The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0564 Tuesday, 23 September 2008
[Editor's Note: This thread has gone on for longer than it might, so I will, as
the barkeep, call one more round and then put it to an end. --HMC]
[1] From: Elliott Stone <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 19 Sep 2008 11:09:50 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0561 My Name Is Will
[2] From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 21 Sep 2008 12:45:36 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0561 My Name Is Will
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elliott Stone <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 19 Sep 2008 11:09:50 -0400
Subject: 19.0561 My Name Is Will
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0561 My Name Is Will
Essex was not charged or tried for attempting to kill the Queen!
Essex was charged and tried for Treason. (Read the Report of the Essex Trial on
line).
The Essex Rebellion was an attempt by Essex and Southampton and their supporters
to have Queen Elizabeth name a successor or possibly to give up the throne in
favor of either Essex or Southampton.
It is uncomfortable for individuals to ponder why Essex or Southampton had this
claim on the throne. It is more uncomfortable to consider the possibility that
Queen Elizabeth was not the "Virgin Queen."
Historians tie themselves up in knots attempting to avoid these issues.
Best,
Elliott H. Stone
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 21 Sep 2008 12:45:36 -0400
Subject: 19.0561 My Name Is Will
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0561 My Name Is Will
Larry Weiss wrote, in part: "I agree with that, but once again I feel compelled
to remind everyone that Campion was not executed for celebrating secret masses
or for treason in doing so (I don't think secret masses were considered
treasonous). He was convicted and executed for plotting to kill the queen. So
was Essex; and saying that Essex (a conforming Anglican) had some Catholic
supporters does not convert his conviction into a one for heresy."
Actually, Larry, it *was* treasonous to celebrate secret masses. In retaliation
for the Papal bull of March 1570 (calling for the deposition of Elizabeth), any
indication whatsoever that one was faithful to the Pope constituted by necessity
an act of treason (since the Vatican denied the Queen's monarchical legitimacy
and therefore her right to rule). The bull had declared, in part, that
We declare the aforesaid Elizabeth a heretic and favourer of heretics, and
those who adhere to her in the aforesaid matter to have incurred the sentence of
anathema, and to be cut off from the unity and body of Christ. Moreover she is
deprived of her pretended right to the aforesaid kingdom, and to all dominions,
dignity, and privileges whatsoever of every kind. Likewise, the nobles,
subjects, and people of the said kingdom, and all others who have takn an oath
to her of any kind we absolve by these presents and declare them absolved
perpetually for the future from all duty, fidelity, and obedience due. We
deprive the same Elizabeth of the pretended right to the kingdom and to all the
things named above; and we require and order each and all nobles, subjects,
people and others above said, not to venture to obey her instructions, mandates,
or laws. Those who shall act differently we bind with the same sentence of anathema.
Therefore, one could not be faithful to the Pope and the Roman Catholic church,
and be loyal to the queen. Conversely, one could not be faithful to the queen
and realm, and acknowledge the authority of the Pope.
Part of the standard examination of accused traitors accordingly asked:
(1) whether the bull of Pius V against the Queen's majesty be a lawful sentence,
and ought to be obeyed by the subjects of England? (To answer in the negative
would be to reject the Pope's authority; to answer in the affirmative would be
to repudiate the Queen's.)
(2) Whether the queen's Majesty be a lawful queen and ought to be obeyed by the
subjects of England, notwithstanding the bill of Pius V or any other bull or
sentence that the pope hath pronounced, or may pronounce, against her Majesty?
(See above.)
(3) Whether the pope has or had the power to authorize [any of the queen's
subjects] to rebel against her . . . ?
(4) Whether the pope hath power to discharge any of her Highness' subjects, or
the subjects of any Christian prince, from their allegiance or oath of obedience
to her Majesty or their prince for any cause?
To celebrate mass, hear confession, or perform any other priestly office in the
name of the Roman Catholic church was to affirm the authority of Rome and the
illegitimacy of Elizabeth. Campion was by statutory definition thus guilty of
treason by all accounts -- and his own affirmation. (And yes, of course, the
laws were politically motivated -- the Pope had in effect declared war against
Elizabeth by means of the bull, and himself engaged in sedition in inciting her
people to disobey her in all things, and these laws were designed to reaffirm
her legitimacy and supremacy.)
We may not like it, but "facts is facts." You may hit the ball at home plate,
and run like the wind from third to second to first and back home again, clearly
touching all the bases along the way, but you won't score a home run.
Revisiting the trial of someone like Thomas Wentworth on the other hand fits the
paradigm I think you were alluding to. He was attainted -- as, in effect,
Charles I would be -- and executed for political unpopularity (though he was
never canonized for the act). The man who sent him to his death ironically would be.
Best to all,
Carol Barton
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no
responsibility for them.
|
