Shute, John. The first and chief groundes of architecture vsed in all the auncient and famous   monymentes with a farther & more ample defense vppon the same, than hitherto hath been set out by any other. Published by Iohn Shute, paynter and archytecte. London: Thomas Marshe, 1563. Print.
One of the earliest English books on architecture, and the first to use Vitruvius's idea of the body as architecture. The origin for printed knowledge and opinion about the relationship between the body's proportions, nature, and architecture.

Selling the Tudor Monarchy:
Authority and Image in Sixteenth-Century England
By Kevin Sharpe
Sharpe’s Selling the Tudor Monarchy is the first of two volumes exploring the ways in which English monarchs during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries represented themselves to their people. Most people unfamiliar with early modern English monarchy assume that since the monarch had complete power of the army and the navy, they could rule as they wish, and didn’t care much for the opinions of their people. But according to Sharpe, the Tudor monarchs were among the first monarchs to create “advertising campaigns” for their own reigns. By hiring artists, printers, writings, and other craftsmen to make flattering portrayals of them, these monarchs were able to inundate their realms with positive images of themselves. This practice was usually very successful in influencing the minds and opinions of their people.
Selling the Tudor Monarchy is vital for my field study project and research experience because it explains the basics behind monarchical self-representation. My field study project focuses on the theatrical representations of the Tudor queens in comparison to the actual historical queens, and Sharpe’s book helps to show the questions which must be considered when trying to distinguish history from myth. Furthermore, Sharpe is very careful at explaining the culture of Tudor England in relationship to the monarchs and their ad campaigns. Although historical accuracy is generally viewed as a must in historical literature, in my research, I’ve noticed that some authors, especially literary critics, tend to read history backwards. While they have their historical facts straight, they tend to interpret history using modern theories, for example, interpreting the decisions of fourteenth –century merchants using the modern theory of capitalism rather than the historically contemporary theory of mercantilism. Thus, the history is correct, but the mistaken interpretation of the history renders everything useless.
In my subject area, many scholars tend to interpret the actions of monarchs using theories and ideas which obscure and skew the monarch’s intentions rather than revealing them. Modern political theories of constitutional monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, and republics have all but replaced ancient political theories of autocracy, divine right of kings, and Renaissance monarchy. Instead of interpreting Tudor monarchs’ actions through the policies of Renaissance English political theories, many scholars impose modern political theories on Tudor history without recognizing their erroneous reasoning.
Sharpe is extremely meticulous in using Tudor theories to interpret Tudor history. Reading Selling the Tudor Monarchy helped me better understand Tudor culture, which will definitely reflect in my research. Understanding Tudor culture is just as important to my field study as understanding London and British culture. And like we have studied in class, Sharpe points out that there is more to Tudor culture than simply pointing out the differences between its culture and our culture. On the other end of the spectrum, Sharpe shows that assuming their culture is essentially the same as ours is also false (for instance, Elizabeth I was not the feminist that she is portrayed as in modern television and movies). Reading Selling the Tudor Monarchy provided an excellent overview and foundation for the research which I will perform in the field, and it will definitely be a starting point for a deeper exploration into the lives and self-representations of Jane, Mary, and Elizabeth.

Sharpe, Kevin. Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth-Century England. New Haven: Yale UP, 2009. Print.

Literature Review Worksheet

1. What are the key concepts you've dissected within you own question?
-mythistory (myth, stereotype, folklore): the idea that myth and history together creates a deeper understanding of history, anthropology, and culture
-accession (pre-coronation): the time period between the previous monarch's death and the new monarch's coronation.
-self-fashioning (rhetoric, representation): how someone presents him/herself in public and how it affects the public opinion of the person.
2. What additional key terms and concepts have you discovered in the literature?
-household: a royal/aristocratic person/family and all their servants (quite a large group of people)
-scientific history: reading the facts of history as true history, myth is false
-portraiture: the practice of painting portraits as a means of self-fashioning, including in-depth study of symbols, clothing, background, etc., in the portrait
3. What discipline(s) are your sources based within?
Most of my sources are within the disciplines of English, history, historiography, and literary criticism.  Other minor disciplines include gender studies, philosophy, and English law.
4. What are some of the concepts your sources generally agree on?
-Lady Jane Grey and Mary were "monarchical prototypes" for Elizabeth
-Jane, Mary, and Elizabeth all faced huge challenges during their reigns because of their gender (and with Mary, her religion).
-Elizabeth was better than the other two at self-fashioning
5. Are there particular scholars or sources that seem to be referenced frequently in what you've read so far?
Carole Levin- Elizabeth I (sometimes Mary I)
Northrop Frye- myth and symbolism in literary criticism
William H. McNeill- mythistory
Joseph Mali- mythistory
Anna Whitelock- Mary I
Richard Davey- Lady Jane Grey
6. What need is there for further research in the academic discussion?
- Most historians/scholars (so far) tend to either ignore queenic myths as unhistorical, or accidentally label the myths as true.
- Many scholars also ignore the political practices of Mary and especially Lady Jane Grey, assuming that Elizabeth's political and public savvy came out of nothing.
- Most books and biographies of Lady Jane Grey are either poorly researched or veiled fiction.

Annotated Sources

Sharpe, Kevin. Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth-Century England. New Haven:Yale UP, 2009. Print.
Catalogs and analyzes primary sources showing representations (visual and written) of the Tudor monarchs and their families. Covers a great deal of time (from the beginning of Henry VII's reign to the end of Elizabeth I's) and a huge number of sources. Importance resource for my project in measuring the effect of the queens on the public.

Doran, Susan and Thomas S. Freeman, eds. The Myth of Elizabeth. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2003. Print.
A collection of essays about myths and other less-than-truths surrounding Elizabeth I. Discuss the myths that made Elizabeth popular, as well as those that stemmed from unpopularity or caused her to be unpopular. Attempts to trace many of the Elizabethan myths to their origin. Highly useful for my section on Elizabeth.

Oakley-Brown, Liz, and Louise J. Wilkinson, eds. The Rituals and Rhetoric of Queenship: Medieval to Early Modern. Portland: Four Courts Press, 2009. Print.
A compilation of essays about Western European queens and their methods of enforcing their power as queen. Discusses which methods of rhetoric and ritual were successful in establishing and maintaining power and in gaining respect, and which failed. A few essays on Mary and Elizabeth will be especially helpful in my project, the rest I may skim to assess the social milieu in which Mary and Elizabeth were living as queens.

Frye, Northrop, edited by Robert D. Denham. Myth and Metaphor: Selected Essays, 1974-1988. Charlottesville: Virgina UP, 1990. Print.
A compilation of essays by Frye on the topic of myth and metaphor and how they are used in history, language, imagination, and everyday life. Taken from a symbolist perspective. Although this book is far too exhaustive for what I will actually need in my project, there are a few essays which I can use in trying to come to a more concrete definition of myth. 

Richards, Judith M. "Mary Tudor as 'Sole Quene'?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy." The Historical Journal 40.4 (1997): pp. 895-924. Print.
Points out that scholars usually overlook Mary I when it comes to questions of gender in English monarchy, and instead just fawn over Elizabeth I and her brilliant ways of dealing with gender. Discusses the importance of Mary's five years as queen, the reworking of many political traditions to fit a female monarch, and the idea of a king consort rather than a queen consort. Very useful to my project, especially considering the lack of resources about Mary I which I am encountering.

Whitelock, Anna, and Diarmaid MacCulloch. "Princess Mary's Household and the Succession Crisis, July 1553." The Historical Journal 50.2 (2007): pp. 265-287. Print.
Debunks the common idea that Mary I's take over of the state from Lady Jane Grey was the result of just a random uprising of Catholic gentry from eastern England. Explores the connections between Mary's household and the East Anglian gentry, and argues that Mary had much deeper and older friendships with the gentry than hitherto thought, and thus their support of her was not at all spontaneous. Useful to my project insofar and it discusses Mary's public acting and rhetoric.

Montrose, Louis A. "Idols of the Queen: Policy, Gender, and the Picturing of Elizabeth I." Representations.68 (1999): pp. 108-161. Print.
Explains that since portraits of Elizabeth I were usually the only way an average person (or any person living outside of London) could see the queen, these portraits had to be regulated very carefully so as to not convey any incorrect or unflattering aspects of the queen. Unpacks the deep symbolism within many of Elizabeth's portraits, and shows how carefully they were planned and painted. Useful insofar as it deals with portraits during her accession as well.

Farran, C. d'O. "The Law of the Accession." The Modern Law Review 16.2 (1953): pp. 140-147. Print.
As is stated in the title, this article gets into the nitty, gritty details of the political and legal processes behind the accession. Tracks and explains the evolution of the accession, including the creation of a king consort, prince consort, or no consort title at all for a man married to the queen regnant of England. There are a few facts here and there that are useful to my focus, but other than that, it's mainly about the law of the accession from 1700 to modern times.

McNeill, William H. "Mythistory, Or Truth, Myth, History, and Historians." The American Historical Review 91.1 (1986): pp. 1-10. Print.
Discusses the history of historiography, pointing out the inherent inability for a history to be both factual and a narrative.  Also exposes "scientific historiography" as just another fad in history, one which has tried to destroy all connection between myth and history, by incorrectly identifying history with truth and myth with lies.  As one of the founding texts of mythistory, this is a definite must for my project.

Mali, Joseph. "Jacob Burckhardt: Myth, History and Mythistory." History and Memory 3.1 (1991): pp. 86-118. Print.
Builds off of McNeill's foundational work on mythistory.  Attempts to prove that mythistory is still a respectable way of interpreting past events and to justify its existence in historiography.   Does much of this by analyzing the works of a historian named Jacob Burkhardt, who has previously been dismissed because of his recording of myth along with history.  The introduction is especially helpful; the Burkhardt part isn't as useful other than as an elaborate example/explanation. 

Heehs, Peter. "Myth, History, and Theory." History and Theory 33.1 (1994): pp. 1-19. Print. 
Argues that myth and history are so intertwined, it is impossible and quite destructive to both the facts of the past and the narratives of the past to try to separate the two, to only write a mythical or historical narrative.  Proposes that many times, highly factual historical accounts, over time, become infused with fiction, and thus becomes mythical.  These accounts, though they maybe untrue in many parts, are still highly important in history.  This article will be helpful in explaining how rather factual histories of the queens changed into elaborate myths over the course of a few years.

Searle, Eleanor. "Possible History." Speculum 61.4 (1986): pp. 779-786. Print.
Discusses the responsibilities of a historian in researching subjects and events which have few actually facts around them.  Also admits the inescapable effect which each historian has on the works they write, no matter how much they try to remove elements of their own biases or opinions from their text.  I'm not sure if I could actually use this in my project/paper, but it does bring up a lot of interesting points which will definitely be on my mind as a do research.

Source Document Analysis Worksheet
Author's name: Marsden, Jean I.
Publication Date: Summer 2002
Title: Sex, Politics, and She-Tragedy: Reconfiguring Lady Jane Grey
Journal: Studies in English Literature
Volume, Issue, Pages: 42.3 pp. 501-522

  1. What is the source’s stated purpose (the argument or thesis)?
To argue that Lady Jane Grey doesn’t quite fit into the she-tragedy genre like playwrights tried to reconstruct her in the early 18th century, even though she was a good bit of propaganda for anti-Hanoverians to use in trying to make the Hanovers look evil because of their Catholicism.
  1. What evidence does the author provide to support his or her main argument? How is the author attempting to logically prove his or her thesis and how does this affect the organization of the document?
She looks at the genre of eighteenth-century she-tragedy as a whole and then compares its aspects and characteristics to those of the play about Jane Grey. She is showing how other she-tragedies were or were not successful, and so her article is basically organized into different discussions on different plays and how they relate to Lady Jane Grey as the main character of a she-tragedy.
  1. Who is the audience? What does the author assume the audience already knows about the topic?
Most likely other English professors of British literature, grad/post-grad students and maybe even undergrads studying English. She assumes that the reader has a workable knowledge of British history and ability to effectively analyze a play text.
  1. Describe the author’s methods (i.e. how does the author know what he or she knows)? In your opinion were they appropriate why or why not?
She did a lot of primary research and then found commentaries/studies of these texts to discover the opinions of other scholars. Using the primary texts and others’ opinions, she formed her own argument. I think these methods were appropriate because they take into consideration many different viewpoints so that the reader can have access to all sorts of opinions and facts and then determine what they themselves think is correct.
  1. To what other sources (theorist, researchers, artists) does the author refer? Explain the specific ideas the author draws upon from these other sources to support his or her own argument (the theoretical framework).
Other she-tragedies, others of Rowe’s play, and commentaries by other critics/historians/English professors. One of the ideas she draws upon is the typical attributes of a she-tragedy heroine and the typical events of a she-tragedy.
  1. What are the connections between this source and your project? How useful or applicable is this source’s approach to your own project? How is yours new and different?
She comments a bit on “The Innocent Usurper,” which is one of the plays I will be analyzing in my project, and she talks about the mythical remaking of Jane Grey. My approach is probably more different than it is similar to this paper, because I will be studying all three queens, the elements of a she-tragedy is not my main focus, and the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, not the eighteenth century, is my timeline.
Source Document Analysis Worksheet
Author: King, John N.
Publication date: Spring 1990
Title: Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen
Journal: Renaissance Quarterly
Volume, Issue, Page: 43.1 pp. 30-74

  1. What is the source’s stated purpose (the argument or thesis)?
Elizabeth I began showing her celibate intentions early on in her reign through artistic symbolism rather than later on through political acts.
  1. What evidence does the author provide to support his or her main argument? How is the author attempting to logically prove his or her thesis and how does this affect the organization of the document?
She mainly looks at literature, paintings, and other works of art from Elizabeth's life. Hhe uses primary documents to prove/disprove scholar's opinions, and so the article is organized into sections of analyzing certain documents to create an argument, and then comparing the argument to modern beliefs.
  1. Who is the audience? What does the author assume the audience already knows about the topic?
English professors, scholars, and students. The reader should understand Elizabeth's life, as well as basic theories of gender and religion during the sixteenth-century. You should also know a bit about art criticism and interpretation as well.

4. Describe the author’s methods (i.e. how does the author know what he or she knows)? In your opinion were they appropriate why or why not?

The author looked at historical accounts and records from Elizabeth herself, Elizabeth's historian, and contemporaries. These eyewitness accounts from informed writers are very appropriate, as long as (obviously) the accounts are true historical documents and not forgeries.

  1. To what other sources (theorist, researchers, artists) does the author refer? Explain the specific ideas the author draws upon from these other sources to support his or her own argument (the theoretical framework).
Stephen Greenblatt: King expands upon Greenblatt's argument that Elizabeth's myth as a virgin queen was not only started by and used by English politicians, but was also created and expanded in many ways by the common people of England.
Louis Adrian Montrose: Montrose points out that if the common people were able to alter and use the virgin queen myth in their own favor, they also had the ability to abuse it greatly (like a modern country will lampoon its government leaders). The fact that they did not abuse it too much shows how wonderfully the myth worked.

6. What are the connections between this source and your project? How useful or applicable is this source’s approach to your own project? How is yours new and different?

This is a great resource for me as it deals directly with myths surrounding Elizabeth I, especially the famous myth of Elizabeth as the Virgin Queen. The Virgin Queen myth will definitely be a key part of my project, and the viewpoint that Elizabeth basically started that myth herself is in keeping with my viewpoint on Elizabethan rhetoric. My project is new and different because it deals with all three queens and myths about these women in general.