Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T21:14:10.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

James I and the Historians: Not a Bad King After All?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Maurice Lee Jr.
Get access

Extract

In 1974 Professor Marc Schwarz published a review article on the historical reputation of King James I, in which he pointed out that that reputation had considerably improved in recent years. The slobbering pedant, lazy, conceited, cowardly, alcoholic, spendthrift, fancying pretty young men and giving them far too much influence in court and council: the lineaments of this caricature, first drawn by that foul-mouthed discharged officeholder Anthony Weldon, have not altogether vanished. But as historians have examined various aspects of the king's reign, reread the sources un-blinkered by the biases and assumptions characteristic of the Victorians and perpetuated in this century, from their widely varying points of view, by the disciples of Gloriana and of Karl Marx, a different view of King James has begun to emerge. The new picture of the king is that of a seeker of the via media at home and of peace abroad, a man with acute political antennae whose style was anything but confrontational and whose success in achieving that via media, and in keeping the peace, was comparable to that of his much-admired predecessor. Typical of the converts is Professor J.P. Kenyon, who in 1958 adopted the traditional view of James in his collection of essays on the Stuart kings, but who twenty years later described him as “a strange medley of opposites: he was a fool in some sense, but in others a great man.”

Professor Schwarz's analysis of the recent literature dealt in some detail with four areas: the king's policy toward the church and especially toward the Puritans; foreign affairs; James's views of the constitution and his relations with parliament; and his rule in Scotland. On some other matters there had been no attempt to defend the king: his disastrous economic and fiscal policies, including the inflation of honors, and his predilection for favorites like Somerset and Buckingham. In a number of these areas the work of the past ten years has done nothing to alter Schwarz's verdicts. No significant new work on foreign policy has appeared save in connection with other matters, to be discussed below; the era awaits its R.B. Wernham. There has been no attempt to defend James's irresponsible attitude toward money, which was by far his worst failing as a king, and there is reason to suppose that his financial reputation is irredeemable. It might be pointed out, however, that the Jacobean age was a postwar era, a period of relaxation after the long period of domestic and foreign tension which began when Henry VIII decided to put aside his wife.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , Summer 1984 , pp. 151 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schwarz, Marc, “James I and the Historians: Toward a Reconsideration,” Journal of British Studies 13 (1973–1974): 114–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Kenyon, J.P., The Stuarts (London, 1958), pp. 39–72.Google Scholar

3 Kenyon, J.P., Stuart England (London, 1978), p. 92.Google Scholar

4 McIlwain, C.H., ed., The Political Works of James I (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), p. 320.Google Scholar

5 Ashton, R.S., The Crown and the Money Market 1603-1640 (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar. Ashton, R.S. ed., James I by his Contemporaries (London, 1969)Google Scholar. Prestwich, Menna, Cranfield: Politics and Profits under the Early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966).Google Scholar

6 Schwarz, , “James I,” p. 120.Google Scholar

7 Shriver, F., “Hampton Court Re-visited: James I and the Puritans,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33 (1982): 48–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Curtis, Mark H., “The Hampton Court Conference and its Aftermath,” History 46 (1961): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Simpson, Martin, “The Hampton Court Conference, January 1604,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society 21, pt. 1 (1981): 27–41.Google Scholar

8 White, P., “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101 (Nov., 1983): 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 The phrase is not Elizabeth's but Francis Bacon's. It is quoted by Russell, Conrad, The Crisis of Parliaments (Oxford, 1971), p. 149Google Scholar; Russell correctly points out that it should not be taken to mean that Elizabeth favored religious toleration.

10 For Northampton see below. For Dunfermline see Lee, M. Jr., “King James's Popish Chancellor,” in Cowan, L.B. and Shaw, D., eds., The Renaissance and the Reformation in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1983), pp. 170–82.Google Scholar

11 K. Sharpe, “Parliamentary History 1603-1629: In or Out of Perspective?” in idem., ed., Faction and Parliament: Essays on Early Stuart History (Oxford, 1978), p. 22.

12 In Clark, P., Smith, A.G.R., and Tyacke, N., eds., The English Commonwealth, 1547-1640: Essays in Politics and Society (New York, 1979), pp. 147–65.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., pp. 157, 159.

14 Russell, C., Parliaments and English Politics 1621-1629 (Oxford, 1979), p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Schwarz, , “James I,” pp. 132–33.Google Scholar

16 Lee, M. Jr., Government by Pen: Scotland under James VI and I (Urbana, 1980).Google Scholar

17 Wormald, Jenny, Court, Kirk, and Community: Scotland 1470-1625 (London, 1981), p. 158.Google Scholar

18 Mitchison, Rosalind, Lordship to Patronage: Scotland 1603-1745 (London, 1983), p. 20.Google Scholar

19 The older view that the Scottish parliament was a rubber stamp has been effectively criticized by Wormald, Jenny, “James VI and I: Two Kings or One?” History 68 (1983): 187–209, esp. pp. 194-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Munden, R.C., “James I and ‘the growth of mutual distrust’: King, Commons, and Reform, 1603-1604,” in Sharpe, , ed., Faction and Parliament, pp. 43–72, esp. pp. 53-57.Google Scholar

21 See, for instance, the December 1977 number of the Journal of Modern History (49), and pp. 1-71 of the March 1978 (50) issue of the same journal.

22 Russell, , Parliaments, p. 202Google Scholar. On this point Russell's argument is similar to that of Ruigh, Robert, The Parliament of 1624 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971).Google Scholar

23 Russell, , Parliaments, p. 87.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 100.

25 Sharpe, , “Parliamentary History,” p. 28.Google Scholar

26 Russell, , Parliaments, pp. 104, 110.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., p. 130.

28 Ibid., pp. 133, 135.

29 Ibid., p. 141.

30 Ibid., p. 144.

31 White, Stephen, Sir Edward Coke and the Grievances of the Commonwealth (Manchester, 1979), pp. 31, 42.Google Scholar

32 Kenyon, , Stuart England, pp. 92–93.Google Scholar

33 Hexter, J.H., “Power, Parliament, and Liberty in Early Stuart England,” in Reappraisals in History, 2nd edn. (1979), p. 214.Google Scholar

34 Wilson, D.H., King James VI and I (London, 1956), pp. 178, 386, 389.Google Scholar

35 Peck, Linda L., Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I (London, 1982)Google Scholar. Lockyer, Roger, Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham 1592-1628 (London, 1981).Google Scholar

36 Peck, , Northampton, pp. 107–17Google Scholar. The quotation is on p. 116.

37 Ibid., p. 125.

38 Ibid., pp. 148-52.

39 Ibid., pp. 152-65.

40 Ibid., p. 201.

41 Ibid., p. 206.

42 Ibid., p. 210.

43 Ibid., p. 214.

44 Ibid., p. 215.

45 Ibid., p. 216.

46 Lockyer, , Buckingham, pp. 36, 65.Google Scholar

47 See, e.g., the affair of Attorney-General Yelverton in Ibid., pp. 40-41.

48 Ibid., pp. 47-50, 72-76.

49 Tawney, R.H., Business and Politics under James I: Lionel Cranfield as Merchant and Minister (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar. See also M. Prestwich, Cranfield.

50 Lockyer, , Buckingham, p. 133.Google Scholar

51 Ibid., p. 148.

52 Ibid., p. 151.

53 Ibid., p. 168.

54 Ibid., pp. 203-204.

55 Ibid., p. 207.

56 On this point see Paton, H., ed., Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, Supplement, Historical Manuscripts Commission (London, 1930), pp. 63-65, 200-201, 226–27.Google Scholar

57 Sharpe, K., “The Earl of Arundel, His Circle, and the Opposition to the Duke of Buckingham, 1618-1628,” in Sharpe, , ed., Faction and Parliament, p. 227.Google Scholar

58 Wormald, , “James VI and I,” pp. 208–209.Google Scholar