1|P ag e

James I and Patriarchalism: The Progressive Absolutist?

Abstract

James VI and I has been heralded as one of the most informed and educated monarchs of the Tudor
and Stuart periods. Historians, with the help of literary critics, have struggled with the paradox that
his writings on kingship can be interpreted as beacons of his unyielding absolutism, whereas in
practice he was a more flexible and tolerant king. However, by conducting a closer analysis of the
imagery and metaphors within Jamess doctrinaire tract, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, it
becomes clear that Jamess absolutism was always muted and tempered by the practicalities of
governing in both theory and practice. This paper will demonstrate that Jamess use of patriarchal
metaphors in particular, are espoused as limitations to classical, pre-enlightenment absolutism.

In order to demonstrate Jamess anti-absolutist tendencies, it was first necessary to construct a

picture of the philosophical climate around the time of Jamess reign (late sixteenth and early
seventeenth century). After this environment had been created, Jamess theory of kingship can be
placed in such a context, in terms of both divine-right theory and absolutism. In both regards,
Jamess writings emerge as revolutionary amendments to descending theories of power.

It is also important to relate Jamess patriarchalism to contemporary equivalents the most famous
of which is Robert Filmers, Patriarcha. The most important difference between the two works is
how Filmers theory of patriarchal kingship derives from a literal understanding of the history of
monarchies. Conversely, in Jamess work, monarchs are simply metaphorical fathers to their
subjects, with the obligations of both the monarch and subjects being comparable familial
relationships. Relating Jamess work to contemporary theories of monarchy cements Jamess
position as a progressive and attentive king, which has often been overlooked by historians for two
reasons. Firstly, Jamess reign is, understandably, less compelling and controversial than that of his
successor, Charles I. More importantly for intellectual historians, Jamess quasi-enlightened theories
had been made to look ancient by the end of the century, given the philosophical trajectory of the
1600s.

The implications of this papers findings are important for our understanding of seventeenth century
absolutism. Only four decades after James published the Trew Law of Free Monarchies which
preached the benefits of mutual respect between king and citizen, Britain stood on the abyss of a
civil war which would notoriously pit brothers against brothers, and fathers against sons. Close
readings and strictly-limited studies of Jamess works offer historians the best chance to interpret
the fundamental differences between James I and his son, Charles I.

This paper was submitted as part of a course titled, Republicanism and the Social Contract which
detailed the progression from James Is divine right theory to the social contract theories of Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke. The original question was, Assess James VI/Is use of the father/son
metaphor in The Trew Law of Free Monarchies.
2|P ag e

King James VI/I was one of the most prolific and influential contributors to seventeenth-

century political thought. At the heart of his works are the complementary tracts on the theory and

practice of kingship, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies and Basilicon Doron. In an aim to cast light

upon Jamess ideals of monarchy and answer contentious questions over his absolutist values, the

focus of this paper will be upon the rhetorical style and authorship of the former.

Scripture is the main empirical source used by James to support his arguments in The Trew

Law. However, as our nation has secularised over the centuries, the more timeless and, arguably

persuasive, arguments are those based in reason. Specifically, Jamess employment of the

patriarchal metaphor to define the duties of both kings and subjects due unto each other requires

deeper analysis. Political patriarchalism reached its zenith later in the century with the publication of

Sir Robert Filmers Patriarcha, but Jamess use of the metaphor was simply that metaphorical; and

as such differed from Filmers in key aspects, as we will see.

Before analysing Jamess construction of the patriarchal metaphor and deconstructing some

of its key concepts, it is necessary to briefly discuss the broader aspects of James VI/I, The Trew Law

and their relationship within both the divine-right and absolute theories of monarchy.

James VI/I is a relatively uncontroversial figure within the context of seventeenth-century

Britain. He is generally accepted as one of the British Isles most learned and scholarly monarchs.

The limited debate within the historical community mainly surrounds placing James VI/I on the

spectrum of absolutism1. However, it is important to remember that Jamess reign is for obvious

reasons, overshadowed by the events of the quarter-century after his death.

1
Louis A. Knafla, Britains Solomon: King James and the Law, in ed. Daniel Fischlin and Mark Fortier, Royal
Subjects: Essays on the Writings of King James VI and I (Detroit, MI, 2002) p. 255
3|P ag e

Attempting a brief synthesis of scholarship; James emerges as a moderate absolutist

monarch2. At first this phrase may appear paradoxical, but this conclusion is an acknowledgment of

the differences between Jamess writings and Jamess rule and also accounts for his explicit rejection

of tyranny. The extent that The Trew Law is commonly seen as the most vigorously absolutist of

Jamess writings lies in its rejection of subjects rights to depose a tyrannical monarch 3. However,

James clearly combined absolutist theory with strong warnings against tyrannical or arbitrary rule,

advocating that kings should (but were not bound to) rule in accordance with the biblical,

fundamental, and natural laws of the land4. Whatever conclusions are drawn from the debate about

Jamess absolutist credentials, there is no denying that he was an uncompromising sponsor of the

divine-right theory of monarchy.

Gordon Schochet is not being controversial when he states that the divine-right theory is

contemporarily considered to be absurd to say nothing of unusual and irrelevant5. Descending

theories of political power were challenged openly and with much success later during the

seventeenth century, and the further constitutionalisation of Britains monarchy has now rendered

them obsolete. However, in the early seventeenth-century (that is, before the English Civil War) the

theory was consensually accepted across all of Europe 6. One might have expected the theory to have

been swallowed up by the Reformation; however, Protestant monarchs simply adapted its premises

to justify their own positions in relation to both their subjects and god, while circumnavigating the

papacy7.

2
Johann P. Sommerville (ed.) Political Writings: King James VI and I (Cambridge, 1994) p. xv; Johann P.
Sommerville, King James VI and I and John Selden: Two Voices on History and the Constitution, in ed. Daniel
Fischlin and Mark Fortier, Royal Subjects p. 290; Glenn Burgess, The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered
English Historical Review vol. 107, no. 425 (1992) p. 848
3
Sommerville, Political Writings p. xvii
4
King James VI and I, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, in ed. Johann P. Sommerville Political Writings p. 75
5
Gordon J. Schochet, Patriarchalism in Political Thought: The Authoritarian Family and Political Speculation
and Attitudes Especially in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford, 1975) p.3
6
BBC Radio 4, In Our Time: The Divine Right of Kings (11th October 2007); 6.857
7
BBC Radio 4, In Our Time; Burgess, The Divine Right of Kings p. 837
4|P ag e

Justification of monarchs positions was the main positivistic element of divine-right

theories, although it was more commonly applied by scholars in a negative framework to condemn

disobedience and, more specifically, subjects right to resist or depose their monarch 8. William C.

Carroll acknowledges that contractual and resistance theories during James VI/Is reign were a

minority discourse, but monarchs and anti-resistance theorists were obviously threatened enough

by the fledgling philosophy to attempt to discredit it 9.

In The Trew Law we see how Jamess moderate absolutism, Protestantism, and belief in the

divine-right theory combine to produce a theoretical guide to kingship. As the subtitle of the tract

advertises, The Trew Law dictates a reciprocal philosophy of monarchy, wherein the kings duties to

his subjects are as developed and detailed as the subjects duties to their monarch. In fact, with

reference to the patriarchal metaphor, the responsibilities of the monarch far outweigh the

responsibilities of subjects. For example, the kings obligations are positivistic compelling the king

to do something, whereas subjects obligations are negativistic binding the subject to not do

something. However, therein lies the fundamental difference between the kings and subjects

duties. The former is bound only by his relationship with God, whereas the latter is bound by

allegiance to the monarch and punishable by him upon failing to fulfil his obligations.

These duties are not only demonstrated through the patriarchal metaphor, and are more

fully developed through Jamess use of Scripture. The weighting of Jamess arguments follows

closely his jurisprudential hierarchy where the Law of Nature is beneath the Fundamental Laws,

which in turn, are subordinated to the Law of God 10. Initially therefore, it might seem strange that

James would turn towards natural metaphors to support his thesis. However, James still regarded

the Law of Nature as an important part of the hierarchy and, as such, felt it necessary to justify the

8
Burgess, The Divine Right of Kings p. 847; p. 860
9
William C. Carroll, Theories of Kingship in Shakespeares England, in ed. Richard Dutton and Jean E.
Howard, A Companion to Shakespeares Works, Volume II: The Histories (Oxford, 2003) p. 126
10
Knafla, Britains Solomon p. 237
5|P ag e

reciprocal duties at every level. Moreover, the rhetoric of the Law of Nature is both the easiest to

create for the author and to understand for the reader.

The most extensive and revealing of Jamess natural metaphors are his allusions to the

relationship between king and nation as being similar, in practice, to that of a father to his children.

By first claiming that upon his coronation the king becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges, it is

through this metaphor that James most clearly espouses the duties of a monarch to his subjects:

And as the Father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing,
education, and vertious gouernment of his children; euen so is the king bound to
care for all his subiects. As all the toile and paine that the father can take for his
children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that that effect
thereof redound to their profite and weale; so ought the Prince to doe towards
his people.11

For James, the main duties of a king to his subjects are comparable to those of a father to his

children; chiefly, the provision of education, protection, welfare and wealth. It is clear from this

passage that James is mostly concerned with proposing the notion that a monarchs fatherly duty

to his citizens should act as a natural constraint upon tyrannical absolutism. It has subsequently

formed part of the traditional scholarly discourse on the variances between Jamess theoretical and

practical absolutism. The natural metaphors in The Trew Law demonstrate the limits and

qualifications of absolutist theory as interpreted by James.

The literal construction of a king as a naturall Father is a device used by James to pre-

emptively counter some of the obvious problems with the patriarchal metaphor. By advocating the

idea of an eternal fatherly bond between king and subjects, James avoids easily-justifiable charges

against this metaphor. For example, questions could be raised over the longevity of fatherhood, with

regards to the development of children. At either a predefined age, or when a natural point of
11
King James VI and I, The Trew Law p. 65
6|P ag e

maturity is reached, nature dictates that children will outlive the need for the protection of their

family and leave the unit. However, under Jamess system of an eternal fatherly bond between king

and subject, this point of maturity will never be reached.

Jamess use of natural analogies to support his particular notion of divine-right absolutism is

a powerful and persuasive rhetorical device12. Even if the basic premise of patriarchal monarchy has

long since been rejected, this does not detract from the strength of Jamess argument. His

propositions, with regards to the patriarchal metaphor, are strongest when describing the fatherly

duty of a monarch unto his subjects, however, it is important to remember that natural analogies

are weakest when they can be extrapolated and turned against the original proposition.

For example, James clearly states the obligations he feels kings should rule by, but strays

away from the patriarchal metaphor when dealing with the hypothetical consequences of a monarch

breaking these obligations. He indicates kings should rule as fathers do, but makes no reference to

the legality of responsibilities in the case of a father. It would certainly be illegal for a father to steal

from his son, and punishable by the law of kingdom, for example. Furthermore, it would be illegal

for a father to physically injure, or even kill his son and would be punishable by those same laws.

Jamess argument that a good king would not act in this manner does not answer questions that

arise from the previous extrapolation, such as What happens when kings do not act with fatherly

duty towards their subjects?, or Are kings punishable by the same laws that fathers are?. These

questions are answered elsewhere, but James encounters problems that are not addressed within

the patriarchal metaphor; primarily that since he has established the monarch as a naturall Father,

but holds that he cannot be punished as a naturall Father.

12
Carroll, Theories of Kingship p. 132
7|P ag e

If the positivistic elements of Jamess patriarchalism can be questioned with such little

manipulation of his own premise, then the negative aspects crumble even easier under close

scrutiny. The metaphor is at its weakest when James speaks out against subjects rights of

resistance. James questions

whether vpon any pretext whatsoeuer, it wil not be though monstrous and
vnnatural to his sons, to rise vp against him ... can any pretence of wickedness or
rigor on his part be a iust excuse for his children to put hand into him? 13

Patently the answer to Jamess question is yes. Although the King offers the subject a

lawful form of resistance in the form of attempted flight, one could hypothesise countless examples

when flight is an unpractical or unachievable form of resistance. James does not address this

scenario through the patriarchal metaphor, although a logical and somewhat convincing answer is

proposed by the head-body naturalistic analogy. In this scenario, it would be impossible for the body

(subjects) to depose of the head (monarch), because the former is physically dependent upon the

latter for its own survival.

Jamess employment of the familial metaphor to define kingship was not limited to The Trew

Law. Through his other works and, in particular his speeches to the English parliament, we see James

had a particular fondness for this analogy. It is not hard to see why; demonstrably, the patriarchal

metaphor was both malleable and rhetorically appealing to the seventeenth-century Englishman.

James was able to extend the analogy and its connotations to suit the major themes of his reign, in

particular with reference to the Union of the Crowns. In describing his new kingdom, James

proclaimed, I am the husband and the whole isle is my lawful wife14.

13
King James VI and I, The Trew Law p.77
14
Knafla, Britains Solomon p. 245; Michael J. Enright, King James and His Island: An Archaic Kingship Belief?
Scottish Historical Review vol. 55, pt. 1 (1976) p. 29
8|P ag e

Assuring the political union of England and Scotland was a project James invested heavily in.

He made countless addresses to the English parliament, with flowing rhetoric and metaphors a

plenty, but ultimately failed in his objective. It would be under the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne,

that the political union of the kingdoms would be completed. Jamess familial metaphor runs

counter to his absolutist principles in this sense. While men enjoyed greater legal freedoms and

higher status than women, they were not above the law. Extending this idea, it could be argued that

were King James and Britain indeed lawful husband and wife, James would have to abide by the laws

of the kingdom; for although being of a higher status than his kingdom, James was still legally

prohibited from wrongdoing unto it, or its subjects.

The metaphor is further complicated when we consider the complex relationship between

King James VI/I and the English parliament. Whereas in Scotland, the parliament was weak and

obviously subordinate to the king in a similar sense of a wife to a husband, or even a child to a

father, the English parliament, in particular the House of Commons was assertive and overly-aware

of its subordinate position in the triumvirate of English political power15. As the course of the

seventeenth-century would show, the Commons inferiority complex would threaten the very

existence of the English monarchy, let alone its historic position as absolutist. The House of

Commons was not prepared to accept constitutional subordination in the form of a political union

with Scotland which negated itself to the supportive and lesser partner in an unhappy marriage. In

terms of familial relations, Westminster most likely saw itself as a cousin: close enough to feel

obligation towards the overall health of the family, but far enough removed to avoid dominance in

the manner befitting of a wife, child or even a sibling.

The Trew Law and Jamess other works are replete with natural and patriarchal images and

rhetoric that supports his philosophy of kingship. However, James was not a traditional

15
The triumvirate consists of the monarch, and the bicameral parliament consisting of the House of Lords and
the House of Commons.
9|P ag e

patriarchalist, in the Filmerian sense. Schochet analyses Jamess relationship with patriarchalism

concluding, Jamess statements about the nature of kingly power are replete with fatherly images,

by they do not contain a clearly defined patriarchal doctrine16. Although James is not a traditional

patriarchalist, it is worth a brief digression to assess what political patriarchalism was in the

seventeenth-century and how James adapted the metaphor in The Trew Law.

As mentioned, Sir Robert Filmers Patriarcha is the seminal essay on political patriarchalism.

It was published posthumously in 1648, but Filmer certainly drafted the work after the publication of

The Trew Law. James mainly employed the metaphor as a restrictive analogy detailing the duties

monarchs ought to govern by, whereas Filmerian patriarchalism confronts the issue from the point

of the subjects, concluding that citizens possess no right to resist their monarch, in the same manner

that they would not resist their father17.

Although this may appear to be two sides of the same coin, the foundations upon which

Jacobean and Filmerian patriarchalism are based upon differ distinctly. In traditional patriarchal

philosophy, the idea of kings as monarchs is based upon the literal origins of monarchy, where

lineage can be traced back to the first man, Adam. James explicitly rejects this hypothesis and does

not believe that the patriarchal metaphor had literal origins. He makes no references to families

being pseudo-monarchies, and instead states that

it be trew ... in the first beginning of Kings rising among Gentles, in the time of the
firs aage, diuers commonwealths and societies of men choosed out one among
themselues, who for his vertues and valour, being more eminent then the rest, was
chosen out by them, and set vp in that roome.18

16
Schochet, Patriarchalism in Political Thought p. 87
17
Phebe Jensen, The Obedience due to Princes: Absolutism in Pseudo-Martyr Renaissance and Reformation
vol. 19, no. 3 (1995) p. 51
18
King James VI and I, The Trew Law p.72
10 | P a g e

In terms of the kingdom of Scotland, James actually asserts that the monarchy preceded any such

primitive civilization, claiming that King Fergus brought a great number with him, out of Ireland,

which was long inhabited before vs [Scotland] 19.

For James, it is clear that the origins of monarchy are distinctly meritocratic. Nevertheless, as

Phebe Jensen observes, James I, who may or may not have patriarchalist sympathies himself,

certainly exploited the rhetoric20. James recognised the strengths of incorporating fatherly

analogies into The Trew Law; primarily it made his absolutist values both more accessible, and easier

to accept. Jensen brands patriarchalism an extreme form of absolutism because it demands a

strong emotional obedience from subjects towards their monarch21. James inverted this element of

the theory, and instead compelled monarchs to form emotional bonds with their subjects that would

better guide their kingship. In The Trew Law James downplays the absolutist elements of

patriarchalism, and instead uses the analogy to qualify and limit the power of kings, while

simultaneously managing to adapt the metaphor to support the divine-right theory of monarchy.

By explicitly rejecting a literal interpretation of patriarchalism, James granted himself license to

be selective and imaginative with his familial metaphor. In this manner, The Trew Law reflects

Jamess style of leadership. As a monarch and author, James was politically innovative. The prolific

nature of his penmanship in itself was uncommon for a monarch, but through his policies James also

showed his willingness to stretch the boundaries of what was seemingly possible. In 1603, for

example, not content with a Union of the Crowns he deplored parliament to approve a full political

union between England and Scotland. In the 1600s James attempted ecclesiastical reform,

culminating in the Oath of Allegiance controversy and the publication of the King James Bible in

1611. This is not to suggest that King James VI/I was an unrealistic, or an excessively absolutist

19
King James VI and I, The Trew Law p.73
20
Jensen, The Obedience due to Princes p. 51
21
Jensen, The Obedience due to Princes p. 51
11 | P a g e

monarch; charges that would be harder to discredit when they are directed at his son. James clearly

understood the difference between abstract notions of kingship, and the concrete realities

Jamess use of the patriarchal metaphor serves this coalescing purpose. It bridges the gap

between the theoretical notions of The Trew Law and the practical values of Basilicon Doron. James

wanted his subjects in Scotland, and later in England, to know that his idea of a healthy relationship

between king and nation was one where duties and responsibilities descended as well as ascended.

However, the metaphor loses some of its discursive power when it is applied to the legal obligations

of subjects to their monarch. Unfortunately for James, we cant be as flexible and forgiving with our

deconstruction of his metaphor, as he was in its assembly.

Bibliography

BBC Radio 4. In Our Time: The Divine Right of Kings (11th October 2007)

Burgess, Glenn. The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered English Historical Review vol. 107, no. 425
(1992) pp. 837-861
12 | P a g e

Carroll, William C.. Theories of Kingship in Shakespeares England, in ed. Richard Dutton and Jean
E. Howard, A Companion to Shakespeares Works, Volume II: The Histories (Oxford, 2003) pp.
125-145

Daly, James. The Idea of Absolute Monarchy in Seventeenth-Century England The Historical
Journal vol. 21, no. 2 (1978) pp. 227-50

Davies, Godfrey. The Character of James VI and I Huntington Library Quarterly vol. 5, no. 1 (1941)
pp. 33-63

Enright, Michael J.. King James and His Island: An Archaic Kingship Belief? Scottish Historical
Review vol. 55, pt. 1 (1976) pp. 29-40

Jensen, Phebe. The Obedience due to Princes: Absolutism in Pseudo-Martyr Renaissance and
Reformation vol. 19, no. 3 (1995) pp. 47-62

King James VI and I, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, in ed. Johann P. Sommerville Political
Writings pp. 62-84

Knafla, Louis A.. Britains Solomon: King James and the Law, in ed. Daniel Fischlin and Mark Fortier,
Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of King James VI and I (Detroit, MI, 2002) pp. 235-264

Schochet, Gordon J.. Patriarchalism in Political Thought: The Authoritarian Family and Political
Speculation and Attitudes Especially in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford, 1975)

Sommerville, Johann P.. King James VI and I and John Selden: Two Voices on History and the
Constitution, in ed. Daniel Fischlin and Mark Fortier, Royal Subjects pp. 290-322

(ed.). Political Writings: King James VI and I (Cambridge, 1994)