HENRY HOWARD EARL OF SURREY BY EDWIN CASADY. PREFACE: The object of this study of Surrey, which was undertaken at the suggestion of Professor Gerald Sanders, is to reinterpret the character of the man and of his poetry. In it I have attempted to distinguish clearly among the facts, the conjectures, and the fictions offered by former studies, to integrate all existing ma terial on the subject, and to present the man and the poet from the point of view made possible by our increasing knowledge of the first half of the sixteenth century. Its most valuable contribution to scholarship may seem to be the negative one of bringing to attention how completely the common conception of Surrey derives from questionable con jectures and fallacious traditions. In my opinion, however, its value lies in the evidence advanced that Surrey was not a fol ish prowde boye, in the explanation offered of the influences which caused Surrey to act as he did, and in the accounts given of customs, manners, and practices in sixteenthcentury Eng land. In any such studyto paraphrase a statement by Mr. M. R. Ridley in his study of Eleats3 it is ridiculous to be dogmatic the only person who can know how an individuals mind works is the individual himself, and even he is probably none too clear about it. On the other hand, perpetual qualification becomes tedious. I hope therefore that anyone who reads this study will realize that any blunt statement concerning a mans motives or mental reactions should be read with a tacit qualification of probably or one may conjecture, which in the interest of brevity and clarity is usually suppressed or placed in a footnote. Moreover, in the interest of brevity and clarity, I have abbreviated many references, modernized the punctuation of all quotations, conventionalized the spellings of proper names where necessary to prevent ambiguity, and changed all dates to New Style. To the Rhodes Trustees I am deeply grateful for the scholar ship which enabled me to examine source materials in England relating to Surrey and to present, in 1931, a dissertation on Surrey to Oxford University. I must acknowledge, however, that further study has led me to question the commonly ac cepted interpretations of Surreys character and actions, many of which I repeated in my Oxford dissertation, and to formulate the reinterpretation offered in the following pages. Probably only those who have themselves made a study of sixteenthcentury England will appreciate fully the extent to which I am indebted to the research of both past and present scholars. Everyone will, of course, recognize my indebtedness to Professor A. F. Pollards published work I am also indebted to Professor Pollard for the privilege of attending his seminar in problems of Tudor research and for many suggestions of possible sources of information pertaining to Surrey. I have found more help in other studies relating to Surrey than I am able to acknowledge specifically to all of them am I indebted, and especially to the studies of George Frederick Nott and of Edmund Bapst.