Talk:Star Chamber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Etymology 2 Religious Bias 3 Henry VII 4 Fleeting mention

[edit] Etymology

The etymology of the term Star Chamber in this article, having been so-named "because the court chamber had a pattern of stars on a dark blue background painted on its ceiling" is pure urban myth. The correct early spelling was Starr Chamber. Here's a quote from Blackstone:

It is well known that, before the banishment of the Jews under Edward I, 
their contracts and obligations were denominated in our ancient records 
starra or starrs, from a corruption of the Hebrew word, sbetar, a covenant.  
(Tovey's Angl. Judaic. 32. Selden. tit. of hon. ii. 34. Uxor Ebraic. i. 14.)  
These starrs, by an ordinance of Richard the first, preserved by Hoveden, 
were commanded to be enrolled and deposited in chests under three keys in 
certain places; one, and the most considerable, of which was in the king's 
exchequer at Westminster: and no starr was allowed to be valid, unless it 
were found in some of the said repositaries. (Madox hist. exch. c. vii. §. 
4. 5. 6.) The room at the exchequer, wher the chests containing these starrs 
were kept, was probably called the starr-chamber; and, when the Jews were 
expelled from the kingdom, was applied to the use of the king's council, 
when sitting in their judicial capacity. To confirm this; the first time the 
star-chamber is mentioned in any record, (Rot. clauf. 41 Edw. III. m. 13.) 
it is said to have been situated near the receipt of the exchequer: that the 
king's council, his chancellor, treasurer, justices, and other sages, were 
assembled en la chaumbre des esteilles pres la resceipt al Westminster. For 
in process of time, when the meaning of the Jewish starrs was forgotten, the 
word star-chamber was naturally rendered in law-french, la chaumbre des 
esteilles, and in law-latin, camera stellata; which continued to be the 
stile in latin till the dissolution of that court (264).

--Quicksilver^{T @} 06:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Blackstone popularized that theory, although it seems by no means clear that it is correct. Other historians disagree with Blackstone and, frankly, his argument feels rather contorted, similar to what you expect for an urban legend. The OED etymology favors the stars-on-the-ceiling interpretation, while admitting that there is no proof for it. Citing the spelling "starr" in some older documents is hardly conclusive, since spelling at that time was so slipshod in the first place.

It should, in fact, be noted that the line in Blackstone preceding the passage quoted above is: "I shall venture to propose another conjectured etymology, as plausible perhaps as any of them." I don't think he meant to make a strong historical case for this as much as put the possibility out there. To declare the stars-on-the-ceiling origin to be a myth seems rather too strong, in this case.

- JW, 13 July 2006

I agree with JW, the OED explanation certainly seems to have more verisimilitude. In the absence of better evidence either way, I'd suggest perhaps de-emphasizing or at least re-wording the Starr theory. As it is presently worded it still sounds a bit like a 'debunking' of the more simpler and arguably more plausible decoration theory. 142.167.163.250 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section entirely, and given substantially more credence to the OED, which explicitly rules out Blackstone's theory and calls the decoration one more plausible. Blackstone also mentions a couple of theories he didn't invent, and I've added those in. Shimgray | talk | 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Bias

As it presently stands this article shows a strong bias in favor of the Tudors and against the Stuarts. Much of what Henry the VIII did seems to have been completely written out of it. I suggest that it be re-written with a little more balance. El Jigüe 2-9-06

I completely agree with this statement. kelly, 3-25-06

Agree Sapph

Just out of curiosity, why is there a mention of Henry VIII in the Stuart section? It is jarringly out of place in the prose, even if someone wanted to make the point that the Stuart uses resembled the Tudor ones. Should be reworded or removed I think. 142.167.163.250 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry VII

I have made an edit regarding the power of the Star Chamber in Henry VII's reign. I can't figure out how to do footnotes, but here is the reference: S.B. Crimes, Henry VII, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972: p. 99.

ok, i tried to add the reference, but something weird is happening. i added ref tags where appropriate and added the {{subst:Footnotes|100%}} thing at the bottom. on preview it only adds one reference as [1], but after i submitted it, that reference turned to [2] and the text in the references section is repeated. i think it has something to do with the external link near the top, but i couldn't figure it out... -02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleeting mention

The fleeting mention of the censorship of newsbooks in the 1630s is deceptively incomplete, and makes it sound as though that's the only bit of relevant newsbook history that ever ocurred pertaining to this matter. I think it's hardly informative anyway, and suggest that it either be fleshed out into its own subject, or at least linked somehow to the History of Journalism article.

Also, the term "newspaper" is anachronistic for this period. I've replaced it with the correct term, newsbook, instead. --Spudstud 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is currently written it is still de-contextualized. Mention of it does seem appropriate in the article, but someone needs to read a monograph or two on the event and give it context. How big an impact this had on the newsbooks, political context, etc. A layperson reading the article would think of a modern ruler outlawing the print media - is such an historical analogy intended or accurate? 142.167.163.250 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)