr Plunket in Bridge Street and Mr Brown near Newgate, and Shelton's house

beyond the Bridge at Hangman's Lane.50 Like their counterparts among the

Pale gentry such as Jenico Preston of Gormanston,51 the civic leaders protec ted priests: Fr Fitzsimon was sheltered by members of the Fagan family.52

He reported that he had been received by large crowds in Dublin in the late

1590s. In a nobleman's house he fitted out a chapel where High Mass and

three Low Masses were celebrated on one Sunday.53 During the 1620s houses

of religious orders were established.54 A government raid on the Franciscans on St Stephen's Day, 1629 provoked a riot in which the devout women of the

city were prominent with stones and clubs. As a result of this disturbance

eight Catholic aldermen were arrested for not aiding the mayor.55 Such a popular demonstration was not uncommon in early seventeenth

century Dublin. Many witnesses attest to the size of the crowds which

mourned the executed Bishop O'Devany and Father O'Loughran in 1612.56 A short while before a disturbance had broken out two miles to the north of

the city when a Protestant minister attempted to bury the corpse of a

Catholic according to the rites of the Protestant church.57 Popular piety enshrined traditional forms of devotion which would be looked upon with

disfavour by Counter-Reformation priests as well as by Protestant reformers.

Barnaby Rich described Dublin as being quartered out with holy wells: St

Patrick's to the east, St James's to the west, St Sunday's to the south and St

Dolock's to the north. Multitudes flocked to these sanctified places,

according to Rich, on feast-days, to drink the miraculous waters;, perform rituals and participate in the fairs which were associated with the festivals.58 'Let the wind blow which way it list,' wrote Rich, 'Dublin is so seated that a

Papist may go with a blowne sheet before the wind, either to an idolatrous Mass within the town, or to a superstitious well, without the town'.59 Rich also testified to the widespread popularity of fasting and to the strict observ ance of many holy days which marked almost every week of the Catholic

year.60

Popular religious practice undoubtedly shaped the environment within which the aldermen were steeled to resist the government's policies and

provided also the foundation upon which the Counter-Reformation clergy built. The corporate nature of urban life was expressed in religious matters in

the fraternities or religious guilds which flourished in late medieval Dublin.61 The Jesuits brought a new kind of confraternity to Dublin: that of the Blessed Virgin Mary, closely associated with houses of the order and approved by the Council of Trent. Fr Fitzsimons enrolled many of the leading citizens into it shortly after his arrival in Dublin and it was formally incorporated into the parent body in 1628.62 Also there are references to the popularity in th< 1620s of the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary run by the Dominicans and the Confraternity of the Cord of St Francis sponsored by the Franciscans.63

That there was a receptive community for these associations of pious lay

20



people is clear. But the old religious guilds had never been formally dissolved in Ireland. The government had neglected to vest the lands of the guilds in the crown as had been done in England by a statute of the second year of Edward

VI. At a time of general dismantling of corporate privilege, Sir John Davies

pointed out in 1608 that there was a 'good store of chantry lands in the

hands of private men who have no title thereto*. He directed his attention

very closely to the affairs of the guild of St Anne,64 Of the eight religious guilds of late medieval Dublin listed by Myles Ronan

in his study of the subject, the guild of St Anne in the parish of St Audoen was one of the most important.65 Founded by a charter of Henry VI in 1430, the guild had a chapel dedicated to St Anne in St Audoen's.66 Six chantry

priests were to be supported by the revenues from the property of the guild, the annual value of the income from which was not to exceed 100 marks. The

guild acquired the premises of Blackney's Inns beside St Audoen's which

became the residence of the priests, the meeting-place for the guild brothers

and sisters and a college for the education of choristers. Many wealthy benefactors bequeathed property to the guild in its first century of existence.

The guild's priests were to pray in perpetuity for the souls of the benefactors

and the members. Gradually the guild became so rich that its annual income

greatly exceeded the stipulated limit.

The voluminous documentation of the guild which has survived shows that

it remained very active through the period under review here.67 All the

indications are that it retained its Catholic character. A list of the twenty-four brethren of 1584 shows that with few exceptions they Were all aldermen.68 The master and two wardens elected during the period from the early 1590s

to the 1630s were prominent recusants: Walter Sedgrave, Michad

Chamberlain, Thomas Plunket, Edmund Malone, Matthew Handcock and

Nicholas Stephens. The guild's auditors presented accounts for most of the

years during that time. According to these, the average annual income of the

guild for the years around 1620 was ?116 while the charges to the guild were

?74.69 The outgoings included stipends to those who were now termed the

'six singing men', to the organist of St Audoen's and to other functionaries.

The maintenance of St Anne's chapel and the College premises was another

item of expenditure, and there were occasional charitable bequests.70

Significantly, in the years up to 1620 the cost of retaining legal counsel to

defend the guild's charter was proving to be very burdensome.71

The guild records show that the brethren in the 1590s were prepared for

hostile investigations into their activities. At this stage they removed the guild documents from the crypt of St Audoen's lo the homes of trusted guildsmen such as Christopher Fagan, Nicholas Ball and Matthew Handcock.72 A stout

chest with strong locks was purchased from guild funds.73 The reasons for

suspicion being directed towards the guild seem to have been its corpora I e

seerctiveness and its Catholic connections. When an investigation look place under Thomas Wentworth in 1633 into (he guild's affairs, a papal bull ol'

Pius V dated 1569 was found, enjoining all guild members in Fngknui and

21



Ireland to rent corporate lands to Catholics only, and to pay reasonable sums

to the members of the Catholic clergy from the income of the guild.74 The

link between the guild and the Mass-room in the Bakers' Hall in the College of

St Audoen's was another reason for government suspicion. The guild had

provided funds in 1597 for the glazing of the windows and the retiling of the

roof of the building.75

Quo warranto proceedings were initiated by the government against the

guild in the early seventeenth century.76 In 1605 a direct order from the lord

deputy to the guild required it to pay the sum of ?40 to the incumbent of St

Audoen's parish: the guild agreed to pay him 20 marks.77 Obviously its

operation at this time was difficult because its master and wardens were

among the recusants imprisoned by Castle Chamber.78 An attempt by the

government to have the lands of the guild granted to Trinity College was

successfully foiled by its lawyers.79 As a method of countering this severe

pressure a decision was taken in 1620 by the guild to make fee-farm leases of

the lands to brothers and sisters and such other tenants as the guild 'shall think fit', for reasonable entry fines.80 The minute states that the reason for

this was to raise the money needed for the legal defence of guild rights. The

lessees in this new series included the leading Catholic aldermen and their

families,81 The climax of the battle between the government and the guild occurred

in 1638 when Wentworth ordered the election of thirty new members, all of them prominent Protestant officials or clergymen.82 The Catholic members found themselves in a minority after 16 July 1638 as their meeting-place was

crowded with luminaries such as the Protestant archbishop of Dublin, the vice-treasurer and the chief justice of the common pleas,83 The order from the council table of 1638 decreed that the leases made in the early 1620s should be revoked and rewritten on lines much less attractive to the lessees.84

The charter of the guild had been set aside completely and for a number of

years the guild was completely changed. Gradually, however, it reverted to the management of familiar Dublin names and survived until the eighteenth century as a quasi-religious fraternity.85

The survival of the guild of St Anne from the medieval Christian life of Dublin is important for our understanding of the role of religion in the

community. The guild offered Catholics a system of organized piety, gave them access to corporate property and enabled them to foster the continua tion of Catholic worship. It seems reasonable to assume that at least some of the surplus funds of the guild went for the maintenance of priests. Reference has been made to two testators who were brothers of the guild, Walter

Sedgravc and Nicholas Ball, who left money for that purpose. Undoubtedly there were others. It may also have been that in a general sense the experience of thcrctigious activities of the traditional guilds helped to give an impetus to the new posl-Tridcntinc confraternities among the citi/ens. The guild of

St Anne's battle for survival also reflects in miniature I he struggle of the city corporation to retain its privileges and liberties.

22



Instead of dismissing or deemphasizing the contribution of late medieval forms of piety to the civic world of the early modern period, we should

recognize the deeply-rooted nature of city institutions in the early seventeenth century. The Counter-Reformation owed much to the pious laypeople of the city, not particularly well-versed in the complexities of their

faith, but prepared to express their beliefs in terms of their belonging to a

long-established community (which enshrined their religion). The Jesuits and other Counter-Reformation agents may have given people like John Shelton the theological answers to the questions of their prosecutors but the language they used was the language of the civic community, their experience of

which, interacting with Catholicism, gave their position m the early seventeenth century its distinctive character.

NOTES

1. For a discussion of these studies and an important example of the use of religious symbolism in an urban setting, see N.Z. Davis, The sacred and the body social in

sixteenth-century Lyon', in Past and Present, 90 (1981), pp. 40-70. 2. For a bibliography of the works of Myles V. Ronan, see Reportorium novum, ii, 2

(1960), pp. 225-7. 3. For the growth of the municipality, see John J. Webb, Municipal government in

Ireland medieval and modem (Dublin, 1918) and R. Dudley Edwards, "The beginnings of

municipal government in Dublin', in Dublin Historical Record, i (193S-9), pp. 2-10. 4. The names of some of those who were penalized are to be found in John Howlin,

S.J., 'Perbreve compendium in quo continentur nonnullorum nomina, qui in Hybernia

regnante impia Regina Elizabetha, vincula martirium et exilium perpessi sunt', c. 1590

(Maynooth, Salamanca MSS, legajo xi, number 4): printed in Moran, Spicil Ossor., i, 82-109.

5. See V. Treadwell, The Irish customs administration in the sixteenth century', in

LH.S., xx (1977), pp. 411-14.

6. See, for example, Cal. Carew MSS, 1601-3, pp. 177-8.

7. For the proceedings of the aldermen's committee, see Henry F. Berry, 'Minute

book of the corporation of Dublin known as the "Friday Book", 1567-1611*, mRJ.A,

proc, xxx, c (1912-13), pp. 477-514; the minutes of the full city assembly are to be

found in Cal. anc. rec. Dublin.

8. Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii-iii.

9. 'A visitation begonne in the cittie of Dublin ... in the yeare 1607' (Genealogical

Office, Dublin, MS 47). 10. Ibid., f. 11.

11. For examples of subsidies to mayors, see Cal anc. rec. Dublin, u\ 73-4, 268, 323,

356,366,484,504,510,524-5. 12. Berry,' "Friday Book" ', pp. 492-3, 504, 507, 510.

13. See, for example, Cal S. P. Ire.. 1603-6, pp. 356, 370-3, 507-8.

14. For an account of the Trinity Guild, see Henry F. Berry, The records of the

Dublin guild of merchants, known as the Guild of Holy Trinity, 1438-1671', in

J.R.S.A.I., fifth series, x (1900), pp. 44-68.

15. Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, iii, 60; Browne was mayor in consecutive years, 1614 and

'15, a major breach of the established custom.

16. William Farmer, kA chronicle of Ford Chichester's government of Ireland', in

LodRe, Dcsid. cur. llib., i, 285.

17. Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, iii, 41,51-3.

18. Berry, ' "Friday Book" \ p. 502.

19. Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii, 11-12.


21. Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii. 430-2.

23



22. Words of comfort to persecuted Catholics written in exile in 1607. Letters from q

cell in Dublin Castle and diary of the Bohemian war of 1620 by Father Henry Fitzsimon, S.J., ed. E. Hogan (Dublin, 1881), p. 150.

23. For an account of the court, see Herbert Wood, The court of Castle Chamber', in

R.I.A. proc, xxxii, c (1913-16), pp. 152-70.

24. 'Some trials in the Court of Star Chamber, Dublin*, early seventeenth century

(T.C.D., MS 852); Cal S. P. Ire., 1603*6, pp. 348-50, 3534, 355-6, 373, 391-2; H.M.C.,

EgmontMSS, i, pt i (1905), pp. 30-2.

25. Cal S.P. Ire., 1603-6, p. 356.

26. Ibid., pp. 356-7, 362-5, 366.

2 7. Words of comfort, p, 156,

28. Ibid., p. 116,

29. Ibid., p. 115.

30. Ibid., p. 149.

31. Ibid., p. 157.

32. V. Treadwell, The establishment of the farm of the Irish customs, 1603-13', in

English Historical Review, xciii (1978), pp. 589-93.


34. Cal S. P Ire., 1611-14, pp. 142, 244.

35. Printed in Commons'jn. Ire., 1613-66, p. 6.

36. Cal arte. rec. Dublin, iii, 28.

37. Cal S. P. Ire., 1611-14, pp. 359-62, 441-2.

38. Ibid., p. 445.

39. For an idealized account of Francis Taylor's life and death, see Joannes Molanus

(John Mullan), Idea togatae constahtiae, sive Francisci Tailleri Dubliniensis practoris in

persecutione congressus et religionis Catholicae defensione interims (Paris, 1629).

40. Cal. S, P. Ire., 1611-14, p. 305.

41. See J. MacErlean, The Dublin residence of the Society of Jesus', in Irish Jesuit

Directory (1933), pp. 126-8.

42. Words of comfort, p. 150.

43. The source for Margaret Ball's experiences is John Howlin, S.J., *Perbreve

compendium' (Maynooth, Salamanca MSS); 'Spicii Ossor., i, 105-6; see also David

Rothe, De processu martyriali (Cologne, 1619), pp. 182-9.

44. 'Magna supplicia a persecutoribus aliquot Catholicorum in Ibernia sumpta', early seventeenth century (Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, MS 3994, f. 43v): Spicii Ossor., iii, 27; Words of comfort, pp. 210-11. 45. W. Bali Wright, Ball family memoirs (York, 1908), appendix no. 7, xvi. 46. See Rcportorium novum, i, 324-5 for a note on Sedgrave. 47.

Berry,

' ""Friday Book" \ p. 510,

48. B. Rich, A\ new description of Ireland (London, 1610),pp, 62, 65, 66-7, 49. V. Treadwell, The establishment of the farm of the Irish customs', p. 594, 50. M.V. Ronan, 'Religious life in old Dublin', in Dublin Historical Record, ii (193^ 40), pp. 106-7.

51. See John Brady, 'Keeping the faith at (Jormanston, 1569-1629', in Father Lukv Wadding commemorative volume, ed. Franciscan fathers (Dublin, 1957), pp, 405-13. 52. Words of comfort, pp.1 J 0-11. 53. Ibid., p. 207. -54. H.M.C., Cowper MSS, i, 398-9; C. (Hblin, The "Processus Dataria*" und the appointment of Irish bishops in the seventeenth century', in hike Wadding commemor ative volume, pp. 529-33. 55. Cat. S />. Ire., 1625-32, pp. 500-1, 504. 56. See, for example, B. Rich, A Catholic conference (London, 1612) und the account by Richard Conway, S.J., printed in Spicii Ossor., i, 123*6, 57. B. Rich, 'Remembrances of the state of Ireland, 1612\ ed, (\ Littort Falkincrin

RJ:A. proc, xxvi, c, (1906-7), p. 140. 58. Rich, A new description, pp. 52 3; sec Kevin Dunuher, The holy wells of county Dublin', in Rcportorium novum, ii, 1 (1958), pp. 68-87; ii, 2 (1960), pp. 233-5. 59. Rich,/I new description p. 53. 60. Ibid., pp. 634,

24



61. See M.V. Ronan, Religious customs of Dublin medieval guilds', in l?.R.; fifth

series, xxvi (1925), pp. 225-47, 364-85,

62. For an account of the sodality, see John MacErlean, The sodality of the Blessed

Virgin Mary in Ireland (Dublin, 1928).

63. See Giblin, "The "Processus Datariae" ', pp. 530-1.

64. Cal S. P. Ire., 1608-10, p. 370; Henry F. Berry, 'History of the religious guild of

St Anne', in R.LA. proc, xxv, c. (1904), pp. 21-106; Ronan, "Dublin medieval guilds*, p. 379.

65. Ronan, 'Dublin medieval guilds', pp. 365-73, 378-85.

66. Ronan, 'Dublin medieval guilds', pp. 365-73; Berry, 'History of the religious guild of St Anne', pp. 23-5, 26-33.

67. The Haliday collection in the Royal Irish Academy contains deeds and accounts

of the guild: MSS 12 S 22-23, 12 D 1, 12 P 1, 12 G 10, 12 0 13; Berry*s calendar in R.I.A. proc, xxv, c (1904), pp. 39-93 is incomplete; the Gilbert Library in Pearse

Street, Dublin, has abstracts of the R.LA. MSS,

68. 'Account book of St Anne's guild' (R.LA,, Haliday MSS, 12 D 1, ff. 3r-v). 69. Ibid.,ff. 28r-30r, 31r-33r.

70. At a time of distress in 1597 following the great gunpowder explosion at the

Crane the guild gave ?50 for repair work: ibid., f. 19r.

71. Ibid.,ff. 18r,26r, 72. Ibid., ff. 18v, 23r, 24r.

73. Ibid.,f. 17r.

74. Ronan, 'Dublin medieval guilds', p. 3 81.

75. R.LA., Haliday MSS, 12 D 1, f. 18v,

7 6. Ronan, 'Dublin medieval guilds*, p. 3 7 9.

77. R.LA., Haliday MSS, 12 D 1, f. 22r.

78. Ibid., f. 30r; at this time the master was Alderman Matthew Handcock and the

wardens were Edmund Malone and Nicholas Stephens. 79. 'Abstract . . . and lists of the several papers and writings in the custody of the

guild of St Anne, transcribed by James Goddard, 1772' (Pearse Street, Dublin, Gilbert

collection). 80. R.LA., Haliday MSS, 12 D 1, f. 26r.

81. Ibid.,ff. 27r-v.

82. Ibid.,f.41r. 83. Ibid.,f.41v. 84. Ibid.,f.41r. 85. R.LA., Haliday MSS, 12 0 13; Pearse Street, Dublin, Gilbert collection, 'Abstract

. . by Goddard'; Ronan, 'Dublin medieval guilds', pp. 383-5.

25



civic life and religion in early seventeenth-century

Documents