BritLit1 Reading: John Milton on Kings and Tyrants

So, it turns out that John Milton doesn't agree with James I about kings.

Selections from The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

No man, who knows aught, can be so stupid to deny, that all men naturally were born free, being the image and resemblance of God himself, and Were, by privilege above all the creatures, born to command, and not to obey: and that they lived so, till from the root of Adam's transgression, falling among themselves to do wrong and violence, and foreseeing that such courses must needs tend to the destruction of them all, they agreed by common league to bind each other from mutual injury, and jointly to defend themselves against any that gave disturbance or opposition to such agreement. Hence came cities, towns, and commonwealths. And because no faith in all was found sufficiently binding, they saw it needful to ordain some authority, that might restrain by force and punishment what was violated against peace and common right. This authority and power of self-defense and preservation being originally and naturally in every one of them, and unitedly in them all; for ease, for order, and lest each man should be his own partial judge, they communicated and derived either to one, whom for the eminence of his wisdom and integrity they chose above the rest, or to more than one, whom they thought of equal deserving: the first was called a king; the other, magistrates: not to be their lords and masters, (though afterward those names in some places were given voluntarily to such as had been authors of inestimable good to the people,) but to be their deputies and commissioners, to execute, by virtue of their intrusted power, that justice, which else every man by the bond of nature and of covenant must have executed for himself, and for one another. […] These for a while governed well, and with much equity decided all things at their own arbitrement; till the temptation of such a power, left absolute in their hands, perverted them at length to injustice and partiality. Then did they, who now by trial had found the danger and inconveniences of committing arbitrary power to any, invent laws either framed or consented to by all; that should confine and limit the authority of whom they chose to govern them: that so man, of whose failing they had proof, might no more rule over them, but law and reason, abstracted as much as might be from personal errors and frailties. "While, as the magistrate was set above the people, so the law was set above the magistrate." When this would not serve, but that the law was either not executed, of misapplied, they were constrained from that time, the only remedy left them, to put conditions and take oaths from all kings and magistrates at their first installment to do impartial justice by law: who upon those terms and no other, received allegiance from the people, that is to say, bond or covenant to obey them in execution of those laws, which they, the people, had themselves made or assented to. And this ofttimes with express warning, that if the king or magistrate proved unfaithful to his trust, the people would be disengaged. […]

Secondly, that to say, as is usual, the king hath as good right to his crown and dignity, as any man to his inheritance, is to make the subject no better than the king's slave, his chattel, or his possession that may be bought and sold: and doubtless, if hereditary title were sufficiently inquired, the best foundation of it would be found but either in courtesy or convenience. But suppose it to be of right hereditary, what can be more just and legal, if a subject for certain crimes be to forfeit by law from himself and posterity all his inheritance to the king, than that a king for crimes proportional should forfeit all his title and inheritance to the people? Unless the people must be thought created all for him, he not for them, and they all in one body inferior to him single; which were a kind of treason against the dignity of mankind to affirm.

Thirdly, it follows, that, to say kings are accountable to none but God, is the overturning of all law and government. For if they may refuse to give account, then all covenants made with them at coronation, all oaths, are in vain, and mere mockeries; all laws which they swear to keep, made to no purpose: for if the king fear not God, (as how many of them do not!) we hold then our lives and estates by the tenure of his mere grace and mercy, as from a god, not a mortal magistrate; a position that none but court-parasites or men besotted would maintain! Aristotle therefore, whom we commonly allow for one of the best interpreters of nature and morality, writes in the fourth of his Politics, chap. x. that "monarchy unaccountable, is the worst sort of tyranny, and least of all to be endured by freeborn men." And surely no Christian prince, not drunk with high mind, and prouder than those pagan Caesars that deified themselves, would arrogate so unreasonably above human condition, or derogate so basely from a whole nation of men his brethren, as if for him only subsisting, and to serve his glory, valuing them in comparison of his own brute will and pleasure no more than so many beasts, or vermin under his feet, not to be reasoned with, but to be trod on; among whom there might be found so many thousand men for wisdom, virtue, nobleness of mind, and all other respects but the fortune of his dignity, far above him. […]

It follows, lastly, that since the king or magistrate holds his authority of the people, both originally and naturally for their good in the first place, and not his own; then may the people, as oft as they shall judge it for the best, either choose him or reject him, retain him or depose him though no tyrant, merely by the liberty and right of freeborn men to be governed as seems to them best. […] Therefore kingdom and magistracy, whether supreme or subordinate, is called "a human ordinance," 1 Pet. ii. 13, &c.; which we are there taught is the will of God we should submit to, so far as for the punishment of evil-doers, and the encouragement of them that do well. "Submit," saith he, "as free men." "But to any civil power unaccountable, unquestionable, and not to be resisted, no not in wickedness, and violent actions, how can we submit as free men?" "There is no power but of God," saith Paul, Rom. xiii., as much as to say, God put it into man's heart to find out that way at first for common peace and preservation, approving the exercise thereof; else it contradicts Peter, who calls the same authority an ordinance of man. […] Therefore St. Paul in the forecited chapter tells us, that such magistrates he means, as are not a terror to the good, but to the evil, such as bear not the sword in vain, but to punish offenders, and to encourage the good. If such only be mentioned here as powers to be obeyed, and our submission to them only required, then doubtless those powers, that do the contrary, are no powers ordained of God; and by consequence no obligation laid upon us to obey or not to resist them. And it may be well observed, that both these apostles, whenever they give this precept, express it in terms not concrete, but abstract, as logicians are wont to speak; that is, they mention the ordinance, the power, the authority, before the persons that execute it; and what that power is, lest we should be deceived, they describe exactly. So that if the power be not such, or the person execute not such power, neither the one nor the other is of God, but of the devil, and by consequence to be resisted. From this exposition Chrysostom also on the same place dissents not; explaining that these words were not written in behalf of a tyrant. And this is verified by David, himself a king, and likeliest to be the author of the Psalm xciv. 20, which saith, "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" […] So that we see the title and just right of reigning or deposing in reference to God, is found in Scripture to be all one; visible only in the people, and depending merely upon justice and demerit. Thus far hath been considered chiefly the power of kings and magistrates; how it was and is originally the people's, and by them conferred in trust only to be employed to the common peace and benefit; with liberty therefore and right remaining in them, to reassume it to themselves, if by kings or magistrates it be abused; or to dispose of it by any alteration, as they shall judge most conducive to the public good.

We may from hence with more ease and force of argument determine what a tyrant is, and what the people may do against him. A tyrant, whether by wrong or by right corning to the crown, is he who, regarding neither law nor the common good, reigns only for himself and his faction: thus St. Basil among others defines him. And because his power is great, his will boundless and exorbitant, the fulfilling whereof is for the most part accompanied with innumerable wrongs and oppressions of the people, murders, massacres, rapes, adulteries, desolation, and subversion of cities and whole provinces; look how great a good and happiness a just king is, so great a mischief is a tyrant; as he the public father of his country, so this the common enemy. Against whom what the people lawfully may do, as against a common pest, and destroyer of mankind, I suppose no man of clear judgment need go further to be guided than by the very principles of nature in him.

SOURCE: Milton, John. The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. The Constitution Society. 25 Oct. 2010 <http://www.constitution.org/milton/tenure_kings.htm>

BritLit1 Reading: James I on the Divine Right of Kings

James I wasn't like Elizabeth I, and this speech sums up that difference neatly. Of course, Good Queen Bess could rule with a rod of iron when it suited her, and James I wasn't utterly the monomaniacal Nero that he sounds in this speech. Nonetheless, the difference of tone between the monarchs is stark, and the tone of a ruler is, for good or ill, more important than actual words and deeds.

James I, 1609 Speech to Parliament (Selection)

The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man.

Kings are iustly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Diuine power vpon earth: For if you wil consider the Attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King. God hath power to create, or destroy, make, or vnmake at his pleasure, to giue life, or send death, to iudge all, and to bee iudged nor accomptable to none: To raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soule and body due. And the like power haue Kings: they make and vnmake their subiects: they haue power of raising, and casting downe: of life, and of death: Iudges ouer all their subiects, and in all causes, and yet accomptable to none but God onely. They haue power to exalt low things, and abase high things, and make of their subiects like men at the Chesse; A pawne to take a Bishop or a Knight, and to cry vp, or downe any of their subiects, as they do their money. And to the King is due both the affection of the soule, and the seruice of the body of his subiects: And therefore that reuerend Bishop here amongst you, though I heare that by diuers he was mistaken or not wel vnderstood, yet did he preach both learnedly and trewly annent this point concerning the power of a King: For what he spake of a Kings power in Abstracto, is most trew in Diuinitie: For to Emperors, or Kings that are Monarches, their Subiects bodies & goods are due for their defence and maintenance. But if I had bene in his place, I would only haue added two words, which would haue cleared all: For after I had told as a Diuine, what was due by the Subiects to their Kings in generall, I would then haue concluded as an Englishman, shewing this people, That as in generall all Subiects were bound to relieue their King; So to exhort them, that as wee liued in a setled state of a Kingdome which was gouerned by his owne fundamentall Lawes and Orders, that according thereunto, they were now (being assembled for this purpose in Parliament) to consider how to helpe such a King as now they had; And that according to the ancient forme, and order established in this Kingdome: putting so, a difference betweene the generall power of a King in Diuinity, and the setled and established State of this Crowne, and Kingdome. And I am sure that the Bishop meant to haue done the same, if hee had not bene straited by time, which in respect of the greatnesse of the presence preaching before me, and such an Auditory, he durst not presume vpon.

As for the Father of a familie, they had of olde vnder the Law of Nature Patriam potestatem [fatherly power], which was Potestatem vitæ & necis [the power of life and death], ouer their children or familie, (I meane such Fathers of families as were the lineall heires of those families whereof Kings did originally come:) For Kings had their first originall from them, who planted and spread themselues in Colonies through the world. Now a Father may dispose of his Inheritance to his children, at his pleasure: yea, euen disinherite the eldest vpon iust occasions, and preferre the youngest, according to his liking; make them beggers, or rich at his pleasure; restraine, or banish out of his presence, as hee findes them giue cause of offence, or restore them in fauour againe with the penitent sinner: So may the King deale with his Subiects.

And lastly, as for the head of the naturall body, the head hath the power of directing all the members of the body to that vse which the iudgement in the head thinkes most conuenient. It may apply sharpe cures, or cut off corrupt members, let blood in what proportion it thinkes fit, and as the body may spare, but yet is all this power ordeined by God Ad ædificationem, non ad destructionem [to edification not to destruction]. For although God haue power aswell of destruction, as of creation or maintenance; yet will it not agree with the wisedome of God, to exercise his power in the destruction of nature, and ouerturning the whole frame of things, since his creatures were made, that his glory might thereby be the better expressed: So were hee a foolish father that would disinherite or destroy his children without a cause, or leaue off the carefull education of them; And it were an idle head that would in place of phisicke so poyson or phlebotomize the body as might breede a dangerous distemper or destruction thereof.

But now in these our times we are to distinguish betweene the state of Kings in their first originall, and betweene the state of setled Kings and Monarches, that doe at this time gouerne in ciuill Kingdomes: For euen as God, during the time of the olde Testament, spake by Oracles, and wrought by Miracles; yet how soone it pleased him to setle a Church which was bought, and redeemed by the blood of his onely Sonne Christ, then was there a cessation of both; Hee euer after gouerning his people and Church within the limits of his reueiled will. So in the first originall of Kings, whereof some had their beginning by Conquest, and some by election of the people, their wills at that time serued for Law; Yet how soone Kingdomes began to be setled in ciuilitie and policie, then did Kings set downe their minds by Lawes, which are properly made by the King onely; but at the rogation of the people, the Kings grant being obteined thereunto. And so the King became to be Lex loquens [speaking law], after a sort, binding himselfe by a double oath to the obseruation of the fundamentall Lawes of his kingdome: Tacitly, as by being a King, and so bound to protect aswell the people, as the Lawes of his Kingdome; And Expresly, by his oath at his Coronation: So as euery iust King in a setled Kingdome is bound to obserue that paction made to his people by his Lawes, in framing his gouernment agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noe [i.e. Noah] after the deluge, Hereafter Seed-time, and Haruest, Cold and Heate, Summer and Winter, and Day and Night shall not cease, so long as the earth remaines. And therefore a King gouerning in a setled Kingdome, leaues to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, assoone as he leaues off to rule according to his Lawes. In which case the Kings conscience may speake vnto him, as the poore widow said to Philip of Macedon; Either gouerne according to your Law, Aut ne Rex sis. And though no Christian man ought to allow any rebellion of people against their Prince, yet doeth God neuer leaue Kings vnpunished when they transgresse these limits: For in that same Psalme where God saith to Kings, Vos Dij estis [you are gods], hee immediatly thereafter concludes, But ye shall die like men. The higher wee are placed, the greater shall our fall be. Vt casus sic dolor : the taller the trees be, the more in danger of the winde; and the tempest beats sorest vpon the highest mountaines. Therefore all Kings that are not tyrants, or periured, will be glad to bound themselues within the limits of their Lawes; and they that perswade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests, both against them and the Commonwealth. For it is a great difference betweene a Kings gouernment in a setled State, and what Kings in their originall power might doe in Indiuiduo vago [an undefined individual]. As for my part, I thanke God, I haue euer giuen good proofe, that I neuer had intention to the contrary: And I am sure to goe to my graue with that reputation and comfort, that neuer King was in all his time more carefull to haue his Lawes duely obserued, and himselfe to gouerne thereafter, then I.

I conclude then this point touching the power of Kings, with this Axiome of Diuinitie, That as to dispute what God may doe, is Blasphemie; but quid vult Deus [what God wants], that Diuines may lawfully, and doe ordinarily dispute and discusse; for to dispute A Posse ad Esse [from "may be" to "is"]is both against Logicke and Diuinitie: So is it sedition in Subiects, to dispute what a King may do in the height of his power: But iust Kings wil euer be willing to declare what they wil do, if they wil not incurre the curse of God. I wil not be content that my power be disputed vpon: but I shall euer be willing to make the reason appeare of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my Lawes.

Source: James I. “James IV & I on Divine Right.” University of Wisconsin-Madison. 25Oct. 2010 <http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/Jamesdrk.htm>

BritLit1 Reading: John Foxe on Lady Jane Grey's Death

John Foxe's Acts and Monuments is the definitive English Protestant work of Reformation-era martyrology. As a writer on the persecution of Christians before his era, Foxe is limited by the available source material and his own ardently partisan biases: for instance, his penchant for identifying every movement opposed by the Roman church as proto-Protestant was misguided at best, and led him to identify as "a people of the reformed religion" the Albigensians, who were (by all accounts) Manichean in essence if not in proper lineal descent. On events of his own day, Foxe is more trustworthy, but not less partisan.

Persecutions in England During the Reign of Queen Mary

The premature death of that celebrated young monarch, Edward VI, occasioned the most extraordinary and wonderful occurrences, which had ever existed from the times of our blessed Lord and Savior's incarnation in human shape.

[...]

Alarmed for the condition in which the kingdom was likely to be involved by the king's death, an endeavor to prevent the consequences, which were but too plainly foreseen, was productive of the most serious and fatal effects. The king, in his long and lingering affliction, was induced to make a will, by which he bequeathed the English crown to Lady Jane, the daughter of the duke of Suffolk, who had been married to Lord Guilford, the son of the duke of Northumberland, and was the granddaughter of the second sister of King Henry, by Charles, duke of Suffolk. By this will, the succession of Mary and Elizabeth, his two sisters, was entirely superseded, from an apprehension of the returning system of popery; and the king's council, with the chief of the nobility, the lord-mayor of the city of London, and almost all the judges and the principal lawyers of the realm, subscribed their names to this regulation, as a sanction to the measure. Lord Chief Justice Hale, though a true Protestant and an upright judge, alone declined to unite his name in favor of the Lady Jane, because he had already signified his opinion that Mary was entitled to assume the reins of government. Others objected to Mary's being placed on the throne, on account of their fears that she might marry a foreigner, and thereby bring the crown into considerable danger. Her partiality to popery also left little doubt on the minds of any, that she would be induced to revive the dormant interests of the pope, and change the religion which had been used both in the days of her father, King Henry, and in those of her brother Edward: for in all his time she had manifested the greatest stubbornness and inflexibility of temper, as must be obvious from her letter to the lords of the council, whereby she put in her claim to the crown, on her brother's decease.

When this happened, the nobles, who had associated to prevent Mary's succession, and had been instrumental in promoting, and, perhaps, advising the measures of Edward, speedily proceeded to proclaim Lady Jane Gray, to be queen of England, in the city of London and various other populous cities of the realm. Though young, she possessed talents of a very superior nature, and her improvements under a most excellent tutor had given her many very great advantages.

Her reign was of only five days' continuance, for Mary, having succeeded by false promises in obtaining the crown, speedily commenced the execution of her avowed intention of extirpating and burning every Protestant. She was crowned at Westminster in the usual form, and her elevation was the signal for the commencement of the bloody persecution which followed.

[...]

The next victim was the amiable Lady Jane Gray, who, by her acceptance of the crown at the earnest solicitations of her friends, incurred the implacable resentment of the bloody Mary. When she first mounted the scaffold, she spoke to the specators in this manner: "Good people, I am come hither to die, and by a law I am condemned to the same. The fact against the queen's highness was unlawful, and the consenting thereunto by me: but, touching the procurement and desire thereof by me, or on my behalf, I do wash my hands thereof in innocency before God, and the face of you, good Christian people, this day:" and therewith she wrung her hands, wherein she had her book. Then said she, "I pray you all, good Christian people, to bear me witness, that I die a good Christian woman, and that I do look to be saved by no other mean, but only by the mercy of God in the blood of His only Son Jesus Christ: and I confess that when I did know the Word of God, I neglected the same, loved myself and the world, and therefore this plague and punishment is happily and worthily happened unto me for my sins; and yet I thank God, that of His goodness He hath thus given me a time and a respite to repent. And now, good people, while I am alive, I pray you assist me with your prayers." And then, kneeling down, she turned to Feckenham, saying, "Shall I say this Psalm?" and he said, "Yea." Then she said the Psalm of Miserere mei Deus, in English, in a most devout manner throughout to the end; and then she stood up, and gave her maid, Mrs. Ellen, her gloves and handkerchief, and her book to Mr. Bruges; and then she untied her gown, and the executioner pressed upon her to help her off with it: but she, desiring him to let her alone, turned towards her two gentlewomen, who helped her off therewith, [...] giving to her a fair handkerchief to put about her eyes.

Then the executioner kneeled down, and asked her forgiveness, whom she forgave most willingly. Then he desired her to stand upon the straw, which doing, she saw the block. Then she said, "I pray you, despatch me quickly." Then she kneeled down, saying, "Will you take it off before I lay me down?" And the executioner said, "No, madam." Then she tied a handkerchief about her eyes, and feeling for the block, she said, "What shall I do? Where is it? Where is it?" One of the standers-by guiding her therunto, she laid her head upon the block, and then stretched forth her body, and said, "Lord, into Thy hands I commend my spirit;" and so finished her life, in the year of our Lord 1554, the twelfth day of February, about the seventeenth year of her age.

Thus died Lady Jane; and on the same day Lord Guilford, her husband, one of the duke of Northumberland's sons, was likewise beheaded, two innocents in comparison with them that sat upon them. For they were both very young, and ignorantly accepted that which others had contrived, and by open proclamation consented to take from others, and give to them.

Touching the condemnation of this pious lady, it is to be noted that Judge Morgan, who gave sentence against her, soon after he had condemned her, fell mad, and in his raving cried out continually to have the Lady Jane taken away from him, and so he ended his life.

SOURCE: Fox, John. Acts and Monuments. ChristianClassics Ethereal Library. Calvin College. 7 Oct. 2010 <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/files/martyrs.html>

BritLit1 Context: Psalm 51 (Miserere Mei Deus), Coverdale Bible

Psalms 51

 

1 Haue mercy vpon me (o God) after thy goodnes, & acordinge vnto thy greate mercies, do awaye myne offences. 2 Wash me well fro my wickednesse, & clense me fro my synne. 3 For I knowlege my fautes, and my synne is euer before me. 4 Agaynst the only, agaynst the haue I synned, and done euell in thy sight: that thou mightest be iustified in thy saynges, and shuldest ouercome when thou art iudged. 5 Beholde, I was borne in wickednesse, and in synne hath my mother conceaued me. 6 But lo, thou hast a pleasure in the treuth, and hast shewed me secrete wysdome. 

 

7 O reconcile me with Isope, and I shal be clene: wash thou me, and I shalbe whyter then snowe. 8 Oh let me heare of ioye and gladnesse, that the bones which thou hast broken, maye reioyse. 9 Turne thy face fro my synnes, and put out all my mysdedes. 10 Make me a clene hert (o God) and renue a right sprete within me. 11 Cast me not awaie from thy presence, and take not thy holy sprete fro me. 12 O geue me the comforte of thy helpe agayne, and stablish me with thy fre sprete. 13 Then shal I teach thy wayes vnto the wicked, that synners maye be conuerted vnto the. 

 

14 Delyuer me from bloudegyltynesse o God, thou that art the God of my health, that my tonge maye prayse thy rightuousnesse. 15 Open my lippes (O LORDE) that my mouth maye shewe thy prayse. 16 For yf thou haddest pleasure in sacrifice, I wolde geue it the: but thou delytest not in burntofferynges. 17 The sacrifice of God is a troubled sprete, a broken and a cotrite hert (o God) shalt thou not despise. 18 O be fauorable and gracious vnto Sion, that the walles of Ierusalem maye be buylded. 19 For then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifice of rightuousnesse, with the burntofferynges and oblacions: then shal they laye bullockes vpon thine aulter. 

 

SOURCE: Coverdale Bible on StudyLight.org 

BritLit1 Reading: Edmund Spenser's Letter to Walter Ralegh

Edmund Spenser hoped that his epic, The Faerie Queene, would earn him favor with Elizabeth I and restore his reputation at court. To that end, he sought the support of Sir Walter Ralegh, one of the queen's favorites and a fellow man of letter. In his letter to Ralegh, Spenser sketches out the whole ambitious scope of his project, which (alas) he was not able to complete. Still, the letter helps readers sort through the layers of religious, moral, and historical allegory, and anchor all of them in Spenser's several (and not always harmonious) purposes for writing.

Letter of the Authors expounding his
whole intention in the course of this worke, which
for that it giueth great light to the Reader, for
the better vnderstanding is hereunto
annexed.

To the Right noble, and Valorous, Sir Walter Raleigh knight, Lo. Wardein of the Stanneryes, and her Maiesties lieftenaunt of the County of Cornewayll.

Sir knowing how doubtfully all Allegories may be construed, and this booke of mine, which I have entituled the Faery Queene, being a continued Allegory, or darke conceit, I haue thought good aswell for auoyding of gealous opinions and misco[n]structions, as also for your better light in reading thereof, (being so by you commanded) to discouer vnto you the general intention and meaning, which in the whole course thereof I haue fashioned, without expressing of any particular purposes or by accidents therein occasioned. 

The generall end therefore of all the booke is to fashion a gentleman or noble person in vertuous and gentle discipline: Which for that I conceiued shoulde be most plausible and pleasing, being coloured with an historicall fiction, the which the most part of men delight to read, rather for variety of matter, then for profite of the ensample: I chose the historye of king Arthure, as most fitte for the excellency of his person being made famous by many mens former workes, and also furthest from the daunger of enuy, and suspition of present time. In which I haue followed all the antique Poets historicall [...]. 

 By ensample of which excellente Poets, I labour to pourtraict in Arthure, before he was king, the image of a braue knight, perfected in the twelue morall vertues, as Aristotle hath deuised, the which is the purpose of these first twelue bookes: which if I finde to be well accepted, I may be perhaps encoraged, to frame the other part of polliticke vertues in his person, after that hee came to be king. 

To some I know this Methode will seeme displeasaunt, which had rather haue good discipline deliuered plainly in way of precepts, or sermoned at large, as they vse, then thus clowdily enrapped in Allegoricall deuises. But such, me seeme, should be satisfide with the vse of these dayes seeing all things accounted by their showes, and nothing esteemed of, that is not delightfull and pleasing to commune sence. [...] 

So haue I laboured to doe in the person of Arthure: whome I conceiue after his long education by Timon, to whome he was by Merlin deliuered to be brought vp, so soone as he was borne of the Lady Igrayne, to haue seene in a dream or vision the Faery Queen, with whose excellent beauty rauished, he awaking resolued to seeke her out, and so being by Merlin armed, and by Timon throughly instructed, he went to seeke her forth in Faerye land. 

In that Faery Queene I meane glory in my generall intention, but in my particular I conceiue the most excellent and glorious person of our soueraine the Queene, and her kingdome in Faery land. And yet in some places els I do otherwise shadow her. [...] 

So in the person of Prince Arthure I sette forth magnificence in particular, which vertue for that (according to Aristotle and the rest) it is the perfection of all the rest, and conteineth in it them all, therefore in the whole course I mention the deedes of Arthure applyable to that vertue, which I write of in that booke. But of the xii. other vertues, I make xii. other knights the patrones, for the more variety of the history. Of which these three bookes contayn three. The first of the knight of the Redcrosse, in whome I express Holynes. [...] 

The beginning therefore of my history, if it were to be told by an Historiographer should be the twelfth booke, which is the last, where I deuise that the Faery Queene kept her Annuall feaste xii. dayes, vppon which xii. seuerall dayes, the occasions of the xii. seuerall aduentures, hapned, which being vndertaken by xii. seuerall knights, are in these xii. books seuerally handled and discoursed. 

The first was this. In the beginning of the feast, there presented himselfe a tall clownish younge man, who falling before the Queen of Faries desired a boone (as the manner then was) which during that feast she might not refuse: which was that hee might haue the atchieument of any aduenture, which during that feaste should happen: that being graunted, he rested him on the floore, vnfitte through his rusticity for a better place. Soone after entred a faire Ladye in mourning weedes, riding on a white Asse, with a dwarfe behind her leading a warlike steed, that bore the Armes of a knight, and his speare in the dwarfes hand. Shee falling before the Queene of Faeries complayned that her father and mother an ancient King and Queene, had bene by an huge dragon many years shut vp in a brasen Castle, who thence suffred them not to yssew: and therefore besought the Faery Queene to assygne her some one of her knights to take on him that exployt. Presently that clownish person vpstarting, desired that aduenture: whereat the Queene much wondering, and the Lady much gainesaying, yet he earnestly importuned his desire. In the end the Lady told him that vnlesse that armour which she brought, would serue him (that is the armour of a Christian man specified by Saint Paul v. Ephes.) that he could not succeed in that enterprise, which being forthwith put upon him with dewe furnitures thereunto, he seemed the goodliest man in al that company, and was well liked of the Lady. And eftesoones taking on him knighthood, and mounting on that straunge Courser, he went forth with her on that aduenture: where beginneth the first booke [...]. 

[...]

Thus much Sir, I haue briefly ouerronne to direct your vnderstanding to the wel-head of the History, that from thence gathering the whole intention of the conceit, ye may as in a handfull gripe al the discourse, which otherwise may happily seeme tedious and confused. So humbly crauing the continuaunce of your honorable fauour towardes me, and th'eternall establishment of your happines, I humbly take leaue.

23 Ianuary, 1589.

 Yours most humbly affectionate

Ed. Spenser.

SOURCE: Spenser,Edmund. “Letter to Raleigh and Commendatory Poem, &c.” The FaerieQueene. London: Grosart,1882. Luminarium. 1995. 6 Oct. 2010<http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/ralegh.html>

BritLit1 Reading: Telling Time for Brit Lit 1

A video version of my epic Brit Lit 1 chronology, minus the scintillating commentary!

BritLit1 Reading: Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council on confession

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ruled on a number of issues related to canon law (rules of the church's order and operation). Among these was a firm affirmation of the importance of regular confession by the laity to the parish priest. Though sacramental confession was practiced before this council, the Fourth Lateran Council lent this strong (but not always consistent) practice the weight of the Church's full authority.

CANON 21

SUMMARY: Everyone who has attained the age of reason is bound to confess his sins at least once a year to his own parish pastor with his permission to another, and to receive the Eucharist at least at Easter. A priest who reveals a sin confided to him in confession is to be deposed and relegated to a monastery for the remainder of his life.

Text. All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church (excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death. Wherefore, let this salutary decree be published frequently in the churches, that no one may find in the plea of ignorance a shadow of excuse. But if anyone for a good reason should wish to confess his sins to another priest, let him first seek and obtain permission from his own (parish) priest, since otherwise he (the other priest) cannot loose or bind him.

Let the priest be discreet and cautious that he may pour wine and oil into the wounds of the one injured after the manner of a skilful physician, carefully inquiring into the circumstances of the sinner and the sin, from the nature of which he may understand what kind of advice to give and what remedy to apply, making use of different experiments to heal the sick one. But let him exercise the greatest precaution that he does not in any degree by word, sign, or any other manner make known the sinner, but should he need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person. He who dares to reveal a sin confided to him in the tribunal of penance, we decree that he be not only deposed from the sacerdotal office but also relegated to a monastery of strict observance to do penance for the remainder of his life.

 

Source: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215. Trans. H. J. Schroeder. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937. Internet Medieval Sourcebook online edition.

BritLit1 Reading: The Book of the Order of Chivalry on the duties of knighthood

Ramon Lull (1232-1315) wrote his Book of the Order of Chivalry as a manual for knighthood. Written fairly late in the Middle Ages, this Spanish work nonetheless can be helpful in understanding earlier works of chivalric romance such as Gawain and the Green Knight.

BritLit1 Context: Beowulf on video!

This is a pretty good rendition of Beowulf--not perfect, but well executed, with some insightful touches that show the producers are conversant with some of the common tropes and themes in Beowulf scholarship.

(This is just the first of six videos: you'll need to follow the link through to YouTube to get the rest of the playlist.)

BritLit1 Context: Illustrations of Grendel

As one of the first and most vivid monsters of English literature, Grendel has understandably inspired many artistic representations. Here are some of my favorites!

This is from The Stories of Beowulf (1908), illustrated by J.R. Skelton. Note Grendel's satchel: this is probably an interpretation of the dragon-skin "glove" Beowulf mentions as part of Grendel's equipage when telling of his exploit to Hygelac. Sadly, this is the only picture of Grendel in the book, so we get no sense of scale between Beowulf and Grendel.

These three are from Maud Ebbutt's Hero Myths and Legends of the British Race (1910); I'm not sure who the illustrator is. What's fascinating about these images is not only Grendel's emphatic monstrousness, but also the unflinching gore. This Grendel seems only slightly bigger than a human.

These are some of Lynd Ward's amazing illustrations for a 1939 edition of Beowulf. I love the emphasis on Grendel's eyes and talons--his two most prominent features--in the first picture. The second picture gives us a sense of scale: this Grendel is HUGE.

Grendel from the first issue of the DC Beowulf comics (1975). I love Grendel's inner dialogue: "Kill the light!" This Grendel went on to be a recurrent Wonder Woman villain, of all things.

Another 1975 Grendel by Brian Froud (the genius behind the art design of Labyrinth). This was my first Grendel, an illustration in a Childcraft supplement, The Magic of Words. Pure, unadulterated nightmare fuel and immensely cool.

A Grendel from Alan Lee, better known for his copious illustration of Middle-earth. This is from Castles (1984). This may be the biggest Grendel I've ever seen. Also, he looks like Gollum, but, hey, it's Alan Lee.

The cover of the 1989 edition of Grendel. This is Grendel as teddy bear/sasquatch, I guess. He looks sad and cuddly.

This may be the closest we have to a period Anglo-Saxon illustration of Grendel. It is, in fact, a demon lurking at a hellmouth, waiting for foolish mortals to wander too close. This comes from the 11th century Wonders of the East, a book of exotic marvels apparently designed to suppress travel abroad. (That's a joke. Mostly.)

This is William Blake's Ghost of a Flea (ca. 1820). It's not meant to be Grendel, but there's something about it that's distinctly Grendel-ish.

Last, one of Goya's "Black Paintings," commonly called Saturn Devouring His Son (ca. 1820). Again, this isn't an illustration of Grendel, but it is a depiction of a myth of cannibalism that Anglo-Saxons were aware of. (Aelfric calls this an "unfatherly" act.) It could very easily be the devouring of poor Hondscioh.

BritLit1 Reading: "The Dedication of Saint Michael's Church" from the Blickling Homilies

The Blickling Homilies are a collection of anonymous Anglo-Saxon sermons; they survive in only one manuscript from the 900s. The Blickling Homilies are notable especially for the window they provide into Anglo-Saxon popular religion.

[...]

As St. Paul was looking towards the northern region of the earth, from whence all waters pass down, he saw above the water a hoary stone ; and north of the stone had grown woods very rimy. And there were dark mists; and under the stone was the dwelling place of monsters and execrable creatures. And he saw hanging on the cliff opposite to the woods, many black souls with their hands bound; and the devils in likeness of monsters were seizing them like greedy wolves; and the water under the cliff beneath was black. And between the cliff and the water there were about twelve miles, and when the twigs brake, then down went the souls who hung on the twigs and the monsters seized them. These were the souls of those who in this world wickedly sinned and would not cease from it before their life's end. But let us now bid St. Michael earnestly to bring our souls into bliss, where they may rejoice without end in eternity. Amen.

Source: The Blickling Homilies of the Tenth Century. Trans. R. Morris. London: EETS, 1880. Archive.org online edition.