Ralegh's "Hellish Verses" and the "Tragicall Raigne of Selimus"
Author(s): Jean Jacquot
Source: The Modern Language Review , Jan., 1953, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Jan., 1953), pp. 1-9
Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3719161
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Modern Language Review
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
VOL UME XLVIII JANUARY 1953 NUMBER 1
RALEGH'S 'HELLISH VERSES' AND THE 'TRAGICALL
RAIGNE OF SELIMUS'
Biographers and critics have paid little attention to the manuscri
attributed to Sir Walter Ralegh, belonging to the collection of the Ma
and published in a Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission.l
we have to face in our attempt to interpret the poem and explain its
complex that it is necessary to reproduce the full text:
1603 Certaine hellish verses devysed by that Atheist and traitor Ral
said viz:
When first this circkell round, this building fayre,
some god tooke out of this confused masse
what god I do not know nor greatly care
then every one his owne director was,
then war was not nor ritches was not knowne
and no man said then this or that ys my owne
the plowman with a furrowe did not marke
how far his great possessions they did reache
the earth knew not the shore nor the sea the barke
nor souldiers dared not the battered breach 10
nor trumpets loud tantara then did teache
they neided then nothing of whom to stand
but after Ninus warlicke Bellus sonne
with uncouth armoure did the earth array
then first the sacred name of King begann
and things that were as common as the day
did yeld themselves and likewise did obey
and with a common muttering discontent
gave that to tyme which tyme cannot prevent.
Then som sage man amonge the vulgarr 20
knowing that lawes could not in quiet dwell
unles the[y] were observed did first devyse
the name of god, religion, heaven and hell
and gaine of paines and fair rewardes to tell
paines for theis that did neglecte the lawe
rewardes for him that lived in quiet awe
whereas in deid they were mere fictions
and if they were not yet (I thinke) they were
and those religious observationes
onely bugberes to keepe the worlde in feare 30
and make them quietly the yoke to bere
so that religion of itself a fable
was onely found to make that peaceable
herein especially comes the foolish names
of father mother brother and such lyke.
But whosoe well his cogitations frames
shall onely fynd they were but for to strick
into our minds as tever [sic] kind of lyke
1 MSS. of the Marquis of Bath at Longleat I am indebted to Mr I. R. F. Cal
(Wilts), vol. ii, pp. 52-3. V. T. Harlow quotes transcribing the text at a time
a few lines of the poem in his edition of The access to the Reports of the H
Discoverie of Guiana (1928), Introd. pp. xxxiii-iv. making useful suggestions.
M.L.R.
XLVIII
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1
2 Ralegh's 'Hellish Verses' and the 'Tragicall Raigne of Selimus'
regard of some for shew, for feare, for shame l
indeid I must confes they were not bad 40
because they keep the baser sort in fere
but we whose myndes with noble thoughts ar clad
whose body doth a ritch spirit bere
which is not knowne byt flyethe everywhere
why should we seeke to make that soule a slave
to which dame Nature such large freedom gave.
Amongst us men there is some difference
as affections termeth us be it good or ill
as he that doth his father recompence
(liffers from him which doth his father kill 50
and yet I think, think others what they will
that paradice when death doth give them rest
shall have a good as part even as the best l
and that is just nothing for as I suppose
in deathes void kingdom rules eternall night
secure of evill secure of foes
where nothing doth the wyched soule affright
then since in death nothing doth us befall
here while I live I will have a fetch at all.
Finis R. W. alias W. RAWLEY
Endorsed Verces written by Sir Walter Rawleye 1603
The date and the title of the manuscript give us a clear idea of the use
to be made of such lines. Ralegh was being accused of collusion with S
taking part in a plot to dethrone James I. It hardly needs to be repe
those days any attack against authorized religion was a crime agains
The connexion between the theological and the political aspects of th
appears clearly in the wording of the official inquiry on the opinions of
his circle held at Cerne in March 1594.1 Ralegh had already been me
police reports as an associate of the 'atheist' Marlowe2 and persistent
his impiety had circulated. The evidence brought to light by the C
mission was of a rather compromising nature, at least by Elizabethan
Yet he was not prosecuted: though he was no longer a favourite, the Que
want his utter ruin. But in 1603 the situation was different, his ene
determined to make full use of his reputation as an unbeliever. Durin
the Attorney-General Sir Edward Coke was to fling the accusation of ath
betrayal in his face, thus making up by verbal violence for the weakness
ments. The same attacks are to be found again and again in lampoons
the time of his fall by envious poetasters.3 There exists a second manusc
of the 'hellish verses' which is practically identical with the Longl
bears the same date and was obviously written with the same purp
crediting Ralegh on the eve of his trial.4 The Longleat collection al
1 Harleian MSS. 6849, ff. 183 seq., reproduced same as in the Longleat copy. S
in Danchin, 'Etudes critiques sur Marlowe' 'finis R. W. alias W. Rawley'. The
(Revue germanique, 1913, pp. 566-87), document mentioned in the heading, but in
vi. ment ('verses sayed to be written by Walter
2 Harleian MSS. 6848, f. 190; Danchin, Rawley knight 1
document iv. hand. Like the Longleat copy, it has paradice
3 See T. N. Brushfield, A Bibliography of for parricides (1. 52) and
Ralegh (London, 1908), pp. 146-8. mistake: factions for fictions (1. 27). It gives a
4 British Museum, Add. MSS. 32092, f. 201. better reading of 11. 37 (strike), 38 (tender instead
The title ('Certaine hellish verses', etc.) is the of tever), 53 (as good a part, but even is omitted).
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JEAN JACQUOT 3
a letter from Robert Cecil to Sir Mich
with a postscript summing up the Minist
Ralegh, and others:
Whatever you hear about innocency kno
Sir Walter Ralegh his contempts are high, h
Robert Cecil himself, as an adversary of
of such a compromising poem.
The problem at first seemed simply t
were really the work of Ralegh or a forg
familiar and recalled a speech in an ano
Tragicall Raigne of Selimus, published
confirmed the impression: but for a few
best of our knowledge, the resemblance
passage in Selimus, the central part of
character of the play:
When first this circled round, this
Some God tooke out of the confused masse,
(What God I do not know, nor greatly care)
Then euery man of his owne dition was,
And euery one his life in peace did passe.
Warre was not then, and riches were not knowne, 310
And no man said, this, or this, is mine owne. |
The plough-man with a furrow did not marke
How farre his great possessions did reach:
The earth knew not the share, nor seas the barke.
The souldiers entred not the battred breach,
Nor trumpets the tantara loud did teach.
There needed them no iudge, nor yet no law,
Nor any King of whom to stand in awe.
But after Ninus, warlike Belus, sonne,
The earth with vnknowne armour did warray, 320
Then first the sacred name of King begunne:
And things that were as common as the day,
Did then to set possessours first obey
Then they establisht lawes and holy rites,
To maintaine peace, and gouerne bloodie fights. I
Then some sage man, aboue the vulgar wise,
Knowing that lawes could not in quiet dwell,
Vnlesse they were observed: did first deuise
The names of Gods, religion, heauen, and hell;
And gan of paines, and faind rewards to tell: 330
Paines for those men which did neglect the law,
Rewards, for those that liu'd in quiet awe.
Whereas indeed they were meere fictions,
And if they were not, Selim thinkes they were:
And these religious obseruations,
Onely bug-beares to keepe the world in feare,
And make men quietly a yoake to beare.
So that religion of it selfe a bable,
Was onely found to make vs peaceable. I
1 MSS. of the Marquis of Bath, vol. ii, pp. x arrest John Shelbury, one of th
and 51. On p. 54 there is a letter from Sir Walter Ralegh's estate, 'bound for me f
Ralegh to Sir Michael Hicks, asking him not to
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4 Ralegh's 'Hellish Verses' and the 'Tragicall Raigne of Selimus'
Hence in especiall come the foolish names,
340
Of father, mother, brother, and such like:
For who so well his cogitation frames,
Shall finde they serue but onely for to strike
Into our minds a certaine kind of loue.
For these names too are but a policie,
To keepe the quiet of societie. [
Indeed I must confesse they are not bad,
Because they keepe the baser sort in feare:
But we, whose minde in heauenly thoughts is clad,
Whose bodie doth a glorious spirit beare,
That hath no bounds, but flieth euery where.
Why should we seeke to make that soule a slaue,
To which dame Nature so large freeldome gaue.
Amongst vs men, there is some difference.
Of actions tear7ned by vs good or ill:
350
As he that doth his father recompence,
Differs from him that coth his father kill.
And yet I thinke, thinke others what they will,
That Parricides, when death hath giuen tlem rest,
Shall have as good a part as the rest.
And thats iust nothing, for as I suppose
In deaths voyd kingdome raignes eternall night:
360
Secure of euill, and secure of foes,
Where nothing (loth the wicked man.affright,
No more than him that dies in doing right.
Then since in death nothing shall to vs fall,
Here while I liue, Ile haue a snatch at all.1
The Longleat MS. seems to be the work of a copyist w-ho did not fully understand
what he was reading. On the whole, the Selimus text is much better: it gives
a satisfactory reading of lines corrupt in the other text and does not deviate from
the rhyme royal structure, while there are four lines missing in the MS. Lines 309
and 365 in Selimus are omitted in the MS. (after 1. 4 and 1. 57) and 11. 317-18 are
contracted into one (1. 14). Lines 345-6 are also replaced by a single line, 1. 39,
expressing a rather different idea. Again 11. 18-19 in the MS. differ entirely from
the corresponding lines (324-5) in the play. The reader will also notice other variants
between the two texts, which cannot be explained by the negligence or the ignorance
of the transcriber. The Longleat MS. is not copied directly from the only known
edition of Selimus. Yet this may be the ultimate source of the MS. Corruptions of
the text can be explained by successive transcriptions. And important variants
may have been introduced in an effort to reconstitute the text from memory. On
the other hand it is not impossible that the Longleat scribe and the author of the
play had recourse to different versions of the same poem. In other words there are
two ways of accounting for the relation of the MS. to the play. Either some enemy
of Ralegh's lifted a passage spoken by a tyrant in a nearly forgotten play and gave
it as the authentic expression of Ralegh's opinions, or some impudent dramatist
obtained the text of an unpublished poem of Sir Walter's and inserted it in the
tragedy.
Selimus was published in 1594 and, in its final form, it cannot be anterior to
between the two versions and added bars in both
1 Scene ii, UI. 305-67. Reproduced from the
texts to separate the stanzas.
facsimile edition (Malone Society Reprints). We
have used italics to indicate the difference
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JEAN JACQUOT 5
1591.1 A large part of the tragedy is i
predominates are in blank verse. But
a way that suggests the re-handling o
'hellish verses' seems to indicate that th
speech in which they are found is writt
stanza is used in other soliloquies of a de
are admirably suited to the situation.
without giving a detailed account of a
The First Part of the Tragicall raigne of
Wherein is showne how hee most vnnat
Baiazet, and preuailing therein, in the en
Also with the murthering of his two br
The historical Selimus who rebelled in 1
becomes a Senecan tyrant, taking th
placently revealing the darkness of his
justify the parricide he is about to co
function and certain lines-which wo
seem meant to underline the folly of th
principles and at the same time pays
having stated that pains and rewards
a rash and wilful way,
And if they were not, Selim think
In the 'hellish verses' we read:
and if they were not yet (I thinke) they were (1. 28)
which looks very much like a clumsy effort to eliminate the name of Selimus.
This seems to indicate fairly clearly that Ralegh's enemies used the text o
play. Yet a series of objections has to be considered. First, it must be adm
that vigour of thought, easiness and coherence of expression, absence of ve
and bombast, and even certain poetical qualities raise the passage under disc
above the rest of the tragedy, which is sorry stuff. Secondly, though the p
fits the dramatic situation, it is awkwardly introduced: Selimus declares that h
going to refute the arguments of the schools and fortify himself in his impiety,
seems hardly necessary judging by the sacrilegious fury of the words he h
proffered. Lastly, we must bear in mind that the author of Selimus carried plagi
further than most of his contemporaries, who were not as a rule over-scrupulo
that matter. He stole whole passages from the anonymous tragedy of Lo
including those that had already been borrowed by it from Spenser. Conseq
it is not unreasonable to suspect him of stealing a poem circulating in manuscri
It is true that this passage is more striking than anything else in the play
that the effect is not entirely due to the boldness of the ideas expressed. But t
is much in other scenes which, though rather dull and commonplace,, is nevert
addressed to the spectator's intelligence, not to his cruder emotions. And
interest of the modern reader is revived in one later scene (xxiii) where Sel
1 For a summary of the critical studies of the of Robert Greene (Oxford, 1905), vol. I, pp
play see The Cambridge History of English shows that there is little ground for ascribi
Literature, vol. v, pp. 84-8 and 134, and E. K. play to that dramatist.
Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, vol. iv, p. 46. 2 Bajazet's monologue, scene iii, for in
J. C. Collins, in his edition of the Plays and Poems 3 Lines 305-7, 333-4.
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6 Ralegh's 'Hellish Verses' and the 'Tragicall Raigne of Selimus'
brother faces the tyrant who has sentenced him to death and predicts that the
usurper will have to account for his actions on the Day of Judgement. There is no
consistent moral or religious purpose behind the play, which ends with the triumph
of Selimus, and the promise of more horrible crimes in a second part, of which we
know nothing. But there is a deliberate contrast between these two scenes which,
to the reader at least, are the most impressive. And this tends to prove that they
were originally planned as parts of the same whole. On the other hand if we could
find models for, or traces of borrowings in, the 'hellish' passage its originality might
cease to surprise us, and it would be no longer necessary to account for its presence
in the play by the appropriation of a manuscript poem.
When the author wrote the first two stanzas, he obviously had in mind the
beginning of the Metamorphoses. It was one of the most popular classics, and
Arthur Golding's translation had further contributed to its diffusion. Verbal echoes
seem to indicate that he had Ovid's poem in front of him. The Latin poet, after
describing chaos, tells how a god changed it into an ordered universe (Bk. I, 11. 3-35).
It is easy to see, without quoting at length from the familiar text, that our author
summed up in three lines this passage on the origins of the world. In the rest of the
first stanza and the whole of the second, we find condensed two passages from Ovid's
description of the Golden Age (11. 89-102) and of the Iron Age (11. 125-43). It is
worth noticing, too, that Ovid gives a gloomy picture of a state of affairs where men
and women of the same kin slay and poison each other, where piety is defeated and
the son plots against his father's life (the very situation of the play). Then he
proceeds with the story of a race, bloodthirsty and contemptuous of the gods, born
of the rebellious giants. He tells of the cruel Lycaon, 'tyrant of Arcadia', who
mocks the people's prayers and doubts the divinity of Jupiter. And the story ends
with the destruction, in the Flood, of a corrupt humanity. Though we find no trace
of literal imitation, we are entitled to suppose that our author had these episodes
in mind when he made his tyrant, his parricide, speak of family ties as a ridiculous
convention, or when he lent him a Titanic mind, 'clad in heavenly thoughts',
a 'glorious spirit that hath no bounds'.
The legend of the Golden Age was closely related to the story of the Fall.
Theologians and jurists made frequent allusions to it when they explained that,
through the growth of vice and lust, laws and coercive institutions had become
necessary to maintain peace and order, and to protect society from tyrannical
rulers. Our author was, apparently, aware of this interpretation. And his treatment of ideas current in his time was affected by unexpectedly wide reading. Thus
he seems to have derived his knowledge of Ninus from a passage of The City of God
(Book IV, ch. 6) where St Augustine, quoting Justinius, establishes a sharp distinc-
tion between just kings and ruthless conquerors. As for the 'sage man above the
vulgar wise', who invented religion to 'keepe the baser sort in feare', I believe his
mo(lel is to be found in a fragment of a Greek poem which Sextus Empiricus
(Adversus mathematicos, ix, 54) attributes to Critias, the leader of the Thirty
Tyrants, and gives as an example of atheism.
An examination of the sources undoubtedly adds weight to the arguments which
tend to prove that the 'hellish verses' originally belonged to Selimus.l The dramatist
carefullly looked for texts which helped him to outline the thoughts of a tyrannical
I shall fully discuss, in Etudes anglaises, the sources of Selimus's monologue and their bearing
on the interpretation of the play.
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JEAN JACQUOT
7
and impious warrior, and at the same time to suggest that Selimus used a very
specious way of reasoning. Selimus's speech sounds, as it should, like a diabolic
distortion of theology and orthodox political theory. This was exactly the sort of
document Ralegh's enemies required, to stir opinion against 'that atheist and
traitor'. It seems hard to believe that Ralegh wrote a poem just for the sake of
saying 'I am an atheist and a very wicked fellow'. If by any chance he wrote the
'hellish verses', it must have been in the mood of defiance and bitter irony which
inspired The Lie, at a time when he thought he had seen through the fictions on
which the order of society depended, but was also conscious of the extreme consequences, on the moral plane, of a denial of immortality. As a paradoxical way
of setting a problem, as a piece of grim humour in the vein of The Jew of Malta,
the existence of such a poem is not absolutely inconceivable.
Let us see, then, what evidence may be produced in favour of Ralegh's authorship. As far as form is concerned there is little, apart from the fact that he once
employed the rhyme royal stanza' and that some of his best known poems have
a similar stanza structure (ababcc). As for the content, the arguments can be
grouped under three headings.
(1) In the earlier part of his life, Ralegh listened complacently to aphorisms of
his associates, some of which closely resembled those of the 'hellish verses'. For
instance Marlowe-who is said to have read, some time before his death in 1593, an
'atheist lecture' to Ralegh2-spoke of Moses as a cunning leader for whom it was
easy 'being brought up in all the artes of the Egyptians to abuse the Jews being
a rude and grosse people'.3 This means that the author of Tamburlaine attributed
to this eminent Biblical figure a cunning similar to the pagan lawgiver Numa. We
may also notice that the lines
and those religious observationes
onely bugberes to keepe the worlde in feare
sound uncommonly like the words attributed to Marlowe by Baines: 'but almost
in every company he cometh he perswades men to Atheism willing them not to be
afeard of bugbeares and hobgoblins'.4 The words of Ralegh's brother, as reported
by Parson Ironside, also bear a strong resemblance to the 'hellish verses':
M. Carew Rawleigh demaunds of me what daunger he might incurr by suchI
speeches? whereunto I aunswered the wages of sin is death and he making liglht of
death as being common to all sinner and reightuous, I inferred further, that as that
liffe which is the gifte of God t[h]rough Jesus-Christ is liffe eternall: so that death whlilch
is properly the wage of sin, is death eternal, both of the bodye, and of the soile alsoe.
Soule quoth Mr Carewe Rawleigh what is that ?5
At that very moment Sir Walter joined in the discussion, questioning Ironside and
refuting his arguments for the existence of God and the soul. I am ready to admit
that Ralegh's critical attitude can be explained by his contempt for the parson's
scholastic formulae.6 But was it the part of a good Christian to choose the moment
In the translation of a short fragment of article, 'The History of the World and Ralegh's
zEschylus's Prometheus (History of the World, Skepticism' (Huntington Library Quarterly, 1939,
ii, vi, 4). no. 3), which is a capital contribution to the
2 Harl. IMSS. 6848, f. 190; Danchin, document study of Ralegh's
Iv. a certain consistency in Ralegh's use of sceptical
3 Harl. MSS. 6848, f. 185a; Danchin, docu- arguments. Yet
ment I. 4 Ibid. f. 185b. the discussion with Ironside, they come into play
5 Harl. MSS. 6849, f. 187b; Danchin, docu- in favour of unbelief, while twenty years
mlent vi. in the Preface of The History of the lWorld
6 As Mr E. A. Strathmann pointed out in an Pyrrhonism becom
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 Ralegh's 'Hellish Verses' and the 'Tragicall Raigne of Selimus'
when a parson was hard pressed by atheists to ask embarrassing questions? It is
true also that he put an end to the debate by wishing 'that grace might be said for
that quoth he is better than this disputation'. But did not Pyrrho recommend
that external respect for religious customs should be joined to scepticism of dogmas ?
Even so, it is difficult to say to what extent he shared the views of Marlowe or
Carew Ralegh; we must leave them the responsibility of their opinions and we can
only conclude that he was tolerant of such opinions, and listened to them with
interest.
(2) Much of the material upon which the author of the 'hellish verses' worked is
to be found also in the History of the World where it acquires, however, a different
significance. In his main work Ralegh expresses the view that the Golden Age of
the Ancients corresponded to the period following the Flood (and not preceding it
as in Ovid). Ambition and covetousness were still in their infancy, 'for while the
law of nature was the rule of man's life, they then fought for no larger territory
than themselves could compass and manure'.1 The authority of fathers and elders
was sufficient to keep them in peace. But with the growth of population vices also
increased, the need for order and obedience became greater than ever; then the
State and the laws had their beginning.2 This is the Christian version of the story.
Not only does he seek to conciliate the heathen myth with Biblical orthodoxy but
he insists on the idea that civil government is ordained by God.3 After describing
in general terms the emergence of state institutions, he devotes a whole chapter
(I, x) to the first Babylonian kings. After the Flood, he says, Nimrod was the first
to enjoy sovereignty. This king is not mentioned in the verses, but his successors
were Belus and Ninus according to Ralegh who discusses at length their right order
of succession and gives the etymology of Belus (connecting it with Baal which
means a war chief) to explain the warlike character of these kings. I was at one
time impressed by the fact that both Ralegh and the author of the verses were
interested in the origins of the Babylonian monarchy, but since the passage of
The City of God on Ninus was easy of access to the author of Selimus and served his
dramatic purpose in the monologue, I do not think this argument can be advanced
in favour of Ralegh's authorship.
As for that 'sage man' who 'did first devyse the name of god, religion, heaven and
hell', we also find his equivalent in the History of the World. Numa Pompilius,
'a peaceable man, and seeming very religious in his kind', 'brought the rude
people... to some good civility, and a more orderly fashion of life. This he effected
by filling their heads with superstition. 4 There is nothing unorthodox in Ralegh's
use of this well-known story. At most we could note that he abstains from condemning Numa as a politic atheist, and seems to think that the stratagem produced
good results. But Numa was a pagan, and Ralegh does not say that all religion is
superstition.4 He gives several examples, besides that of Numa, of statesmen and
priests using religious creeds to political ends; but these are all heathens, not
worshippers of Jehovah. To conclude, none of the arguments under this heading
has much weight. There is nothing unusual about the erudition of the verses, and
the range of Ralegh's knowledge is so vast, his subject so universal, that we should
not be surprised to find in his main work the equivalent of the mythical and
historical allusions in the Selimus passage. Besides, as is well known, there is
1 i, ix, 3; vol. I, p. 347 of The Works (Oxford, 3 Ibid. pp. 342-3.
1829). 4 i, xxvii, 6; Works, vol. iv, pp. 779-80.
2 I, ix, 1; ibid. pp. 339-41.
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
9
JEAN JACQUOT
nothing contrary to religion in The History of the World. To say that, his convictions
having changed, he gave a Christian significance, in the History, to a theme which
he had treated, in the verses, from the point of view of a sceptic, is entirely
speculative.
(3) At least it can be said that, while he constantly refers to the intervention of
Providence in his account of human events, we find here and there, in the History,
signs of his knowledge, and even appreciation, of Machiavelli. Of such a nature is
his account of Numa. And in The Cabinet Council, a treatise written in the latter
part of his life, we find some of the Machiavellian axioms which in those days
disturbed the consciences of so many people. 'Whoso laboureth to be good shall
perish living among men generally evil.' A Prince may be 'constrained for defence
of his state to proceed contrary to promise, charity, virtue',1 and the 'hellish verses'
contain opinions, concerning the 'vulgar' and the use of fear for the maintenance
of order, which closely resemble some of Ralegh's maxims. 'The vulgar sort is
generally variable, rash, hardy, and void of judgment.' The Prince should win the
love of his subjects; nevertheless 'the condition of men is such as cannot be restrained by shame, yet it is to be commanded by fear' and 'Men respect less whom
they love than whom they fear'.2
To sum up: the first and third groups of arguments tend to prove that the
rumours of his impiety, during the earliest part of his life, were not entirely without
foundation. His attitude may have just been one of free inquiry, and of impatience
with conventional ways of thinking. Contemporaries were shocked, all the more so
because some of his associates indulged in blasphemy and one of them at least,
Marlowe, in anti-religious propaganda. Besides, he was in his later life a serious
student of Machiavelli, some of whose maxims seem to clash with his conception
of history. That he was conscious of a contradiction and felt the need of a conm-
promise may be seen in The Prince, or MJaxims of State, where he is anxious to warn
Prince Henry, for whom the work was intended, that it was better to know some
of Machiavelli's axioms than to put them into practice. Yet The Cabinet Council is
the more important of his Machiavellian essays, and he seems to write there with
less caution and restraint. There was certainly alwvays in his thought an undercurrent of political realism, of the sort which is expressed in an extreme and
caricatural form in the 'hellish verses'. This does not mean of course that he wrote
them but that his authorship would not be entirely unthinkable if there existed an
external evidence in its favour, and the verses had not, as they have, a dramat
significance which obliges us to consider them as originally belonging to the play.
The fact that they could be used against Ralegh, and that we had to sift careful
the evidence before we could safely reject his authorship tends to show that there
was an even closer connexion than we thought between 'atheism' on the stage an
in philosophical circles, between the 'Machiavellianism' of the theatre and that
Elizabethan politics. An examination of the sources of the verses, apart from it
interest to the student of Selimus, also indicates that the tyrant's speech cannot be
dismissed as just a piece of dramatic sensationalism. The playwright, whatever h
intentions may have been, used ideas that were in the air, and the passage can add,
in an indirect way, to our knowledge of the serious thinking of the time.
JEAN JACQUOT
PARIS
1 The Cabinet Council (vol. viii of The Works), ch. xxiv, pp. 103, 105.
2 Ibid. ch. xv, p. 58; ch. xvi, p. 59; ch. xxiv, p. 104.
This content downloaded from
212.154.85.153 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms