Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T13:36:21.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Filmer's Patriarchal History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

W. H. Greenleaf
W. H. Greenleaf
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Filmer's political thought was made up of four elements. First of all, there were his critical remarks about some of the key ideas of his opponents, his analysis of such concepts as social contract, supremacy of the people, mixed government, and the like. Then there were his inquiries into the constitutional and legal history of this country which enabled him to show, for instance, that the claim of the House of Commons to have been time out of mind an integral part of Parliament equal to Lords and monarch was not tenable. Thirdly, there was his assimilation of royal to paternal power, an analogy fundamentally cast in terms of the philosophy and political theory of order and which enabled him to ascribe the undoubted contemporary authority of a paterfamilias to the pater patriae. Finally, there was a genea-logical argument purporting to derive the supreme authority of a king neither from the people over whom he ruled nor from some ecclesiastical intermediary like the pope but lineally from God through inheritance of the dominion which had been divinely bestowed upon Adam.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , 1966 , pp. 157 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This new understanding is largely due to Mr Peter Laslett's illuminating studies of Filmer in his ‘Sir Robert Filmer: The Man versus the Whig Myth’, The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., V (1948), 523–46Google Scholar, his introduction to Patriarcha and Other Political Works (Oxford, 1949)Google Scholar, and the remarks in his edition of Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge, 1960), esp. pp. 67–78.Google Scholar Filmer's legal and historical ideas are analysed in Dr Pocock's, J. G. A. important The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (Cambridge, 1957), chs. VII and VIII passim. For Filmer's use of the political theory of order see myGoogle ScholarOrder, Empiricism and Politics (Oxford, 1964), chs. II and VGoogle Scholar.

2 E.g. Locke's First Treatise dealt with two related issues (1) that Adam had a title to sovereignty (chs. III–VI) and (2) that this supremacy was inherited by kings (chs. VIII—XI).

3 Among many instances, see, for example, Zagorin, P., A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution (London, 1954), pp. 28, 199—201Google Scholar ; Catlin, G., A History of the Political Philosophers (London, 1947), p. 224Google Scholar ; Allen, J. W., ‘Sir Robert Filmer’ in Hearnshaw, F. J. C. (ed.), The Social and Political Ideas of Some English Thinkers of the Augustan Age A.D. 1650-1750 (London, 1928), pp. 44–6Google Scholar ; , Filmer, Patriarcha (ed. cit.) intro., pp. 14–15, but cf. p. 21Google Scholar ; Sir Stephen, L., History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (3rd ed. New York, 1949), 11, 135–6Google Scholar ; , Pocock, op. cit. p. 189Google Scholar.

4 By Professor Greenlaw, Edwin in his Studies in Spenser's Historical Allegory (Baltimore and London, 1932), ch. 1.Google Scholar For this and the ensuing paragraph I have drawn also on Millican, C. B., Spenser and the Table Round (Cambridge, Mass., 1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar , Brinkley, R. F., Arthurian Legend in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore and London, 1932)Google Scholar , and Kendrick, T. D., British Antiquity (London, 1950)Google Scholar.

6 I have chosen instances not noted by Sir Thomas Kendrick, op. cit.

6 An Historicall Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe: Containing the first inhabitation and peopling thereof. As also a breefe recapitulation of the Kings, Governors, and Rulers commanding the same, even untill the first building of Troy by , Dardanus (London, 1601).Google Scholar The book is dedicated to ‘Maister Peter Manwood Esquire’. If this is the Kentish antiquary, it is possible that Filmer's circle knew of the book.

7 Ibid. sigs. B[i]v-[Biv]r.

8 Ibid. sigs. Cijv, G[i]r-[Giv]v.

9 Ibid. sigs. Biijr, [Biv]r, D[i]v-[Fiv]r.

10 , Lambarde, A Perambulation of Kent (first published 1570; Chatham, 1826), pp. 8–11, 67-70.Google Scholar

11 A Briefe Chronicle, pp. 467-8.

12 Ibid. pp. 468-70.

13 Ibid. pp. 479-80.

14 Ibid. pp. 480-99. Cf. , Monday's shorter account in The Trivmphes of re-vnited Britania (London, 1605)Google Scholar , sigs. AiiT-[A4]r; on James I see sig. B2r. Munday's authorities for the early history were Annius, Berosus, Bale, and of course, the Bible, while for the British story he used Henry , Lyte'sThe Light Of Britayne. A Recorde of the honourable Originall & Antiquitie of Britaine (London, 1588, repr. 1814)Google Scholar , a straightforward and uncritical defence of the usual legends.

15 Du Bartas His Diuine Weekes And Workes. (trans. , Sylvester, London [1641]), pp. 269–70.Google Scholar The passage is from ‘The Colonies’, part III of the second day of the second week.

16 , Camden, Britannia (2nd ed. London, 1722)Google Scholar , preface and cols, v-xv, xxxiii-xxxvi. Cf. , Rapin, The History of England (2nd ed. London, 1732), intro., pp. iv–vGoogle Scholar.

17 , Ralegh'sThe Historie Of The World (London, 1628)Google Scholar rejected Berosus and Annius as quite unreliable authorities and the Samothean story as an invention (pp. 112-15, 118-19), but accepted the main outlines of the Biblical account and, like Camden, traced the racial origin of the Britons to Gomer (p. 118). Speed similarly rejected the Samothean saga, was dubious about Brutus and Arthur, but none the less felt it necessary to discuss them all at some length, thus showing that belief in them was still a force to be reckoned with: see The Historie of Great Britaine (3rd ed. London, 1632), pp. 5-6, 11-12, 14–20.Google Scholar There were many partial sceptics of whose opinions a full account has been given by the authorities mentioned at p. 160 n. 4 above. Even in the eighteenth century it was still believed that the pedigrees of princes could be traced to Aeneas and Adam, so that the stories lasted well beyond Filmer's own day: see, for example, p. 170 below.

18 See, for example, Edmund Howe's preface to John Stowe's Annales (ed. 1631), sigs. ¶2r-[¶8]v, and also his additions to the text at pp. 6-7; , Milton, The History of Britain (1670)Google Scholar in The Works (New York, 1931 ff.), x, 3–31Google Scholar.

19 Patriarcha (ed. cit.), pp. 57-61. Locke specifically criticized the failure to produce ‘a series of Monarchs, whose titles were clear to Adam's Fatherhood…’ (First Treatise, §153; cf. Second Treatise, §1). See also the challenge to produce a pedigree proving any modern king to be ‘the Primogenitus by an Hereditary Line from the Natural Father of his People’, in A Collection Of State Tracts (London, 1705-1707), 1, 179Google Scholar.

20 Patriarcha (ed. cit.), p. 58.

21 Ibid. pp. 58-9, cf. pp. 283, 290.

22 Ibid. pp. 59-60.

23 Ibid. pp. 60-2, 256, 288-9, 304.

24 Locke referred to ‘a new piece of History’ that needed to be demonstrated before the genealogical descent could be accepted (First Treatise, §111). But, as I am trying to show, in Filmer's day this history had long been established.

25 Cf. , Taylor'sThe Number and Names of all the Kings of England and Scotland, From the beginning of their Governments to this Present (London, 1649).Google Scholar

26 A Chronycle with a Genealogie declaring that the Brittons and Welchemen are lineallye dyscendedfrom Brute (London, 1547).Google Scholar The ‘Genealogie of the Brutes’ begins with Osiris who is taken to be the Biblical Mizraim, son of Ham.

27 Philadelphia, Or, A Defence of Brutes, and the Brutans History (London, 1593)Google Scholar . This contains various genealogies.

28 New Recreations Or The Mindes release and solacing (London, [1631]).Google Scholar The list of rulers is at pp. 1-10.

29 Cambria Triumphant, Or Brittain In Its Perfect Lustre Shewing The Origen and Antiquity of That Illustrious Nation. The Succession of their Kings and Princes, from the First, to King Charles of Happy Memory… (London, 1661).Google Scholar In an interesting side variation on the usual theme, Enderbie says that a particular family (the Morgan of Maughan) may be derived from Brutus, Ibid. p. 328.

80 Memorials Of The English Affairs, From the Suppos'd Expedition of Brute to this Island, To The End of the Reign of King James the First (London, 1709), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

31 Three of those I have examined may stand as examples: (a) John Lewys's The history of Greate Brytaine, written about 1611, in B.M. Harl. MS. 4872, esp. fos. 245r-247r, beginning with Samothes and ending with Cadwallader; (b) R. Morris's Catalogue of the Crown'd heads of Great Britain (1768), B.M. Add. MS. 15,020, fos. 13-23, from Brutus to Cadwallader; (c) the early seventeenth-century chronicle from Samothes to William the Conqueror in B.M. Harl. MS. 2414 which contains all the kings including Brutus, Cadwallader and Arthur (fos. 70, 75, 97).

32 At the British Museum alone there are many: e.g. Stowe MSS. 72 and 73 from Adam to Edward IV and including the Trojan kings and Arthur; Add. MSS. 14,919, fo. 148 from Brutus, 14,979 from Brutus to Edward VI, 31,950 from Adam to Henry VI; Sloane MS. 2732A from Brutus to Henry VI; Harl. MSS. 53, Adam to Henry VI, and 1,632, Adam to Henry V; Royal MS. 18A bcxv, Brutus to Edward VI; Kings MS. 395, Adam to Edward VI.

83 Wynne, W., The History of Wales (London, 1697), P. 334.Google Scholar The report of the Commission is reprinted as an appendix to this volume, pp. 331-44.

81 B.M. Harl. MS. 4872, fos. 5V ff. From internal evidence this seems to be derived in part from G. O. Harry's published Genealogy (1604) which is referred to below.

35 B.M. Add. MS. 33,345.

36 Randolph, T., Poetical and Dramatic Works, ed. , Hazlitt (London, 1875), 11, 431, 432.Google Scholar See also Notes and Queries, 5s., VI, 386, where reference is made to a ‘Curious Genealogy from an old black-letter history of England’ in which the ‘old Saxons’ traced their line from Ethelwulf to Adam.

37 DNB.

38 Harry, op. cit. p. 5.

39 Ibid. pp. 42-8. In the library of The Queen's College, Oxford, there is a MS., which I have not seen, entitled ‘The well-springe of true nobilitie yeldinge foorth an ocean of heroicall descentes and roiall genealogies of the renouned kinges, princes, greate states, nobilitie and gentrie of this famouse ile of Brittaine descended of the bloud royall of the auntient Brittaynes, but principallye of the genealogie of the most highe and mightie monarche… James… gathered by George Owen Harrye…’ (MS. no. 43) I am informed by Mr R. L. DrummondHay, assistant librarian of the College, that this MS. is in a late sixteenth- or early seventeenth-century hand. Its scope appears wider than Harry's published genealogy and it may be another draft.

40 Biographical details from DNB and , Wood'sAth. Ox. ed. , Bliss (London, 1817), 111, 227Google Scholar.

41 Mr Laslett has commented on the influence of a ‘graduate clergy’ on the ‘large and flourishing school of gentlemen scholars’ which existed in Kent at this time: see his ‘The Gentry of Kent in 1640’, Cambridge Historical Journal, IX (1947-1946), 156–7.Google Scholar Unfortunately there is no hint, in the East Sutton Papers now at the Maidstone Record Office, that Sir Robert had any connexion with Slatyer, and none of them relates to the genealogical argument. And, strangely enough, the only history of Britain mentioned in the eighteenth century library lists which might have belonged to Filmer is Baker's Chronicle of the Kings of England (1639) (information supplied by Mr Felix Hull, Kent County Archivist). But this account is explicitly critical of the old fables.

42 The History Of Great Britanie from the first peopling of this Iland to this presant Raigne of o’ hapy and peaceful! Monarke K. James (London, 1621).Google Scholar

43 Ibid. sig. ¶3r.

44 The long title is: ‘Genethliacon. sive, Stemma Iacobi: Genealogia scilicet Regia, Catholica, Anglo-Scoto-Cambro-Britannica. As an Appendix, by way of a Genealogicall, Historicall, and Chronographicall Table, belonging to the first part of Palae-Albion, being the Historie of the Kings and Princes of Great Britaine. Wherein Besides the Pedigree of King lames, and King Charles, the Discent of the Emperour, and Kings of Spaine, France, and Denmarke, with many other of the Princes and Nobility of England, and most part of Christendome, how derived in direct lines from Noah, may be discerned; with all the worthiest of that nature, out of the Roman, and especially the , GreekeAntiquities, as well as such memorable Matters of our Moderne Tongue’ (London, 1630).Google Scholar I am most grateful to Mr J. H. P. Pafford, Goldsmith's Librarian of the University of London, for making available a photographic loan copy of this scarce work.

46 Ibid, preface, sig. A2v. Slatyer also held out an enticing prospect for the noblemen and gentry who could, by research into their origins, link their own lines with the illustrious and ancient pedigrees he described, Ibid.

46 [Peyrère, I. de la] Men before Adam (London, 1656), pp. 276–7.Google ScholarCf. Hunnis, W., A Hyve Fvll of Hunnye (London, 1578)Google Scholar , fo. 19r, and Sir Hale, Matthew, The Primitive Origination Of Mankind (London, 1677), pp. 178–9Google Scholar.

47 , Slatyer, The History of Great Britanie, p. 89 n.Google Scholar

48 , Greenlaw, op. cit. pp. 8, 44.Google Scholar

49 Not only by Locke, Sidney and Tyrrell but also in many of the anti-Stuart pamphlets: see, for example, A Collection Of State Tracts (ed. cit.), i, 179, 382-3, 400.

50 Fresnoy, L. du, A New Method Of Studying History (London, 1728), 1, 208.Google Scholar

51 Thompson, A., The British History (London, 1718), p. lv.Google Scholar And see, for example, the ‘Catalogue of the Crown'd heads of Great Britain’ from Brute to Cadwallader, dated 1768, in B.M. Add. MS. 15,020, fos. 13-23; and the imperfect copy of Harry, op. cit., with MS. additions made in 1763 and 1772 (B.M. press mark 872. k. 22). As late as the 1750's the Biblical and Trojan origin of the Britons was still seriously discussed in public: see Borlase, W., Antiquities… Of The County of Cornwall (2nd ed. London, 1769), pp. 5–26Google Scholar.

62 Leslie, Charles, The Best Answer Ever Was Made (London, 1709), pp. 42–3Google Scholar ; The Finishing Stroke (London, 1711), p. 48Google Scholar ; The Case of the Regale and of the Pontificate Stated (1700) in The Theological Works (Oxford, 1832), 111, 429–32Google Scholar , where he mentioned Filmer.

53 See the letters of Count Nikolai Tolstoy stating that Queen Elizabeth II and the late Crown Prince Rupert had both Odin and King Arthur as their direct ancestors, in The Royalist, n.s. VI (1955-6), 46-7, 102. (This legitimist paper, dedicated to maintaining contact between royalist families and to upholding ‘rightful Monarchy’, first appeared in 1890 only to languish in 1905. It was revived, in somewhat exiguous form, in 1948 and, since 1954, has been the vehicle of the Royal Stuart Society.) No doubt fundamentalists still accept the Noachic story and wrestle with such problems as the origins of the American races.