The Royal Martyr
An Egalitarian Narrative Of The Caroline Reality
By: Stephen Alexander Coston, SR.
©
1999 Stephen Alexander Coston, SR.Droit Ne Poet Pas Morier
"Right Cannot Die"
Dedication
TO THE
RIGHT REVEREND
JOSEPH M. HARTE
Society Of King Charles The Martyr
II Bishop of Arizona
II Bishop Suffragah of Dallas
&c., &c., &c.
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine."
I Timothy 5:17
My Lord Bishop, Allow me the privilege and honor of dedicating this present volume to yourself. Both your high station in the Church, and the great admiration I bear you make this decision seem entirely proper, and a befitting tribute to a champion of conservative and Carolinian issues. Your manifold virtues shine as brilliantly as those of His Grace The 10th Duke Of Atholl, George Iain Murray, of ever blessed memory, whom I also honor and adore. The great work of the Society has often been advanced by your loving patronage and singular love and affection for the cause of the Royal Martyr. You have chosen to take a stand for righteousness, at great cost, and your reputation thus precedes you kind sir. Oftentimes have I read, with great satisfaction of your opposition to the works of darkness. It is; therefore, a joy and credit that a spiritual chieftain of the Church should lead by so noble an example in matters of faith and morality, much in the same way as King Charles I did so many years ago. Dedicatory I lovingly dedicate this work to you, in loving memory of the Royal Martyr, out of a sense of profound humility and awe of what has transpired in the past, and the momentous task that lay ahead for our Church and Society. You have devoted your life to the work of Christ, feeding the flock, and defending those precious little ones from the wolves which follow the heard. And thus, I commend my present work, the product of my toils, studies, and earnest prayers, to your learned consideration. I pray that you, and all those who read it, will receive it as a deep abiding expression of my utmost respect for you, and my esteem for the cause of truth. I have the distinct honor to remain,
Stephen Alexander. Coston, Sr.
Saint Petersburg, Florida
Your Lordship's obedient servant,
Bible Sunday - Second Sunday in Advent, 1998
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank first and foremost the Lord Jesus Christ who has sustained me in the long arduous hours of research, and cared for me in sickness and health during this extensive project. He has been my chief source of comfort, encouragement, and courage.
To Charles I, whose memory and life has been both an inspiration and blessing. I have been privileged to be invited into his life, and that of his father (King James VI & I). Charles' example has strengthened my resolve in times of distress and trouble.
To Dr. Mark Wuonola, American Representative of The Society Of King Charles The Martyr. Without his invaluable assistance and support this work would not be published and exist in the fashion it does today.
To my wife, Leigh, and son, Stephen, Jr., and to Rick and Debbie Neumeier, who have been there at the ready, supporting me both directly and indirectly, day and night.
Last but not least His Lordship The Right Reverend Joseph M. Harte whose fortitude, fidelity, and patience in the cause of the Royal Martyr has been a modern inspiration, and to whom a great debt of gratitude is owed by all.
Proem
The reader of history is rarely faced with a person that has so perplexed the minds of his biographers than the Royal Martyr, King Charles I. He was a man of divers talents, a father, a king, a friend, and a lover of art. He could be stubborn, yet yielding; strong yet vulnerable. In many ways he reflected the times in which he lived which were fraught with change in the midst of tradition. He was a devoutly religious man, and like his Royal Father of ever blessed memory, King James VI & I, coveted and rewarded loyalty and deeply appreciated true friendship. This may seem somewhat of a conundrum to the present day American reader, yet for a monarch of that time, and even to a large extent today, true friendship was and is hard to come by.
You see, a king, being imbued with the greatness and majesty of his high office has many who seek his favor for reasons of personal gain and greed. There be few men who care more about the man which is the head of the nation then they do about their own ends. For power, dear reader, is the most potent of drugs! Charles I neither desired it, as he was born into it, nor wished to intentionally abuse it, as it was in his own best interest to act for the good of his people.
Those below him, such as Cromwell[1], earnestly sought power, and ultimately abused it, and like a pack of wounded animals, eventually fell upon themselves, fighting over the bones, and gnawing at their own self inflicted ulcerous lesions.
Any discussion then about Charles I must naturally reflect the events which shaped and influenced his life, and eventual demise. It is my purpose to expose the interested reader to Charles I from a traditional royalist point of view. I will not; however, detail every particular of his life, reign, or even his death. Such a task lies for another time, but I will cover some aspects of his existence which spark both debate and congruity.
This treaties will examine Charles I's relationship with his political rivals and philosophical enemies, the Puritans and Independents. I will chronicle his greatest literary achievement, and examine the paramount governmental ideology of his reign. Some of the particulars of his trial and ultimate unjust sentence will be related to the concerned reader with facts not normally to be found in works of this nature. I have endeavored to be detailed yet not overly exhaustive; complete yet not all encompassing, and above all fair and impartial with my bias lying in my own stated opinions, and not in my presentation of facts, or methodology which is founded upon objectivity. If the reader find any errors, amend them with thine eye, for with so great a task before the author, it is only human for the frailties of the flesh to manifest themselves.
This work is not intended as mere fire side reading material. Admittedly it is not casual reading nor intended for the novice. Yet its purpose is to enlighten and revive, to challenge and provoke my learned readership into a more reverent view of the Royal Martyr.
I issue a call for Charles I's restoration in the Church Calendar, but perhaps more importantly, for my dear readers to reserve a special place in their hearts for this great and noble king. If I can accomplish but this one humble goal, then I will have provoked you unto good works which is no bad thing.
Furthermore, each reader who has gained a new appreciation for Charles I as a result of this study will be better equipped to live a more godly and Christ-like life. The greatest honor this author could ever hope for is that Christians would be pointed to Christ by the example of one of his saints, Charles I. In pursuit of this goal I take up my pen and parchment, and put on my knightly armor in anticipation of the literary battle ahead. My sword is the word of God sharpened by my honor in the Lord. Follow me cautious reader into battle, for a battle it is that is being waged daily on paper for and against the memory and reputation of a Christian King. His banner being thus raised, and the call being given, let us ride valiantly into the smoke and sting of combat.
It has been said that debate is merely a verbal form of the worst kind of warfare. Aye, that it is my friend, yet let your thoughts be ready, your thoughts at hand, for I ask but a little of your time. Read and meditate upon this work, for it chronicles the deeds of a Royal Martyr, and it will tell a story, if you let it, of one so great that he deserves our allegiance. For this king fights on the side of the King of Kings. Now then, with swords uplifted towards heaven, and your eyes to this paper, read about a king that truly bore the heart of his savior, like David, a man after God's own heart!
Much has been written about the Royal Martyr, His Majesty King Charles I, some of it good, and some bad. Generally speaking Charles I has received preponderantly more bad press based on the assumptions, caricatures and lampoons of his enemies. It was so in his own day, and continues to be so till the present time. For this reason Charles I, K.M., remains for the most part somewhat of an enigma to his readers. Scholars have developed technical theories such as denying the royal authorship of Eikon Basilike[2].
Philip A. Knachel discusses this controversy in his book Eikon Basilike - The Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings, The Folger Shakespeare Library, Cornell University Press, New York, 1966. However, such theories, being speculative in nature, have so clouded the minds of historians that they seemingly are unable to separate fact from fiction, the man from the myth, when it comes to a serious discussion of the life and reign of Charles I. This phenomenon is partly the result of a degradation in fidelity to the traditional form of historical research. The other reason for our faulty understanding of the value of Charles I's reign is due to an over reliance upon sources which were themselves deficient in historical facts and so erred on important details in the life of King Charles I so as to produce a distorted perception of the man.
Contrary to prevailing opinion amelioration has been attempted by historians loyal to not only Charles I, but more importantly to the classical precepts of the historical method, a foundation built upon factual analysis rather than presumptions of bias.
The predominantly Puritan diatribes which have survived to this day in various form, perpetuated by scholarly curiosity for the scandalous, were answered in their own day, but being repressed and virtually forgotten have regrettably not had the corrective influence on clouded minds as they might so easily have done if not so quickly buried by time and apathy.
History, it is said, is written by the winners. Many superficially, and quite incorrectly, assume that those who committed murder (regicide) by decollating the head from Charles' royal body triumphed over Charles I[3].
However, no good can truly come of evil. The real winner was the one who gained an incorruptible crown, the man who refused to compromise with evil, the rightful and lawful King, in a word it was Charles! King Charles did not leave this world without his position being written down (Eikon Basilike) for posterity. We have his letters, we have his Royal Proclamations[4], and the testimony of his contemporaries. Thus being dead Charles cannot pen a forensic rejoinder to the diatribes of his modern day critics, but in that his cause was a righteous one, and in view of the fact that truth is not bound by death, we nevertheless can, if we will but listen, hear his champions, indeed even the faint echo of his own royal voice from beyond the grave. Those who love truth can still recognize and hear it. Similarly, those who knew the truth of Charles told it.
The basis of this article seeks to put in perspective the jibes offered against Charles I, and balance the historical data into a narrative which will shed light and balance on the topic, rather than simply offering yet more heat on the significance of the reign of a truly Noble King such as Charles I. Charles deserves no less than a fair and honest hearing, and in order to achieve this goal we will consult, as an example, a contemporary source which examined the common prevailing Puritan reactionary views of Charles, and placed them in their proper perspective. We will attempt to revise the myth of the Puritan history into a sound compilation of facts which, it is hoped, will produce a more egalitarian historical view of the royal martyr as opposed to yet another Puritanesque critique, already too much in vogue.
It will not be our intent to offer or delineate a specific or detailed examination of the particular points at issue in the debate, although such facts may legitimately be deduced by the topics and context discussed herein. Rather, we shall attempt to balance the negative presumptive perspectives of Charles I, as currently gleaned from a variety of republican and contrary sources, with some measure of equity via a consultation of historians who dissented from the critical view. In order to be disabused from the well worn negative theories commonly offered to readers about the royal martyr, we will simply examine the opposite side of the coin, to use a well worn colloquialism.
Chief among the Puritan historians, at least by recognition of the name, is a man named Daniel Neal. He had two principal opponents who challenged his portrayal of facts. Both Neal and his nemeses will be described in the following summaries. However, in that the study of contrasts often provides the most illuminating truths we will employ this methodology to a large extent in this portion of this work in addition to providing facts as they pertain to the period and persons in question and/or at issue.
Daniel Neal
The Dictionary Of National Biography, (DONB) Volume XIV, Oxford University Press, pages 134-137 notes that Neal was born on December 14, 1678 and died on April 4, 1743. King James VI & I was born in 1603 and died in 1625. Neal's life is divorced from the life and reign of King James by more than 50 years! Moreover, in that the Restoration period began in 1660, with Neal not being born until 1678, again we have a distance of 18 years, not counting his later formative years. Neal was a Puritan first, and a historian second. The animosity between James and the Puritans has been well documented. It is clear from Neal's remarks about James that his Puritanism biased his attempted historical assessment of the person and reign of James VI & I.
In that Neal's remarks touch upon both Charles I, and his father, James VI & I, it will be instructive to provide some biography and background, and then provide some analysis of the writings of the individuals concerned. This data will also serve the dual function of a prelude for succeeding sections which will discuss the enmity and animus which existed between the Puritans and the Royal Martyr, as well as build a foundation for the premises outlined later on in this treatise.
The DONB also relates that with respect to Neal's published histories his "… occasionally serious misrepresentation or suppression of facts did not pass unchallenged. Isaac Maddox afterwards bishop of St. Asaph, published in 1733 'A Vindication of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Church of England, …A far more formidable criticism, however, was that which proceeded from the pen of Zachary Grey who in 1736, 1737, and 1739, published a searching examination …" of Neal's historical volumes. "To these attacks Neal never replied,…"
It was generally thought this may have been due to his ill health. Neal, although he advocated that the penal laws for religion should be revoked, did not extend this toleration to Roman Catholicism. Neal is believed to have advocated that "…toleration of the popish religion is inconsistent with the safety of a free people and a Protestant government." In responding to Neal's criticisms contained in his Puritan History his opponent Zachary Grey laments that many times Neal's authorities are absent from his writings and observes that "'I am really unwilling to credit a person without an authority, who is so apt when he has authorities to mistake or falsify them.'"
The Cambridge Bibliography Of English Literature, In 4 Vols., Vol. II., page 877 recounts a listing of Neal's major works being his History of New England., 2 Vols., 1720; 1747; and his History of the Puritans or Protestant Non-Conformists, from the Reformation to the Act of Toleration., 4 Vols., 1732-1738; 2 Vols., 1754; ed. J. Toulmin; 5 Vols., 1793-1797 (with a life of Neal), 1822.
Zachary Grey
The Dictionary Of National Biography, (DONB) Volume VIII, Oxford University Press, pages 660-662 notes that Zachary Grey was born on May 6, 1688, and died on November 25, 1766. The popular tea named after "Earl Grey" was a descendant of the family. His contemporaries praised him for a host of Christian virtues to include his "sweet and communicative disposition…"
Grey was a strong defender of the Anglican Church, had wide correspondence with many informed men, and skirmished often with the dissenters, but always with grace and charity. He replied to most if not all of Neal's works, and it is in this regard that we present his writings to provide balance and perspective to the claimed objectivity of Daniel Neal. Grey was intimately acquainted with most of the Puritan literature of the age, and employed this information by quoting Puritan authors to illustrate the folly of their claims. Furthermore, he had access to many Puritan works which were not even widely available to the general population of his own time. Grey even authored critiques of Shakespeare's works.
The Cambridge Bibliography Of English Literature, In 4 Vols., Vol. II., pages 892-893 [see also entry for Neal above with Grey's refutation of Neal's work cited] lists many of Grey's works to include his rebuttals to Neal: A Review of Mr. Daniel Neal's History of the Puritans., Cambridge, 1744/1745; {page 877} A Vindication of the Government, Doctrine, and Worship of the Church of England, Against Mr. Neal, in his late History of the Puritans, 1733; A Review of the Principal Facts Objected to the First Volume of the History of the Puritans, 1734; An Impartial Examination of the Second Volume of Mr. Neal's History, 1736 [also of the Third Volume, 1737, and of the Fourth Volume, 1739].
Most of Grey's works are held either in private rare book collections or deposited in restricted access levels of a few universities. Because of this fact access to his writings is admittedly not within the reach of the average person. Thankfully; however, this difficulty has been overcome to a certain extent by diligent research. Grey's writings on the period of history in which he lived are increasingly viewed as an important tool in the understanding of key events in British history. Secular scholarship is only now beginning to extricate itself from its long slumber in this regard, and recently Grey's writings have begun to appear and once again come before the eyes of readers.
My own research into the life and writings of Zachary Grey has proven fruitful, rewarding and challenging. His style, which was unusual for his age, was one of detailed and meticulous research. He, like any man, was not infallible, but the points of history he preserved for us, and the facts he cites are of inestimable value for the student of history. Without consultation to his writings there can hardly exist proper balance to the claims of the Puritans. Since some historians have seen fit to cite Mr. Neal as an authority to castigate the memory and reputation of His Majesty King James/Charles we will attempt to provide a balance for the learned reader that is totally lacking in their attacks.
A Review Of Mr. Daniel Neal's History Of The Puritans In A Letter To Mr. David Jennings, will be primarily consulted in our search for equity and parity. I am working from the Cambridge edition published in 1744/1745. Grey was responding to a sermon preached in laud of Neal's History of the Puritans.
Grey strenuously objected to the characterization that Neal was to be considered as a "First Rate Historian." Grey believed that in Neal's works accuracy was wanting, which is requisite to form the character of an exact Historian, and that impartiality was also lacking. "In many of Mr. Neal's characters, believe me sir, there appears but too strong a bias to party; for while the smallest faults of the members of the establishment are exaggerated, the greatest blemishes of the Puritans, are either plainly palliated, or passed over in silence; and even some of the authors he produces in support of facts, are far from being unexceptionable; and these no doubt led Mr. Neal into errors…"
Neal did not content himself with censuring the name of good old King James, the fact is that most of the anti-Puritan establishment is ridiculed, demeaned, and objected to. Even Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I is suspected of being a Papist! Also, Charles I does not escape being excoriated. One example cited by Grey of Neal's contradictory application of scorn is Archbishop[5] Whitgift "… whom he [Neal] styles (p. 27) a cruel persecutor of the Puritans … Nay Mr. Neal himself in another work {Neal's History of New England, Vol. 1., p. 70} allows him to have been a good man."
"King James's character fares not quite so well under his [Neal's] hands; for he will not allow him to be master of one good quality, in any capacity: his great and distinguished learning[6], passes with Mr. Neal for pedantry: His lenity to the Papists for a strong bias towards their religion: his insisting upon his just rights and prerogative, for the most absolute tyranny. And yet after all, it must be owned, sir, by everybody, that will judge impartially, that though he was not without faults, one of the chief was his too great indulgence to the Puritans, which even Arthur Wilson, a person not too much prejudiced in his favor, seems to allow." "'But he observes (p. 150) that if we consider him as a king, he never did a great or generous act in the course of his life.' I cannot really tell whether Mr. Neal would have thought them so, but I am of opinion, sir, that the following were great and generous acts, and worthy of a King…" Grey goes on to relate how in 1602 King James at some cost to him both politically and financially made provisions for the Scottish clergy; and how in 1603 King James procured and passed an Act for preserving Church Lands[7].
Furthermore, it is related by Grey how in1604 King James restored the Church of Rippon in Yorkshire; how in 1609 he laid the first stone and gave the timber for the building of Chelsea College; how in 1610 he preserved Brown's Hospital in Stamford, Lincolnshire, from being dissolved and kept the poor from being without medical care; how in 1611 (9 Jac.) "…he took some pains to preserve Sutton's Hospital, or the Charter-House; he was I think a benefactor to the Church of Norwich and most certainly a very great one to Trinity College in Dublin; which was endowed by Queen Elizabeth, with the privileges of an University, May 13, 1591."
"Mr. Neal seems to think (p. ibid.) that, it is hard to make a judgment of the King's religion; for one while he was a Puritan, and then a zealous Church-man, and at last a half, if not a Doctrinal Papist[8]." "Pardon me Sir, if I take the liberty of observing upon your Friend, that he is but too free with Crowned Heads." Grey goes on to cite Calderwood who was not so much biased in favor of James, how his criticisms of James in this regard were without merit. He cites the author of the History of English and Scot Presbytery, p. 96 "Those who read this, will question what religion this Man is of, who so qualifies the incomparable Defender of the Faith, who hath so vigorously and sincerely maintained the Truth; that if there were a Christian in the World who knew not that great Prince, neither by his admirable Writings, nor the renown of his Piety and Wisdom; and should hear him called The Most Spiteful And Mortal Enemy Of The Church; he might well imagine that King James were turned Turk, and had changed the Churches of his Kingdom into Mosques, and sold his Christian subjects for slaves to the Moors."
Grey's objections to the "facts" of Neal's work extend well beyond his criticisms of King James. Grey goes on to defend the Royal Martyr King Charles I from Neal's aspersions. Grey notes how the documentary evidence of record contained in the extracts of the Herald's office in Scotland disproves Neal's contentions about Charles' baptism[9].
Not only this but Neal is also mistaken in his belief that Charles I, K. M., was "inclined to popery[10]."
Grey recounts how that while in Spain Charles was frequently solicited to change his religion to Roman Catholicism and steadfastly refused to do so, not even for the sake of a wife or "… any other consideration whatsoever[11]."
Grey continues on to note that in regards to Neal's other charges against His Majesty, King Charles I, the Royal Martyr, the following: "… a very great mistake…" "… is far from being either accurate or just…" "… is equally injurious to the character of this great man…" "A remarkable assertion this, and what I believe Mr. Neal would have retracted, had he met with the following authorities in disproof of it." "…I cannot by any means acknowledge with him, while so many incontestable proofs to the contrary are recorded in history:…" "I cannot come into Mr. Neal's opinion…" "Be so good, Sir, to hear those in his defense, who were much better acquainted with his character, than either Mr. Neal, or any of his favorite historians."
"In the summing up of the character of the Royal Martyr, Mr. Neal seems to be much beholden to some of the most notorious Republicans; and in truth, he has treated his memory with as little decency, as either the continuators of Mr. Rapin's History, …" "Tis surprising that Mr. Neal should assert this, when there are upon record, so many incontestable proofs to the contrary." "And here I am sorry to find him crying up a set of the most execrable villains, that ever lived upon earth."
With respect to persecution on non-Puritans, it is shown that the Puritans extracted their own revenge via "Cromwell's Inquisition." And regarding Cromwell's place of death, data is provided that Neal was possibly mistaken in this as well.
"As to the King's restoration, though I will not say, that Mr. Neal shows an absolute dislike of it; yet I cannot think he comes into it with so good a grace, as every friend to monarchy, or impartial historian would naturally do: As almost every action of the Rump, and Oliver Cromwell, are magnified in their favor; so every fault or failure, every small slip or omission, are aggravated in the reign of King Charles II." "But it is full as surprising, to find Mr. Neal complaining of his Lordship's mistakes, with regard … when from his own lame, imperfect, nay mistaken account…"
At this juncture it should be noted that any attempt, save a full republication of Grey's work, will simply not do justice to the facts and documentary sources cited therein. The works are simply too extensive for the purposes of this small treatise; yet nevertheless, the work deserves to be considered.
Moving on, Mr. Neal's observations are
"…far from being either accurate or just, and certainly wrong…" "Pardon me Sir, if I don't in this instance give in to Mr. Neal's opinion." "In Mr. Neal's account of that detestable Irish Massacre, I leave you to judge Sir, whether he has not highly injured the memory of the Royal Martyr; for though he does not directly charge him with it, yet by his oblique insinuations, the unwary reader may be induced to think the King accessory at least to it … His Majesty (and I should think he must have known it) has cleared himself, as you Sir, may be convinced by perusing the authorities referred to in the margin…"
"In summing up the character of the Royal Martyr, Mr. Neal seems to be much beholden to some of the most notorious Republicans; and in truth, he has treated his Memory with as little decency, as either the continuators of Mr. Rapin's History…"
"Judge then, Sir, whether this part of Mr. Neal's charge against good King Charles, be just, or not? I shall take the liberty of summing up the character of the Royal Martyr, in the words of a pious and learned Prelate[12], who lived in those times:
'The heroic virtues, (says he) the flaming charity, the admirable patience, the rare humility, the exemplary chastity, the constant and frequent devotions[13], and the invincible courage of that happy Prince, not daunted with the ugly face of a most horrid death: have rendered him the glory of his country, the honor of that Church whereof he was the chiefest member, the admiration of Christendom, and a pattern for all Princes of what communion so ever, to imitate unto the end of the world. His sufferings were Psalms, his prison a paradise, and his death-day the birth-day of his happiness; whom his enemies advantaged more by their cruelty, than they could have done by their courtesies: they deprived him of a corruptible crown, and invested him with a crown of glory: they snatched him from the sweet society of his dearest spouse, and from his most hopeful olive branches, to place him in the bosom of his holy Angels. This alone is ground enough for his sufferings, to manifest to the world those transcendent graces with which God had enriched him, to which his sufferings gave the greatest luster, as the stars shine brightest in a dark night."
In Grey's work[14] dealing with the second volume of Neal's work Grey writes of Neal: "His strong bias and prejudice to the Royal Martyr, his cause, (notwithstanding he professes himself … to have no private, or party views) appears in almost every page … has spoke the most dishonorable things of the Blessed Martyr, and what (if true) in the esteem of every Old Whig, or consistent Protestant (the cant words in these times for downright Republican) would have lifted every thing that was acted against him, execrable murder not excepted …".
Grey honestly admits his own admiration for Charles, while Neal pretends to be objective. Neal's conclusions are opinionated, and when he does venture to offer data, the facts are proven erroneous as Grey so admirably shows. Grey's admissions are a breath of fresh air "I must own my self to be one of those unfathomable persons, who (in this age of more than common light) am neither ashamed nor afraid, to bear my testimony in behalf of the Royal House of Stuart, and to profess a more than ordinary regard and veneration for the memory of the Royal Martyr…"
Despite his own "bias" Grey supports his contentions by voluminous citations of objective corroborative works to support his remarks rather than simply letting his opinion stand as a sole authority as Neal repeatedly does throughout his work.
Grey's work is a veritable gold mine of information, and was of the first works to so employ such a methodical system of documentation. Grey records the sentiments of those of the period with respect to Charles in contradistinction to the claims of Neal: "Had Bradshaw that condemned him, been longer on the Bench or single, that Dagon too had fallen before the captive Ark. But oh! At the scaffold he engrosses miracles, there he christens by wholesale, that one blow slew more rebels, than all these seven years. Our Samson, though shaved both hair and head away, killed more Philistines at his death than all his life time. Now they would swear fealty to his trunk, and homage to a dipt handkerchief. They adore his very ghost, and will atone their rebellion, by being subjects, now there is no King. And who cannot continue loyal for such a King, that dies for the sins and safety of his people: Who would refuse to be his subject, who is their Martyr? He acted a Christian better than most divines can describe one, and bled doctrines better [than most can speak them] He showed graces[15], the schoolmen scarce ever heard of, we might edify more from the scaffold in one hour than from the pulpit in an age. Thus lived this glorious King, (says Mr. Long), and thus he died as another Moses, though of a stammering tongue, yet mighty in words and deeds. His whole life, as Philo says, was a martyrdom to God, being worried by the contradiction of a rebellious people, who chose idols to go before them, … He was the meekest man on earth, when a rude soldier spit in his face, he wiped it off with a pious thought, my Savior, (said he) endured this, and more for my sake, …as majestic on the scaffold as on the throne, which he ascended as more than a conqueror."
Grey spares no words in attacking the "… inveterate malice to the memory of the Royal Martyr". This can be further seen in his second examination[16] of Neal's History:
"The Royal Martyr did not suffer enough from his rebel subjects, the Ax which separated his head from his body, was not keen enough, but his memory must suffer a second martyrdom, or persecution at least, from the much keener pen of our learned historian … Mr. Neal has taken upon him to justify almost every action of the rebels within this period … and has misrepresented almost every fact in the history of those times, which tends to the justification of the Royal Martyr, and his cause."
Very detailed documentation in support of Grey's objections to Neal's opinions are provided. In this most brief survey we have admittedly not done justice to Grey's scholarship, or his detailed listing of source materials and factual data, but I have, at least, provided the reader with a sample, a flavor of his response to Mr. Neal, who some believe is authoritative to matters Jacobean or Carolinian. From our survey; however, we have found Mr. Neal's opinions wanting, and his bias exemplified, and resultantly his conclusions placed in perspective by an impartial examination of his writings from the opposite point of view.
Grey concludes his work by stating "… though I readily grant (having a regard for his memory) that Mr. Neal was possessed of every other valuable quality that you ascribe to him, yet I can by no means allow, that he was an accurate historian: and must leave you to judge from this Postscript, how far you are concerned to retract the following passage in your sermon (page 32) 'That his impartial regard to truth, has received a very considerable testimony, by means of an attempt that was made, to discredit the History Of The Puritans, in a book that was wrote against the First Volume [by Maddox]; which Mr. Neal did so effectively answer, and so thoroughly vindicate, that Volume of his History, as may reasonably persuade us, that he could, and do doubt would have as thoroughly vindicated the other Volumes from what has been since published against them, if the declining state of his health had permitted him.'"
Isaac Maddox
The Dictionary Of National Biography, (DONB) Volume XII, Oxford University Press, pages 742-743 relates that Isaac was born July 27, 1697, and died on September 27, 1759. He was the Bishop of Worcester, and held various posts within the church as well as academic degrees. He (Maddox) was widely regarded as a philanthropist and benefactor of charity, volunteered his services in many hospitals in aid of the sick and dying.
He was a strong voice against the consumption of alcohol, and received praise from Parliament for his sermons in this regard. Although he was politically and doctrinally at odds with "dissenters" his relations with them were nevertheless always amicable. At his death he was viewed as a kindly and hospitable man.
In 1733 Maddox published his volume A Vindication of the Government, Doctrine, and Worship of the Church of England, which was a reply to the first volume of Daniel Neal's History of the Puritans (1732), to which Neal responded in 1734.
It was Maddox's belief that Neal was to be convicted of "mistakes" which in Maddox's estimation marred Neal's work. Neal's response to Maddox seems to have dispelled some of his concerns, yet Maddox's volume was regarded as capable rebuttal and continued to be seen as worthy of credit, being written with considerable skill.
To this day Maddox's work is seen as a valuable aid as both a "statement and defense of the anti-Puritan position."
What then is the value of Neal, who does not provide any eyewitness testimony to substantiate his allegations? And, as we have seen, Mr. Neal's interpretations were far from being accepted at face value by his contemporaries. Moreover, Neal is no eyewitness to the events he describes! The animosity between James VI & I, Charles I, and the Puritans is well documented. It is to be expected that we should find such deleterious commentary made about James VI & I, and his son, Charles I from the opposition party especially so many years divorced from the life and reign of King James and the alleged events so as to discourage inspection. Plainly not all of Neal's contemporaries believed his accounts and specifically wrote against Neal's portrayal of the "facts." What we have recorded are Neal's opinions, but opinions without documentation do not make facts.
The critical inspection of Neal's volumes with respect to the historical method and corollary legal argument leads us to the conclusion that there is no factual basis to document the veracity of Neal's castigations of James' character. Furthermore, the known Puritan predisposition and proclivity for claims of moral superiority and xenophobic reactions to any activity deemed "papist" whether it was or not is also a consideration in the etiology of such criticisms.
Additionally, the Biblical case against Neal demands rejection of such commentary. Scripture enjoins us in I Tim 5:19 "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." [see also Deut 19:15-19; Matt. 18:16]. Regardless of whether or not one acknowledges the historical fact that James VI & I , or his son Charles I as Kings of Great Britain were Head of the Anglican Church, it is nevertheless a fact of history that they were considered elders in this regard by virtually all official accounts and by the vast majority of their contemporary subjects.
Holy Scripture also commands us to reject gossip and talebearing!
The conclusion of the matter then is that the most Neal's words can establish is that Daniel Neal has a negative opinion about King James and King Charles. We have already seen that Neal's perceptions did not go unchallenged as evidenced, for example, by Zachary Grey's rejoinders to Neal's comments. We have the other side to the coin, if you will, in Grey's writings and others.
"The Literature Of Dissent"
The Cambridge Bibliography Of English Literature, edited by F. W. Bateson, Volume II (1660-1800), Cambridge University Press, 1940, provides a concise description of the nature of Neal's work along with that of Crosby. On page 861 Daniel Neal's works are mentioned, and on page 862 the books of Thomas Crosby are cited. Neal is listed under the subheading of "General Works" while Crosby is referenced under "Baptist" writers. Both authors fall under the category of "The Literature Of Dissent" according to The Cambridge Bibliography Of English Literature. One must remember the writings of Neal are typical of "The Literature of Dissent."
The Etiology of Puritan Disaffection With Charles I, K.M.
A valuable discussion of the divergent opinions between Anglicans who tended to side with the crown, and the Puritan/Independent factions which generally tended towards dissent, favoring the philosophy of parliamentary disaffection with royal authority can be found in John F. H. New's book[17]. A brief summary of some of the relevant points will be provided below:
Anglicans generally were not Pharisees when it came to the letter of the law, and found it perfectly acceptable for the Christian to enjoy entertainment, provided it was within the guidelines of acceptable conduct. Such freedom was an abomination to the Puritans. [pages 22-23] "Bodily adornment, dancing, Sunday sports, stage plays, and the like were regarded as perfectly seemly … James I in his 'Book of Sports[18]' (1618) berated those 'precise persons' who claimed that enjoyment and recreation were incompatible with true religion. He recommended 'that after the end of Divine Service, our good people be not disturbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawful recreation; such as dancing, either men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any such harmless recreation, not from having of May-Games, Whitson-Ales, and Morris-Dances, and the setting up of May-poles and other sports therewith used.'
Charles I reissued his father's 'Book of Sports' in 1633. Such latitude was anathema to Puritans. Lucy Hutchinson, wife of the Puritan regicide John Hutchinson, was outraged because the people enjoyed 'masks, stage-plays, and sorts of rudder sports. William Prynne, in the Epistle Dedicatory to his massive 'Histriomastix' (1632), could not say enough about the evils of the stage: 'What profit do we reap from stage plays? Do they not enrage the lusts, add fire and fuel to (people's) unchaste affections, deprave their minds, corrupt their manners, cauterize their consciences, obdurate their heads, multiply their heinous transgressions, consume their estates, misspend their time, canker their graces, blast all their virtues, interrupt their studies, indispose them to repentance and true godly sorrow for their sins?"
The Puritans, or "moral Spartans" as Mr. New terms them, no doubt found fertile ground for opposing one of James' and Anne's favorite pastimes, stage plays!
While it may safely be acknowledged that many of the points of disagreement between Anglicans and Puritans, admittedly at times significant, still were nevertheless etiologically the result of disruptive pursuits by the Puritans. For example, as New notes on page 40 "… Anglicans used the Nicene Creed, though the Apostles' Creed was recited at Morning Prayer. Puritans objected to the Nicene Creed, and advocated the exclusive use of the Apostles' Creed, ostensibly because it was of earlier origin (a second-instead of a fourth-century compilation)."
The Puritans were easily irritated, and almost any infraction, no matter how small, of their often arbitrary rules any would incur their vehement wrath. Similarly, disputes over wording were to generate much debate specifically with regard to "Take ye and eat ye" as opposed to "Take thou and eat thou." The Puritan faction seemed to enjoy debate almost as much as it relished initiating it. For the Puritan mind, any form of sacramentalism was immediately equated with Romanism, regardless of how ludicrous the correlation. All ceremony "smacked of Popery" and communion encouraged idolatry according to contemporary Puritan thought. [page 43] "The Puritan's alacrity to detect errors, and their exaggerations, were responses to the mechanical nature and individualistic emphasis of Anglican worship." [page 74] For Puritans "… ritualism implied Romanism,…" [page 75] "Puritans were being oversensitive to smell Romanism in every ceremonial; they were wrong to see idolatry in signs of reverence toward the altar…Their mistake was to attach Popery to the trappings [page 76] of religion…"
W. E. Lunt in his History Of England, Harper and Brothers, London, 1928, page 448 writes "On the other hand, the Puritan viewpoint of morals was becoming so rigid that it held the pursuit of business or recreation on Sundays to be positively immoral. Many devout Christians of that period saw no evil in the games and pastimes which from time immemorial had taken place on the village green on Sundays when the services in the church were over; but to the Puritans they were anathema."
Neither New or Lunt's observations are hardly unique or novel, but they do demonstrate that the dissenting faction of the Puritans was prone to the types of diatribes that can commonly be found amongst even their most noteworthy writers of history. Consequently, great care should be exercised when accepting their conclusions.
The limitations of dissenting literature can be seen in the political agendas they sought to advance by their criticisms of the opposition. For example, we know from the Hampton Court Conference that the Puritan faction was fanatically opposed to virtually any ceremony or any activity they deemed improper which included the exchange of rings at weddings, some parts of the traditional nuptial vows, and even thespian and theater related activities, of which both James and his Queen were most fond of. See The Men Behind The King James Version, by Gustavus S. Paine, Baker Book House, page 4; and The Cambridge Bibliography Of English Literature, Volume V, edited by George Watson, Supplement: A.D. 600-1900, 1957, page 246 "The Puritan Attack Upon The Stage."
The Puritans, being almost obsessed with the perception that virtually any ceremony was a plot of Rome to subvert the Reformation, were consequently paranoid with this ideal to a great extent, and their political and theological eccentricities, extremism if you will, colored a great deal of their perceptions about not only King James and Charles I, but the events of which they were part of. Resultantly, any of their histories naturally reflects their bias at the time, and must be tested against the objective historical facts.
With the political and theological bias of the authors, be they Puritan or Baptist, concomitant with the absence of factual data to sustain their criticisms of James and Charles, one would not expect such punctilious sources to be either friendly or approving of the life or reign of King James and his Royal Son. It is instructive to note that more often than not such critics were answered by contemporary historians who provided factual data to demonstrate the undue bias and errors of such dissident authors. Consequently, the facts of history clearly separate the works relative to James VI & I and Charles I into two distinct groups, those predicated upon fact, and those whose foundation is opinion and fiction (oftentimes mired by inaccuracy). It is into the fictional and erroneous category then that we relegate the works of Neal and other hypercritical sources. This is primarily so not due to a blind reliance solely on ameliorative sources to His Majesty King James, but because the facts of the matter are diametrically opposed to the opposition literature.
Some authors so malicious towards James VI & I and Charles I, sensing the poignant deficit of historical facts to bolster their objections to the godly character of both Kings, turn to find comfort, shelter, and perhaps even solace from the facts in the writings of those who attempt to fictionalize the character of such notable monarchs. They take refuge in the writings of men who cannot prove what they allege beyond vain appeals to their own mistaken opinions. Men whose own deep rooted prejudices and disregard for the facts of history forever discredit their assumptions.
It must be remembered that slander is no adequate shelter from the storm of truth! The only safe harbor is fact, and it is upon this sea of facts that we base our conclusions on as to the godly character of King James VI & I, and the Royal Martyr, King Charles I.
James & The Puritans - A Study In Conflict
How Did Charles' father (James VI & I) View The Puritans? In reality, King James VI & I never got along with the Puritans any better than did his son. In this regard, it is well to remember the old axiom:
"Two opposing concepts will always condemn each other as a perversion."
Maurice Lee[19] recounts James sentiment with respect to the Puritans as "I have daily more and more cause to hate and abhor all that sect, enemies to all kings and to me only because I am a King."
Charles H. McIlwain[20] notes in his introduction that "Thus in his arguments against the Roman Church and its doctrines he follows the lead of the Elizabethan divines in attempting to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist … James personally hated them more than any Catholic."
In Appendix C there is a special section entitled James And The Puritans. Excerpts include "It is evident from James' writings that the root of his inveterate hatred of Puritans was really political not religious … But he did hate Puritans above any other religious party in either of his kingdoms and his hatred was of long standing. He had learned long before he came to England that their political doctrines were incompatible with his own high views of the spiritual powers of 'God's Lieutenant.' It was as King, not as Christian that he feared and disliked the opinions of Puritans…"
James is cited as saying "'I have learned,' he says 'of what cut they have been, who, preaching before me, since my coming into England passed over, with silence, my being Supreme Governor in causes Eccleasitical.' 'If you aim at a Scottish Presbytery, it agreeth as well with Monarchy, as God and the Devil.' 'If this be all your Party hath to say, I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harry them out of the Land, or else do worse.'" It is noted that James had warned his own son against the Puritans long ago in Basilicon Doron against the "preposterous humility of one of the proud Puritans, claiming to their party, and crying, we are all but vile worms, and yet, will judge and give law to their King, but be judged nor controlled by none." James goes on to condemn their pride and punish them severely. James believes that reasoning with them is all to no avail. "I have overmuch suffered them with that … and it is not their fashion to yield."
James' own view of the Puritans was that they were more of a sect than a religion. The end result of extremist Puritan pride and dogma James believed was "It is easy to fall and slide by degrees into the chaos, filthy sink and farrago of all horrible heresies, whereof hell is the just reward.
From here we proceed to a direct examination of James own comments on the Puritans. From Basilicon Doron, page 7: "First then, as to the name of Puritans, … they think themselves only pure, and in a manner without sin, the only true church, and only worthy to be participant of the … and all the rest of the world to be but abomination in the sight of God … I speak of the Puritans…"
Again from Basilicon Doron, pages 7-8: "Take heed therefore my son to such Puritans, very pests in the Church and Common-weal, whom no deserts can oblige, neither oaths or promises bind, breathing nothing but sedition and calumnies, aspiring without measure, railing without reason, and making their own imaginations (without any warrant of the word) the square of their conscience. I protest before the great God, and since I am here as upon my testament, it is no place for me to lie in, that ye shall never find with any highland or border thieves greater ingratitude, and more lies and vile perjuries, than with these fanatic spirits: And suffer not the principals of them to brook your land, if ye like to sit at rest except ye would keep them for trying your patience … cherish no man more than a good pastor, hate no man more than a proud Puritan … as well as ye repress the vain Puritan …"
From A Premonition To All Most Mighty Monarchies, Kings, Free Princes, And States Of Christendom, page 126: "… so was I ever an enemy to the confused anarchy or party of the Puritans,… I that was persecuted[21] by Puritans there (in Scotland) not from my birth only, but even since four months before my birth…"
While this does not compromise the totality of James' comments on the Puritans it nevertheless does give the reader an understanding of his view of them. In a way it sets the stage for the conflict which was to arise in the reign of his son, Charles I.
E I K W N B A S I L I K H
When I first embarked upon this labor I did not anticipate that this portion of the work would be as extensive as it now has come to be. However, the more the topic came before my eyes, I realized that there needed to be some form of published equipoise as to etiology of the precise identity of the author of the King's Book. It was a sad turn of events to find that most of the extant works on this subject favor in some fashion a philosophical phantom over the substantive reality which exists in the evidentiary record.
In this discussion there is not, in my estimation, a need to produce new rebuttals to the claims of Gauden, especially when his advocates have never successfully or satisfactorily answered the old arguments. Moreover, I am not vain enough to suppose that I can shed any new light on a controversy which so many able men have handled before. However, I do desire to uncover old light which most in this present generation are not even aware of, or have otherwise long forgotten.
Furthermore, it is my intention to revive the claim of the King as the sole author and originator of the Eikon. Indeed there are good reasons, ample evidence, and valid documentation to substantiate this position. It should not be such a hard thing to believe, as was commonly thought for so long, that King Charles was truly the author of the Eikon Basilike. To this end, I offer the following humble attempt to authenticate such a premise.
The story of the "King's Book" perhaps more than any other is one in which the greatest contrast can be clearly seen between supporters and defenders of Charles I, modern or ancient.
Ironically, this matter is also illustrative of one of the very few areas of agreement between friend and foe alike of the Eikon Basilike; namely the impact of the King's Book in the minds of readers. For example, Bishop Burnet in his History Of My Own Times - From The Restoration Of King Charles The Second To The Treaty Of Peace At Utrecht, Volume I, London, William S. Orr & Company, 1850, page 31 writes of Eikon Basilike:
"There was in it a nobleness and justness of thought with a greatness of style, that made it to be looked on as the best written book in the English language; and the piety of the prayers made all people cry out against the murder of a prince, who thought so seriously of all his affairs in his secret meditations before God. I was bred up with a high veneration of this book."
Similar sentiments can be found in J. A. Farrer's Literary Forgeries, Longmans, Green, & Company, 1907, page 98:
"… the famous Eikon Basilike, which, appearing shortly after the execution of Charles I, as his work, contributed greatly to that reaction in his favor which in a few years culminated in the Restoration of Charles II. It may be doubted whether any book in the world's history ever had so decisive an effect on the tide of events."
The authenticity of the royal authorship of the Eikon Basilike has been hotly debated almost since its initial publication, the author being dead, his work evoking sympathy for his cause in the revelations of his honesty, bravery, and spirituality, and eliciting hostility towards his opponents among the general populace, his enemies temporarily victorious via regicide, such a situation was ripe to occur.
Richard Royston, a royalist, undertook the task of printing the Eikon Basilike which was promptly discovered and confiscated by parliamentary forces. Independents and Puritans[22] alike were alarmed at the effect of the Eikon Basilike on the general public as it raised such negative sentiment against them it was generally agreed that a remedy had to be found.
Intimidation was the weapon of first choice as Philip A. Knachel writes in his introduction to Eikon Basilike: The Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings, The Folger Shakespeare Library, Cornell University Press, xx-xxi:
"From the first publication of Eikon Basilike, prominent independents tried to discredit the book by denying it's royal authorship. John Bradshaw[23], who had presided over the trial of Charles I, hit upon the idea of obtaining a public admission from Richard Royston that he had published a fraudulent book. Bradshaw had Royston brought before him, cajoled and threatened him, and, finally out of patience, asked Royston how he could think so bad a man could write so good a book. But Royston refused to give the Independents the answer they wanted to hear. After fifteen unrewarding days, the government tacitly admitted failure and allowed Royston his freedom."
Similarly, when William Dugard published his edition of Eikon Basilike he was promptly arrested, and all copies of the Eikon Basilike were seized. There was a definite element of intimidation in this activity.
It seems that Parliament had ulterior motives in arresting Dugard. Dugard was subsequently released, and the causes and circumstances of this will be discussed elsewhere in this work. Suffice it to say, some time later, through more subtle means of suppression the Eikon Basilike was repressed by Parliament under the guise of enforcement of public policy, which was specifically designed to restrict and undermine the distribution of the Eikon Basilike.
Sensing a complete failure to eradicate the Eikon Basilike from the public memory via outright repressive stratagems, the next tactic was to undermine the work by means of printed refutation. In Bishop Burnet's History Of My Own Times - From The Restoration Of King Charles The Second To The Treaty Of Peace At Utrecht, Volume I, London, William S. Orr & Company, 1850, page 31ff the magnitude of the effect of the Eikon Basilike on the public conscience along with proposed countermeasures is recorded:
"A contemporary stated as his opinion that if it (Eikon Basilike) had appeared a few weeks earlier, the regicides would not have dared to conduct Charles to the scaffold. It had such an influence in winning favor to the royal cause, that Cromwell considered it essentially necessary that an answer to it should be published. He selected Seldon for the execution of this task, and is said to have applied to him personally, and by their mutual friends, to persuade him to the undertaking. He unhesitatingly declined, and the reply, entitled 'Iconnoclastes,' was eventually written by the poet John Milton."[24]
We can see then that almost from the very start there has been a coordinated and orchestrated effort on the part of zealous partisans opposed to the Caroline authorship of the Eikon Basilike. It is only natural then to expect that the present controversy is the result of this initial opposition.
In the interests of balance, since the anti-Carolinian literature is well published on the question of the precise authorship of the Eikon Basilike, it is prudent to provide the careful reader with a short bibliography of some of the primary pro-royalist works which will summarize the position in equipoise:
1. "Eikon Basilike" reprinted and edited by Edward Scott in 1880.
2. "Biography of the King's Book" by Edward Almack, 1894.
3. J. Young's "Several Evidences Concerning The Author Of
Eikon Basilike", 1703.
4. Dr. Hollingworth's able Defense of K. Charles the First's
Holy and Divine Book, called
E I K W N B A S I A I K H ; 1692.
5. Thomas Wagstaffe's Vindication of King Charles The Martyr
either the 1697 or 1711 editions.[25]
6. Christopher Wordsworth's Letters To The Archbishop of Canterbury
circa 1824, and King Charles I Author Of Eikon Basilike, 1828.[26]
7. See also Wordsworth's "Documentary Supplement" as well as his
sequel to "Who Wrote Eikon Basilike."
The list may easily be expanded to include such notable works as The Princely Pelican of 1649, and a variety of other works which all share a common theme; namely, that the authorship of the Eikon Basilike is most assuredly King Charles I.[27]
Moreover, the diligent reader would do well to consider Edward Almack's 1904 edition of the Eikon Basilike for like information. On pages xvii-xviii Almack provides external witnesses in favor of the King's authorship in addition to a listing of the contrary on pages xix-xx. Almack's edition of the Eikon was made from an advance copy of the first edition
"… which was apparently hidden by 'John Armstrong, corrector to Mr. Dugard's Press,' who was afterwards ordered to be 'apprehended and brought before Council.' The text, including the list of errata, is identical with that of the first edition; but the title page bears the imprint: 'London. Printed for R. Royston in Ivie-lane.' This, however, would have guided the enemy, and hence was omitted when the book was issued, and the spaces occupied by two 'rules'. Later, when there was more time, an ornamental block was inserted in its place. Although five editions of the book have been issued since 1875, these have all been taken from modern versions. There has not appeared, in the last hundred years, any edition giving the old spelling of the book, as it was printed in England in 1648-9."
For these reasons, and many more, this edition is a valuable printing that every enthusiast of the Eikon will want to read.
While it is impossible to do justice to each work noted above, and in actuality such a task is beyond the scope of this study; however, it is advisable to review at least some of the pro-Carolinian works as being representative of the main body of the royalist/Carolinian argument in favor of Eikon Basilike being penned by Charles I K.M.
For this purpose I have selected a few sources rarely listed in bibliographies on the issue. Moreover, this first source, in addition to being scarce, is even more infrequently consulted with regard to the text and data presented therein. I speak of Richard Hollingworth's[28] various defenses of the Royal Martyr which merit examination to illustrate the validity of the royalist position as outlined above.
The External Evidence &c.
The full publication title of Hollingworth's work is [Dr. Hollingworth's DEFENCE of K. Charles the First's Holy and Divine Book, called E I K W N B A S I L I K H ; Against the Rude and Undutiful Assaults of the late Dr. Walker, of Essex. p r o v i n g By Living and Unquestionable Evidences, the aforesaid Book to be that of the Royal Martyr's and not Dr. Gauden's. Imprimatur. Carolus Aston, R. P. D. Hen. Epi¦ c. Lond., Maii 2. 1692 a Sacris. London: Printed for Samuel Gddowes, under the Piazza of the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, 1692].
This work provides much corroborative testimony to the major contentions of the Carolinian case opposed to the Gauden[29] school of thought.
Dr. Hollingworth notes that Dr. Walker had deceased prior to the publication of this volume, and for this reason, he withheld any animus out of respect of the dead.
Dr. Hollingworth provides affidavits from various individuals who successfully enervate the critical assumptions of Charles I supposedly not being the true author of the Eikon Basilike. The author invites examination of his materials, and requests that anyone may interrogate the witnesses he cites.
The testimony of James Clifford casts serious doubts upon the claims made by Anthony Walker as to Gauden being the author of Eikon Basilike. James Clifford attested that he was an actuary for Charles I in several published works, and how the title of Eikon Basilike was inspirationally taken from King James' work Basilicon Doron. Clifford states emphatically that
"I do further say, that I never heard, nay, that I am sure, that Dr. Gauden never was concerned in that Book, by which Mr. Milbourn and myself printed it, and that we had no part of the copy from Dr. Walker, for it was that transcribed by the aforesaid Mr. Odert we printed it by."
Teste: Jac. Clifford.
In the Presence of Luke Milbourn, Clark,
and Margaret Hollingworth
Another piece of evidence, very rarely ever met with in the evidentiary record pertaining to the alleged Gauden authorship of the Eikon Basilike is found on pages 17 and 18 of Dr. Hollingworth's work mentioned above. Hollingworth writes:
"… I say and will prove it by a better evidence than Dr. Walker's can be supposed to be, that Dr. Gauden, after he was Bishop of Exeter, did say the quite contrary, and did justify it to be the King's Book; and that if ever he told Dr. Walker he made it, he spoke that which is false to one or the other, and therefore his credit ought not to be relied on at all. Dr. Walker hath forced me to this, or else Bishop Gauden's ashes should for me have lain peaceably and honorably in the grave; but Dr. Gauden's reputation is a mere trifle when put in the scales with the honor of King Charles the First. Know therefore, Reader, that understanding the Reverend Mr. Long, Prebendary, as I take it, of Exeter, was well acquainted with Dr. Gauden, when Bishop of Exeter, and had many free discourses and communications with him, and sometimes about King Charles the First, and more particularly about his Book, to whom Bishop Gauden declared, it could be the Book of none but the King himself; hearing of which before I ever thought of so bold a Man and audacious a Slanderer as the Essex Dr. proved afterwards by his Book to be, I made bold the 21st of April, the very day after the publishing of Walker's Book, to write to Mr. Long, desiring him to let me know whether Dr. Gauden had ever declared and asserted any such thing in conversation with him? Who was pleased to answer mine by the next post, and to refer me to his Letters he had sent to Dr. Goodall, the Physician in Charterhouse-yard, upon whom I waited, and who was pleased, upon my desire, to give me out of Mr. Longs two letters these two transcripts:
'I had the hap to be acquainted with Bishop Gauden, as long as he was our Diocesan, and I have heard him often affirm, that he was fully convinced, that the
Eikon Basilike was entirely the King's Work.Exon, March 25.
Tho. Long1691
I can affirm on my own knowledge, that Bishop Gauden did affirm it to be his full belief, that the
Eikon Basilike was the King's own Work.Exon, April 15.. Tho. Long
1692'"
Virtually all accounts which even mention Gauden as the author of the Eikon Basilike, whether they be pro or con, rarely mention the fact that Gauden, at least according to testimony, affirmed his belief at one time or another that King Charles I was indeed the author of Eikon Basilike.
Later in 1692 Dr. Hollingworth published A DEFENCE OF King Charles I. Occasioned by the Lies & Scandals of Many Bad Men of this Age, London, 1692. The loyalty of Dr. Hollingworth to the Royal Martyr is evident throughout his work by such sentiments as:
"… for I am resolved, as long as I can hold a Pen in my Hand, I will not drop this Cause, namely, The Defense of Charles the First … I am resolved, in the ensuing treatise, to vindicate this great prince, and if possible, to shame his implacable enemies, who do show by what they so frequently vent, … "
Much supplementary data is provided in defense of the Royal Martyr.
Again in 1692 Dr. Hollingworth took to press publishing The Character of King Charles I From the Declaration of Mr. Alexander Henderson, (Principal Minister of the Word of God at Edinburgh, and Chief Commissioner from the Kirk of Scotland, to the Parliament and Synod of England) Upon his Death-Bed; with A Further Defense of the King's Holy Book. To which is annexed Some short remarks upon a vile book called Ludlow[30] No Liar, With a Defense of the KING from the Irish Rebellion, London. The work is dedicated to The Marchioness of Carmarthen, and in
"The defense of Good and Innocent Men, and the Vindicating of their Memories, from those base and barbarous aspersions they are many times loaded withal (by men under whose tongues is the poison of asps)…"
Nothing less than the complete vindication of King Charles I is the aim of the author. In this work there is "A Further Defense Of The King's Book, &c." Information is provided via Dr. Meriton which is characterized as putting Dr. Anthony Walker to "silence."
Mention is also made of the Long Letters hitherto referenced. Hollingworth writes:
"The next thing I produce against Dr. Walker, is Mr. Long's evidence, and his attesting in two letters to Dr. Goodall, that Dr. Gauden did affirm to him, that he was fully convinced that the Book was entirely the King's own Work, and what says my answerer to this stabbing evidence? … There are … things more I give the World an account of in my Defense of this Great Mans being the author of that Book, which were too hot for my adversaries fingers, and therefore he dared not touch them;…"
Much testimony is provided including the evidence of William Levet provided below:
"If any one has a desire to know the true author of a Book entitled
Eikon Basilike, I, one of the servants of King Charles, in his bed-chamber, do declare, when his said Majesty was prisoner in the Isle of Wight, that I read over the above mentioned Book (which was long before the said Book was printed) in his bed-chamber written with his Majesty's own hand, with several interlinings. Moreover his Majesty King Charles I told me sure Levet, you do design to get this Book by heart, having often seen me reading of it. I can testify also that Royston the printer told me, that he was imprisoned by Oliver Cromwell the Protector, because he would not declare that King Charles I was not the author of the said Book.Signed and Sealed October 16, 1690."
See also the following testimony from Robert Hearne:
"I Robert Hearne, formerly servant to Sir Phillip Warwick, do attest, that I have often heard my said master Sir Phillip Warwick, as likewise Mr. Odert and Mr. Whitaker declare, that they had transcribed copies of the late King Charles the First's own copy of his Book entitled
Eikon Basilike written with his said Majesty's own hand. Witness my hand,In the presence of,
Phil Mist,
Robert HearneFr. Shipton."
Regarding the reputed claim of Mrs. Gauden that her husband was the author of the Eikon Basilike, there is also the claim that Mrs. Gauden stated to a friend that she was "… concerned for the eternal state of her husband, because he pretended to be the author of that Book, when to her knowledge he never wrote it…"
Moreover, later on when seemingly pressing her husband's claims it should be noted that at that time Mrs. Gauden had a vested interest in the outcome. Her stake was a financial one in that after her husband's death, probably sometime on or about 1662, she was trying to obtain remission of certain dues from his estate, and any aid she could elicit to ameliorate her concerns in this regard would be most advantageous to her cause. Therefore, her claims, are subject to suspicion for these reasons, along with the inconsistencies in the accounts, and the lack of objective verification of same.
On January 30, 1693 Dr. Hollingworth published the text of a sermon entitled The DEATH Of King Charles I proved a Down-right MURDER with aggravations of it in a SERMON at St. Botolph Aldgate, London, To which are added some just reflections upon some late papers concerning that King's Book. Dr. Hollingworth replies to the one named Ludlow, and provides supporting documentation to his prior assertions in support of the Caroline authorship of Eikon Basilike.
It is noted that the Rump Parliament took upon itself an examination of the authorship of the Eikon Basilike, prior to Mr. Milton's[31] rejoinder, and never was able to publish any evidence to the contrary of the claimed Caroline authorship. The Epistle Dedicatory contains a review of the external evidence thus far.
The text of the sermon, although not particularly germane to the issue at hand is worth investigating. The text is Matthew 19:18. An exposition of the events surrounding the trial and execution are contemplated in light of law, Scripture, reason, and logic. The fact that even the House of Lords rejected the death warrant is noted to support the contention that the execution/regicide of Charles I was indeed murder. What is more interesting for those concerned with the memory and reputation of the Royal Martyr is an excerpt of an abstract of the Act made by Parliament upon the restoration of King Charles the Second. Many members of this Parliament were royalist members purged from the lawful assembly by the Rump and Army. In the interest of history I will reproduce what Dr. Hollingworth set forth:
"The horrid and execrable Murder of our late most gracious Sovereign King Charles the First, of ever blessed and glorious Memory, hath been committed by a party of wretched Men, desperately wicked and hardened in their impiety, who having first plotted and contrived the ruin and destruction of our excellent Monarchy, and with it, the True Reformed Protestant Religion,[32] which had been long protected by it, and flourished under it, to carry on their pernicious and traitorous designs, threw down all the fences and bulwarks of law, subverted the very being and constitution of parliaments, that they might have a way opened for any further attempt upon the Sacred Person of his Majesty. That by many odious acts they had fully strengthened themselves in power and faction, seized upon his Royal Person, erected a prodigious and unheard of tribunal, which they called an High Court of Justice for Trial of His Majesty, and at last with force and cruelty they brought his Sacred Majesty to the Scaffold, and there publicly Murdered him before the gates of his own Royal Palace. And because by this horrid action, the Protestant Religion has received the greatest wound and reproach, and the people of England the most insupportable shame and infamy that it was possible for the enemies of God and the King to bring upon us. The fanatic rage of a few miscreants, who were as far from being true Protestants, as they were from being true subjects. Therefore we the Parliament do hereby renounce, abominate and protest against that impious fact, that execrable Murder, and unparalleled treason committed against the Sacred Person and Life of our said late Sovereign, and all proceedings thereunto. And be it hereby declared that by the undoubted and fundamental laws of this Kingdom, neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parliament, nor the People collectively nor representatively, nor any other person whatsoever, ever had have or ought to have a coercive power over the person of the Kings of this Realm. And for the vindicating our selves, and as a lasting monument to posterity, of our inexpressible detestation and abhorrence of this villainous and abominable fact; be it enacted that every 30th of January shall be for ever hereafter set apart to be kept and observed in all Churches and Chapels in his Majesty's dominions as an anniversary day of fasting and humiliation to implore the mercy of God, that neither the guilt of the Sacred and innocent blood may at any time hereafter be visited upon us and our posterity."
Interestingly among the traitors so named are Oliver Cromwell and Edmund Ludlow.
The next work in defense of the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon Basilike is Thomas Wagstaffe's A Vindication of King Charles the Martyr, 2nd Edition, 1697. The work begins by discussing the validity and authenticity of the Anglesey Memorandum which purported to assert that King Charles the Second and the Duke of York did not believe that Charles I was the author of the Eikon Basilike, but that Dr. Gauden was.
The Anglesey Memorandum is examined and found to be suspect in terms of consistency and probative validation from corroborative sources.[33] It should be noted that Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey, was noted to be a skillful, cautious, and sound lawyer. It is highly improbable that he would be so careless as to leave a memorandum, designed to disabuse the world from confusion with regard to the Eikon, in the most unlikely place, between the pages of an obscure book. Despite this simple logic, advocates of the authenticity are recalcitrant in their belief of its genuineness.
Though space does not permit a full articulation of the details, perhaps at some future date a reprint can be undertaken to provide this work with the circulation and consideration it deserves. Wagstaffe concludes his examination by asserting that:
"I mean, that it was never made by my Lord of Anglesey, but forged by some other person for the very ends for which it hath been so often produced." "1. It bears no date. 2. It is not attested by any witness. 3. It was the most unlikely course to answer the ends of the Memorandum itself. 4. There is no appearance that this was said to any other person."
What follows is a point by point explanation of each thesis above.
In support of Wagstaffe's contention testimony is provided by a Dr. James Canaries dated July 17, 1693. Wagstaffe states he is aware of attempts to discredit Charles I being the author of the Eikon Basilike by means of both internal and external evidence. The documentation Wagstaffe provides in his treatise is designed to prove the authenticity of the Eikon Basilike from both such perspectives.
It should be remembered that there exists a wide body of evidence in support of Charles I being the author of the Eikon, in contradistinction to the claims of Gauden. The evidence clearly suggests that it was Charles I, not Dr. Gauden who was its author.
In substantiation of this premise the reader should consult the evidentiary record. One case in point to satisfy the reader's curiosity is the important testimony of Colonel Hammond who was Charles I's captor while at Carisbrooke, and who studied the habits of the royal prisoner. His remarks are as follows:
"Part of that book, if not the whole, was writ when he was my prisoner in Carisbrook Castle, where I am sure he had nothing but a Bible, pen, and ink and paper; and going to call him out of his closet to dinner, which I always did, I found him still a writing, and staying behind to see what he writ, the paper being still wet with ink, I read at several times most of that book."
The contradictory nature of the claims of Dr. Gauden, and how all external evidences are dependent solely upon his own assertions, which in themselves are internally conflicting, are clearly stated by Wagstaffe.
Wagstaffe demonstrates how that Gauden's services to the crown need not entail any claim to authorship of the Eikon Basilike.
"In the meantime, as to Dr. Gauden's services, and which possibly may be the plea he made to the King, he did indeed write and publish two books: the one A Protestation against the King's Death, printed for Mr. Royston, 1648, and another proving the Non-obligation of the Covenant, which might put him into the King's favor; and in truth, it is very probable that the Protestation was the only thing Dr. Gauden was concerned in…"
In further support of the position that Gauden's pressing Charles II for preferment based upon prior services on behalf of the Royal Family, which he had "done like a King" were not resultant from his alleged authorship of the Eikon Basilike as seen in Lord Chancellor Hyde's letter, Wagstaffe references a letter from the present Earl of Clarendon who apparently had some knowledge of the aforementioned letter, as evidenced by his discussions with Dr. Morely, the late Bishop of Wirchester, which was written to Wagstaffe, dated October 22, 1694. Interestingly, some also tried to deny that King James VI & I was author of Basilicon Doran, to no avail.
In terms of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence Wagstaffe accurately denominates the data which all (externally) derives from the claims of Gauden. Wagstaffe notes:
"A man's own testimony is incompetent to determine the controversy between two rival authors on the one side there is the authority of the book itself, which in every line owns itself to be the King's as speaking in his Name, and the general reputation of the world consequent upon that. On the other is only the affirmation of another pretender, who would claim it for his own, upon his own evidence. For let this evidence pass through never so many channels, it is one and the same evidence still; if one man tells a hundred, that he did such a thing, and they all testify that he said so, there are indeed a hundred witnesses that he said it, but there is but one that he did it, and that is himself; if therefore Dr. Gauden acquainted the King, the Duke of York my Lord Chancellor, Mrs. Gauden, Dr. Walker and several others, that he wrote the Book, the evidence to the fact is still but one, and that is Dr. Gauden himself; or if Dr. Gauden told Mrs. Gauden and Dr. Walker, that he acquainted the Marquis of Harfort, Bishop Duppa, the King & Mrs. Gauden, and Dr. Walker may be two distinct witnesses that he said so, but there is but one that he did so, and that is himself. So that this whole matter is resolved into his own evidence, which in this case is no evidence at all, nor will any wise man consider it as such."
On the other hand, the testimony in favor of Charles I derives not all from Charles I's own testimony, but from those who had first hand knowledge that he undertook such a project which delineates it from the Gauden school. Moreover, if the remarks of Mrs. Gauden can be believed she stated that the reason her husband came forward about his authorship of the Eikon Basilike was that "That her husband hoped to make a fortune by it."
Elsewhere in her writings, she doubted her husband's claims, and stated her concern for his grandiose assertions of authorship to the Eikon Basilike. Furthermore, Gauden's claims to persecution and poverty on the King's behalf is somewhat obviated by the fact that Gauden all during the usurpation kept one of the most considerable livings in England. Also in respect to the consistency of Gauden's assertions, alternately he claims to both have and in another account not have the tacit permission of Charles I to embark on writing the Eikon Basilike.
Wagstaffe takes no joy in documenting the contradictory character of Gauden for he writes
"I am heartily sorry, and afflicted, that I have said thus much concerning Bishop Gauden, considering both his character and station in the Church, and that he hath been long since dead. But those who have been so earnest to assert his right to this Book, are to be thanked for it; for it is the very character they have given him, and the very means they have used to prove his title. And if the memory of King Charles the First must stand in competition with the memory of Dr. Gauden, I think there needs no apology for doing right to that King's memory, though it should reflect on Bishop Gauden, or a greater subject than he."
The various inconsistencies between the accounts of Dr. Gauden, Dr. Walker, Gauden's wife, and other persons are hopelessly irreconcilable. Wagstaffe provides an easy comparison of the most common accounts, and compares the weaknesses of each account with one another. Much of Dr. Hollingworth's data is referenced by Wagstaffe.
It should be noted that even though Wagstaffe fervently disagrees with Dr. Walker, he does not exhibit any acerbity or acrimonious animus towards him. "But Dr. Walker is dead, and I spare his memory, and should be content to have his faults buried with him."
Wagstaffe provides the testimony of Sir Thomas Herbert who allegedly handled the original manuscript of the Eikon Basilike. Sir Thomas Herbert served and attended Charles I, so naturally would have occasion to know of what he testifies to.
The document in question referenced by Wagstaffe is a manuscript book in folio consisting of 83 pages called Carolina Threnodia with the picture of Charles I on the front. It was transmitted to Wagstaffe by the Reverend Mr. Cudworth, Rector of Barmbrough in Yorkshire, and is attested to be a true copy taken out of the original compared by various witnesses. It had not hitherto been circulated as evidence.
The document states in part
"… he composed his Book called Suspiria Regalia published soon after his death, and entitled The King's Portraicture in his Solitudes and Sufferings, which manuscript Mr. Herbert found among those Books his Majesty was graciously pleased to give him … Mr. Herbert though he did not see the king write that Book, his Majesty being always private when he wrote, and those his servants never coming into the bedchamber when the King was private until he called; yet comparing it with his handwriting in other things, he found it so very like, as induces his belief that it was his own; having seen much of the King's writings before."
Wagstaffe goes on to include:
"The next evidence is Mr. Levet, who besides Sir William Dugdale's testimony hath himself lately given an account of his knowledge of the matter, in a letter to Seymour Bourman, Esq.,… which Book of my certain knowledge I can depose was truly his own, having observed his Majesty oftentimes writing his Royal Resentments of the bold and insolent behavior of his soldiers (his rebellious subjects) when they had him in their custody. I waited on his Majesty as Page of the bedchamber in ordinary, during all the time of his solitudes (except when I was forced from him) …"
This point has been disputed by men such as Dr. Walker who asserted that there is no such chapter or title in all of the Eikon Basilike. However, this is only a half truth. While it is true that there is no specific title "Royal Resentment of the bold and insolent behavior of his soldiers (his rebellious subjects" it is also true that this is the general theme of the book.[34]
Wagstaffe writes
"Very right, Sir, but there is the thing; and Mr. Levet did not say that was the title to any chapter in that book, or a title to what he saw the king write, but the subject matter of it; and that it is of more chapters than one … the force of this testimony therefore, is not about the title, but the thing, and that Mr. Levet could depose that the book was the King's and that he read the same in manuscript under the King's own hand. And what does Dr. Walker say to this? Why truly he says, I must beg his pardon to believe he is mistaken. And so it seems Mr. Levet's deposing and seeing the King write some of it, and reading it under the King's own hand is all confuted, and it neither is, nor can be so because Dr. Waker begs his pardon. This is an excellent way of defeating the force of an evidence, and taking off the edge of the testimony of an eyewitness,, and if this will do, Dr. Walker must needs gain the cause; for there is no doubt but he will beg the pardon of all the King's witnesses, if he can so easily quits his hands on then. In the meantime, that Mr. Levet was not mistaken, but delivered his knowledge of this matter, we have confirmed by another testimony of his, and of another date in the possession of his son, fellow of Exeter College in Oxon in these words: If any one has a desire to know the true author of a Book entitled
Eikon Basilike, I, one of the servants of King Charles the First in his bedchamber, do declare, when his said Majesty was prisoner in the Isle of Wight, that I read over the above mentioned Book (which was long before the said Book was printed) in his bedchamber, writ with his Majesty's own hand, with several interlinings. Moreover his Majesty King Charles I told me, sure, Levet, you do design to get this Book by heart; having often seen me reading of it. I can testify also that Royston the printer told me that he was imprisoned by Oliver Cromwell the Protector, because he would not declare, that King Charles I was not the author of the said Book.Singed and Sealed October 16, 1690.
It is instructive to note that no one has ever claimed or testified that they personally saw Dr. Gauden write the Eikon Basilike, but such testimony does exist to support the claim of Charles I to the Book.
Furthermore, no one has ever offered testimony to the effect that Dr. Gauden's handwriting has been identified on any original of the Eikon Basilike. Yet again, once more, we do have eyewitness testimony to the fact that Charles I's handwriting was identified on an original.
Wagstaffe then puts it more succinctly:
"On the one side we have two witnesses giving their testimony by hearsay and report, that they heard the pretended author say so &c, and on the other we have far more for weight and number, declaring their proper knowledge of the matter of fact. On the one side neither of the two witnesses come home to the direct matter, or positively assert they saw Dr. Gauden write it, or dictate it, or saw it in his own hand writing, or anything like it. But on the other, the direct contrary, some attesting they saw the king writing some part of it; others saw it in his own handwriting, and which they knew; and one, that he had the original manuscript itself in possession, and given him by the king. One the one side we have one of the two witnesses contradicting himself, and both contradicting each other in very important parts of their evidence. On the other all agreeing, not only in the main fact, but in several circumstances, and in all the material branches of their respective testimony. And so, if evidence must carry it ( and know no reason to the contrary) it is plain, that all the advantage is on the King's side."
With regard to a particular prayer Milton castigates as a plagiarism in the Eikon Basilike, Wagstaffe provides documentation that it was surreptitiously added to discredit the whole, and is therefore spurious.[35] It is not found in the first or earlier editions of the Eikon Basilike. Wagstaffe provides a very detailed bibliography of the various editions of the Eikon Basilike with and without the prayer.
It is asserted by Wagstaffe that the bogus prayer was an artifice of Bradshaw, Milton, or both. In support of this contention testimony is derived from Mr. Thomas Gill, corroborated by Francis Bernard.
Mr. Gill writes:
"I was told Pamela's Prayer, was transferred out of Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia into the Eikon Basilike by a contrivance of Bradshaw's and Milton's. Sir I make no secret of it, and I frankly tell you my author, who was Mr. Henry Hill Oliver's printer, and the occasion, as he many years ago told me, was thus, Mr. Dugard, who was Milton's intimate friend, happened to be taken printing an edition of the King's Book, Milton used his interest to bring him off, …"
And Francis Bernard writes:
"I do remember very well that Mr. Henry Hills the printer told me that he had heard Bradshaw and Milton laugh at their inserting a prayer out of Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia at the end of King Charles' Book, and then Milton had jeered it in his answer, adding withal that they were men would stick at nothing that might gain their point and this I testify.
May 10, 1694
Signed Francis Bernard
In 1660, London, Christopher Barker, Printer to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty published A Proclamation By The King for calling in, and suppressing two books written by John Milton, and one written by John Goodwin. The document reads in part:
"Charles R.
Whereas John Milton, late of Westminster, in the country of Middlesex, hath published in print two several books … and the other in answer to a book entitled The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitude and Sufferings. In both which are contained sundry treasonable passages against Us and Our Government, and most impious … to justify the horrid and unmatchable murder of our late Dear Father, of Glorious Memory, and Whereas John Goodwin, late of Coleman-Street, London, Clerk, hath also published in print a book entitled, The Obstructers of Justice, written in defense of the traitorous sentence against his said late Majesty…"
We must now briefly consider Wagstaffe's follow-up work to the Vindication entitled A Defense of The Vindication of K. Charles the Martyr; Justifying His Majesty's Title to Eikon Basilike In Answer to A Late Pamphlet entitled Amyntor, London, 1699. The author of the Amyntor is unknown, but is suspected by Wagstaffe, yet for the sake of fidelity to objectivity he must remain anonymous as no sure evidence as to his precise identity can be obtained.
Wagstaffe replies to each point he made in his original Vindication, and further proves each topic, often by examining the appeals to Dr. Walker, and sometimes to producing new evidence and testimony in support of his original premises. As before, Wagstaffe provides a side by side account of the contradictions in the evidence commonly offered in support of Gauden.
I will not tire the diligent reader by embarking upon a tiresome relation of all the particulars of this work, thought they be important and relevant, yet for the sake of brevity, as I have hitherto provided a substantial relation of the preceding work, I shall restrict myself to relating one account which is commonly misrepresented in the extant books on this topic, which I am thankful to Mr. Wagstaffe for including in his volume. The testimony in question is the remarks of Major Huntington given to Sir William Dugdale, proved below:
"And as to the Eicon Basilike, he saith that after the King was brought to Hampton Court, his Majesty there acquainted him with the loss of that Book at Naesby fight, and desiring him to use his interest to regain it, he did himself apply to General Fairfax, and by his means obtained it, it being bound up in a white vellum cover, and (as he well remembers) all the Chapters were written by the hand of Sir Edward Walker, but much corrected with interlineations by the King's own hand, the Prayers being all written with the King's own hand, which he says he very well knew so to be."
Wagstaffe's work is valuable not only for its extensive documentation, but for its distinction between conjectural evidence as opposed to real or direct documentary evidence. Such mendum conjectios (written errors of presumption) are commonly met with in works advocating the Gauden authorship of the Eikon.
Regrettably, works such as Wagstaffe's are hopelessly out of print, and "out of sight" is unfortunately "out of mind" for most writers on this topic. Yet all is not lost, for facts are truly stubborn things. It is hoped by this publication that further interest may be stirred among the general readership, and perhaps a republication of the major ameliorative works with respect to the Royal authorship of the Eikon may be undertaken.
Modern critics would do well to revisit the merits of the scientific method pursuant to the tenants of classical historical methodology. Wagstaffe and Hollingworth are good beginnings in pursuit of this noble goal.
Thus ends my summation of the external arguments pertaining to the authorship of the Eikon Basilike. Next I shall attempt to briefly discuss what critics claim is their most important argument, the internal evidence, or arguments from style.
Earlier in this work I touched, in some detail, on the topic of the King's Book, specifically the external evidence pertaining to the debate over the precise authorship of the Royal volume. It is now time to examine the internal evidence which is so often appealed to to enervate the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon. There is a definite need for some modern equilibration on this topic, some form of equipoise that attempts to meet both the furtive and gratuitous as well as the indurative, hyperpathic along with the skeptical concerns of those who object to King Charles the First being assigned the unquestioned authorship of the renowned historical volume. Consequently, I shall not only provide the interested reader with a summation of the value, scope, and relevancy of internal evidence (arguments from style) as it pertains to the authorship of the Eikon, but I shall also offer factual data of a comparative and scientific nature which will demonstrate the weakness of such subjective criteria. The reader might well be astonished how such data will require a comparison between claims made aginst the royal authorship of the Eikon, and claims that William Shakespeare did not write his plays or sonnets. The same internal subjective critiera are offered in both cases. At any rate, this will be made clear shortly.
It should be noted that the scholars, linguists, and educators who oppose and attempt to refute the claim of Charles I to being the author of the Eikon are not bad men per se, many are simply misled although eminently honest and intelligent. Further still, yet others are slaves to a diatomaceous political theory which is itself but a frayed remnant of radical puritanical ideology, a knee-jerk reaction to the monarchical. Then there are the assiduous adherents to the extreme principles of descriptive linguistics and the fallible theory of literary forms. Though the application of their studies is lamentable, this author has no animosity towards any group. Rather, instead of animus, I have pity on the bellicose, respect for the sincere, patience for the pensive, and hope for the hesitant. I have faith that an heuristic approach to this problem will ultimately result in a more balanced understanding the pro-Carolinian cause, and ultimately prevail over the claims of Gauden. It is almost a priestly and hieratic concern, for the Royal Martyr died not only for his people, his principles, and his country, he is universally recognized as a martyr for the Church of England as well!
Not all critics of the Carolinian authorship to the Eikon Basilike are parsimonious in their alleged facts, although most seem to provide only a paucity of ameliorative data to support their doubtful theory. Indeed, some in stark contradistinction to the many penurious titles go so far as to actually provide a listing of the data they deem so deadly and deleterious to the cause of Charles I. J. A. Farrer is one example. I referenced his work in my prior volume, and I shall do so again, to a greater degree herein to illustrate my case.
But before I begin my case in earnest let me make one observation. Has not the sapient historical reader noticed that usually only the older works which doubt the Carolinian authorship, usually it is only they who dare list this highly touted internal criteria in detail, while modern adherents to their legacy of doubt more often than not are quite content to cite their nebulous research only by passing reference as if any recounting were the ultimate redundancy? As if the effort of again citing that which was seemingly irrefutable were a droll duty beyond their endurance. Why is this?
There is a secret, a whispered and cryptic fear which I will now expose. You see human nature, being what it is, is more prone to accept a negative and is highly receptive to doubt than it is towards constancy in faith and certainty in a cause. Just look at history either Biblical or secular, even modern, and you will find this to be true. Martyrs however, are the exceptions to this rule, for they by the nature of their being rise above such frailties of the flesh, and transcend the limitations of fear and doubt. For this reason, among others they are universally revered and reviled by both courtiers and critics. Christ, our Lord was the prime example, and in his footsteps, along with the Church's other martyrs, follows The Royal Martyr, King Charles I.
The secret I mentioned earlier is simply this, that those who doubt the authenticity of the claim of King Charles are held captive chiefly by doubts, and the foundations of their argument all circularly revolve around plain old fashioned doubt. Doubt clouds reasoning every bit as much as blind faith! It is a simple concept, but one that is so often overlooked it seems to be relegated to that notorious spot under our own noses we keep overlooking! They have their body of evidence, this much is admitted, but the denouement of it, the conclusion from it is basically one of doubt. Doubt then is as much a punishment as it is a reward! Any degree of reading in the technical journals of textual critics will reveal what I've just stated to be a fact.
This is not to imply that we who hold fast to Charles I's claim are blinded by faith alone. Yes, we too have our evidence, but the chief difference between our data and theirs is objectivity, diversity, and logic. We have clear evidence that not only was Charles I considered the author, (the Eikon was universally believed to be "The King's Book") but we have direct and diverse testimony that he did compose it. This body of evidence is not limited to pro-Stuart forces alone, but is confirmed and validated by Parliamentary affiliated sources as well. And the preponderance of the evidence, buttressed by such data, logically leads on to the conclusion that Charles I was indeed the author. The evidence to the contrary, on the other hand, consists of ambiguous testimony, not independently verifiable and of a subjective nature which at best can only serve to contradict the claims of its chief proponent, John Gauden!
When we reduce the critical recipe of doubt to its lowest common denominator, we are left with no false dichotomy. The evidence is clear despite the fact that many still harbor doubts. To make this point even more transparent I refer the reader to Dr. Wordsworth's examination (not forgetting Almack & Scott's observations) of the weakness of the internal criteria provided later in this work.
It is high time we explode the weak theory of the internal evidence, and open our eyes to the objective data which is so abundantly convincing so as to remove all doubt - FOREVER!
Beyond the issue of the precise authorship of the Eikon there exist certain underlying questions which must first be asked and answered before a legitimate examination of the first query can be undertaken. The character and nature of the evidence must first be examined and weighed.
Naturally, any theory which asserts this issue has been resolved to any degree of satisfaction is assumed first to have dealt with the extant evidentiary record. Therefore, one must ask what is contained in the documentary (primary), or evidentiary record? What are the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the data, and to which conclusion do they point in preponderance? Are the data prejudiced by entrained bias, and if so to what degree? What is the preponderance of the evidence? Consequently, into the realm of the internal evidence we must go, and in more detail than our prior study in order to more fully expound on such matters. It should be remembered that the internal arguments alone, in and of themselves, are logically incapable of sustaining the premise that the scepter of authorship should be given exclusively to Bishop Gauden. This is not only logical, but in accordance and conformity with the known facts of the case.
Interestingly, the cumulative data, from a preponderate view, is clear with respect to the external evidence. Such is strongly in favor of Charles I, and opposed to Gauden both in terms of objective data, and facts of rebuttal in confutation of Gauden's claim. Furthermore, the data contain ameliorative assertions from both sides in favor of Charles I. Gauden's claim rests then on only a slim body of evidence (external/internal) which is at best marginally supported by objective or verifiable proofs of probity. But what of the internal evidence which is so often claimed as being the coup de grâce of the evidentiary arsenal? Is it all that it is claimed to be? Let us examine one of the most convenient modern exponents of this theory, and see what his conclusions are from this body of evidence.
The plan of this work will be to examine the claims of the critics with respect to the internal evidence, and then test them by dissenting scholarship, as for example the revelations of Dr. Christopher Wordsworth. It should be noted that this work is not intended to be a manual on either textual criticism, nor an in-depth examination of the principles of intrinsic probability. Such a task would expand the boundries of this study well beyond its present size and scope. However, that being noted, the facts presented herein are sufficient to expose the weakness of the internal system, and to expose the preposterous license that has been taken with it in order to enervate the claim of Charles I to the Eikon.
Whenever possible I have confined myself to recognized reference works that are relatively neutral to the topic of the employment of internal criteria, or those which espouse and/or employ the tool of internal evidence. Occasionally however, I have, to provide balance, made reference to works which criticize the doctrine of intrinsic probability. Also, by way of analogy and comparison I have appended some further observations to this study. As you will clearly see the ramifications of accepting internal evidence at face value has implications far beyond that of the fate of the authorship of the Eikon.
It is this author's estimation that Wordsworth's work is in a class all its own, and thus his unique place in this study. This is so because his treatise has a dual application to our investigation. Firstly, his work has direct relevance to the subject of King Charles I. Secondly, his work also deal in great detail with the employment of evidence as it pertains to internal evidence.
One of the best ways to evaluate conflicting viewpoints is by the methodology of contrasts. Before I call upon Dr. Wordsworth, I shall first allow critical scholarship to be heard concomitant with commentary from the other side. It shall be followed by systematic refutation and analysis as provided in Wordsworth's works as well as various other resources. Now then, let us begin our study:
J. A. Farrer in his work Literary Forgeries, Longmans, Green & Company, New York, 1907, Chapter 6 (pages 98-125) provides probably the most convenient display of the internal criteria accessible to the modern reader. Even Farrer admits that the scope and effect of the Eikon Basilike upon the minds contemporaries of Charles I and Gauden, as well as that of succeeding generations was significant.
Farrer writes:
"The crowning instance of a work of this nature is the famous Eikon Basilike, which, appearing shortly after the execution of Charles I as his work, contributed greatly to that reaction in his favor which in a few years culminated in the Restoration of Charles II. It may be doubted whether any book in the world's history ever had so decisive an effect on the tide of events."
As we shall see the coup de main or counter attack to Gauden's "… most unqualified claim to its authorship…" comes surprisingly in the internal evidence itself, and not so much from the very words of Gauden himself! But first, let us examine the alleged strength of the internal evidence from one of its own proponents.
Writing of the "feeble" external evidence in support of Charles I, Farrer states:
"Into the vexed question of the external evidence in favor of Charles' authorship it is needless to enter, for, even if this were much stronger than it has ever been shown to be, it would be entirely overborne by the force of the internal evidence, which is overwhelmingly in favor of Gauden. A man can no more escape from his style than he can from his shadow, … all doubt about the authorship seems removed by an impartial comparison (between Gauden and Charles I)."
Dr. Christopher Wordsworth does not escape the notice of Dr. Farrer, and he writes concerning his researches:
"To diminish the force of such tell-tale phrases as show an intimate literary affinity between the Eikon and Gauden, Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, the great champion of Charles, resorted to the theory that Gauden, resolving shortly before the Restoration to claim the Eikon as his own with a view to obtain preferment, took care that his writings 'subsequent to that intention should be so conformed as to render his claim the more plausible (Who Wrote Eikon Basilike? iii, 111, 1824). But how can such a theory meet the case of the Hieraspistes, published in 1653, when no magic crystal could have foreshown the Restoration seven years afterwards? Or why should such phases occur in Gauden's Manual Of Prayer, a work of private devotions which was designed for no other eyes than those of John Earle, Esquire, to whom it is dedicated, and which has never emerged from its manuscript stage in the Library at Lambeth? Or how to account for such imitations of the Eikon in Gauden's Religious and Loyal Protestation of 1648 or in his four printed sermons of 1640 and 1641? There can be no question of borrowing here."
First, it might be instructive for the reader to read exactly what Wordsworth wrote. It seems that Farrer gives the wrong citation for Wordsworth's position.
While it is admitted that Wordsworth writes on page 111 of Who Wrote Eikon Basilike?, 1824, "We have now, therefore, reached the era of the Restoration; and, at this moment, Gauden comes forward and prefers his claim, and supports it in the confident and striking manner which we have seen." It is also true that Farrer's precise citation about the plausibility seems to actually come from King Charles The First, The Author Of Eikon Basilike - Further Proved In A Letter To The Archbishop Of Canterbury &c. dated 1828. On page 111 of Wordsworth's volume of 1828 we find Farrer's citation "Being not the author, and yet intending to put in a claim, more or less to have been so, it is hardly possible to conceive that he would not take care, that his writings subsequent to that intention, should be so conformed as to render his claim the more plausible."
Contrary to the impression Farrer gives, Wordsworth does acknowledge the similarities in Gauden and Charles I, and he also provides a logical explanation for them. Many of them are subsequent to the date of the Eikon, and most if not all of them while possibly similar in wording are used in contexts by Gauden opposite of those employed in the Eikon. This will be made clear later on.
I will provide some context so that the reader can see how Wordsworth answers the questions of Dr. Farrer:
From King Charles The First, The Author Of Eikon Basilike - Further Proved In A Letter To The Archbishop Of Canterbury &c. dated 1828, by Christopher Wordsworth, pages 110-111. Note clearly how Gauden himself is referenced to state his belief in the ultimate restoration of the monarchy (Farrer's question).
"… and that he (Gauden) recollected also, that the parties whom he knew to have stood nearer to it, were all dead and gone; suppose now, that it occurred to him to consider, whether some use might not be made to his own advantage, of this connection, in these eventful times. Possibly the Royal Family might be restored! Who can doubt, that in parts at least of his great work the Suspiria, (from which nearly one half of Mr. Broughton's examples are derived), he contemplated this as highly probable? And should that be so, then an opening of ambition might present itself wide enough for the most capacious desires."
With regard to the similarities that are purported to exist between the Eikon and Gauden's writings, without going into details at this point, (though we will later on) there is evidence enough to suggest that Gauden obtained an advance copy of the Eikon, and that he copied it, which would account for his alleged use of phraseology or wording.[36] Another possibility is that much of the wording and phraseology was simply common to the time, and thus was not a unique attritribute of an individual writer's style.
Even if this were not the case, Gauden certainly read the manuscript at some point, and as even Farrer admits that this work had a great impact on the public mind, it is possible that it influenced Gauden's later writings. This is not an unreasonable interpretation. Note; however, that even Parliamentary accounts[37] are silent with respect to definitive validation of Gauden's claims outside of the vague and rancorous ruminations of the poet Milton.
One can well understand then why Wordsworth would write on page 110 of King Charles The First, The Author Of Eikon Basilike - Further Proved In A Letter To The Archbishop Of Canterbury &c dated 1828, that:
"By these means then, I would argue, resemblances there might have been, numerous and remarkable, by operation and agency, the most legitimate and natural, in the works of Gauden to the Icôn Basiliké, and in those two especially from which Mr. Broughton's examples are wholly taken (Suspiria and Hieraspistes, not one quotation; however, which is not posterior in date to the Icôn by several years)."
Farrer admits in palliation of his criticisms that Wordsworth's reply to Todd and other believers in Gauden met with "fair success."[38] Yet, he remains unconvinced as the cumulative value of the similarities provides proof of the contrary in his opinion. Farrer observes Wordsworth's strategy "Wordsworth's plan was to take a particular word or phrase, and to show that it occurred in some previous or contemporary writer as well as in the Eikon and in Gauden."
But this approach doesn't satisfy Farrer, and he references Gauden's own dogmatic claim to the Eikon as substance for this argument. He further asserts that the sheer number of the parallelisms, and their frequency are distinct proofs which cannot be overborne by any contrary data. Farrer writes:
"It is the number of such coincidences that make it almost certain, apart from all other arguments, that Gauden and the author of the Eikon were one and same person."
However, despite Farrer's doubts, it is probable that Gauden's station in the church, his stated political opposition to the regicides, coupled with his known desire for riches and fame concomitant with his demonstrative interest in condemning the regicides coupled with his own firm belief in the ultimate restoration of the monarchy, as evidenced by his publication of his Just Invective and other writings to this effect, along with his possible copying the Eikon, all these factors serve to account to the apparent similitude's between his wording and Charle's (although the context and denotation differ). Moreover, it is also a plausibility that the parallelisms were common to the time period.
Gauden had keen interest in Charles for his own reasons, and Charles read sermons vociferously, and again, much language was common to the time. Both men were well versed in Holy Scripture. Therefore, explanations for Farrer's questions are not so difficult to come by as he would imply.
Assuming that the internal evidence is all that its proponents claim it is, and that it is as strong and conclusive as believed, at the very most then all internal evidence can prove, (again assuming that it all that it is claimed to be), is that Gauden wrote parts, or copied the Eikon, and thus was only a copyist, an editor, or even perhaps a co/joint-author.
But such data alone cannot serve to ascribe sole authorship to Gauden. Such a leap of logic is too much to ask of any reader let alone a historian. However, this postulation is actually rendered null and void and soundly negated/defeated by Gauden's own objective claims that the Eikon was "…wholly, and only my invention, making, and design." Thus the speculative nature of the internal arguments are not as formidable as they are offered to be.
Gauden's own claims of exclusivity then exclude any theory in which Gauden is not the sole author of the Eikon, the only theory which any argument appealing to the internal evidence can support in reality. In short, Gauden himself has demolished any argument from internal evidence!
Farrer seemingly admits the limitations of his internal evidence by citation of certain metaphors, yet he too easily dismisses their value, as found on page 102 where he states:
"So common a metaphor is not of course unknown to Charles, who regards the events of his time as a 'great storm' (with regard to maritime or nautical metaphors), or 'deluge,' and once alludes to himself as 'Him that sits at the helm' (Declaration, 14th, April, 1628). But the king uses such figures infrequently and in their simplest form, whereas with Gauden the use of them is unfailing and generally elaborate."
The theoretical forms seem to outweigh the objective data for Farrer, a factor with severely limits the validity of his suppositions. All of his citations from the Hieraspistes, by his own account published in 1653, are well after the appearance of the Eikon, One wonders how he can know with such certainty from such piecemeal quotations alone that Gauden was not simply quoting from his knowledge of the Eikon? The force of his evidence certainly cannot account for the dogmatism of his assertions with respect to the evidence he provides as the basis of his own opinions, especially when there is abundant evidence to the contrary, and probable explanations for his proofs!
Some of Farrer's comparisons are seemingly self refuting. For example he writes:
"Horticultural metaphors form another distinctive feature of Gauden's style, and more especially the Pauline metaphor of 'planting and watering'."
Farrer goes on to cite instances where Gauden preached sermons on the topic. He seemingly unknowingly admits yet further that "Of course any writer was free to use the phrase, but Charles never uses it:…" This observation; however, assumes that Charles I was not the author of the Eikon, and it also more importantly ignores the fact that both Charles and Gauden had a distinct and substantive knowledge of the Scriptures.
The question naturally arises then why cannot it be a possibility that the Eikon was simply making a Biblical illustration, which would not be a first for the work? If the language is derived from Scripture then, how can this be a distinct proof that Gauden was its author? Did Gauden have exclusive rights to quoting from the Pauline epistles?
Why is Charles denied the opportunity of making a simple Biblical illustration? Such perfunctory hypotheses cannot stand! Yet Farrer writes "How can all these resemblances be better accounted for than by the theory that they were all written by Gauden?" But I have already provided the answer to this question.
With regard to the multitude of alleged similarities with respect to the Eikon and Gauden, Farrer writes on page 114:
"Dr. Wordsworth had a simple theory for disposing of them: if they occurred in a work by Gauden of later date then the Eikon, then they were derived from the Eikon; if they occurred in a work of earlier date than the Eikon, then Charles, a great reader of sermons, had derived them from the sermons of Gauden. But this is special pleading of the commonest sort, which can convince no one."
Is then Dr. Farrer willing to assert that Gauden never quoted the Eikon, and that Charles never read a sermon of one under him ecclesiastically? Furthermore, what proof is there that Wordsworth was wrong and Farrer right? Why is it special pleading? We are left with no such answers from Farrer.
Farrer admits similarities from Charles I's other writings and the Eikon, but in his opinion Gauden is closer to the mark. Charles isn't allowed to quote Scripture but Gauden is. The thought that Charles was the author of the Eikon isn't even seriously entertained, while Gauden's claim to it is never seriously disputed. And despite the fact that a great number of the similarities "... belonged more or less to the literary stock of the time,…" Charles is never considered to be a serious contender for the book that the majority of his own time believed he wrote, and a man who never truly knew the King is determined to have forged a work beyond his known capacity to so closely impersonate the king that so many mistook it for the king's own book! Indeed, an incredible theory to say the least.
When Farrer cites Wordsworth to the effect that no one could prove from the internal evidence alone that Gauden was the author of the Eikon, Farrer gleefully cites the Hieraspistes as examples of Wordsworth's "inexcusably superficial" or biased research.
However, as I pointed out earlier, the most any work subsequent to the Eikon could prove was that Gauden was a joint or co-author, or that he simply quoted what he remembered of the Eikon or copied from same, in which case he wouldn't have any authorship in same at all, and that even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that Gauden was some sort of a co-author, this would discredit his devout claims to sole authorship. It was in this sense that Wordsworth correctly asserted that the Hieraspistes and other later works had no probative value. Why Farrer doesn't grasp this simple concept is a mystery.
Farrer does not stop at depreciating the work of Wordsworth, he also criticizes Almach, and Scott, and states that quotations from the Hieraspistes prove them wrong. Farrer concludes by writing:
"Thus the literary case for Gauden is so strong that it can only be met by an equally strong case on behalf of Charles. But is this possible? Here and there in the works of Charles one catches a phrase or thought which recalls the Eikon …the claims of truth compel one irresistibly to the conclusion that the Eikon has no real right to the title of 'the King's Book,' but that it must be assigned 'wholly and only' to the invention of Gauden."
It should be noted that advocates of Gauden have had great influence on the minds of students of Charles, even his admirers. There are works which seek to defend Charles I, and which also subscribe to the theory that Gauden was in some measure involved with the Eikon's authorship.[39] It is my humble estimation that the time is at hand to once again recover the truth, and boldly assert that Gauden was not the author of the Eikon, not even a co-author. Some have deemed this a lost cause, and have termed any defense a failure from the start. However, true failure lies not so much in the falling, but in the refusing to get up. And as long as regrets do not take the places of dreams there is hope. Thankfully, we have abundant facts to support our cause.
Read, learn, and discover the secret, a powerful long lost truth, hidden in the pages of books on dusty shelves, now recovered for truth never goes out of style. "Right Cannot Die," either the right to what is legitimately one's own, or the principles of equity. Just as truth never goes out of style, neither does acting on any such truth, even when opposed by a veritable army of gainsayers. Rescued from the dungeon of doubt lies the truth of the authorship of the Eikon. Read on - we're not done yet!
Eager though I may be to call upon Dr. Wordsworth's masterful refutation and illustration of the weakness and invalidity of the argument from internal evidence, both I and you my dear reader must be patient. Wordsworth's piece de resistance will arrive in the fullness of time. But first we must more fully examine some basic issues with respect to internal evidence and its proper application and place in the body of evidence.
Following our discussion of internal evidence we will enter into a brief summation of Wordsworth's arguments.
In the interests of clarity it seems it would be prudent to offer the honest student some additional observations on the philosophical mindset inherent to this whole discussion of internal evidence or intrinsic criteria. My former remarks in this regard which dealt with this philosophy, provided an introduction for the discussion we will now embark upon in more detail.
The reader should be aware that although many references provided herein to textual criticism/intrinsic probability are from works dealing with Biblical texts, the foundations for the text critical elements in the Bible are themselves derived from the tenets of secular textual critical scholarship (excepting those of course who dissent from same). The foundation of modern liberal Biblical scholarship, and its accompanying reliance on the principles of textual criticism is that of the secular arm of textual criticism. Therefore, the citations provided herein have direct relevance to our main discussion in that the basic underlying principles are essentially the same with respect to application, modality, and philosophy of the application of textual criticism and internal evidence.
According to Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering[40], internal evidence of readings are described as follows:
"Such 'evidence' is based on two kinds of probability, intrinsic and transcriptional. Intrinsic probability is author oriented - what reading makes the best sense, best fits the context, and conforms to the author's style and purpose? Transcriptional probability is scribe or copyist oriented - what reading can be attributed to carelessness or officiousness on the part of the copyist?"
It is, of course, the doctrine of intrinsic probability, or more specifically that of the argument from style, which we are dealing with specifically here. Intrinsic probability, a sub-element of the internal evidence debate, can be one of the most subjective of the disciplines, and should not be confused with the dogmas of historical or comparative linguistics, of which graphemics, etymology, orthography or applied linguistics each have their own unique place.
Perhaps there might be some similarity philosophically speaking between intrinsic probability, redaction criticism[41], and psycholinguistics with respect to subjective interpretation, in that the argument from internal evidence relies primarily on speculation.
In this system one must opine rather than relying on evidentiary determinations. Semantically speaking we are dealing with a secondary philosophical approach to the body of evidence as different as night from day from one another. Two competing systems, contrasted much in the same way as eisegesis is from exegesis.[42]
Some advocates of the doctrine of internal evidence caution against its initial or sole use in the problem solving process, or even its primary function in determining disputed textual matters of authorship. For example, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland write:
"It is important to state here emphatically that decisions in textual criticism cannot be based on internal criteria alone, especially in opposition to external evidence.[43]"
Also Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix write:
"Intrinsic evidence is also called 'intrinsic probability,' which is the most subjective element in the methodology of textual criticism …In general, external evidence is more important than internal evidence, because it is more objective than the latter."[44]
One may legitimately ask, has this approach ever been applied to the debate over the authorship of the Eikon Basilike? Seemingly not, for most dissenters of the Caroline authorship of the Eikon either all too lightly dismiss the primary external evidence, or place the greater weight on the internal evidence virtually to the exclusion of the wealth of external data which exists contrary to that which is presumed from the internal data.
Moreover, Dr. Henry M. Morris writes concerning the value of internal arguments from "style" with regard to Old Testament writings, a point we will touch lightly upon again later in this work[45]:
"The higher critics insist that practically none of the Old Testament books were written by the traditional authors - all were written much later, by writers who had no direct knowledge at all of what they were writing. Claims of authorship were deliberately misrepresented, to give the writings a spurious authority and, especially, to make their records of current events look like fulfilled prophesies."
Dr. Morris goes on to relate how the attack on the first two chapters of Genesis began with Jean Astruc, an "infidel French physician, in 1753…" That he was followed by the German rationalist, Eichron in 1779, who similarly based his arguments on "differences of style." DeWette in 1806 continued the tradition claiming to have found four different writers in the "Hexateuch." Of course this produced fertile ground for the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis of 1866-78. Other men followed in this vein, men such as Kuenen, Driver, Cheyne, and so forth. "Although these critical writings are full of high-sounding technical discussions about vocabulary and style…" (the real underlying presuppositions were simply doubt of Biblical affirmations and miracles).
Dr. Morris continues his remarks on the arguments from "style" by writing:
"As far as style is concerned, it is pure presumption to think that one can distinguish different authors merely by their styles. The style and vocabulary of a single writer may and do vary widely from one book to another, depending on the subject being discussed and the purpose of writing. The style and vocabulary of the present writer's engineering publications, for example, are very different from those of this book, but they both have the same author!"
Dr. Morris concludes by stating that the critical speculations of style have been refuted by some conservative scholars, presumably of the school of lower criticism. Dr. Morris makes particular reference to Robert Dick Wilson, Professor of Semitic Philology at Princeton Seminary, proficient in about 45 languages and dialects, whose own objections to arguments from style are well known:
"'In conclusion, we claim that the assaults upon the integrity and trustworthiness of the Old Testament along the line of language have utterly failed. The critics have not succeeded in a single line of attack in showing that the diction and style of any part of the Old Testament are not in harmony with the ideas and aims of writers who lived at, or near, the time when the events occurred … We boldly challenge these Goliaths of ex-cathedra theories to come down into the field of ordinary concordances, dictionaries, and literature, and fight a fight to the finish on the level ground of the facts and the evidence.'
"[46]It should be clear then that arguments from style are not as universally accepted as the anti-Carolinians would have us believe.
Also, it should not be forgotten that there is also internal evidence in favor of the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon, a factor not frequently mentioned by those of the Gaudenian school who promote internal criteria in favor of Bishop Gauden. This phenomenon alone should successfully enervate the position of Gauden being the sole author of the Eikon with regard to internal criteria.
The anti-Carolinians don't like to mention this fact because it tends to degrade their arguments in the minds of their readers. It in effect robs them of exclusivity and the pretended absolutism they like to portray to their audience. The very argument they claim is so decisive is then turned around on them, and now lends support to the cause which they most violently oppose. That is why my friend why you will rarely meet with this fact in their works, and why they go to such great lengths to downplay its importance.
Furthermore, the anti-Carolinians, in obviation of the Eikon's own essential claim to undoubtedly be "The King's Book," oftentimes turn to one of the most flawed and subjective tenets of textual criticism (intrinsic probability) to bolster their dogmatic denials of the Carolinian authorship. One wonders how they can claim with such undaunted certainty that the Eikon was in all reality the work of Bishop Gauden, in contradistinction to Charles I's own strong claim to the authorship of the volume in question. This question has relevance because even some practitioners of the discipline of textual criticism honestly admit the limitations of their "art" with regard not only to its more opinionated elements, but also in relation to its more documentary driven principles. For example, James Thorpe writes[47]:
"The textual critic enters the scene after the degeneration of the text has already taken place, after the damage has been done; he tries, with the aid of whatever evidence can then be assembled, to reconstruct the text as it was intended to be. Since his job is corrective in its nature, it may therefore be more appropriate to state the first principle negatively: the business of textual criticism is to try to identify and eliminate any corruptions which have subverted the author's intentions. It would be cheerful to be able to report that a mastery of sound principles, an application of effective methods, and an exercise of conscientious care will enable the textual critics to reach the ideal which is incorporated in the first principle of his craft. But it would not be true. In textual criticism, the best that one can do is to cut the losses, to reduce the amount of error, to improve or clarify the state of textual affairs, to approach the ideal. After all has been done that can be done, however, the results of textual criticism still are necessarily imperfect … The imperfectness of the results is a hard fact of textual criticism. Most of us who have practiced the trade will allow ourselves to swell a little with pride upon hearing a description of the ideal of textual criticism; we, too, are of the company that performs deeds. But we are not equally willing to associate ourselves with the consequences of another principle: that, ultimately, the results of all textual criticism are necessarily imperfect … I realize that the imperfectness of the results of textual criticism is not accepted as a principle. If it were, it might sprinkle question marks over all textual scholarship and all texts, and thus it might undermine our confidence in ourselves, readers and textual scholars alike.
Doubt then, coupled with suspicion, is the starting point for textual criticism, and it is not an exact trade; it never has been, nor can it ever be. Again, we must ask the basic question, how can those who challenge the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon do so on such grounds, especially when there is substantial and credible external data to enervate the appeal to internal criteria?
Yet further still, does not the fact that internal criteria exist to support the Carolinian side also suggest caution in relying too much on this oft flawed principle? The fallacy of so heavy a reliance on such a conjectural theory of emendation should, therefore, be self evident.
It seems those who appeal to certain principles of textual criticism (intrinsic probability) to support their theory that Bishop Gauden was the true author of the Eikon have not sufficiently examined the discipline of textual criticism in sufficient detail to know that their arguments are seriously flawed in a great many respects. Moreover, their limited knowledge of the praxis of textual criticism seemingly itself is more a cause for their mistaken opinions than it is a result thereof.
Speculative theories, by virtue of their subjective nature, produce various and sundry opinions, but inherently generate little if any hard facts. Granted, opinions abound on this question, but from an objective standpoint the facts of the case can serve only to lend further credence to the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon. While skeptics continue to opine with virtually prophetic dogmatism that Bishop Gauden was in fact the Eikon's real author, based as we have seen on faulty assumptions from evidence, and an extreme dependence on a flawed subjective theory, which necessarily results in erroneous conclusions, only the facts can ultimately decide the matter with certainty.
The weakness of conjecture is further exemplified in the unanalytical theories employed by the Eikon's critics. The strength of the Carolinian claim then rests in the body of evidence which supports its own underlying avowal of the Royal author, King Charles I, concomitant with the inadequacy of competing and contrary theories which abound, limited only by the imagination of the mind. The foundation of the Carolinian claim is further buttressed by the preponderance and diversity of the evidence which exists authenticating its case, while competing theories to the contrary are hopelessly at odds with one another, inconsistent, and ill-supported by objective data.
The evidence has always been there, although it has not always been accessible to the average reader, a fact I intend to correct with my present work. The truth waits patiently for a fair and impartial hearing. Truth, in the end, will prevail.
But despite all this doubt still remains in the minds of many. Is this doubt justified? No. With respect then to the proper employment of the evidence, are we left adrift with such competing philosophies with respect to the evidentiary record? Has not anyone devised a fair and impartial process for determining the validity, weight and sufficiency to be accorded an interpretative discipline in the discussion of disputed matters?
The answer is we need not be confused, and yes, someone has indeed devised a system of assigning importance and worth to the elements of evidentiary assessment. Long ago the renowned Anglican Divine, Dean John William Burgon, composed a methodology for classifying the investigative disciplines in a proper perspective.
With respect to the employment of textual criticism in the Biblical realm, his prioritization consisted of what he termed his "Seven Notes Of Truth":
"1. Antiquity, or primitiveness (readings not paper alone)
2. Consent of witnesses, or number
3. Variety of evidence or catholicity
4. Respectability of witnesses or weight
5. Continuity or unbroken tradition
6. Evidence of the entire passage or context
7. Internal considerations or reasonableness"
One cannot help but notice two things. First, internal evidence does have a place in the employment of evidence. Second, it is last in importance, and must never be used either alone, or in opposition to external data. Burgon in his works goes into great detail cautioning the student of textual criticism against employing the disciplines against one another, but rather, arguing strongly that they must be used cooperatively, in conjunction with one another, in concert to one another in a complementary fashion.[48]
If we evaluate Burgon's listing, and correlate the data with the known evidence of record with respect to the Eikon Basilike, we will find that the facts are overwhelming in favor of Charles I being the author as the evidence is earliest on the side of the King; the consent of witnesses favors Charles I; the variety of witnesses is greater on the side of the King; the respectability factor also favors Charles I, as well as the continuity or unbroken tradition of the royalist cause; contextually the testimony is clear, and there is abundant internal evidence for the King besides.
Textual criticism is founded on the premise that all texts are flawed and imperfect. Its basic underlying assumption is that error is universal to all documents, including the text of Holy Scripture, hence its employment in the attempted recovery of that which was presumably lost.
With regard to the Holy Bible, this premise ignores the fact that God promised he would preserve His word (inspiration without preservation is useless!). If Holy Scripture has not escaped the penknife of textual critics, it should not, therefore, be thought unusual that other works should suffer similar assaults from this discipline.
The destructive nature of this philosophy oftentimes affects the basic foundation of the destination/recipients of whole books.[49]
For further observations of textual criticism in its faithless form see the works of Burgon and Pickering mentioned in the footnotes of this treatise.
Also, one must not forget that the doctrine of transcriptional (intrinsic) probability has given rise to all sorts of speculative theories. Not even William Shakespeare has escaped the ruminations of critics in this regard. In a prelude to Shakespeare's Sonnets the editors write[50]:
"To those acquainted with the history of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, it is incredible that anyone should be so naïve or ignorant as to doubt the reality of Shakespeare as the author of the plays that bear his name. Yet so much nonsense has been written about other 'candidates' for the plays that it is well to remind readers that no credible evidence that would stand up in a court of law has ever been adduced to prove either that Shakespeare did not write his plays or that anyone else wrote them. All the theories offered for the authorship of Francis Bacon, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Oxford, the Earl of Hertford, Christopher Marlowe, and a score of other candidates are mere conjectures spun from the active imaginations of persons who confuse hypothesis and conjecture with evidence … the anti-Shakespeareans talk darkly about a plot of vested interests to maintain the authorship of Shakespeare. Nobody has any vested interest in Shakespeare, but every scholar is interested in the truth and in the quality of evidence advanced by special pleaders who set forth hypotheses in place of facts."
Speculative theories have expanded the list of possible authors for Shakespeare's works to include well over 70 authors including Queen Elizabeth; Sir Walter Raleigh; the Ancient, Mystic Order Rosae Crucis; and the Jesuits![51]
Furthermore, some Baconians, using subjective criteria, credit Francis Bacon as author of most of Elizabethan literature including the editorship of the Authorized Version of the Bible, and even including Milton's Paradise Lost.[52]
Conjectural theories also postulate that whole groups of authors are responsible for the works of Shakespeare, instead of a single author. These hypothetical theories at times do not even restrict themselves to wording, but sometimes expand to the perceived thoughts as well.
Due to alleged similarities in "parallel philosophies" yet other authors and groups of Elizabethans have been suggested.[53] Moreover, even when wording is a consideration, the mere fact of a similarity of vocabulary is enough for some scholars to suggest alternative authorship.[54]
The similarities between the disputed authorship of the works of William Shakespeare and King Charles I in the Eikon Basilike are at times striking, as in the case of alleged internal evidence, or more precisely the adaptation of intrinsic probability as a means to an end.
For example, the Anti-Carolinians are quite fond of producing purported parallelisms between Charles I and Gauden, and the Anti-Shakespeareans are keen on producing the same kind of purported parallelisms between Shakespeare and their favorite author(s) to prove their own peculiar theory. In this type of argument much ado is made of actual wording as opposed to mere similarity of thought.[55]
Some examples of these similarities include the following[56]:
|
William Shakespeare - HAMLET: "It is very cold. It is a nipping and an eager air. |
Francis Bacon - Natural History: "Whereby the cold becomes more eager. |
|
William Shakespeare - MACBETH: "Light thickens, and the crow Makes wing to the rooky wood." |
Francis Bacon - Natural History: "For the over-moisture of the brain doth thicken the spirits visual." |
Churchill continues:
"'We now come to the seventh reminder of Bacon [in a speech by Angelo in Measure for Measure]:
'New-conceived,
And so in progress to be hatch'd and born.'
'Born' applies to animals and 'hatch'd' to birds; and between the conception and the hatching of the egg some time must elapse; and this is what interested Bacon, who says: 'For birds there is double enquiry: the distance between the treading or coupling and the laying of the egg; and again between the egg laid, and the DISCLOSING or HATCHING'… While Hamlet's 'melancholy sits on brood', his uncle said…
'I do doubt the HATCH and the DISCLOSE will be some danger.'
W. S. Melsome's citation of this is as follows:
"… when Bacon and Shakespeare refer to birds they both use the word 'disclose': -
|
SHAKESPEARE "Anon, as patient as the female dove, When that her golden couplets are DISCLOSED Her silence will sit drooping." (Ham., v.i. 309)
"There's something in his soul, O'er which is melancholy sits on brood, and I do far the HATCH and the DISCLOSE Will be some danger." Ham., iii. I. 172) |
BACON "It is reported by the ancients, that the ostrich layeth her eggs under sand, where the heat of the sun DISCLOSES them." (Syl. Syl., § 856).
"For birds there is double inquiry; the distance between the treading or coupling and the laying of the egg; and again between the egg laid, and the DISCLOSING or HATCHING." (Syl. Syl., § 759. |
Churchill then states that the Baconian case rests, in part, on the fact that "… his [Bacon's] very turns of phrase, can be matched in Shakespeare." Lest the reader labor under the serious misapprehension that the above cited examples are illustrative of only a few such exemplars, it is instructive to again cite where Churchill writes: "The late Dr. W. S. Melsome, former President of the Bacon Society, compiled a whole book of such parallelisms…"[57] In order to fully appreciate the force of this argument it might be instructive to review this work.
The beginning student of renaissance literature will likely be familiar with the life work of William Shakespeare in some fashion. I've mentioned him briefly and his role in this drama. Now is the time to develop this line of argument in detail. While most of us are familiar at least with the name: William Shakespeare, many of us are not conversant with the controversy that has surrounded him for a long time.
R. C. Churchill, quoted earlier, was correct when he wrote, in his aforementioned work: "The disbelief in William Shakespeare's authorship of what were, and still are, acted and printed as William Shakespeare's plays is a very old one,…"[58] For a long long time a small core of radical and rogue scholarship has dissented from the mainstream majority of Shakespearean academia in favor of their own peculiar patrons. I alluded earlier to such a long listing of potential authors (over 70).
But why keep bringing up Shakespeare? A good question deserves a good answer! The case against the Shakespearean authorship of his plays is uncannily corollary to the arguments made by the Gauden school against Charles I being the author of the Eikon both in terms of time period, personality and parallelism. The Gaudenians dispute the authorship of the recognized author of the Eikon, so do, for example, the Baconians, the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. The Gaudenians rely heavily on internal evidence, so do the Baconians and other related groups. The lives of both Shakespeare and Charles I overlap. On and on.
To more fully appreciate the relevance of this topic I will now proceed to a review of Melsome's work so you can see first hand how the two arguments are complementary.
Melsome writes:
"That great student of the mind of Man, Francis Bacon, wrote Mente Videbor - I shall be discovered by my mind, and indeed so may all men be discovered; 'The books' of those who write 'preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living entity that bred them.' How shall we discover the mind of Bacon and show that it is also the Shakespeare mind? Bacon recommended that 'men's labor should be turned to the investigation and observation of the resemblances and analogies of things as well in wholes as in parts. For these it is that detect the Unity of Nature.' (Nov. Org. Bk. Ii xxvii). It is precisely to this investigation and observation of the resemblances and analogies between the work of Bacon and Shakespeare that I have turned my labor. My method is Baconian.
I shall by 'diligent dissection and anatomy' detect the unity of the Bacon-Shakespeare mind. … Many hundreds of ideas, opinion and expressions have indeed been collected in the past and shown to be common to both Bacon and Shakespeare. They lie as bricks awaiting the bricklayer. I shall to a great extent enter into the labors of these collectors, but I wish to combine these scattered identities, parallelisms and reminders; and, with many more which I have discovered erect an edifice - the single structure of the Bacon-Shakespeare mind … The similarity between the work of Bacon and Shakespeare …has impressed many critics and commentators … It has been shown that … Shakespeare (and Bacon) … both as aristocrats, devoted to aristocratic tradition: both statesmen, and members of the same political faction; both lawyers; both poets; both dramatists and lovers of the play and the players' art; both holding the same religious and philosophical convictions (or sharing the lack of them): both travelers to the same places; both reading the same books; both enjoying the same sports, thinking and feeling alike, using the same expressions, employing the same curious vocabulary, citing the same quotations and making the same mistakes … Writing of the many identities of thought and diction between the Shakespeare Plays and Poems and Bacon's acknowledged works, Edwin Reed declared 'the argument from parallelisms in general may be … Bacon and Shakespeare were equally fond of analogies and antitheses, …It is well to remember that, even in the lifetime of Shakespeare of Stratford, plays and poems were actually published as having been written 'by William Shakespeare,' but which 'Shakespeare' (whoever he may have been) certainly did not write … It is a highly significant fact that 'Shakespeare' borrowed extensively from Bacon's De Augmentis Scientiarum which was not published before October 1623, when the Stratford player had been dead more than seven years.. At the date when this work of Francis Bacon was published, the manuscripts contained in the First Folio of the plays were still in the hands of the printers .… We have considerable contemporary testimony to the fact that he wrote much that passed under the names of others … there can be no dispute as to the fact that passage after passage in Shakespeare find their only explanations and likenesses in the works, letters, speeches, etc. of Bacon."[59]
As you read these excerpts I want you to notice the similarity in argument from the Baconian and the Gaudenian cases respectively. Both make use of internal criteria, aspects of publication, the authors perceived thoughts from their point of view, the alleged parallelisms, and such.
The importance of this will be made clear later. For now, suffice it to say, Shakespearean scholarship has not been impressed, and generally holds such views in contempt as unscientific and speculative. This, however, has not deterred supporters of Bacon or the plague of other dissenters from the anti-Shakespearian camp.
Melsome writes on page one that "In the De Augmentis Scientiarum (viii, ii) Bacon gives his explanation of thirty-four parables taken from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes … Bacon and Shakespeare took a very great interest in this parable. They return to it again and again and draw analogy after analogy from it…" What follows are pages and pages of quotations to support this statement. Melsome provides the reader with quotation after quotation, source upon source to illustrate how both Shakespeare and Bacon made use not only of the similar portion of Scripture, but also they did it in a style very similar to one another, oftentimes using similar expressions, words, and associated phraseology.
Admittedly it would be impossible to provide the reader with a detailed listing all such citations, as Melsome's book is well over 200 pages in length, and such an accounting would be well beyond the scope of this work. But I will give you a feel for the flavor of his thought so you can at least appreciate the force of his argument.
Melsome argues further that certain passages in Shakespeare's works find their first and only explanation in the writings of Bacon, and documents his thesis by examples.
Moreover, Melsome even notes how Bacon and Shakespeare comment similarly on the same Biblical passages (sound familiar with regard to Gauden and Charles?). He writes "We should think it strange enough that two men unknown to each other should pick out the same parable from so many verses in the Bible, and surely even more strange that they should both take note of the fact that the parable said nothing about the ordinary man (see his prior citations about this concept from both Bacon and Shakespeare relating both men's preference for this terminology), and that they should think it worth while to give him a place in their writings, and to draw the same distinction between him and the eminent man.' Melsome also notes that both men apparently make the same mistakes with respect to their citations and style of writing.
With regard to use of Holy Scripture Melsome writes "And now that we have traced Ecclesiastes x. 1 (and therefore Bacon) fifteen times in Shakespeare, it now remains to double-trace him in many of the same plays by making use of his explanation of Proverbs xii. 10." Melsome then lists all the direct and indirect parallels between Bacon's employment of the verses and Shakespeare's use of the texts.
With respect to the topic of law Melsome also goes into great detail to demonstrate how Shakespeare's plays and the writings of Bacon are alike. Both make specific and repeated reference to obsolete or dead laws. Both Shakespeare and Bacon employ similar wording in this regard. Melsome writes "They both noticed the resemblance between a gangrene of the law and a gangrene of the foot; and they both thought that a gangrenous or scarecrow law was a disease in a state 'like to infection.'"
|
William Shakespeare: "Decrees dead to infliction." (Meas., i.3.28)
'So, too, 'the threatening twigs of birth' stuck 'in their children's sight for terror, not to use' (Meas., i., 3. 24) are gangrenous things; and, because they are not put in execution, 'In time the rod Becomes more mocked than feared; so our William Shakespeare: (Cont) decrees, dead to infliction, to themselves are dead, and liberty plucks justice by the nose;…'"
"We must not make a scarecrow of the law, Setting it up to fear the birds of prey, … (Meas., ii. I.I)" |
Francis Bacon: "Obsolete laws that are grown into disuse." (De Aug., viii.iii.57). "bring a gangrene, neglect, and habit of disobedience upon other wholesome laws, that are fit to be continued in practice and execution (Life, vi. P. 65) obsolete laws … the living laws are killed in the embraces of the dead ones. (De Aug., viii. Ii. 57) Francis Bacon: (Cont) "Above all things a gangrene of the law is to be avoided," (De Aug., viii, iii, 57)"
"As posteriores leges priores abrogant, so new judgments avoid the former. The records reverent things, …but like scarecrows." ( Life iv. P. 200). |
Melsome writes in observation to this that "Gangrenous laws, scarecrow laws, 'Obsolete laws that are grown into disuse,' and 'decrees dead to infliction' are one and the same; so, when Shakespeare writes, 'We must not make a scarecrow of the law' and Bacon says 'Above all things a gangrene of the law is to be prevented' (De Aug., viii. Iii. 57) they mean the same thing, and their reasons are the same; namely, that they bring about a want of respect; such as we see in seditious and rebellions where 'the rebels that had shaken off the greater yoke of obedience had likewise cast away the lesser tie of respect' (Bacon's Hist., Henry VII); but they are also 'like to infection;' for as a gangrenous foot, if not cut off, doth mortify the more wholesome parts of the body; so, …Why did the laws become 'drowsy and neglected' 'obsolete and out of use'? The answer is that:
|
Francis Bacon: "There are some laws fit to be retained but their penalty too great" (Life, vi. P. 65)
|
William Shakespeare: "O just but severe law!" (Meas., ii. 2. 41)
|
Melsome provides a further listing of reasons for the above by detailed comparison with the writings of Bacon and Shakespeare where they are in unity and agreement on same. He further notices that "Bacon and 'Shakespeare' were anxious to get rid of all obsolete and ensnaring penal laws, so that the outrageous things that happened in the time of Henry VII …" Again, a multitude of textual comparisons demonstrating this to be true is provided for the reader.
Moving provides comparisons on other writings of Bacon and plays of Shakespeare, for example, writing that "He (Bacon) describes Marcus Antonius as 'voluptuous and inordinate'; and Shakespeare speaks of his 'voluptuousness' and 'full surfeits' (Antony and Cleopatra, i. 4.25); and man of full surfeits in an inordinate man. Let us now compare the portraits of Appous Claudius and Angelo:
|
BACON. Essay x, 1625 'Decemvir and lawgiver.' 'Austere.'
'and wise' 'The mad degree of love.' 'Can find entrance.' 'not only into an open heart.' 'but also into a heart well fortified.' 'if watch be not kept.' |
SHAKESPEARE. Measure for Measure, 1623 'Self-constituted lawgiver. The austerness of my life (Meas. Ii.4.156) 'One so learned and so wise' (Ib., v. i. 475) 'The dribbling dart of love (Ib., i.3.2). 'Can pierce.' Iib., i.3.3. not only 'a heart unfortified.' (Ham., i.2.96) but also 'a complete bosom.' (Meas., i.3.3) and did, because watch was not kept' |
Next Melsome provides comparisons from Bacon's (Life) and Shakespeare's King Henry VIII, a few typical examples will suffice:
|
SHAKESPEARE Katharine: "Your subjects are in great grievance." (Line 19) Katharine: "The subjects' grief comes through commissions." (Line 56) |
BACON "Concerning the great grievance arising by the manifold abuses of purveyors." (Life, iii. P. 182) "The commissions they bring down are against the law." (Life, iii. P. 185) |
Melsome continues to go through the writings of Bacon and Shakespeare providing massive listings of parallelisms. He remarks on page 122 "The conclusion is, therefore, that Bacon can be traced in Twelfth Night by three parables, Proverbs xxix, 21; Proverbs xxvii. 14; and last but not least Ecclesiastes x. 1." I have omitted the examples as they are far too numerous for inclusion herein.
Further still, regarding the theme of constancy and love, Melsome provides yet more listings of comparisons between Bacon and Shakespeare where they share not only the same sentiments, but similar wording. (See Chapter VII of his book).
Rounding out his arguments Melsome observes
"About twenty years ago an old Oxford scholar used to lunch with me and on one of these occasions there had been a leading article in The Times concerning the authorship of the Shakespeare plays.
He had not see it, but said the question had long ago been decided in Bacon's favor, and that in the sixties of last century he and a few eminent Latin and Greek scholars in Oxford University began to doubt whether a boy brought up in one of the grammar schools which had recently been planted among the barbarians in England could have written Hamlet or Love's Labor Lost, so they set to work to investigate the true authorship, and their conclusion was unanimously in favor of Bacon. This was, I think, the first time that a group of men had worked at the subject, although single individuals had already arrived at the same conclusion. The Cambridge men are perhaps a little slower than the Oxford men, and this may be because many of Bacon's works had remained in the Cambridge University library for more than three hundred years with the pages still uncut, so that I was forced to fetch a paper-knife before I could read them … Pick up any book written by a professor of English literature and when you come upon a Chapter where an attempt is made to show some difference in opinion between Bacon and Shakespeare you can tell at once that not one of these professors has ever read Bacon's works with attention, otherwise they would not make the blunders they do … (works in support and defense of the Bacon authorship of the plays) are not to be found in many of our great municipal libraries, not even in the London library. Ask for the works … and they cannot oblige you."
Dr. Melsome was not the only one to advocate the Bacon cause with respect to the works of Shakespeare. For example, Ignatius Donnelly[60] was an early pioneer in this movement.[61] One other Baconian author is worthy of our investigation. Lord Penzance's work will be briefly summarized below to provide the reader with some additional examples from the Baconian side of the argument with regard to internal criteria.
The Right Honorable Sir James Plaisted Wilde Baron Penzance (Lord Penzance) in his work entitled A Judicial Summing-Up, edited by M. H. Kinnear, published by Sampson Low, Marston & Company Limited, London, in 1902 cites extensively from Donnelly and other Baconian authors. It is one of the better attempts at making an evidentiary case. My excerpts will be brief. On page 7 he writes:
"The absence of all collateral proof connecting Shakespeare with any of the plays has given rise to a curious dilemma - Are all the plays to which the words 'written by William Shakespeare' were attached, or which were publicly sold as written by him, to be accepted as really written by him? The answer must be in the negative. It is common ground between the parties in this dispute that that internal evidence to be obtained from the plays themselves forbids such a conclusion."
Lord Penzance goes on to assert that Shakespeare never claimed the authorship of the plays himself ("Moreover, he never claimed the plays as his offspring during his life, nor was he at any pains to have his name connected with them; and, as regarded themselves, they had no personal interest in the matter, …"), that he had insufficient education to compose the works. He notes the proofs of learning in the plays, and compares them to what he considers the deficiencies in Shakespeare.
He produces the only known samples of Shakespeare's handwriting and insists that they are illustrative of his lack of education, and that he couldn't be a "scholarly man." He reprints Shakespeare's will and makes much of the fact that Shakespeare nowhere bequeaths any of his literary works (he doesn't mention them at all) to anyone. He postulates that surely Shakespeare would mention such valuable items as his plays, or at least the extensive library he surely must have had.
Lord Penzance complains that Shakespeare "…died, as I have said, in the year 1616. Seven years passed away, when in the year 1623 a folio volume made its appearance, wholly devoid of any authority from him or his executors or any of his family, in which some thirty-six plays were printed together and declared to have been written by him, and to be all that he ever wrote. These are what we know as the Shakespeare Plays." Penzance believes they had ulterior motives, and that they had no authority for asserting the plays were Shakespeare's.
Towards the end of his work Lord Penzance writes: "And now, gentlemen, I come to what is in my own opinion the most important matter bearing on the probability that these plays came in truth from the hand of Francis Bacon." What follows is an extensive listing of parallel passages, a few of which are provided below:
|
Shakespeare: "Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame…" "On thee, the troubler of the poor world's peace."
"Cowards die many times before their death."
"To thine own self be true,…"
"O Heaven! A beast, that wants discourse of reason, Would have mourned longer."
Shakespeare: (Cont) "For in the very torrent, tempest, and as I may say, the whirlwind of your passion." "The paragon of animals; the beauty of the world." "Must creep in service where it cannot go."
"As mild and gentle as the cradled babe."
"Infirm of purpose. Give me the daggers."
"A ruined piece of nature." "The soft and tender for of a poor worm .. &c." "The air smells wooingly here."
"What is this quintessence of dust?
"Malice of thy swelling heart… swelling griefs…" "The top of sovereignty …The top of judgment …&c." "The poor abuses of the times."
"Lend my your ears."
Shakespeare: (Cont) "This spice of your hypocrisy." "Our sea-walled garden." "Do you find Your patience so predominant in your nature?" "Therefore the poet did feign that Orpheus draw trees, stones and floods."
"How shall we stretch our eye when capital crimes chewed swallowed and digested appear before us." "The portion and sinew of her fortune." "The lees and dregs of a flat tamed piece."
"But the shales and husks of men."
"The empress sends it thee, thy stamp, thy seal,…." "A sea of air." "The waters swell before a boisterous storm." "The rogue fled from me like quicksilver…" "The very sea-mark of my utmost sail."
"They are limed with the twigs … mere fetches, the images of…"
Shakespeare: (Cont)
"See Posthumous anchors upon Imogen."
|
Bacon: "The cause of dimness of sight is the expense of spirits." "That gigantic state of mind which possesseth the troublers of the world, such as was Lucius Sylla." "Men have their time, and die many times, in desire of something which they principally take to heart." "Be so true to thyself…"
"God hath done great things by her (i.e., Queen Elizabeth) past discourse of reason."
Bacon: (cont) "But men, … if they be not carried away with a whirlwind or tempest of ambition." "The souls of the living are the beauty of the world." "Love must creep where it cannot go."
"Flame, at the moment of its generation, is mild and gentle." "All those who have in some measure committed themselves to the waters of experience, seeing they were infirm of purpose." "It is one of the subtlest pieces of nature." "The fire maketh them soft and tender."
"For those smells do rather woo the sense than satiate it." "So as your wit shall be whetted with … you shall have the cream and quintessence of every one of theirs." "Fullness and swellings of the heart."
"The top of … workmanship. The top of human desires …&c." "The abuses of the times."
"Standing all at a gaze about him, and lend their ears to his music."
Bacon: (Cont) "A spice of madness." "Our sea-walls and good shipping." "Divers things that were predominant in the king's nature." "For the poets feigned that Orpheus … called likewise the stones and woods to remove." "Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, some few to be chewed and digested." "The very springs and sinews of industry." "… as to drink the lees and dregs of Perkin's intoxication,…" "… being but the very husks and shells of sciences." "We set stamps and seals of our own images upon…" "A sea of air." "…swelling of the seas before a tempest,…" "… was made of quicksilver…"
"…Norfolk, for sea-marks or lighthouses, to …" "… lime-twigs, and fetches to place myself."
Bacon: (Cont) "the repose of the mind which only rides at anchor upon hope."
|
And so on and on Lord Penzance goes with the internal evidence of intrinsic probability. He concludes by writing: "If it should be the case that Francis Bacon wrote the plays he would, probably, afterwards have written the Dedication of the Folio, and the style of it would be accounted for." And so go the arguments from style.
I could go on to note, for example, the correlation between Gauden's case and the case for Bacon's authorship of Shakespeare's plays; namely, the supposed ciphers that exist to prove the respective authorship above. Supporters of Gauden complain loudly that Gauden claimed he wrote the Eikon, and this much is true. But also true is that similar evidence of this ilk is produced by the Baconians in support of their cause. To illustrate, R. C. Churchill[62] writes "Donnelly found in the verses on Shakespeare's tombstone the ciphered message 'Francis Bacon wrote the Greene, Marlowe and Shakespeare plays.'" They appeal to various other kinds of external evidence such as handwriting analysis and minor obscure documents to support their contentions. In any case, the comparison between the two cases is remarkably alike.
I have previously noted how some interpreted "GD" with regard to the printed editions Eikon to mean "Gauden Designed." This was disproved however. With regard to Bacon and Shakespeare's plays, ciphers also figure prominently in the "proof" from Bacon's supporters and others.[63]
Hopefully the reader can see that the arguments used by pro-Gauden forces are strikingly similar to the Bacon supporters both in terms of logic and application. There seems to be much more internal evidence in favor of Bacon being the author of the works of Shakespeare than there is in support of Gauden writing the Eikon.
If one claims then that Gauden is the author of the Eikon, using the internal criteria over and above the external evidence, then logically one must also claim that Francis Bacon was the true author of the plays commonly attributed to William Shakespeare! This; however, pro-Gauden forces have been utterly unwilling to do, choosing instead not to be subject to the ridicule they would be subjected to by advocating such a claim. This then is the death blow to the Gauden theory!
Further still, using internal criteria as an investigative tool one might conclude that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth was actually the author of Basilicon Doron, and not King James VI & I, notice the following:
|
Queen Elizabeth I: "We princes are set on stages in the sight and view of all the world duly observed." Speech to a deputation of Lords and Commons, 1586 |
King James VI & I: "A King is as one set on a stage, whose smallest actions and gestures, all the people gazinglie doe beholde." Basilicon Doron, 1599 |
Rounding out our survey of the Gaudenian/Baconian similarities, one Shakespearean author observes:
"Donnelly announced his epoch-making finding that bacon had hidden among 'Shakespeare's works a cipher revealing his true authorship, to which, of course, he, Donnelly, had found the key. His enthusiasm for Baconian cryptography proved so infectious that it set off years of frantic but fruitless treasure-hunts throughout southern England in the quest for sixty-six buried iron boxes that purportedly would prove Bacon's authorship of 'Shakespeare. Donnelly and other 'Baconians' also found many literary parallels between Bacon and whoever had authored the 'Shakespeare' works. They noted that Bacon had been a poet, just like 'Shakespeare.' They observed that like 'Shakespeare's, Bacon's writings exhibited a marked distaste for crowds. Like 'Shakespeare', Bacon delighted in nature, his essay on gardens featuring no less than thirty-two out of the thirty-five flowers mentioned by 'Shakespeare'. Not least, in 1910, English aristocrat Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence in his Bacon Is Shakespeare, Honorificabilitudinitatibus, a nonsense word used by Costard the clown in Love's Labour's Lost - was 'without possibility of doubt or question' an anagram of the Latin Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi, that is, 'These plays, F. Bacon's offspring, are preserved for the World.' Even Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud became sucked into such Baconian fervor, and arguably only the curse inscribed upon Shakespeare's grave saved it from being dug up in the continuing quest for the manuscripts supposed to prove Bacon's authorship … Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford …died in 1604, whereas whoever wrote Shakespeare's plays went on for at least another nine years turning out masterpieces of the caliber of King Lear, Macbeth, The Winter's Tale, and The Tempest. No matter, those who seek an alternative author for 'Shakespeare' are rarely baulked by such small difficulties as raising the dead …The safest way, of course, is to avoid all conjecture and stick to the documentary evidence that has survived for Shakespeare's life: the dull but factual materials…"[64]
Similarly, we too should avoid conjecture and treat Gauden's claims with a high degree of suspicion as they are founded mainly on extremely speculative criteria, oftentimes internally inconsistent, and sometimes in opposition to known facts. Logically, if one were to embrace their arguments, then one would be forced to reject the Shakespearean authorship as well. No one, so far, seems eager to lend his name to this cause. Why then are so many willing to abandon the Carolinian authorship in light of these facts? It is high time the critics rethought their case, and the prodigal sons returned home.
As we have seen from the foregoing, internal criteria have an inherent appeal to those prone to conspiratorial theories, or who otherwise are drawn to the mysterious, but are limited by the fact that they are little more than opinion driven guesswork. If Shakespeare has suffered at the hands of such internal critics, then Charles I is in good company indeed!
As we touched upon earlier, pick up just about any critical commentary and you will discover that this dogma (internal criticism/intrinsic probability) has been used to discredit the traditional authorship of practically every book in the Bible at one time or another by some proponent of the intrinsic modality, particularly the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the authorship of the books of Daniel and Isaiah on up through the Pauline epistles. Furthermore, sometimes advocates of this theorem quite often disagree among themselves as to the application, scope and interpretation of their own standards. No self respecting conservative Christian or objective researcher should; therefore, be swayed by arguments solely from the intrinsic branch of internal criticism.
It is recorded in Holy Writ (John 20:25) that Thomas said "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."
Thomas would not believe unless he saw Jesus with his own eyes, and touch his wounds with his own hands. Holy Scripture also records in the same chapter (John 20:27) that Jesus said to Thomas 'Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
Dear reader, you will have the distinct privilege to see the evidence before your eyes, and have it touch your heart. You can feel the pages this treatise is written on, it is palpable, and extant in your hands. The evidence cited herein likewise is produceable. When you finish reading this work you will have seen and handled the truth; the question then will become, Will you believe? Oh dear reader, doubt no longer, for there is a blessing in accepting the truth.
Now that we have dealt with the general topic of intrinsic probability, it seems that it is high time we examined the application of this principle from one who has examined its application with respect to the Eikon itself. Wordsworth's case has lamentably fallen into disuse, not because of any failing on its part, or lack of scholarship, but primarily due to its age and rarity. Most copies were held in private libraries, or restricted to university libraries which refused to lend the work because of the condition of the book, out of a concern for its preservation. The work has not been put to microfilm yet which also makes obtaining the work difficult.
Because of these factors most have simply forgotten about the work, so due to the difficulty involved in obtaining it, it has suffered neglect. Some of the greatest masterpieces in English literature had at one time or another been in the same predicament. They wait patiently, like jewels beneath the sand, waiting to be discovered and appreciated. Thankfully truth never goes out of style, and although it may be long forgotten, not unlike our Lord, it rises again!
By way of a preamble to our discussion, since our critics have alleged that the internal evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Gauden, and that there is only slight internal evidence in favor of Charles I to the authorship of the Eikon, let us offer them some evidence of their own design.
Such data is in contradistinction to the claim that there isn't much internal evidence in favor of Charles I being the author of the Eikon. The mere fact that it exists, in any degree at all, is sufficient to enervate the claims of the strength of the internal evidence.
Summarized below is internal evidence, gleaned from Dr. Wordsworth's Who Wrote Eikon Basilike? - Considered & Answered, In Two Letters, Addressed To His Grace, The Archbishop Of Canterbury, 1824, pages 303-311.
|
"(1) The treaty being begun at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, we did all hope for a happy conclusion thereof; his Majesty having granted whatsoever they could ask, saving his conscience, and the damnation of his own soul, which his Majesty once told me, he thought they aimed at.' [Mr. Henry Firebrance in Herbert's &c. Memoirs, p. 195 edit 1702.]
"(2) He had neither the attendance of his own domestic servants, Chaplains, or Liturgy of the Church: under all which he very unconcernedly and majestically deported himself; as being above complaints or bewailings, as he himself was pleased to tell me.' [Warwick's Memoirs, p. 297] |
"(1) Icon Basilike., Chap xvii, 'But being daily, by the best disquisition of truth, more confirmed in the reason and religion of that to which I am sworn, how can any man, that wisheth not my damnation, persuade me at once to so notorious and combined sins of sacrilege and perjury?' Again, Chap 24. 'They that envy my being a King, are loth I should be a Christian. Whey they seek to deprive me of all things else, they are afraid I should save my soul.'" "(2) Icon Basilike. Chap. XV. 'they will feel it at last to their cost, that it is impossible those men should be really tender of their fellow-subjects' liberties, who have the hardiness to use their King with so severe restraints, against all laws, both divine and human: under which yet I will rather perish than complain, to those who want nothing to complete their mirth and triumph, but such music."
|
|
Wordsworth adds a passage from Charles' letter to the Prince, never seen by Gauden, relative to the account of the Newport treaty "We avoided mentioning our own condition, (being more exercised to suffer than to complain, the one befitting our mind, the other our condition); but told them, Something else we had to say, which we would rather they would understand, than for us to declare.'" From the Clarendon Papers. Vol. II. P. 443. |
Wordsworth contrasts this with letters of Gauden exhibiting contrary sentiments to the above and lists it as internal evidence opposing the Gauden claim. (See Who Wrote Eikon Basilike, p 306).
More internal evidence in support of Charles follows:
"(3) 'Some few things I remember he said … About the latter end of the treaty, finding it was like to be ineffectual, 'I wish,' says he, 'I had consulted nobody but my own self; for then, where in honor or conscience I could not have complied, I could have early been positive; for, with Job, I would willinger have chosen misery, than sin.' I never saw him shed tears but once, and he turned presently his head away.'" [Warwick's Memoirs, p. 326]
|
"(5) 'Whilst he was at his private devotions,' says Sir Philip Warwick, describing the events of the fatal 30th of January, 'Nye, and some other bold-faced Ministers, knocked at his door; and the Bishop, (Juxon) going to open it, they told him, they came to offer their service to pray with the King. He told them the King was at his own private devotions: however, he would acquaint him. But the King resolving not to send out to them, they after some time had the modesty to knock again; and the Bishop suspecting who they were, told the King it would be necessary to give them some answer. The King replied, then (says he) thank them from me for the tender of themselves: but tell them plainly, that they that have so often, and causelessly prayed against me, shall never pray with me in this agony. They may, if they please, and I'll thank them for it, pray for me.' [Memoirs, p. 343] |
"(5) The day following that on which the words on the other side purport to have been spoken by the King, a book comes out, professing also to be the King's, in which we read as follows: Icon Basilike, Chap xvi: 'One of the greatest faults some men found with the Common Prayer Book, I believe was this, that it taught them to pray so oft for me; to which petitions they had not loyalty enough to say Amen, nor yet charity enough to forbear reproaches, and even cursings of me in their own forms, instead of praying for me.'
Wordsworth continues to provide extracts which further authenticate the point made, but which for the sake of brevity are omitted here. |
|
"The next extract I take from that copy of the King's Speech on the scaffold, which was published by authority of his enemies: 'Yet for all this, God forbid that I should be so ill a Christian as not to say, that God's judgments are just upon me. Many times he does pay justice by an unjust sentence: that is ordinary. I will only say this, that an unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect, is now punished by an unjust sentence upon me.' [King Charles' Speech on the Scaffold, 4to 1649, p.5] |
"There are two points in the opposite extract, between which and the book published the day after, a communion of mind is apparent: Icon Basilike, Chap. Xxvii: 'How God will deal with me, as to the removal of these pressures and indignities, which His justice, by the very unjust hands of some of my subjects, hath been pleased to lay upon me, I cannot tell: nor am I much solicitous what wrong I suffer from men, while I retain in my soul what I believe is right before God.'
Icon Basilike, Chap ii: 'Teach me to learn righteousness by Thy judgments; and to see my frailty in Thy justice. While I was persuaded by shedding one man's blood, to prevent after troubles, Thou has for that, among other sins, brought upon me, and upon my kingdoms, great, long, and heavy troubles.'" |
One could quite literally go on and on, citing from sundry and various sources the parallelisms between the known and authenticated writings of King Charles I and the Eikon, but the point has been made. Let not the reader labor under the delusion that I have limited these examples out of their scarcity. On the contrary, anyone who reads Wordsworth will clearly see pages and pages of such examples. I have only selected a few to make a point. In my estimation there is no need, "to beat a dead horse."
Once it has been established that such items exist, the quantitative value is rather redundant. Rather it is the qualitative value which must receive preeminence. However, that being said, there is a significant qualitative portion of such instances on the side of the authorship of Charles I. However, in that the intrinsic approach is inherently flawed, and since I am only producing such examples to point out they exist, there is simply no need to reproduce the extensive research of Wordsworth on this point. Gauden's proponents are not the only ones who can make use of the internal argument, but we, knowing the weakness and fallacy of the argument choose to base our claim on higher ground.
Now then, with this being duly noted, turning to the refutational portion of our study with respect to the internal criteria, I will begin by citing primarily from King Charles The First, The Author Of Eikon Basilike - Further Proved In A Letter To The Archbishop Of Canterbury &c dated 1828. I will endeavor to limit my own commentary so as to better showcase Dr. Wordsworth's devastating blows to the arguments from internal criteria.
In responding to Mr. Todd's list of internal criteria, and demonstrating the weakness of his case, Wordsworth writes:
"The Ic
ôn, which, in the devotional part, is almost wholly made-up of Scriptural citations and allusions, has, in one of those portions, quoted a passage, aptly enough, from the book of Job, but with no very pointed, peculiar, or extraordinary application. Dr. Gauden again, aptly enough it may be, but with no resemblance whatever to the use made of them in the Icôn, has, in a subsequent work, full twelve years after, referred to the same words. I will give in the margin the two passages as they stand in Mr. Todd, and in a third column I will place the words of the Sacred Writer…"
|
"I know the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of hypocrites is but for a moment. Icôn, ch. 19. |
"Having lived to see that the joy of hypocrites, the prosperity of the wicked, and the triumph of violent men, is but short; I further applied myself, &c. Gauden, Anti-Baal-Birth, Preface sign, A.2. |
"'Knowest thou not this of old, since man was placed upon the earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment.' Job xx. 4,5." |
Wordsworth observes:
"There are several instances as nearly as possible of the same character with this. Now, my Lord, by what right has Dr. Gauden, so laid his hand upon the word of God, or upon any part of it, that it shall not have been competent to any Person but himself; above all People in the World, not to the King; to use and cite it? The King, whose special duty and need it was to meditate therein, day and night; and who did meditate accordingly. And cannot he then have permission to make from it the most obvious and ordinary citation? And if Gauden cites the same passage twelve years after, by what magic spell is the regal citation at once to change its character, and to be transmuted into an episcopal? Will it not suffice against a thousand such instances as the above, if Mr. Todd can accumulate them, to reply, as was early done in this same controversy, on a parallel occasion? 'The Doctor,' says one, 'was in his own element here.' 'No:' says the Advocate of the King, 'That element was no man's, more than the King's. No Doctor in England ever used the Book of Common Prayer more than did King Charles. So my Lord, when, in Mr. Todd's enumeration of parallels, I find allusions formally recounted, as made by the Icôn, and by Dr. Gauden, to the swallowing of Camels (No. 9) to the cords and writhes of Sampson (No. 15) to the veil on the face of Moses, (No.21); to the wild boars wasting the vine-yard of the Church (No. 25); and the like, how is it possible that I can dwell upon them? They are quite inadequate to sustain any portion of the serious service to which Mr. Todd has called them."
Mr. Todd alleges that since he found the word "corban" in both the writings of the Gauden and the Eikon, the Eikon must; therefore, be the product of the pen of Gauden. The weight of any supposition as this says Wordsworth "I fear if we act on any such supposition, we shall be laying a load on those Atlantean shoulders, which must soon crush them, and their kindred trunk down to the ground." Wordsworth asks "Let us see then what degree of success has attended his (Todd's) labors."
"'Corban is a remarkable word.' True: yet, without going far, there is a volume, not obsolete, either to Kings or Prelates; nor obsolete, I hope, to Lexicographers, whether Lay or Clericsa; and there the King might find the word, without being indebted for it to Dr. Gauden. There indeed, both Gauden and the King, no doubt did find the word, without any obligation between them, on one side or the other. The Book I speak of is St. Mark's Gospel (c. vii. 11) of the common authorized version, the translation of King James. When the author of the Icôn might and must have found the word there - it is idle to pretend to say that he, the said author, must be Dr. Gauden, because it happens that Gauden too has used the word, in books written, it is to be observed, several years after the Icôn itself was published.
But, if this is not enough, it would be very easy to supply numerous instances of the use of the word Corban, quite as similar to the application of that term in the Icôn, as either of the two passages which Mr. Todd has exhibited from Gauden, taken also, (a very material consideration), from works anterior to the Icôn, and not subsequent to it. I will content myself however with the production of one of them; and that because it is from a work of the King's friend, Sir Edward Hyde; a work too which we know was read by the King:
'When they were compelled to take the last Solemn League and Covenant, that oath Corban, by which they conceive themselves absolved from all obligations, divine and human; as their predecessors, the Jews, thought they were discharged, &c.
Your Grace will not fail to observe a considerable resemblance in the turn of the sentiment. The same thing which satisfies the conscience in the King's Book, absolves it in that of his Minister."
Wordsworth, like a juggernaut, goes forward:
"(2) but, 'the word odium - Gauden uses it,' Mr. Todd says very truly, 'in his Sermon, published in 1641, and often in his Hieraspistes, and in his Ecclesiæ Suspiria, and his Anti-Baal-Berith; and so in the Icôn it is found as a favorite word.' First then; Gauden uses the word in his Sermon in 1641. He does so. And thus, my Lord it is. In the very same breath in which Mr. Todd builds his two arguments for the identity of Dr. Gauden and the author of the Icôn, in part upon the imputed principle relating to Dr. Johnson, which I have so recently mentioned, he himself has demolished his arguments by manifesting the falsehood of his principle; and that, in one of the self-same two instances in which he has maintained it. For though it be true, that the earliest example of that word, (odium), exhibited by Dr. Johnson, is cited from the Icôn, yet here Mr. Todd himself adduces one instance at least, which was published seven or eight years earlier.
Thus, My Mr. Todd's own showing, Dr. Johnson's Dictionary cannot be relied upon, as a chronological History of the English language. But the word odium is a favorite word in the Icôn? Very true. And it is often used by Dr. Gauden? It appears to be so. Once we find him using it before the publication of the Icôn; and many times after. Perhaps he caught, (if it was his habit to read the Icôn, as occasionally, I believe it might, as well as to transcribe it) some of his fondness for that word from the weighty example and authority of the so-called royal volume. But, whence did the author of the Icôn learn the use of the term? Did he Anglicize it himself? Did he take the hint in part from that one use of it in Gauden's Sermon of 1641? Alas! The unhappy fate of that ill-starred postulate respecting Dr. Johnson! And, what becomes of Mr. Todd's sagacity, or of his industry? The word odium is very far from being an uncommon word in English usage, antecedently to the publication of the Icôn; and therefore, long antecedently to those subsequent uses of it by Dr. Gauden. Odium is used by the confidential friend of the King, Archbishop Laud, in is Answer to the Speech of Lord Say and Sele, against Bishops; which Answer was written by Laud in the Tower, in, or about the year 1642:
'Most true indeed it is, that the poor Bishops of this Church do now, instead of honor and esteem, lie under contempt and odium in the hearts of the people.' [Laud's Remains, Vol. II, p.42]
It is used by that Peer, (Lord Say) the eager enemy of Laud and the Bishops, but one who, unhappily, possessed too much the ear of the King, and soon became one of his Ministers, in that same speech, delivered by him in the House of Peers, May 24, 1641:
'Instead of honor and esteem, they have brought upon themselves in the hearts of the People, that contempt and odium, which they now lie under.' [Cobbett's Parliamentary History, Vol. II. P. 809.]
It is used in the famous Parliament Declaration, Of August 2, 1642, of the Reasons of Parliament for taking up Arms against the King: a document, we may be well persuaded, of a most bitter and painful interest to His Majesty:
'The same necessity gave this Parliament in the beginning, power to act with more vigor and resolution than other Parliaments had done, and to set upon a reformation of the great disorders both in the ecclesiastical and civil state: which drew a more particular envy and odium upon it, than was usual to the generality of Parliaments. [Parliamentary History, Vol. II, p. 1435]
The word is used in 1643, by that faithful and much aggrieved Confessor, (may I not say, that faithful though humble friend of the King?) Mr. Edward Symmons, the ejected Rector of Raine, and whose name is of so essential an importance, in the whole history of the true authorship of the Icôn:
'To make mention in prayer of a Christian Prince as if he were an Infidel, or an enemy to goodness, is rather to calumniate and vilify him, to slander and disgrace him, than to show honor and reverence to him: it is rather the way to insinuate a tediousness of him, and to work an odium against him in the hearts of men, than a venerable esteem of him.' [Loyal Subjects Belief in a Letter to Master Stephen Marshall, 4to 1643. p. 18]
It is used by the London Apprentices in a Petition in 1647:
'Who labor to traduce the actions of the City thereby to bring an odium upon it, and to lay it open to their malice.' [Rushworth VI. p. 641]
It is used by the King's Physician, Dr. George Bates, in the year 1648:
'It is notoriously known, that between fifty and sixty of the ablest men, who for the most part were likely to oppose this violence, were purposely sent out of London … where we will note by the way, there was a double aim, fist to have the advantage of their absence, in relation to this course against the King. Secondly, to draw an odium upon them from their countries.' [the Regal Apology, or the Declaration of the Commons, February 11, 1647, canvassed, 1648. 4to. p. 14]
Need I say more? Numerous other instances, I could give, quite as pertinent to my purpose as any of these: but I will only add one, because it is of a date so early as the year 1626, and is from the famous peroration of Sir John Elliot, the Manager appointed by the House of Commons to make the Epilogue, or concluding address, in the impeachment of the ill-fated friend of the young King, the Duke of Buckingham:
'Sir John Elliot in the name of the Commons, makes this Protestation: 'Far be it from them to lay an odium or aspersion on his Majesty's name: they hold his honor spotless; nor the least shadow of blemish can fix upon him in his business.' [Rushworth I. p. 354]'"
Mr. Todd's argument is thoroughly erroneous;…
"Wordsworth is not done yet for he continues:
"(3) 'Cyclopick,' Mr. Todd tell us, 'is not a common word; yet it is one often employed by Gauden.' Once it appears in the Icôn: and four instances are produced from different parts of Gauden's voluminous writings; all of them however being subsequent in date, by several years, to the publication of the royal volume. And this again is to be a proof that Dr. Gauden wrote the Icôn."
Wordsworth notes how that the time in which Charles I lived held a fascination and fondness for mythology, and this instance of the allusion to the Cyclops was not a word which can fix Gauden's claim to the Eikon, and Wordsworth professes to hold instances of the word's usage, prior to the date of the Eikon, in his possession. The written language of the day made the use of this word natural, and Wordsworth cites Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, Volume II, p. 336 as an example: "Cyclopical Polyphemus" as well as Johnson's Dictionary giving two instances of the identical word "Cyclopick" one of which has an earlier date than any of the examples of Gauden! This is opposed to the claims of some of Gauden's supporters (i.e., Hallam) to the effect that "It seems not clear that any writer but Gauden has used the word Cyclopick. [Todd, p. 62, Constitutional History, II. p. 776]."
Wordsworth goes on to cite how other instances of other claimed parallelisms between the writings of Gauden and Charles I in the Eikon are mistakenly quoted or otherwise misquoted.
Wordsworth next discusses the term "populacy." It is claimed that since Gauden used the term, and it is found in the Eikon, Gauden must be the author of the Eikon. Below is a comparison:
|
"As to the populacy, you may hear from them.' Eikon Basilike, xxvii." "They think to keep the populacy fast to their parties." XIV. "Not only with greatest security, but with applause as to the populacy." XXVII |
"'The counterpart' (Mr. Broughton then proceeds to remark) 'has the family resemblance.' 'To engage the better sort of common people and so in effect the whole populacy.' I e r a D a k . p. 378 'To be aware how they or the nation fell under the discipline of any populacy.' p. 382 'Neither exciting the optimacy and nobility, nor the populacy and commonalty.' p. 567." |
Wordsworth observes:
"Thus we have two instances of this word in the Icôn; and these Mr. Broughton has confronted by three from Dr. Gauden; all, however, as usual, posterior to the publication of the Icôn, by many years; a consideration, sufficient of itself, to satisfy us, that no very great stress ought to be laid on such a foundation as this. For example, Dr. Hollingworth, an admirer of the Icôn, uses this word in a work of his in the year 1676, complaining, that an 'order of men, who by a divine commission are dedicated to serve at the altar, were brought into a general dislike, nay contempt, among the populacy [Modest Plea For The Church Of England, Signat. 65]. How probable and natural, that he should be helped in part at least, to this application of the work by the Icôn; and what great difficulty, under all the circumstances, to conceive precisely the same of Dr. Gauden? But, to proceed. Populacy, I need hardly contend, is the same word with populace, under a different form of spelling, varied in the termination, like many other words, merely causâ euphoniæ, according to the writer's notions of the rhythm of his sentence.
Or, if this were not so, still, while the orthography of our language was so unsettled, as unquestionably it was, in the reign of Charles I, very little can be concluded any way from the usage, whether of this form or of that; provided the word itself, in either of its shapes, was then known among us. When once introduced, the word, from its very nature, plainly is not an unlikely one to be found in the mouth of a King. So unsettled was the orthography that we may not unfrequently find the same writer or his associate, the compositor, spelling the same word two or three different ways, within the space of so many sentences; and to me, therefore, it would be no matter of particular surprize to find, whether Gauden or the King, using both populace and populacy in the same sentence.
James Howell, a writer of the time, felt the want of somewhat more of system in these matters; and he accordingly tells us, that for certain words he prefers the Latin to the French orthography, whereby also, … in this same book, he chooses to write the word we have at present in hand, under the shape of populass [Familiar Letters, p. 394. Edit 1678]. However, the forms populace and populacy, it is certain are both of them not infrequent in the times of which we are speaking …populacy, I see is used by the King's Chaplain and friend, Dr. Sanderson, much about the time of Mr. Broughton's quotations from Gauden:
'And then set them up as Idols to be adored by the Populacy, always apt to admire what they understand not.' [Preface to Usher's Power of the Prince, § 14, 1660]
I shall confine myself however solely to publications antecedent to the Icôn; and shall be content to produce just as many examples anterior to that date, as Mr. Broughton has given us subsequent to it.
|
"1. 'Time made this evident amongst the Romans, for after many and very bloody disputes betwixt the Optimacy, and Populacy for sundry ages, at length the bulk of the empire, &c.' [Jus Populi, or a Discourse as well concerning the right of Subjects, as the right of Princes, 4to. 1644. p. 59]'" |
"2. 'Bodin therefore having defined princely government to be either a state of Optimacy, or Populacy, wherein some one has preeminence above all other persons.' [Ibid. p. 64]'" |
"3. 'It could not possibly have fallen out that so great a fatality should have befallen His Majesty's particular, and the universal Populacy of three so late flourishing kingdoms; which as now they are wasted, &c. [Ball's Particular Animadversions. 4to 1646. p. 5]'" |
"Thus Populacy, we see, was common property; and was just as open, at the least, to the King, as it was to Dr. Gauden."
Wordsworth moves on by observing: "The next example, is also peculiar to Mr. Broughton. I do not think that he has been at all more fortunate in this, than in any of the preceding. 'Another observable peculiarity,' he remarks, 'is the practice of beginning many of their sentences in a manner not very common; for example:
'Not that I resolved to have employed him.' Eikon Basilike, No. II.
'Not but that some lines may happily need.' Eikon Basilike No. XXVII.
Wordsworth goes on:
"In this manner, he adds three other instances of the same formula, for the Icôn: and these are followed by five instances of 'Not That', and two instances of Not but that, from Gauden. This doubtless is very well, so far as it goes. But, how far is that? Assuredly, a very short way indeed. For, what my Lord, is the truth? This idiomatic form of speech, as it is common enough still, so it was very common, both in verse and prose, in the days of King Charles.
It was public property; used almost as freely and frequently as the air they breathed. And what wonder, when the form of expression occurs so continually in the Bible, the most prevailing model, and most authentic standard of our language? Has Mr. Broughton forgotten, who they are that say, 'Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves:' (II Cor 3:5) 'Not that we loved God,'(I John 4:10) and the like? By what power of enchantment can Gauden so have appropriated this idiom to himself, that under whatever name we find it, we are bound to say and believe, 'This is his hand?' But, if I must resort to human authorities, will it avail any thing with Mr. Broughton, if I produce this phrase, used by the King, years before Gauden was a writer at all: If I show that it was in very frequent use, by King Charles' father, King James VI & I; and finally, if I exhibit as many instances of it, from merely two or three Sermons, preached before the King, by the single author Bishop Sanderson (I say nothing of Laud, Hall, Usher, Taylor &c., &c. indeed I might almost add all the persons with whose conversation and writings, the King was in habits of special and familiar intercourse) as Mr. Broughton has given from Dr. Gauden? True it is, that I am almost ashamed of this drudgery. But, who is it that compels me to it? Who, that ought to have taken care, that it should not be necessary? And in what other way, can I adequately show how the truth really stands; and turn back the blows which my antagonists have aimed against the King, upon their own heads?"
Wordsworth proceeds to cite from the evidentiary record which I record below:
|
"Thus the King writes, in a Letter to the Earl of Strafford, in the year 1639:" "Not that I think this caution is needful in respect of you; but, to let you see I have a care of that kingdom,' (Ireland) 'though I have too much trouble with these.' [Strafford's Letters, II. p. 361]"Thus King James VI & I writes in a Letter to the Earl of Bristol, in the year 1623:" "Not but that the very precisest of them were always of opinion, that, if the match were once concluded, the other business would be accommodated to our satisfaction.' [Clarendon Papers, I. p.7] |
"Thus again, in his Basilikon Doron; a work I doubt not, often in the hands of King Charles:""Not that every particular man, in any of these ranks of men, is subject unto them.' [p. 28, 1682 ed] |
And: "Not that thereby I take the defense of vain carders and dicers." [ibid, . 92 (See also] The Works Of King James, fol. 1616, p. 104, 203, 209, 485, 487, and 496 &c.). |
But wait, Wordsworth isn't finished: He writes "Thus finally, the excellent Sanderson:"
|
"Not that we are Lords either of their tongues or thoughts, &c. [Sermons, 1686, fol. p. 369]" "Not but that whoever truly feareth God, &c. [p. 528] |
"Not but that we may, and in most cases must, make a difference, &c. [Ibid. p. 397]" "Not that St. Paul wished their salvation, more than his own, &c. [ p. 528] |
"Not that the owner should behold it with his eyes, and then, &c. [Ibid. p. 441]" "Not that it is worse, nor perhaps simply so ill, &c. [p. 544]" "Not that they should jar and clash one against another, &c. [p. 548] |
Next it is alleged that due to the below that Gauden must have written the Eikon:
|
"My chiefest arms were those only which the ancient Christians were wont to use against their persecutors, prayers and tears." Eikon Basilike Chap. XI |
"O give me grace to fly to the ancient refuge and approved arms of Christians, prayers and tears." (Gauden's Manuscript of Devotions) |
To which Wordsworth aptly replies:
"But alas! The sentiment is exceedingly commonplace … I am persuaded that I could produce to your Grace a dozen examples of it, all anterior to the Icôn, and a fortiori, all long anterior to Gauden's Manuscript, in as many minutes. We find it not uncommon in Parliament; for instance, in the mouth of a young Lawyer, in 1627:
'I have learned from an ancient Father of the Church, that though preces regum sunt armatæ, yet arma subditorum are but only preces et lacrymæ (Parl. His. II. p. 241).'
We find it in the King's faithful friend, Edward Symmonds:
'Their weapons but faith and patience, prayers and tears were wont to be acknowledged comely for a Christian.' (Loyal Subject's Belief, 1643, p. 72)'
We have it, very remarkably and repeatedly in a book written expressly 'for the service and satisfaction' of the King by the excellent Archbishop Usher; and perused, we find, and studied by the King, accordingly:
'And what kind of weapons the other Christians used against the present injuries which he offered unto them, and the more grievous afflictions which he intended afterward to bring upon them, Gregory Naziaknzen declareth, when he sheweth that they were expressed by God's mercy and the Christian's tears … for we, saith he, unto whom no weapon nor bulward, nor any other defense was left … our prayer … Even such a Prince ought not to be repelled by taking arms against him, but by pouring out of our prayers to God. Which kind of weapons … prayers and tears … my tears are my weapons against their arms … Such are the weapons of a Priest…"
Wordsworth concludes his point by stating:
"Thus the passages which we have cited clearly prove that the thought and the language which Mr. Todd makes the peculiar attribute of Dr. Gauden, as contradistinguished to the King, were more than ordinarily familiar to King Charles. The passage also of his own, it is certain, (as well as all the others which I have given) was not only antecedent to the publication of the Icôn, while that in Gauden it is equally certain was subsequent to it; but also, not having been printed till the year 1649, it could not have been seen by Gauden, nor engrafted by him, as a sentiment of the King, into the royal Icôn."
Wordsworth again cites evidence from Todd alleging to prove linkage between Gauden and the Eikon; however, there can be no Gaudenian connection from such flimsy "evidence".
|
From Gauden "O let me find all that moderation in my passions, and gravity in my affections, which true reason and religion do require." |
From The Icôn"Make us unpassionately to see the light of reason and religion, and with all order and gravity to follow it, as becomes men and Christians." |
Wordsworth replies "Surely Mr. Todd is not a little put to it for arguments, when he can deduce one from the existence of some of the very commonest words and terms in our whole language, without anything peculiar or important in the sentiment." Further illustrating the desperation of the Gaudenian camp Wordsworth cites yet another pathetic example of a supposed parallelism. He remarks "It consists in nothing more than that these Devotions and the Icôn quote a portion of the same verse of one of the Psalms; and that a passage which the unhappy circumstances of the times awakened continually in the minds, and put into the mouths of thousands:
|
"O Thou Mighty God, who restrainest the spirits of princes, and settest bounds to the raging of the sea: be pleased also to put some period and limits to the madness of the common people." Gauden's Devotions |
"But Thou, O Lord, art my refuge and defense; to Thee I may safely fly, who rulest the raging of the sea, and the madness of the people." Eikon Basilike Chap IV. |
Similarly the next example follows:
|
"The triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment…" Job 20:5 |
"The triumph of the hypocrite, and the rejoicing of the wicked is but short." Gauden's Devotions |
Again, how can a similarity in citing Holy Scripture be proof that Gauden wrote the Icôn? One might as well claim Gauden was author of the Bible as well for as much logic, or lack thereof, that exists between the two premises!
The next illustration of an alleged proof of Gauden being the author if the Icôn is cited by Wordsworth:
|
"That their zeal may be according to knowledge; that human policy may not overcome true piety", p. 166. As in his Hieraspistes, p. 280. "The question was now a matter of policy rather than piety." |
"Touching the government of the Church by bishops, the common jealousy hath been, that I am earnest to maintain it, not so much out of piety as policy." Icôn Basilike, Chap XVII. |
Wordsworth laments:
"It is almost offering an insult to our cause to meet such arguments as these, by genuine resemblances, in the shape of authorities under the King's own hand, and those never seen by Dr. Gauden. This we might easily do in abundance; such as the following
|
"'For, albeit my condition be sufficiently sad, yet it is made so strangely worse by your misunderstanding the point of Church Government, that rather than I will undergo that burden, I will, laying all other considerations aside, hazard to go to France to clear my reputation to 351.' (Numerical code for The Queen of England) '357, (another numerical code) and all the World, that I stick, not upon scruples but undoubted realities, both in relation to conscience and policy.'" |
Still less necessary can it be to refer to the multitudes of examples which might easily be found, in an abundance of writers antecedent to the Icôn; such as the following:
"|
"If not piety, policy would dictate this unto him. [Fuller's Holy State, 4th Ed. p. 94]" |
"For, in matters of piety, he was governed by his Conscience; but in matters of policy, by good company. [Ibid. p. 451] |
"So that it was not want of policy which lost, but store of piety, which caused him to recover his place again. [Ibid. p. 484]" |
The next example of a "proof" for Gauden is so utterly ridiculous one wonders how so many people have been impressed by such pitiable "proofs." Wordsworth writes:
"At length we are come to the redoubtable word 'also' which is to be of so extraordinary a value. This use of the world 'also' insisted upon by Mr. Todd, may perhaps not be a common mode of composition; not common at least, according to the practice of polite writers NOW, but was it so unusual then? So unusual as to belong only or in considerable measure to Bishop Gauden and to the Icôn? (This type of argument is no better than a … mere petitio principii; while, in fact, the presumption is very strong against Gauden, because in this case, as in so many others, all the instances adduced of it from him, are subsequent to the publication of the Icôn. But, it is certain, that this boasted use of the word is far from being so uncommon as the necessities of Mr. Todd's argument do require. In the first place, let us turn to a few pages of the Parliamentary History. the peculiarity, according to Mr. Todd's description, consists in the use of the word also, where it is unaccompanied with as, or and; thus INTRODUCING a member of the sentence.
|
"… imposed on His Majesty by the late King his father, and by themselves, who brake off the two treaties with Spain: also to let them understand, that the succeeding treaties and alliances do all meet in one center, the Palatinate." [Parliamentary History, 3vo, 1807, vol. II, p. 3] |
"… altered his opinion by his Majesty's most gracious answer about religion; also because it was his first request: besides the consequence of an ill parting this Parliament …" [Ibid, p. 34] |
"… came to £20,000 a month, for his Majesty's part: also he commanded the preparing of this great fleet…" [Ibid, p. 10] |
Wordsworth goes on to reference the writings of Dr. Henry Ferne, fellow of Trinity College, and took shelter at Oxford during the rebellion as he was driven from his preferments. At the garrison at Oxford, by the King's side, many of his works were printed, and fell under the eye of Charles I.
Ferne was one of Charles's most valued Chaplains. He attended Charles at the Treaty on the Isle of Wight, and is believed to have preached before him there. Wordsworth cites from a 50 page tract written by Dr. Ferne examples of the usage of the word "also" under consideration. This tract writes Wordsworth " … probably (was) not only read, but specially studied by the King,…"
Wordsworth claims to be able to produce yet more citations than all of which can be found in Gauden's writings pertaining to the commonality of the usage of the word in question. All the below quotations are taken from Ferne's The Resolving Of Conscience Upon This Question Whether Subjects May Take Arms And Resist, 4to, 1642:
|
"First, in the very title, where we have 'Whence it followeth, that the resistance now made against the higher powers is unwarranted, and according to the Apostle damnable (Rom. 13): also that the shedding of blood in the pursuit of this resistance is murder." |
"… upon other conditions than the Kings of England are: also that a contrary religion was enforced…" |
"Let conscience add the oath of Supremacy and Allegiance: also the late Protestation." |
"… especially in the Lords' House, and by what number there at length it was voted; also how the like proceedings of resistance, …" |
"But a shorter, and perhaps a better answer, than all the above may be conveyed in a brief hint or two. Mr. Todd is a clergyman, let him examine the gravestones in his own Church-yard, and in those of his neighbors. Mr. Todd is a Lexicographer, let him turn to any page of Florio's Italian Dictionary, a book dedicated to the King's mother, and borrowing its title from her name. Let him exert his industry, and I believe from these last mentioned authorities only he may soon be furnished with not a few thousands of instances, to set by the side of this use of the word 'also' in Gauden's Manuscript, which to Mr. Todd's judgment constitutes 'indeed a powerful' argument that Gauden wrote the Icôn."
The carnage continues, and the assault on the internal argument ceases not. The next argument comes from the purported similarity below:
|
"… setting up the just terror of those laws, which may chase away those owls, and bats, and feral birds, that love darkness,…" From Gauden's Sermon before the House of Commons, preached in 1640, and published in 1641. |
"My reputation shall, like the sun, after owls and bats have had their freedom in the night and darker times, rise and recover itself to such a degree of splendor as those feral birds shall be grieved to behold, and unable to bear." Eikon Basilike, Chap. XV. |
Wordsworth writes:
"… there is no resemblance whatever in the context, in these two passages. The drift, train of thought, and application on the two occasions are as dissimilar as possible. The resemblance is purely in the expression; not the highest and most convincing mark of inter-communion, indeed, the lowest. Still, what further than this; or, what better can we say? 'Poets,' says Milton, speaking of our passage in the Icôn, 'use to vapour after this fashion.' Milton therefore, it may be conjectured, would have professed to solve the difficulty, by alleging that there was a 'common' turn of mind; or, a 'common' document, to which, with equal incongruity, the Preacher, and the Monarch had both been indebted; some ballad, or idle song, then in vogue. In Gauden's Sermon the words are printed in Italics, which may possibly be designed to denote that they are to be taken as a quotation. But however this may be, the combination of the words 'owl' and 'bat' is Scriptural; and is elsewhere, both in verse and prose, very frequent. Again, 'feral' can hardly be styled an uncommon word. In Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, of which five editions had been printed before the publication of the Icôn, it occurs continually. I have noticed about twenty instances in the first volume alone, of usages like the following…"
Wordsworth goes into great detail citing the occurrences of similar phraseology and usage. For the sake of brevity I will not burden the reader with the deluge of citations, but suffice it to say the facts are presented clearly and abundantly. But wait, Wordsworth isn't finished:
"But, again: Where in Gauden's writings does this particular passage appear? In his famous Sermon at the opening of the Long Parliament. The King was a great reader of Pamphlets. This Sermon, on account of the noise it made, and the critical occasion on which it was delivered, it is to the highest degree probable, would be read by him. It is indeed, connected also, as a first Part, with that other far-famed discourse, preached before the King, and dedicated to Gauden's patron, the Earl of Warwick."
With respect to "owls and bats", the expression as cited by Todd, taken from Gauden's Religious and Loyal Protestation, "… a short Tract written at the very time when the Icôn was passing through the press; and long after Gauden had got possession, (according to our accounts) of a Copy of that book by transcribing it . . . . They are all subsequent to the Icôn . . . . (Gauden's usage) must have been derived, from the Icôn, and not vice versâ, from Gauden into the Icôn."
We now come to the next "proof."
|
"I believe the just avenger of all disorders will in time make those men, and that city see their sin in the glass of their punishment. Icôn, Chap. IV. |
"I had rather you should see and prevent your sins in such glasses, of free and just remonstrances, than hear of them too late, &c. in the just wrath of God upon you and the kingdom." Gauden, Rel. and Loyal Protest, p. 10. |
"This parallel it will be observed is from the Religious and Loyal Protestation - Gauden's tract written after he was in possession of the transcript of the Royal Icôn. But, it is further certain that the metaphor is one, very frequent in writers of every age. Let us take an instance or two from earlier authors. Thus, from Hamlet's address to his mother"
'You go not, till I set you up in a glass
Where you may see the inmost part of you.'
Again, from another of Charles' favorite authors, the divine Herbert, speaking of the Bible:
'It is the looking-glass of souls wherein,
All men may see
Whether they be
Still, as by nature they are, deformed with sin.'
And, to mention no more, I may refer to a long and curious passage of a Member of the House of Commons, the celebrated Maynard, January 1641, beginning as follows:
'A Parliament, Sir, is the clearest looking-glass for a state perfectly to see itself in that ever was made; there is no disease, infirmity or misery that it groans under the burden of, but in this glass it may be perspicuously perceived, and the original and prime causes that have produced the same. This glass is not only clear and bright to look in, but it is medicinal, and of that sovereign power, &c. (Parl. Hist. II. p. 1025)'"
Again, a so-called "proof" of Gauden to be found in the Icôn?
|
The Icôn says: "Many-headed Hydra of Government" and the "many-headed Tumults." |
Gauden calls independency the "Many-headed monster;" and talks of "many-headed Popery," and of "a headless, or many-headed Presbytery." And in the Hieraspistes he used the term "many-headed Hydra." |
Wordsworth points out the phrase is a very frequent occurrence, and that the expression "many-headed Hydra" "… had many heads: and if we speak of it at all why not speak in the attributes of truth? So, I must observe, we have the same expression, in the Tragedy of King Charles, (1649, p. 41)"
'But we shall muzzle the mouth of that many-headed Hydra, ere it be long:'
Derived in this latter case, I doubt not, from the Icôn: and how will Mr. Todd prove, or make it probable, that it was not equally so derived in the former? Again 'many-headed Hydra' 'many-headed monster' and the like are far from uncommon, long before the date either of the Icôn, or of any of Gauden's writings. Let us take an illustration, from a book not unlikely to have been read by the King, entitled The Court of King James, dated 1619, and dedicated to the friend and favorite of the two Kings, the ill-fated Duke of Buckingham:
'For, assuredly the common People is a Hydra with many heads, or rather a strange creature without either head or sound understanding.' (p. 95)
Again, in the page that follows:
'Phocylides also hath very excellently pained out this beast with many heads.'
Again, from the Supplement to the Canterburian Self-Conviction, (4to, 1641) against the friend of his riper years, Archbishop Laud:
'In Scotland, when a very Hydra, a devil of many-heads, had long been raging with a force insuperable.'
But, what is more important a great deal, we find the King himself, in a Letter to Lord Stafford, in the year 1634, a Letter too which could never by any possibility have been seen by Gauden, applying the term Hydra, in a manner exceedingly similar to its application in the Icôn:
'Yet there is one general, and one particular, that I will name to you, to take care of; to with, the Parliament, and Arundel. In a word, content them both, so far as may not be to my prejudice. As for Arundel, I need say no more; but, as for that Hydra, take good heed; for you know, that here I have found it as well cunning as malicious.'"
Wordsworth uses the same logic in the case of the expression "Jehu" and "Phæbus." He goes into detail showing how the expression was commonplace. He concludes by stating in seeming frustration "the instances are a perfect common-place: even so as to take the nature of a vulgar proverb - give us then better employment than this, or leave us to sit still." Moreover, the Biblical locution of "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" found in Matthew 23:24 is found both in the Icôn and Gauden, and "what wonder then" asks Wordsworth as both men often cited Scripture! This is simply insufficient to establish Gauden's claim to the Icôn.
A great many more examples are cited by Wordsworth that are consistent with the foregoing examples. And in each case Wordsworth demonstrates the folly of such faulty examples. Yet another shining example of such desperate measures is found in the following quotation which is consistent with the "evidence" of Todd:
"It consists of nothing but this; that the Icôn contains the expression 'a miracle of mercy,' one of the commonest combinations of words in the English language; and that a Sermon of Gauden, written twelve years after contains the same. I will not waste the time in scraping together a heap of instances, but beg merely to remind Mr. Todd of the title of three beautiful Sermons of Bishop Taylor, 'The Miracles of Divine Mercy.'"
Again, to avoid tediousness and unnecessarily tiring my reader with a multitude of boring examples, all in the same vein I shall omit most other such examples which Wordsworth does not spare refutation in the utmost detail. Suffice it to say that the methodology of the school of Gauden has historically been keen on grasping at any perceived correlation or resemblance between the Icôn and Gauden's writings, no matter how illogical or fallacious. Wordsworth sums up his assessment of the evidence by stating "And what have we here but virtual confessions, that Gauden's claim cannot be sustained, on the internal evidence?" Such can only be elaborate hypotheses which are not very convincing even to their makers.
Have I done justice to Wordsworth argument? Admittedly not, yet his comments thus far serve to illustrate the fallicy of the internal criteria. Look for additional citations to follow later on. The foregoing facts are sufficient to illustrate fallicy of the critical case, and here can be no conjoint authorship, and such data can hardly be said to be the product of ecclesiolatry. Later on we will call upon Dr. Wordsworth (as well as other notable past scolars) to once again comment on this topic, and his remarks will serve to place the matter in equipoise and provide even greater detail in support of the royal authorship of the Eikon.
I wanted the reader to have a basic grasp of what has come before on the internal evidence[65] front, to see first hand the historical precursors of the modern argument from phraseology which form the foundation for all subsequent research of the pro-Gaudenian school with its heavy reliance on internal criteria.
I could, if pressed expand this study well beyond its current size, but my point will be sufficiently made in this present study. It is not wise, as I noted earlier, to beat a dead horse! Therefore I leave you with this final thought and then press on with additional pertinent details pursuant to this criteria. "But probability is not fact; likelihood is not evidence; and presumption is not testimony." All theories of intrinsic or transcriptional probability are just that - hypotheses. They are formed in the minds of their advocates because of needless doubts about the obvious evidence. They are subjective by their very nature, and cannot stand alone without opinion to bolster such an unsteady foundation. In a word, they are Wrong!
Continuing on with my parenthetical remarks, such sentiments as above stand in opposition to the objective evidence in favor of Charles. Besides, if we chose we would use this very argument in favor of Charles - what then of its probative value in overthrowing the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon? Do not then, dear reader, be a servant of doubt, for if you do you will find that endless theories will become your ultimate master. If you can free yourself from the blinders, you will see that Charles I, the White King, for who he truly was. Just as he was innocent at his trial of the trumped up charges put forth by an illegal assembly, a mob bent on blood, so too is he innocent of the charges he did not write the Eikon.
In the course of my research on this matter I have been asked on occasion "Why do you undertake such a daunting task?" My reply has always been I do not write because it is a hard task or because it is an easy one. I write simply because it is the right thing to do. I write because God in the flesh cared enough to die on the cross for my sins when I didn't deserve the grace. (Mercy is when you don't get what you deserve; whereas, grace is when you get what you don't deserve!). "He paid a debt he did not owe, and I owed a debt I could not pay." Jesus came, he died on the cross for my sins, He was buried, and on the third day He arose. That good news, was and is my inspiration. Therefore, I do what I must because of Him who died for me. He, Christ, is my example. So when there is a wrong to be righted, when a brother is unjustly accused, I try to stand in the gap. Charles I died for Christ, he knew what it meant to be a servant even though he was born a king. He is part of the family of God, so as Holy Scripture enjoins us "Do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."
For the first time, virtually since the inception of this controversy, the major Carolinian contender's contentions are coalesced in detail into one decisive counterattack upon the claims of Gauden. I do not wish to sound presumptuous but this is the death knell of the anti-Carolinian cause. The evidence is overwhelming both from external sources as well as internal criteria. The case for Gauden is weak and contradictory at best from the external view, and the internal evidence has been enervated and demolished by the observations from not only Wordsworth, but traditional philologists and scholars in the field of textual criticism.
Furthermore, the correlation between the case for Gauden and the case for Bacon with regard to the Eikon and Shakespeare's plays also demonstrate the sheer and utter fallacy of relying on so subjective and conjectural methodology. One can well sense a return to the Carolinian authorship in the near future, if these facts are heeded and made known to the general public and scholarly community. For far too long have we labored in darkness on this issue. It is time for the truth to be known and embraced!
The power of truth often lies in its simplicity. There no need for concocted and intricate theories to account for the authorship of the Eikon. It is no great mystery! Sometimes, the truth is so plain, so simple, that we can't see the forest for the trees. It's there, and always has been, but we who are blinded by doubt look in vain for that which was right before our eyes all the time. Just as Jesus stands at the door and knocks, so too does Charles stand before the reader, and with words gently knocks on the retina of your eye, with every word a testimony of his authorship. Will you see and believe, or will your shut your eyes and doubt? The choice is yours, but it is my earnest prayer that you will know the truth for the truth indeed will set you free!
Now then, despite all the foregoing we have not yet exhausted our investigation into the interal criterial. Let us again get back on track to the issue at hand. The following citations are offered to illustrate the historical weakness of the interal evidences as the pertain to the authorship of the Eikon.
J. A. Farrer, in his Literary Forgeries, Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, 1907, page 99 writes:
"Into the vexed question of the external evidence in favor of Charles's authorship it is needless to enter, for, even if this were much stronger than it has ever been shown to be, it would be entirely overborne by the force of the internal evidence, which is overwhelmingly in favor of Gauden."
Also, Francis F. Madan in his New Bibliography Of The Eikon Basilike Of King Charles The First, Oxford University Press, 1950, on the first page of his Introduction writes "No treatment of the Eikon could be regarded as adequate which omitted to take account of the overshadowing problem of its authorship." And on page two of his Introduction
Madan also writes "… the claim of Gauden has been almost universally allowed … which seems to establish it beyond all reasonable doubt." Madan admits on the same page; however, that:
"None the less, the substitution of Gauden for the King, as the sole author, creates almost as many difficulties as it solves, and it has long been conjectured that some authentic writings of the King formed the basis of Gauden's work." Yet despite this admission Madan writes on pages 126-127 "In brief, it is now regarded as proved by unimpeachable documents, and beyond all reasonable doubt, that Gauden, in the summer of 1660, put forward his claim …It will be assumed, for the purposes of this note, that Gauden's responsibility for the published Eikon can no longer be denied, and that the issue no longer is, Did Gauden or the King write it?, but, Did the King have any share in it at all?" Yet once again Madan confesses "… the substitution of Gauden for the King, as its sole author, still leaves difficulties unsolved."
However, Dr. Christopher Wordsworth has enervated such doubts and philosophical musings, demonstrating, along with the researches of Edward Scott that there are etymological/apophthegmata similarities between the Eikon Basilike and other writings definitely known to be written by Charles I. Wordsworth has written 700+ pages on the topic and his scholarly observations are simply too vast and exhaustive to be adequately summarized herein although his points are included herein by reference. The interested reader should make every attempt to obtain his work, and digest his insightful observations.
It should be noted that there is a school of thought that supposes that Gauden, although not sole author of the Eikon, at least was the principal author of the work although perhaps making use of some authentic writings of Charles I to form the basis of some portions of the Eikon. This belief was developed in an attempt to harmonize the extant evidences in favor of both Charles I and Gauden. However, it must also be realized that Gauden's claim ultimately rests upon his own assertions that he was the originator of the Eikon. This is in distinction to the evidences in support of Charles I which rest not only on his own published claims, but on the direct testimony of others with first hand knowledge of the King composing the work.
No one ever stated they saw Gauden originally compose the Eikon, except based upon assertions derived directly from Gauden. However, Edward Almack notes that
"In November 1660, by a method of sycophancy, and by pleading that Eikon Basilike, both book and figure, was wholly and only his own invention, making and design, in order to vindicate the King's wisdom, honor, and piety - he obtained the Bishopric of Exeter. In 1662, Gauden, hungering for yet further preferment, succeeded in obtaining his own election to the bishopric of Worcester."
The evidence clearly suggests that Gauden did not claim dual or co-authorship of the Eikon thus enervating the claim that both he and Charles I collaborated on the project together.
Additionally, it has been hypothesized, even by some early Royalists, that Gauden's sole role in the affair was simply that of a copyist. Madan notes on page 129 that "The story that Gauden copied the Eikon from the King's own manuscript was current at an early stage of the controversy, and was accepted by the Royalists as explaining how he came to set up his claim. Gauden, it was said, sent his copy to the press; that was all that he did."
There are statements from individuals of credit, according to Madan, that Gauden had copied the King's Book, and that this version of events was "…accepted by the Royalists on the assumption that by the King's Book it referred to the published Eikon; thereby reducing Gauden to the level of a mere copyist, and exposing his claim to the authorship as a barefaced imposture and fraud." Madan, however, rejects this presumption as being improbable although he has no objective reason to discredit it.
Furthermore, there exist certain expressions exclusive to the Eikon Basilike ("Boutefeu," for example) and not to be found in the writings of Gauden. Moreover, themes such as those found in the Eikon Basilike are unusual if not missing entirely from other writings of Gauden. Thus the stylistic argument is not as strong as might be presumed.
Dr. Edward F. Hills in his work Believing Bible Study, The Christian Research Press, 1977, pages 131-135 notes that "Arguments from style are notoriously weak. They have been used to prove all sorts of things … Long ago, however, Tregelles (1854) admitted 'that arguments on style are often very fallacious, and that by themselves they prove very little."
In his masterpiece, Dr. David Otis Fuller, of ever blessed memory, a friend and mentor of this author, noted in Counterfeit Or Genuine - Mark 16? John 8?, Grand Rapids International Publications, pages 85-98:
"It becomes a fatal objection to such reasoning that the style may indeed be exceedingly diverse and yet the author be confessedly one and the same. How exceedingly dissimilar in style are the Revelation of St. John and the Gospel of John! Moreover, practically, the promised remarks on 'style' when the authorship of some portion of Scripture is to be discussed are commonly observed to degenerate at once into what is really quite a different thing. Single words, perhaps some short phrase, is appealed to which (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same book; and thence it is argued that the author can no longer be the same. According to this argument, the recurrence of the same words constitutes identity of style; difference of style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authorship. Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of 'formulae' within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter employ these formulae, and these only. He must be content with one small portion of his mother tongue and not dare to venture across the limits of that portion, on pain of losing his identity (Dr. Kay). It scarcely requires illustration to show who utterly insecure must be every approximation to such a method of judging about the authorship of any twelve verses of Scripture which can be named. The attentive reader of St. Matthew's Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is six times repeated in his eight and ninth chapters is perhaps only once met with besides in his Gospel, namely, in his twenty-first chapter. The 'style' of the seventeenth verse of his first chapter may be thought unlike anything else in St. Matthew. St. Luke's five opening verses are unique, both in respect of manner and of matter. St. John also in his five opening verses seems to be to have adopted a method which is not recognizable anywhere else in his wrings; 'rising strangely by degrees,' as Bishop Pearson expresses it, 'making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth.' 'He knoweth that he saith true' is the language of the same Evangelist concerning himself in chapter 19:35. But, 'we know that this testimony is true' is his phrase in chapter 21:24. Twice, and twice only throughout his Gospel (viz., in chap. 19:35 and 20:31) is he observed to address his readers, and on both occasions in the same words ('that ye may believe'). But what of all this? Is it to be supposed that S. Matthew, St. Luke, St. John are not the authors of those several places? From facts like these no inference whatsoever is to be drawn as to the genuineness or the spuriousness of a writing. It is quite to mistake the critic's vocation to imagine that he is qualified, or called on, to pass any judgment of the sort."
Arguments from "style" have been used to support theories ranging from Biblical writings allegedly actually being dependent on prior stoic writings, (Stoicism, founded some three hundred years before Christ by Zeno), rather than divine inspiration due to the close similarity between certain phrases used in early Christianity and Stoicism. Allegedly, Saint Paul in Acts 17:28 was actually quoting from the Hymn of Cleanthes, who was the chief disciple of Zeno.
Even the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because certain pre-Christian philosophies used language similar in expression, is supposed to be, according to arguments based on style, the result of paganism rather than divine illumination or Scriptural truth. Furthermore, a stylistic review of this author's own writings would necessitate that I was not the author of all that I am known to have written because certain phraseology or vocabulary do not match.
Advocates of the non-Carolinian authorship of Eikon Basilike oftentimes, in their zeal to establish a connection to John Gauden, inadvertently admit more than they realize with respect to the alleged stylistic similitudes purported to exist between the Eikon Basilike and Gauden's writings. Even the most ardent skeptics of Charles I being the true author of the Eikon Basilike exhibit a curious incongruity in their argument.
For example, it is argued on one hand that the internal evidence is supposedly decisive in favor of John Gauden; however, at the same time it is admitted that none of Gauden's known writings as a whole or altogether match the majesty or in terms of overall honorific theme of the Eikon Basilike.
In this endeavor it is supposed that Gauden created a masterpiece well beyond anything he had been known to compose before or since, and a feat that he never subsequently replicated in his lifetime. In view of the fact that the overall themes of the Eikon Basilike cannot be found to support Gauden as its author, critics of Charles I then turned to much more abstruse stylistic criteria in an effort to validate their internal and subjective assertions.
Reluctant to admit defeat, gratuitous examples of so-called neologisms had to be found, consequently, the delving into the deeply speculative internal criteria commonly offered. However, none of the extant idiosyncratic constructions offered to date have positively proven the claims of the critics. Instead, many arguments of an elliptical and circular nature are offered to the reader.
Thomas Wagstaffe noted above had this to say of the intrinsic evidence:
"The intrinsick evidence, which arises from the Book itself; and if all the testimony for King Charles' being the author was set aside, this would be abundantly sufficient to determine the matter, and would far overbalance all that his been said in behalf of Dr. Gauden, and then times as much more. The truth is the book discovers its own author, and there is not a line or a sentence but plainly owns to the King's hand, and as plainly confutes all the pretenses for Dr. Gauden. 1. The general style. 2. The Historical part of it. 3. Some particulars of the subject matter of it. I. The general Style: by this I do not only mean the phrase and expression, but, together with that, the manner of management; and to this I add, the great weight of the matter; all these are very great and majestic, not only like a King, but like that very King to whom they are ascribed; and let any man compare this Book with other the works of this glorious martyr, and he cannot but see the same generous and free expression, the same clearness of reason, the same greatness of mind; in short, the same majesty throughout. But for the words of Dr. Gauden, there is nothing in the world more unlike a lucious style, stuffed with gaudy metaphors, and fancy, far more expression than matter, a sort of noisy and romantic eloquence.
These are the ornaments of Dr. Gauden's writings; and differ as much from the gravity and majesty of the King's Book, as Tawdriness does from a genteel and accomplished dress … let any man compare the best of Dr. Gauden's writings with this Book, and do it with judgment and discretion, and I dare say, he will be perfectly cured, and he can no more believe, that Dr. Gauden was the author of it, than he can believe that the King's Picture at Whitehall, and that upon a sign post were both drawn by the same hand. I know Dr. Walker talks fine things of a man's changing his style, and differing from himself. But when all the pieces put out in a man's own name shall be loose, forced, stiff, and elaborate, and one single one put out in the name of another, incomparably great and excellent. This is such a change as I believe no man is capable of, and no man can give account for. The force of this therefore does not lie only in the difference of style and expression, but in that total disparity that is between them in every thing; for though a man may vary his style (which yet Dr. Gauden, by the several subjects he hath written, hath given no reason to think that he had a talent that way) yet he cannot be master of better and finer thoughts when he pleases or if he could, to be sure we should see something of them, or at least. Something like them in the works which wear his name and by which he designed to communicate himself to the present age and his memory to posterity. Let a man therefore who has any understanding in these things, compare, this admirable Book, with the genuine works of Dr. Gauden, his sermons, his speeches in the Lords House against the Quakers, and his other tracts and then let him believe they have all the same author if he can. This is so clear and convincing, that nothing ought, nothing can defeat it, but the most plain and invincible proofs."
Wagstaffe goes on to relate that the historical portions of the Eikon Basilike lend further credence to the Carolinian authorship of the book as others would not necessarily be privy to some of the particulars which Charles I related. Moreover, with regard to the subject matter pertaining to the King's stated intentions, and matters of conscience. It is extremely improbable that Dr. Gauden could have had either the knowledge or ability to write in such a way as to portray accurately the King's innermost thoughts.
Strangely enough, even advocates of Gauden somewhat paradoxically list the internal evidence of the Eikon as bipolar in nature. On one hand they assert that internal evidence supports Charles I as author, but on the other hand, in contradiction, they proclaim the internal evidence in favor of Gauden.
For example, Francis F. Madan in his A New Bibliography Of The Eikon Basilike Of King Charles The First, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, New Series Volume III, page 1 of his Preface writes "It had long been intended that this New Bibliography of the Eikon Basilike, with its vindication of King Charles as its originator and principal author, …"
Yet he assumes the contrary as outlined elsewhere based upon internal and external evidences; namely, that Gauden's claim is not only valid but authentic. Madan writes on page 132 that the internal evidence does, however, seem to suggest that Gauden utilized material for the Eikon from another source, probably Charles I "Thus the internal evidence also supports the view that the Eikon was no mere figment of Gauden's imagination, but incorporated authentic material from a pre-existing source." Madan further observes "The case for the dual authorship of the Eikon can also be supported on other grounds…"
Consequently, Madan is arguing for a plurality of possibilities when it comes to authorship of the Eikon, and not advocating the King's exclusive claim to the Eikon which has traditionally been upheld by royalists. This phenomenon is actually quite the norm when it comes to standard analytical discussions of the authorship of the Eikon with most authors advocating the dual authorship based upon theories etiologically founded in subjective conjectural emendation and related subjective principles.
Also of note is the fact that Madan all too easily dismisses the researches and evidences of Wagstaffe and Hollingworth and others as suffering from some contrived statute of limitation as to their probative worth, and relegates them to a body of documentation that is characterized as "of little value as evidence." How one can so easily dismiss the pioneers of the controversy is a good question.
Madan's work, although suffering from pronounced deficiencies in opinion, nevertheless provides the serious researcher of the question of the Eikon with much valuable source documentation. For a listing of the major works on the authorship controversy, albeit from a slanted perspective, yet still worthy of consultation, the researcher will fined the data listed in Appendix I - supplement, pages 134-163. A discussion of the authorship controversy itself preceded this appendix and is to be found on pages 126-133. Also of note is the fact that the infamous Anglesy Memorandum is provided on page 138.
The King's prayers and even his guilt over matters in the past are all indicative of Charles, and not Dr. Gauden, for how could he express another's guilt or heartfelt grief but in vague generality as opposed to the detailed specifics in the Eikon Basilike. If indeed Dr. Gauden managed such a tremendous feat of forgery, how or why then should we accept the testimony of such a felon extrodinare?
Again, with respect to the alleged strength of the internal argument, which is generally overestimated, it must be remembered that this type of analysis is almost wholly subjective, flawed, and certainly prone to a variety of interpretations. While much has been written about the supposed potency of this methodology, it is, nevertheless, unfortunate that internal evidences which strongly suggest that Gauden was not the author of the Eikon have been so long neglected and ignored.
As noted beforehand, Dr. Wordsworth in his staggering treatise "Who Wrote Eikon Basilike" as well as the supporting documentation contained in the "Documentary Supplement" to said work [see also his "King Charles The First, The Author Of Eikon Basilike - Further Proved In A Letter To His Grace The Archbishop Of Canterbury In Reply To The Objections Of Todd, Broughton, &etc…"] offered much valuable data on concerns of this nature. The combination of these works is well over 700 pages in length! Similarly, Edward Almack in his "Biography Of The Eikon Basilike" provided the intellectual community with insightful analysis of the situation as well as up to date research.
Lamentably, most modern authors have relegated such ameliorative sources to virtual oblivion. For the benefit of the concerned reader I would like to place before your attention Almack's general observations found in his edition of the Eikon. I am working from The King's Classics series, edited by Professor Gollancz, Eikon Basilike, Or The King's Book edited by Edward Almack, F.S.A., printed by Alexander Morning Limited, the De La More Press, London, 1904.
Almack writes
"Internal Evidence as to Authorship. - But as a matter of fact the internal evidence supplied by the Eikon itself affords the strongest possible refutation of the claims of Dr. Gauden to its authorship. Dr. Gauden published a book called å t r a t o s t h l i t e u t i k o i , 'a Just Invective against those of the Army and their Abettors, who murdered King Charles I.' This book, he tells us, he wrote upon February 10th, immediately after the murder of the King; that is, probably not more than a month or two after he must have composed the closing chapters of the Eikon. (In Dugard's affidavit, see pages 6 and 7 of the Bibliography, we have the date of Gauden's work confirmed). Let us take a passage or two from his address to the Army, and compare it with what we have learned of the temper of the King - that temper so emphatically expressed by the word 'Remember (The King's dying reminder to Bishop Juxon, that none, but his actual murderers, should ever be punished).
|
Extracts From Gauden's 'Just Invective.' |
Extracts From 'Eikon Basilike.' |
|
"Go on, you Appollyons, you Abadons, in the spirit of Antichrist to fill up the measure of your abominations, till you are drunk with blood, and stumble and fall together. O you locusts, the blackest smoke and noisomest vapor that ever the breath of the bottomless Pit exhaled, or sent forth into the Christian world … We assure you that you are now looked upon by all sober and honest minds, as the heaviest and filthiest Incubuses that ever oppressed Church or State; as the Legions of unclean Spirits, which by diabolical arts and magic of hypocrisy, have got possession of this Church and Kingdom, till Christ by his power cast you out, and suffer you like the Demoniac Swine, through the just judgment of God, to be hurried headlong by your own terrors, and despairs, into the Lake that burns with fire and brimstone. … You are like accursed Chams, not mockers only, but murderers, of the Father of your country; impudent ravishers both of Church and State, to satisfy your most abominable lusts of tyranny, covetousness, and all licentious prophaneness. Monsters of men, putrid apostates, execrable Saints, shameless sinners, traitorous tyrants, what have you to plead for, or palliate with your late horrid outrages, and unparalleled villainies? Nor do we doubt but all the curses in the book of God, (which like that of Meroz, have been causelessly, fictitiously, and falsely, by some of your double faced Januses) he here refers to his friend and neighbor, Stephen Marshall - formerly imprecated upon the King, and his loyalest subjects, will certainly overtake and fall upon both you and your viperous generation … We tell you, we are so far from counting you Saints and Saviors, that we look upon you as the Tophet which God hath indeed prepared for the King, and these kingdoms, to try and correct them a while. But, we doubt not, God will at last cast you, who are our Sin, our Death, and our hell, into the Lake that burns with fire and brimstone for ever … Lastly, How can zimris, who have so traitorously slain such a King, their Lord and Master, ever hope to have peace, or impunity in this, or the other world? …
Extracts From Gauden's 'Just Invective.' Nor will, we hope, our Solomon {Charles II} by God's blessing, and his subjects' assistance, suffer the hairy scalps of those who were the chief counselors and actors, in destroying his dear father, and our dread Sovereign, to go down to the grave in peace, or to die a dry death, who have shed the blood of war, in a time when all differences were by a treaty drawn to a peace and union. " |
"If Thou wilt bring me again with peace, safety and honor, to my chiefest City, and my Parliament; … If thou wilt again put the sword of Justice into my hand to punish and to protect: Then will I make all the world to see, and my very enemies to enjoy, the benefit of this Vow and Resolution of Christian Charity, which I now make unto Thee, O Lord. As I do freely pardon, for Christ's sake, those that have offended me in any kind; so my hand shall never be against any man, to revenge what is past, in regard of any particular injury done to me. We have been mutually punished in our unnatural divisions. For Thy sake, O Lord, and for the love of my redeemer, have I purposed this in my heart, that I will use all means in the way of amnesty and indemnity, which may most fully remove all fears, and bury all jealousies in forgetfulness. Let Thy Mercies be towards Me and Mine, as my resolutions of truth and peace are toward my people. Hear my prayer, O Lord, which goeth not out of feigned lips." (Chap. Xxv) [From the Chapter To The Prince Of Wales] "But as soon as the forked arrow of factious emulations is drawn out, use all princely arts and clemency, to heal the wounds; that the smart of the cure may not equal the anguish of the hurt. I have offered Acts of indemnity and oblivion to so great a latitude, as may include all that can but suspect themselves to be any way obnoxious to the laws; and which might serve to exclude all future jealousies and insecurities. I would have you always propense to the same way. Whenever it shall be desired and expected, let it be granted; not only as an act of State-Policy, but of Christian charity and choice. It is all I have now left, a power to forgive those that have deprived me of all. And I thank God that I have a heart to do it: and joy as much in this grace which God hath given me, as in all my former enjoyments. For this is a greater argument of God's love to me than any prosperity can be."
Extracts From 'Eikon Basilike.' From The End Of The Book: "O Lord, Thou knowest I have found their mercies to me, as very false, so very cruel; who, pretending to preserve me, have meditated nothing but my ruin. O deal not with them as bloodthirsty and deceitful men: but overcome their cruelty with Thy compassion and my charity. And when thou makest inquisition for my blood, O sprinkle their polluted, yet penitent souls, with the blood of Thy Son, that Thy destroying Angel may pass over them. Though they think my kingdoms on earth too little to entertain at once both them and me; yet let the capacious kingdom of Thy infinite Mercy at last receive both Me and my Enemies. When being reconciled to Thee in the blood of the same redeemer, we shall live far above these ambitious desires, which beget such mortal enmities. |
Almack observes:
"There is of course much more that could be said upon the same question of internal evidence, but as to do so would take me beyond the limits of this introduction, I must refer the reader to pages 11 and seq. Of the Bibliography, where the subject has been treated at greater length than is here possible. Here it will be sufficient to remark that whereas Mr. Doble, following other writers on the subject, considered the Eikon too ecclesiastical in style for a king, Dr. Gardiner, on the contrary, in his Life of Charles the First, (Dic. Nat. Biog.) affirmed that the King was very much at home in using the weapons of religious controversy. This was always stated by the King's contemporaries, but it is worth while to note Dr. Gardiner's confirmation.
This argument of Mr. Doble's, as is the case with several other arguments advanced by him has really proved an additional justification of the title of King Charles I. to the authorship of the Eikon Basilike (In speaking to me in about 1898, Dr. Gardiner said that he had read and studied the Eikon Basilike, and was struck by constantly coming upon sentences expressing just what Charles the First would naturally have expressed, and expressed too just in his way, whether rightly or not).
The researches of Almack and Wordsworth, being some of the best neoteric and penetrating works contemporary with the modern investigator, are worth exploring independently from the other momentous works perused beforehand. The data contained within these two volumes will serve to supplement, validate, authenticate and establish the researches of Hollingworth, Wagstaffe.
However, before we begin with this noble endeavor it would be wise to very briefly consider, as a prelude to the above, J. Young's "Several Evidences Which Have Not Yet Appeared In The Controversy Concerning The Author Of E I K W N B A å I A I K H - To The Reverend Mr. Wagstaffe," London, 1703. Soon after the publication of Amyntor attacking the Eikon Young had decided to publish a vindication of the Royal Martyr's title to that famous book. However, Wagstaffe's work was published before Young could get his own work to the press.
Young praises the scope, detail, and accuracy of Wagstaffe's volume, but begs leave of the author to present him with the fruits of his research not yet published in any volume, in the hope that Wagstaffe and others would benefit thereby from such rare facts. Young was vehement against the claim of Gauden, and for good reason. Young provides a wide array of evidences in favor of the Caroline authorship of the Eikon from such independent sources as Huntington, Courtenay, Beck, Duke, Bull, and Read among many others. Testimony is taken from, for example, Dr. Bull pertaining to the existence of a Naseby copy of the Eikon. Further supporting testimony is gleaned from such individuals as the Earl of Manchester, and Henry Morgarit.
Morgarit testified on January 21, 1693, that "Oliver Cromwell making a visit to the Lady Wenwood, found the King's Book in the Chamber, Madam said he I see you have Charles Stuart's Book in your keeping! Yes my Lord, said the Lady, but do you believe he was the author of it? Yes, most certainly, said the Usurper, I know it is his, he was a perfect hypocrite." Furthermore, Colonel Unton Crook, "a creature of Cromwell's," is noted to have confessed that he had seen the Book written by the King's own hand, and was very sure that he was the author of it. This is supported by the recorded and witnessed statement "Colonel Crook told me he had seen a copy of the Icon Basilice of the King's own writing, and that he never doubted him to be the author."
Young believes that this testimony from one of Charles' greatest enemies, and the Protector's best friends, is most valuable. Young provides further supporting data from Rogers, Osborn and Long who authenticate particulars of the matter, and all serve to support the contention that Charles was indeed the author of the Eikon. Young goes on to relate a wide array of other evidences in favor of the Royal authorship, and next comes to the widow of My Symonds.
Young relates that her testimony has been provided on numerous occasions, but yet at this time offers yet another testimony by her, witnessed by others to the effect that:
"Ellen Spanne, late widow of Edward Symonds of Rayn in Essex, saith, that in the year 48 the said Edward Symonds, her then husband, did deliver the copy of the King's Book, called Icon Basilike, to Mr. Royston to be printed, and that the sheets, when printed, were sent to their lodgings, then in Carter-Lane, London, and were seized by some soldiers, which hindered it from being published for some small time, and further saith, that her husband on his death bed, being asked by Dr. Bathurst his physician,
who was the author of that Book? did affirm it was King Charles the First's own writing, and that he neither added, nor diminished the same, but delivered it to Mr. Royston as he received it, the truth of this is attested June 22, 1694, by me, under my hand, in the presence of Robert Whitledge, Thomas Spanne, signed Ellen Spanne."
Young further notes how Dr. Gauden, by contrivance had access to the King's Book, transcribed it, and later used it for his own purposes.
Young also relates, pertaining to the Anglesey Memorandum, the sentiments of his son, Lord Altham, late Dean of Exeter, whom is known by Mr. Young, stating that nothing contained in the memorandum purported to be written by Lord Anglesey, his father, was ever issued from his lips during his lifetime. Furthermore, Lord Altham was of the persuasion that Charles was the author thereof, and that his father knowing this never sought to dissuade him from this opinion. Moreover, the character of the person discovering the disputed memorandum, Millington, is not held in a favorable light by persons connected with the controversy, indeed, they believed the memorandum to be a forgery because they never could get a sight of it despite repeated attempts to do so.
Young goes on to relate that Dr. Mawdar, a Fellow of the R. College of Physicians in London is recorded to have stated: "that while he attended the King in the Civil Wars, he had an opportunity to peruse part of that Chapter in the R. Icon, 'On The Queen's Departure &c.', newly written by the King, he told me he saw him writing on the paper, and a sudden occasion calling him from it, … gave this gentleman opportunity to read what his Majesty was writing, he told me many particulars …"
Young relates with reference to Dr. Perinchief the fact that "The regicides were very much disturbed at the publication of the King's Book, and being unable to suppress it, they hired Milton to answer and expose it; and employed others to deny his being the author, but, says he, Hammond who had been his jailer at Carisbrook, and one of his Judges at Westminster, confessed to several persons that he had seen it in the King's hand, heard him read, and seen him write part of it."
This is confirmed by the testimony of Sir Thomas Herbert in his Memoirs where he writes "Once while the King was abroad to take the air about Carisbrook, Hammond got into his Majesty's closet, and inspected his papers, when he could not want opportunity to see his M.S. it be (as by Mr. Levet and many other testimonies appears) left open enough to view of any that were permitted, or otherwise go into that place." Moreover, Sir Philip Warwick, was a gentleman who attended the King during his confinement at the Isle of Wight, and left behind his Memoirs of that period, and states that "He tells us that he heard the King speak many of the things contained in it, that Mr. Levet his fellow servant saw and read the original, and that Mr. Herbert, afterward Sir T. Herbert, who was appointed by the Parliament to attend the King, told him he had seen the M.S. I observe here that Mr. Levet, who was page of the bed chamber, all the while the King was captive at Carisbrook…"
All this is corroborated by the attestations of Mr. Bowerman and Sir W. Dugdale, who also testified that he saw the M.S. in the King's hand, and that his Majesty bequeathed him an original of it before his death. Even the implacable enemies of the King are noted to admit that Charles was writing some papers which he wished to publish, and there are the recorded testimonies from individuals who received instructions from the King of this intention, and Young concludes from his own examination of the evidence of record that this must necessarily refer to the celebrated Naseby copy of the Eikon.
Young provides the interested reader with more information, but if one wishes to further examine this document, it is this author's estimation that it should be done with a coextensive examination of Wagstaffe's 1711 edition of his work to provide the most comprehensive review possible as the two authors compliment one another so well both in fact and deed.
We now come to a source which will lay the groundwork for our examination of the learned Dr. Wordsworth's volume mentioned above. In order to gain some preliminary perspective we will consult The Quarterly Review, Volume XXXII., June/October 1825, London. The article is by Robert Southey, and it attempts to discuss objectively the value and worth of Wordsworth's examination. Southey writes "The letters of Dr. Wordsworth, and the Supplement since published, afford the fullest and most satisfactory view that has yet been given of a subject equally interesting as it regards literature, and important as it is connected with history. For more than a century and a half the authenticity of King Charles the First's Meditations has been, from time to time, impugned and vindicated with alternate triumph; the discoveries of new evidence have furnished new topics of dispute; and even Dr. Wordsworth's essay, elaborate as it is in argument and copious in proof, has not exhausted the question, nor removed all its difficulties." Be this as it may, the author concludes with Wordsworth that Gauden's claim is spurious, and that the Eikon was indeed the work of none other than Charles I.
The author next provides an abbreviated history of the inception and history of the Eikon from the initial reaction of its critics, to the sentiments of Royalists. With the advent of popular sentiment on the side of the King after his murder, the author writes "Of a work appearing under such circumstances, and with such results, the genuineness must have been an immediate subject of speculation; and those who dreaded the influence of the book were of course willing to diminish its credit by declaring it spurious." The relations contained in the famous publication The Princely Pelican is abridged for the reader. Next the author moves on to the subject of the Iconoclastes by Milton, and Dr. Walkers relations are also related.
The historical narrative continues relating many of the particulars from Hollingworth, and Wagstaffe. Next the author discusses the relevance of the recent discovery in 1782 of the letters written by Dr. Gauden and his widow, published in Dr. Maty's New Review from manuscripts taken from Dr. Birch's papers in the British Museum. Some are addressed to the Earl of Bristol, and in 1786 a third volume of the Clarendon State Papers was printed, and in these contained other letters by Dr. Gauden addressed to Lord Clarendon. These letters have direct and substantial relevance to the claim of Gauden. With the advent of these discoveries, the opinion of many was swayed to the side of Gauden.
Now just prior to the time when Dr. Wordsworth decided to take up the issue, and with the discover of the heretofore mentioned letters by Gauden, authors supporting the King's claim to the work seem to be scarce, indeed, the cause seemingly abandoned. "It is under these circumstances that Dr. Wordsworth enters the lists, to make good against all opponents, that the E i c w n B a s i l i c h is indeed a King's portraiture, designed by his own hand." Dr. Wordsworth is singled out as a notable example of discovering and preserving some documents thought to be long lost relative to this topic.
The author, seeking order in his examination, decides to first examine the external and direct or durable evidence on the side of both Gauden and Charles I. Next the "antecedent probabilities" on each side will be examined with respect to its agreement with the objective data. "The 'external evidence' on Gauden's side may be divided into three principal heads: 1. The narratives of his wife and curate. 2. His own letters to Clarendon and Bristol; Clarendon's reply; and the petitions to Charles II and the Duke of York. 3. The declarations of these two personages as recorded in the Lord Anglesey's memorandum, and elsewhere. The author begins by examining the principal part of Mrs. Gauden's statement. It is interesting to note that Mrs. Gauden's feelings on the subject are "…strongly described in Gauden's letters of solicitation to Clarendon, in which he speaks of her 'sad reflections,' and inability to 'bear with any temper the streights to which her family is reduced by his insufficient promotion." It should be noted that the concept of financial gain and professional advancement is a recurring them in both Gauden's claims and the relations of his wife. Also, Gauden in his letters claims that Mrs. Gauden had a hand in "disguising the letters which were sent to the king at Newport" this her part in the scheme is admitted by her husband.
Interestingly, Mrs. Gauden "never vouches any person as a witness to impeach or confirm her account, and omits even to mention Walker, …" Mrs. Gauden's account, as noted by earlier authors, is contradictory and fraught with internal inconsistencies and errors. Indeed, even the author of this article laments "Mrs. Gauden's story contains some striking improbabilities." These problems are discussed, digested, and detailed in this article for the reader to clearly see. Also, the improbabilities of her narrative as compared to the claims of her husband are also identified.
It is instructive to note that many modern day authors, seeking some harmony in the widely variegated accounts inherent and indicative in the Gauden camp, have sought to promote the view that Gauden and Charles collaborated, or were at least co-authors of the Eikon; however, this opinion invalidates and utterly destroys Gauden's own claim that the Icon was "wholly and only his invention, making and design."
Due to the hopeless task of remediating the conflicting testimony, and in light of the sheer strength of the evidence on the side of the King, many critics have, as noted above, sought the errant path of attempting to reconcile the accounts, which only produces a distortion where Gauden is a compiler, co-author, and/or editor of the King's Book.
For example, in Eikon Basilike edited by Philip A. Knachel, Cornell University Press, page xxxii, Knachel, quoting Madan, in his Introduction writes "Thus Eikon Basilike, though actually written by Dr. John Gauden, was based on a core of material which the King had himself composed-and Gauden's manuscript was read and corrected by the King before going to press. This interpretation satisfactorily resolves the major contradictions which the mass of evidence for Gauden and for the King had seemed to pose. A number of the details of the story remain in doubt because of conflicts of testimony. Nevertheless, Madan has constructed an account of the authorship which in its principal outline can be supported by the evidence from both sides."
Elsewhere (page xxxi) Knachel argues that "Charles approved of the text as it was read to him … and he corrected and revised Gauden's draft." Maintaining this premise; however, is so fundamentally destructive to Gauden's own claims as to render it clearly improbable and untenable. It is obviously a desperate construct formulated out of a desire to partially recognize Gauden's claim, while at the same moment harmonize the conflicting facts inherent in such a case, while paying lip service to the vast documentation distinctly on the side of the King.
Moving on, the author of The Quarterly Review after discussing in some detail the aspects of Gauden's claim as it has reference to supporting documentation, concludes that "It is worth remarking, in addition, that the widow contradicts the clearest and most positive statements of her husband and Walker, where she represents the former as obtaining an audience of Charles before his interview with the Duke."
To some extent, portions of the correspondence between Gauden and Clarendon are related for the readers pleasure. It is worthy to note that Gauden repeatedly asks for monetary remuneration, and even goes so far as to specify a specific amount. Further, Gauden, anticipating the demise of a Bishopric, in his estimation rich in funding, seeks to gain such an office, before the demise of the holder of that office, much like an over eager vulture feeding on the flesh of a still breathing creature. Next, the author lists Wagstaffe's the views of the second Early of Clarendon pertaining to the views reportedly held by his father, which by the way, are contrary to the critical account. In further quoting Gauden, he is quoted as "played the best card in his hand something too late" pertaining to his alleged production of the Eikon and seeking adequate compensation for such a task.
Our author proceeds to list and analyze various forms of evidences and documentation as they relate to the question of the validity of evidence in general, and the inquiry into the precise authorship of the Eikon itself. The testimony of Levet is provided: "I myself says the faithful domestic (and his declaration is well authenticated) 'very often saw the King write that which is printed in that book, and did daily read the manuscript of his own hand, in many sheets of paper: and seldom that I read it but tears came from me; and I do truly believe that there is not a page in that book but what I have read under the King's own hand, before it was printed.'" In summarizing such vast evidences in support of the Royal authorship, and against the Gauden claim, the author writes "We think then that the preponderance of direct proofs is clearly on the royalist side."
The question occurs to the author, could Charles I have written the Eikon? The answer is an emphatic yes, just as David was moved by his many sufferings to write the Psalms, so too was Charles, by virtue of his own persecutions, moved and entirely capable of writing the Eikon. Our author puts it this way "His literary and theological attainments are well known; and experience and sorrows had matured in him that wisdom, unhappily more speculative than practical, which justified the observation, that 'had the king been a counselor to any other prince, he would have gained the esteem of an oracle.'"
The next question naturally arises, could Gauden write in such a way as to so perfectly portray the King's deepest and innermost thoughts? No, and this is evidenced by a consultation of Gauden's known writings, and the fact that he was so little known to the king. "Gauden was no royal chaplain, or household rhetorician; he had lived at a distance from the court and among those estranged from it by party feeling … It does not appear that he ever had any intercourse with the king but that of once preaching before him." Furthermore, the claims of Gauden are suspect, and there seems to be a body of evidence that he, contrary to his protestations of "standing in the gap", sought out the favor of the Regicides for the purposes of his own personal gain.
In addition, our author in mentioning The Religious and Loyal Protestation, which was a pamphlet of Gauden written in 1649, and compares it to Chapter xxviii of the Eikon and asks "Is it probable that the man who carried submission so far in his own person, could have felt it politic to use this roughness when sustaining the character of another?" Moreover, our author states that "There are in King Charles' book some passages of self-condemnation, which Dr. Gauden would hardly have presumed to lay before that prince for his adoption…" Furthermore, how could such a stranger as Gauden was to the king offer such sentiments as these to him for adoption as "his sense and genius?" Pertaining to Lord Strafford "an act of so sinful frailty, that it discovered more a fear of man than of God, whose name and place on earth no man is worthy to bear, who will avoid inconveniences of state by acts of so high injustice as o public convenience can expiate or compensate (Chap ii);" or "by my sins have I fought against thee, and robbed thee of thy glory, who am thy subject, and justly mayest thou, by my own subjects, strip me of my strength and eclipse my glory" (Chap x). Our author remarks further "And again, we consider it unlikely that a fabricator, possessed of any discretion, or desiring to avoid unnecessary difficulties, would have ventured on the king's last injunctions to his son; or attempted a chapter 'on the Queen's Departure and Absence out of England.'"
The author writes further "We do think it scarcely possible that Gauden could have tamed himself to the mournful stateliness of the Icon; nor do we know why, having no model before him, he should have been induced to attempt it We do not believe that he had good taste enough to compose a single chapter of the Meditations, and however successfully men may imitate other qualities, they cannot affect a taste superior to their own … Men's writings are usually supposed to bear an affinity to their characters, and if we apply this reflection as a test, the Icon must be awarded to Charles, not Gauden." "In writing to Clarendon of his own and his wife's feelings on their condition at Exeter, 'It will be,' he says, 'a dishonor to which neither of our tempers can comply so willingly as with death; for we hope we are fit for death, but not to live so much below ourselves.' Could this man elevate his thoughts to the meditation 'On the Queen's Departure out of England?" Nothing Charles grace and style, in contrasting them with Gauden's mean character our author writes "But Gauden could rail bitterly when no point of policy interfered. His Anti Baal-Berith and Invective against the Army are mere manuals of abuse."
Furthermore, in c.xviii of the Eikon it is written "What we could not get by our treaties, we may gain by our prayers." And in a speech given by Charles to the University of Oxford he said "When war cannot prevail upon me, piety hath done." (See Somers Tracts, Vol. iv. P. 480). The same antithesis in English is important.
In concluding the review of Wordsworth's volume our author writes "If there was no way to rescue Charles from the scaffold but the forgery of Dr. Gauden, it was better the monarch should die than that the spurious volume should go forth with his and Lord Hertford's approbation; better the church should be deprived of its earthly stay, than that Morely, Duppa, and Sheldon should connive at the imposture. Our belief is that neither King Charles nor his illustrious and holy advisers would have entertained any other opinion. A high spirited prince, and the men worth to be his friends, will look on degradation as the last of evils; and good churchmen will hold, as the truest wisdom, that noble maxim of the historian, Intuta quæ indecora."
With this in mind, no we proceed to the Master of Trinity College, Christopher Wordsworth's volume on this topic. At the outset, let me freely admit that to do justice to Wordsworth's massive volumes is a task far beyond the scope and intent of this study. However, this being so, it is nevertheless instructive for my gentle readers to have some access to the assiduous research of this hard to find work. Despite my confession, I will now proceed to the task at hand. I will be consulting a work primarily representative of the whole which is entitled WHO WROTE EIKW N BAå IAKH? CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED IN TWO LETTERS ADDRESSED TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY by the Reverend Christopher Wordsworth, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge &c. It was published in London in 1824. (See listing of subsequent volumes by this same other elsewhere in this study).
The work begins by discussing the claims of Bishop Gauden, and providing a historical narrative of the issue. We will not restate all these particulars here for the sake of brevity. As for some evidences for the king, also for the sake of economy we will limit these sources to new information as many have already been stated for the learned reader. It is interesting that on pages 93-95 Wordsworth offers evidence pertaining to Mr. Prynne "…that by order of Parliament he had the perusal of all the papers after they were sent up to London; and then and there saw the chapters of the Icon Basilike; and lastly of Colonel Okey all three having on different occasions seen the manuscript, immediately after its capture at Naseby; and communicating other and very pertinent circumstances respecting it." It is important to realize that these individuals were reported to have seen with their own eyes the Eikon, and at a time which thoroughly enervates Gauden's claim. Wordsworth characterizes this army of witnesses as a "… multitude of evidences on Charles's side, totally inconsistent with the claim of Gauden."
Milton does not escape the pen of Wordsworth for he writes of the king-hating poet "The aim of Milton, I think it cannot be doubted, was to arrest the influence of the Icon, and to impair its credit with the people, (something the Regicides deeply feared!) without being scrupulous as to the means. For this purpose, the circumstance of the authorship was not to be neglected. Only once instill a suspicion that the book, perhaps, might be a forgery; and then, the design would be accomplished."
Even though in many places in Milton's "Iconoclastes"he pays lip service to it being the work of the King, one must not forget the circumstances which surrounded the publication of his attack on the King's Book. Wordsworth writes "Assuredly, my Lord, when I reflect upon the circumstances in which Cromwell and the Council of State found themselves now placed; knowing that all the hearts were against them; hearing themselves pursued to their Privy Chamber by curses loud and deep, not only from their own country, but from all quarters of the civilized world: when, therefore, they were called upon by every consideration to do their uttermost, and yet so little was effected: when their endeavors to cause a diversion in their own favor, by attempting to excite suspicion of forgery in the King, totally failed, then,…"
From page 114 to 126 there are many different evidentiary sources and individuals named in support of the Eikon being the product of the King, not Gauden. These are enumerated very distinctly, and midway through his summary Wordsworth notes "Now, my Lord, it is of the utmost consequence that we bear in mind, that this whole chain of sundry various, independent, yet consistent testimonies (which I might add is new and material, not merely cumulative to what we have already discussed) hitherto enumerated, is every particle of it prior to the time when Gauden says that he went down the manuscript to the Isle of Wight, by the hands of the Marquess of Hertford. And till now, therefore, we have not a single word, all is a perfect blank on the side of Gauden."
Earlier in this work I have demonstrated how Bradshaw and his allies tried to force those loyal to the King to claim that the Eikon was a forgery. I have also included the testimony from Mr. Symonds widow asserting that the Eikon was indeed the work of Charles I. Wordsworth also includes testimony that the Regicides attempted to force, by threats, intimidation, and even promises the widow of Mr. Symonds to declare the Eikon a forgery on behalf of her deceased husband.
This she steadfastly would not do, and instead, she proclaimed that it was her husband's dying belief, and her belief as well, that Charles I was the author of the Eikon, much to the dismay of the Patricides! I should pause for a moment to reflect on the apparent extent which the murderers of the King went to in order to try to force those knowledgeable about the Eikon to claim it was a spurious work and not that of the King.
Given the extreme and often violent measures they engaged in so as to promote this belief, would it not be natural to assume that they do everything they could in order to foster this lie upon the public mind? Out of this desire, we find a willing participant in the drama, Bishop Gauden, who as we shall see, promoted his claim not out of truth, but for the desire of personal gain and benefit. One cannot help but be reminded of the actions of the Sanhedrim outlined in John 9 in their inquisition of the blind man, compare this with Bradshaw's rancorous remark to Royston "How so bad a man could write so good a book?! They tried to deny the miracle wrought upon the blind man, but this point is yet further in our study, now we must return to Wordsworth's volume.
Earlier in this work I postulated that the notion that Gauden somehow collaborated and/or cooperated with the King to produce the Eikon was a falsehood. Wordsworth aptly expands on my sentiments for he writes "…hypotheses in matters of fact are hazardous things, …" And in the same vein, noting that the assumption that Gauden and the King could both be author of the Eikon: "Gauden himself has supplied us with an easy and effectual refutation of it, in the compass of a very few words. He has put himself out of all power of having any such plea urged in his behalf. He scorns to divide the palm. 'This book and figure,' says he, 'was wholly, and only my invention, making, and design.' And if Bishop Duppa had had any more share in the work, than the King himself, how was it possible that Gauden could have used those words in immediate connection with an appeal to that Prelate? 'and it was delivered to the King by the now Bishop of Winchester.' But in addition to this direct and positive declaration of Gauden to the contrary, I would observe, that in my judgment, there is a total absence of evidence, whether external or internal, of any thing like a conjugation of labors, a joint authorship in the performance. Be it Gauden's, or the King's, the work is one, and the author is one. Seeing, therefore, that there are two claimants for the entire work, it is plain, that there is falsehood on one side or the other."
We know; however, that Gauden's claims are contradictory in this regard, and that no such contradiction exists with respect to the royal authorship. Why then do so many doubt what is obvious? Gauden says "His Majesty graciously accepted, owned, and adopted it as his sense and genius, not only with great approbation, but admiration!" Dr. Walker's account is very different, for therein Gauden is unsure if his Majesty had even seen the document much less given him praise after reading it. Wordsworth provides the contradictions in the various accounts in a cohesive manner quite succinctly, and in more able fashion than this present writer. However, suffice it to say, that with such conflicting claims one cannot help but wonder about the veracity of any one account, especially with such startling and foundational oppositions of major facts as exist with respect to Gauden's claim.
The remainder of the first letter deals with various other aspects of the case, and Wordsworth is not shy to bring to the readers attention such facts that are inconsistent with Gauden's claim, and data that is supportive of the King's claim. Much of this external evidence is gleaned from a careful reading of Hollingworth, Wagstaffe, and Long as well as others. One can also see the studious and tedious research of Wordsworth himself on the issue, oftentimes bringing to light much new data, or information that expends or verifies which his predecessors had long ago suggested or stated.
In letter two we come to the point where Wordsworth deals with the internal evidence, which the critics claim is overpowering in favor of Gauden, and which Wordsworth entirely refutes with artistic flair and scholarly genius. I will not attempt to go far beyond that which I have already produced in the internal evidence portion of this treatise. Dr. Wordsworth's comparisons between Gauden's known writings and those proven to be the Kings, with reference to the Eikon is simply too vast, extensive, and detailed. Suffice it to say that there is and are myriad evidences of internal criteria to strongly suggest that the Eikon was that truly of the King. Wordsworth makes this point clear by consultation of words, sentences, paragraphs, and entire pages of text compared between the two, not to mention the general tenor and character of the Eikon as compared with that of the works of Gauden. It is instructive to note that even the staunchest of Gauden's claimants have not to this very day produced one work from Bishop Gauden which matches the grandeur, majesty, integrity and greatness of the Eikon, and they have had many many years to do so.
We should not forget how Gauden has portrayed himself as doing such great service to the Crown and the Church, how he "stood in the gap" and how he condemned those responsible for Charles I's murder. However, as Wordsworth so aptly notes "… there is proof enough extant, that Gauden was not backward in endeavors to recommend himself to Oliver Cromwell, the Protector. Of this kind I consider his letters to Oliver Cromwell's Almoner, Dr. Nicholas Bernard, given in the Thurloe Papers …He refers to Cromwell as one who 'supports heaven; which,' says he, 'is the work only of a mighty and invincible Atlas. Now we know what endeavors Cromwell made to convict the Icon Basilike of forgery. I put it to any one, whether it be probable, that Gauden could have withstood the temptation of securing the Usurper's affections for ever. He, who being already a Bishop, made no scruple to wound the feelings of his Sovereign, and the Royal Family, by revealing their father's shame, and to endanger his reputation for ever, merely because he saw himself 'not so much considered in his present disposure at Exeter, as he hoped he should have been,' would he have forborne to avail himself of his secret, if he then had one; and thus to place himself at the very head of the Commonwealth Divines, ready for any scheme of Church-government that might offer? Cromwell, it is well known, had it in his thoughts, with the view of giving some share of stability to his government, to restore Episcopacy.
Gauden advises him to do so; and almost in the same breath, this same Gauden, in the true spirit of the pretended 'Nolo episcopari, says, 'towards which dignity, I never was, nor am an ambitious aspirer.'" {Hieraspistes, 1653, p. 561). Wordsworth concludes "These, my Lord, are some of the antecedent presumptions, and inherent improbabilities, which confirm me, from internal evidence, in the belief that the book is none of Gauden's."
If one peruses pages 305-318 are detailed comparisons of Gauden's writings, and those found in the Eikon, all showing, according to Wordsworth, that Gauden is not the author of same. This is a mass of internal evidence, not consisting of a few words and sentences, but whole paragraphs and literally portions of text en masse which demonstrably make Wordsworth case so clearly and eloquently.
What makes this body of evidence so impressive is the fact, as can be found on pages 318-327, that in the many items of data that are compared "… we can again refer for comparison, to private letters of Charles, never seen by Dr. Gauden…" Such makes it virtually impossible for Gauden to be a successful forger in this regard. One of the many striking things about Gauden's correspondence when compared to the Eikon is the fact how many times Gauden deplores his suffering, and in the Eikon Charles readily accepts his suffering, and even believes it to be of divine origin! Another internal evidence that Gauden was not the true author.
Wordsworth later in the book launches into an investigation in to the history of the period, and the political environment which was in vogue. Wordsworth shows quite clearly that Gauden possessed neither the political acumen nor the historical skills evidenced so abundantly in the Eikon. Some of the documentation supporting the events related in the Eikon were simply not available to Dr. Gauden, and so he would naturally have no way of knowing about such events, much less write about them with any degree of accuracy or authority. Furthermore, the orthography of the Eikon, when compared to documents supporting same, never seen by Gauden, are striking. Wordsworth gives the particular quotations and carefully details each instance with peculiar care. What is even more interesting is the fact that Laing, a critic of Charles I's claim to authorship of the Eikon, when attempting to support Gauden's claim, admits to his distress, that at least one passage in the Eikon "… may contain a court-secret;…" Wordsworth writes "Now, my Lord, I hold it is among the most improbable things in the world, that Gauden should possess a 'court secret,' upon any subject; and much more, upon so intricate a transaction as the present. A state-secret we may have in these words: this I am not disposed to deny. But the question is, to whom are we indebted for the disclosure of it? Assuredly not to Gauden, a private clergyman in Essex, not 'a court divine; …"
Wordsworth goes on to list yet other instances where the instances in which Gauden may employ a word or phrase similar to the Eikon, yet it is nevertheless meant in a way much different from the Eikon, and thus tends to discredit the application of such data as relevant evidence. Wordsworth examines other instances of phraseology, poems, and tones in the Eikon, finding them wholly absent in Gauden, but natural in the works of Charles I.
Wordsworth asks the valid question, how could Gauden "…draw the portrait of a person whom he had never seen?" He certainly was not taken into the confidence of the King, and had little if any exposure to either his person or court. How could a prelate who bitterly detests his opined poverty, earnestly seeks power, disdains perceived suffering, violently attacks his enemies portray the virtues of Charles I which are antithetical those characteristic of Gauden? Wordsworth characterizes Gauden with many adjectives such as vain, self seeking, self exalted and so on. There is a reason why Gauden is saddled with these type of characterizations, and it is not simply out of bitterness or hatred as critics claim. I will have more to say on this point later on.
Finally, Wordsworth makes reference to a poem entitled "In Martyrium Caroli Primi, Magnæ Britanniæ Regis invicti, and it is subscribed at the end, 'Flevit J.G.'" (John Gauden). "It contains a passage which refers to the Icon Basilike, and refers to it, as the work of the king." Could this not be the real admission of the truth?
As rich and full as this work is, as enjoying it is to read and digest, I must now end this summation of Wordsworth. Those who hold the Eikon was the work of the King need not acquiesce to the pretensions of those who claim superior scholarship has decided the matter in favor of Gauden. Such is not the case. Let the critics produce one as qualified as Wordsworth, Almack, Hollingworth, or Wagstaffe. Let them conjure up words from the pit of their imaginations - all will be to no avail. No matter how many times a lie is repeated, no matter how many people proclaim it, nothing can change the fact that it is a lie, it always has been, and always will be. For a while one may disguise himself to look like another, but all masks fade eventually. Even so, no matter how good the mask, it only hides the truth which eventually replaces the facade!
At this juncture it is my pleasure to bring before the studious reader a rare and extremely valuable book. It appeared after Wordsworth's volumes in the year 1896. One of the things which makes it so valuable in addition to its extremely poignant and exquisite information is that it updates Wordsworth's volumes on the matter appearing as it did later in time. Besides the superb facts it contains artwork pertaining to the Eikon which I have not seen in any other work. Lovers of the Eikon and of Charles I will find this work a treasure, indeed as this author did when he found it. I am writing of A Biography Of The King's Book or Eikon Basilike by Edward Almack, London, Blades, East & Blades, 1896. The edition I am using is an extremely rare numbered and signed edition. Of the 150 copies of this large print edition, mine is number 18. In my estimation it is the most useful of the biographies despite its age.
In the Biography Almack discusses, as did Wordsworth, the evidences in support of the royal authorship as well as the evidences in favor of Gauden's authorship. Rather than embark on a crusade laden with my own words I will defer as much as possible to quotations from Almack, who also loved the Eikon and Charles I.
"It is to be regretted that so many of the public of today do not read books, but only skip through extracts from notices of reviews of reviews of books. Whilst engaged on this biography, I have been applied to several times for the loan of an Eikon. It has been read although, with the result that in each case the borrower has been touched with a spontaneous feeling of deep sympathy for Charles the First. The fate of Charles the First has aroused deep emotions in the minds of Britons for close on two hundred and fifty years. A few hours after the King's execution, is book was in the hands of the people, and so marvelous was its effect, that contemporary authorities declare that nothing but the Government's ingenious and persistent condemnations of the work prevented an immediate restoration of the monarchy. Those engaged in the publication were hunted down and imprisoned; but, in spite of every obstacle, the anxiety of the Cavaliers to possess copies of this touching memorial was so great, and the perseverance of the printers so determined, that the work was newly put in type over and over again, and published with a rapidity that has never to this day been equaled …
It may be asked why the title page speaks of 'The King's Book.' the answer is that, at the time of its first appearance, and subsequently, the Eikon was constantly thus spoke of, and written about. The natural assumption is that the King wrote it. It remains for someone to prove that he did not write it … A touching pathos and simple dignity pervade every chapter. In reading these meditations, the King's subjects instantly recognized the stamp of the King's own character in every page."
Almack continues:
"Although Cromwell, Milton, and their friends had absolute control of the press during the period, the books concocted to condemn the Eikon and the royal author were hardly ever reprinted. There was evidently no sale for them. A most striking point in proof of the disregard shown to these pretended efforts to deny the King's right to the book is, that whereas a 1648-9 Eikon may be bought any day, a copy of a contemporary work against the Eikon is about as fare as an egg of the great auk. As regards Gauden's claim - why did he pretend that he had written it? he has himself given the answer. He made the claim in order to obtain preferment; and he was successful in his object. Whereas the early evidences in support of the King are numerous and varied, those in support of the pretender resolve themselves solely into the interested claims of Gauden himself, supported as Eliot Wauburton remarks, by his garrulous wife. Mrs. Gauden, with a woman's shrewdness, helped, perhaps instigated, her husband's claim; but after the pretense had served its purpose, and the two bishoprics had been enjoyed to the full, she counseled timely repentance, and confession of the imposture, so that Gauden, having enjoyed the patronage of the powers of this world, might not fail of the favor of the Ruler of the world to come. No one has attempted to show that the general style and tone of the Eikon differ from the King's known writings and line of thought. Nobody has ever pretended that Gauden, a cowering, craving, conceited, mean-spirited creature - wrote anything before, or after, approaching to the Eikon in dignity and beauty. These uncomplimentary epithets are introduced deliberately, because, after reading the Eikon and reading Gauden's known writings, it seems impossible to imagine such a man writing the former work. At last a genuine, original, sworn testimony, by the printer of the original Eikon, has come to light, and most unkindly the word 'Gauden' is nowhere inscribed on it!"
Almack provides the documentation to support the above statement. Not only does he have it in print, but he provides a facsimile of the original handwritten document which reads in part:
"Wm. DuGard Printed: The King's incomparable E i k w n
B a s i l i k h , which he received from Mr. Simmons, his Majesty's chaplain… ità testor, Guil. DuGard"After some lengthy discussion of other evidentiary matters Almack discusses the researches of Mr. Doble on the authorship of the Eikon. Doble doubts that Charles I was the author, and supports/champions Gauden's claim to fame. "It is only to be regretted that he should find it necessary, in advocating the claims of Gauden, to start by resolving to ignore all external evidences … In the first article, Mr. Doble deals especially with resemblances between expression used in the Eikon and used elsewhere by Gauden;…" Characterizing such research Almack states "The impression conveyed by reading his analysis of the work is that of a man examining a picture with his face almost touching the canvas." Almack notes further "Now, I have found DuGard's own solemn assertion that he printed it (Eikon) distinctly naming it as the King's. Thus are Mr. Doble's arguments for Gauden's authorship turned against himself."
Further, regarding this internal subjective approach Almack writes: "Mr. Doble, following other writers on the subject, thinks that the Eikon is too ecclesiastical in style for a king. On the other hand, Dr. Gardiner, in his Life Of Charles The First for the Dictionary of National Biography has affirmed that the King was very much at home in using the weapons of religious arguments. This was always stated by the King's contemporaries; but it is worth while to note Dr. Gardiner's confirmation. Mr. Doble has quoted separate words, and occasionally several together, used by Gauden, and compared them with the King's writings. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth took bodily, entire paragraphs by the two writers, as witness on page 312 of Who Wrote Eikon Basilike? …"
Almack also cites Milton's [Eikonoklastes] acidic aspersions with regard to Charles I: "Whose innocent blood he hath shed, what widow's or orphan's tears can witness against him? After the suspected poisoning of his father, not inquired into, but smothered up, and him protected and advanced to the very half of his kingdom, who was accused in Parliament to be the author of the fact!"
Almack takes note of a criticism against the royal authorship of the Eikon: "… no contemporary document asserting the royal authorship of the Eikon was known to exist."
Almack seemingly cannot contain his joy when he writes in response to such a criticism:
"It is very pleasing to be able now to give a satisfactory reply to this (1) by the document just produced [DuGard's affidavit to the effect that it was the King's given above]; (2) by Mr. E. J. L. Scott's reference, in his preface to the document at Lambeth:
'One of the most valuable testimonies to the existence of a 'Naseby Copy' (i.e., a copy of the first seven chapter of the Eikon, which is said to have been taken by the Parliamentary forces, along with the Royal papers, after the battle of Naseby), has lately turned up in the library at Lambeth Palace, where is preserved the copy of this work, formerly in the possession of Archbishop Tenison. On the last page, in the Autograph of the owner, is the following memorandum:
'D[octor] Mew, L[ord] B[ishop] of Winchester, had often told me (& he repeated it again before ye B[ishop] of Peterburgh in ye B[isho]ps Cha[m]ber on Jan. 30th, 1698 bef[ore] we went to West[minster] Abbey, that at Naseby-fight he say ye K[ing]s closet keeper before ye fight began carry out the Kings papers to ye camp; & yt aft[e]r ye fight he saw divers of them torn, and amo[n]gst these fragm[en]ts took up some pieces of e i k [w n ] b a s [i l i k h ] written with ye King's own hand
Tho[mas] Cantuar[iensis].
Almack continues:
"The existence of this Naseby copy has always been considered to be fatal to Gauden's claim, as he declared that he began to compose the Eikon in or about the year 1647, and all his supporters are unanimous in saying that the only papers lost by the King at Naseby were those published by the Parliament, and among these is no trace of the Eikon. Many of the arguments are based on the fact that no mention is found of Eikon Basilike in any books or correspondence previous to the King's death; but this is manifestly absurd, because the work only received its Greek title at the time of its publication.
Dr. Wordsworth produced no less than nine evidences in favor of a Naseby copy, but taken collectively they are not so weighty or decisive as this newly-found memorandum. It is very strange that Todd, who was Librarian at Lambeth Palace, should have mentioned two copies of the book as being in the Library, and yet should have said nothing of Archbishop Tenison's copy, however damaging to the cause he was seeking to uphold. As however the edition is not an English one, but the Latin translation by Bishop Earle, he may have overlooked it altogether.
And (3) by this latest contribution: Mr. E. J. L. Scott writes to me under date, British Museum, 19 August, 1895, 'You will be very glad to hear that I have lately unearthed Prince Rupert's MS. Catalogue of his Library (Sloane MS., 555), dated A.D. 1677, wherein his books are arranged under three headings thus:
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
And at Nos. 332 and 350 are:
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
332. Icon Bazilica K. Cha: 1648
ye first
350. The Pourtrature K. Cha: 1648
of his Sacred Matie ye first
Icon Bazillicà
Almack notes "Now Prince Rupert died in 1682, so these entries incontestably prove that up to within five years of his death he believed in his uncle's authorship. Strong indirect evidence has also come to light in my finding that one of the first acts of Charles the Second on coming to his father's throne, was to make a very special personal request to the Stationers' Company to at once make Richard Royston a member of their Court. It is not amiss to mention that not even a fragment of MS. Bearing witness to Gauden's pretended authorship has come to light."
The succeeding pages are filled with notations gleaned from Minutes of the Book of Court, citations from Warrants Issued by The Council Of State And Admiralty Committee, Historical Manuscripts Commission, and the Calendar Of State Papers - Domestic Series, all establishing and authenticating Charles I's claim to the Eikon. Moreover, consultation of contemporary historical narratives such as William Sanderson's Complete History of the Life and Reign of King Charles, and Dr. Peter Heylin's A Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles from his Birth to his Burial to name a few further reveal the royal authorship of the Eikon to be a reality.
As in Wordsworth's volume, Almack provides documentary evidence to show that a Naseby copy of the Eikon existed. The evidences is given is somewhat chronological order, beginning with The Princely Pelican, and testimony from Dr. George Bull, Bishop of St. David's, given below:
"That about the year 1656, while he was Vicar of St. Georges near Bristol, he had frequent conversation with Dr. Gorge, who told him, that being chaplain to King Charles, and in his Army, at the fatal Battle of Naseby, he was employed after that defeat by His Majesty, to retrieve certain papers lost in his cabinet, in which some private thoughts, and Meditations of that good King were set down; the loss of which troubled him more than all the other papers of his which fell into his enemies' hands, that day. It was with some difficulty, that they were obtained from the Conqueror, but, restored they were; and Dr. Gorge said he found they were the same, as to the matters preceding that dismal day, with those printed in Eikon Basilike."
Likewise, the testimony of Dr. Rhodes is provided where he declares that "…he had, at several times and in several places, seen and read those parts of the King's book which he then drew up, written with the King's own hand." Similarly in Heath's Chronicle published in 1663 the same type of testimony is printed. Furthermore, "Colonel Hammond, in whose custody the King spent so many dreary months in Carisbrooke Castle, more than once declared his knowledge of the Eikon Basilike being the King's work (Wagstaffe's Vindication … 'Nay, I must do him the right to say, that the book was undoubtedly his; for, when I had the order for viewing and searching his papers, I found among them many sheets of the rough draft of that book in his own hand-writing, which I have at this time by me … part of that book if not the whole was writ when he was my prisoner in Carisbrook Castle…" In support of this the testimony of Mr. Reading is given along with the statements of Levet, which are attested to by John Holme, an apothecary who attended Levet in an illness, given in Wagstaffe's Vindication. Moreover, the testimony of James Clifford is provided.
We now come to a very important portion of Almack's book, the part where he provides the complete text of Gauden's letters to Clarendon and the Earl of Bristol. As I stated earlier in this work I would comment on the reason why Gauden is described in such negative terminology as he is. I must confess that when I first read the descriptions of Bishop Gauden I felt uneasy with such overtly deprecatory terms. However, at that time I had not read Gauden for myself. After having read over Gauden's correspondence I now understand why he is described in the unflattering terms he is. For the benefit of my gentle readers I would like to now provide you with excerpts of Gauden which will give you a flavor for the state of mind of this extraordinary man:
"[Gauden To The Lord Chancellor] …I find my fears verified, that it is no preferment, but a punishment of me (speaking of his elevation to the sea of Exceter, as he felt he deserved better) Now, to my horror, I find myself condemned to all degrees of infelicity, by the distresses of that condition to which I am exposed. Here is no house yet free to receive me as Bishop; if it were free, yet it is so horribly confused and unhandsome, that it seems a prison, rather than a palace …
Here I find nothing but indigence, charg, distress, distraction, and an expectation never to be satisfied in others, as to my ample living; not performed by me without utter ruin of me, and ruin of my little fortune and family … If this may not be had, I must not return again to Exeter, unless I will be in love with beggery and contempt … too conscious to what I have done, both known and unknown to the world in order to buoy up the honor of the Royal Family, the Church and Episcopacy … I am …banished and (in a) beggerly condition, while themselves swim with plenty." Signed Gauden, the "unhappy Bishop of Exon." St. Thomas Day, 1660.
"[Gauden To The Lord Chancellor] …I am destitute not only of my former competency, but all other conveniences of living …(he disparages of his salary) I am sorry to see myself reduced to this after-game. Dr. Morley once offered me my option, upon the account of some service that he thought I had done extraordinary for the Church and Royal Family … No man is more devoted to serve God, the Church and the King than I am. I only expect that if I do my work I may have honorable wages. I cannot live cheerfully in a conspicuity of honor without a competency … dejected upon the account of a modesty, that was loath to won myself so far as I might …If I must perish poor, banished, and forsaken,
…pity me when I can have no further service…" Signed Gauden, Morrow after Christmas Day, 1660, "The sad Bp. Of Exeter."
"[Gauden To The Lord Chancellor] …All I desire is an augment of 500£ per annum, if it cannot be at present had in … presenting it to His Majesty … I once presumed your Lordship had fully known that Arcanum, for so Dr. Morley told me, at the King's first coming, when he assured me the greatness of that service was such, that I might have any preferment I desired … and Dr. Morely, made me confident my affairs would be carried on to some proportion of what I had done, and he thought deserved …not as to what was known to the world under my name, in order to vindicate the Crown and the Church, but was goes under the late blessed King's name, (the Eikon Basilike) This book and figure was wholly and only my invention, making and design, in order to vindicate the King's wisdom, honor and piety.
My wife indeed was conscious to it, and had an hand in disguising the letters of that copy which I sent to the King in the Isle of Wight, by the favor of the late Marquise of Hartford, which was delivered to the King by the now Bishop of Winchester: His Majesty graciously accepted, owned and adopted it as his sense and genius: not only with great approbation, but admiration: he kept it with him, and though his cruel murderers went on to perfect his Martyrdom, yet God preserved and prospered this book to revive his honor, and redeem His Majesty's name … When it came out, just upon the King's death; Good God! What shame, rage and spite filled his murderers! What comfort his friends! How many enemies did it convert! How many hearts did it mollify and melt! What devotions it raised to his posterity, as children of such a father! … In a word, it was an army, and did vanquish more than any sword could. My Lord, every good subject conceived hopes of restoration … reparation …
O let not me wither! who was the author, and ventured my wife, children, estate, liberty, life and all, but my soul in so great an achievement which hath filled England, and all the world, with the glory of it! … pleased to give me credit and own it as a rare service in those horrors of times. True I played this best card in my hand something too late; else I might have sped as well as Dr. Reynolds and some others; but I did not lay it as a ground of ambition, nor use it as a ladder … Your Lordship would make that good, which I think you designed … the King will not deny me to his royal munificence, which promises extraordinary rewards to extraordinary services; certainly this service is such for the matter, manner, timing and efficacy, as was never exceeded, nor will ever be equaled … it is not covetousness now, as not ambition before, that moved in me … after so great services" January 21, 1660.
"[Gauden To The Lord Chancellor] …I am a person that have not deserved so hard a fate…" January 25, 1660.
"[Gauden To The Lord Chancellor] …And so cannot be without such provision as is necessary for my condition … poor Bishopric, which I daily find to be so incompetent … such a residence (at Exeter) here as must infallibly undo me … A Bishop had need have 2000£ at least 1500£ a year to live here, as is fitting … I am in so great straits that I know not what to resolve … reduced to the inconveniences of life, which compel me to complain, yea to crave and beg of others that I may not be miserable … redeem me from utter ruin … No man hath more of diligence and industry than myself, and none I see is less encouraged; mine are the pains others are the profits…" February 20, 1660.
"[Gauden To The Lord Chancellor] …Finding myself reduced to a condition as destitute of counsel as full of difficulties … but my wages wanting" March 6, 1660
"[Gauden To The Lord Chancellor] …The daily report of my friend, the Bishop of Winchester's decay (impending death) …give the alarm … to many Bishops … especially them of us who have high racks and deep mangers, as expecting the vacancy of that great See some advantageous tide to our little frigates.
For upon the teinter are we poor Bishops set all our lives … We look meagerly and eagerly upon the opulence of others (then follows a dissertation of the suggested sum of money which should be given) That I am made a Bishop seems to report some esteem of me: but that I am condemned to a pittance, no way proportional to the dignity or duty, looks like to the banishment of old… The King indeed hath graciously promised me some such instance of his favor as may be worthy of his father's glory and his own greatness … All the English world knows how much I appeared in the most dark and dangerous times, how much I stood in the gap, and something I did which the world enjoyed, but knew not of, which hath made some few, that are conscious with me, to wonder at the tenuity and obscurity of my condition after …I insist much upon what Dr. Morely (now Bishop of Worcester) frankly told me, after the King's first coming to Whitehall, that I might have what preferment I desired; such an esteem he then put on me, and the services he knew I had done … By being a Bishop, until I am enabled to live as becomes me…" December 28, 1661
"[Gauden To The Earl of Bristol] …I cannot but be confident that his Majesty will do that is most worthy of his father's glory and his own greatness … no man can rob me of the honor of the work." March, 26, 1662.
"[Gauden To The Earl of Bristol] …I am most confident of his Majesty's gracious favor … that signal service, which I well know is to be kept secret, as only fit for royal and noble breasts … many great and public works I had done in my sphere, to the hazard of my estate, liberty, and life … Both enemies and friends saw me always standing in the gap, with a bold and diligent loyalty, doing my duty by preaching, printing, and acting (he goes on to cite his literary accomplishments) a great work with small reward, … I am no mere scholar …that private one which is consecrated to the highest merit, reputation and honor in the world, as the urn of the Royal ashes, and the embalming of a martyred King … there was no reward but the conscience of well-doing … heroic worthy of Augustus… March 27th.
By now it should be obvious that the strong inordinate desire for financial gain and ecclesiastical preferment is inexorably linked with Gauden's claim which should cast a great deal of doubt on the veracity of same. Indeed as Scripture declares in I Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." One can certainly see how Gauden could be classified as a self-serving, greedy fellow who had an over inflated sense of self worth. He was by no means a poor man, yet what all he had was not enough, he wanted more!
On page 119 Almack gives "Charles II's License To Richard Royston To Print The Eikon Basilike." The Eikon is expressly declared to the work of "Our Royal Father." Yet another official recognition of the truth.
Another important feature of Almack's Biography is that he includes Mr. E. J. L. Scott's Preface to the 1880 edition of the Eikon. For the benefit of my patient reader I will include some brief excerpts:
"In a monograph of Milton, just issued, for the series of English Men of Letters, is a brief account in four pages of Eikon Basilike, wherein are reproduced all the blunders and misstatements which it was the laborious task of Dr. Wordsworth, fifty years ago, to expose and confute. Indeed, his masterly letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury might as well have never been written, and he might have spared himself the trouble of replying to Todd, Broughton, Lingard, Hallam, and the rest of his able and ingenious opponents. We are told once more in direct terms that the book was composed by Dr. Gauden. Of this, however, no proof is adduced, but the writer adds that it is possible that Gauden may have had in his hands some written scraps of the King's meditations. This is rather in favor of the King, as it allows him some original meditations, a point generally contested by his enemies, and very damaging to Gauden, because the latter distinctly denies that the owed anything whatever to his rival; the book and figure, he says, being wholly and only his own invention, making, and design. We are told on the next page that through a Royalist, Gauden sat in the Westminster Assembly.
If this be so, how comes Professor Masson, in his exhaustive list of the men who composed that Assembly, to have omitted the name of so distinguished a Royalist (there were not many, it may be imagined, of that class in that august body) as Gauden. And further, he took the Covenant, for which compliance he nearly lost the reward which after the Restoration became his due. If there is one point about Gauden which is doubtful, it is whether he ever took the Covenant; and he is believed to have denied that he did so. the readers of 'Eikon Basilike' never doubted that the meditations were those of the royal martyr."
Scott notes "What had a subsequent appendix to the Eikon (the prayers being no part of the first edition, but added afterwards to later ones) to do with the authentic character of a work of which at the time of publication the formed no portion? … If we are to believe Gauden's own words, the only one of these persons who knew it was Bishop Morley, and he, as I shall shortly prove, never for one moment attributed the work to any but Charles I, from the date of its appearance in 1649 to his death in 1684. It is true that Gauden frequently appealed to Morely's knowledge of it, but there is not a word from Morely to prove that he knew it."
Scott, dealing with internal evidence in favor of Charles I writes:
"To begin with the title page. It has never been noticed that while the first edition has the date 'MDCXLVIII' alone, all later editions before 25th March, 1649, have the words, 'Reprinted in R[egis] M[emoriam] 1648.' This is strong evidence in support of the statement that the Eikon was first printed (but not published) during the King's life. This is one point against Gauden, for his wife declares that he could not get it printed until some few days after the King's death. If Charles I was dead at the time of the printing of the title page of the Eikon, that work could not have been entitled the Portraiture of his Majesty, but of his late Majesty. Next, as to the frontispiece. Here there are three of our new points to be noticed. The emblems in it are taken from different parts of the Eikon itself, such as the crowns of gold and of lead, from the end of Chapter VI.; the metaphor of the sea raging when stormy winds blow upon it, from Chapter IV.; and many others. Next, the verses beneath the frontispiece, being the explanation of it, bear the signature G. D., which Todd explains to mean G[auden] D[designed], or G[auden] D[ean of Bocking].
But Dr. Wordsworth, on the other hand, says these initials must stand for G[ulielmus] D[ugard], the printer of one edition of the Eikon; and that he is right in so saying is proved by the discovery of the diary (now in the British Museum, Add. MS. 23,146) of Dugard's brother Thomas, who throughout it uses that remarkable and striking capital D, which is also found in Dugard's earlier edition of the Eikon. This copy is now in the hands of the Rev. Thomas Ford Fenn, Head Master of Trent College, near Nottingham. In another early copy, of 1648[9], from Dugard's press, in the possession of Mrs. Manson, of Muswell Hill, these explanatory verses are not printed, but engraved from the handwriting of their author, and bear no shadow of resemblance to Gauden's hand, but are written in the style of a schoolmaster's copies; and William Dugard was High Master of St. Paul's Grammar School. Again, it has not been noticed that the Greek motto at the foot of the frontispiece, t o c i o u d e n h o i k h s e t h n p o l i n o u d e t o k a p p a which Gauden, in his sermon on the 30th January, 1648[9], refers to Constantine, has really no reference whatever to that Emperor, but to Constantius, for Julian the Apostate, from whose Misopogon this line is quoted, is speaking of the time when he himself was made Cæsar. This sermon directly attributes the Eikon to Charles I.; and it is absolutely impossible that Gauden, the writer of it, should have misunderstood and misapplied the quotation which, as Gauden, the author of the Eikon, had had made use of only a year before.
Another point on which great stress has been laid by both parties in their arguments is the fact that the first couplet of the explanation of the frontispiece presents the very words in English which in Latin close the Eikon, vis., 'Vota dabunt quæ bella negarunt,' and that this Latin motto is found at the end of a poem called 'Majesty in Misery' composed by Charles I at Carisbrook. But no one has apparently noticed that all three come from one and the same place, viz., the concluding words of Chapter XVIII. Of the Eikon itself, 'What we could not get by our treaties we may gain by our prayers.' Consequently as the verses appear first in Dugard's edition of the frontispiece, so does the motto at the close of his edition, being, no doubt, added by himself. The truth is that this comparison of the various editions of the work has never hitherto been attempted, and yet, if closely followed up, would inevitably lead to most important results as to the real authorship … There is one piece of internal evidence in favor of Charles I. which has never yet been adduced, and that is a comparison of the apophthegmata in the Eikon with those composed by the King, and written with his own hand in his copy of Bacon's Advancement of Learning (interpreted by Gilbert Wats, Oxford, 1640), now in the British Museum. This book is exhibited under glass in a case in the King's Library, and yet has remained all these years unnoticed and unquoted. They are so very important that the whole of them are subjoined here in order that future readers of the Eikon may find out the parallel passages for themselves. They occur in Book VI., pp. 300-323, where examples of the Antitheta are given under various headings, pro et contra, such as Nobility, Beauty, Youth &c. (these apophthegmata are omitted herein for the sake of brevity) All these apophthegms strike one on reading them at first as extremely similar in style and expression to those scattered throughout the pages of the Eikon; for instance, at the beginning of Chapter XVI. Of that work occurs the following sentence: 'So hardly can the pride of those that study novelties allow former times any share or degree of wisdom or godliness.' Compare with this the entry by Charles with his own hand in Bacon's work under the head of Innovation, 'He that innovates hath need to be very Wise, for he taxes all Men of Ignorance.' To sum up, therefore, the new evidence in favor of the King, and against Gauden, gathered from the internal proofs, we have, first, the inference (from the title page of the King not being styled his 'late' Majesty, coupled with the simple date, '1648' in place of 'Reprinted in Regis Memoriam. 1648.' That the book was printed during his lifetime, the Gauden story being that it was not printed until after his death. Second, the fact of the frontispiece being the representation of various metaphors in the pages of the work, a point to which Gauden never alludes in support of his claim to be the author of both book and figure.
Third, the explanation of the letters G.D., at the foot of the verses to be Gulielmus Dugard, not Gauden Designed, or Gauden, Dean of Bocking. Fourth, the true origin of the line, 'If prayers can give me what the wars deny,' or Vota dabunt quæ bella negarunt,' to be found in Chapter XVIII of the Eikon. Fifth, the handwriting of the explanation of the emblem is not that of Gauden, but is in the style of a schoolmaster, which Dugard was. Sixth, the blunder of Gauden himself about the Greek motto below the verses referring to Constantine instead of Constantius in his sermon on the 30th January 1649/50, wherein he distinctly assigns the book to Charles I. Seventh, the comparison of the sentences written by the King's own hand in his copy of Bacon's Advancement of Learning (a book which Gauden could never have seen until after Charles' death) with the style and method of composition of the Eikon itself."
Various other evidences in favor of the royal authorship are deduced, such as the remarks of John Earles, Chaplain to Charles II who believed the Eikon was of royal composition. Scott gives the lengthy letter in full, and observes at the end:
"It is a curious fact that the writer of this letter succeeded Gauden in the bishopric of Worcester, and yet so far as is known he never uttered any opinions or left any writings to show that he altered in the slightest degree his belief so strongly expressed in his dedication of his Latin edition that Charles I had composed the Eikon. To sum up, therefore, the new external evidence during the last fifty years in behalf of the Royal Author, we have first, the holograph memorandum of Archbishop Tenison in his copy of Earles' Latin translation now in the Lambeth Library, which completely establishes, on the evidence of a most credible eye-witness, the existence of a Naseby copy, a fact alone sufficient to extinguish utterly Gauden's story of his forgery. Second, the letter with its two enclosures from Sir C. Hatton, Sir R. Browne, Dean Cosin, and Morley, which alludes more than once to the King's original manuscript as if still in existence, and about to be entrusted to Dean Cosin's keeping. Third, the letter from Charles II to Porèe ten years later, on the eve of his Restoration, in which he again terms the Eikon the book of the later King, his Father. Fourth, the original broadside advertisement of the new edition of the work in December, 1660, published under Royal patronage by Royston (a month subsequent to Gauden's first appeal to Charles II), wherein it is described at length as the work of Charles I. Fifth, the three selections by Sir E. Nicholas after 1663 from the King's Book, where he evidently quotes not a printed book, but a manuscript copy. Sixth, the English original of John Earles' Latin dedicatory letter of his translation. In conclusion, to show how base a timeserver Bishop Gauden was, and how utterly unfit he was to concoct such a forgery, it will be necessary to reproduce an unpublished letter written by his own hand in the name of himself and his wife to Henry Cromwell, Lord Deputy of Ireland, the younger son of Oliver Cromwell, at that time Lord Protector. It occurs in the correspondence of Henry Cromwell, now preserved among the Lansdowne Mss. In the British Museum, No. 822, f.i: 'My Lord the renown of your Lordship's government with such piety justice and clemency as gives life and recovery to that state of Ireland which was lately languishing and dying. This (just honor) hath made many your Lordships admirers who yet are humbly observant of that distance wherein they stand to your Lordships eminent place and authority no less than your virtues; in this number I may own my self and my wife whose great content it is to hear of that happiness which your Lordship and your Lady enjoy; and to find by that gentleman who lately came from your Lordship that we also are so happy as to retain some place in your memories and favors of which he gave us so particular assurance that we have taken this confidence to express our thankful sense of that honor your Lordship and your Lady are pleased to do us when you vouchsafe to think a kind thought of us as persons condemned to obscurity; never to be relieved expect by such a barren way of industry as is sometimes give me by such sad occasions as that of my nephew Will Russells and Mr. Rob Rich's death.
To the urn of this last I have been invited by your Lordship's sister the Lady Frances to consecrate a little monument; which possibly may as marble be durable though it be fruitless, unless it be productive of your Lordships favor and acceptance, beyond that degree which it expects in England; the fate of books is like that of many trees to bring forth nothing but leaves. Being not read by many and valued by few especially if they strike upon just security becoming all good Christians and wise to lay to heart; no discouragement's in England have hindered me from presenting my sense of others deaths and my own mortality to your Lordships view. The rather vindication of which I willingly undertook against a great stream of vulgar credulity; being satisfied in this that I did the part of justice and gratitude to the dead; my ambition must be to perform such actions as are their own reward; among which I hope this is one; a copy of which I adventure upon your Lordships and your Ladys acceptance; who in your highest secular advancements carry so moderate a temper of mind and actions as willingly reflects upon the end of all these momentary dreams; it is some recompense to my pains that I have hereby an opportunity to express to your Lordship and your excellent Lady how much we are ambitious to live worthy of that favor your nobelness were pleased to express to your Lordships very humble servants, John Elizabeth Gauden, London, May 24, 1658.'
If this fulsome letter from Gauden and his wife to one of the chiefest men in that Commonwealth which had taken the place and usurped the functions of the supposed Royal author of the Eikon be compared with the Bishop's letters, written within three years from this date, to the Lord Chancellor Hyde and the Earl of Bristol, the comparison will prove at once profitable and suggestive. In his earlier letter he thus speaks of books: 'The fate of books is like that of many trees, to bring forth nothing but leaves. Being not read by many and valued by few, especially if they strike upon just securities becoming all good Christians and wise to lay to heart.' But in his later letter to Hyde, on 21st January, 1660/1, 'When it [his book, the Eikon] came out, just upon the King's death, Good God! What shame, rage and despite filled his murderers! What comfort his friends! How many enemies did it convert! How many hearts did it mollify and melt! What devotions it raised to his posterity, as children of such a father! What preparations it made in all men's minds for this happy restoration, and which I hope shall not prove my affliction! In a word, it was an army, and did vanquish more than any sword could.' Again, in his letter to H. Cromwell (the son of the chief of those men who he calls in the passage just quoted the King's murderers), he writes 'We have taken this confidence to express our thankful sense of that honor your Lordship and your Lady are pleased to do us when you vouchsafe to think a kind thought of us, as persons condemned to obscurity.' But in his letter to Lord Bristol, of the 20th March, 1661/2, he uses the same expression to the most influential person in the court of the murdered King's son; how much I have of gratitude and honor for you whose eminent lusture hath condescended to won him whom some men [Clarendon and Morely] have banished to so great an obscurity.' One more quotation is sufficient. In his letter to H. Cromwell he says: 'My ambition must be to perform such actions as are their own reward.' In his letter to Lord Bristol of 27 March, 1662, he tells us his actions during the Commonwealth were by no means of that nature, but that he was 'sufficiently known to all the English world by those many great and public works I had done in my sphere to the hazard of my estate, liberty and life, n order to preserve and restore the just interest of the Church and Crown in the worst of times and things. Both enemies and friends saw me always standing in the gap with a bold and diligent loyalty, doing my duty by preaching, printing, and acting to the great vexation and confusion of those tyrants and usurpers.' Among the chief of these tyrants and usurpers was Henry Cromwell, Lord Deputy of Ireland, his patron and friend only three years before.
And yet this Gauden is the man whom, on his own unsupported testimony (for his wife and his curate, Dr. Walker, only derive their evidence and story second-hand from him), so many credulous persons, too indolent to inqurie or examine for themselves, believe to have been the sole composer and author of the Eikon Basilike a work which bears on every page the peculiar stamp of Charles' mind and habit of thought, and which betrays over and over again an intimate acquaintance with passing events to the minutest details, which could only have been known to the King. It were a fitting tribute to the memory of Bishop Gauden that the letter from himself and his wife should be written in letters of brass, and placed along with his effigy in Worcester Cathedral, to accompany the Eikon Basilike which he there holds in his hands, or at least that sentence of the letter which almost sounds prophetic of his own tomb: 'A little monument, which possibly may, as marble, be durable, though it be fruitless.'"
What else can this poor author add to that! As stated before hand, I will simply let the words of these eminent historians and biographers, and the truth they have told, tell the story.
After due consideration of the total evidence of record and extant to date the claims of Gauden are not considered to be persuasive when viewed in conjunction with the objective probative evidence of record consisting of data which is probative in nature on the side of Charles I, as opposed to the speculative vagarious claims advanced by advocates of Gauden.
It is admitted in palliation of this fact that there does seem to exist some documentary evidence to support the Gauden claim; however, such data is inconclusive, contradictory, and at best questionable. Therefore, it is of limited probative value. The extant evidence should be capable of authentication and/or independent verification to include weights and sufficiency of evidence at least equal to that which exists on the side of Charles I. Such findings or indicators are lacking in the evidentiary record to allow for recognition of the claim.
The failure to take into account the ameliorative data by the Gauden school precludes meaningful validation of such delimited data produced in support of their contentions. Furthermore, their accusations are closely related to various sources not all of which are of an indisputable nature and therefore cannot be differentiated from speculative conjecture.
Consequently, due to a lack of evidentiary substantiation the claims of Gauden must be deemed to be of a questionable nature. It is a curiosity and not a substantial credible claim which may overturn the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon.
One cannot help but notice the similarity between how the serpent cast doubt upon what God originally told Adam and Eve in the Garden, thereby instigating the fall of man, and the modern tools of doubt employed against Charles I's Eikon. In Genesis 3:1-4 we read:
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall yet touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:…"
Notice two things, sin came by the insertion of doubt as to what God originally said, "Yea hath God said…?" and by the alteration of what God said. Eve, when quoting what God said, omits the word "freely" in citing Genesis 2:16. Furthermore, Eve adds "…neither shall ye touch it." God never said this! Satan then contradicted what God said and asserted "ye shall not surely die…"
Whenever the serpent speaks later in Scripture he always begins by questioning (Job 1; Matthew 4; and Luke 4). Now of course the Eikon is not inspired Scripture, but nevertheless, the tools employed by its critics are much the same was that which was used by the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
They question if Charles I actually wrote it, or to what degree he was a co-author, or if he even had any part in it at all. By fostering doubt as to the validity of Charles I's accomplishment in the Eikon they have seemingly done that which burning the book could not do; namely, they have robbed Charles I of his due credit.
The Eikon has been attacked on many different fronts, some subtle and some not so subtle. They murdered the author, arrested, threatened, and imprisoned the printers, attempted to corrupt the Eikon though clandestine means, upbraided and abused his chaplain, pilfered and pillaged the King's property, embezzled items from his offspring, attempted to refute the text, and then cast doubt upon its very authenticity.
However, just as Satan ultimately failed to hinder God's plan of salvation, and in the same way God frustrated the Devil's attempts to undermine Scripture by both destructive critics and heretics, so the truth will ultimately prevail with respect to the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon.
I am not contending from the foregoing that the Eikon is on par with Scripture, nor to I mean to imply that those who doubt its Caroline authenticity are in some fashion Satanic; however, I do believe that the parallels noted above are striking, and it would only be natural to assume that Satan would do all that is in his power to discredit anything which induces Godliness in the lives of human kind.
Proverbs 20:28 states "Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy." The mercy that Charles I extended to his regicides, and the truth of the Eikon will forever preserve the memory of the Royal Martyr in the hearts and minds of every saint who has the courage to simply do as he asked on the scaffold "Remember!"
The question of the authenticity of the Caroline authorship can best be approached by consulting both ameliorative and critical accounts with a view towards objectivity rather than subjectivity. The case against the Eikon Basilike being written by Charles I is composed chiefly of external evidence, admittedly contradictory in nature, and subjective internal (stylistic) evidence.
The preponderance of the objective data seems to clearly argue in favor of the Caroline authorship of the Eikon Basilike. While theories abound to the contrary none has intrinsic merit enough to substantiate a credible weight being assigned thereto to warrant any exclusivity among the many competing theories.
One might well conclude and concur with David Hume's assessment of the matter:
"It may be expected that we should here make mention of the Icon Basilike, a work published in the King's name a few days after his execution. It seems almost impossible, in the controverted parts of history, to say anything which will satisfy the zealots of both parties: but with regard to the genuineness of that production, it is not easy for an historian to fix any opinion, which will be entirely to his own satisfaction. The proofs brought to evince that this work is or is not the King's, are so convincing, that, if an impartial reader peruses any one side apart, he will think it impossible, that arguments could be produced, sufficient to counter balance so strong an evidence: And when he compares both sides, he will be some time at a loss to fix any determination. Should an absolute suspense of judgment be found difficult or disagreeable in so interesting a question, I must confess, that I much incline to give the preference to the arguments of the royalists. The testimonies, which prove that performance to be the King's, are more numerous, certain, and direct, than those on the other side. This is the case, even if we consider the external evidence: But when we weigh the internal, derived from the style and composition, there is no manner of comparison. These meditations resemble in elegance, purity, neatness, and simplicity, the genius of those performances, which we know with certainty to have flowed from the royal pen: But are so unlike the bombast, perplexed, rhetorical, and corrupt style of Dr. Gauden, to whom they are ascribed, that no human testimony seems sufficient to convince us, that he was the author. Yet all the evidences, which would rob the King of that honor, tend to prove, that Dr. Gauden had the merit of writing so fine a performance, and the infamy of imposing it on the world for the King's. it is not easy to conceive the general compassion excited towards the King, by the publishing, at so critical a juncture, a work so full of piety, meekness, and humanity. Many have not scrupled to ascribe to that book the subsequent restoration of the royal family. Milton compares its effects to those which were wrought on the tumultuous Romans by Anthony's reading to them the will of Caesar.
The Icon passed through fifty editions in twelve months; and independent of the great interest taken in it by the nation, as the supposed production of their murdered sovereign, it must be acknowledged the best prose composition, which, at the time of its publication, was to be found in the English language."
(see The History Of England by David Hume, Esq., Volume VII, Corrected Edition, 1863, London pages 159-160).
John Milton & The Eikon Basilike
Rounding off our study of the Eikon Basilike we will now enter into some discussion of the disputations surrounding what is known as the Pamela Prayer.
In keeping with my style and custom I will discuss the issue by summarizing a scholarly and unfortunately rare work on the topic.
This book is by no means the only publication on this topic, nor is it necessarily the most complete; however, it is one of the more logical works which will serve to place the issue squarely before the concerned reader.
The book I speak of is by S. B. Liljegren entitled Studies In Milton, published by Haskell House Publishers, Limited. They specialize in publishing scare and scholarly books. My edition is dated 1967.
Most readers might ask themselves the question "Just what is the Pamela Prayer?" In order to answer this question I will give the prayer in both its significant versions below as provided in Liljegren's work referenced above:
|
The Pamela Prayer |
|
|
From The Countesse of Pembrokes Arcadia, written by Sir Philip Sidney, 9th Edition, London, 1638: |
The Eikon Basilike prayer from Thomason's copy of the prayers, dated April 16, 1649: |
|
"O All-seeing Light, and eternall Life of all things, to whom nothing is either so great, that it may resist; or so small that it is contemned; looke upon my misery with thine eye of mercy, and let thine infinite power vouchsafe to limit out some proportion of deliverance unto me, as to thee shall seeme most convenient. Let not injurie, O Lord, triumph over me, and let my faults by thy hand be corrected, and make not mine unjust enemy the minister of thy Justice. But yet my God, if in thy wisdom this be the aptest chastisment for my inexcusable folly; if this low bondage be fittest for my over-high desires; if the pride of my not enough humble heart be thus to be broken, O Lord, I yeeld unto thy will, and joyfully embrace what sorrow thou wilt have me suffer. Onely thus much let me crave of thee (let my craving, O Lord, be accepted of thee, since even that proceeds from thee), let me crave, even by the noblest title, which in my greatest affliction I may give myselfe) that thou wilt suffer some beame of thy Majestie so to shine into my minde, that it may still depend confidently on thee. Let calamity be the exercise, but not the overthrow of my vertue: Let their power prevaile, but prevaile not to destruction: let my greatnesse be their prey: let my paine be the sweetness of their revenge: let them (if so seeme good unto thee) vex me with more and more punishment. But, O Lord, let never their wickednesse have such a hand, but that I may carry a pure minde in a pure body. (And pausing a while) And O most gracious Lord, said she, What ever become of me, preserve the vertuous Musidorus." |
"O Powerful and Eternal God! to whom nothing is so great that it may resist; or so small, that it is contemned; look upon My misery with thine eye of Mercy. & let thy infinite power vouch safe to limit out some proportion of deliverance unto Me, as to thee shall seeme most convenient; let not injurie O Lord, thiumph over Me; and let My faults by thy hand be corrected; and make not My unjust Enemies be Ministers of thy Justice: But yet My God, if in thy wisdome, this be the aptest chastisement for My unexcusable transgressions; if this ingratfull bondage be fittest for My over-high desires; if the pride of My (not enough humbled) heart be thus to be broken, O Lord, I yield unto Thy will, and cheerfully imbrace what sorrow thou wilt have Me suffer. Onely thus much let Me crave of Thee (let My craving o Lord, be accepted of since it even proceeds from Thee) that, by Thy goodnesse which is Thyself; Thou wilt suffer some beame of Thy Majesty so to shine in My minde, that I, who in my greatest afflictions acknowledge it My Noblest Title to be thy Creature, may still depend confidently on Thee. Let Calamity be the exercise, but not the overthrow, of My vertue. O let not their prevailing power be to my destruction. And if it be Thy will that they more and more vex Me with punishment, yet, O Lord, never let their wickednesse have such a hand, but that I may still carry a pure mind and steadfast resolution ever to serve Thee, without feare or presumption, yet with that humble confidence which may but please Thee; so that at the last I may come to Thy Eternal Kingdome, through the Merits of Thy Son our alone Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen." |
This then dear reader is the prayer at issue, and the subject of this portion of our study. Liljegren begins by observing that Milton's admirers wholeheartedly deny Milton's role in this affair. Liljegren cites the remarks of Dr. Johnson that irritate so many of Milton's followers, comments which merit repetition:
"…Milton is suspected of having interpolated the book called Icon Basilike, which the Council of State, to whom he was now made Latin secretary, employed him to censure, by inserting a prayer taken from Sidney's Arcadia, and imputing it to the King; whom he charges, in his Iconoclastes, with the use of this prayer as with a heavy crime, in the indecent language with which prosperity had emboldened the advocates for rebellion to insult all that is venerable or great: 'Who would have imagined so little fear in him of the true all-seeing Deity as, immediately before his death, to pop into the hands of the grave bishop that attended him, as a special relique of his saintly exercises, a prayer stolen word for word from the mouth of a heathen woman praying to a heathen god? The papers which the King gave to Dr. Juxon on the scaffold the regicides took away, so that they were at least the publishers of this prayer; and Dr. Birch, who had examined the question with great care, was inclined to think them the forgers. The use of it by adaptation was innocent; and they who could so noisily censure it, with a little extension of their malice could contrive what they wanted to accuse."
Liljegren discusses the fact that "…Royston was a publisher, and Dugard a printer; the former employed the latter to print the Eikon …" Liljegren also notes the important fact that "It is proved by public records that Juxon really was kept in custody till after the execution, and that the papers were taken from him."
This refers to the fact that the regicides held Juxon, Charles I's minister, in detention until after the execution, and that the papers given to him by Charles I were confiscated by the supercilious rebels. Liljegren relates the story of the affair concerning Milton and the Eikon which is found in Nichols's Literary Anecdotes (Vol. I., pp. 525-526):
"These [the editions of the Eikon Basilike through 1649] were first printed by Dugard, who was Milton's intimate friend, and happened to be taken printing an edition of the King's book. Milton used his interest to bring him off; which he effected by the means of Bradshaw, but upon this condition, that Dugard should add Pamela's prayer to the aforesaid book he was printing, as an atonement for his fault, they designing thereby to bring a scandal upon the book and blast the reputation of its authority. To the same purpose, Dr. Bernard, who, as well as Gill [one of the sources of the preceding legend], was physician to Hills, Oliver's printer, and told him this story: 'That he had often heard Bradshaw and Milton laugh at their inserting this prayer out of Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia.'"
Liljegren offers objective confirmation of the rudimentary elements of the story:
"Die Veneris, 16 Martii, 1648… Ordered, that the Sergeant at Arms be appointed to make stay of, and seize at the Press, all those Books now printing or printed under the Name of the Book of the late King." And, "Die Sabbati, 17 Martii, 1648. The House being informed, that, according to the Order yesterday, the Press hath been seized; and the Printer is at the Door; Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee for scandalous Pamphlets, where Mr. Challoner hath the Chair, to examine the Business: And Mr. Dove, Mr. Lister, Mr. Smith, Alderman Atkins, Sir James Harrington, are added to that Committee."
Liljegren argues from this that:
"Now, as Dugard was the first and chief printer of the Eikon and the one whose books most easily betrayed their maker on account of their singular ornaments and get-up, we may perhaps safely infer that he was the printer mentioned in the above entries, the more so as Dugard himself states in his Affidavit that he had troubles about this time too (April 28th), preventing him from printing a royalist book. As his citation coincides with the very day and week when, according to State records, the government took strong measures about the book and when Milton became attached to the Commonwealth and was ordered to answer the Eikon, it may very well have happened that Dugard was released on Milton's intervention and a promise to the effect handed down by tradition."
From the facts presented so far Liljegren states the need for more than simply an objective examination, he decides in favor of a legal examination of the issue "… where due attention is paid to religious, ethical, political. And other circumstances of the time." From here Liljegren goes on to note that in the very birth year of the Eikon the King's authorship was questioned by Goodwin (Obstructions of Liberty), and Milton (Eikonoklastes), and by the anonymous writer (Eikon Alethine…).
The royal authorship was instantly vindicated in works such as The Princely Pelican, E i c w n P i s t h , and E i c w n A c l a s t o z . It is further noted that there was a significant hot point in the controversy, this being in the year 1686, when the Anglesey Memorandum was "discovered." Moreover, the Walker-Hollingworth debate over the matter is also related. A virtual whirlwind of information follows. Wagstaffe's works are cited. Christopher Wordsworth's eminent treaties are referenced. And , Almack's study is contrasted with Doble's investigation.
Liljegren discusses the events leading up to and surrounding Milton's involvement with the new government as Latin secretary. It is opined that Milton's prior works attacking the Stuart monarchy led to him being assigned the task of answering the Eikon.
A chronology is constructed of the possible time line for such events. Moreover, Milton's castigation of Charles I for making use of the Pamela Prayer are also recorded. Briefly Milton writes "But this King, not content with that which, although in a thing holy, is no holy theft, to attribute to his own making other mens whole Prayers, hath as it were unhallow'd and unchrist'nd the very duty of Prayer itself, by borrowing to a Christian use Prayers offered to a heathen God…" Milton's attacks upon the Eikon were largely a failure however.
Liljegren cites Thomas Long's Dr. Walker's True, Modest, and Faithful Account of the Author of Eikon Basilike, strictly examined, and Demonstrated to be False, Impudent, and Deceitful, 1693:
"I am loath to defile my hands again by meddling with Milton, but I must to stop the foul mouths of some people whom he hath taught to object, that his Majesty made use of a prayer made by a heathen to a false God or Goddess in time of captivity. To which I answer, … and then follow reasons to the effect that the prayer was very fit to be used by Christians. Lastly, this prayer was not heard of until a considerable time after the King's death: I have seen his Majesty's Book printed and reprinted, one of which I can produce where there is no footsept of this prayer, it might perhaps be found among some other loose papers of his Majesty, which the printer for his benefit, finding how great esteem the people had of his Majesty's devotions, clapt in with his Book, as we are wont to bind up the Apocrypha with the Canonical Scriptures. This, therefore is the malice of a rebel, and the scoff of an atheist, of one that exceeds the Grand Regicide Bradshaw, who when Mr. Royston told him on his Oath, that he knew no other but that it was the King's Book; asked him, How he could believe that so ill a man could make so good a book?"
It should be noted that at the time some royalists were not so much bothered by the "Pamela Prayer" being derived from the Arcadia, and it was thought that it was perfectly acceptable to revise a prayer to be in conformity with Christian precepts, nothing that Shakespeare had done similar things in his many plays.
Liljegren cites the facts brought to light by Wagstaffe where he writes:
"But since the first edition of this Vindication, I have received full and convincing information concerning the mystery of this prayer that it was an artifice of Bradshaw, or Milton or both, and by them surreptitiously thrust into the King's Works, to discredit the whole. This information comes originally from Mr. Hill the Printer, but conveyed by two very worthy Gentlemen, and against whom there can be no possible exception; Dr. Gill and Dr. Bernard, who both were physicians to him, and very intimate with him and because their testimony is so very important the reader shall have it in their own words, from a letter of Dr. Gill to the Honorable Charles Hatton, Esq., at the end of which is added the testimony of Dr. Bernard, and which I have now in my custody. And is as follows verbatim:
Sir,
I most readily comply with your request in informing you from whom I heard what I was saying (the last time I had the honor to be in your company). That I was told Pamela's Prayer, was transferred out of Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia into E i k w n
B a s i l i k h , by a contrivance of Bradshaw's and Milton's. Sir I make no secret of it, and I frankly tell you my author, who was Mr. Henry Hill Oliver's printer, and the occasion, as he many years ago told me, was this, Mr. Dugard, who was Milton's intimate friend, happened to be taken printing an edition of the King's Book; Milton used his interest to bring him off, which he effected by the means of Bradshaw, but upon this condition that Dugard should add Pamela's Prayer to the aforesaid books he was printing, as an atonement for his fault, they designing thereby to bring a scandal upon the book, and blast the reputation of its author, pursuant to which design they industriously took care afterwards as soon as published to have it taken notice of. Mr. Hill hath affirmed this to me several times of his own knowledge, and I need not tell you how easy it was for him to know it, who being a forward, and confiding man was in most of the intrigues of that time, and entrusted with business of the greatest privacy by the then governing parties, and no man, that I have met with was better versed in the Secret History of that time than himself, as I have found by the often discourse I had with him, for being his physician for several years, I had many opportunities to talk with him about those affairs, from whom I have received a different account of the transactions of those times, than what was commonly known or made public, and many passages that I was a stranger to before. Thus sir I have given you my authority, for what I said, which if you please, you may communicate to the rest of our friends and believe me alwaysYour most humble servant
Tho. Gill
And as provided earlier we have the testimony of Francis Bernard:
I do remember very well that Mr. Henry Hills the printer told me that he had heard Bradshaw and Milton laugh at their inserting a prayer out of Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia at the end of King Charles' book and then Milton had jeered it in his answer, adding withal that they were men would stick at nothing that might gain their point and this I testify.
May 10, 1694
Francis Bernard
Wagstaffe's 1711 edition sums up the point in a letter from Dr. Bernard to Dr. Goodall:
"Concerning the prayer out of Sir Philip Sidney, (which Milton makes a great bustle about) I remember Henry Hills (who was Oliver's Printer, and my patient) told me among other things, of the artifice of that party; that he had heard Bradshaw and Milton laugh how they had put the cheat upon the world; and in order thereunto, had printed the whole book anew,, that they might add that prayer thereunto; and that they were not more studious of any thing, than to rob that Good King of the reputation of that Book. I doubt not, but Dr. Gill can remember something to this purpose from the same Hen. Hills.
I am Your most assured humble servant,
Francis Bernard
Liljegren cites further primary sources which affirmed that Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia was not a book that the King had read, used, or delighted in. Moreover, it was not a work contained in any known inventory of the King's works, noting also that Parliament did seize the King's library and books upon his demise. Nor is the work mentioned in Charles' own recorded statements of books which he owned or used in his captivity.
It should be noted that some books by name are specifically mentioned in the historical record, but not the Arcadia. On the other hand Milton was acquainted with the Arcadia as evidenced by his discovering it so quickly after the printing of the Eikon's later editions. Liljegren provides a menology of events which seem to suggest that Milton composed his critique of the Pamela Prayer before the published edition of the Eikon was available to the general public.
The papers that Charles I delivered to Juxon at his death were indeed seized by the rebels, and the Pamela Prayer was surreptitiously inserted into that which Charles I gave to Juxon. Liljegren citing Wagstaffe:
"… for their own villanous designs, for what papers soever the King might deliver to Bishop Juxon, it is most certain he could print none of them, nor yet keep them to himself. For the Regicides immediately laid hands on him, and imprisoned him, examined him with all the rigor and severity imaginable. What the King said to him, and what was the meaning of the King's words to him on the scaffold; and not only so, but searched him narrowly for all papers that he might have from the King, and even to scraps and parcels; and moreover rifled all the King's clothes, scrutores, cabinets, and boxes, and whatever they found, they kept in their own hands…"
Having charge of the prayers, the rebel government then added to the genuine prayers the spurious Pamela Prayer in order to discredit the King's work as a whole. Liljegren adds in counterbalance to the Angelesy Memorandum that Charles II when reprinting the Kings Book in 1680:
"… expressly ordered he should leave out those additional prayers. And it is to be observed, that this was five years after the pretended memorandum. And it seems King Charles was then satisfied the Book was his Fathers, and he took so much care of it, as to throw out what he suspected might be supposititious."
It seems that even Royston had his doubts about the Pamela Prayer in light of the facts foregoing.
Liljegren goes on to note the historical precedent of composing set forms of prayer, and that it would be only natural for the Eikon to contain prayers composed by Charles I. The time of captivity for Charles I was very disconcerting. Council records show that permission had to be given for Charles's own family to see him.
After the execution the gifts Charles I gave to his children were promptly confiscated by parliamentary troops. They were searched by officers of the Army. Liljegren provides an interesting narrative of a reconstruction of events surrounding the recovery of the items given to the children, with respect to possible motives and individuals involved (Colonel Thomlinson who was sympathetic to the plight of the king, but having charge of the King by order of Parliament till the death sentence was carried out, and Colonel Hacker). The King's goods were sold at auction.
It is surmised that Colonel Thomlinson purchased the items and returned them to the children as keepsakes of their father thinking it cruel to deprive them so. It is also believed that Colonel Thomlinson allowed Charles' prayers to be copied. Liljegren provides a copy of a letter written by Mrs. Twisden. "The final proof that Thomlinson restored the George and the two seals is found in a letter from Charles II himself…" "Mrs. Twisden was Jane Thomlinson, the Colonel's sister, who had married Mr. Twisden in 1639." The letter speaks of the restoration of the Georges and seals. "Though Thomlinson was a member of the Council of State, of Parliament, a commissioner for Ireland, and was knighted by Henry Cromwell; … yet the restoration did not bring arrest and misery to them as to the other revolutionaries."
Notice the following:
"Provided likewise that all those who, since the 5th of December, 1648, did give sentence of death upon any person or persons in any of the late illegal and tyrannical high courts of justice in England or Wales, or signed the warrant for the execution of any person there condemned (except Colonel Richard Ingoldsby and Colonel Matthew Thomlinson) shall be and are hereby, made incapable of bearing any office, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, within the kingdom of England or dominion of Wales, or of serving as a member of any Parliament after the 1st day of September, 1660."
With respect to Dugard the printer, Liljegren notes that in 1649 he purchased half of Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia as evidenced by two entries in the Stationers Registers. "Next year Dugard tried to make money out of Salmasius's Defensio Regia but was caught in flagranti and imprisoned." This is found in the Orders of the Council of State which is quite clear.
Such facts seem independently to verify the particulars surrounding both him and Milton with respect to the debated Pamela Prayer: "To Keeper of Newgate. To receive William Dugard into his custody, for printing several scandalous books against the Commonwealth." His life was in peril, but he was saved by the intervention of Sir James Harrington as related in the affidavit:
"April 2, 1650 23. Sir James Harrington, Sir Wm. Masham, and Mr. Scott, to be a committee to consider what is to be paid by Mr. Dugard, upon restoring his press to him. 24. Mr. Dugard to have his press, upon entering into recognizance that he will not employ it to the prejudice of the Commonwealth, and paying those who were employed in the taking of it." "Dugard then became the printer to the Commonwealth and collaborated further with Milton" writes Liljegren. "Note to send to Mr. Dugard to speak with Mr. Milton as to printing the declaration."
Admittedly Dugard was not the only printer associated with the Eikon editions, but the record entries clearly establish a connection between him and Milton.
Liljegren gives the order and traditional precedence of the prayers and other items found originally in the Eikon. The narrative is simply this according to Liljegren:
"Given by Charles before his death to Juxon, they were taken from the latter by the officers of the army. There were only three then. Angry and disturbed at the great fame of the Eikon, Milton and Bradshaw promised to procure pardon for Dugard, who had just then offended the government, if he would print the prayers, with one from Sidney's Arcadia added, in his Eikon. This story receives support from the following three facts. 1). An Eikon printer was seized, together with presses and copies, on March 17, 1649, brought before Parliament, but apparently released without punishment, as there is no order of arrest for any printer just then, this person must have been Dugard, because he was the first and principal printer of the Eikon and the one most easily betrayed, on account of his singular book-ornaments. Also, the corroborative testimony of Henry Hills is material. In a letter from Dr. Gill to the Hon. Charles Hatton we have seen the following passage (see letter above) … 2). There exist two Eikon editions which, as will be shown later, must have been printed by Dugard somewhere about March 17th and thus dated 1648, and which have an appendix with the prayers (the Pamela Prayer too) bound up at the end. The signatures betray that Eikon and appendix were printed independently of each other and the appendix has a separate title page dated 1649 (printed after March 25, 1649). These may be the editions seized together with Dugard and then restored to him and furnished with the appendix, which probably could not be managed before March 25th, whence the appendix is dated 1649 instead of 1648 like the corresponding Eikons … When Hills in the 17th Century states not only that the revolutionaries had committed the action in point but also describes the manner of execution, and two hundred years later his words are verified by an old entry at Stationers Hall, we are really inclined to think the case fairly well proved by this fact alone. We know, I think, from the entry of Matthew Simmons that the revolutionaries did print the Eikon anew as stated by Hills. And we must infer that they would not print a book so dangerous to themselves if they could obtain no advantage by so doing. But the only possible advantage was the one mentioned by Hills, and this is a very great one, …"
Liljegren goes on to provide further documentation of this thesis. After this Liljegren concludes:
"The King left three prayers to Juxon, viz. 'Another Prayer', 'A Prayer in times of Affliction', and 'A Prayer in times of imminent Danger'. Before Juxon's release they were taken from him by Col. Thomlinson. The latter showed them to Mrs. Fotherly. As the Eikon was dangerous to their cause the revolutionaries authorized their own printer to edit the book with the Pamela Prayer added, as asserted by Hills, Cromwell's printer, and tried to suppress the original editions by the seizure of Dugard and his copies, releasing him, however, on his promise to insert the prayer, as is also asserted by Hills. The gradual mixing up of the spurious prayer with the original ones is seen in the different editions of the 'Reliquiæ Sacræ Carolinæ.' Thus much granted it would seem impossible to suppose that Milton, the government's special agent in this matter and the identifier of the prayer, was unconscious of the interpolation. It is evident to anyone who cares to work through some volumes of the Calendar of State Papers of those years that the isolated and momentarily precarious position of the revolutionaries surrounded by the cowed mass of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland consolidated them almost into a fraternity as regards their outward actions. What one of them knew in this respect the others knew too."
Moreover, anyone who reads Milton's criticisms of Charles I cannot help but come away with the feeling that Milton detested the King in the strongest possible terms. In light of this it is not improbable that he would employ any measures at his means to discredit him.
Liljegren provides ample documentation of Milton's fervent hatred of Charles I, along with examples of his methodology in other matters which are parallel to the suggested narrative of his involvement with the Pamela Prayer.
For example, Liljegren observes:
"This passage shows Milton's position Janus-faced, turned, as we said, in contempt, hatred, and irresponsibility not only towards 'the rabble' but also towards the King, who here appears as a despicable hypocrite, the prince of lies. This opinion of Milton's has, I think, some curious consequences … it never became to Milton an ethical problem whether it was allowed to tell as a fact what he only thought the King capable - though accidentally and undeservedly innocent of. We recall his allegations above in the teeth of facts to the contrary. It was rather to him a grim, contemptuous joke deservedly played on both the depraved hypocritical king and the insipid, despicable, 'admiring rabble' At this point too, psychological scrutiny coincides with tradition, as Hills related he had heard Milton joke and laugh over the matter. Thus, as against the King, Milton's conscience was from the beginning eliminated even to the carelessness of a joke by his identification of crime and supposed criminal disposition. He arrived at the same position as against the people by way of approval of Macchiavelli's opinion that a superior man does not owe truth to the people of whose welfare he takes care …
It seems certain that in choosing him for this office (Latin secretary) the primary aim of the revolutionaries was not to fill a vacancy or solely to get a person who could write letters in Latin to foreign powers. There was no vacancy because Mr. Weckherlin, the former Latin secretary, continued in his office till he was superseded by Milton, on March 13, 1649. And he was apparently neither incapable nor invidious to Milton's employers as they appointed him once more, on March 11, 1652, when Milton had lost his eyesight and could no longer fulfill the tasks imposed upon him. There must apparently be another cause. In the beginning of February 1649, Milton had brought forth a pamphlet with the following title: 'The Tenure of Kings and magistrates: Proving that it is, Lawful, and hath been held so through all Ages, for any who have the Power, to call to account a Tyrant, or wicked King, and after due conviction, to depose and put him to death; if the ordinary Magistrate have neglected or denied to do it. And that they, who of late, so much blame Deposing, are the Men that did it themselves.' This book aimed at a justification of the late trial and execution of Charles and was conspicuous even among other publications just then because of its passionate language against the King. Evidently, the Council must have thought the person who wrote this pamphlet able to answer the 'King's Book' in times when invective was the essential means of victory in controversy. Now I am inclined to think that the primary cause of making Milton Latin secretary was the publication of the Eikon and the necessity of answering it."
Liljegren goes on to delineate the timetable of events pertaining to Milton's appointment, the arrival of the Eikon, and the production of Milton's answer. Records from the Council Book and other authoritative sources seem to vindicate the premise outlined by Liljegren.
Liljegren concludes this portion of the study by stating:
"If, in this way, we find it proved that Milton and the refutation of the Eikon are from the beginning knit together in a much closer manner than Milton himself states; that the words of the witness who testified against him are verified in every detail; and, moreover, that, in the very Eikonoklastes, Milton's mode of thought undoubtedly states the propriety and duty of committing such actions as the present one, under conditions fulfilled in the case of the Eikon Basilike, I am unable to see any possibility of evading the conclusion that he was the author of the interpolation."
The evidence gleaned from this detailed review of Liljegren's work seems to validate his premise notwithstanding the objections of J. S. Smart and R. W. Chambers who object to the thesis, and with the case being thus summarized we will now conclude this portion of our study.
A Brief Narrative Of Charles I's
Capitulation, Captivity & Murder
Upon embarking on a study of the life and times of Charles I, this author was struck with the profundity of events encompassing the period of time during which he lost the military conflict with Parliament, his subsequent captivity or imprisonment, and eventual death. I was deeply impressed with the sanctity and honor exemplified by Charles in the face of such dire and unprecedented events.
Furthermore, I was awestruck with the parallels between what happened to Charles I and what our Lord Jesus Christ endured. Moreover, I am laboring under no such delusion that my unworthy talents can in any way relate to my readership the force of events which occurred during this period of time which changed the course of history. The best I can do is offer but a glimpse, a blinking-eye'd tribute which can stand as but a poor monument to the frightening and majestic events which took place before the Royal Martyr's eyes.
Therefore, I approach this topic with a deep sense of inadequacy and humility for the task is of such enormity that I tremble at the prospect of missing my aim, which is but only to convey the general sense of events, to flavor your mind, making you cognizant of events which took place which so adversely affected the life and reign of the Royal Martyr.
It has been said that even in great attempts it is glorious to fail; therefore, in partial palliation of my expressed trepidation over the labor ahead I offer the learned reader the following prefatory observations.
Charles I inherited not only the crown from his Royal Father of ever blessed memory (King James VI & I), but he also was bequeathed the divisions that had for some time festered between the monarchy and parliament. Furthermore, the rise of the extremist independents and zealous puritan factions had only exacerbated the problems.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13
Charles I shared his father's view of the sanctity of the office of king, but Charles had also his own deeply inbred sense of right and wrong. He was willing, if necessary, to sacrifice his life and liberty for not only the rights of the people as vested in the crown, but also for the preservation of the Church of which he was also head.
W. E. Lunt in his History Of England, Harper & Brothers, London, 1928, pages 445-446 writes: "In 1645 when the civil war was going against him, he wrote to his son, Charles: 'My late misfortunes remember me to command you that which I hope you shall never have occasion to obey; it is this: if I should at any time be taken prisoner by the rebels, I command you (upon my blessing) never to yield to any conditions, that are dishonorable, unsafe for your person, or derogatory to regal authority, upon any considerations whatsoever, though it were for the saving of my life.'" [Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, Oxford, 1827, v. 2090].
Before embarking on the study of the events which overtook this majestic monarch, it only seems prudent that some discussion be undertaken on behalf of his many moral attributes which shone so brightly in this dark period of his life. Such philosophical musings can, at best, only dimly portray the King's Image to the present reader; however, a blurred reflection is better than utter darkness of understanding. An old proverb states "How much easier it can be to conquer a whole people than to conquer a single man."
Cromwell and the army subdued the people of England, but they never vanquished King Charles despite all their devious ends. Yes, indeed, they deprived Charles of his life, liberty, and crown, but they did not take from him that which could not be taken.
To illustrate, when Stilbo's home town was captured and he emerged from the general conflagration, his children lost, his wife lost, alone and none the less a happy man, and was questioned by Demetrius. Asked by this man, known, from the destruction he dealt out to towns, as Demetrius the City Sacker, whether he had lost anything, he replied, "I have lost" he said, "nothing." He made Demetrius wonder whether he had won a victory after all. "All my possessions" he said "are still with me," meaning by this the qualities of a just, and good and enlightened character, and indeed the very fact of not regarding as valuable anything that is capable of being taken away. Love can never be removed once given. See Matthew 6:19-21. Charles is a living testimony to this Scriptural truth.
It has been written that the man of ambition thinks to find his good in the operations of others; the man of pleasure in his own sensations; but the man of understanding in his own actions. Charles used his time in personal captivity to reflect on his own deeds and thoughts. In the end he forgave his enemies, and in so doing demonstrated his own virtue and exemplified Matthew 5:44 & Matthew 6.
Some time has been expended in reflecting on the "untimely" demise of Charles I, and rightly so. However, there is a sense in which his death, from a certain perspective, was timely. Let me explain, someone once observed that an ordinary journey will be incomplete if you come to a stop in the middle of it, or anywhere short of your destination, but life is never incomplete if it is an honorable one. At whatever point you leave life, if you leave it in the right way, it is a whole.
Benjamin Franklin quoted an old saying that puts it this way "A long life may not be good enough, but a good life is long enough." Or, as Lucius Anneaus Seneca aptly put it "As is a tale, so is life; what matters is not how long it is but how good it is." John Wooden remarked "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." Charles held dear his honor and character, and his treasure was in heaven. He lived a saintly, good, and noble life, and in this sense his life was indeed long enough.
Some advocates of Charles have decried his poverty at the hand of the rebellious and defiant Parliament. That the king was destitute of worldly and monetary means is true, but from Charles vantage point he was enriched. As Seneca said long ago "Poor is not the person who has little, but the person who craves more." The independents and military factions and other zealots were not content with their revenge on the king politically, or even their arbitrary murder of their rightful sovereign. They wanted more, while Charles on the other hand was content to obey the commands and will of God. Who was really poor?
Some commentary has been undertaken in regard to the plurality of votes on the death warrant signed against the King. However, again, from an alternate vantage point one must clearly see that in addition to the obvious illegality of the Rump (all dissenting members being expelled who were the majority), the true majority was with one person - Charles! Henry David Thoreau noted that "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." In addition to holding the legal and historical high ground, Charles held also the spiritual reality on his side in the troubles and arguments with Parliament. This has been hotly debated; however, as Sir Winston Churchill wrote "The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it, but there it is!"
The power struggle that ensued between the King and Parliament has also been a topic touched on by many an author. However, apart from the secular, political, and temporal nature of the disagreement, we can see from the example of Charles's thoughts expressed in his Eikon that George MacDonald was right when he wrote "To have what we want is riches, but to be able to do without - That is power!" The deprivation and humility of Charles in such an estate is worthy of reflection, and is illustrative of the true regality that lies with the king. Good examples are valuable, but the person who puts them into practice, he is priceless! Did not Charles actually live and die according to his principles?
One final word of this introduction is in order. Charles has been criticized for clinging to the past notions of monarchy in the trappings of Divine Right. He has been chastised for his lack of future vision, but we know he was indeed a man ahead of his time. Yet the importance of hindsight and the unique perspective of Great Britain's place in history as identified by Charles was one of his most outstanding and valuable abilities.
Let me put it this way, to only see where one is going at the expense of where one has been is to truly become lost. "'What are we going to do?' Said the baby tiger to the mama tiger in the jungle. 'Here comes a hunter, and he has five rifles, three special sighting scopes, and devices to allow him to see in the dark!' 'Hush!' answered the mother tiger and she taught her cub how to sneak up from behind and pounce. The hunter was never heard from again." The moral of the story is this, when we are so focused on where we are going without where we have been we then truly become lost souls. The heritage and history provided to England by Charles I enriched generations. He had the unique ability to look back and see the past as a sure guide to the future, while Parliament could only see some distant novel vision. In the end, the rebellion was pounced on from behind by its own revolutionary zeal, and after the restoration it was never heard from again.
I trust the reader will pardon my philosophical musings on perhaps what will be to some a tangent; however, in mitigation and pardon of my digression I only wish to provide my readers with another side of a coin rarely seen. And now, my trusted reader, I begin the summary of the end times in the Royal Martyr's life.
In order to provide you with the most understandable and reliable syllabus of these events I will be following David Hume's The History Of England, Volume VII, New Corrected Edition, London, 1763, per relevant portions as they pertain to the subject at hand. All italicized portions below, unless otherwise indicated, are from Hume's work noted above. Most historians are familiar with Hume's History, and it is generally regarded as reliable.
"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt, and be thou there
until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."
Matthew 2:13
We begin in the year 1644, the end of the winter campaign, and things are not going well for king's forces.
"The Queen, terrified with the dangers, which every way environed her, and afraid of being enclosed in Oxford, in the middle of the kingdom, fled to Exeter, where she hoped to be delivered unmolested of the child, of which she was now pregnant, and from whence she had the means of an easy escape into France, if pressed by the forces of the enemy. She knew the implacable hatred her enemies bore her.
Last summer, the commons had sent up to the peers an impeachment of high treason against her; because, in his utmost distresses, she had assisted her husband with arms and ammunition, which she had bought in Holland. And had she fallen into their hands, neither her sex, she knew, nor high station, could protect her against insults at least, if not danger, from those haughty republicans, who so little affected to conduct themselves by the maxims of gallantry and politeness."
Such were the desperate conditions which faced the king at this time.
In the next year, 1645, Archbishop Laud was executed for concocted charges culminating in the ultimate charge of high treason. He had languished in prison for a long time without benefit of trial, and now his enemies were ready to act. They accused him of whatever suited their fancy, including "…the groundless charge of popery… Despite the fact that the charges had no merit, and were indeed refuted by the facts, the vengeance of enemies would be placated only by the effusion of his blood. "Even upon the scaffold, and during the intervals of his prayers, he was harassed and molested by Sir John Clotworthy, a zealot of the reigning sect…"
Charles, though not brought up a soldier daily drilled in the art of war, nevertheless, distinguished himself in the campaigns he fought in. "The King led on his main body, and displayed, in this action, all the conduct of a prudent general, and all the valor of a stout soldier." At this juncture, we must note that the particular battle itself was not so much important as the conduct displayed by the King himself conducting operations in the field. However, to satisfy curiosity, this was the second battle of Naseby.
The royalist forces fought bravely enough, and one loyalist commander was noted to have prayed "'O Lord! Thou knowest how busy I must be this day. If I forget thee, do not thou forget me.' And with that rose up, and cry'd, March on, Boys! There were certainly much longer prayers said in the parliamentary army; but I doubt, if there was so good a one."
The King's forces were ultimately defeated and "Among the other spoils, was seized the King's cabinet, with the copies of his letters to the Queen, which the parliament afterwards ordered to be published. They chose, no doubt, such of them as they thought would reflect most dishonor upon him: Yet upon the whole, the letters are wrote with delicacy and tenderness, and give an advantageous idea of both the King's genius and morals."
The winter of 1646 did not improve the military predicament in which the King's forces found themselves in. Yet despite the mounting odds, Charles was noted to have said "If I cannot live as a king, I intend to die like a gentleman." Despite the military hardships, Charles never gave up on a peaceful solution. "Repeated attempts, which he made for a peaceful and equitable accommodation with the parliament, served to no purpose, but to convince them that the victory was entirely in their hands."
Had Charles been willing to renounce Episcopal jurisdiction and the rights of the Church he could have easily saved himself and his cause; however, to his great credit, he resisted this temptation, and chose instead the path of honor, duty, and dedication to the rights of his subjects.
Eventually, as the course of the war unfolded, and events went against the King, he found himself under the control, under the guise of protection, of parliamentary forces. While in Oxford, desirous of his freedom he escaped, and parliament reacted with a threat of instant death to anyone who gave him shelter or aid. The King, being Scottish born, went to the Scottish army encamped at Newark. Meanwhile, news of the King's desperate condition was published throughout the land via the pulpits of independent preachers who ransacked the Scriptures for sermon topics against the king.
Next we come to one of the blackest areas of Scottish history, the selling of the King to the English. The English wanted the Scots to hand over control of the king to them, and the Scots had other motives.
"And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?
And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."
Matthew 26:15
"What the parliament was most intent upon, was not the treaty with the King, to whom they paid little regard; but that with the Scots nation. Two important points remained to be settled with them; their delivery of the King, and the estimation of their arrears … Great pains were taken by the Scots (and the English complied with their pretended delicacy) to make this estimation and payment of arrears appear a quite different transaction from that for the delivery of the King's person: But common sense requires, that they should be regarded as one and the same. The English, it is evident, had they not been previously assured of receiving the King, would never have parted with so considerable a sum (two millions); which they were not likely, in the present disposition of that nation, to obtain by any other expedient, that being keeping the King as a pledge for those arrears … Thus the Scots nation underwent, and still undergo (for such grievous stains are not easily wiped off) the reproach of selling their King, and bargaining their prince for money … The infamy of this bargain had such influence on the Scots parliament, that they once voted, that the King should be protected and his liberty insisted upon. But the general assembly interposed, and pronounced, that, as he had refused to take the covenant, which was pressed on him, it became not the godly to concern themselves about his fortunes. After this declaration, it behooved the parliament to retract their vote."
Thus, after this manner, for a sum of money was the king thus betrayed. Just as our Lord was betrayed, so too was King Charles:
"WHEN he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."
Matthew 27:19
J. G. Muddiman in his work entitled The Trial of King Charles The First, published by William Hodge & Company, Edinburgh, 1994, The Legal Classics Library, recounts the following story on pages 103-104 "Bradshawe's … own wife … ' rushing into her husband's chamber, fell upon her knees at his feet and dissolved into tears and sighs and besought her husband that he would have nothing to do with His Majesty, nor sentence this earthly king, for fear of the dreadful sentence of the King of Heaven.'"
"Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall,
and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers."
Matthew 27:27
"The King, being delivered over by the Scots to the English commissioners, was conducted, under a guard, to Holmby, in the county of Northampton. On his journey, the whole country flocked to behold him, moved partly by curiosity, partly by compassion and affection…" Some stood in silence while yet others "…accompanied his march with tears, with acclamations, and with prayers for his safety." "The commissioners rendered his confinement at Holmby very rigorous; dismissing all his ancient servants, debarring him from all visits, and cutting off all communication with his friends or family. The parliament, though earnestly applied to by the King, refused to allow his chaplains to attend him; …"
The course of events, far from rising the fortunes of parliament, began to unravel, and the strifes and usurpations which follow revolution began to rear their ugly head. It was now Parliament's turn to feel the sting of rebellion.
"The dominion of the parliament was of very short duration. No sooner had they subdued their sovereign, than their own servants rose up against them, and tumbled them from their slippery throne. The sacred boundaries of the laws being once violated, nothing remained to confine the wild projects of zeal and ambition. And every successive revolution became a precedent for that which followed it.
Many officers in the military held no other hope of preferment in society, being from humble origins which thus affected their allegiance and loyalty to the cause of arms. "And most of the officers, being raised from the dregs of the people, had no other prospect, if deprived of their commission, than that of returning to languish in their native poverty and obscurity."
Finally, as was inevitable, at gun point, officers from the army along with a complement of armed soldiers, without consent of parliament, came to the king and ordered him to accompany them. Parliament upon finding out of the scheme protested, but it was too late. The ascendancy of the military's role in the affairs was now approaching a zenith.
"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea…"
Acts 8:1
"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen…"
Acts 11:19
Meanwhile, as the King's fortunes grew more desperate, as Cromwell slowly consolidated his control over the military, the non-subscribing Anglican clergy were made to suffer dearly! They must be made to pay for the petty slights and affronts of the now reigning independents and puritans!! They were removed from their parishes, and made into common beggars for no other crime but loyalty to the king.
"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; …"
John 15:20
Also during the time the king was removed from supremacy as prime judge of the land, the courts themselves descended into a fanatical despotism far worse than anything that was seen under the monarchy. "These could sequester, fine, imprison, and corporally punish, without law or remedy. They interposed in questions of private property. Under color of malignancy, they exercised vengeance against their private enemies. To the obnoxious, and sometimes to the innocent, they sold their protection. And instead of one star-chamber, which had been abolished, a great number were anew erected, fortified with better pretenses, and armed with more unlimited authority."
Charles continued to pursue peace, and even offered Cromwell preferments which were rejected. However, Cromwell considered the goal of his own sole authority, and the life of the king as incompatible objectives. A sort of military communism settled over the land with the dominion of the military over the government. "Royalty it was agreed to abolish: Nobility must be set aside: Even all ranks of men be leveled; and an universal equality of property, as well as power, be introduced among the citizens…"
In order to prepare the people for the eventual trial of the king, the vilification of Charles Stuart was begun. Charles was accused of all sorts of crimes from poisoning his father, to being a murderer. "The blackest calumnies were there thrown upon the King…" The King's outlook was bleak: "No amusement was allowed him, or society, which might relieve his anxious thoughts: To be speedily poisoned or assassinated was the only prospect, which he had, every moment, before his eyes: For he entertained no apprehension of a judicial sentence and execution, an event, of which no history hitherto furnished an example."
Charles; therefore, retreated into prayer. "… he reposed himself with confidence in the arms of that Being, who penetrates and sustains all nature, and whose severities, if received with piety and resignation, he regarded as the surest pledge of unexhausted favor."
Meanwhile, royalist uprisings kept the army and Cromwell busy, and the preparations for military actions against hostile forces were a distraction that kept them from focusing their hostility on the king for the time being. During this time Charles negotiated with parliamentary commissioners. "His hair had become almost entirely gray."
His appearance was somewhat disheveled and neglected due to the fact that his attendants were denied him, consequently his personal hygiene suffered, but his spirit was in the trim.
"The vigor of the King's mind, notwithstanding the seeming decline of his body, here appeared unbroken and undecayed. The parliamentary commissioners would allow none of his council to be present, and refused to enter into reasoning with any but himself. He alone, during the transactions of two months, was obliged to sustain the argument against fifteen men of the greatest parts and capacity in both houses; and no advantage was ever obtained over him. This was the scene, above all others, in which he was qualified to excel. A quick conception, a cultivated understanding, a chaste eloquetion, a dignified manner; by these accomplishments he triumphed in all discussion of cool and temperate reasoning. ' The King is much changed,' said the Earl of Salisbury to Sir Philip Warwick: 'He is extremely improved of late.' 'No,' replied Sir Philip; 'he was always so: But you are now at last sensible of it.'
Since mild terms had not yielded the desired results the conditions of the King's confinement must be made more strict and rigid. They again came to him with demands, and out of charity, in that peace could be obtained no other way, and due to the fact that such factors were already rendered moot by the war, the king consented to certain proposals. Yet every concession begot another demand, in that there was seemingly no end to their desire to humiliate the king and thirst for power.
Yet Charles never compromised his beliefs throughout the deliberations: "Though he relinquished almost every power of the crown, he would neither give up his friends to punishment, nor desert what he esteemed his religious duty." "Religion was the fatal point about which the differences had first arisen; and of all others, was the least susceptible of composition or moderation between the contending parties."
Despite all his concessions Charles would not abandon the Church. The commissioners responded by declaring "That if he did not consent to the utter abolition of episcopacy, he would be damned."
Despite all the hatred and animosity of his captors, Charles's thoughts continually turned to peace. It is now 1648, and the King writes a letter to the Prince:
"By what hath been said, you see how long I have labored in the search of peace: Do not you be disheartened to tread in the same steps. Use all worthy means to restore yourself to your rights, but prefer the way of peace: Show the greatness of your mind, rather to conquer your enemies by pardoning, than by punishing. If you saw how unmanly and unchristian the implacable disposition is in our illwishers, you would avoid that spirit. Censure me not for having parted with so much of our right; the price was great; but the commodity was, security to us, peace to my people. And I am confident, that another parliament would remember, how useful a king's power is to a people's liberty; of how much power I divested myself, that I and they might meet once again in a parliamentary way…"
The military soon grew tired of the interference of parliament, and with the commencement of victory over royalist forces they determined to expand the indignities heaped upon the king by purging parliament of factions sympathetic to the king. In 1648 Colonel Pride purged the remnants that could in any way be supportive of the king. Lunt remarks "On December 6, 1648, Colonel Pride stationed a detachment of troops at the door of parliament and excluded Presbyterian members from entrance. Pride's Purge left only the remnant of a remnant of a parliament that had been representative eight years before. In 1642 nearly two-fifths of the 504 members had left to fight for the king. In 1648 nearly three quarters of the remainder were expelled. Only ninety members remained, and no more than fifty or sixty ordinarily attended sessions. Because they constituted the sitting part of parliament, they were promptly dubbed the Rump. They represented only the army. England was now governed by a military despotism thinly disguised."
It should be noted that the Rump Parliament did not represent the will of the people, nor were the liberties of the people enlarged, but rather greatly restricted. It was an illegal assembly, wholly illegitimate in every aspect.
As Hume notes "The height of all iniquity and fanatical extravagance yet remained; the public trial and execution of their sovereign." The House of Commons elevated themselves above the king and peers. Once they even entertained the ravings of a woman who claimed to have prophetical visions who claimed that their actions were indeed the will of God. Such were the delusions of grandeur that prevailed in this self appointed criminal assembly. The Commons, assured in their supreme power, sought to bring a charge of treason against Charles. They declared it treason for a king to levy war against his parliament, and set up a Court of Justice to specially try the king for the aforesaid newly appointed crime by the atypical court.
The House of Lords rejected the measure, but the Commons simply passed a bill of abolition of the Lords. Charles Stuart, King of England, was soon to stand trial.
"And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying,
Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing,
but that rather a tumult was made, he took water,
and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,
I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."
Matthew 27:24
Despite the fact that one of the judges at the trial pleaded for an adjournment to consider the King's innocence, he was overruled by the other more militant hard hearted judges who later made this man with a conscience pay for his compassion. He was, as the accounts suggest, coerced into eventually signing the death warrant. As the trial progressed legal experts were initially appointed; however, "… as they affirmed, that it was contrary to all the ideas of English law to try the King for treason, by those authority all accusations for treason must necessarily be conducted; their names, as well as those of some peers, were afterwards struck out." Bradshaw, an obsequious lawyer, was appointed Lord President of this fanatical blood thirsty assembly.
The King was produced as a common criminal before the court, but ever maintained the courage and majesty of a monarch before them. As many times as they asked him to plead thereby recognizing the jurisdiction of the tribunal, Charles as many times denied them at each such opportunity. He not only refused to plead, but refused to recognize their authority in keeping with English law.
"They all say unto him, Let him be crucified."
Matthew 27:22
"… but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend:
whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."
John 19:12
"But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him…"
John 19:15
"It is confessed, that the King's behavior, during this last period of his life, does great honor to his memory; and that, in all appearances before his judges, he never forgot his part, either as a prince or as a man. Firm and intrepid, he maintained, in each reply, the utmost perspicuity and justness both of thought and expression: Mild and equable, he rose into no passion at that unusual authority, which was assumed over him. His soul, without effort or affection, seemed only to remain in the situation familiar to it, and to look down with contempt on all the efforts of human malice and iniquity."
"Then did they spit in his face…"
Matthew 26:67
"The soldiers, instigated by their superiors, were brought, tho' with difficulty, to cry aloud for justice: 'Poor fools!' said the King to one of his attendants; 'for a little money they would do as much against their commanders.' Some of them were permitted to go the utmost length of brutal insolence, and to spit in his face, as he was conveyed along the passage to the court."
(See also Matthew 27:30, and Mark 10:34).
"To excite a sentiment of piety, was the only effect which this inhuman insult was able to operate upon him."
Pity was not permitted for Charles. Despite this prohibition:
"The people, tho' under the rod of lawless, unlimited power, could not forbear, with the most ardent prayers, to pour forth their wishes for his preservation; and, in his present distress, they avowed him, by their generous tears, for their monarch, whom, in their misguided fury, they had before so violently rejected. The King was softened at this moving scene, and expressed his gratitude for their dutiful affection. "One soldier too, seized by contagious sympathy, demanded from heaven a blessing on oppressed and fallen majesty: His officer, overhearing his prayer, beat him to the ground in the King's presence.
As one might guess, the sentence was guilty, and the punishment was death by decollation/beheading. Hume records:
"Three days were allowed the King between his sentence and his execution. This interval he passed with great tranquillity chiefly in reading and devotion. All his family, that remained in England, were allowed access to him. It consisted only of the Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Gloucester; for the Duke of York had made his escape. Gloucester was little more than an infant; the Princess, notwithstanding her tender years, showed a very advanced judgment; and the calamities of her family had made a deep impression upon her. After many pious consolations and advises, the King gave her in charge to tell the Queen, That, during the whole course of his life, he had never once, even in thought, failed in his fidelity towards her; and that his conjugal tenderness and his life should have an equal duration."
The King holding the little duke on his knee told him of his impending demise and enjoined him to remain faithful to his words. The little duke with determination beyond his years replied with a positive and forceful affirmation, and the King's eyes filled with tears at such fidelity and courage of one so young.
"Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible."
I Corinthians 9:25
"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."
I Corinthians 15:53,54
"Every night, during this interval, the King slept sound as usual; tho' the noise of the workmen, employed in framing the scaffold, and other preparations for his execution, continually resounded in his ears. The morning of the fatal day, he rose early; and calling Herbert, one of his attendants, he bade him employ more than usual care in dressing him, and preparing him for so great and joyful a solemnity. Bishop Juxon, a man endowed with the same mild and steady virtues, by which the King himself was so much distinguished, assisted him in his devotions, and paid the last melancholy duties to his friend and sovereign … When the King came upon the scaffold, he found it so surrounded with soldiers, that he could not expect to be heard by any of the people: He addressed, therefore, his discourse to the few persons who were about him; particularly Colonel Tomlinson, to whose care he had lately been committed, …" "He forgave all his enemies, even the chief instruments of his death; but exhorted them and the whole nation to return to the way of peace, by paying obedience to their lawful sovereign, his son and successor. When he was preparing himself for the block, Bishop Juxon called to him: 'There is, Sir, but one stage more, which, tho' turbulent and troublesome, is yet a very short one. Consider, it will soon carry you a great way; it will carry you from earth to heaven; and there you shall find, to your great joy, the prize, to which you hasten, a crown of glory.' 'I go' replied the King, 'from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown; where no disturbance can have place.'"
"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
Matthew 5:12
King Charles was a man who knew the gospel, and believed it wholeheartedly. What was the gospel you ask? I Corinthians 15 tells us that
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: …"
The death, burial, and resurrection IS the Gospel which Charles believed, and the truth which he professed until the last moment. We as Christians would do well to emulate the example of Charles, and profess the Gospel to a lost and dying world, until our own last breath!
Asking the executioner to hold way till his prayers were done which was to be signaled by the outstretching of his hands, Charles lay his head gently and peacefully on the block. "At one blow was his head severed from his body. A man in a visor performed the office of executioner; another, in a like disguise, held up, to the spectators, the head, streaming with blood, and cried aloud, 'This is the head of a traitor!'" The body, after suffering some humiliation, was taken indoors and the head was sewn back on the body.
As news carried the terrible event to the very corners of the nation, "women are said to have cast forth the untimely fruit of their womb: Others fell into convulsions, or sunk into such a melancholy as attended them to their grave: Nay some, unmindful of themselves, as tho' they could not, or would not survive their beloved prince, it is reported, suddenly fell down dead." The very pulpits that once harangued with villainous speeches the defilement of the name of Charles Stuart now proclaimed his virtues and sainthood.
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esias prophesy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."
Matthew 15:7,8
Just as the populace was shocked and outraged by the murder of Charles, Cromwell and Ireton had some more dirty work to do with regard to the black deed of the murder of their lawful king.
"A fresh instance of hypocrisy was displayed the very day of the King's death. The generous Fairfax, not contented with being absent from the trial, had used all the interest, which he yet retained, to prevent the execution of the fatal sentence; and had even employed persuasion with his own regiment, tho' none else should follow him, to rescue the King from his disloyal murders. Cromwell and Ireton, informed of this intention, endeavored to convince him, that the Lord had rejected the King; and they exhorted him to seek by prayer some direction from Heaven on this important occasion; but they concealed from him, that they had already signed the warrant for the execution. Harrison was the person appointed to join in prayer with the unwary general. By agreement, he prolonged his doleful cant, till intelligence arrived, that the fatal blow was struck. He then rose from his knees, and insisted with Fairfax, that this event was a miraculous and providential answer, which heaven had sent to their devout supplications."
"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
And they parted his raiment, and cast lots."
Luke 23:34
"It being remarked, that the King, the moment before he stretched out his neck to the executioner, had said to Juxon, with a very earnest accent, the single word, R e m e m b e r; great mysteries were supposed to be concealed under that expression, and the generals vehemently insisted with the prelate, that he should inform them of the King's meaning. Juxon told them, that the King, having frequently charged him to inculcate on his son the forgiveness of his murderers, and had taken this opportunity, in the last moment of his life, when his commands, he supposed, would be regarded as sacred and inviolable, to re-iterate that desire: and that his mild spirit thus terminated its present course, by an act of benevolence towards his greatest enemies."
After Charles's head was stricken from his body, there was a great groan from the crowd shocked by the deed just done. They pressed in, some to profane the blood spilled on the scaffold, others to try and retrieve some memento of their fallen prince. A keepsake of a lock of hair, or a stain of blood was their only prize that day.
"And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them,
they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go."
Acts 5:40
Afterward, the house of peers was finally voted away, and deemed dangerous, and so it was thus abolished by usurpers in the lower house. The monarchy was also done away with by the rebels as in their minds it was the last vestige of a repressive memory. The Great Seal itself was altered bearing the new motto "On the first year of freedom, by God's blessing, restored, 1648." The King's name was removed from all public business and replaced with the axiom "The Keepers Of The Liberties Of England." "And it was declared high treason to proclaim, or any otherwise acknowledge Charles Stuart, commonly called Prince of Wales."
"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."
Matthew 2:16
"The commons intended to bind the Princess Elizabeth apprentice to a button-maker: The Duke of Gloucester was to be taught some other mechanical employment. But the former soon died; of grief, as is supposed, for her father's tragical end: The latter was, by Cromwell, sent beyond sea."
"And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Matthew 27:37
The King's statue, in the Exchange, was thrown down; and on the pedestal these words were inscribed: "Exit Tyrannus, Regum Ultimus; - The Tyrant Is Gone, The Last Of The Kings."
"The King left six children; three males, Charles, born in 1630, James Duke of York, born in 1633, Henry Duke of Glocester, Born in 1641; and three females, Mary Princess of Orange, born 1631, Elizabeth, born 1635, and Henrietta, afterwards Duchess of Orleans, born at Exeter, 1644."
The tyranny and heated oppression which followed under the reign of the regicide Oliver Cromwell need not be articulated for the reader. Suffice it to say that after a period of military dictatorship characterized by executions, repressions, and villainy, he had a brief reign, then died. During the period of military rule the conspirators fell out among themselves and eventually fought with one another. Richard, Cromwell's son briefly ascended to his father's pilfered throne, but was eventually deposed.
"But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life."
Matthew 2:19,20
In 1660, the restoration was at hand, and Charles II was invited by parliament to recover his father's throne. But England was forever changed by the murder of Charles I. We only have the shining example of the life he lived, and the words he wrote, to cause us to REMEMBER!
The Importance Of Saints
If one reckons the meaning of "Saint" according to the Protestant definition, and that being generally noted to be "any of certain persons of exceptionally holiness of life … a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence." Of course, in the Holy Scriptures the term denotes those consecrated to God's service, or those "In Christ." Whatever your definition, the phrase is most aptly descriptive of King Charles I. Indeed the Anglican Church for a long while had a day in its Calendar for King Charles, Martyr on January 30th.
The true importance of the saints lies not so much in their individual accomplishments, but in their ability to point us to Christ who alone has absolute primacy. Conversely, the life of Charles I is of particular value to the Christian because of the holiness of his life, the dignity of his death, and particularly his martyrdom for the Church. A martyr, or hero is such not because of any worldly heroic feat, but for conspicuous intrepidity and gallantry in the cause of Christ or in the preservation of His Church which results in the loss of life. I myself was named in honor after one such saint/martyr, Stephen (Acts 22:20). Charles I gave his life for the integrity of the Church of England, and would not abandon it to the whims of the secularists and pluralists. Had the church not been weakened by the regicide Cromwell and others Great Britain might not now be infected with so many cults as she is today!
When one looks at how Charles I met death, one cannot help but be overtaken by the dignity and sanctity of his example, his inner strength and nobility of character. Before his impending decollection, the night before, Charles spent the evening in prayer and meditation. In the morning he called his attendant to help him dress saying "Herbert, this is my second marriage day. I would be as trim today as may be, for before night I hope t be espoused to my blessed Jesus" Charles held communion, declared he lived a Christian, promptly forgave his enemies invoking Stephen's name in prayer, and declared "I die a Christian according to the profession of the Church of England, as I found it left me by my father … I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown … Remember."
He asked the executioner to withhold the ax until he finished his prayers which would be signaled by the opening of his hands. The King gently as a lamb laid his head down on the executioner's block, prayed, and outstretched his hands. Later, at his funeral procession, the black coffin was turned white by a sudden snow as if God Almighty was pronouncing the King's innocence to all the world.
Lest the careful and diligent reader deem these remarks as solely indigenous to this author let me quote briefly from Anglicanism - The Thought And Practice Of The Church Of England, Illustrated From The Religious Literature Of The Seventeenth Century compiled & edited by Paul Elmer More, and Frank Leslie Cross, London, 1935, published by the Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, pages lxvii-lxviii:
"It must ever be remembered that the Seventeenth Century was an age of Anglican Piety, and remains a standing contradiction to those controversialists who have argued that the Church of England has produced no saints since the Reformation. Charles I set a noble example to his country, and we find the quiet and spiritual manner of his life reflected in all classes of the community … Sir Jacob Astley, one of the Royalist commanders, could utter this simple and sincere prayer, 'Lord, I shall be very busy this day, and I may forget Thee, but do not Thou forget me.' To read the story of Charles' captivity and death, as related, for example, in Sir Thomas Herbert's Memoirs, is to recapture the spirit of the Acta of the primitive Christian martyrs.
We learn that during his imprisonment at Holmby House, and later at Carisbrooke and St. James' Palace, his favorite books were the Bible, Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Andrewes' Sermons, Shakespeare, Spenser, Herbert, and translations of Tasso and Ariosto. The day before his execution, Bishop Juxon preached a sermon to him (Romans 2:16), and then gave him his Communion. The rest of the day he spent in prayer and meditation, eating and drinking almost nothing. The Princess Elizabeth, who, with her small brother, the Duke of Gloucester, visited him in the course of the day, wrote down at her father's dictation his last message: 'He wishes me not to grieve and torment myself for him. For that would be a glorious death that he would die, it being for the laws and liberties of his land, and for maintaining the true Protestant religion. He bid me read Bishop Andrewes's Sermons, Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity and Bishop Laud's Book against Fisher which would ground me against Popery (See G. S. Stevenson, Charles I in Captivity, pp. 254) He also wrote a long letter to the Prince of Wales urging him to meditate frequently on the Bible, 'which in all the time of his affliction had been his best instructor and delight.' On the morning of the 30th, Charles was much moved on learning that the Proper Lesson of the day was St. Matthew xxvii, the story of Our Savior's Passion. He then made his last Confession to Juxon, and received his viaticum, and, thus comforted, went forth to the scaffold, exclaiming as he went: 'This is my second marriage day. I would be as trim today as may be. For before night, I hope to be espoused to my blessed Jesus.' He gave Juxon his Bible as a keepsake, and taking off his George Order, he commended it to the Bishop, and charged him to deliver it to Prince Charles saying: 'I have a good and gracious God, - Remember.' (See the Life and Death of King Charles I, 1676, pp. 287) After a short address to the crowd, he turned to the faithful Juxon and said 'I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown where no disturbance can be, but peace and joy for ever more.'"
I pray that now the learned and skillful reader can clearly see the piety and reverence that the Anglican Church gleans from the life and death of Charles I, and that the sentiments herein noted are by no means exclusive to this author.
It should be noted that the work above edited by Paul L. More, and Frank L. Cross contains many excerpts from original sources from a wide variety of individuals of the Carolinian period and associated times.
One can read King James VI & I, Charles I, and even John Gauden. Of note is Charles I's stated position on Episcopal government, one of the contentious issues he faced.
Charles' position is outlined on page 368 of the above work which is an account taken from The King's Majesty's Answer to the Paper Delivered in by the Reverend Divines Attending the Honorable Commissioners Concerning Church Government. London, October 12, 1648.
On October 2, 1648 Charles I had presented to the Parliamentary Divines at Newport His Majesty's Reason Why He Cannot In Conscience Consent To Abolish The Episcopal Government.
King Charles I used to have a place in the Anglican Church Calendar, January 30th. The Anglican Calendar has a place for many of our departed brethren whom we honor as saints, or those In Christ.
The purpose for this is to call to our remembrance those who have fought the good fight, finished the race, and served with honor in distinction in the cause of Christ.
In addition to honoring the memory of the saints, whose purpose is to focus our hearts and minds on emulating Christ's example, we have liturgical colors which again have deep meaning and true significance.
Each day has a specific color with corresponding Christian denotation, and times are not simply reckoned in days, weeks, and months, but are given distinctly Christian measures such as First Sunday In Advent, or First Sunday In Lent, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday.
How sad it is to find Christians laboring day in and out, counting and measuring days only in terms of sunrise and sunset, or numerical designations on a secular calendar, with the occasional offering of a national holiday such as Christmas as a leftover scrap tossed to the religious minded. In this light the Church Calendar has new and revitalized importance, and so too does the restoration of Charles I to his rightful place in the Calendar.
The Church, and Christians all over the world would do well to have Charles I again occupying a place of honor and respect in their daily lives.
If one meditates upon Scripture, one can hear the Apostle's injunctions faintly echoing in the ear "Finally brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
How can one not see the life of Christ exemplified in Charles I? Charles I was a good example, not only to his family and countrymen, but to the whole Christian world. The best most of us can hope for is that we die with a fraction of the honor and dignity that Charles I did. This then is the value of the saints departed, they remind us of the greatest sacrifice of all, that of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They point us back to Him.
This is the greatest love the world has ever known. We then, because I Christ, can declare our love for God. "Not that we love Him like He loves us, we love because, He first loved us. Love comes from God and God is love, if you don't know love, you don't know God." "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13. Therefore, we honor Charles I, and in so doing we honor Christ. We do not worship him, we reverence him as one who lived a life, and died a death honoring our precious Lord.
Divine Right
"Kings are earth's gods…"
William Shakespeare, Pericles, Prince of Tyre.
The theory of the Divine Right of Kings was not exclusive to either James VI & I, or to his son, Charles I. "It was an ancient doctrine that sovereigns are representatives of God and derive their right to rule directly from God."
Indeed, this was the normal customary and accepted form of rule during the period in which both James VI & I and Charles I lived, though to a lesser degree in the latter reign obviously.
In order to properly understand Charles I's adherence to this doctrine, we must turn to his father from whom he was instilled the particulars of the dogma itself. W. H. Greenleaf makes some poignant observations on the proper approach to not only this topic, but to the discipline of history itself:
"The only safeguard against anachronism and what is possibly faulty commentary is always to go back to the original works and to look at them after a careful survey of the proper historical perspective … This is especially important when it is remembered that the criteria of what constitutes a rational manner of thinking alter from time to time."
Greenleaf goes on to note that the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings has often been "misunderstood." Furthermore, the confusion over this theory "… has even led some commentators to suggest that there was no rationale of divine right at all, only an assertion of royal supremacy …"
King James VI & I set down the justification of the theory of the Divine Right of Kings in terms of the appeal to law; arguments from history; invocation of Holy Scripture; the concept of patriarchy, and references to tradition. Greenleaf sees primarily four elements in James' justification of the doctrine [the concepts of order; arguments of correspondence; ideas of disorder; and political theory]. Greenleaf notes:
"James I was one of the first to provide a systematic defense of royal authority against the claims of Puritan and Papist. To do this he had to state the true grounds of monarchical power and to show how a king derived his authority from neither Pope nor people … his case contains an historico-legal element, but it is not based on a single line of argument merely."
In elucidating the principle of the Divine Right, James in his speech made to parliament in 1609 outlined the case in general terms:
"The State of Monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth: For Kings are not only God's Lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal similarities that illustrate the state of Monarchy: … In the Scriptures Kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: For a King is truly Parens Patriae, the political father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of a man."
With respect to the modern denunciations of the theory of the Divine Right of Kings Greenleaf notes:
"I suggest, therefore, that references to James I and divine right theory of the kind I mentioned above are inapt and unhistorical, and are the outcome both of oversimplification and anachronism …"
When judging the theory of Divine Right by modern standards Greenleaft states:
"This is to be guilty of reading the present into the past. It is necessary to eliminate this 'retrogressive modernism.'"
Greenleaft continues:
"The thought of a particular period must be the standards of the period itself: contemporanea expositio fortissima est … To do this is to realize that James' political thought was neither so simple nor so foolish as it is often made now to appear and that in this sense the established judgment is unjust. He deserves a higher place in the history of systematic political thought than he is normally accorded; and so does the set of ideas of which he was so able a proponent."
The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings although not rendered totally extinct with the regicide of Charles I the doctrine along with the institution of the monarchy in general was nevertheless forever changed by this event in history. Gerald Straka observes "What is usually meant by the death of divine right, however, is the death of divinely constituted monarchy, and for this there is little evidence." Scores of works articulating the basic tenants of the theory continued to be written long after Charles I's untimely demise.
Interestingly, some modern day authors note the benefits of hereditary monarchy over the presidential model. This may be particularly relevant with the revelations concerning some Presidents of the United States. Harold Nicholson writes in Kings, Courts and Monarchy, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1962, page 168 that "The process by which a corrupt or ailing President can be removed are more complicated and may lead to internal dissension. Presidents are not addicted to voluntary abdication and it often requires a revolution to turn them out." This in part, according to Nicholson may partly explain the survival of the hereditary monarchy in this present age. Nicholson is not a monarchist. Later in his work he discusses Divine Right, and briefly discusses Filmer, James VI & I, and Charles I. His limited commentary is typical of a modern republican, but at least raises an issue before the modern reader which is rarely discussed in modern political circles.
Earlier in this study I've drawn your careful attention to Sir Robert Filmer's works, and I certainly would be remiss in my literary graces if I did not at least give you a taste for his bountiful monarchical repast. It is important that I do so for a number of reasons. First, his work is admittedly one of the best on the subject. Second, he lived in the time of Charles I, and suffered for the royal cause. And thirdly, he was consistent with his own views, and as such, has regrettably either been forgotten by his foes, or completely overlooked as one who was simply too difficult to answer beyond a charge of obscurity or eccentricity.
The biographical and political information related below can be found in The Philosophy Of John Locke edited by Peter A. Schouls in the Garland Series under the title Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer edited by Peter Laslett.
Sir Robert Filmer was born on our about the year 1588, and died in 1653. He was knighted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I. "His father was Edward Filmer, gentleman and lord of the manor of Little Charlton in the parish of East Sutton near Maidstone in Kent., and later Sir Edward Filmer, Kt., owner of the whole of East Sutton, Sheriff of Kent and country notable. He was Sir Edward's eldest son and the heir to three other Kentish manors and much landed property. His grandfather, Robert Filmer, had been a registrar or prothonotary of Queen Elizabeth's Court of the Common Pleas" and average sixteenth century lawyer. The Filmers' were related to some in the original Virginia Company of London. "Sir Robert Filmer's uncle was Captain Sir Samuel Argall, first discovere of the direct sea route to Virginia, first surveyon of the coast of New England, reputed conqueror of the site of the modern city of New York."
During the English Civil War he suffered raids, theft of property, personal persecution and harassment, imprisonment, was heavily taxed, and mistreated at the hands of Parliamentary troops intermittently throughout the conflict with King Charles I. At the time he was simply too old to offer his physical services, and discreetly published for the cause of the king as circumstances allowed. Because of his age, poor health, and relatively small physical threat to Parliament he was imprisoned near his estates for his sympathy and publishing for the royal cause.
Filmer wrote not only on politics, but composed works on theology, and his works were published by the well reputed loyalist/royalist Richard Royston, much to the chagrin and ire of Parliament. After Parliament's eventual victory over Charles I, at a time when many defeated royalist soldiers were emigrating to Virginia at the invitation of Sir William Barkley, the Governor there, Filmer busied himself with collecting materials for his works which would be published later on. Quietly, yet determined, Filmer knew well the old axiom "Publish or Perrish." It is a pity that his works, and the Eikon were not ready before the cruel murder of King Charles I for they may well indeed have mitigated against this travesty had they been available to the population at large. It is in part due to the efforts of Filmer that the main tenets of philosophical monarchical legitimism survive intact as they do today.
In fact, Filmer is the inspiration behind Jonathan Boucher's famous sermons preached in America against the American rebels, dedicated to George Washington. It has been this author's pleasure to obtain these writings, and perhaps, if time and opportunity permit, a republication of them can be accomplished in order to afford Americans a valid appreciation for their Tory heritage which has sadly been forgotten and neglected by rampant republicanism.
The first of Filmer's works is entitled A Defense Of The Natural Power Of Kings Against The Unnatural Liberty Of The People. While this title may sound impious to modern democratic ears, it nevertheless rang true with the prevailing political theory of the time. Even the founding fathers of the present United States of America had a deep distrust for unregulated populism, and made their sentiments known in this regard. The main differences between the two theories were that one vested power in a hereditary sovereign, and the other a system of checks and balances in an attempt to construct a central political system to act as a philosophical governor against the limitations and deficiencies of popular democracy or anarchy.
Interestingly Filmer points out how the Jesuits used extreme democracy as a tool to dislodge governments (kings) not loyal to the Pope. Cardinal Bellarmine is quoted as saying "Secular or civil power (saith he) is instituted by men; it is in the people unless they bestow on it a Prince … It depends upon the consent of the multitude to ordain over themselves a King, or consul, or other magistrate; and if there be a lawful case, the multitude may change the kingdom into an aristocracy or democracy."
This is the Roman Catholic position which opposed the doctrine of Divine Right which in itself was designed to allow the Pope to bring down any ruler who did not obey Roman Catholic dogma. Only the Pope could have authority instituted by God, and the Roman Pontiffs were unwilling to share their divine authority with any prince.
King James's well known opposition to Roman Catholic and Jesuit political influence was the perfect countermeasure against Roman Catholicism. At stake was the etiology of the authority of the King verses the Pope. Did God ordain Kings, or the people to have authority vested in them? Filmer observes of Bellarmine:
"First, he says, that by the law of God, power is immediately in the people; hereby he makes God the author of a democratical estate; for a democracy is nothing else but the power of the multitude. If this be true, not only aristocracies but all monarchies are altogether unlawful, as being ordained (as he thinks) by men, when as God himself has chosen a democracy. Secondly, he holds, that although a democracy be the ordinance of God, yet the people have no power to use the power which God has given them, but only power to make away their power; whereby it follows, that there can be no democratic government, because the people (he says) 'must give their power to one man, or to some few;' which makes either a regal or aristocratical estate, which the multitude is tied to do, even by the same law of nature which originally gave them power. And why then does he say, the multitude may change the kingdom into a democracy? Thirdly, he concludes, that 'if there be a lawful cause the multitude may change the kingdom into an aristocracy or democracy.' Here I would like to know who shall judge of this cause? If the multitude (for I see nobody else can) then this is a pestilent and dangerous conclusion."
Filmer proceeds to answer Cardinal Bellarmine out of his own works, with reference to logic, Scripture, and the theory of Divine Right. As a consequence, the theory of the Divine Right of Kings is a valuable counterbalance to the claims of the Papacy even to this present day. Democracy is no safe haven, for the Jesuit method is to infiltrate, and ultimately questions of final authority arise, and only the Pope is seen universally to hold such authority in many denominational eyes.
Filmer goes on to elucidate on the patriarchal principle of government as founded in Holy Scripture as Kings held the position of father over their subjects, and were due the same respect and honor as fathers had over their natural born sons. Just as one could not overthrow one's own father, similarly the concept of a patriarchal father/King stated that a King could not be overthrown in his authority over his people/children. The concept of freedom is defined and explained. It is argued that we all are bound by certain limits be they in law, Scripture, ethical, personal, or familial, and thus absolute freedom is a misnomer, and actually a harmful factor in government.
We must all abide by restrictions placed on us, and even the king is bound to honor his children/subjects. Even though children have freedom, it is not absolute, correspondingly as all subjects have a certain measure of freedom it is not absolute. Grace provides freedom, but not in order that sin may abound. Next the legalities of political rule are discussed by Filmer concomitant with the bounds imposed on such from the concept of civil, statutory and common law.
Again, the Jesuits activities in the political arena of democratic thought are discussed via Francisco Suarez, Tractatus de Legibus. The rights and responsibilities of the individual and the multitude are touched upon. Historical parallels are made with reference to Scripture. Filmer, in keeping with the Carolinian and Jacobean fascination with early Roman and Greek history, cites Aristotle in support of royal authority.
Filmer visits the election process by analogy to current and historical precedent. Filmer writes under the heading:
"No Example in Scripture of the People's Choosing their King. Mr. Hooker's Judgment therein - But it is vain to argue against the liberty of the people in the election of Kings as long as men are persuaded that examples are to be found of it in Scripture. It is fit, therefore, to discover the grounds of this error. It is plain by an evident text that it is one thing to choose a King, and another thing to set a King over the people. This latter power the children of Israel had, but not the former. This distinction is found most evident in Deuteronomy 17:15, where the law of God says: 'Him shalt thou set King over thee whom the Lord shall choose.' So God must eligere, and the people only do constituere …This is Mr. Hooker's judgment of the Israelites' power to set a King over themselves. No doubt but if the people of Israel had had power to choose their King, they would never have made their choice of Joas, a child but of seven years old, nor of Manasses, a boy but of twelve, since as Solomon says 'Woe to the land whose King is a child.' Nor is it probable they would have elected Josias, but a very child, and a son of so wicked an idolatrous father as that his own servants murdered him. And ye tall the people set u this young Josias and slew all the conspirators of the death of Ammon his father, which justice of the people God rewarded by making this Josias the most religious King that ever that nation enjoyed."
Filmer goes on to note that "God Governed always by Monarchy." He further answers the arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine, and gives Aristotle's judgment on monarchy.
Lengthy Scripture citations are provided. Filmer writes:
"There is not in all the Scripture mention and approbation of any other form of government. At the time when the Scripture says: 'There was no King in Israel, but that every man did that which was right in his own eyes (Judges xxi,25),' even then, the Israelites were under the kingly government of the fathers of particular families … At that time also, when the people of Israel begged a King of Samuel, they were governed by kingly power. God, out of a special care and love to the house of Israel, did choose to be their King Himself, and did govern them at that time by His viceroy Samuel and his sons. And therefore God tells Samuel: 'They have not rejected thee but Me, that I should not reign over them.' It seems they did not like a King by deputation, but desired one by succession like all the nations."
This phenomenon is interesting for it seems peculiar to monarchies that the greater the distance the monarch from his subjects the more the subjects desire him to be near. For example, when James VI & I was King of Scotland, his subjects were content, but when he left for England the Scots clamored for the return of their king, extracting a promise from him to return regularly.
Even now in Great Britain, with the advent of home rule for Scotland, the reigning monarch needs to have residences in all parts of the kingdom, and must even regularly visit her dominions such as Canada as is the will of the people. Filmer goes on to note the parallels with regard to the early Roman empire, and the institution of monarchy.
Filmer notes that democracies have been vilified by their own historians:
"If we listen to the judgment of those who should know best know the nature of popular government, we shall find no reason for good men to desire or choose it. Xenophon, that brave scholar and soldier, disallowe the Athenian commonweal, for that they followed that form of government wherein 'the wicked are always in greatest credit, and virtuous men kept under.' They expelled Aristides the just; Themistocles died in banishment, Miltiades in prison; Phocion, the most virtuous and just man of his age, though he had been chose forty five times to be their general, yet was put to death with all his friends, kindred and servants by the fury of the people, without sentence, accusation or any cause at all. Nor were the people of Rome much more favorable to their worthies. They banished Rutilius, Metellus, Coriolanus, the two Scipios and Tully. The worst men sped best; for as Xenophon said of Athens, so Rome was a sanctuary for all turbulent, discontented and seditious spirits. The impunity of wicked men was such that upon pain of death it was forbidden all magistrates to condemn to death, or banish any citizen, or to deprive him of his liberty, or so much as to whip him, what offense soever he had committed, either against the gods or men. The Athenians sold justice as they did other merchandise, which made Plato call a popular estate 'a fair, where everything is to be sold.' The officers, when they entered upon their charge, would brag' they went to a golden harvest.' The corruption of Rome was such that Marius and Pompey durst carry bushels of silver into the assemblies to purchase the voices of the people …
If any man think these disorders in popular states were but casual or such as may happen under any kind of government, he must know that such mischiefs are unavoidable and of necessity do follow all democratical regiments. The reason is given: because the nature of all people is to desire liberty without restraint, which cannot be but where the wicked bear rule. And if the people should be so indiscreet as to advance virtuous men, they lose their power, for that good men would favor none but the good, which are always the fewer in number. And the wicked and vicious (which is still the greatest part of the people) should be excluded from all preferment, and in the end, by little and little, wise men should seize upon the state and take it from the people. I know not how to give a better character of the people than can be gathered from such authors as lived among or near to popular states. Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy Tacitus, Cicero and Sallust have set them out in their colors. I will borrow some of their sentences. 'There is nothing more uncertain than the people: their opinions are as variable and sudden as tempests: there is neither truth nor judgment in them: they are not led by wisdom to judge of anything, but by violence and by rashness, nor put they any difference between things true and false. After the manner of cattle they follow the heard that goes before: with envious eyes they behold the felicity of others: they have a custom always to favor the worst and weakest: they are most prone to suspicions, and use to condemn men for guilty upon every false suggestion. They are apt to believe all news, especially if it be sorrowful, and, like fame, they make it more in the believing: when there is no author, they fear those evils which they themselves have feigned: they are most desiours of new stirs and changes … Whatsoever is giddy or headstrong, they account manly and courageous, but whatsoever is modest or provident seems sluggish each man has a care of his particular, and thinks basely of the common good: they look upon approaching mischefs as they do upon thunder, only ever man wishes it may not touch his own person … Let me give you the cypher of their form of government. As it is begot by sedition, so it is nourished by arms; it can never stand without wars, either with an enemy abroad, or with friends at home. The only means to preserve it is to have some powerful enemy near, who may serve instead of a King to govern it, that so, though they have not a King among them, yet they may have as good as a King over them, for the common danger of an enemy keeps them in better unit then the laws they make themselves."
This is an astounding observation, and is curiously poignant with regard to modern American culture. We have always been at our best when at war, and at our worst in times of peace. Without a king to unify a nation, nature abhorring a vacuum, the enemy substitutes poorly for a sovereign. During the cold war, we had the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) against the communist menace, and before that we had WWII and WWI and so forth. Today our only enemies are terrorists, but the real enemy is within, our moral decay and toleration of corruption.
In a monarchy, the king is so vested in his country as to isolate him from foreign influence; however, our presidential rule has deteriorated in latter times, especially in our own present time, which seems a ghostly harbinger of things to come.
Filmer postulates that the greatest atrocities occur in so-called popular governments, historically speaking:
"Let Rome, which is magnified for her popularity and vilified for those tyrannical monsters the emperors, furnish us with examples. Consider whether the cruelty of all the tyrannical emperors which ever ruled in this city, did spill a quarter of that blood that was poured out in the last hundred years of her glorious commonwealth. The murders by Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Domitian and Commodus put all together, cannot match that civil tragedy which was acted in that one sedition between Marius and Sulla. Nay, even by Sulla's part alone (not to mention the acts of Marius) were fourscore and ten senators put to death, fourteen consuls, two thousand and six hundred gentleman and a hundred thousand others. This was the height of the Roman liberty - any man might be killed that would. A favor not fit to be granted under a royal government. The misery of these licentious times are briefly touched by Plutarch in these words. 'Sulla (says he) 'fell to the shedding of blood and filled all Rome with infinite and unspeakable murders. And this was not only done in Rome, but in all the cities of Italy throughout there was no temple of any god whatsoever, no altar in anybody's house, no liberty of hospital, no father's house, which was not imbrued with blood and horrible murder. The husbands were slain in the wives' arms and the children in the mothers' laps, and yet they that were slain for private malice were nothing in respect of those that were murdered only for their goods … He only sold their goods by the crier, sitting so proudly in his chair of state, that it grieved the people more to see their goods packed up by them to whom he gave or deposed them than to see them taken away. Sometimes he would give a whole country or the whole revenues of certain cities to women for their beauty, or to pleasant jesters, minstrels or wicked slaves made free. And to some he would give other men's wives by force, and make them so be married against their wills. Now let Tacitus and Suetonius be searched, and see if all their cruel emperors can match this popular villain in such an universal slaughter of citizens or civil butchery … I cite not this to extenuate the bloody acts of any tyrannical Princes, nor will I plead in defense of their cruelties. Only in the comparative I maintain the mischiefs to a state to be less universal under a tyrant King. For the cruelty of such tyrants extends ordinarily no further than to some particular men that offend him, and not to the whole kingdom. It is truly said by his late Majesty of blessed memory [King James VI & I, Trew Law of Free Monarchy] 'A King can never be so notoriously vicious but he will generally favor justice, and maintain some order, except in the particulars wherein his inordinate lust carries him away.' Even cruel Domitian, Dionysius the tyrant and many others are commended by historians for great observers of justice. Natural reason is to be rendered for it. It is the multitude of people and the abundance of their riches which are the strength and glory of every Prince. The bodies of his subjects do him service in war, and their goods supply his publics wants, therefore, if not out of affection to his people, yet out of natural love to himself, every tyrant deserves to preserve the lives and protect the goods of his subjects, which cannot be done but by justice, and if it be not done, the Prince's loss is the greatest. On the contrary, in a popular state every man knows that the public good does not depend wholly on his care, but the Commonwealth may be well enough governed by others though he tend only his private benefit. He never takes the public to be his own business. Thus, as in a family, where one office is to be done by many servants, one looks upon another, and every one leaves the business for his fellow until it is quite neglected by all … For the magistrates among the people, being for the most part annual, do always lay down their office before they understand it, …"
Quite interestingly, in the modern American judicial system, we favor, at least in the highest judicial courts, i.e.,. state/federal Supreme Courts and various other judiciaries at both the state and federal levels, an undemocratic principle of lifetime appointment. While some judges are indeed elected, the most important posts are by appointment, which is a silent repudiation of the democracy which they daily judge.
Filmer goes on to discuss the authority of the king and his relationship with the people. Again the appeal to the family unit and the precedent of natural law are cited in favor of the rule of the king. Filmer cites the history of the monarchy since the Norman conquest and states that in preponderance abuse of power has been the exception rather than the rule.
Furthermore, the King as the foundation of law and justice is also delineated to his learned readership. Filmer next discusses I Samuel 8, and Christ's treatment of authority in his own time, namely the rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. Filmer cites St. Basil:
"…we must obey Princes in those things wherein the commandment of God is not hindered.' There is no other law but God's law to hinder our obedience. It was the answer of a Christian to the emperor: 'We only worship God, in other things we gladly serve you.' And it seems Tertullian thought that whatsoever was not God's was the emperor's, when he said … our Savior has well apportioned our money for Caesar, and ourselves for God, for, otherwise, what shall God's share be if all be Caesar's … If any dislike this divinity in England, let him but hearken to Bracton, Chief Justice in King Henry III's days, who lived since the institutions of Parliaments. His words are, speaking of the King: all are under him, and he under none but God only. If he offend, since no writ can go against him, their remedy is by petitioning him to amend his fault. Which, if he shall not do, it will be punishment sufficient for him to expect God as a revenger. Let none presume to search into his deeds, much less to oppose them."
Filmer continues:
"Whereas St. Paul bids us: 'Be subject unto the higher powers,' some have strained these words of higher power to signify the laws of the land, or else to mean the highest power, as well aristocratical or democratical as regal. It seems St. Paul looked for such interpreters, and therefore thought fit to be his own expositor, and let it be known that by power he understood a monarch that carried a sword. 'Wilt thou not be afraid of the power?' that is 'the ruler that carrieth the sword,' for 'he is the minister of God to thee … for he beareth not the sword in vain.' It is not the law that is the minister of God, or that carries the sword, but the ruler or magistrate. So that they that say the law governs the kingdom, may as well say that the carpenter's rule guilds the house and not the carpenter, for the law is but the rule or instrument of the ruler. And St. Paul concludes: 'For this cause pay you tribute also, for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom.' He doth not say give tribute as a gift to God's minister, but áp ós u t e , render or restore tribute as a due. Also St. Peter doth most clearly expound this place of St. Paul, where he saith: 'Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as supreme or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him. (See Romans xiii and I Peter 2:13) Here is the very self same word 'supreme' or 'u p e r
ec o n t i ' which St. Paul coupled with power, St. Peter conjoined with the King, 'B a s i l e i w z u p e r e c o n ', thereby to manifest that King and power are both one. Also, St. Peter expounds his own words of human ordinance to be the King, who is lex loquens-a speaking law. He cannot mean that Kings themselves are an human ordinance, wince St. Paul calls the supreme power an ordinance of God, and the 'Wisdom' of God says: 'By me Kings reign.' But his meaning must be that the commands or laws of Kings are human ordinances. Next, the governors that are sent by him. That is by the King, not by God as some corruptly would wrest the text, to justify popular governors as authorized by God. Whereas, in grammatical construction 'him,' the relative, must be referred to the next antecedent, which is 'the King.' Besides, the antithesis between 'supreme' and 'sent' proves plainly that the governors were sent by Kings, for, if the governors were sent by God and the King be an human ordinance, then it follows that the governors were supreme and not the King. Or, if it be said that both King and governors are sent by God, then they are both equal, and so neither of them 'supreme.' Therefore St. Peter's meaning is in short 'Obey the laws of the King or of his ministers.' By which it is evident that neither St. Peter or St. Paul intended any other form of government than only monarchical, much less any subjection of Princes to human laws."Filmer comments on the laws of the land, the coronation oath as it pertains to law and just law. Much in the same as in the modern military in the United States, soldiers are only required to obey "lawful orders" not as commonly thought to be subject to all orders. Likewise, a king is bound only to observe upright or just laws, which tradition has universally held that a King's prerogative is part of the law itself and may in some respects supersede law in general.
Even in our presidential government an executive order, or presidential pardon can override general law. Furthermore, in time of emergency presidential power becomes virtually absolute.
The concept of the common law as it pertains to monarchy is also discussed. Filmer also discusses the origin, validity, worth, significance and scope of parliaments. This is discussed at length, and expounded further in his work The Freeholder's Grand Inquest Touching Our Sovereign Lord the King and His Parliament. This portion of the work has specific relevance to the Parliaments during the reign of King Charles I., K.M. The concept of proper rule consisting of three needful elements (Religion, Authority, Law) are discussed in detail as well as the historical statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Moreover, the privilege of Parliaments is articulated with respect to the controversy surrounding their authority.
Filmer also provides valuable documentation on Kingly authority with respect to Holy Writ in his Observations Upon Aristotles Politiques Touching Forms Of Government Together With Directions For Obedience To Governors In Dangerous And Doubtful Times printed in London, 1652. In his Preface he observes "I cannot find any one place, or text in the Bible, where any power or commission is given to a people either to govern themselves, or to choose themselves governors, or to alter the manner of government at their pleasure; the power of government is settled and fixed by the commandment of 'honor thy father'…"
Again, the principle of a King being likened unto a father is explicitly explained from a Scriptural vantage point. Also, Aristotle's views are expounded upon with reference to political theory. Filmer writes:
"Every man that is born, is so far from being free-born, that by his very birth he becomes a subject to him that begets him; under which subjection he is always to live, unless by immediate appointment from God, or by the grant or death of his Father, he become possessed of that power to which he was subject. The right of fatherly government was ordained by God, for the preservation of mankind; if it be usurped, the usurper may be so far obeyed, as may tend to the preservation of the subjects, who may thereby en enabled to perform their duty to their true and right sovereign, when time shall serve; in such cases to obey a usurper, is properly to obey the first and right governor, who must be presumed to desire the safety of his subjects; the command of a usurper is not to be obeyed in anything tending to the destruction of the person of the governor; whose being in the first place is to be looked after … All power on earth is either derived or usurped from the fatherly power, there being no other original to be found of any power whatsoever; for if there should be granted two sorts of power without any subordination of one to the other, they would be in perpetual strife which should be supreme, for two supremes cannot agree; if the fatherly power be supreme, then the power of the people must be subordinate, and depend on it; if the power of the people be supreme, then the fatherly power must submit to it, and cannot be exercised without the license of the people, which must quite destroy the frame and course of nature."
Filmer replies to Hobs Leviathan and Milton's Against Salmasius as well as Grotius' De Jure Belli in Filmer's Observations Concerning The Original Of Government printed in 1652 by Richard Royston. Milton's premises are decimated by Filmer's devastating logical, Scriptural, and historical arguments. Moreover, Filmer's Patriarchal model of monarchy is contrasted with competing views, and is seen to triumph over them. The purity or integrity of monarch is defended in Filmer's The Anarchy Of A Limited Or Mixed Monarchy printed in 1648.
This topic has relevance today, especially for the Christian. We need not only a godly government, but we need God IN government, not just God and Government. This can only be achieved in the doctrine of Divine Right for it presupposes and imposes upon the monarch the dogmas and beliefs of Christianity and the written codified expression of this belief system, The Holy Bible. Not only do we need a government whose foundation is in Heaven, but we need to have heroes. For the Christian our heroes are the saints, who in turn point us to THE hero, the Lord Jesus Christ.
A true saint will exemplify the life and teaching of Christ. In this regard, when we examine the life of Charles, not only did his philosophy portray the life of Christ in his martyrdom, but his espoused political beliefs, the Divine Right of Kings, points the way for us to find our way home, to a political system rooted and founded in Scripture, where God reigns supreme, and men pay homage to him in all things, even in their government. America began with that ideal, but the experiment has gone awry. Its time we look not to secular political theory, but to the Scriptures, to the hero saints who paved the way for Christians who today enjoy a freedom paid for in the blood of the martyrs.
Synopsis
With reference then to Charles I, the political divergence which existed with regard to competing ruling principles, coupled with the fact that a power struggle had broken out within the military ranks, were harbingers of the impending doom of the Protestant Caroline/Stuart dynasty. The faults and deficiencies of Charles Stuart were not the real reasons for his arrest and murder. It was the office which he held, the power which was sought by his political enemies which was the real reason for his woes.
Certainly Charles was guilty of political miscalculations, but which ruler isn't? Stones anyone? It was only by the sheer force of Charles' character that the nation held together as long as it did, and by virtue of his morality and exemplary character exhibited on the scaffold, this was the reason for the restoration after the fall of the corrupt and despotic Cromwellian government was possible.
In the words of William Shakespeare, applying them to Cromwell:
"Thou art a traitor, off with his head." Richard III
Charles I has then been misjudged by both historians and readers of anti-governmental propaganda. Charles was not perfect, but certainly he was not guilty of even half the sins commonly attributed to him. He, like his father was a King, born to rule, and exercised great power as best he could in difficult circumstances. Both Charles I and James VI & I were Scottish, and precisely because of these and other factors were they so maliciously hated by their enemies. Therefore, it is high time we correct the myths, and right the wrongs perpetrated on the memory of the Royal Martyr.
"For God's sake let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stores of the death of kings." William Shakespeare, Richard II
The reality of Charles I's reign then is not to be found within the musty pages of scandalous works penned with poison words, nor is Charles I's true value to the English nation in general, or monarchist principles in particular to be contained within modern depiction's of his rule from such a distanced and limited vantage point.
Concluding our story then, we have carefully recounted the tensions that existed between not only Charles and his political and personal rivals, but we have seen that these, to a large extent, festered during the reign of his father, King James VI and I, and actually long before that. The weeds of political dissent were sprouting and budding in the English political climate long before the Royal Martyr ever sought to tend to them. Also, we have examined admittedly one of the greatest achievements in English literary history, the Eikon Basilike. Much of the musings clouded by the murky mud of mythology have been cleared away by the historical presentation of documented facts of history. Our modern spectacles, so prone to color distortion have been refined and clarified by the simple tincture of truth. We have seen that the evidence, at least that body of documentation that is capable of sustaining any degree of scrutiny and/or credibility, clearly testifies to the unadulterated authorship of the Royal Martyr.
Further, We have traveled back in time and held a glimpse of the life and later reign of King Charles I. Much like peering through a keyhole, focused and intent, we caught a brief flash of some of the many virtues which shone so brightly in Charles I's personal life, right up to his last moments on this terrestrial sphere. Also, we have considered the importance of the examples of saints in our daily lives, and how they point us back to Christ. In this regard, Charles I as we have clearly seen, admirably fulfills this need in our modern lives. Moreover, and lastly, we have discussed in some minimal detail the prevailing political theory of the time in which King Charles I lived, as well as the doctrine that practically all his ancestors labored under, and that which subsequently was used as an excuse for revolt by later zealous malcontents - the ideology of Divine Right as it existed under a Christian King.
If we want to truly understand King Charles I we must read him. We must see the King, the Father, and the Husband. He was a great man who encountered great problems. He lived as a noble Christian, acted as befitting a saint, and died a Royal Martyr. Turn then if you will to the other side of the coin so often overlooked today. Read what was written about this Monarch from the hearts of those who bled and died for him. It is said there are two sides to every story, here now is the other side!
The following poem is from the inside leaf of Edward Almack's 1904 edition of the Eikon Basilike, published by Alexander Morning Limited, The De La More Press, London, [The King's Classics Series]:
So falls that stately cedar; while it stood
that was the only glory of the wood;
Great charls, thou earthly god, celestial man,
whose life, like others though it were a span:
yet in that span, was comprehended more
than earth hath waters, or the ocean shore;
thy heavenly virtues, angels should rehearse,
it is a theam too high for human verse:
He that would know thee right, then let him look
upon thy rare incomparable book,
and read it o're and o're; which if he do,
hee'l find thee king, and priest, and prophet too;
and sadly see our loss, and though in vain,
with fruitless wishes, call thee back again.
nor shall oblivion sit upon thy herse,
though there were neither monument nor verse
thy sufferings and thy death let no man name;
it was thy glory, but the kingdoms shame.
i.h.
Finis!
APPENDIX
"Crowns and kingdoms are not so valuable as my honor and reputation; those must have a period with
my life; but these survive to a glorious kind of immortality, when I am dead and gone; a
Good Name being the embalming of Princes, and a sweet consecrating of them to an
eternity of love and gratitude amongst posterity."
King Charles I
In the course of conducting research into the life, reign, and death of His Majesty, King Charles I, I have had the privilege of reading some valuable works. Some have been rare not only in terms of availability, but uncommon in the facts presented within their aged pages. Some have even been relatively recent in terms of time, yet only available by means of microfilm which greatly reduces their general availability. Other works, while addressing the subject, were simply not possessed of sufficient credibility as to warrant inclusion herein. Great care has been taken to provide resources from the most generally accepted and credible sources. From Herbert's narrative all the way to Charles I's own remarks, each have been consulted for the benefit of this volume. Despite Parliament's best attempts to sabotage Charles I from making his case to the people (the text of his last speech and other materials being taken from Juxon after Charles I's murder as well as his gifts and family possessions being sold at auction to the highest bidder along with efforts to discredit his memoirs or the Eikon) Charles I has yet succeeding in making his case by virtue of his nobility of character. Actions do indeed speak louder than words!
Speaking briefly once more to the topic of the Eikon, it must be remembered that although Sir Thomas Herbert remained with the king to the bitter end, and served him as devotedly as he could under the circumstances, he was; nevertheless, the nominee of the Parliament for that position in that the king was deprived from even the most basic of courtesy in this regard of choosing his own attendants.
This is precisely what makes Herbert's remarks, which have some bearing on the Eikon, so valuable as he testified that "And at this time it was (as is presumed) he composed his Book called Suspiria Regalia, published soon after his Death, and entitled The Kings Pourtraiture, in his Solitudes and Sufferings, which Manuscript Mr. Herbert found amongst those Books his Majesty was pleased to give him (those excepted which he bequeathed to his Children, hereafter mentioned) in regard Mr. Herbert, … yet comparing it with his Hand-writing in other things, found it so very like, as induces his Belief that it was his own Hand-writing, having seen much of the King's Writing before; and to instance Particulars in that his Majesty's Translation of Dr. Saunderson, the late Bishop of Lincoln's Book de Juramentis, or like Title concerning Oaths, all of it translated into English, and writ with his own hand; and which, in his Bed-chamber, he was pleased to show his Servants, Mr. Harrington and Mr. Herbert, and commanding them to examine it with the Original, they found it accurately translated …" This is in direct contradiction to the propaganda put out by the regicides, and stands to further authenticate the King's claim to that book.
The thought occurs to this author that many people would be interested in some of the particulars surrounding the discovery and examination of the remains of Charles I by Sir Henry Halford. It is recognized that the data in this report is not widely known, and therefore there may be some value in providing the text thereof to the interested reader. This appendix will contain Sir Henry Halford's report to the Prince Regent in 1813, of the accidental finding of the body of King Charles I in St. George's Chapel, Windsor. Despite the havoc and horrific Cromwellian vandalism and attempts to obfuscate the precise location of the remains, they were nevertheless discovered and eventually briefly studied. The following account is taken from Charles I In Captivity by Gertrude Scott Stevenson, New York, D. Appelton & Company, New York, 1927.
"When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 he desired to have his father's body removed from Windsor and reburied, with royal honors in Westminster Abbey. The Earl of Clarendon, his chief advisor, thought it inexpedient, however, to do so. Cromwellian vandalism had been at work in St. George's Chapel, and it was announced that the situation of the late King's tomb could not be found. Charles accepted this decision, and no further effort was made to discover it. In 1813 an accident during repairs to the chapel led to the re-discovery of the body. Sir Henry Halford, physician to King George III., was present with the Prince Regent and others, and described the whole affair in a written report to the Prince Regent, who afterwards guaranteed its accuracy … While engaged in replacing the body, the spectators did not refrain from helping themselves to souvenirs. Locks of hair, chips of bone, and even a tooth of Henry III from a neighboring coffin, were all carried away, while Sir Henry Halford took the vertebra which had been severed by the executioner's axe.
This vertebra was returned to King Edward VII by Sir Henry's descendants, and was by him restored to the coffin, being let down into the vault in a gold case through a small opening in the wall … The girdle or circumscription of capital letters in lead put about the coffin had only these words KING CHARLES, 1648."
Sir Henry Halford's Report To The Prince Regent, in 1813, on the Discovery and Examination of the Body of King Charles I. in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.
"On completing the mausoleum, which his present Majesty has built in the tomb-house, as it is called, it was necessary to form a passage to it from under the choir of St. George's Chapel. In constructing this passage, an aperture was made accidentally in one of the walls of the vault of King Henry VIII., through which the workmen were enabled to see, not only the two coffins, which were supposed to contain the bodies of King Henry VIII and Queen Jane Seymour, but a third also, covered with a black velvet pall, which from Mr. Herbert's narrative, might fairly be presumed to hold the remains of King Charles I.
On representing the circumstances to the Prince Regent, his Royal Highness perceived at once, that a doubtful point in history might be cleared up by opening this vault; and accordingly his Royal Highness ordered an examination to be made on the first convenient opportunity. This was done on the first of April last, the day after the funeral of the Duchess of Brunswick, in the presence of his Royal Highness himself, who guaranteed thereby the most respectful care and attention to the remains of the dead, during the inquiry. His Royal Highness was accompanied by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, Count Munster, the Dean of Windsor, Benjamin Charles Stevenson, Esq., and Sir henry Halford.
The vault is covered by an arch, half a brick in thickness, is seven feet two inches in width, nine feet six inches in length, and four feet ten inches in height, and is situated in the center of the choir, opposite the eleventh knight's stall, on the sovereign's side.
On removing the pall, a plain leaden coffin, with no appearance of ever having been enclosed in wood, and bearing an inscription 'King Charles, 1648,' in large, legible characters, on a scroll of lead encircling it, immediately presented itself to the view. A square opening was then made in the upper part of the lid, of such dimensions as to admit a clear insight into its contents. These were, an internal wooden coffin, very much decayed, and the body carefully wrapped up in cere-cloth, into the folds of which a quantity of unctuous or greasy matter, mixed with resin, as it seemed, had been melted, so as to exclude as effectually as possible, the external air. The coffin was completely full; and from the tenacity of the cere-cloth, great difficulty was experienced in detaching it successfully from the parts which it enveloped. Wherever the unctuous matter had insinuated itself, the separation of the cere-cloth was easy; and when it came off, a correct impression of the features to which it had been applied was observed in the unctuous substance. At length, the whole face was disengaged from its covering. The complexion of the skin of it was dark and discolored. The forehead and temples had lost little or nothing of their muscular substance; the cartilage of the nose was gone; but the left eye, in the first moment of exposure, was open and full, though it vanished almost immediately: and the pointed beard, so characteristic of the period of the reign of King Charles, was perfect. The shape of the face was a long oval; many of the teeth remained; and the left ear in consequence of the interposition of the unctuous matter between it and the cere-cloth, was found entire.
It was difficult at this moment, to withhold a declaration, that, notwithstanding its disfigurement, the countenance did bear a strong resemblance to the coins, the busts, and especially to the pictures of King Charles I by Vandyke, by which it had been made familiar to us. It is true, that the minds of the spectators of this interesting sight were well prepared to receive this impression; but it is also certain, that such a facility of belief had been occasioned by the simplicity and truth of Mr. Herbert's Narrative, every part of which had been confirmed by the investigation so far as it had advanced, and it will not be denied that the shape of the face, the forehead, an eye, and the beard, are the most important features by which resemblance is determined.
When the head had been entirely disengaged from the attachments which confined it, it was found to be loose, and, without any difficulty, was taken up and held to the view, and gave a greenish red (I have not asserted this liquid to be blood, because I had not an opportunity of being sure that it was so, and I wished to record facts only, and not opinions: I believe it, however, to have been blood, in which the head rested. It gave to blotting paper and to a white handkerchief, such a color as blood which has been kept for a length of time generally leaves behind it. Nobody present had a doubt of its being blood; and it appears from Mr. Herbert's narrative, that the King was embalmed immediately after decapitation. It is probable, therefore, that the large blood vessels, continued to empty themselves for some time afterwards. I am aware that some of the softer parts of the human body, and particularly the brain, undergo, in the course of time, a decomposition, and will melt. A liquid, therefore, might be found after long interment, where solids only had been buried: but the weight of the head, in this instance, gave no suspicion that the brain had lost its substance; and no moisture appeared in any other part of the coffin, as far as we could see, excepting at the back par of the head and neck), tinge to paper and to linen, which touched it.
The back part of the scalp was entirely perfect, and had a remarkably fresh appearance; the pores of the skin being more distinct, as they usually are when soaked in moisture; and the tendons and ligaments of the neck were of considerable substance and firmness. The hair was thick at the back part of the head, and, in appearance, nearly black. A portion of it which has since been cleaned and fried, is of a beautiful dark brown color. That of the beard was redder brown. On the back part of the head it was not more than an inch in length, and had probably been cut so short for the convenience of the executioner, or perhaps by the piety of friends soon after death, in order to furnish memorials of the unhappy king.
On holding up the head, to examine the place of separation from the body, the muscles of the neck had evidently retracted themselves considerably; and the fourth cervical vertebra was found to be cut through its substance transversely, leaving the surfaces of the divided portions perfectly smooth and even, an appearance which could have been produced only by a heavy blow, inflicted with a very sharp instrument, and which furnished the last proof wanting to identify King Charles the First.
After this examination of the head, which served every purpose in view, and without examining the body below the neck, it was immediately restored to its situation, the coffin was soldered up again and the vault closed.
Neither of the other coffins had any inscription upon them. The larger one, supposed on good grounds to contain the remains of King Henry VIII., measured six feet ten inches in length, and had been enclosed in an elm one of two inches in thickness; but this was decayed, and lay in small fragments near it. The leaden coffin appeared to have been beaten in by violence about the middle; and a considerable opening in that part of it exposed a mere skeleton of the King. Some beard remained upon the chin, but there was nothing to discriminate the personage contained in it.
The smaller coffin, understood to be that of Queen Jane Seymour, was not touched; mere curiosity not being considered, by the Prince Regent, as a sufficient motive for disturbing these remains.
On examining the vault with some attention, it was found that the wall, at the west end, had, at some period or other, been partly pulled down and repaired again, not by regular masonry, but by fragments of stones and bricks, put rudely and hastily together without cement.
From Lord Clarendon's account, as well as from Mr. Herbert's narrative of the interment of King Charles, it is to be inferred, that the ceremony was a very hasty one, performed in the presence of the governor, who had refused to allow the service according to the Book of Common Prayer to be used on the occasion; and had, probably, scarce admitted the time necessary for the decent deposit of the body. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the coffin of King Henry VIII., had been injured by a precipitate introduction of the coffin of King Charles; and that the governor was not under the influence of feelings, in those times, which gave him any concern about Royal remains, or the vault which contained them.
It may be right to add, that a very small mahogany coffin, covered with crimson velvet, containing the body of an infant, had been laid upon the pall which covered King Charles. This is known to have been a still-born child of the Princess George of Denmark, afterwards Queen Anne."
Selected Bibliography
A New Bibliography Of The Eikon Basilike Of King Charles The First
by Francis F. Madan, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, New Series Volume II, 1949/50.The Dictionary Of National Biography edited by Sir Leslie Stephen & Sir Sidney Lee, Various Volumes, Oxford University Press, London, 1917.
Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, New Series Volume III, 1949/1950, A New Bibliography Of The Eikon Basilike Of King Charles The First by Francis F. Madan.
Several Evidences Which Have Not Yet Appeared In The Controversy Concerning The Author Of
E I K W N B A å I A I K H - To The Reverend Mr. Wagstaffe, London, 1703, by J. Young.
A Biography Of The King's Book or Eikon Basilike by Edward Almack, London, Blades, East & Blades, 1896.
The History Of England by David Hume, Esq., Volume VII, Corrected Edition, 1863, London; also as recently republished by The Liberty Fund, Volume VI, Indianapolis, 1983.
Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer edited by Peter Laslett, Garland Publishing Incorporated, New York, 1984.
WHO WROTE EIKW N BAå IAKH? CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED IN TWO LETTERS ADDRESSED TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY by the Reverend Christopher Wordsworth, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge &c, 1824.
King Charles The First, The Author Of Icôn Basiliké Further Proved In A Letter To His Grace The Archbishop Of Canterbury, In Reply To The Objections Of Dr. Lingard, Mr. Todd, Mr. Broughton, The Edinburgh Review, and Mr. Hallam, by Christopher Wordsworth, Cambridge, London, 1828. See also his Documentary Supplement to said volumes.
Charles I In Captivity by Gertrude Scott Stevenson, D. Appleton & Company, New York, MCMXXVII.
Memoirs Of The Last Two Years Of The Reign Of King Charles I by Sir Thomas Herbert, Shakespeare Press, London, 1839.
The Letters Speeches & Proclamations Of King Charles I edited by Sir Charles Petrie, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1968. See also Stuart Royal Proclamations, Volume II, Royal Proclamations Of King Charles I, Oxford University Press, 1973.
The Last Days Of Charles I by Graham Edwards, Sutton Publishing Limited, 1999, Great Britain.
'O Horrable Murder' - The Trial, Execution and Burial of King Charles I, by Robert B. Partridge, The Rubicon Press, London, 1998.
The Trial Of King Charles I by J. G. Muddiman, William Hodge & Company, Edinburgh, 1928.
The Coronation Of Charles I by Christopher Wordsworth, Henry Bradshaw Society.
A Vindication Of Charles The First, By Joshua Brookes, Hurst & Blackett Limited, London, 1934.
The Royal Martyr By Charles Wheeler Coit, Selwin and Blount Limited, London, 1924. This work has particular relevance to those members of organizations dedicated to Charles I. Mr. Coit was a member of the Memorial Of Merit, and contains a dedication to Captain Henry Stuart Wheathly-Crowe, then President of the Royal Martyr Church Union/Royalist Association.
King Charles I, His Death, His Funeral, His Relics by Edmund H. Fellowes, Windsor Castle, 1950.
The Traditional Text by Dean John William Burgon, The Bible For Today, facsimile of 1896 edition.
Shakespeare's Sonnets Folger Shakespeare Library, edited by Louis B. Wright & Virginia A. LaMar, 1967.
Shakespeare And His Betters - A History And A Criticism Of The Attempts Which Have Been Made To Prove That Shakespeare's Works Were Written By Others by R. C. Churchill, Max Reinhardt Limited, London, 1958.
A Judicial Summing-Up, edited by M. H. Kinnear, published by Sampson Low, Marston & Company Limited, London, in 1902.
The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined - An Analysis of Cryptographic Systems Used As Evidence That Some Author Other Than William Shakespeare Wrote The Plays Commonly Attributed To Him by William F. Friedman & Elizabeth S. Friedman, Cambridge University Press, 1957.
ENDNOTES
- For an historical accounting of the persecution engendered by Cromwell, as well as the events and circumstances leading up to the advent of the commonwealth see Anglicanism - The Thought And Practice Of The Church Of England, Illustrated From The Religious Literature Of The Seventeenth Century compiled & edited by Paul Elmer More, and Frank Leslie Cross, London, 1935, published by the Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, page li "Laud was impeached for High Treason before the House of Commons, and executed on Tower Hill, on January 10, 1645. In the same year the use of the Book of Common Prayer was made a penal offense, … Under the Commonwealth, the Anglican Faith was suppressed by force of law. The Bishops had been driven abroad, or had sought refuge in remote country parishes. The faithful clergy were deprived, churches were despoiled and desecrated, the use of the Prayer Book became a crime. In 1657 a congregation which had assembled in London for the observance of Christmas was arrested and imprisoned by Cromwell's soldiers. Hence the parishes lapsed into a state of complete anarchy, and were subject to an even more rigorous inquisition than any they had suffered under Laud's Court of High Commission. So great was the disorder that even the Puritan Baxter could write: 'The disorderly tumultuous cries and petitions of such ignorant zealots for extremes under the name of Reformation had so great a part in our sin and misery from 1641-1660, as I must give warning to posterity to avoid the like and love moderation." And on pages lii and liii the editors note "The Prayer Book of 1662 may well be regarded as the triumph of the cause for which Laud and Charles had died … It must also not be forgotten that the memory of Charles' martyrdom did much to secure the Restoration of the Monarchy and the re-establishment of the Anglican position. Parliament might revile him as a public enemy, but the crowd who mourned in Whitehall that winter morning knew otherwise. It was because he would not surrender the Anglican Faith as settled by Elizabeth and by Hooker that he died, in his own words, 'a Christian according to the profession of the Church of England.' Bona agere, et mala pati, regium est."
- Eikon Basilike, when translated from Greek is "Royal Portrait." Discussion of authorship, primarily from a flawed over-reliance on internal (subjective) criticism [transcriptional probability &c.] can be seen in Literary Forgeries by J. A. Farrer, Longman's Green & Company, Gale Research Company, 1907, Chapter 6 "Political Forgery", pages 98-125. The researches of Christopher Wordsworth, Thomas Wagstaffe, Richard Hollingworth, Edward Scott, Edward Almach, &c., have been discounted too easily. It should be remembered that this theory is used to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch by higher critics, as well as Mark 16:9-20 for example, among many other Scriptures. For a devastating refutation of this philosophy see Counterfeit Or Genuine - Mark 16? John 8? By the late Dr. David Otis Fuller, D.D., Grand Rapids International Publications, who summarizes many scholarly points from Dean John William Burgon's The Last 12 Verses Of Mark, 1871, Chapter 9 dealing with Internal Evidence with respect to style and phraseology which have never been successfully answered. See his entry in The Dictionary Of National Biography, edited by Sir Leslie Stephen & Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford University Press, Volume XXII {Supplement} pages 335-339. This topic will be briefly addressed later on in this work.
- The Trial And Execution Of Charles I, by Leonard W. Cowie, Wayland Publishers, London, 1972, page 3 of the Prologue "Those who killed the King believed that their deed would, as one of them said, 'Live and remain upon record to the perpetual honor of the English state,…'" However, "For a king to be put to death by his subjects seemed to many a blasphemous crime."
- Stuart Royal Proclamations, Volume II, Royal Proclamations of King Charles I - 1625-1646, edited by James F. Larkin, C.S.V., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983. Please see also The Letters, Speeches And Proclamations Of King Charles I edited by Sir Charles Petrie, Bart., C.B.E., M.A., F.R. Hist.S., Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1968.
- Grey also provides the testimony of Sir Henry Wotton as to the amicable character of the Archbishop.
- "Hamon L'Estrange (Reign of King Charles, p. 4) speaking of King James the First, says, 'That in the style of the court, he went for Great Britain's Solomon; nor is that an excursion beyond the precincts of verity, to say, that neither Britain, nor any other kingdom whatsoever, could ever, since Solomon's days, glory in a King (for recondite learning, and abstruse knowledge) so near a match to Solomon as He.'" 1
- "See Stat. I Jacobi Chap 3. Entitled 'All Assurances made to the King of the Lands of Bishops shall be void.' By passing this Act (says Mr. Collier, eccles. Hist. Vol. 2., p. 687 'Those of the clergy, who wanted in either honesty or courage were disabled from impoverishing the church; thus the King stopped the issue of sacrilege, and delivered himself from the importunity of all courtiers."
- 1 James' well known aversion to Popery evidently was passed on to his own children, for the sixteen year old Princess Elizabeth, who preferred a Protestant suitor as opposed to a Roman Catholic. She chose the German Protestant Frederick, Elector Palatine of the Rhine. She stated her preference this way "I would rather be the Palsgrave's wife, than the greatest papist queen in Christendom." From Robert Coke's A Detection of the Court and State of England during the Four Last Reigns and the Inter-regnum, London, 1694, I: 64. See also my own treatise entitled Royal Opposition To Papal Authority During the Reign Of James VI of Scotland & I Of England, KönigsWort Incorporated, 1997.
- 1 The Royal Martyr A True Christian by Cantrell, 1716 as an appendix in An Attempt Towards The Character Of King Charles The First, 1738.
- 1 The Trial And Execution Of Charles I by Leonard W. Cowie, Wayland Publishers, London, 1972, it is noted that Charles "… had a firm aversion to Popery, but was much inclined to a middle way between Protestants and Papists, whereby he lost the one, without gaining the other." Moreover, for corroboration of this fact one can quite easily consult Stuart Royal Proclamations - Royal Proclamations Of King Charles I 1625-1646, Volume II., edited by James F. Larkin, C.S.V., Clarendon Press, 1983. Charles legislated against Jesuits repeatedly while seeking toleration of moderate loyal Roman Catholics, see pages 52, 203, 739 of same. In addition, Charles acknowledged the support of many of his Roman Catholic subjects during the period of the rebellion/revolution. Later in 1692 Dr. Hollingworth published A DEFENCE OF King Charles I. Occasioned by the Lies & Scandals of Many Bad Men of this Age, London, 1692. On page 35, it is related: "They constantly say, that he was a Papist, or at least; Popishly inclined … And for an eternal confutation of it, I beg of thee to take good notice of this true story. His Majesty ready to receive the Sacrament in 1643, at Christ Church in Oxford, from the hands of the Lord Archbishop of Armagh, rising up from his knees, and beckoning to the Archbishop said, 'My Lord, I espy here many resolved Protestants, who may declare to the World the Resolution I now make. I have, to the utmost of my power, prepared my Soul to become a worthy Receiver; and may I so receive comfort by the Blessed Sacrament, as I do intend the Establishment of the True-reformed Protestant Religion, as it stood in its Beauty in the happy days of Queen Elizabeth, without any connivance at Popery. I bless God, that in the midst of these public distractions, I have still liberty to communicate. And may this Sacrament be my damnation, if my heart do not join with my lips in this protestation.'" Moreover, it is believed that had not Charles I been murdered, his later hereditary heirs would not have fallen into Roman Catholicism, due to Charles' Protestant influence upon his own, which by virtue of his execution he could not exert, and subsequently this set the stage for later Stuarts to fall into Roman Catholicism. See Dr. Richard Hollingworth's sermon entitled The DEATH of King Charles I Proved a Down-right MURDER with the Aggravations of it in a SERMON, London, 1693.
- 1 History Of My Own Times - From The Restoration Of King Charles The Second To The Treaty Of Peace At Utrecht In The Reign Of Queen Anne by Bishop Gilbert Burnet, William S. Orr & Company, London, MDCCCL. Burnet was staunchly opposed to Roman Catholicism, authored many works attacking the Church, and on page 29 of his work referenced above notes that Charles I "… had a firm aversion to popery, but was much inclined to a middle way between Protestants and papists,.." See The Dictionary Of National Biography edited by Sir Leslie Stephen & Sir Sidney Lee, Volume III, Oxford University Press, pages 394-405 for Burnet's entry. Moreover, the loyal defender of the memory of Charles I, Dr. Richard Hollingworth, in defending Charles I from accusations of popery in his A Defense Of King Charles I printed for Samuel Eddowes under the Piazza of the Royal Exchange in Corhill, 1692, page 3 writes that Charles I, in contradiction to the above libel "… strenuously asserted and pleaded the Protestant cause as it is professed by the Church of England." Further, in Hollingworth's sermon entitled The Death Of King Charles I Proved a Down-right MURDER preached at St. Botolph Aldgate in London on January 30, 1693, printed by R. Norton for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's head in St. Paul's Church-yard, page 18 "And as for the imputation of Popery, there is no Man that reads his History with an unprejudiced mind, can believe the least inclination to it, if Living and Dying in perfect Communion with the most excellent Church in the World, if offering to do anything that might preserve and support the Protestant Religion, be arguments of a Papist; then I must confess the imputation is just, but what Man of the Church of England is not a Papist at this rate?" Hollingworth believes the facts are so strongly against such sentiment that they should "…forever silence and shame this reflection and imputation out of the World!"
- 1 Archbishop Bramball's Answer To Mr. De La Militiere's Epistle To King Charles The Second, Works, page 24.
- 1 Ibid., "This Prince (says the author of the History of English and Scotch Presbytery, p. 283) whom the covenanters persecuted under the color of piety and reformation, was four times a day upon his knees at his devotion, was guided by the fear of God, and comforted by his love, made his word the rule of his belief and actions, humbled himself in his adversity under his mighty hand, and reposed himself with a firm faith upon the same hand which smote him: His discourses were honest, religious, pertinent and judicious; and his writings were the same, wherein shined forth a vigor and majesty truly royal; and the sanctity of his retired Meditations, which are now public, will for ever fill all good souls with consolation and instruction, and his enemies with confusion. He was a Prince sober, continent, temperate; a spirit composed by singular geometry, so equal in all his inclinations, that tis hard to say, to which passion he was most inclined."
- 1 An Impartial Examination Of The Third Volume Of Mr. Daniel Neal's History Of The Puritans by Zachary Grey, L.L.D., Rector Of Houghton-Conquest, in Bedfordshire, London.
- 1 Citation by Grey to footnote which is provided for the benefit of the careful reader: "The writer of an Apologetic for the Sequestered Clergy, p. r., speaking of King Charles the first, has the following words, 'Here we are oppressed with so much light, and such transcendent beauties of perfection, in all the passages of his blessed life, and glorious martyrdom, that all we can conceive or say of him would come as far short of his incomparable merits, as doth a pebble of a diamond, and a candle of the glories of the sun, or our unworthy pen of his victorious and seraphic quill. We cannot add a grain of honor to his glories, of which he is as full as the eternity of heaven, in the fruition of Christ and God, can make him. Where he hath exchanged his Crown of Thorns for one far more illustrious of Stars, and where his charity which was kindled here to very high and extraordinary proportion, how now attained her ultimate perfector, and burneth with ever lasting flames." See also King Charles The First Vindicated as cited by Grey.
- 1 An Impartial Examination Of The Second Volume Of Mr. Daniel Neal's History Of The Puritans by Zachary Grey, L.L.D., Rector Of Houghton-Conquest, in Bedfordshire, London.
- 1 Anglican And Puritan - The Basis Of Their Opposition, 1558-1640, by John F. H. New, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1964.
- 1 See The English Experience - Its Record In Early Printed Books, #243, Published in facsimile, England, The King's Maiesties Declaration To His Subiects, Concerning Lawfvll Sports To be Vsed, London, 1618, Da Capo Press, Theatrvm Orbis Terrarvm Ltd., Amsterdam, 1970, New York, originally printed by Bonham Norton, and John Bill, Deputy Printers For The King's Most Excellent Majesty. Both Papists and Puritans are rebuked in this treatise. James' reasons for allowing sports were varied, but included the fact that by prohibiting the lawful exercise of sports after divine service, this would hinder the conversion of many, including Papists, to the Anglican Church service. Another reason for allowing sports was because James recognized the need for healthy exercise among the populace to promote good health, which by the way said persons petitioned the King for his decree in this regard due to the Puritan restrictions on same. Moreover, James knew that if the people were given nothing to do after divine service this would facilitate public drunkenness and other filthy activities as the maxim goes "idle hands are the devil's workshop."
- 1 Great Britain's Solomon - James VI & I In His Three Kingdoms, Maurice Lee, Jr., University Of Illinois Press, page 172.
- 1 The Political Works Of James I [Reprinted From The Edition Of 1616 With Introduction By Charles H. McIlwain] New York, 1965.
- 1 James obviously believed he had just cause for opposing the Puritans, both on personal, political, and moral grounds. Did the Puritans have reason to hate James? Apparently so. James' restriction, in some cases fines/punishment, and general disdain and public rebuke for the "sect" was well known.
- 1 It should be noted that Puritans were hardly always seen as "pure" in their doctrine, and some time after the civil war were to be found at one another's throats. For example, John Goodwin (1594-1665) was a Puritan divine born in Norfolk. He sided with the Puritans, and as early as 1633 inclined to independency under the influence of John Cotton. He published in 1642 a tract Anti-Cavalierisme which openly advocated force of arms. Similarly, he assailed the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings in his Os Ossorianum, or a Bone For a Bishop. Some in is own ranks accused him of Arminiansm, Socinianism, popery, Antinomianism, being a schismatic, and of obtuse skepticism. In his republican zeal he defended Milton, and attacked Charles I. He published several works attacking Baptists. His affinity for controversy is exemplified in his later publication of a work criticizing Cromwell's triers. He viewed Scripture somewhat mystically as did Barclay and Fox in that he asserted that the word of God was not to be confined to the written word alone, and that heathens may be saved without the written word of God. He did not view the denial of the Holy Trinity as a damnable heresy. In the Restoration he along with Milton was ordered into custody in June 1660, and his works against the crown were burned. He was subsequently released to return to his private life. See his entry in The Dictionary Of National Biography Sir Leslie Stephen/Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford University Press, 1917, Volume VIII, pages 145-148. See also his entry in Burned Books - Neglected Chapters In British History & Literature, Volume II, by Charles R. Gillett, Kennlkat Press, 1960, pages 427-429.
- 1 See The Dictionary Of National Biography Sir Leslie Stephen/Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford University Press, 1917, Volume II, pages 1084-1089. John Bradshaw (1602-1659), regicide, friend of Milton the poet, came to be judge/jury over Charles I as a result of peculiar circumstances. He was elevated to his lofty position as Lord President of an illegal court trying the reigning monarch from a relatively insubstantial post in the judiciary by Oliver Cromwell in a desperate attempt to find someone to convict the king. This was because " On January 2, 1648/49 the House of Lords rejected the ordinance of the commons for bringing the king to trial before a parliamentary commission. The commons straightway resolved to proceed on their sole authority." Many anti-royalists were unconvinced of the legality of the proceeding "Whitelocke and Widdrington both refused to serve on the commission; Sergeant Nichols, who had been nominated to the commission at the same time as Bradshaw, declined to take part in the trial; the parliamentary judges Rolle, St. John, and Wilde deemed the proceedings irregular from first to last; Edmunt Prideaux an able lawyer, whom the commons had appointed solicitor-general on October 12, 1648 was unwilling to appear against the king…" "Private meetings of the commission, attended by less than half the full number of the members…" Bradshaw was given numerous body guards and had a high-crowned beaver hat lined with plated steel to ward off blows. At his court he had a crimson velvet chair, and a desk with a crimson velvet cushion, and was surrounded by attendants. He condemned numerous royalists to death including King Charles I. He kept in close contact with Oliver Cromwell, and resultantly honors were heaped upon him. However, over the course of time the despotic rule of Cromwell did not sit well with Bradshaw, and much like dogs fighting over a carcass, the two men came to be at odds with one another. The two men violently attacked one another, and each tried to rein in the other, with Bradshaw ultimately becoming an open opponent of Cromwell's government. The more Cromwell tried to deprive Bradshaw of office and power, the more Bradshaw vigorously denounced Cromwell's usurpation of power. "He is credited with having asserted that if such conduct ended in the Protector's assumption of full regal power, he and Cromwell 'had committed the most horrid treason [in their treatment of Charles I] that ever was heard of.'" Despite the distaste between him and Cromwell, Bradshaw never repented of the evil he did to Charles I, rather "he declared a little before he left the world that if the king were to be tried and condemned again, he would be the first man that would do it." Bradshaw had a deep hatred for monarchy, yet he used the fruit of monarchy to further his own aims as evidenced by his confiscating many books that he took out of the office of the King's Library at Whitehall, many of which were never recovered. His ultimate fate, was like that of his one time friend, later bitter enemy, Cromwell. "On May 15, 1660, it was resolved that Bradshaw, although dead, should be attained by act of parliament, together with Cromwell, Ireton, and Pride, all of whom died before the Restoration … On December 4, 1660 parliament directed that the bodies of Bradshaw, Cromwell and Ireton 'should be taken up from Westminster' and hanged in their coffins at Tyburn. This indignity was duly perpetrated on January 30, 1660/61. The regicides' heads were subsequently exposed in Westminster Hall and their bodies reburied beneath the gallows." Furthermore, Edwin Murphy's After The Funeral - The Posthumous Adventures Of Famous Corpses, Barnes & Noble Books, New York, 1998, devotes Chapter 4 to Cromwell's cranium. After falling down atop a spike from which it was affixed to Westminster Hall it was taken. Intermittently it appeared in private family collections, and examined by the Royal Archaeological Institute for authenticity in 1911 and later by others in 1930 which concluded that it was authentic. The head was bequeathed from Canon Horace Wilkinson to Sidney Sussex College, Cromwell's old alma mater. "In 1960 the college decided to give Cromwell's battered head a decent burial. There being no way to find, much less identify, Cromwell's body beneath the busy streets of London, the head was interred somewhere in or near the entrance to the college chapel. The exact spot is a well guarded secret, to prevent any future desecrations at the hands of pranksters, collectors, or Irish extremists still angry over Cromwell's treatment of their ancestors at Drogheda and Wexford in 1649." Page 22.
- 1 John Milton's ((((((((((((( was answered by the Vindiciæ Caroline Or A DEFENCE of Eikon Basilik( - The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes and Sufferings In REPLY To a BOOK entitled (((((((((((((, Written by Mr. Milton, and lately reprinted at Amsterdam, London, MDCXCII.
- 1 See The Dictionary Of National Biography Sir Leslie Stephen & Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford University Press, 1917, Volume XX, pages 433-435. Wagstaffe was born February 13, 1645, and died October 17, 1712. He was a nonjuror and Bishop. Wagstaffe published A Defense of the Vindication in 1699 which will be reviewed herein.
- 1 See The Dictionary Of National Biography Sir Leslie Stephen/Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford University Press, 1917, Volume XXI, pages 922-924. Wordsworth, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge was born on June 9, 1774, and died on February 2, 1846. "Who Wrote EIKON BASILIKH? (1824), In this work and those that succeeded it Wordsworth supported the claims of Charles I as the author of the Icon."
- 1 For a listing of such works please see A New Bibliography Of The Eikon Basilike Of King Charles The First by Francis F. Madan, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, New Series Volume II, 1949/50, pages 134-163.
- 1 See his entry in The Dictionary Of National Biography edited by Sir Leslie Stephen & Sir Sidney Lee, Volume IX, Oxford University Press, London, 1917, pages 1066-1067.
- 1 See Bishop John Gauden's entry in The Dictionary Of National Biography, Volume VII, edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford University Press, London, 1917, pages 948-951. Also, see his entry in Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Revised Edition, edited by J. O. Thorne and T. C. Collocott, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, page 542.
- 1 An anonymous individual assumed this pen name in a desperate attempt to respond to Hollingworth. According to Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Revised Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, page 850 Edmund Ludlow (1617-1692) was an English regicide.
- 1 The Dictionary Of National Biography, Volume XIII, edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford University Press, London, 1917, pages 471-489. John Milton (1608-1674), poet. Curiously, "He was nicknamed the 'lady' at college, from his delicate complexion and slight make." He was good fencer in addition to be highly regarded as a scholar and gentleman. He was regarded as one being strict in morals, and very upright. In Italy he offended many by his rigid morality. He was staunchly anti-monarchical. His critics tried to assail his morality. "The outbreak of the civil war at the end of 1642 did not induce Milton to enter the army. He says himself (Defensio Secunda) that as his mind had always been stronger than his body, he did not court camps in which an common person would have been as useful as himself." He was a liberal when it came to divorce, being the architect of "irreconcilable differences" as grounds for divorce, for which he was savaged by his contemporaries. After Charles I's death Milton was sworn in as Secretary to the Council of State. He also served as chief apologist for the Independent cause. "By order of the House of Commons he … was directed to answer the 'Eikon Basilike,' written, as is now known, by John Gauden … Milton's Eikonoklastes,' the answer in question appeared on October 6, 1649 … Milton hints a suspicion that Charles was not the real author of the 'Eikon.'" Milton earned the ire of Cromwell by publishing an unlicensed plea for freedom of speech, Areopagitica, A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, to the Parliament of England, 1644, which was condemned by Cromwell and the Parliament. His Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio and Eikonoklastes were burned at the time of the Restoration though he himself was spared. See Banned Books 287 B.C. to 1978 A.D. 4th Edition by Anne L. Haight, updated by Chandler B. Grannis, R. R. Bowker Company, New York, pages 21-22. See also his entry in Burned Books - Neglected Chapters In British History & Literature, Volume II, by Charles R. Gillett, Kennlkat Press, 1960, pages 429-434. "In 1648 there appeared a book called Eikon Basilike which was claimed to have been the work of Dr. John Gauden, but which was more probably written by Charles I, as a sort of apologia. At all events the general scope and tenor of the book corresponded closely to the representations made by Charles in a long series of declarations, containing a great variety of promises and engagements. Milton replied to the boo, and while he mentioned the fact that another was alleged to have been the author, he himself assumed the now generally accepted view." For a discussion of Puritan Censorship see The Encyclopedia Of Censorship, by Jonathon Green, Facts On File, New York, page 247, with Milton's Eikonklastes noted on page 27.
- 1 Under Cromwell, concealed by the guise of religious toleration, many different sects were allowed to flourish as the official Anglican Church was actively repressed and disestablished. This idea of religious toleration was purposely designed to enervate the Anglican establishment, and its effects are with England today in the form of various cults and competing supermarket of religions in what was the inception of a pluralistic religious society designed by Cromwell. Gospel integrity was traded cheaply for religious liberty.
- 1 See entry for Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey in The Dictionary Of National Biography edited by Sir Leslie Stephen & Sir Sidney Lee, Volume I., Oxford University Press, 1917, pages 473-475. It is noted that the memorandum's authenticity is warmly debated (Biographia Britannica).
- 1 Charles I writes for example "When Providence was pleased to deprive me of all other civil comforts and secular attendants, I thought the absence of them all might be best supplied by the attendance of some of my chaplains; whom…" He is writing of his persecution, obviously Dr. Walker has ignored many such similar statements by Charles I such as this in order to sustain his argument.
- 1 For contemporary animadversions of the fraudulent prayer inserted into later copies of the Eikon see S. B. Liljegren's Studies in Milton, 1918 which will be summarized later in this work.
- 1 See The Royal Martyr by Charles Wheeler Coit, Member of the Memorial of Merit, M.A., B.D., &c., on page 410, Note (F): "… As for the claim of Dr. Gauden to the authorship of the Eikon Basilike: 'Here follows the statement of what really occurred. It was the critical moment when the Manuscript had passed out of the King's keeping, and, in the custody of Dr. Symons, was being conveyed to the Printer in London, already furnished with the King's injunctions concerning it … On his way to London with his precious charge [Dr. Symons] broke his journey at Bocking in Essex, the residence of his friend Dr. Gauden. A zeal for the Royalist cause was the bond between the two friends, so that, when Dr. Gauden begged to see the Royal Manuscript, the request was immediately granted. 'Here is the statement of Mr. Le Pla, Minister of Finchinfield, about six miles from Gauden's rectory at Bocking. His letter dated November 26, 1696, describes a certain William Allen, a servant for many yeas in Gauden's family, 'who came to see me; and after dinner, being alone with him, I fell into discourse with him about Dr. Gauden, and the King's Book. He said most people thought his master to be the author of it. I told him I could never believe it for some reasons that I gave him. Whereupon he smiled and told me he could say more to that business than any man, for that Dr. Gauden told him he had borrowed the book, and was obliged to return it by such a time; that besides what other time he might employ in it, he sat up one who night to transcript it. That he, William Allen, sat up in the chamber with him to wait upon him, to make his fires and snuff his candles … I think he said this book was borrowed of Mr. Symmons of Raine, one of the King's Chaplains. That which makes it very probable that Dr. Gauden had the book from Mr. Symmons is the near neighborhood and great familiarity between them. Allen could read and write very well, and so could not easily be deceived either in the book or in his master; though the Doctor had not told him that it was none of his.'" This also would account for a copy of the Eikon written in Gauden's own hand, if such were available. Note also that Young, Wordsworth, and others were privy to this.
- 1 See The Memoirs Of The Two Last Years Of The Reign Of King Charles I by Sir Thomas Herbert, London, 1839. Herbert was Parliament's choice for attending Charles I, and his account lends no credence to the claim of Gauden. I have his verbatim account, and there is no evidence which would independently verify the claims of Gauden or his critics. This is an important primary source oft neglected independently, though often cited by reference.
- 1 See King Charles The First, The Author Of Icôn Basiliké Further Proved In A Letter To His Grace The Archbishop Of Canterbury, In Reply To The Objections Of Dr. Lingard, Mr. Todd, Mr. Broughton, The Edinburgh Review, and Mr. Hallam, by Christopher Wordsworth, Cambridge, London, 1828.
- 1 See A Vindication Of Charles The First by Joshua Brookes, Hurst & Blackett, Limited, London, 1934, page 213 "The weight of evidence is in favor of Gauden having written it (the Eikon) from notes made by the King." The citation is in opposition to this fact from Levett.
- 1 The Identity Of The New Testament Text, Revised Edition, by W. N. Pickering, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, page 36. Elsewhere [page 136] Pickering says of internal evidence "Since all such characterizations have been based upon the demonstrably fallacious canons of 'internal evidence' they have no validity. I consider the allegation to be vacuous."
- 1 See A General Introduction To The Bible by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, Revised & Expanded, Moody Press, Chicago, 1986, page 439 "Redaction critics generally do not follow traditional viewpoints about authorship. Instead, they tend to favor a view that originators of biblical books are later theological editors to whom the various book names were attached for the sake of prestige."
- 1 Eisegesis is defined as "act of proposing, advising, introducing, to bring in, introduce, propose, advise … the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas - compare exegesis." And Exegesis is defined as "To explain, interpret, out of, critical interpretation of a text or portion of Scripture." While eisegesis is a reading into a text, conversely, exegesis is a conclusion derived from the text itself. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged Edition.
- 1 See The Text of The New Testament by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, W. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 273, 1988.
- 1 See A General Introduction To The Bible by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, Revised & Expanded, Moody Press, Chicago, 1986, Chapter 25 - Development of Textual Criticism, pages 477-478.
- 1 See Many Infallible Proofs - Evidences For The Christian Faith by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Master Books, El Cajon, California, 9th printing, 1988, pages 42-46.
- 1 Cited by Many Infallible Proofs - Evidences For The Christian Faith by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Master Books, El Cajon, California, 9th printing, 1988, pages 45-46. From A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament by Robert Dick Wilson, Chicago, Moody Press, 1959, page 130.
- 1 Principles of Textual Criticism by James Thorpe, The Huntington Library, San Marino, California, 1972, pages 55-57.
- 1 See The Traditional Text by Dean John William Burgon, The Bible For Today, 1896 edition, pages 29-67. See also The Last 12 Verses Of Mark, The Bible For Today, 1871 edition, Chapter 9.
- 1 Due to the omission of "at Ephesus" in the corrupt Westcott & Hort (Alexandrian/Minority) text, this has led some textual critics to postulate that the Book of Ephesians was not written to the Ephesians at all, but rather was some sort of "encyclical" or "circular" letter. For more serious doctrinal errors see discussions on I Timothy 3:16 (God) manifest in the flesh…; I John 5:7; John 7:53; 8:1-11; Mark 16:9-20 & etc. Other textual fiascoes in modern versions are Jonah 3:3; and compare Hosea 11:12 in the NIV to the same verse in the KJB. See also I Samuel 17; 2 Samuel 21:19 and I Chronicles 20:5, David killed Goliath - right? Wrong! In the modern versions, if you will compare 2 Samuel 21:19 in the KJB & the NASV you will find that Elhanan actually killed Goliath (NASV) while in the KJB Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. According to I Chronicles 20:5-8 Goliath had brothers who were his sons. Furthermore, according to some modern textual critics Moses and the Nation of Israel did not cross the Red Sea, but the "Sea of Reeds" (a shallow swamp located in an entirely different geographic region), due to their doubt of the miracle of the parting of the sea! See Exodus 15:4 in the NIV and compare to the KJB
- 1 Shakespeare's Sonnets Folger Shakespeare Library, edited by Louis B. Wright & Virginia A. LaMar, 1967, pages xxv-xxvii. On page xlvii the author writes "The question of the authenticity of Shakespeare's plays arouses perennial attention. The theory of hidden cryptograms in the plays is demolished by …. A succinct account of the various absurdities advanced to suggest the authorship of a multitude of candidates other than Shakespeare will be found in …."
- See Shakespeare And His Betters - A History And A Criticism Of The Attempts Which Have Been Made To Prove That Shakespeare's Works Were Written By Others by R. C. Churchill, Max Reinhardt Limited, London, 1958, pages 121-122. See also page 48 where reference is made to Harold Johnson's book Did the Jesuits Write Shakespeare?, Chicago, 1916.
- Op. Cit., pages 57-58.
- Op. Cit., page 32. Churchill writes "…his opinion was not founded on the literary qualities of Shakespeare and Bacon at all, but in what he conceived to be their parallel 'philosophies' for example, in the views expressed by the character Coriolanus in the play of that name and the views expressed by Francis Bacon in his own person." See also page 66 where Churchill writes: "There is also the argument, first advanced by Wilmot and repeated by Smith and Holmes, concerning the thoughts and style of the two writers (Bacon & Shakespeare)."
- Op. Cit., pages 113-114.
- Op. Cit., page 66: This has been partly developed by means of comparisons between the opinions expressed by Bacon and those expressed by certain of Shakespeare's characters, partly by means of comparisons between the actual phrasing of the two men in their accepted works."
- Op. Cit., pages 66 and 67.
- Op. Cit., page 67.
- Op. Cit., page ix.
- See The Bacon-Shakespeare Anatomy by W. S. Melsome, M.A., M.D., F.R.C.S., &c., (sometime Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge), George Lapworth & Company, Limited, London, 1945, Introduction, pages v-xv.
- See Did Francis Bacon Write The Shakespeare Plays? By Ignatius Donnelly, Cambridge, 1888.
- Donnelly's theories were disproved by William and Elizebeth Friedman in their work entitled The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, Cambridge, 1957. See further references herein to this work.
- See Shakespeare And His Betters… R. C. Churchill, London, 1958. On page 58 he writes with humor "Other Baconians think that he (Bacon) is still alive, living in retirement in some English country house, having never ceased to pour forth literary masterpieces under various pseudonyms from the seventeenth century onwards. Whether he now draws his old age pension, under the National Insurance Scheme, is one of the points on which I have not been able to get any precise information."
- See The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined - An Analysis of Cryptographic Systems Used As Evidence That Some Author Other Than William Shakespeare Wrote The Plays Commonly Attributed To Him by William F. Friedman & Elizabeth S. Friedman, Cambridge University Press, 1957. Likewise see the controversy over the dedication of Shakespeare's sonnets to "Mr. W. H."
- 1 See Shakespeare - The Evidence [Unlocking The Mysteries Of The Man & His Work] by Ian Wilson, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1993. For some interesting alternative theories on authorship see page 20 where the following narrative is recounted: "However, we have not yet exhausted the list of proposed 'Shakespeares', for a change of the author's sex has not been ruled out. Dr. Lillian Schwartz, consultant to AT&T Laboratories of Murrayfield, New Jersey, contends not only that 'Shakespeare' was a woman, but that she was none other than Queen Elizabeth I. A specialist in the computer-matching of facial features, in 1986 Schwartz was approached by Oxfordian Dr. Leslie Dressler of the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, in the hope that she might be able to demonstrate a computer match between the First Folio's famous 'Shakespeare' engraving and surviving portraits of the Earl of Oxford. Although Schwartz could not, a little later, on visiting London's National Portrait Gallery, she happened to find herself before George Gower's portrait of Queen Elizabeth I as painted in 1588. In Schartz's own words: 'I saw the Queen's eyes staring out at me and I thought, my God, this is incredible. I had been working with the engraving for months, but I had not even really considered the Queen…' When she set photographs of the First Folio 'Shakespeare' and the Gower 'Elizabeth' into her computer-matching equipment, lo and behold her first impression was amazingly verified. In her words, 'You could take the two portraits, scale them down to the same size on a xerox machine, and lay them on top of each other and see for yourself.' Of course, there were a few slight differences such as the 'Shakespeare' engraving's beard, and small variations to the jawline and forehead. But these were readily attributable to the engraver's attempt merely to change the sex of the portrait. Easy as it is to be beguiled by, or make fun of, these alternative authorship claims…"
- An interesting twist to the argument from internal evidence is provided by Robert Dick Wilson in his book entitled A Scientific Investigation Of The Old Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, Revised Edition, 2nd Printing, 1965, page 102 where he writes "The diction and style of some of Milton's poems and letters and of his Christian Doctrine are so different from those of Paradise Lost and the Areopagitica, that, if his aim, if left out of consideration, we might infer a difference of authorship." Internal evidence with regard to style can then be as much of a foe as it currently is seen as a friend to critics of the Carolinian authorship of the Eikon.
- In The Retrospective Review published by Charles Baldwyn, in London, in 1820, in Volume 5/1822, page 90 there is a citation of an expression of doubt as to whether King James VI & I actually was the author of the Demonology. Though no one accepts the story as true it does demonstrate that it was common for detractors to cast doubt on the authorship of works of authors whom they held in low regard: "There seems to have been some doubt whether James Montacute, Bishop of Exeter, who edited the works of King James, both in Latin and English, in 1616, did not Gaudenize a little. Ady speaks of 'James, Bishop of Winton, setting forth three books called Demonology, in the name and title of the works of King James;' and Webster says, 'There is a little Treatise in Lain titled Demonologia, fathered upon King James, how truly we shall not dispute, for some ascribe it to others.' No reason is assigned for this doubt, nor is it probable that there was any foundation for it. Two editions of the Demonology were printed in Edinburgh in 1597 and 1600 before James's accession to the crown of England; and a third in London in the year of his accession."
- See Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, New Series Volume III, 1949/1950, A New Bibliography Of The Eikon Basilike Of King Charles The First by Francis F. Madan.
- Literary Forgeries by J. A. Farrer, Longmans, Green & Company, New York, 1907, pages 99, 101.
- Literary Forgeries by J. A. Farrer, Longmans, Green & Company, New York, 1907, pages 125 "But Gauden's work cannot fairly be classed amongst ordinary forgeries. In his endeavor to write in the spirit of the king he so far surpassed himself as to produce a masterpiece in its kind."
- For continuing reference to Gauden as author of the Eikon see Anglicanism - The Thought & Practice Of The Church Of England, Illustrated From The Religious Literature Of The Seventeenth Century, compiled/edited by Paul E. More & Frank L. Cross, London, 1935, published by the Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, page 622 "The Value Of Set Forms Of Prayer. No. 285. 'Eikon Basilike' [From the ((((( ((((((((, The Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings, §16 ('Upon the Ordinance against the Common-Prayer Book'), ed. 1648, pp. 96-100. This famous Royalist treatise was published soon after Charles I's execution on January 30, 1648/49. The author is unknown, but it was quite possibly John Gauden, who became Bishop of Exeter at the Restoration …" Also page 719 under entry for Charles I "Attributed to Charles I: ((((( ((((((((, published immediately after his execution; but probably this book was the work of John Gauden (See note on No. 285)."See also page lxviii "… Eikon Basilike, written probably by John Gauden, one of Charles' chaplains, …"
- See Monarchy And Incest In Renaissance England - Literature, Culture, Kinship, and Kingship, by Bruce T. Boehrer, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992. Milton's hatred of Charles and the monarchy are eloquently portrayed as, for example, on pages 113-114 "But for John Milton, defending the execution of King Charles I, the answers are easy: incest is an inevitable consequence of monarchy, … That is, incest becomes a figural equivalent for the set of political attitudes that includes divine-right proprietarism, royal paternalism, and patriarchal absolutism. As a result, when the Eikon Basilike (1649) claims that authoritative laws can only be begotten by the king, with Parliament serving merely as a consenting party, Milton is read with a furious retort. 'So that the Parliament, it seems, is but a Female, and without [Charles'] procreative reason, the laws which they produce are but wind-eggs … He ought then to have so thought of a Parliament, if he count it not Male, as of his Mother, which, to civil being, created both him, and the royalty he wore. And if it hath been anciently interpreted the presaging sign of a future tyrant, but to dream of copulating with his Mother, what can it be less than actual Tyranny to affirme waking, that the Parliament, which is his Mother, can neither conceive nor bring forth any authoritative Act without his Masculine coition … What other notions but these, or such like, could swell up Caligula to think himself a God (Eikonoklastes, Prose Works, 3:467) This remark affords a good example of the tonal problem in Milton's antimonarchial tracts … In countering royalist arguments … the Eikon Basilike - Milton again and again wanders from the point to heap this sort of sexual abuse upon his opponents…" Interestingly, Boehrer notes on page 114 also that "The royalist outcry against Charles's execution proceeds from a long-standing and well-documented body of political theory, which successfully correlated absolute royal sovereignty to paternal authority within the family, and which identified both as divine institutions upheld by the Old Testament patriarchs." [See Salmasius's Defensio Regia Pro Carolo I and Filmer's works as cited therein such as Patriarcha. Moreover, see Peter du Moulin's Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Coelum Adversus Paricidas Anglicanos (1652). A favorite royalist term for the execution of Charles I was "parricide."] It is admitted that Boehrer holds to the standard critical view of the Eikon being possibly Gauden's work; (see page 116 of Boehrer's work) yet he nevertheless accurately portrays from a critical viewpoint the hatred Milton had for Charles personally and politically. This is why "In Eikonoklastes, Milton depicts Charles as an incestuous rapist, violating the (all-male) body of his mother, the Rump." (p. 116). On page 135 Boehrer writes "For just as Eikonoklastes depicts Charles I in the capacity of an incestuous son, violating the male/female body of his father/mother Parliament in order to produce authoritative laws,…"
- Variations in spelling of "Eikon" "Icon" and "Eikonoklastes" and "Iconoclastes" and such are simply due to orthography in the various sources consulted. The reader should be aware that although the spelling is different, the reference work is the same.
- The various testimonial evidence along with supporting documentation and elucidation in the extensive footnotes Wordsworth proves is simply too vast and detailed to be included in this study; however, the diligent reader may read same when the work is procured, which may be difficult. It is this author's estimation that many of the works on this issue, not merely the royalist side, are either hopelessly out of print, or otherwise very difficult to obtain. How proper and appropriate it would be to reprint the royalist works so that the modern day reader may have free access to them once again, for in our present society we have much of what has transpired before our time. Men in the early days of this controversy had long forgotten more than we can ever hope to recover by superficial research, and this is why a thorough reprinting of the royalist works is so very much needed. It is my hope that this study will stimulate thought and appreciation for these works, and encourage those on both side of the issue to once again study the primary materials and classic works on the topic, and not be content to consult scant reference works which only touch lightly on the topic.
- See his entry in The Dictionary Of National Biography by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, Volume X, Oxford University Press, London, 1917, pages 215-227.
- See Thomas Birch, The Case Of The Royal Martyr, London, 1758; Athenian Letters. Ib. 1781; Court and Times of Charles I., ib. 1848; Inquiry into the Share Which Charles I had in the Transactions of Glamorgan., ib., 1747.
- Rump is defined as "the remnant of a legislature, council, etc., after a majority of the members have resigned or been expelled - Rump Parliament, the remnant of the Long Parliament after Pride's Purge, lasting intermittently until 1660."
- The term as employed herein excludes the Roman Catholic interpretation of the word as such would be contrary the recorded statements and actions of the Royal Martyr, as well as the beliefs that he inherited from his father, King James VI & I. These precepts of consanguinity are amply exemplified in Anglican Catholicity Vindicated Against Roman Innovations: In The Answer Of Isaac Casaubon To Cardinal Perron [To Which Is Prefixed The Confession Of Faith Of King James I], Baltimore, 1875. James wrote "As for the Saints departed, I honor their memory, and in honor of them, do we in our Church observe the days of so many of them, as the Scripture does canonize for Saints; but I am loathe to believe all the tales of the legended Saints … As for prayer to Saints, Christ (I am sure) hath commanded us to come all to him that are laden with sin, and he will relieve us; and Saint Paul has forbidden us to worship Angels; or use any such voluntary worship, that has a show of humility, in that it spares not the flesh." This philosophy if fully outlined in the text of the main body of the document itself. See also the Negative Confession signed by James VI & I, as well as the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England which contain the Anglican positions against the claims of the Papacy.
- See also Anglicanism by Stephen Neill, Penguin Books, 3rd Edition, 1965. Also please consult A Theological Introduction To The Thirty-Nine Articles Of The Church Of England by E. J. Bicknell, Revised 3rd Edition by H. J. Carpenter, Bishop Of Oxford, Longmans, 1955.
- See William Juxon's entry in The Dictionary Of National Biography edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, Volume X, Oxford University Press, pages 1121-1125. William Juxon (1582-1663) was archbishop of Canterbury and lord high treasurer of England. "On March 6, 1635/6 Juxon received the white staff of the lord high treasurer from the king's hand, and took the oath as a privy councilor." "Juxon was with the king at the date of the negotiations of Newport in 1648, and during his trial. After the sentence he rarely left him, and the king declined the company of other ministers. On the morning of January 30, the day of the execution, the bishop, after private prayers, read the morning service with the king, and alone of his servants was with him on the scaffold. To him and Colonel Tomlinson the king handed a copy of his speech in vindication of his government, and, in answer to Juxon's request, added his profession of loyalty to the church. Charles also gave Juxon a copy of his private prayers, printed in some copies at the end of the Eikon Basilike …Juxon took leave of his master in the words, 'You are exchanged from a temporal to an eternal crown, a good exchange,' and as Charles laid his head on the block, he gave the bishop his last commission in the word 'Remember!' The paper handed by the king to Juxon, containing a note of his speech, was at once demanded by the officers (Fuller, Church History, p. 236). He was also strictly examined as to the meaning of the king's last word. The body was embalmed under his directions, and he, with several lay lords, chose the place for the grave in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, after permission to bury it in Henry VII's Chapel was refused. On February 7th Juxon and his friends bore the coffin into the chapel through the driving snow, but Juxon was forbidden to read the burial service." In the Restoration Juxon was restored the office of Canterbury, and "He died on 4 June 1663. His body was embalmed and taken to Oxford, where it lay in state in the divinity school, and an oration was delivered by South, then public orator. 'His best character was that which his royal master, King Charles I gave him, that Good Man.'"
- A very good Carolinian source which references James VI & I's own position on this matter, and from a knight under Charles I is Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer edited by Peter Laslett, Garland Publishing Incorporated, New York, 1984. Sir Robert's treatises on Monarchical theory/practice have never been sufficiently answered. It is this author's humble estimation that this is one of the best defenses of the Divine Right Model of Monarchy that exists. It is well worth obtaining and reading! See Filmer's entries in The Cambridge Bibliography Of English Literature edited by F. W. Bateson, Volume I., Cambridge University Press, 1940, 468, 845, 877-878, 894. A fine modern exposition of the theory is to be found in The Heresy Of Democracy - A Study in the History of Government, by Lord Percy of Newcastle, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1955. It should be noted that this author advocates that in addition to the Divine Right theory, that a monarch should personally be a devout Christian, as is implied in the principle of Divine Right traditionally.
- Microsoft Encarta, 1994, Microsoft Corporation, 1994 Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. See also History Of England by W. E. Lunt, Harper & Brothers, London, 1928, page 425.
- James I And the Divine Right Of Kings as found in "Political Studies" Volume 5, No. 1., 1957, pages 36-48, Guildford & Butterworth Scientific Limited.
- Ibid., page 37. There are many works extant critical of the theory with some of the more populist sources being: A History of Political Theory by G. H. Sabine, London, 1944; The Divine Right of Kings by J. N. Figgis, London, 1914; Studies in the History of Political Philosophy by C. E. Vaughn, Manchester, 1925; Government and the Governed by R. H. S. Crossman, London, 1945 &c A more balanced perspective comes in Professor McIlwain's Introduction, The Political Works Of James I, New York, Russell & Russell, 1965. The careful reader is referenced to James own works on the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings for exposition in detail of this political ideology. See True Law Of Free Monarchies by His Majesty King James VI & I for example.
- Daniel 2:20,21; I Chronicles 28:4-6; John 10:34,35 cf. 2 Samuel 15:2; I Kings 3:9,28; Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; I Peter 2:13-15 cf. Acts 5:29. Though James was devoted to the Divine Right doctrine, even he recognized that when a Monarch's laws clearly conflict with God's laws, God's laws take precedence, but rebellion was never justified.
- The Final Phase of Divine Right Theory In England, 1688-1702 in The English Historical Review, Volume LXXVII, Oct/62, Longman, page 638.
- For example see A Discourse Concerning Submission to Divine Providence by John Norris, 1693; A Case of the Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powers by William Sherlock, 1691, along with his Discourse Concerning the Divine Providence, and his "Vindications" of aforementioned works; God's Ways of Disposing of Kingdoms by William Lloyd, 1691. Interestingly, even after 1688 the observances of Charles I's martyrdom each 30 January were as strong as ever in the expressions of divine right and denunciations of rebellion: See Richard Hollingworth, The Death of King Charles I Proved a Down-right MURDER, With the Aggravations of it in a sermon at St. Botolph Aldgate, London, January 30, 1692/1693, London, 1693; &c Modern writers have also penned works on this them such as The Divine Right of Kings by John Neville Figgis, Cambridge, 1914; Faith and History by Reinhold Niebuhr, London, 1949 (see Chapter vii 'The Biblical View: the Sovereignty of God and Universal History' pp. 115-135. As an aside, had not the Puritan faction, allied with Cromwell, murdered the staunchly Protestant Charles I, his heir would not have had to flee from England, where he was removed from the Anglo-Protestant influence of his father, which by the way was the genesis of the later Stuarts falling into Roman Catholicism. In turn, had later Stuarts not embraced Roman Catholicism then the theory of Divine Right more or less would have prevailed and might have negated so much of the turmoil in Great Britain which is recorded for us in such vivid detail by chroniclers of the time. Admittedly, hindsight is usually 20/20, and observations based upon "What If" theories are usually wishful thinking. However, even so, one cannot help but contemplate such factors when looking at the historical record. Moreover, concomitant with the steady downfall or erosion in importance in Christian Monarchies of the time was the demise of the theory of the Divine Right itself, as both concepts being primarily offshoots and doctrines/philosophies principally based upon Holy Scripture. To study the collapse of one theory is to study the disintegration of the other.
- See also John Bodin's The Necessity Of The Absolute Power Of All Kings And In Particular Of The King Of England published in 1648, London. John Bodin was a Protestant of the Geneva persuasion, and ably articulated the monarchist principles built upon by Filmer.
- See BRACTON, De legibus et consuetudinis Angliae… 1569, etc., ed. 1597, …
- See Major Huntington's narrative provided herein and compare to Herbert's words.
- I have omitted some primary sources, (such as Wagstaffe, and Hollingworth) as they may be difficult to obtain, but nevertheless are listed in textual footnotes and throughout the main body of the text.
Back to His Majestie King James VI & I Home Page.
ecclesiastes viii:iv
Home
Keywords: King Charles I of England, King Charles, King James I of England, history, King James VI of Scotland, King James VI & I, English monarch,
King James I, King James VI, His Majesty King James