No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
In the well-known passage in Book VII of Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, where Hooker admits to having changed his mind on the subject of the origins of episcopacy, he cites the Defensor Pacis of Marsilius of Padua among a list of marginal references to late-medieval and sixteenthcentury writers who maintained the view, which he states he had once considered ‘a great deal more probable than now I do’, that bishops were not introduced into the Church until after the death of the Apostles. Since the 1930s, when A. P. d'Entrèves, Gottfried Michaelis and C. W. Previté-Orton drew attention to the resemblances between some of Hooker's arguments and those of Marsilius, this passage has frequently been quoted as evidence that Hooker was familiar with the writings of Marsilius and it has been used to support the theory, which has come to be widely held in recent years, that his political ideas were directly influenced by the Defensor Pacis. D'Entrèves, for example, stated on the strength of this reference that ‘Hooker certainly knew the works of Marsilius’ and most subsequent writers on Hooker's political ideas have tended to follow d'Entrèves's lead in assuming that Hooker must have been acquainted with the Defensor Pacis at first hand.
page 75 note 1 Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, VII, xi, 8 in The Works of… Mr. Richard Hooker, ed. Keble, J., 7th edition, revised by R. W. Church and F. Paget, Oxford 1888Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Hooker, Works), iii, 209–11.
page 75 note 2 A. P. d'Entrèves, Riccardo Hooker: Contribute alla teoria e alla storia del diritto naturale, R. Universita di Torino Memorie dell'Istituto Giuridico, Serie II, Memoria xxii, Turin 1932, 58–9 n. 7; Michaelis, Gottfried, Richard Hooker als politische Denker: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorien in England im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, Historische Studien, Heft 225, Berlin 1933, 54Google Scholar; Previté-Orton, C. W., ‘Marsilius of Padua’ in Proceedings of the British Academy, xxi (1935), 165–6Google Scholar.
page 75 note 3 D'Entrèves, Riccardo Hooker, 58–9 n. 7: ‘L'Hooker certamente conobbe l'opera di Marsilio, v. Works, III, pag. 209 e nota’.
page 75 note 4 Cf. Michaelis and Previté-Orton, cited above; Shirley, F. J., Richard Hooker and Contemporary Political Ideas, Church Historical Society, 1949Google Scholar, 2 n.4, 96; Peter Munz, The Place of Hooker in the History of Thought, esp. ch. iii, ‘Hooker and Marsilius of Padua’; Kearney, H. F., ‘Richard Hooker: a Reconstruction’ in Cambridge Journal, v (1952), 300–11Google Scholar. For a more cautious approach, see Christopher Morris, Political Thought in England—Tyndale to Hooker, 1953Google Scholar, 177 and 196.
page 76 note 1 Thompson, W. D. J. Cargill, ‘The Philosopher of the “Politic Society”: Richard Hooker as a Political Thinker’ in Studies in Richard Hooker: Essays Preliminary to an Edition of his Works, ed. Hill, W. Speed, Cleveland, and London 1972, esp. 50–2, 64–5.Google Scholar
page 76 note 2 Munz, The Place of Hooker in the History of Thought, esp. 96–111; Kearney in Cambridge Journal, v, 300–11.
page 76 note 3 For examples of the way in which Tudor writers tended to use Marsilius eclectically, see Studies in Richard Hooker, 52 and 74 n. 74.
page 76 note 4 Studies in Richard Hooker, 64.
page 76 note 5 See Hooker, Works, iii, 209 n. 1. In his edition of Hooker, Keble also cites Marsilius in a footnote to VII, xi, 1 as the source of the quotation in the text which begins ‘The Apostles were all of equal power, and all pastors do alike succeed the Apostles in their ministry and power … ’ (Hooker, Works, iii. 205 n. 1) and this has sometimes been quoted as further evidence of Hooker's familiarity with Marsilius. However, while the concept is Marsilian in origin, Hooker himself does not refer to Marsilius and it is clear from the context that in this section he was either quoting directly from or paraphrasing a contemporary Puritan tract.
page 77 note 1 Full details of the works referred to, together with supporting quotations from the authors cited, will be found in Hooker, Works, iii. 209 n. 1.
page 77 note 2 The reference appears in this form in the 1662 edition of Hooker's Works, edited by bishop Gauden, in which Book VII was printed for the first time and which forms the basis of all subsequent editions of Book VII (see The Works of Mr. Richard Hooker … in Eight Books of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1662, Book VII, 29). But, although later editors have scrupulously reproduced the reference in its original form, it is presumably only a printer's error, for which Hooker cannot be held to be responsible. In the same reference ‘c.l.’ after ‘Thom. Wald.’ also appears to be a misprint for ‘t.l.’, i.e. tome I (cf. the parallel reference in Reynolds’ letter to Knollys, see below, 79).
page 78 note 1 In Informations, or a Protestation, and a Treatise from Scotland. Seconded with D. Reignoldes his letter to Sir Francis Knollis. And Sir Francis Knollis his speach in Parliament. All suggesting the usurpation of Papal Bishops (1608), 73–87. It was reprinted separately in 1641 at the beginning of the Long Parliament under the title The Iudgement of Doctor Reignolds concerning Episcopacy whether it be Gods Ordinance. Expressed in a letter to Sir Francis Knowls, concerning Doctor Bancrofts Sermon at Pauls-crosse, the ninth of February, 1588. In the Parliament time.
page 78 note 2 The original letter which Reynolds sent to Knollys is in B. M. Lansdowne MS. 61, no. 27, having been forwarded by Knollys to Lord Burghley. It is written in a fine, clear hand, without any erasures, which suggests that it was a fair copy prepared by Reynolds from an earlier draft. The two other copies, each of which is in a late sixteenth or early seventeenth century hand, are in B.M. Sloane MS. 271, fol. 41v–3, and B.M. Harleian MS. 3998, no. 2. The Sloane copy is contained in a volume inscribed ‘Several Letters, Petitions, &c of the old Puritans about the latter end of Queen Elizabeth and the beginning of K. James reign Collected by Robt Smart of Preston in ye County of Northampton Minr’ and it appears to be a copy made by Smart for his own use. There is no indication of the provenance of the Harleian copy. Both these copies, as well as the printed texts, omit the final paragraph of Reynolds's original letter that dealt with other matters raised by Knollys, which were not connected with Bancroft's Sermon. The Harleian copy also omits the date of the letter, while the Sloane copy gives the date wrongly ‘September 19 1590’. (The date is also misprinted in the two printed versions as ‘1598’ instead of 1589.) In addition, the titles referred to by Reynolds in his marginal references are abbreviated differently in each of the three MS. versions, but this is probably merely a reflexion of the whims of the individual copyists.
page 79 note 1 B. M. Lansdowne MS. 61, no. 27, fol. 2–2v. Informations, or a Protestation, 82.
page 79 note 2 I have given Reynolds's references in the form in which they appear in his original letter in the Lansdowne MS., since the references in Informations, or a Protestation are badly garbled at this point, while the 1641 edition not only copies the errors of its predecessor but also introduces some fresh mistakes of its own. Details of those references which are also cited by Hooker will be found in Hooker, Works, iii. 209 n. 1 (see above, 77 n. 1). Where Reynolds's other abbreviations are not immediately self-explanatory, I have given further details of the works to which he refers in the following footnotes.
page 79 note 3 The reference here is presumably to Johannes Cochlaeus, Historiae Hussitarum Libri Duodecim (1549), a work which is cited extensively in John Foxe's account of the Hussites in the Actes and Monuments.
page 79 note 4 Martin Luther, Wider den falsch genannten geistlichen Stand des Papsts und der Bischöfe (1522); Wider das Papsttum zu Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet (1545).
page 79 note 5 James Pilkington, The Burning of Paules church in London in the yeare of our Lord 1561 (1563).
page 79 note 6 Laurence Humphrey, Jesuitismi Pars Secunda (1584).
page 79 note 7 William Whitaker, Ad Rationes Edmundi Campiani Jesuitae … Responsio (1581); Responsionis ad Decem illas Rationes … Defensio contra Confutationem Ioannis Duraei Scoti, Presbyteri, Jesuitae (1583).
page 79 note 8 William Fulke, A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow (1580).
page 80 note 1 Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, The Fifth Book, ed. Ronald Bayne, The English Theological Library, 1902, x and passim. Bayne shows that Hooker borrowed references in chapter xx from Sibrand Lubbert, De Principiis Christianorum Dogmatum libri vii (1591) (Bayne, 85 n. 40, 87 nn. 42, 43); in chapter lx from George Cassander, De Baptismo Infantium (1565) (Bayne, 291 n. 33); in chapter lxvii from Simon Goulart's annotations to his edition of Cyprian (1593) (Bayne, 381–7 nn. 17–20, 24, 25). In addition, he suggests that Hooker probably took some of his references in chapter lxxix from various tracts by Hadrian de Saravia which were included in the same volume with the De Diversis Ministrorum Evangelii Gradibus (1590) (Bayne, 531–7 nn. 42, 44, 46, 50, 52, 53). During the course of his researches Bayne discovered among Whitgift's books in Lambeth Palace Library copies of Lubbert's De Principiis and Goulart's Cypriani Opera in which passages referred to by Hooker are copiously underlined and he suggests that these may have been the copies that Hooker used (Bayne, 85 n. 40, 341 n. 4). I am indebted to Dr. W. Speed Hill, the general editor of the Folger Library Edition of Hooker's Works, for drawing my attention to Baynes's findings.
page 81 note 1 For example, another famous political theorist whom Hooker quotes on one occasion and whom it has sometimes been assumed that he must have read is Jean Bodin; see Hooker, Works, iii, 457 n. 5. But, while there are no doubt strong a priori grounds, in view of Bodin's contemporary reputation, for assuming that Hooker would have read him, it is clear that the fact that he cites the De Republica cannot be taken as conclusive proof that he did, and I would now wish to qualify my remark in Studies in Richard Hooker (48) that Hooker ‘undoubtedly knew the writings of Bodin’.
page 81 note 2 For a modern statement of this view, see Shirley, Richard Hooker and Contemporary Political Ideas, 45–51, 53–57. Shirley maintains that, while parts of Book vn are genuine, the book contains extensive passages which were interpolated by bishop Gauden, among which he specifically includes VII, xi, 8 (56).