Nursery rhymes often have layers of meaning, and “Little Jack Horner” is no exception; the ironic tone is clear even to those not familiar with this rhyme’s history.
The Deeds Are Done
Little Jack Horner sat in the corner
Eating his Christmas pie,
He stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum
And said “What a good boy am I!”
Early in his reign, King Henry VIII of England was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the pope of the day for his writings, in which, with the great assistance of Thomas More, he defended the Church against the doctrines of Martin Luther. “Defender of the Faith” is a title the royalty of England have chosen to look upon as hereditary, and is (from a Catholic point of view, ironically) bestowed as each monarch ascends the throne.
But at the time of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, when Henry was acquiring the wealth of the great abbeys and little churches alike, many priests and monks were afraid for their lives. One of the oldest and certainly the richest abbeys in England was Glastonbury in Somerset, and the abbot at the time was Richard Whiting. He was known among his people for being an honest and kindly man of great faith, and among his many good works was the care of orphans. One particularly bright and enterprising orphan raised by the abbot since early childhood was Thomas Horner, who was made the abbot's steward and was completely trusted.
Thomas Horner was sent by the abbot to King Henry with a singular gift: twelve manor deeds placed in a pie shell! Abbot Whiting rightly feared for his life, and the lives of those under his care, and hoped to placate the king. He probably had no hope for the abbey's property, but hoped to save his and his people's lives. Placing a “plum,” a gift of money or jewels or something else of value, within a pie shell for safekeeping and for festive presentation was not uncommon in those days.
It is uncertain what happened next. Did Thomas (Jack) Horner steal a deed? Was he caught and, in return for being allowed to keep the rich manor of Mells and for not being charged with theft, did he agree to betray his master, thus bringing about the abbot's horrific death? Or did he go to the authorities himself and offer the deal in order to have Mells bestowed upon him in exchange for his betrayal? Either way, Mells was taken by “Jack” Horner and inherited by his descendants until 1975. What is definitely known is that Thomas Horner bore false witness against Abbot Whiting, and was actually on the jury which condemned Abbot Whiting to a traitor's death. The Horner family, despite the undeniable evidence, claims their manor was bought — not traded for — and assert that their ancestor was not “Jack” but “Thomas” Horner. But they cannot deny the sudden ascendancy of their poor ancestor to great riches, nor can they refute the connection between their forebear and Abbot Whiting. It was common at the time (and is still done somewhat today) to call a thief and a scoundrel “Jack”, and the irony of the rhyme grows when the difference between “My Lord Thomas Horner” and “Little Jack Horner” becomes clear.
Before being drawn and quartered as a traitor to the crown (God knows what the trumped-up charges were), Abbot Whiting was dragged through the filthy, cobbled streets, his feet tied to the back of a horse drawn cart, his head banging on the cobbles in the filth. Being drawn and quartered was a death especially set aside for traitors to the crown: the condemned person was hanged until almost unconscious, cut down, his bowels cut out in front of him, then he was “quartered,” sawed in four pieces. This description is given to show you that Jack Horner knew very well what fate his loving benefactor would suffer, and shows to what lengths “Little Jack Horner” would go to obtain riches.
All in the Family
For hundreds of years, then, a family lived with the prestige and wealth that their ancestor bought by betraying love and kindness, and repaying it with unspeakable agony. To what lengths do we go, some more than others, in order to minimize the guilt of our ancestors and our own culpability in benefiting from their overt or hidden evil? But perhaps it is natural for people to wish to minimize or deny the means by which they received their family wealth in a case like this, especially if they are still enjoying the benefits of blood money.
People can be unbelievably sensitive, even about the evil-doing of remote ancestors. My maternal grandmother's father's mother was Mary Drake, an Irish direct descendant of Sir Francis Drake. Sir Francis Drake had an Irish mistress, though he hated the Irish and Roman Catholics in particular. His legal wife bore him no children. My mother became hysterical one night when I unwittingly pointed these facts out to her. She didn't mind having a notorious pirate for an ancestor, but through an illegitimate line! That was quite another thing. And of course, a line having no claims was added gall.
Perhaps it may seem silly to be sensitive about our ancestors. It can be argued that we carry enough guilt and responsibility on our own account. There is no one alive who does not have a murderer, thief, or swindler or two for a forebear.
That Was Then; This Is Now
The tangle of intermarriage, and the question of just how responsible we are for evil acts committed in the past are questions which cause hot debates, especially in modern times. If we carry “reparation” to its logical end, the United States would have to be abandoned by most of its inhabitants, and handed back to the American Indians and Eskimos. Or would it, considering that the tribes who were here when the Europeans came had themselves killed off the original inhabitants? Perhaps no one should be allowed to stay? Where would the exiled people go? You see how insane it is to go on like this.
But what if the evil is a current one? For example, if the children of Michael Schiavo, conceived and born out of wedlock, develop any real decency and compassion and moral integrity, will their sense of honor and decency stand the test of facing the horror that they have been raised in a wealthy home on blood money — money which was obtained with the promise it would be used for the care of their father's handicapped wife, whom he finally murdered? Will they be strong enough to face the fact that using their mother for carnal purposes, and their subsequent conception, was less important to Schiavo than his vendetta against Terri Schindler-Schiavo, his lawful wife?
It takes enormous courage to face evil, especially when that evil is an institutionalized part of one's own family and upbringing. Perhaps the best thing we can do is face the evil, no matter how entrenched, ancient, or socially sanctioned it may be — and try to atone or make reparation for that evil in whatever way we can. We may find that though we cannot help those who have been robbed, hurt or murdered in the past, we can be about helping others who are vulnerable or in similar danger today.
© Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange
Patricia Devlin, totally blind since shortly after birth, has loved writing since she was a child. Patricia worked many years in the mental health field, despite constant pain, and was two classes and a dissertation short of her doctorate when she had to stop because of the chronic headaches with which she still lives. Some of her poetry has been featured on CE’s Poetry channel.
