Essay Questions

The text is fascinating on one level for revealing the extent of punishment undertaken for various crimes. What was the particularly grotesque punishment awaiting those who committed treason?

The level of grotesqueries relative to the punishment of certain crimes definitely is an eye-opener to anyone arguing that modern day capital punishment is the height of inhumanity. While certainly no one would argue that the experience of sitting in the electric chair is particularly humane treatment, compare it to the sentence awaiting those who committed murder by poison (who historically have been overwhelmingly women, it should be noted) during the reign of King Henry VIII was to be boiled alive. And yet even that shudder-inducing penalty for poisoning pales in comparison to retributive justice handed down to traitors. Treason was punishable by hanging but not to the point of death so that the convicted prisoner would still be alive when his bowels were removed and burned before his face, whereupon he would then finally be put to death by beheading.

What separates knights from the other titles of nobility such as dukes, earls and barons?

For those living outside the U.K. the distinguishing elements of aristocratic titles related to the realm can seem as impenetrable as they are absurdly outdated. For instance, how many Americans know that the eldest son of a duke is known as an earl while his father is still living and the son of a living earl is known as a viscount. For that matter, how many Americans care? When it comes to the title nobility of the English, the only one that really ever captured the imagination of Americans is the knight. And it turns out that Americans were perhaps subconsciously drawn to the knight because it is the most “American” of them all. While the son of any duke can become a duke and the son of any earl can become an earl, only a king can make a knight: “Knightes therefore be not borne but made.”

“The most high and absolute power of the realm of England” is situated where, according to the author?

Much of the text is given over to describing the power of the monarch. Set against this description of power is the warning couched in historical anecdote against the natural temptation of those given power to seek more rather than less. Thus, the explicit definition of what to look for in a tyrant as opposed merely to a king invested with absolute power. The distinction here is made clear: absolute power is not itself inherently synonymous with tyranny. Thus, though the monarch be the unchallenged head of state in England, the argument here is that the highest absolute power is invested in the legislative house of Parliament as the ultimate and final check and balance to the temptation of the overly ambition king seeking to rule as tyrant.