POWER AND GLORY
Jacobean Englandand the Making of the King James Bible
ADAM NICOLSON
COPYRIGHT
HarperPress An imprint of HarperCollinsPublisbers Ltd. 1 London Bridge Street London SE1 9GF
www.harpercollins.co.uk
This edition published by Harper Perennial 2004
First published by HarperCollins Publishers 2003
Copyright © Adam Nicolson 2003
Portrait/Literature by Committee copyright © Sam Leith 2004
Adam Nicolson asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this ebook on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins ebooks
HarperCollinsPublishers has made every reasonable effort to ensure that any picture content and written content in this ebook has been included or removed in accordance with the contractual and technological constraints in operation at the time of publication
Source ISBN: 9780007108947
Ebook Edition © JULY 2015 ISBN: 9780007380701 Version: 2016-12-07
PRAISE
âThis fascinating story is told with brilliance by Adam Nicolson.â
Glasgow Herald
âAn engaging and moving account ⦠marvellous.â
Economist
âPower and Glory ⦠pays that Bible eloquent tribute, not least in its passionate homage to the power of language as, and in, history. His own words give us not only the rich history but a moving commemoration of the Bible that has so much shaped our utterances and lives.â
Independent
âNicolsonâs portraits of Jacobean intellectuals, theologians, politicians and princes overlay the lasting achievement that underpins this book. His approach to personalities humanises the beauty and ceremony of the biblical prose that still transcends its makers.â
The Times
âConversational, witty and engaging. It is extraordinarily readable ⦠Adam Nicolson gives us a swashbuckling and fastmoving account of the accession of King James I of England and VI of Scotland in 1603 ⦠he catches the spirit of the age in his own literary style ⦠There is power and glory here in spadefuls, and a great deal of kingdom too.â
The Tablet
âOne wouldnât think an account of the translation of the Bible would prove an enthralling read, but Adam Nicolsonâs narrative has a sweep of grandeur at which a brief review like this can only hint. This is history with masterly writing and a cast of bizarre characters. Highly recommended.â
Irish Examiner
âIt is a popular book as popular books used to be, a breeze rather than a scholarly sweat, but humanely erudite, elegantly written, passionately felt ⦠Nicolsonâs excitement is contagious.â
New Yorker
âNicolson shows us in captivating detail how the diverse translators of the King James Bible captured compelling debates that remain relevant to this day.â
Newsweek
âA readable, immaculately researched book ⦠The author has a clear understanding of the time, the issues involved and, above all, of the people who made the King James Bible. He could not have told his story more compellingly.â
Country Life
âAdam Nicolsonâs stunning history of the Authorised Version is really a prosopography, a study of the dynamic group of scholars who put together what some call the best book in the English language. Nicolsonâs focus on the words these men left behind enables him to combine scholarship with a greater emotional sensitivity.â
Observer
âAdam Nicolsonâs book is unobtrusively learned, rich in curious and purposeful detail, an ideal balance between fervent enthusiasm and elegantly witty detachment. The story of the translationâs origins and production is a subject which, one always felt, would be nice to hear from a really sparkling and sharp guide. This volume strikes me as exactly that, a brilliantly entertaining, passionate, funny and instructive telling of an important and gripping story.â
PHILIP HENSHER, The Spectator
âAdam Nicolson has a nose for quirks, follies and ironies ⦠Nicolson fascinatingly demonstrates how these translators took the plain, sinewy prose of the fugitive martyr William Tyndale â written 80 years previously â and polished it to gem-like brightness, looking for words which would resonate with passion and ring sonorously amid the solemnity of worship ⦠He has written a marvellous book: there are few more stylish or sensitive introductions than this to the personalities, the sights and the smells, as well as to the words, of Jacobean England.â
Sunday Telegraph
âNicolson really deserves at least an 18-gun salute. Power and Glory is a fine piece of history, ecclesiology and literature all rolled into one and, whatâs more, like the Authorised Version itself, it sings.â
Guardian
âThis is an easygoing, companionable exploration of Elizabethan and Jacobean England ⦠will delight the general reader, for whom it was written ⦠Nicolson takes one back to the Bible with a fresh eye and ear, which is not easily done these days.â
New Statesman
âThe story of the seven years between commissioning and printing fascinates from start to finish. It is told in a way which combines scholarship and entertainment.â
Independent on Sunday
âVivid, exhilarating, consistently intelligent, you can almost taste the air breathed by these Jacobean heroes, who gave English its most famous book. History at its best.â
SIMON JENKINS
âNicolson vividly evokes many aspects of Jacobean England: the secret police, religious passions, a profligate court, an atmosphere of emotional extravagance, splendid architecture, stained glass ⦠Adam Nicolson has deepened my understanding of the greatest work of English prose, for which I am grateful.â
Literary Review
CONTENTS
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Praise
Preface
1 A poore man now arrived at the Land of Promise
2 The multitudes of people covered the beautie of the fields
3 He sate among graue, learned and reuerend men
4 Faire and softly goeth far
5 I am for the medium in all things
6 The danger never dreamt of, that is the danger
7 O lett me bosome thee, lett me preserve thee next to my heart
8 We have twice and thrice so much scope for oure earthlie peregrination â¦
9 When we do luxuriate and grow riotous in the gallantnesse of this world
10 True Religion is in no way a gargalisme only
11 The grace of the fashion of it
12 Hath God forgotten to be gracious? hath he in anger shut vp his tender mercies?
Keep Reading
Appendices
A The Sixteenth-century Bible
B The Six Companies of Translators
C Chronology
Select Bibliography
Index
P.S. Ideas, interviews & features â¦
About the Author
Portrait
Life Drawing
Top Ten Favourite Reads
About the Book
A Critical Eye
Literature by Committee
Read On
Have you read?
If You Loved This, Youâll Like â¦
Also by the Author
About the Publisher
PREFACE
The making of the King James Bible, in the seven years between its commissioning by James VI & I in 1604 and its publication by Robert Barker, âPrinter to the Kingâs Most Excellent Majestieâ, in 1611, remains something of a mystery. The men who did it, who pored over the Greek and Hebrew texts, comparing the accuracy and felicity of previous translations, arguing with each other over the finest details of chapter and verse, were many of them obscure at the time and are generally forgotten now, a gaggle of fifty or so black-gowned divines whose names are almost unknown but whose words continue to resonate with us. They have a ghost presence in our lives, invisible but constantly heard, enriching the language with the âcivility, learning and eloquenceâ of their translation, but nowadays only whispering the sentences into our ears.
Beyond that private communication, they have left few clues. Surviving in one or two English libraries and archives are the instructions produced at the beginning of the work, a couple of drafts of short sections sketched out in the course of it, some fragments of correspondence between one or two of them and a few pages of notes taken at a meeting near the end. Otherwise nothing.
But that virtual anonymity is the power of the book. The translation these men made together can lay claim to be the greatest work in prose ever written in English. That it should be the creation of a committee of people no one has ever heard of â and who were generally unacknowledged at the time â is the key to its grandeur. It is not the poetry of a single mind, nor the effusion of a singular vision, nor even the product of a single moment, but the child of an entire culture stretching back to the great Jewish poets and storytellers of the Near Eastern Bronze Age. That sense of an entirely embraced and reimagined past is what fuels this book.
The divines of the first decade of seventeenth-century England were alert to the glamour of antiquity, in many ways consciously archaic in phraseology and grammar, meticulous in their scholarship and always looking to the primitive and the essential as the guarantee of truth. Their translation was driven by that idea of a constant present, the feeling that the riches, beauties, failings and sufferings of Jacobean England were part of the same world as the one in which Job, David or the Evangelists walked. Just as Rembrandt, a few years later, without any sense of absurdity or presumption, could portray himself as the Apostle Paul, the turban wrapped tightly around his greying curls, the eyes intense and inquiring, the King James Translators could write their English words as if the passage of 1,600 or 3,000 years made no difference. Their subject was neither ancient nor modern, but both or either. It was the universal text.
The book they created was consciously poised in its rhetoric between vigour and elegance, plainness and power. It is not framed in the language, as one Puritan preacher described it, of âfat and strutting bishops, pomp-fed prelatesâ, nor of Puritan controversy or intellectual display. It aimed to step beyond those categories to embrace the universality of its subject. As a result, it does not suffer from one of the defining faults of the age: a form of anxious and egotistical self-promotion. It exudes, rather, a shared confidence and authority and in that is one of the greatest of all monuments to the suppression of ego.
It is often said that the King James Translators (a word that was capitalised at the time), particularly in the New Testament, did little more than copy out the work of William Tyndale, done over eighty years before in the dawn of the Reformation. The truth of their relationship to Tyndale, as will emerge, is complex but the point is surely this: they would have been pleased to acknowledge that they were winnowing the best from the past. They would not have wanted the status of originators or âauthorsâ â a word at which one of their Directors, Lancelot Andrewes, would visibly shudder. They took from Tyndale because Tyndale had done well, not perfectly and not always with an ear for the richness of the language, but with a passion for clarity which the Jacobean scholars shared. What virtue was there in newness when the old was so good?
Of course, the King James Bible did not spring from the soil of Jacobean England as quietly and miraculously as a lily. There were arguments and struggles, exclusions and competitiveness. It is the product of its time and bears the marks of its making. It is a deeply political book. The period was held in the grip of an immense struggle: between the demands for freedom of the individual conscience and the need for order and an imposed inheritance; between monarchy and democracy; between extremism and toleration. Early Jacobean England is suffused with this drama of authority and legitimacy and of the place of the state within that relationship. âThe reformersâ, it has often been said, âdethroned the Pope and enthroned the Bible.â That might have been the case in parts of Protestant Europe, but in England the process was longer, slower, less one-directional and more complex. The authority of the English, Protestant monarch, as head of the Church of England, had taken on wholesale many of the powers which had previously belonged to the pope. The condition of England was defined by those ambiguities. In the years that the translation was being prepared, Othello, Volpone, King Lear and The Tempest â all centred on the ambivalences of power, the rights of the individual will, the claims of authority and the question of liberty of conscience â were written and staged for the first time. The questions that would erupt in the Civil War three decades later were already circling around each other here.
But it is easy to let that historical perspective distort the picture. To see the early seventeenth century through the gauze of the Civil War is to regard it only as a set of origins for the conflict. That is not the quality of the time, nor is the King James Bible any kind of propaganda for an absolutist king. Its subject is majesty, not tyranny, and its political purpose was unifying and enfolding, to elide the kingliness of God with the godliness of kings, to make royal power and divine glory into one indivisible garment which could be wrapped around the nation as a whole. Its grandeur of phrasing and the deep slow music of its rhythms â far more evident here than in any Bible the sixteenth century had produced â were conscious embodiments of regal glory. It is a book written for what James, the self-styled Rex Pacificus, and his councillors hoped â a vain hope, soon shipwrecked on vanity, self-indulgence and incompetence â might be an ideal world.
ONE A poore man now arrived at the Land of Promise
And the LORD magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed vpon him such royal maiestie as had not bene on any king before him in Israel.
1 Chronicles 29:25
Few moments in English history have been more hungry for the future, its mercurial possibilities and its hope of richness, than the spring of 1603. At last the old, hesitant, querulous and increasingly unapproachable Queen Elizabeth was dying. Nowadays, her courtiers and advisers spent their lives tiptoeing around her moods and her unpredictability. Lurching from one unaddressed financial crisis to the next, selling monopolies to favourites, she had begun to lose the affection of the country she had nurtured for so long. Elizabeth should have died years before. Most of her great men â Burleigh, Leicester, Walsingham, even the beautiful Earl of Essex, executed after a futile and chaotic rebellion in 1601 â had gone already. She had become a relict of a previous age and her wrinkled, pasteboard virginity now looked more like fruitlessness than purity. Her niggardliness had starved the fountain of patronage on which the workings of the country relied and those mechanisms, unoiled by the necessary largesse, were creaking. Her exhausted impatience made the process of government itself a labyrinth of tact and indirection.
The country felt younger and more vital than its queen. Cultural conservatives might have bemoaned the death of old values and the corruption of modern morals (largely from Italy, conceived of as a louche and violent place), but these were not the symptoms of decline. England was full of newness and potential: its population burgeoning, its merchant fleets combing the world, London growing like a hothouse plum, the sons of gentlemen crowding as never before into the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, plants and fruits from all over the world arriving in its gardens and on its tables â but the rigid carapace of the Elizabethan court lay like a cast-iron lid above it. The queenâs motto was still what it always had been: Semper eadem, Always the same. She hadnât moved with the times. So parsimonious had she been in elevating men to the peerage that by the end of her reign there were no more than sixty peers in the nobility of England. Scarcely a gentleman had been knighted by the queen for years.
That drought of honours was a symptom of a kind of paralysis, an indecisive rigidity. None of the great issues of the country had been resolved. Inflation had transformed the economy but the Crown was still drawing rents from its properties that had been set in the 1560s. The relationship between the House of Commons and the queen, for all her wooing and flattery, had become angry, tetchy, full of recrimination. The old war against Spain, which had achieved its great triumph of defeating the Armada in 1588, had dragged on for decades, haemorrhaging money and enjoying little support from the Englishmen whose taxes were paying for it. The London and Bristol merchants wanted only one outcome: an end to war, so that trade could be resumed. Religious differences had been buried by the Elizabethan regime: both Roman Catholics, who wanted England to return to the fold of the Roman Church, and the more extreme, âhotterâ Protestants, the Puritans, who felt that the Reformation in England had never been properly achieved, had been persecuted by the queen and her church, fined, imprisoned and executed. Any questions of change, tolerance or acceptance had not been addressed. Elizabeth had survived by ignoring problems or suppressing them and as a result England was a cauldron which had not been allowed to boil. Later history â even in the seventeenth century itself â portrayed Elizabethâs death as a dimming of the brilliance, the moment at which England swopped a heroic, gallant, Renaissance freshness for something more degenerate, less clean-cut, less noble, more self-serving, less dignified. But that is almost precisely the opposite of what England felt at the time. Elizabeth was passé, decayed. A new king, with wife, children (Anne was pregnant with their sixth child) an heir for goodnessâ sake, a passionate huntsman, full of vigour, a poet, an intellectual of European standing, a new king, a new reign and a new way of looking at the world; of course the country longed for that. Elizabethâs death held out the prospect of peace with Spain, a new openness to religious toleration, and a resolution of the differences between the established church and both Catholics and Puritans. More than we can perhaps realise now, a change of monarch in an age of personal rule meant not only a change of government and policy, but a change of culture, attitude and belief. A new king meant a new world.
James Stuart was an unlikely hero: ugly, restless, red-haired, pale-skinned, his tongue, it was said, too big for his mouth, impatient, vulgar, clever, nervous. But his virtues, learned in the brutal world of Scottish politics, were equal to the slurs of his contemporaries. More than anything else he wanted and believed in the possibilities of an encompassing peace. He adopted as his motto the words from the Sermon on the Mount, Beati Pacifici, Blessed are the Peacemakers, a phrase which, in the aftermath of a European century in which the continent had torn itself apart in religious war, would appear over and over again on Jacobean chimneypieces and carved into oak testers and overmantels, crammed in alongside the dreamed of, wish-fulfilment figures of Peace and Plenty, Ceres with her overbrimming harvests and luscious breasts, Pax embracing Concordia. The Bible that is named after James, and whose translation was authorised by him, was central to his claim on that ideal.
James was in bed, but not yet asleep, when he learned that he had become King of England. He had been King of Scotland since he was one year old, when his mother Mary, Queen of Scots had been deposed thirty-five years before. He had spent his life in the wings and now, at last, his great scene was about to begin. A rather handsome and deeply indebted English gentleman, Sir Robert Carey, who at different times had been a commander against the Spanish Armada and a court dandy â just the sort of glamorous and rather sexy man to whom James was instinctively drawn â had ridden night and day on his own behalf to bring the news of Elizabethâs death to Scotland. For decades, Carey had been living beyond his means and was desperate for advancement. This was his main chance too. Having fallen off his horse and been kicked in the face en route, he finally reached the palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh on the evening of 26 March 1603, some seventy hours after Queen Elizabeth had died in her palace at Richmond on the Thames. His head was bleeding from his fall.
Several weeks before, as Elizabeth had entered what was clearly her terminal illness, long, moping, energyless silences absorbing her, Carey had arranged for a string of horses to be waiting at inns all along the Great North Road and now he was well ahead of the game. Not until the following day were the proclamations made in Shrewsbury or York, and in Bristol only the day after that. But the English Privy Council already had their own spies in place at the Scottish court, and were curious to know how James had taken the news. âEven, my Lords,â their reporter, Sir Roger Aston, told them later that week, âlike a poore man wandering about 40 years in a wildernesse and barren soyle, and now arrived at the Land of Promise.â
It was the most perfect moment of Jamesâs life. He received Carey in his bedroom. The Englishman knelt before the king and âsaluted him by his title of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. Hee gave me his hand to kisse, and bade me welcome.â James wanted to know what letters Carey brought with him from the English Council, but Carey had to confess he had none. This was private enterprise, against the wishes of the English Secretary of State, Robert Cecil, and the only sign that Carey had brought from the south was a sapphire ring, which James had once sent to Careyâs sister, Philadelphia, Lady Scroope, with the express purpose that she would return it as soon as she knew that Elizabeth had died.