Read Online Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History by Robert Bucholz, Newton Key - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Robert Bucholz, Newton Key
Ads: Link
Troilus and Cressida 1.3)
Clearly, this system was designed to maintain order at all costs. Which means that it was intended to keep the upper 0.5 percent of the population on top and the remaining 99.5 percent subordinate to them. To return to our earlier question: why did the lower 99.5 percent put up with it? Why did they not rebel against its constraints? One explanation for this is that the Great Chain of Being was taught, sometimes overtly, usually implicitly, from every pulpit in the land. Having had it hammered home to them on a weekly basis since childhood, having grown up being told that it was God’s plan, few early modern English men and women have left evidence of questioning it. After all, it explained their universe; and, as Shakespeare argues, the alternative might be disastrous. Indeed, imagine what such a person would think of our world. Would he or she not find it crowded, noisy, violent, disordered, chaotic? Would he or she not find plenty of confirmation of Shakespeare’s prediction of anarchy and misery?
Another explanation for the apparent widespread acceptance of the Great Chain of Being was that the system’s potential harshness was supposed to be mitigated by two conjoined beliefs: paternalism and deference. Paternalism, or, as it was usually known in the Middle Ages, good lordship, was the notion, instilled in great and humble alike, that those at the upper end of the human Chain had a moral responsibility to care for and protect those below them. After all, if a father was like God, God was also like a loving father. If the anointed king or the landed nobleman or the father of a family were God-like, then they not only bore God’s power, they also bore his responsibility to look after those of His creatures over whom they ruled. Just as God and the angels were thought to watch, paternally, over and assist His children, so privileged men were expected to watch, paternally, over those without privilege. The king had a responsibility to protect his subjects; to rule them justly and to keep their burdens of taxation and service reasonable. The landlord may have had immense economic and legal power over his tenants, but he also had the responsibility to protect them from enemies; to give them fair justice; and to look after them in hard times. If he was a great man, with a court office, he was expected to provide subordinate offices for his followers. On holidays, he was expected to open his house in a show of hospitality: thus in 1509 Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham (1478–1521) fed over 500 for dinner. At all times, he was expected to redress their grievances. In reality, the degree of paternalism exercised by landlords varied according to their individual consciences, but the expectation was very high and the ability of a great patron to look out for his own enhanced his prestige. A good king, a good lord was, like God, a good father.
In return, those at the lower ranks of the Chain were expected, like children, to pay obedience, allegiance, and respect – deference – to those above them. All humanity owed these things to God; all subjects, to the king; all tenants, to their landlord; all members of a household (including apprentices and servants), to its head. The people of England paid their debt to God by attending services on Sundays and holidays; by paying annates and tithes (that is, a tenth of their income) to the Church; and by obeying God’s law as expressed in the Ten Commandments and the laws of the Church (canon law). The Church even had its own ecclesiastical courts to prosecute those who failed by blaspheming, getting drunk, fornicating, committing adultery, or not paying their debts. The king’s subjects, similarly, paid their debt to him by acting respectfully in his presence (by standing while he sat and by removing their hats while he remained “covered”), by paying their taxes, and by obeying his law (which also had its series of courts). The tenant tendered his
Clearly, this system was designed to maintain order at all costs. Which means that it was intended to keep the upper 0.5 percent of the population on top and the remaining 99.5 percent subordinate to them. To return to our earlier question: why did the lower 99.5 percent put up with it? Why did they not rebel against its constraints? One explanation for this is that the Great Chain of Being was taught, sometimes overtly, usually implicitly, from every pulpit in the land. Having had it hammered home to them on a weekly basis since childhood, having grown up being told that it was God’s plan, few early modern English men and women have left evidence of questioning it. After all, it explained their universe; and, as Shakespeare argues, the alternative might be disastrous. Indeed, imagine what such a person would think of our world. Would he or she not find it crowded, noisy, violent, disordered, chaotic? Would he or she not find plenty of confirmation of Shakespeare’s prediction of anarchy and misery?
Another explanation for the apparent widespread acceptance of the Great Chain of Being was that the system’s potential harshness was supposed to be mitigated by two conjoined beliefs: paternalism and deference. Paternalism, or, as it was usually known in the Middle Ages, good lordship, was the notion, instilled in great and humble alike, that those at the upper end of the human Chain had a moral responsibility to care for and protect those below them. After all, if a father was like God, God was also like a loving father. If the anointed king or the landed nobleman or the father of a family were God-like, then they not only bore God’s power, they also bore his responsibility to look after those of His creatures over whom they ruled. Just as God and the angels were thought to watch, paternally, over and assist His children, so privileged men were expected to watch, paternally, over those without privilege. The king had a responsibility to protect his subjects; to rule them justly and to keep their burdens of taxation and service reasonable. The landlord may have had immense economic and legal power over his tenants, but he also had the responsibility to protect them from enemies; to give them fair justice; and to look after them in hard times. If he was a great man, with a court office, he was expected to provide subordinate offices for his followers. On holidays, he was expected to open his house in a show of hospitality: thus in 1509 Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham (1478–1521) fed over 500 for dinner. At all times, he was expected to redress their grievances. In reality, the degree of paternalism exercised by landlords varied according to their individual consciences, but the expectation was very high and the ability of a great patron to look out for his own enhanced his prestige. A good king, a good lord was, like God, a good father.
In return, those at the lower ranks of the Chain were expected, like children, to pay obedience, allegiance, and respect – deference – to those above them. All humanity owed these things to God; all subjects, to the king; all tenants, to their landlord; all members of a household (including apprentices and servants), to its head. The people of England paid their debt to God by attending services on Sundays and holidays; by paying annates and tithes (that is, a tenth of their income) to the Church; and by obeying God’s law as expressed in the Ten Commandments and the laws of the Church (canon law). The Church even had its own ecclesiastical courts to prosecute those who failed by blaspheming, getting drunk, fornicating, committing adultery, or not paying their debts. The king’s subjects, similarly, paid their debt to him by acting respectfully in his presence (by standing while he sat and by removing their hats while he remained “covered”), by paying their taxes, and by obeying his law (which also had its series of courts). The tenant tendered his
Similar Books
