Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 賀伯特的《亨利八世史》(1649)與近代早期英格蘭君主至尊權
Herbert of Cherbury's The Life and Raigne of King Henry VIII (1649) and the Royal Supremacy in Early Modern England
Authors: 許朝祺
Hsu, Chao-Chi
Contributors: 國立政治大學歷史學報
Keywords: 君主至尊權 ; 亨利八世史 ; 賀伯特 ; 近代早期 ; 良心 
Royal Supremacy ; Henry VIII ; Herbert of Cherbury ; Early Modern ; Conscience
Date: 2019-11
Issue Date: 2020-11-19 10:35:47 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本文圍繞在近代早期英格蘭的重大政教課題君主至尊權(Royal Supremacy),探討的是十七世紀斯圖亞特王朝早期(the Early Stuart),王室史學家賀伯特(Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, 1582-1648)《亨利八世史》所呈現的內容。除結論外,本文共分五節。第一節說明近代早期英格蘭君主至尊權的發展,及其帶給人民的良心困境。經本文研析這個困境會出現在下列情況:當個人良心不同意君王的宗教意見以及國教規範的時候。第二節呈現賀伯特及其他四位近代早期作家,所出版的亨利八世歷史的寫作觀點。同時也說明,賀伯特《亨利八世史》的評價有長久以來未解的爭議,而其價值事實上是受到低估的。文中第三節至第五節依序說明賀伯特作品對下列問題的討論,包括君王或教皇何者有國教至尊權力、英格蘭君王在國教的權力範疇、以及君王是否應該處決不遵從其至尊權力者(尤其是基於良心理由)。本文發現主要有以下二點:第一,賀伯特延續近代早期英格蘭的主流論述,認為英格蘭君王的宗教權力是裁判性質的(jurisdictional),而非祭司性質的(sacerdotal)。然而特別的是,賀伯特以其哲學理論合理化君主至君權。第二,賀伯特對於君主至尊權的支持是有限的,即此權力不能凌駕人民良心的判斷。於此也發現,個人的良心是君王宗教權力的界線之一,而其論點也正吻合十七世紀對於個人良心的關懷。
This article focuses on a very important issue in the relationship between Church and State in Early Modern England: the scope of the monarch's power over the Church, or, the royal supremacy. It investigates the presentation of the issue in The Life and Raigne of King Henry VIII by Edward, Herbert of Cherbury (1582-1648). The first section examines the development of the royal supremacy from the Tudors to the Early Stuarts and the moral dilemmas it brought to the people. Moral dilemmas emerged especially when the individual's conscience disagreed with the religious opinions of the monarch and the regulations of the Church. The second section examines the viewpoints of five authors who wrote the history of King Henry VIII, and reveals that Herbert's work had for a long been controversial and its value underestimated. Then the following three sections examine several issues related to the royal supremacy in The Life and Raigne, including the controversy between the Pope and the King, the crown's spiritual powers in the Church, and the martyrs who infringed the laws of the supremacy. The findings are two-fold: (1) Herbert agreed with the mainstream opinion in Early Modern England that the monarch's powers over the Church were jurisdictional rather than sacerdotal. However, he used an unusual way to justify his arguments by applying his philosophical theory to issues related to the royal supremacy. (2) Herbert only offered limited support for the royal supremacy and believed that it should not encroach upon the judgement of individual conscience. Conscience, in Herbert's view, marks the limit of the king's power over the Church, which was a major concern in the seventeenth century.
Relation: 國立政治大學歷史學報, 52, 143-189
Data Type: article
DOI 連結:
Appears in Collections:[政治大學歷史學報 THCI Core ] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
4.pdf1194KbAdobe PDF41View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing