What do you think?
Rate this book
James I: The Fool as King
James Stuart, the tyrannical king of England.
472 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
3 people are currently reading
63 people want to read
About the author
Otto Scott
16 books8 followersOtto Scott was a journalist and author of corporate histories who also wrote biographies on notable figures such as the abolitionist John Brown, James I of England and Robespierre.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
August 12, 2009
This book is a little hard for me to rate, in short, it was very useful, but not altogether enjoyable.
Please don't get me wrong, Otto Scott is an excellent historian, and certainly deserves five stars for his extensive scholarship. I gleaned many useful historical facts from this book, even if I did not quite agree with all of it's assessments, especially of John Knox (one of my personal heroes) Andrew Mellville and others of the Reformation. This aside, the most unenjoyable aspect of this book had nothing to do with Mr. Scott's opinions, and as seen by the title was rather unavoidable, and that is the subject of the book! James VI of Scotland/I of England was such a loathsome, fowl, perverted, tyrant in life that not even the near 400 years since his death have been successful in sweetening his odium. I believe it to be almost an impossibility to read any accurate record of his life, reign, and even parentage (Mary Queen of Scots) without being filled with a most dreadful revulsion and a sudden need (to be very blunt) to throw up. I realize the importance of studying history, and therefore do not regret reading this book in the slightest, but must say the going was a little rough and painful at times. When I finally came to the end of this book and it's account of this depraved man's life, I shut my book and sent up a quick, yet fervent, prayer of thanksgiving that here in the United States of America, we do not have life long kings. And that our laws and Constitution still hold firm enough to have kept (so far) Presidents from holding office for any more then eight years! I pray it shall always be so and that we will be spared ever having another King James I for even that long!
Please don't get me wrong, Otto Scott is an excellent historian, and certainly deserves five stars for his extensive scholarship. I gleaned many useful historical facts from this book, even if I did not quite agree with all of it's assessments, especially of John Knox (one of my personal heroes) Andrew Mellville and others of the Reformation. This aside, the most unenjoyable aspect of this book had nothing to do with Mr. Scott's opinions, and as seen by the title was rather unavoidable, and that is the subject of the book! James VI of Scotland/I of England was such a loathsome, fowl, perverted, tyrant in life that not even the near 400 years since his death have been successful in sweetening his odium. I believe it to be almost an impossibility to read any accurate record of his life, reign, and even parentage (Mary Queen of Scots) without being filled with a most dreadful revulsion and a sudden need (to be very blunt) to throw up. I realize the importance of studying history, and therefore do not regret reading this book in the slightest, but must say the going was a little rough and painful at times. When I finally came to the end of this book and it's account of this depraved man's life, I shut my book and sent up a quick, yet fervent, prayer of thanksgiving that here in the United States of America, we do not have life long kings. And that our laws and Constitution still hold firm enough to have kept (so far) Presidents from holding office for any more then eight years! I pray it shall always be so and that we will be spared ever having another King James I for even that long!
July 11, 2013
Otto Scott's acerbic biography of James I is compulsively readable. Clearly impatient with the current scholarly consensus on James, he presents an alternative view. There was never anything wrong with James's intelligence, he argues; it was his character that was at fault.
Scott paints an unforgettable picture. James, a sodomite and coward, saw himself as a godlike being inferior only to Jesus Christ, supreme over church and state. Scott even suggests that James's demoralisation of the Scottish and English Reformation was purposeful revenge. No matter what history one reads, it can't be denied that James deliberately used his powerful position to propagate the false doctrine of the divine right of kings, persecute Reformers, and set England on the path to civil war.
Covering the turbulent and often sensational events of James's life from conception to death, this book is a fascinating look at a man who somehow managed to be both dangerous and contemptible.
Scott paints an unforgettable picture. James, a sodomite and coward, saw himself as a godlike being inferior only to Jesus Christ, supreme over church and state. Scott even suggests that James's demoralisation of the Scottish and English Reformation was purposeful revenge. No matter what history one reads, it can't be denied that James deliberately used his powerful position to propagate the false doctrine of the divine right of kings, persecute Reformers, and set England on the path to civil war.
Covering the turbulent and often sensational events of James's life from conception to death, this book is a fascinating look at a man who somehow managed to be both dangerous and contemptible.
April 24, 2009
Brilliant.
January 28, 2022
Scott does a great job weaving the complex story of James I into a lively and interesting book. My one complaint about how he did it is that it is extremely difficult to look back and find something you read since he uses no section or chapter titles.
He leaves no doubt in the mind as to his position on James I. While I generally agree with him, I do think he went too far in asserting things as fact that were actually just his interpretation.
All in all, I enjoyed the read.
He leaves no doubt in the mind as to his position on James I. While I generally agree with him, I do think he went too far in asserting things as fact that were actually just his interpretation.
All in all, I enjoyed the read.
May 20, 2014
Bordering on the caustic, Scott offers a different look at King James of Authorized Version fame.
I watched a documentary on the making of the KJV while I read this book. It said nothing negative about James, probably out of a desire to uphold the greatness of the Scripture version. This book was the opposite. Scott criticizes James' character at every turn, describing him as an incompetent, self-absorbed, Messianic, dissipated homosexual of which the court was mostly embarrassed. The Scripture version he authorized gets maybe 2 pages, of the 408 (which may or may not accurately reflect the importance he gave it).
There is a lot of political detail - which nobles were in favor, how they fell out of favor, the international pressures toward Catholicism from Spain and toward the Reform from the lowlands. His academic work is strongest here.
I learned most about how James navigated between Catholicism and the Reformers. He was repulsed by the Vatican's claim to be above his rule, and by the Reformers' claim to call the king to account. In short, he continued the idea that the king is head of the church, not bishops, presbyteries or popes. He wanted to be king and pope all in one, and would brook no opposition.
A key thesis of Scott's is that it was James' character that was flawed, not his intelligence. This is probably right. But in his desire to show James as fool, Scott seldom does his intelligence justice, even. His assertions that James was homosexual and had multiple relationships while on the throne are shaky. I don't rule out the possibility, but it's hard to prove. He was certainly more debauched (at least far less pious) than most people who think of the "King James Bible" would ever imagine.
I watched a documentary on the making of the KJV while I read this book. It said nothing negative about James, probably out of a desire to uphold the greatness of the Scripture version. This book was the opposite. Scott criticizes James' character at every turn, describing him as an incompetent, self-absorbed, Messianic, dissipated homosexual of which the court was mostly embarrassed. The Scripture version he authorized gets maybe 2 pages, of the 408 (which may or may not accurately reflect the importance he gave it).
There is a lot of political detail - which nobles were in favor, how they fell out of favor, the international pressures toward Catholicism from Spain and toward the Reform from the lowlands. His academic work is strongest here.
I learned most about how James navigated between Catholicism and the Reformers. He was repulsed by the Vatican's claim to be above his rule, and by the Reformers' claim to call the king to account. In short, he continued the idea that the king is head of the church, not bishops, presbyteries or popes. He wanted to be king and pope all in one, and would brook no opposition.
A key thesis of Scott's is that it was James' character that was flawed, not his intelligence. This is probably right. But in his desire to show James as fool, Scott seldom does his intelligence justice, even. His assertions that James was homosexual and had multiple relationships while on the throne are shaky. I don't rule out the possibility, but it's hard to prove. He was certainly more debauched (at least far less pious) than most people who think of the "King James Bible" would ever imagine.
April 26, 2013
Fabulous. Scott writes a riveting history not only of James, but of the political, intellectual, religious and military affairs of the time. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews