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: 21 March 2016
I preface this essay by saying that it owes the form of its title to an article by Dr D. H. Willson, of Minnesota, entitled ‘James I’s Literary Assistants,’ published in The Huntington Library Quarterly, VIII (1944–5), 35-57. In this article Dr Willson argues interestingly, though not entirely conclusively, that all but some six of the writings commonly attributed to James I are in whole or in part the work of his literary assistants. Impressive as Dr Willson’s arguments frequently are, they do not demolish the existence of at least a ‘Jacobean school of theology’ within which such men as Montague, Casaubon, Andrewes, and even du Moulin (in favour of whose authorship of A Remonstrance for the Right of Kings Dr Willson’s argument has much to commend it) do, in fact, reflect the views of the King himself. Indeed, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Dr Willson has over-stated his case, and that the divines he lists as part authors, at least, were really scholarly research workers: royal servants producing evidence to support their master’s theories. On such an assumption we can continue to refer to what ‘James’ says.
Page 223 of note 1 ‘A fruitfull meditation, containing a plaine and easie exposition, or laying open of the vii, viii, ix and x verses of the 20 Chapter of the Revelation,’ in The Workes of the Most High and Mighty Prince, James, (hereafter referred to as Works) ed. Montague, J., London 1616, 74 Google Scholar.
Page 224 of note 1 Works, 37.
Page 224 of note 2 Op. cit., 577.
Page 224 of note 3 Op. cit., 16-17.
Page 224 of note 4 Op. cit., 38.
Page 225 of note 1 Op. cit., 337.
Page 225 of note 2 Op. cit., 33.
Page 225 of note 3 Op. cit., 356.
Page 225 of note 4 Op. cit., 530.
Page 225 of note 5 Op. cit., 544.
Page 226 of note 1 Op. cit., 455.
Page 226 of note 2 Op. cit., 150.
Page 226 of note 3 Op. cit., 1.
Page 226 of note 4 Op. cit., 17.
Page 226 of note 5 Op. cit., 41.
Page 227 of note 1 Op. cit., 579.
Page 227 of note 2 Op. cit., 78.
Page 227 of note 3 Op. cit., 79.
Page 227 of note 4 Op. cit., 371.
Page 228 of note 1 Op. cit., 356.
Page 228 of note 2 Op. cit., 357.
Page 228 of note 3 Op. cit., 367.
Page 228 of note 4 Op. cit., 448.
Page 228 of note 5 Op. cit., 33.
Page 229 of note 1 Op. cit., 77.
Page 229 of note 2 Op. cit., 75.
Page 229 of note 3 Op. cit., 307-08, 367, 433. See also 292, 295.
Page 229 of note 4 Op. cit., 329-30.
Page 230 of note 1 Op. cit., 370.
Page 230 of note 2 Op. cit., 306.
Page 230 of note 3 Op. cit., 407.
Page 231 of note 1 Op. cit., 585.
Page 231 of note 2 Claus-Peter Ciasen, The Palatinate in European History, 1559-1660, Oxford 1964.