The Importance of the Diary for a Study of Archbishop Laud

        Last, and most important of Laud’s key aims as argued by McGee, was that of his desire to re-establish the authority of the Church of England, an objective which stemmed from his belief that since the Reformation in the late 1530’s the church had greatly diminished in power and influence. The loss of lands after the dissolution of the monasteries had led to a reduction of church income and eventual deficit of wealth, a concern of Laud’s that is most clearly demonstrated in his diary entry of March 1624, in which his suggestion is recorded that, for the sake of the poorer priests, the four subsidies voted by the Clergy in Convocation should be paid by instalments.  The idea was first presented by Laud to the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Durham, who strongly approved of the notion, and affirmed that, ‘it was the best office that was done for the Church this seven years’. However, when suggested to James, the proposal was met with his grave displeasure and the comment that ’never any Bishop attempted the like at any time, nor would any but myself have done it.  That I had given the Church such a wound, in speaking to any laity to it’; a reaction which is very telling of the strength and singularity of Laud’s determination if none but he would have dared propose schemes which benefited the clergy at the cost of the crown.  From Laud’s arguably rather impertinent response to James that ‘I thought I had done a very good office for the Church: and so did my betters think.  And I hoped, being done out of a good mind, for the support of many poor vicars who must needs sink under three subsidies in a year, my error (if it were one) was pardonable‘, the strength of Laud’s feelings on the issue are indisputable as despite James’ strong negative reaction, Laud appears loath to relinquish his position on the matter, or admit his proposal as a mistake.  Such devotion to the restoration of church wealth can also be seen through examination of Laud’s attentions to Ireland, reports of the dearth of which had shocked him to such an extent that he avowed in his list of ‘Things which I have projected to if God bless me in them’, that he would ‘procure King Charles to give all the impropriations, yet remaining in the crown, within the realm of Ireland, to that poor Church’. Laud’s letters to Strafford verify that he did indeed ‘acquaint his Majesty with this, and he likes it well’, which arguably demonstrates his particular fervency for this aim; having already experienced James’ severe displeasure when proposing a similar scheme which involved the loss of his own wealth in order to benefit the clergy, it is surprising that he risked a similar negative reaction from Charles, though it is possible he was more confident of his compliance with this aim.

        As bishops led the clergy, Laud held a particularly high notion of their calling, which is reflected in the diary through the referrals he makes to his belief in ‘iure divino’, the radical view that bishops formed the very essence of the Church.  Laud held fast to this belief throughout his years as Archbishop; his first mention of the matter is in 1626, where he records a conversation with Charles in which he urged that the late Bishop of Winchester’s papers ‘concerning bishops, that they are jure divino’ be printed, and the last is in late 1644 where he affirms, ‘my tenet was and is still Episcopatus is jure divino‘.   This belief therefore, can be used to explain Laud’s readiness to use the Court of Star Chamber to punish those who attacked episcopacy during the 1630‘s; the most notable example being Bastwick, Burton and Prynne in 1637, whom, he accounts ‘were censured for their libels against the hierarchy of the Church’.  Though Burton, Bastwick and Prynne were gentlemen, they were pilloried, mutilated and branded like common criminals in a public display which demonstrated Laud’s determination that the church, and the priesthood that led it would be respected by all, regardless of rank; as Clarendon detailed, he ‘cherished the discovery of those not careful to cover their own iniquities, thinking they were above the reach of other [men], or their power or will to chastise’. Indeed it is evident that Laud increasingly utilised Star Chamber and High Commission to punish those who disagreed with his aims, as there are many references in the diary of such individuals, for example Richard Boyer and the Countess of Purbeck, to the extent that McGee has declared that Star Chamber under Laud was nothing more than ‘a bully pulpit’.  Laud’s aim to fortify the church further by increasing its control over appointments is also evident from study of the diary; in March 1635 he records his exultation that William Juxton, Lord Bishop of London, had been made Lord High Treasurer of England, an appointment which Laud gloats ‘no churchman had since Henry VII time‘.  Though Laud clearly believed that he had done the Church a great service in assisting Juxton to this position, ‘I pray God bless him to carry it so, that the Church may have honour… and now if the Church will not hold themselves up under God, I can do no more’,  Clarendon argues that in fact the opposite was true, as the office of Lord Treasurer was one of the greatest in England, much coveted by the nobility, and the giving of it to the relatively anonymous Juxton, ‘inflamed more men than were angry before, and not only sharpened the edge of envy and malice against the archbishop, but most unjustly towards the church itself, which they looked upon as the gulf ready to swallow all the great offices’.  Nevertheless, it is evident that Laud felt deeply about the importance of re-establishing ecclesiastical authority, as he believed, albeit mistakenly, that he was ultimately providing a stronger support for the church.

        Overall, the diary goes some way in affirming Laud’s key ecclesiastical priorities, though does not fully substantiate McGee’s argument, as whilst there is ample evidence that Laud set himself against theological controversy and strove to restore the clerical estate to pre-Reformation power, there is a total lack of reference towards the beauty of holiness, which is rather perplexing.  Although an attempt has been made to justify the reason for Laud’s silence on this matter; namely his failure at the St. Gregory’s hearing, this does not seem substantial enough to account for such complete reticence, especially considering the uproar caused by ceremonial reform,  thus it is clear that on this issue the diary is not as useful as expected.  However, in regards to his other aims, the diary is very useful; it is clear that halting theological discussion was a prime aim of Laud’s, and there is evidence which suggests that Woodstock was a pivotal moment for him.  Indeed it is notable that as the St. Gregory’s hearing was not mentioned in the diary due to Laud’s perception of it as a failure, perhaps Woodstock, which is written of in unusual length was indeed therefore seen, as Como has argued, as a great victory in the quelling of Calvinist opinion.  In any case, the diary is demonstrative of Laud’s deeply-set and long-held beliefs about the dangers of Puritanism and his fear of ecclesiastical controversy both of which he saw as capable of destabilising the Church of England.  It is clear that Laud went to great lengths to censure and obstruct those whose views he disagreed with, most clearly demonstrated by the many references that he makes to his use of Star Chamber, which is significant in terms of the fate of the diary, as his persecution of Prynne can be seen as the reason for their animosity and Prynne’s motivation in its seizing and corruption in 1643.  McGee has argued that Laud’s most crucial aim, the one which ‘underlined’ the other two was that of restoring church influence, and the diary indeed supports this assertion, as it is in regards to this matter that most marked mention is made in the diary.   Particularly striking are Laud’s efforts to status of the clergy, indeed his belief in ’jure divino’ is the only theological opinion which is strongly professed in the diary, and it is evident that he went to great lengths to uphold this belief; despite his hatred of theological controversy he encouraged Charles to publish Winchester’s papers on the subject, and utilised  the Royal courts to harshly punish those who spoke against the hierarchy of the church.   Furthermore, he demonstrates palpable pleasure at the appointment of Juxton as Lord Treasurer, and clearly believed himself to be greatly assisting the church through the elevation.

        

As would be expected from his diary, much mention is made of the individuals Laud interacted with most frequently and felt most strongly about.   An examination of the text reveals that Laud’s most significant relationships appear to have been with the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I, over whom there has long been debate over the nature of their rapport with the Archbishop.  As the favourite of both James I and Charles, Buckingham was highly influential during the 1620‘s, and it is clear that his friendship with Laud was highly significant, not least because of the advantages that it held, though it has been questioned by Carlton whether their relationship was entirely proper.  However, considering the role that religion had in the breakdown of Caroline rule, the relationship between Laud and Charles can be seen as particularly important.  Though Laud has traditionally been seen as the key innovator of ecclesiastical policy during the 1630‘s, this view has been challenged in recent years by Sharpe and Davies.  Thus an attempt will be made to study the relationships that Laud shared with both the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I and respond to the historiographical arguments that have surrounded them.        

        The Duke of Buckingham is first mentioned in the diary in April 1622, when Laud accounts his dealings with his mother, the Countess of Buckingham, ‘who about that time was wavering in point of religion’.  Mary Villiers had come into contact with Catholic missionaries and was close to converting to Rome, a prospect which was fraught with political dangers for the family.  Laud’s debate with the Jesuit John Fisher, staged on James’ command for the benefit of Lady Buckingham in May of that year, had a far more substantial effect on her son, as noted in the diary on the 9th June; ‘my Lord Marquis Buckingham was pleased to enter upon a near respect to me.  The particulars are not for paper’. It is clear that a firm friendship quickly grew between the two men; on the 15th June Laud became Buckingham’s confessor, and within a year they were corresponding on a regular basis, particularly when the Duke travelled abroad, as is exemplified by the diary entries Laud wrote during the months of Villiers and Charles’ absence in Spain from February to October 1623, of which four of the seventeen passages read solely, ‘I received letters from my Lord Buckingham out of Spain’.  Plainly Laud placed considerable significance upon Buckingham’s notice if these dates merited no other detail than that his letters were received.  This is further substantiated by the extraordinary number of encounters, conversations and meetings with Buckingham that Laud recorded in the diary during the six years of their acquaintance (1622-28), including mentions of private visits to the Duke’s seat at New-Hall, the frequency of which provides irrefutable evidence of the strong attachment that existed between the two men, as well as indicating the value that Laud placed upon Buckingham’s friendship that such marked mention of him is made.  Indeed ‘the most illustrious Duke’ was so important to Laud that his death in August 1628 is listed as one of the very few ‘days of observance to me’ at the fore of the diary, alongside which not even the death of James I is recorded.  

        Laud was prudent to value Buckingham’s association, as it is evident that his support played a crucial role in his advancement; as McGee states, ‘the door to Laud’s future greatness was opened by Villiers’.  Though Laud did not come into prominence until Charles’ reign, it was thanks to the Royal favourite, as recalled by Clarendon, that Laud was ‘recommended to the king, as fittest to be trusted in the conferring all ecclesiastical preferments… and from that time he entirely governed that province without a rival’.  Considerable evidence of Buckingham’s influence on Laud’s standing can be found in the diary; in March 1625, Laud wrote ‘I delivered into the Duke’s hands my short Annotations upon the Life and Death of the most august King James which he had commanded me to put in writing’, which is significant as it indicates the immediate confidence that was placed in Laud despite his comparably low position of Bishop of St. David’s.  Equally noteworthy is Laud’s aforementioned entrustment with the compilation of a schedule advising Charles and Buckingham whom amongst the clergy were ‘orthodox’, and therefore eligible for promotion, as is the role that he played within the coronation on 2nd February 1626, in which he ‘supplied the place of the Dean of Westminster‘, instead of Bishop Williams whom had fallen out of favour with the King; privileges which again indicates Laud’s rapid rise in influence as a result of Buckingham’s support.  Unsurprisingly, the prestige that Laud quickly, and many believed unfairly, attained led to resentment from power-hungry rivals at court, especially as Villiers himself was highly unpopular.  However, it is evident that Buckingham played a significant role in protecting Laud from those who attempted to prejudice the Royal mind against him, as is most notably accounted in the case of Lord Keeper Williams in 1623, whom, ‘very jealous of the Lord Buckingham’s favour’, attempted to undermine Laud by doing him what is recorded as ‘some very ill offices‘, which is most likely a reference towards slander.  In defence of his favourite,  Buckingham moved quickly to cut Williams out; ‘the Lord Keeper had strangely forgotten himself to [Buckingham]; and I think was dead in his affections’, with such effect that no less than four months later, Laud was told of the ‘reconciliation and submission of the Lord Keeper’, by Buckingham, unto whom it had been confessed that ‘his favour to [Laud] was the chief cause’.  Several other similar examples can be found in the diary of Villiers care of Laud, for example in April 1625 it is recorded of how Buckingham ’signified to me that a certain person, moved through I know not what envy, had blackened my name with his Majesty King Charles’, and in April 1626 he ’sent me to come to him.  There I first heard what Sir John Cook, the King’s Secretary, had suggested against me to the Lord Treasurer’.  It is therefore evident that Laud had much to thank Buckingham for during the early years of Charles reign, as he was clearly the driving force behind Laud’s initial rise to prominence, as well as a solid ally against his enemies.  Undoubtedly, a strong bond existed between the two men for Buckingham to go to such lengths to assist Laud.

        As Laud owed much to Buckingham’s influence, it is unsurprising that he refers to him in terms of great affection in the diary, demonstrating his loyalty by describing himself as being  truly the Dukes man; ‘on all accounts I am bound forever to honour [him]’.  However, it has been suggested that there was more to this friendship than meets the eye; Laud, as Buckingham’s confessor, could not have been unaware with of the nature of the favourite’s relations with James, and it is rather surprising that his homosexuality was not more disturbing to Laud.  When Prynne appropriated the diary in 1643, he was quick to seize upon the entry recorded on the 21st August 1625, in which Laud wrote, ‘that night in my sleep, it seemed to me that the Duke of Buckingham came into bed to me; where he behaved himself with great kindness towards me’.  When the dream was published in Prynne’s ’Breviate of the Life of William Laud‘ in 1644, Prynne argued that the passage hinted at ’certainly some deep mystery of iniquity fit to be concealed’, and suggested that Laud was guilty of ‘uncleanness’, a sentiment which is supported by Carlton, who agues that despite Laud’s protestation that ’there was never fasn’d upon me the last suspicion of this sin in all my life’, the diary does not wholly support his assertions of innocence.  Indeed certain entries, such as that of June 1622, in which Laud described the particulars of Buckingham’s friendship as being ‘not for paper’ could be seen an inference to misdeeds, as could his confession of July 1617, in which he professed that he had ‘wandered out of my way from thee into a foul and strange path… O Lord, for my saviour’s sake, forgive me the folly and strengthen me against the weakness for ever’, an act which he is shown to have committed ‘cum E.B’.  Cryptic mention is made throughout the diary of individuals whom are only described by their initials, but are known to be male by Laud’s use of pronouns, including ‘ER’, ‘T’, ‘SS’, ‘AD’ and most prominently, ‘KB’.  There are nine entries in the diary which refer to this KB, several of which are highly suggestive, such as those of January 1633, where Laud wrote, ‘my being with KB this day in the afternoon… troubled me much’, and August 1635, ‘I dreamed that K.B. sent to me  in Westminster Church that he was now as desirous to see me as I him’.  There are further mentions of meetings between KB and Laud which seem to prey on the archbishop’s conscience, which has caused Carlton to argue that the two undoubtedly shared an intense and painful relationship.  Nevertheless,  it is uncertain what these references ultimately mean, and although there is much suspicion surrounding these mysterious individuals,

in the case of Buckingham there is not enough evidence to conclusively substantiate that he and Laud shared any kind of improper relationship, as it is entirely plausible that the affection expressed for the Duke in the diary was entirely platonic and based on the substantial services that he rendered.

        Though Laud has traditionally been seen as the key formulator of religious policy during the personal rule, and the councillor whose influence cost the king his crown, recent work by Sharpe and Davies has challenged this assumption, claiming instead that Laud was merely a figurehead for Charles’ religious ideals, and that the bond the two shared was unexceptional, merely ‘like that of Charles with his other ministers’. However evidence can be found within the diary which refutes this, indicating instead that Laud and Charles shared a close personal relationship.   Indeed it is clear that Charles showed great favour to Laud from the outset of his reign, as can be seen from the diary entry of October 2nd 1626, where Laud records, ‘the Duke related to me what the King had further resolved concerning me, in case the Archbishop of Canterbury should die’.  This passage is highly significant, as it was in fact another six years before Abbot passed away, thus Charles’ committal to Laud’s elevation at this early stage indicates the strength of his preference.   Whilst Charles was on his coronation visit to Scotland in 1633, Laud records that he ‘set out to attend [him]’, which Clarendon affirms that ‘as dean of the chapel he was not obliged to do’.  Furthermore, whilst there, Laud, ‘preached to his majesty in the chapel at Holyrood House in Edinburgh’, which can be viewed as remarkable, as ‘scarcely any Englishman had done before in the King’s presence’.  Still more conclusive of the rapport that existed between Charles and Laud is the entry of May 20th 1630, in which the news of the birth of  Charles II is recorded, as is Laud’s ‘honour and happiness to see the Prince, before he was full one hour old’.  It is extremely unlikely that the many others would have been permitted such a great privilege, which therefore directly contradicts Sharpe’s argument that Laud’s relationship with Charles was not particularly close.   Thus the diary seems to indicate that a friendship existed between the two men, which could conceivably have been based on shared religious beliefs and a mutual necessity of one another; as of  June 1628 Laud was in need of Royal protection and support, having been condemned in parliament as ‘innovative of religion’, whilst Charles was searching for another that he could trust to act in his interests as Buckingham had done before his assassination, and who more likely, as previously illustrated, than one the Duke had personally recommended?

        Concerning the question of whether Laud or Charles directed ecclesiastical affairs during the 1630’s, in conjunction with the friendship indicated by the diary, it appears as though Laud and Charles shared a close working relationship, forming what can be seen as a ‘partnership’ in religious endeavours.  Fincham has long argued that Laud had an intimate standing with the king, and possessed a pre-eminent role in the distribution of crown patronage of royal chaplaincies, and benefices, and indeed it is plain from the diary that Laud believed himself responsible for a number of royal appointments, such as that of Windebank as Secretary of State in June 1632, ‘which place I obtained for him of my gracious master King Charles’, and Juxton only a month later, whom ‘at my suit was sworn Clerk of his Majesty’s closet’.  His remark of ‘now if the church will not themselves up under God, I can do no more’ concerning Juxton’s further elevation to Lord High Treasurer in 1635 could also be assumed as a reference towards his influence over the appointment; thus it can be seen that the diary goes some way in strengthening Fincham’s claim that Laud’s influence outweighed that of his contemporaries, making him ‘the most significant patron in church preferment in the 1630’s’.  However, Davies has argued that Laud was merely one of a number of councillors who might submit names to the king, not always with much success’, and it must therefore be considered that as with the case of St. Gregory’s, Laud may have omitted his failures from the diary, and thus perhaps the reader is given an unbalanced view of the true extent of his influence.  Nevertheless, it is evident that Laud was  highly prominent within Caroline government; alongside the Archbishopric he held numerous further positions, including Dean of the Chapel Royal (1626), Privy-Counsellor (1627), and Counsellor of Scotland (1632), as well as roles which were not specifically concerned with ecclesiastical affairs, such as that of his placement to the ’great committee of trade and the King’s revenue’ and his appointment to Commissioner of the Exchequer in 1634.  Though the authority Laud amassed has traditionally been seen as evidence of Charles’ subsidiary role to his primate, excerpts from the diary strongly indicate that Laud relied on Charles’ judgement and faithfully deferred  to his wishes, #thus signifying the existence of a co-operative working relationship between the two.  In August 1633, Laud was twice offered the position of Cardinal, and records both times his haste to inform Charles of the matter; ’ I was then from Court, but so soon as I came thither I acquainted his majesty with it’, thereby demonstrating the importance Charles’ opinion held for him.  If this evidence were not strong enough, irrefutably striking of Laud’s dependence on Charles are his diary entries of Spring 1643, where he records,  ‘I received a letter from His Majesty, to give Chartham to Mr. Reddinge.  That afternoon the Earl of Warwick came to me and brought me an order of the House to give it to one Mr. Culmer.  Saturday, Mr. Culmer came to me about it.  I told him I had given my Lord his answer’.  Significantly, despite being imprisoned in the Tower of London, and living in fear of his life, Laud refused to comply with any other than the King on this matter.  Although he received two further orders from the House of Lords, one in March and the other in April of that year, for the Bishopric of Chartham to be given first to ‘Mr. Edward Hudson’, and then to ‘Mr. Edward Corbet’, Laud continued to resist their alternatives, recording, ‘I gave my answer as before, but in as soft terms as I could’.  As Charles so clearly had the final say on Laud’s decisions, the existence of a partnership between the two must therefore be recognised, as it is quite clear that Laud, whilst exercising considerable influence within the Caroline regime, was still acting under jurisdiction.

Overall, it is clear the diary is highly important in clarifying the nature of the relationships Laud shared with both the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I.  In the case of Buckingham, the picture painted of the friendship that existed between himself and Laud is very strong; he was written of with remarkable frequency and often in terms of great affection.  It is evident that Buckingham went to great lengths to advance and support Laud, and that his favour was invaluable to Laud during the early years of Charles’ reign.  Indeed the two became so close that Carlton has challenged the propriety of their relationship, though there is not enough evidence in the diary to conclusively substantiate his assertion.  Nevertheless, the diary is remains useful in painting a picture of the rapport that existed between Laud and the Duke; indeed it is irrefutable that anything less than a great friendship existed between the two.   Though the diary is less clear of the strength of the personal relationship that existed between Charles and Laud, it is useful in ascertaining their working relationship, especially in regards to whom was the key formulator of Caroline ecclesiastical policy, as it suggests, in accordance with Fincham’s suggestion, that both Laud and Charles had significant roles, as though Laud can be seen to have amassed a great deal of power, this was done with Charles‘ goodwill and he remained true to his command.  Thus on the issue of Laud’s relationships the diary is highly important, and even though no conclusion can be reached as to the nature of Laud’s acquaintance with those only identified by their initials, in many ways this does not matter as it does not affect the rapport that is portrayed with the Duke of Buckingham and Charles, whom are in any case, far more important figure in historiographical terms.

        Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Laud’s diary are the thirty-two dreams which he recorded, the majority of which are rather disturbing.  In the Tempest, Shakespeare writes, ‘we are such stuff as dreams are made of’, and if this is the case, it is clear that Laud was an extremely troubled man. The accounts of his dreams allow the reader a unique insight into the issues with which Laud was most preoccupied , thus an attempt will be made to discern why this was so, and the effect that they had on upon him through an examination of the text.

        Most ominous of Laud’s dreams are those which concerned death and disease.  Carlton argues that Laud’s dreams about sickness should not surprise us, as they merely reflect the constant that was unexpected death, even in the highest circles of Stuart life, and indeed it is certainly evident that Laud was plagued with healthy problems by the countless ailments which are recorded in the diary; in middle and old age he was in frequent pain from a pulled leg muscle, ‘as I was walking in my chamber before dinner, without any slip or treading awry, the sinew of my right leg gave a great crack and brake asunder’, and there are many further accounts similar to that of , ‘I fell ill with great pain in my throat for a week.  It was with cold taken after heat in my service, and then into an ague‘.  Clearly Laud was not in particularly good health, and considering the recurrence of his complaints, it is understandable that he was deeply concerned about his personal wellbeing.  This consternation can clearly be seen to manifest itself through his dreams, some of which were highly unsettling, such as that of February 1626, where he recorded, ‘I dreamed that I was very much troubled with the scurvy, and that on the sudden all my teeth became loose… I could scarcely hold it in with my finger till I called out for help’.   Many more instances are recorded of nightmares concerning his colleagues’ deaths, such as Sackville Crowe, whom he dreamed was dead of the plague, and his servant William Pennell , who was at the time very sick, inspiring Laud to dream that ‘he came to receive my blessing’, after which Laud awoke and found Pennell ‘past sense and giving up the ghost’, which conclusively demonstrates the effect that troubling current events had on his psyche.  However, Laud’s poor health was not the sole source of his fear of death, as after the parliament of 1628 in which he was branded an ‘evil advisor‘, and Buckingham’s subsequent assassination, Laud became acutely aware that his life was in great danger from his political enemies.  In the diary Laud accounts numerous threats which were brought against him, such as that of March 1629 where papers were found in the Dean of Paul’s yard warning, ‘Laud, look to thyself; be assured thy life is sought. As thee are the fountain of all wickedness, repent thee of thy monstrous sins before thou be taken out of the world’, and that of August 1633, where he records, ‘a report was brought to me, that I was poisoned’.  It is evident that Laud’s morbid preoccupation with his own death was reflected in his dreams, some of which were so fearful that he could barely stand to record the details, ‘my fearful dream again.  Mr Cobb brought me word etc.’.  

Doubtlessly Laud was an extremely troubled man, and it is evident that he was certainly under a lot of pressure from these various threats to his life, thus it is hardly surprising that such preoccupations surfaced particularly unpleasantly at night. Yet in spite his obvious fears, as Carlton argues, dying does not seem to have been a major concern in Laud’s waking life.  He encouraged Charles to call the Parliament of 1640, despite his awareness that they wanted his head, and at the end he died bravely, persistently defending his beliefs; as is demonstrated in the diary in 1643 by his staunch refusal to endorse any choice but Charles’ for the bishopric of Chartham despite being at the time imprisoned in the Tower.  

        Another of Laud’s great fears, as illustrated by the dreams which he recorded, is that or rejection, most particularly by Charles.   It is understandable that considering his awareness of those who wished him ill, Laud should be concerned with maintaining Charles’ protection, indeed as Clarendon notes, there were plenty who attempted to undermine Laud in front of Charles, such as Cottington, who ‘knew too well how to lead [Laud] into a mistake, and then drive him into choler, and then expose him upon the matter… and he chose to do this most when the king was present’.  Yet even when Laud was at the peak of his powers, and utterly sure of the King’s favour he dreamed of losing it, as is shown in January 1627, just a few months after he had been promised the archbishopric, he dreamed, ‘I presented the cup to him after the usual manner. I carried drink to him but it pleased him not’, and in October 1636, he records ‘Friday night I dreamed marvellously that the King was offended with me and would cast me off’, even though he afterwards affirms, ‘for cause I have given none’. 

It has been argued that this fear of refutation perhaps stemmed from Laud’s having grown up in Tudor England, where fear of conspiracies and treasons were widespread, and indeed it seems plausible that Laud may have worried that the king could turn on him in the same manner as his one time mentor, Bishop John Williams had.  Williams and Laud had fallen out when the latter turned transferred his allegiance to the Duke of Buckingham, the more powerful patron in 1622, and only a few months after their argument, Laud records, ‘I did dream that the Lord Keeper was dead… his lower lip was infinitely swollen and fallen, and he rotten already.  This dream did trouble me’.  Even after Charles stripped Williams of the Lord Keeper’s office and expelled him from court to his diocese in Lincoln, the prelate continued to haunt Laud’s dreams, and though Williams sought reconciliation, he never again enjoyed the position of favour that he had once held under James I.  Nevertheless, it

it is plain that Laud feared that he would return to power, as several of his dreams, such as that of January 1626, clearly depict; ‘I dreamed that the Bishop of Lincoln came, I know not whither, with iron chains.  But returning loosed from them, leaped on horseback, went away; neither could I overtake him’.  This same fear is once more displayed in July 1633, when Laud dreamed ‘that my Lord Lincoln came and offered to sit above me at the Council Table, and that Lord Holland came in and placed him there’.  Clearly Laud believed Williams to be a danger, and this could well be linked to his concerns over the permanence of Charles’ favour.  In any case Laud was determined to subjugate Williams; in July 1636 he was censured and fined in Star Chamber for ’tampering and corrupting of wit’ and was then suspended from his benefices by High commission, an action which appears to have preyed on Laud’s mind as he subsequently dreamed that his old friend George Wright appeared to him, and ‘whispering in my ear, told me, that I was the cause why the Bishop of Lincoln was not admitted into favour and to Court’.  Carlton theorises that only in sleep could Laud admit to himself that ‘by hounding his vanquished enemy he was disobeying Christ’s injunction to turn the other cheek’, which seems rather plausible, especially considering that the two had used to be friends before Laud’s preference for Buckingham.

        Considering Laud’s evident fears about his political enemies and his fate if he were to lose Charles’ favour, in conjunction with the vast references throughout the diary of attempts on his life and slanders made against him, it is rather curious that Laud did so little to endear himself to others.  Typical diary entries concerning these threats are not particularly detailed, and never does Laud have any ill to say of his critics, as the entry of 28th February 1632 exemplifies, ‘I was brought word how miserably I was slandered by some separatists.  I pray God give me patience and forgive them’.  The fact that in this case, and indeed all others, Laud does not comment on the nature of the slander, or reflect upon the reasons behind it, or indeed the dissenters themselves is noteworthy as it seems to hint at a kind of arrogance, that Laud unswervingly believed that he was  in the right and therefore felt no need to question himself.  Indeed it was rare for Laud to offer the public any explanation for the policies that he enforced, as Clarendon states, ‘he did court persons too little; nor cared to make his designs and purposes appear as candid as they were by showing them in any other dress than their own natural beauty and roughness’.   Though Milton has argued that this was because he did not see his aims as radical, and that it was his supporters, such as Peter Heylyn, who put the ‘radical gloss’ on his reforms through their own interpretations which were often much more extreme than was intended, this does not explain why Laud never responded to their explanations of his policies if they were incorrect.  It is clear that Laud was unsure of the public spotlight, as his apprehension recorded in the diary in regards to his the debate that he had with the Jesuit John Fisher being published shows; ‘I had not hitherto appeared in print. I am no controvertist’.  Though Laud may have meant that he did not wish to incite controversy; as previously demonstrated he was strongly against public theological discussion, this phrase could equally be interpreted that Laud never believed himself to be in any way controversial, which would explain why he never saw the need to openly elucidate himself.  

        It is arguable the diary’s greatest importance is in the unique insight it holds into Laud’s psyche through the records of his dreams, many of which were plainly symbolic and reveal the Archbishop as a more human being, scared of being cast aside, and fearful of what he fate would be, which adds colour to his character and enables the reader to emphasis with his struggles more effectively.  It is clear from his regular nightmares that Laud was extremely troubled, which thus adds significance to Laud’s perseverance in his aims.  Laud clearly lived for a cause, not for himself, as his loyalty to his church and beliefs meant more to him that his own life in the end.  Indeed it is likely that his response to his discovery of Williams’ animosity was the same  stance that he applied to life; ’the Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man can do unto me’.

        In May 1643 parliament framed an order for the searching of Laud’s chamber and pockets in the Tower, and committed the execution of it to his long-time enemy William Prynne.  Upon possession of the his diary, Prynne set out to use it to defame Laud, and prove the charges of Popery and abetting arbitrary government, and it was therefore frequently used as evidence against him at his trial.  However, it is evident that Laud was not a papist, as his conference with the Jesuit Fisher irrefutably demonstrates.  Nevertheless general opinion remained that his reforms, especially those which involved the beauty of holiness were markedly Catholic, and Prynne asserted that his weak rejection to the Rome’s offer signified that the Archbishop was eager for a cardinal’s hat.  However further evidence exists within the diary of Laud’s true opinion of the Church of Rome, as expressed on the 8th March 1626, ‘I dreamed I was reconciled to the Church of Rome.  This troubled me much and I wondered exceedingly how it should happen’.  Though much mention has been made of those who opposed and slandered Laud, it must be mentioned that many did in fact support Laud; his friends Scudamore and Wentworth always spoke warmly of him, and as his account of his  journey to Lambeth in December 1640 shows; ’as I went to my barge, hundreds of my poor neighbours stood there and prayed for my safety.  For which I bless God and them’.  In the words of McGee, it seems accurate therefore to sum up Laud as an object of either ‘extreme adoration and withering contempt’.  In September 1644 Prynne published Laud’s diary, but unfortunately, as the copy that was printed had had several of it’s pages half burnt out, Prynne filled in the gaps with his own writings, and as Laud complained, ‘published the whole without any distinction of his own additions’, which were not faithful to what had actually been written.  Unfortunately Prynne’s version of the diary greatly tainted contemporary, and even later historical opinion, which can be seen to account for the reason that many of Laud’s early biographies seem largely to have been penned largely from the writings of his enemies.

        In comparison to other diaries written during the same period, such as that of Samuel Rogers and William Whiteway of Dorchester, Laud’s narrative style is noticeably different.  Whiteway’s diary, written between 1618-1635, gives a clear and factual view of a world which is slipping out of control, and his entries are far longer and generally of greater use to a historian than Laud’s as they are more informative, not only of events themselves, but of his specific opinion, especially in regards to Charles and his Personal Rule, which is accounted with marked and increasing stoniness.  Roger’s diary, although only written between the years of 1634-38, provides an unparallel view of the 1630’s from the puritan perspective.  Laud’s diary is remarkably deficit of his specific ecclesiastical opinions, whereas to Rogers, everything is of religious relevance, giving the reader a strong sense of the spiritual meaning of Puritanism during this time.  It must therefore be questioned why Laud’s diary is so different to his contemporaries.  Though Laud clearly intended his diary to be crucially an aide-memoire for key events and conversations etc, it could be argued that  that such minimal detail is recorded because he feared the repercussions if his diary were to fall into the wrong hands.  Indeed his account of Buckingham’s friendship is irrefutable evidence of this, as he records the specifics of their initial acquaintance was being as ‘not for paper’, as though he is addressing a reader apart from himself.  Other entries, such as that of July 1625, in which he recorded ‘I went to Windsor and performed some business committed to my trust by the Right Reverend Bishop of Durham’, and indeed all those in which the elusive ‘K.B’ are mentioned also seem to suggest that Laud did not want others to know of his private affairs, and that the diary, was solely intended to be for his own use; of little worth to those who sought to discover his secrets or use it against him.  Nevertheless, if Laud did partake in self-censorship for the purpose of his own safety, it is curious that he engaged in such in-depth descriptions when accounting his dreams, as many of them were rather controversial, in particular that of August 1625 where Buckingham’s visit to his bedchamber is recorded, or are so cryptic that they are easily misconstrued or twisted into illicit meanings, as done by  Prynne in 1643.   It is most likely therefore, that Laud’s lack of narrative in the diary was a result of his fear that it could be used against him, though it is evident that in his haste to cover his most personal memoirs from potential enemies, Laud did not stop to consider what would be inferred by the unscrupulous from the many ambiguous references that he made.

From the diary, certain conclusions can be drawn about Laud, both in regards to his religious views and motivations as Archbishop, and him as an individual.  Whilst the diary goes some way in affirming Laud’s religious priorities, these conclusions are in many ways tentative as Laud was particularly inexpressive when accounting the policies that he implemented; indeed there is no mention at all of his views on ceremonial reform, which is rather frustrating, especially as the altar policy in particular incited such public uproar.  In any case, Laud’s key aims can be inferred from other documents, such as his Visitation Charge of 1635, and subsequent proclamations, whereas the insight that the diary gives into his personal friendships, hopes and concerns is invaluable.  From study of the text it is evident that Laud shared a powerful relationship with the Duke of Buckingham, whom proved to be an invaluable ally, and for whom Laud had the utmost respect and fondness.  The relationship is unmatched in the diary.   The diary is also valuable in illustrating the friendship between Laud and Charles as despite many historians assertions that the two were not close, certain entries, show that this was not the case, the prime example being Laud’s record of his honour at being permitted to see the newborn Charles II less than an hour after his birth; one could not find such strong evidence from another source.  Arguably the diary’s greatest use is in giving the reader a unique insight into Laud’s mind, as although he does not often write in great detail, the numerous dreams that he records are highly symbolic, and clearly show the worries which Laud was most concerned with, including his severity of his ill health, his belief that Williams and his other political enemies were out to destroy him and his fate if Charles were to cast him aside.  Though Trevor-Roper has suggested that Laud was ‘one of those public figures without private lives’, the diary does much to explain his failure as a public figure;  clearly Laud was highly insecure, and though it can be assumed that his fears were most strongly expressed at night, the characteristics which are depicted in his dreams merely underscore his waking thoughts, which goes a long way in explaining why many found Laud so difficult to get along with.  In light of these fears, it is noteworthy that he never turned away from his religious aims, especially as their negative public consequences caused him such grief, which shows true fervency in his beliefs, and even a certain arrogance in that he was clearly so convinced that he was in the right.   Overall the diary is a difficult text to decipher as Laud varies in the detail with which he writes each entry.  Conclusions based on the text are often tentative as it is evident that Laud intended the diary for personal use, and guarded it against ill use by others through minimal description and expression of opinion.  It is clear that Laud was a very secretive man from the elusive references that he made to certain individuals and events, which we may unfortunately  never be able to guess the truth behind, nevertheless in this effect the diary is still useful as a piece of work relevant to the period, as it demonstrates the style that was necessary to write in during a time when conspiracies and treason were widespread.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

- S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625-60, no. 18

- E. Hyde, History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, vol. I

- Laud’s Metropolitan Visitation Charge, Gloucester diocese, 9 June 1635

- T. Webster and K. Shippes (eds.), The Diary of Samuel Rogers, 1634-1638, (Woolbridge 2004)

- William Laud, The Works of the Most Reverend Father in God: William Laud: Devotions, Diary and History, vol. 3, (Oxford 1667)

- William Laud, Works, ed. J. Bliss and W. Scott, vol. 5 pgs. 317-22, vol. 6, pgs. 396- 403.

- William Laud, Works, ed. J. Bliss and W. Scott, vol. 6, pg 397

- W. Prynne, ‘Canterburies Doom, or the first part of a complete History of the Commitment, Trial, &c., of William Laud (1646)

- William Whiteway of Dorchester: his diary, 1618-1635, (Dorset Record Society, 1991)

Secondary Sources

-C. Carlton, ‘Archbishop William Laud’, (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987)

- C. Carlton, ‘The Dream Life of Archbishop Laud‘, HT 36 (1986)

- D. Como, ‘Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London’, HJ 46 (2003)

- J. Davies, ‘The Caroline Captivity of the Church’ (Oxford University Press, 1992)

- K. Fincham, ‘William Laud and the Exercise of Caroline Ecclesiastical Patronage’ JEH 51 (2000)

- A. Foster, ‘Church Policies of the 1630’s’ in R. Cust and A. Hughes eds. ‘Conflict in Early Stuart England’ (Longman 1989)

- S. McGee, ‘William Laud and the Outward Face of Religion’, in R. L. Demollen, ‘Leader of the Reformation‘, (Susquelianna University Press, 1984)

- Milton, ‘The Creation of Laudianism: A New Approach’

- P. Gaunt, ‘The English Civil War’, (Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000)

- K. Sharpe, ‘Archbishop Laud’  HT (Aug. 1983)

- K. Sharpe, ‘The Personal Rule of Charles I’ (Yale University Press 1992)

- H. R. Trevor- Roper, ‘Archbishop Laud’ (Macmillan 1965)

---