Mary Hallock Foote - "The Desert and The Sown"

Benjamin Disraeli - "Ixion In Heaven"

E. Nesbit - "The Incomplete Amorist"

J. W. Powell - "Canyons of the Colorado"

Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2

J >> J. Endell Tyler >> Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2




[Footnote 276: Henry V.'s own chaplain declares,
"that Oldcastle attempted to infect the King's
highness himself with his deadly poison by his
crafty wiles of argument." If the King argued the
points with Oldcastle, how could that confessor
have done otherwise than strenuously endeavour to
bring his liege Lord to the same views of doctrine
which he entertained himself?]

[Footnote 277: Lingard speaks of "a mandate to the
Archbishop of Canterbury to proceed against the
fugitive according to law. The spiritual powers of
that prelate were soon exhausted. Oldcastle
disobeyed the summons, and laughed at his
excommunication; but was compelled to surrender to
a military force sent by the King, and was
conducted a prisoner to the Tower." The same author
(but on what authority it does not appear) tells us
that Oldcastle was at St. Alban's, and prophesied
that he should rise on the third day; which is in
itself most improbable.]

* * * * *

After attentively perusing this authentic statement, comparing it with
subsequent representations, and recollecting that the utmost which
Henry did was to direct the ecclesiastical authorities to proceed
according to the laws of the land, where he had interrupted their (p. 364)
proceedings with a view of averting the extremities on which those
authorities seemed bent--and when we learn that even that temporary
delay had called forth the decided disapprobation and remonstrance of
the clergy,--few probably among unprejudiced minds will be disposed to
view this incident in any other light than as a proof that Henry, who
was a sincere believer, was yet anxious to bring all to unity in faith
and discipline by reason and gentle means, by the force of argument
and persuasion only; and that he earnestly endeavoured to blunt the
edge of the sword with which the law had supplied the hierarchy, and
to avert the horrors of persecution. Undoubtedly, when he failed, he
directed the authorities to proceed according to law, and assisted
them in securing Cobham's person when he set them at defiance. But it
is necessary to take a comprehensive view of all the circumstances
before we pronounce judgment as to his principles or motives.

The account of Henry's own chaplain, who was prejudiced in the extreme
against the rising sect, seems undoubtedly to imply that in one stage
of the melancholy transaction Henry was more than passive, and
encouraged rather than checked the ecclesiastical authorities to
proceed; but he at the same time adds, what is of course of equal
credit, that the piety of the King deferred the extremity of
punishment and his death. He adds, "that Henry had Oldcastle
committed to the Tower, influenced by the hope that he might bring (p. 365)
him back to the true faith; and that when, towards the end of October,
the straitness of his confinement was softened, and he was, under
promise of renouncing his errors, released from his bond, he broke
prison and escaped." This was written between Oldcastle's escape and
his subsequent capture and death. If we take one part of such
evidence, we must in fairness take the other; and certainly, in that
contemporary's view, Henry was fully determined to do all he could to
save Cobham from the extreme penalty of the law.

He solicited the hierarchy, as a favour to himself, to suspend their
operations for a while; they consented to grant the suspension as a
favour to the King, upon his royal word being pledged that, should he
fail in his endeavours, he would interfere with their proceedings no
further, but on the contrary would assist them. Consistently with his
promise, and with his duty as the chief magistrate of the realm, he
could scarcely have done otherwise than he appears to have done.

After he had put forth his very utmost endeavours to rescue his
subject and friend from the ruin to which the hierarchy had destined
him, he made up his mind that the law should take its course, and that
the accused should be tried as the statute directed. Lord Cobham wrote
a confession of his faith, and, carrying it with him to the court,
presented it to the King; who, having resolved to interpose no (p. 366)
further between the accused and the process of the law, directed him
to present it to his judges: and probably few will be disposed to
think that Henry could act otherwise, consistently with his high
station. The case was now most materially altered; Lord Cobham was in
a very different position, and so was the King. As long as his kind
offices could prevent a public prosecution, Henry spared no personal
labour or time, but zealously devoted himself to this object, though
unsuccessfully. But now the proceedings had advanced almost to their
consummation, and interference at this point could scarcely have been
consistent with the royal duty; especially when we consider what those
proceedings were. Lord Cobham had been summoned to appear before the
spiritual court, had disobeyed the citation, had been pronounced
"guilty of most deep contumacy," and had been excommunicated. Henry
could not interfere in this stage of the business with any show of
regard to the laws, agreeably to which (blind, and cruel, and
bloodthirsty, and wicked, as we may deem them,) the proceedings
undoubtedly had been conducted; he therefore, as it should seem, could
not do otherwise than direct the schedule, then presented to him by
Lord Cobham, to be referred to the tribunal which the law had
appointed to hear and determine the charges. On this turn of his
affairs, the valiant knight and sincere Christian had recourse to
various pleas and measures, for which were we to condemn him, as (p. 367)
he has been condemned, we should act most unjustly. We must not judge
him by the standard of our own times, nor with reference to principles
on which we might justly be arraigned ourselves. But let the same
measure of justice be dealt to all alike; and whilst the eulogist of
Lord Cobham pleads in excuse the "wretched state of society" then
existing,[278] let all the circumstances of time and society and law
be taken into calm consideration before we condemn Henry, or rather
before we withhold from him the praise of moderation, liberality, and
true Christian kindness. The result of this visit to the King (to
which the Archbishop's record does not allude) is thus stated by Fox.
"Then desired Lord Cobham in the King's presence that a hundred
knights and esquires might be suffered to come in upon his purgation,
which he knew would clear him of all heresies. Moreover, he offered
himself after the law of arms to fight for life or death with any man
living, Christian or heathen, in the quarrel of his faith; the King
and the Lords of his council excepted. Finally, with all gentleness he
protested before all that were present, that he would refuse no manner
of correction that should, after the laws of God, be ministered unto
him; but that he would at all times with all meekness obey it.
Notwithstanding all this, the King suffered him to be summoned
personally in his own privy chamber." There is one circumstance of
very great importance, omitted by Milner, Turner, and others; (p. 368)
but which cannot be neglected if we would deal fairly by Henry. Fox
gives a circumstantial statement of it; and it is of itself sufficient
to account for whatever of "strait handling" may have been shown by
the King to his unhappy friend at that hour. Lord Cobham, though he
had repeatedly professed that the King was his supreme head, and liege
Lord, and competent judge, and no other; and that he owed neither suit
nor service to the Pope, whom he denounced as Antichrist; yet now
appealed in the presence of the King peremptorily to the Pope, not on
the heat of the moment, but by a written document which he showed to
the King. The King overruled this appeal;[279] at least, he informed
the accused that he should remain in custody until it was allowed by
the Pope, and that at all events the Archbishop should be his judge.
He was then arrested again at the King's command, and taken to the
Tower of London, "to keep his day," the time appointed for his trial.
But the reader will judge more satisfactorily of the proceeding after
reading the statement of Fox himself. "Then said the Lord Cobham to
the King that he had appealed from the Archbishop to the Pope of (p. 369)
Rome, and therefore he ought, he said, in no cause to be his judge;
and, having his appeal there at hand ready written, he showed it with
all reverence to the King. Wherewith the King was then much more
displeased than afore, and said angerly unto him that he should not
pursue his appeal; but rather he should tarry in hold till such time
as it were of the Pope allowed, and then, would he or nild he, the
Archbishop should be his judge."[280]

[Footnote 278: Milner.]

[Footnote 279: Mr. Southey builds upon this
circumstance a very unfavourable and unmerited
reflection on Henry in comparison with other
monarchs of England. "The Edwards' would have
rejoiced in so high-minded a subject as Lord
Cobham. But Henry V. had given his heart and
understanding into the keeping of the prelates, and
he refused to receive the paper, ordering it to be
delivered to them who should be his judges."]

[Footnote 280: It is painful to read the marginal
notes of Fox here. "Lord Cobham would not obey the
beast." Thomas Arundell, "Caiaphas sitteth in
consistory. The wolf was hungry; he must needs be
fed with blood. Bloody murderers." With many
others, yet more ungentle. The justice of the
judgment cannot but be questioned when the feelings
of the historian give themselves vent in such
language as this. Still we must make great
allowances for the times.

There are many other points in which Fox, who, be
it remembered, refers us to the Archbishop's Memoir
for evidence of the truth of his narrative, gives a
turn and colour to minor circumstances calculated
to prejudice the reader, but by no means sanctioned
by that Memoir. Thus Fox says, the Archbishop swore
all on the _Mass Book_: the Archbishop says, he
caused them all to be sworn on the Holy
Evangelists.]

How far at this juncture the King was competent to take upon himself
the responsibility of forbidding any further proceedings against the
individual on whose head the church had resolved to pour the full vial
of its wrath and vengeance; and, if he had by law the power, how far
he could consistently with the safety of his throne and the peace of
his kingdom have done so, are questions not hastily to be (p. 370)
determined. Certain it is, that, not two years after Lord Cobham's
first citation, Henry seems to have been thought by the council[281]
to be so far from forward in the work of persecution, as to need from
them a memorial to be more vigilant and energetic in his measures
"against the malice of the Lollards;" and to require the Archbishops
and Bishops to do their duty in that respect. Henry, though sincerely
attached to the religion of Rome, yet, whether at the stake in
Smithfield, or in his own palace at Kennington, appears to have
endeavoured "to do the work of the good Samaritan," and to the very
verge of prudence to interpose between the execution of a cruel law,
and the sufferings of a fellow-creature for conscience sake; not by
setting himself up against the law of the kingdom over which he
reigned, but by gentleness and persuasion, and promises and threats,
to induce his subjects not to defy the law. Our inquiry does not
require or allow us to follow the steps of the devoted Lord Cobham
through his examinations before the ecclesiastical judges, nor to
pronounce upon the conduct and language either of Arundel[282] or his
prisoner. Henry seems to have taken no part in the proceedings
whatever. But after the definitive sentence had been passed, and (p. 371)
he had been left to the secular power, and remanded in custody of (p. 372)
Sir Robert Morley to the Tower, we must observe that though according
to Fox himself, the Archbishop had compelled the lay power by most
terrible menacings of cursings and interdictions to assist him against
that seditious apostate, schismatic, and heretic, and troubler of the
public peace, that enemy of the realm and great adversary of holy
church, (for all these hateful names did he give him,") yet the King's
writ for his execution was not forthcoming, and, as far as we have any
means of knowing, never was it issued. In the case of Sautre, the
sentence of his degradation and delivery to the secular power was
passed, and the King's writ for execution is tested on the very same
day, February 26th, 1401.[283] In the case of Badby, the sentence, the
King's writ, and the execution of the persecuted victim, followed in
one and the same day hard upon each other.[284] But though Lord Cobham
was sentenced on Monday, September 25, 1413, yet he remained in the
Tower some time,--Fox says, "a certain space;" Milner says, "some
weeks,"--and no warrant of execution was forthcoming. Indeed, as far
as the record speaks, no such writ was ever issued by the King. The
Tower was no ordinary prison, and yet Lord Cobham escaped[285] by (p. 373)
night, no one knew how. Whether by connivance or not, and, if by
connivance, whether from any intimation of the King's wishes or not,
was never stated.[286] Many conjectures and surmises were afloat, but
no satisfactory account of his escape was ever made known to the
public. Certain it is that, had the King been a "cruel persecutor,"
had he been as ready to meet the desires of the hierarchy as his
father was in the case of Sautre or Badby, a few hours only after the
ecclesiastical sentence was passed would have borne Lord Cobham from
the power of his persecutors to the place where the wicked cease from
troubling, and where the weary are at rest. Walsingham says that both
Henry and the Archbishop were desirous of saving Oldcastle's life, and
that the Archbishop requested the King to give him a respite of forty
days.[287] But, adds Walsingham, he escaped, and spent the time in
preparing soldiers for revenge.

[Footnote 281: Minutes of Council, 27th May 1415.
Item, touching Commission "to the Archbishops and
Bishops to take measures each in his own diocese to
resist the malice of the Lollards." "The King has
given it in charge to his Chancellor."]

[Footnote 282: It is impossible not to observe upon
the great inaccuracy of Fox's translation of the
Archbishop's words, for he professes it to be a
translation, and the unfair turn and tone given to
his sentiments, together with the unjustifiable
addition which he has made to his definitive
sentence.

FOX'S TRANSLATION.

"We sententially and definitively,
by this present writing,
judge, declare, and condemn
him for a most pernicious
and detestable heretic,
convicted upon the same, and
refusing utterly to obey the
church: again committing him
here from henceforth to the
secular jurisdiction, power, and
judgment, to _do him thereupon
to_ DEATH."

ARUNDEL'S WORDS.

"Him, convicted of and
upon such a detestable offence,
and unwilling to return penitently
to the unity of the
church, we sententially and
definitively have judged, declared,
and condemned for a
heretic, and to be in error in
those things which the holy
church of Rome and the universal
church teaches, hath determined,
and preacheth, and
especially in the Articles above
written; leaving the same as
a heretic henceforth to the
secular power."

"To do him unto death," may be the horrible
implication; but it is not, as Fox unwarrantably
represents it to be, part of the sentence.

Another instance occurs in the translation of the
passage in which the Archbishop gives his reasons
for making this public and authoritative statement
of the transaction.

FOX.

"That, _upon the fear of this
declaration_, also the people
may fall from _their evil_ opinions
conceived _now of late_ by
_seditious preachers_."

ARUNDEL.

"That the erroneous opinions
of the people, who perhaps
have conceived on this
subject otherwise than as the
truth of the fact stands, may
by this public declaration be
reversed."

The Archbishop declares his object to be the
substitution of the true statement of the affair of
Lord Cobham's condemnation, in place of the false
opinions which were abroad; not a word about
"fear," or "evil opinions from seditious
preachers."]

[Footnote 283: In the Lambeth account Sautre's
condemnation is dated, according to the
ecclesiastical reckoning, February 1400; but that,
according to our reckoning, is 1401.]

[Footnote 284: The writ is dated March 5,
1410.--Rymer.]

[Footnote 285: His escape must have been, at the
furthest, within fifteen days of his sentence; for,
on the 10th October, messengers were sent about,
forbidding any one to harbour "John Oldcastle, a
proved and convicted heretic."--Pell Rolls.]

[Footnote 286: If Cobham's escape was winked at by
the King, and _he knew_ of the King's kindness, it
is very improbable that he would immediately after
have been so basely ungrateful as to imagine the
death of his sovereign and benefactor. It is,
however, most probable that, had the King favoured
his escape, the royal interference would have been
kept a profound secret, as well from the prisoner,
as from the people at large.]

[Footnote 287: Walsingham (as quoted by Milner)
says that the Archbishop applied to the King for a
respite for fifty days for Lord Cobham. "If this be
so," Milner says, "the motives of Arundel can be no
great mystery. It was thought expedient to employ a
few weeks in lessening his credit among the people
by a variety of scandalous aspersions;" Milner then
quotes the forged recantation, of which we speak in
a subsequent note. It did not occur to that writer,
that the space of fifty days might be required to
forward his appeal to Rome, and receive the Pope's
judgment upon it.]

Had Henry been merely indifferent on this point, the writ would (p. 374)
have issued as a matter of course. We have seen that, before any
proceedings were instituted against him, Henry used his utmost
endeavours and personal exertions to prevent the gallant knight from
falling into the dangers which threatened; and now, when nothing but
his own writ to the sheriff was wanted to bring the last scene of the
sad tragedy to a close, the King withheld it. The Archbishop, we are
told by Fox, compelled the lay power, by most terrible menacings of
cursing and interdictions, to assist him against Lord Cobham; and we
may be satisfied, the clergy, after denouncing him in convocation, and
after such vast pains had been undergone to subject him to the penalty
of death, would not have failed to press their sovereign to
extremities against this ringleader of their enemies: and yet the writ
of execution is withheld, and the condemned prisoner escapes. Whatever
inference may be drawn from these proceedings, at all events they give
no colour to the charge of persecution; on the contrary, the conduct
of Henry of Monmouth shews throughout indications of a (p. 375)
kind-hearted good man, averse from violence, anxious to avoid
extremities, withholding his hand from shedding of blood; and that not
from a carelessness or ignorance in the matter, for he was sincerely
attached to the Roman communion, believing it to be the true religion
of Christ, and had also made proficiency in the learning of the time.
Compared with the knowledge of those who have lived in more favoured
times, and whilst the true light has shone from the sanctuary of the
Gospel on the inhabitants of our land, Henry's acquaintance with
divine things may appear scanty. But he certainly had possessed
himself of a large share of Christian verity, and he was earnestly
bent on maintaining the faith which he had espoused. The system,
however, of the law of terror found no willing supporter in him. His
forbearance from persecution sprang from a genuine feeling of
humanity, the spirit of philanthropy and kindness.




CHAPTER XXXI. (p. 376)

CHANGE IN HENRY'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE LOLLARDS AFTER THE AFFAIR OF
ST. GILES' FIELD. -- EXAMINATION OF THAT AFFAIR OFTEN CONDUCTED WITH
GREAT PARTIALITY AND PREJUDICE. -- HUME AND THE OLD CHRONICLERS. --
FOX, MILNER, LE BAS. -- PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. -- LORD COBHAM, TAKEN IN
WALES, IS BROUGHT TO LONDON IN A WHIRLICOLE, CONDEMNED TO BE HANGED AS
A TRAITOR, AND BURNT AS A HERETIC. -- HENRY, THEN IN FRANCE, IGNORANT,
PROBABLY, OF COBHAM'S CAPTURE TILL AFTER HIS EXECUTION. -- CONCLUDING
REFLECTIONS.


From the escape of Lord Cobham, or perhaps from the extraordinary
affair of St. Giles' Field, which must now engage our attention, we
perceive a most evident change in the sentiments and conduct of King
Henry towards the Lollards, and especially towards Lord Cobham. Up to
that time he seems to have considered their only crime to have been
heresy, and he anxiously employed his good offices to rescue and save
them: after that time he appears to have regarded them as his own
personal enemies, subverters of order, traitors to the throne and the
kingdom; and their heresy and schism were identified in his mind (p. 377)
with the crimes of sedition and treason.[288] How far this view of
their principles and designs was just, has been disputed. Both sides
of the question have been strongly maintained. The inquiry is by no
means devoid of interest in itself; and, as far as Henry's conduct and
character are involved in the transactions of that time, is
indispensable; and throughout the inquiry it must be remembered that
the elucidation of his character, not the acquittal or conviction (p. 378)
of Oldcastle and the Lollards, is the object we have in view.

[Footnote 288: Soon after the affair of St. Giles'
Field much pains seem to have been taken to
discover the retreat of Cobham. The Pell Rolls,
February 19, 1414, record payments to constables
and others for their careful watch and endeavours
to take him; and "chiefly for having found and
seized certain books of the Lollards in the house
of a parchment-maker;" and one hundred shillings as
an especial reward "for the great pains and
diligence exercised by Thomas Burton, (the King's
spy,) for his attentive watchfulness to the
operations of the Lollards now _lately rebellious_;
also because he fully certified _their intentions_
to the King for his advantage." This document (for
ignorance of which no former historian may deserve
blame, though its existence should caution every
one against drawing hasty conclusions from negative
evidence,) proves that at the Exchequer the
Lollards were considered as having been lately
rebellious, and as having had designs against the
King. In a deed too, signed and sealed by the
tenants of Lord Powis, who themselves took Lord
Cobham, both heresy and treason are specified as
the crimes of which he had been convicted "that was
miscreant and unbuxom to the law of God, and
_traitor convict_ to our most gracious sovereign
and his." The Patent Rolls record grants of ten
pounds per annum to John de Burgh, carpenter,
because he had discovered and delivered up certain
Lollards. There are other similar grants. Pat. p.
5. 1 Hen. V.]

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.