James I and the Jews

James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland) was the first of the House of Stuart whence Scottish kings (for the first time) ruled over the more powerful Kingdom of England rather than vice versa. James I is famous to any English schoolchild as the king who was the target of the famous 'Gunpowder Plot' of 1605 whence rebellious Catholic country gentry almost succeeded in blowing him and the entire English political establishment to smithereens (and to celebrate the discovery of which Bonfire night has been celebrated for centuries on 5th November).

What is less well-known about James I is that he was a thinker and writer. He wrote several works of which the most famous by a country mile is his 1597 'Daemonologie', which is a (largely unoriginal) work that argues for the physical, philosophical and spiritual reality of witches and witchcraft (also seen in his 1591 pamphlet 'Newes from Scotland'). In it James I recites widely held intellectual positions at the time and argues (in rather lacklustre form) against sceptics like Reginald Scot and Johann Weyer.

Having recently re-read James I's works as part of a separate project: I thought I would point out that there is a distinctly anti-jewish vein in his thought.

A good example of James I's thought on this score is found in his 1599 'Basilikon Doron' when he makes fun of the Pharisees (who were then, rightly as it happens, closely associated with contemporary followers of Judaism) (1) referring to them as a group who think themselves completely pure (when they are not) and who try to rule God using their fingers (i.e., by the use of laws and material things) as well as who are themselves excessively proud and unduly boastful about their self-assumed status as 'the chosen people'.

Another example is found in his 1604 'A Counterblaste to Tobacco' when he satirically brings up the evil of the Israelites who lusted after the flesh of quails rather than the manna of heaven: thus indicating their unworthiness of God's blessings (and therefore the undeserving rebellious nature of the Israelites and their jewish descendants).

Even when James I brings up the Israelites in a positive context then his purpose is not to lionize them as God's chosen people, but rather to portray them as an eternally erring people who had to be brutally ruled with the sword and the lash to force some sort of civilized God-fearing behaviour out of them.

This can be seen in his 1598 'The True Law of Free Monarchies' where he argues that God has given him his crown so that he can rule over his people with a stern but kindly hand, which is but mild and gentle compared to the harsh rule that was exercised by God's agents over the profligate and barbarous Israelites (with the slight hint that he has justification to be that harsh if he feels it completely necessary).

James I justifies this by pointedly referring to the covenant that God had made with the Israelites (for example his citation in 'Basilikon Doron' of the basis of law, order and kingship being found in the ten commandments that were given by God to Moses) and the principle basis for his thought on this point (as he indirectly points out in his 'Daemonologie') is that he is part of an unbroken chain of divine rulers (beginning with Moses) who are to lead their people out of theological error (as with Samuel disabusing Saul of his error in utilizing witchcraft/necromancy to use one of his own examples) into the new promised land of godliness and thus material plenty.

Effectively then James I saw himself as a biblical ruler who was appointed by God to rule (i.e., the divine right of kings), but he also, by logical extension of this, held that the Israelites (and by dint of this their jewish descendants) were the ultimate malcontents (whom his people would do well not to emulate) who had to be ruled with almost tyrannical terror (by divinely-appointed prophet-kings) in order to scare them into a semblance of Godly conduct.

In other words James I regarded jews (intellectually at least) as being moral, ethical and religious cripples who need to be constantly terrorized into behaving in a civilized ethical way.

References

(1) Per the comment of Jonathan Campbell, 1996, 'Deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls', 1st Edition, Fontana: London, p. 109