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