A Study of John Donne in Relation to King James and the Jesuits

在这项研究中，我首先明确了罗伯特·珀斯、威廉·巴洛和约翰·多恩对詹姆斯国王的效忠誓言的态度。接下来，我讨论了耶稣会士的国王杀戮理论与玛丽安娜的关系。在前面的研究中，我讨论了多恩在他的《伪殉道者》中是如何与为誓言辩护的巴洛争辩的。巴洛在辩护中失败的原因之一是因为他只听从了人们的论点。由于他遵循的是Persons的方法--调查宣誓的内容、批评两份简报和反贝拉明--他给我们的印象是，他只是遵循了Persons。但对巴洛的缺陷了如指掌的多恩，却以自己的方式进行了讨论。他考察了国王的神圣权利，教皇的临时权力，以及作为公民服从的誓言，巴洛没有讨论或讨论得不够充分。我的研究表明，唐恩的《伪殉道者》在逻辑上和对过去材料的细微考察上都超过了巴洛的书，詹姆斯强烈反对的是天主教徒对君主教徒的杀戮。据说是玛丽安娜设计了这一理论，她讨论的是暴君，而不是国王。玛丽安娜被公众曲解了，玛丽安娜=杀死君主是一个与他有关联的标签。在后一项研究中，我讨论了多恩，他理解耶稣会士对国王的看法和詹姆斯的不同，是如何与詹姆斯保持同步的。它表明，耶稣会关于人民将权力移交给国王的理论与雅各的国王神权是如何截然不同的，双方从未找到任何形式的妥协。

In this research I first made clear the attitudes of Robert Persons, William Barlow, and John Donne to King James' Oath of Allegiance. Next, I discussed the king-killing theory of the jesuits in relation to Mariana. In the former research I discussed how Donne in his Pseudo-Martyr disputed Barlow who defended the Oath. One of the reasons why Barlow failed in his defense was because he only fllowed Persons' way of argument. As he followed Persons' method -- investigation of the contents of the Oath, criticism of the two briefs and anti-Bellarmine -- he gives us the impression that he merely followed Persons. But Donne, who knew Barlow's defects well, discussed in his own way. He examined the divine right of kings, the Pope's temporal power, and the Oath as civil obedience which Barlow did not discuss or discussed insuffeciently. And my research makes it clear that Donne's Pseudo-Martyr surpassed Barlow's book by his logic, and minute investigation of past material.It was the catholics' regicide that James opposed strongly. Mariana, who was said to devise this theory, discussed a tyrant, not a king De Rege. Mariana was misinterpreted by the public, and Mariana=regicide was a label which become attached to him. In the latter research I dealt how Donne, who understood the differences between the jesuits view of a king and james', kept pace with james. It was shown how the Jesuits' theory of the transferring of power to a king by the people was quite different from James' divine right of kings, and no form of compromise was ever found between the two sides.