9/2/07 - English Literature - Authority and Rulership

Certain ideas about politics underpinned the age of the Renaissance and influenced its literary work. In 1603, the Union of the Crowns took place. James I of Scotland's accession to the English and Scottish throne had great ramifications. 'Britain' became existant, relations with European neighbours were transformed, Ireland was opened to new colonisation, and yet Scotland still lacked a form of government which affected the culture and economy on either side of the border. James is said to be "the wisest fool ever known." Accusations flew around that he desired a young nun. He was bookish, but foolish with politics. But this is not the only story of James as the monarchical king: he was a "cradle king", and yet he managed to overcome Scottish and church issues against monarchy. A poet and writer of rules for poetry, he modelled his court on European ideals which shows how aware he was of cultural terms. He was a scholar and founder of educational institutions, including the University of Edinburgh. His bad press comes from writers who he put out of joint. James raised constitutional problems about what a king is, how government should be run and about national pride (remember that was partly Scottish, and the setting for Macbeth in Scotland is no accident). He viewed the union in a new way: it was James's idea and programme. He was the first King of Great Britain. There was no actual union until 1707, but it was viewed as a union nonetheless. There came with it consitutional problems like property rights. Plans for constitutional union had been previously unsuccessful; England was unwilling and Scotland did not like England taking up a larger proportion of Great Britain. James considered the philosophy of monarchy in his manuscript, released during Elizabeth's reign, which was the people's first glimpse of their next monarch. "First then, I will set down the true grounds, whereupon I am to build, out of the Scriptures, since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinity, as I have already said: next, from the fundamental Laws of our own Kingdom, which nearest must concern us: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by diverse similitudes drawn out of the same: and will conclude syne by answering the most weighty and appearing incommodities that can be objected. "Kings are called Gods by the prophetical King David, because they sit upon GOD his Throne in the earth, and have the count of their administration to give unto him. "By the Law of Nature the King becomes a natural Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation: And as the Father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and virtuous government of his children; even so is the king bound to care for all his subjects. As all the toile and pain that the father can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that the effect thereof redound to their profit and weal; so ought the Prince to doe towards his people. As the kindly father ought to foresee all inconvenients and dangers that may arise towards his children, and though with the hazard of his own person press to prevent the same; so ought the King towards his people. As the fathers wrath and correction upon any of his children that offendeth, ought to be by a fatherly chastisement seasoned with pity, as long as there is any hope of amendment in them; so ought the King towards any of his Lieges that offend in that measure. "The kings thereafter in Scotland were before any estates or ranks of men within the same, before any Parliaments were holden or laws made; and by them was the land distributed (which at the first was wholly theirs), states erected and decerned , and forms of government devised and established. And it follows of necessity that the Kings were the authors and makers of the laws and not the laws of the Kings. "And according to these fundamental laws already alleged, we daily see that in the Parliament (which is nothing else but the head court of the king and his vassals) the laws are but craved by his subjects and only made by him at their rogation and with their advice. For albeit the king make daily statutes and ordinances, enjoining such pains thereto as he thinks meet, without any advice of Parliament or estates, yet it lies in the power of no Parliament to make any kind of law or statute without his sceptre be to it, for giving it the force of a law. And although divers changes have been in other countries of the blood royal and kingly house, the kingdom being wrest[ed] by conquest from one to another, as in our neighbour country in England (which was never in ours), yet the same ground of the king's right over all the land and subjects thereof remaineth alike in all other free monarchies, as well as in this. For when the Bastard of Normandy came into England and made himself king, was it not by force and with a mighty army? Where he gave the law and took none, changed the laws, inverted the order of government, set down the strangers, his followers, in many of the old possessors' rooms, as at this day well appeareth a great part of the gentlemen in England being come of the Norman blood, and their old laws, which to this day they are ruled by, are written in his language, and not in theirs. And yet his successors have with great happiness enjoyed the crown to this day, whereof the like was also done by all them that conquested them before. … And so the power flows always from himself; as by daily experience we see, good and just Princes will from time to time make new laws and statutes, adjoining the penalties to the breakers thereof, which before the law was made, had been no crime to the subject to have committed." [From James VI and I, The True Law of Free Monarchies (Edinburgh, 1598)] James has been identified as an absolutist, that is, as someone who believed in the divine right of kings. The subtitle of his manuscript was "The reciprocal and mutual duty betwixt a free king and his natural subjects", which implies that the subjects are not "free." Monarchy is thought of as an institution supported by scripture, so that the king rules like a god over his kingdom. Kings are therefore accountable only to God. In the manuscript there is a reference to Scottish and English fundamental laws, i.e. laws of government justifying his claim to monarchy. Statute law said that the government was run by the king, therefore the king is above the law. Hierarchies in nature serve as models for monarchy patriarchy. James says that kings govern over their kingdom like fathers over their children. Kings must punish offending subjects like a father chastising an unruly child, although punishment is given only where there is room for amendment. Most important for James was the primary constitution of monarchy. This is the logic of sovereignty, as outlined by Jean Bodin: "Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth, … that is, the highest power of command. We must now formulate a definition of sovereignty because no jurist or political philosopher has defined it, even though it is the chief point, and the one that needs most to be explained, in a treatise on the commonwealth. "Persons who are sovereign must not be subject in any way to the commands of someone else and must be able to give the law to subjects, and to suppress or repeal disadvantageous laws and replace them with others. "The sovereign prince is … [not] bound by laws and ordinances that he has made himself. For although one can receive law from someone else, if is as impossible by nature to give one’s self a law as it is to command oneself to do something that depends on one’s own will. As the law says, Nulla obligatio consistere potest, quae a voluntate promittentis statum capit [No obligation can exist that depends on the will of the person promising] – which is a rational necessity and clearly demonstrates that a king cannot be subject to the laws." [From Jean Bodin, Les Six Livres de la République (Paris, 1583), Book I, chapter 8. Julian Franklin, ed. and trans., On Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 1, 11, 12] The logic of sovereignty is drawn out from the origin of man. There must be an ultimate sovereignty or power. The monarch is the locus of that power, a person who cannot be regulated because he himself makes the rules. Legal constitutionalism was a problem during James' reign. Edward Cook was one of the experts on English common law. He considered that law was made in time immemorial, therefore the monarchy cannot overcome the law because everything must exist under the law. Parliament occurs, but it is not a constitution; it has a say in taxes, it is summoned by the king, it ratifies the laws of the king. At the time, the government-monarchy relationship did not work very well. There was frequently a stalemate between the two, and no outcome to their arguments. It was important to get past this talemate, which Cook is identified with. Republicanism cam eabout under James. It was modelled under ancient ideals, but the Roman inheritance of republicanism affected them. Europe had adopted these rules, but they were not prevalent any more. In Britain, republican writing was highly valued nevertheless, and it took on ideas of public speech such as Cicero's writing on language and rhetoric and oral issues. Roman historians were emulated for contemporary history writing. So the classical past was revivified and used as monarchical opposition. The figure of the citizen, with equal participation in government, was desirable. Religion was also an issue of the time. It was questioned what loyalty a Catholic subject owed to a Protestant king. George Buchanan, a Scottish humanist who accounted relations between the monarch and his people ironically differed in his views from James, despite being James' tutor. So what has literature to do with all of this? Literature is linked to how the people viewed themsleves. New historicism focused on royal absolutism. Other views were in support of free speech. There was a clash between literature as the monarchy of wit versus the republic of letters (i.e. free exchange). All this can be traced to James I.