yet to receive input from any one of the nine, this writer can but perch o'er aonian streams, pawing at dregs of genius as they pass her by. 

Political Charleatans: <i>Arcana Imperii</i> and Internecine Inevitability

Political Charleatans: Arcana Imperii and Internecine Inevitability

On the day of Charles I’s ceremonial review in 1637, there hulked a loaded cannon aboard the royal galleon Safety. Whether through the negligence of her powder monkeys or as a result of some more malicious design, Safety had become the least aptly named vessel then floating. As his majesty’s flotilla wound past Greenwich Palace, flashes of light and booms of thunder crashed around the tiered buildings lining her historic waterfront. Safety hit her mark and the cry went up for the gunnery to light their explosive charges. Over 20 grand exhalations of smoke and an equal quantity of explosions rang out in ceremonial unison. The puff of smoke which emerged from one cannon by the stern was curiously dark, passers-by are sure to have noticed. A comic whistling appeared to sit in front of the river’s swell and gulls’ crowing. A few seconds later, a wooden ceremonial array some twenty feet from the king himself shattered into dust and splinters. The royal party was much perturbed, but having escaped with their lives they turned at once to the divine with thanks and adulation.[1] Had the Safety missed their unceremonious salute and reduced Charles I to a heaped of human-mush, Charles Carlton believes it possible that England would not have devolved into brutal civil war just 5 years later. [2] As today, so in centuries past, chance weaves its path through human affairs, dictating their course with a combination of force majeure and the kind of “clerical errors” which see France and Germany ending at loggerheads.[3] At the same time, history’s currents throughout the seventeenth century were particularly strong, charging across the West with an electric modernising force that few nations could resist.[4] The ideological props of the universe were falling away - competing religious ideologies[5] shattered the unblinking credulity of years past[6] while constitutional clashes between the Crown and parliament thundered the foundation of government, disturbing the Crown’s ascendant inviolability as quasi-feudal hereditary ties collapsed to make way for the ascendance of free labour and a more identifiably capitalist mode of production. [7] By the 1640s England was in a state of disequilibrium - a multiplicitous dysfunction whose Hegelian whip back to self-correction was close to inevitable and certainly to have violent repercussions. As James Harrington asserts: ‘the dissolution of this Government caused the war, not the War the dissolution of this Government.’.[8] Wider social discontent and growing disaffection at the bounds placed on development by the State were to boil over if ever either were to resolve.

Fool speed ahead: Ship money aBates none but the saltiest of warmongers.

Fool speed ahead: Ship money aBates none but the saltiest of warmongers.

The Tudor state masked endemic weakness at its most fundamental level. Lacking either military or fiscal preponderance, the great edifice could hardly survive the quarrels of its rampant elites. Henry’s wantonly appropriated church land could have formed the fiscal backbone for both himself and his descendants, but the vast majority was sold at highly uneconomic rates before it had even been assimilated and absorbed to fund the war machine presently chewing through the continent. [9] By 1562, the Crown was left an income but sufficient for peacetime purposes and thus any war horn’s first blast saw King or Queen remove their cap before Parliament.[10]

The state’s army, meanwhile, was a meagre, malnutritioned creature as capable of raising a defence as it was a right arm. In the 1530s, the Government had considered expanding this failing martial wing with the institution of a large standing army at the expense of confiscated Church wealth, but the plan was scrapped and after 1551 relied largely on a poorly-armed and barely trained local militia. By custom all able-bodied men were required to defend their counties, attend musters when ordered and provide equipment commensurate with their rank in society. This concept of a citizen’s duty stretched back to the Anglo-Saxon fyrd and was embedded deep within society. On paper this militia could be a formidable force - the muster roll of February 1638 for England and Wales listed 93,718 infantry and 5,239 cavalry, ranging from 1300 soldiers for Rutland to 12,641 from Yorkshire.[11] Like a seventeenth century “Dad’s army,” however, the militia frightened few foreigners and impressed less Englishmen. Wrote Dryden: ‘The country rings around with loud alarms / and raw in field the rude militia swarms; / Mouths without hands: maintained at vast expense, / In peace a charge, in war a weak defence; / Stout once a month they march, a blustering band, / And ever, but in times of need, at hand.’ [12]

The extremes of religious prevarication within the country that defined the Henrician-Edwardian-Marian dichotomies had also weakened the state’s overall power and lessened its prestige in the subject’s eyes. [13] The upwards-down press of various strictures upon a bewildered populace bred resentment of the elitist zealots who dwelt atop the country’s structure and pushed its national life into a state very nearly poised for religious anarchy. Clergymen married their housekeepers before being forcibly separated from their wives; they switched costumes with the regularity of a theatre troupe: from a Catholic mass service in Latin to a Zwinglian communion service in English and back again, with every shade in-between permitted or otherwise along the way. The unfortunate Henrician decision to thrust Church livings and monastery estates upon the laity had disastrous consequences - the appointment of clergy was controlled neither by the State or Church, but by lay landlords: both the King and the bishops had lost control of their own clerical houses. [14] Elizabeth’s cunning policy of politic temporising had served her well and weathered the gusting tension which had seen Europe tear herself apart with civil war, but paradoxically made internecine conflict after her reign more, not less, likely. The issues which underlay Tudor government were merely postponed, and allowed to escape into the open when none but James was sitting atop their containing lid.[15] The governmental elites were played a lulling tune and thus led to dance with danger once the crisis of 1642 rolled onto England’s shores.

The Council listen aTrentively, discussing how to close the can of Worms. 

The Council listen aTrentively, discussing how to close the can of Worms. 

Furthermore, failed campaigns undermined what trust the wider populace had in government to lead with any competence. Lord Wimbledon’s attack on Cadiz in 1626 saw the fighting force descend upon their target fortification’s wine cellar and set about dulling their sobriety. The Spanish rushed in to meet their English enemy, roundly decimating the drunken fools. ‘I must confess,’ reported Wimbledon, ‘that it put me to some trouble.’ [16] The incompetence of that expedition was to be outdone merely two years later in 1627 when Buckingham, none the wiser for his contemporary’s bumble, set out to capture the Isle of Re where Louis XIII was besieging his protestant Huguenots. On 12 July, twelve thousand men waded ashore and set to besieging the French position at St Martins.[17]. By September it appeared that the French would be forced to surrender, but as a result of Buckingham’s lackadaisical oversight, the French broke though using the small fort of La Pree that the English had neglected to take in the initial landing. The besiegers became the besieged and conditions in the English camp turned sour. ‘Our army grows everyday weaker,’ one officer wrote, ‘our victuals waste, our purses are empty, ammunition consumed, winter grows.’[18] On 27 October, the British made one last-ditch effort to storm St Martins. They failed, mostly because the scaling ladders they mounted against its walls were five feet too short. Given the previous two months every man in the camp had had to stare at the fortification, this reads as a somewhat inexcusable piece of negligence. The duke placed his rearguard on the wrong side of the bridge to the small island from whence the main evacuation took place - and what could have been an orderly retreat ended as a ruinous rout. Perhaps most egregious was the fleet which departed Portsmouth the following year under Robert Bertie, Earl of Lindsay’s command. Aiming to provide the ailing Huguenots at La Rochelle some measure of succor, the English arrived at the harbour to discover its entrance blocked by tree trunks strung together.[19] A captain attempted to blow the construction from the water, but ended in Davy Jones’ locker for his troubles. Five days later the English launched a languorous attack upon the French imperials, losing but five men in the process. The following day another assault was broached, but the halfhearted scuffle resulted in losses for neither side. Several days later, the surviving 4,000 members of La Rochelle’s 15,000 garrison had no choice but to surrender themselves to the French king, having eaten the castle’s total population of horses, dogs, cats and rats.[20]

The sheer martial and logical incompetence with which command ran these campaigns and the failure to break their concentrated curse with any glint of success marked a new ditch for English martial pride. Certainly it is unlikely that the watching citizenry should have allowed any of these inexcusable farces to escape their notice. Previously, campaigns of such ambition had levied from the vagabond ‘rabble of raw and poor rascals,’ whose disappearance few noted. In Great Waltham, Essex, the Rev. Thomas Barnes preached that it was far better to have ‘those straggling vagrants… which do swarm amongst us,’ and those ‘loitering and lewd livers’ conscripted to fight abroad than ‘tippling in tap houses’ at home.[21] As the demand for fresh troops increased, however, so the vagabondry diminished. The authorities were forced to recruit local worthies whose passing many were likely to mourn - something the deceased’s nearest and dearest would likely have to. Casualties were 82% on the Mansfield expedition, 65% in the Cadiz disaster. Public outcry became shriller with each failure - the sanguinary circus at Re caused an outrage. One letter-writer termed it ‘the greatest and shamefulest overthrow the English have received since we lost Normandy.’ To ‘Just God!’ did a poetaster ‘humbly pray,’ in reference to the Duke of Buckingham, ‘That thou wilt take that slime away.’[22]

The Vilified Duke and his failed Réading 

The Vilified Duke and his failed Réading 

Elsewhere in the kingdom, spats of brutal violence pulsed through the fitful alliances of clan and nobility in Scotland and Ireland. While Elizabeth presided a peaceful land, James was ever engaged in the active process of subduing his discordant nobility. As D. Stevenson wrote, ‘In the Highlands and Western Isles, periodic violence was an essential and honourable part of life.’[23] The warrior served as lone hero - even if foolhardy or death-inducing, loyalty to one’s chieftain was the virtue supreme. Blood feuds often descended into massacres and grew naturally from the sparsity of life-giving material in the far north. Cultural, religious and linguistic differences fractured the Highlands and Lowlands - much as in Ireland. There, the linguistic groups Irish, Old and New English competed with one another as a great tumbling mass, leading to fractious and often violent relations. A survey of adult males in Ulster in 1630 revealed that 2.3% owned guns, while 56.7% owned swords or pikes[24] - clearly a much greater percentage of weapon-wielders existed amidst the less industrialised corners of “British” society. Though statistics are often best left to the anthropologist and kept from l’histoire, it seems a safe assumption that violence was normalised to a far greater extent on the Celtic fringes than anywhere in England. It is also true that Scotland and Ireland went to war before England and with a far greater degree of ferocity.

The 1641 Irish rebellion saw the future peoples of Britain descend into mindless butchery of a kind more sanguinary and wanton than any internecine conflict John Bull had ever seen. [25] On 23 October, men and women across the land rose in that astonishing display of unified purpose that has long marked Ireland’s rebellious history. Barricaded in Dublin Castle Sir William Temple wrote of the rebels: inflamed by Jesuits, the dissidents ‘march on furiously destroying all the English, sparing neither sex nor age, most barbarously murdering them, and that with greater cruelty than was ever used amongst Turks or Infidels.’.[26] Babies were impaled upon spikes, or cut from their mothers’ wombs, children were roasted on spits, women were raped. The violence knew few bounds, and within days the news had spread to England. Casualty numbers were exaggerated twenty, thirty, forty-fold - the rebellion’s impact upon popular imagination can hardly be overstated. Secretary of State Nicholas wrote from London to the king that ‘the alarm of popish plots amaze and fright the people here more than anything.’ ‘O what fears and tears, cries and prayers, day and night, was there then in many places, and in my dear mother’s house in particular!’ remembered Joseph Lister of Bradford. [27]

At Charles’ command, the soldiery enacted a reprisal in kind. ‘So earnestly did they desire to have the killing of more of the rebels,’ wrote one newspaper, they ‘rushed hither and thither’ in search of victims.[28] Ireland became one expansive “Free Fire Zone,” in which English troops murdered, plundered, mutilated and ransomed to their hearts’ contents. Even veterans of the Thirty Years War such as James Turner were horrified, and they exhorted the enraged troops to desist lest further atrocities be incited in the Irish[29]. Such pleas fell on deaf ears - the conflict had gotten out of hand and would be reined in for very little. The open sore that the war presented maintained animosities throughout England, and certainly raised internal temperatures as the civil war junction rapidly approached in the road.

Dogmatic pricks

Dogmatic pricks

Meanwhile in Scotland, the Bishops’ Wars once again demonstrated both Carolingian royal weakness and the potential strength dissenters in accord could muster. Though it was patently difficult to force widespread affirmation of beliefs, the opposite was a task far more easily accomplished. Scots were universal Bishop-haters - the latter popish creatures an Edinburgh shoemaker once called ‘the Firebrands of Hell, the Panders of the Whore of Babylon, and the instruments of the Devil.’[30]. Support for resisting the king’s new prayer book by force of arms was both intense and widespread - the signing of a covenant built a link between themselves and God’s chosen people, turning their cause into a crusade. ‘Zeal of religion transports men beyond themselves,[31] wrote one correspondent from Edinburgh. ‘We are busy preaching, praying and drilling.’ That Charles was forced to make a treaty allowing the rebels to occupy Northumberland and Durham while holding forth the treasury doors to the tune of £806 a day for the privilege was an almost abiding humiliation that could hardly have been more ruinous to the Crown’s public standing. [32]

At the same time, public trust of bureaucracy was at an all-time low - corruption, already endemic throughout the Stuart state, had infected all stratas of government in the wake of spirited Cecil’s death. With the Anglo-Spanish war of the 1590s and Elizabeth’s growing tendency to stringency, Crown favours had fallen by the wayside, choking the aristocracy into underhand conduct if they wished to maintain the lives to which they had become accustomed. [33]. Officialdom plunged headfirst into dishonesty - a sudden trough reflected in the sudden drop in public service quality. The Jacobean navy is an example classically cited - its Lord Admiral accepted bribes from pirates. Crown favourite Buckingham cheerfully offered a variety of official positions at brazen auction, from a bishopric to a judgeship to a title of nobility.

Neither could either of the wan Stuarts match either the Henrician or Elizabethan personality cults of the previous century. [34] Both indomitable Tudors had been the focus of intense adulation closely linked to a malingering undercurrent of religious nationalism buoyed on Reformation-flavoured arcana imperii.[35] In 1528 William Tyndale protested, ‘He that resisteth the King resisteth God… the King is, in this world, without law, and may at his lust do right or wrong, and shall give no account but to God alone.’ Bishop Latimer began to speak of the ‘God of England,’ and the future Bishop Aylmer in 1559 ascended to declare ‘God is English’. [36] The spread of such doctrine nationalised the Deity and linked Him irrevocably to Queen Elizabeth, for whom was penned the Book of Martyrs - a tome which interpreted her accession as the ultimate act of God’s final providence, saving the true religion for all God’s people.[37] Nationalist poetry circulated which drew the queen an irrevocable bulkhead unique in global monarchism. She represented not only the Crown, but all England: ‘A most renowned virgin Queen, / Whose like on earth was never seen.’[38] Poets poured forth a ceaseless stream of hyperbolic adulation, underlining her role as ‘Religion’s guardian, Peace’s patroness.’

Bottled lightning of such serendipitous calibre could hardly have been an easy act to follow. The difficulty of constructing an iconography enmeshing a monarch’s person with national destiny is that their death brings not only the travails of succession, but weighty precedent for the unfortunate successor to match. The more tightly bound religious nationalism became to Elizabeth, the more difficult it became to pass along the dynastic baton. James was a Scot amongst the xenophobic, reportedly a homosexual and lumbered with mumbling speech and ungainly presence. Hardly the Second Coming England could have leant upon to carry her through the wider discontent the seventeenth century bred.[39]

Nor did the lumbering Scot make great essay to instill confidence with his actions. A shrewd foreign critic noted that ‘He does not make much of his subjects, and does not receive them with the same cordiality by which Queen Elizabeth used to gain the hearts of the people. Thus while the Queen acquired the intense love of the people, the present King is hated and despised by them.’[40] Certainly James was deeply enamoured of his Divine Right, but his Stuart zealotry was in fact no greater or lesser than Elizabeth’s had been. After all, it was none other than the Virgin Queen herself who had declared in 1585 that ‘King and Princes Sovereigns, owing their homage and service only unto the Almighty God the King of all Kings, are in that respect not bound to yield account or render the reasons of their actions to any other but to God, their only Sovereign Lord.’ When James explained to parliament in 1609 that ‘Kings are not only God’s lieutenants on earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God Himself they are called gods,’ he was directly parroting a philosophy long-held and deeply felt. [41]

The grass is always Gloriana: Elizabeth gives her Roy'l Strong stare

The grass is always Gloriana: Elizabeth gives her Roy'l Strong stare

Rather, the chasm which yawned between he and she reposes in the unequal division of tact, charm and diplomacy with which birth gifted them. James failed to engender either belief or trust from his xenophobic courtiers or population at large with his lurching manner of being. Nor was Charles any less liable to inflame the populace with his speech and restive kingship. Despite fitting far more comfortably contemporary standards of “respectability,” he was nevertheless as useless in winning the popular heart. Cold, arrogant and furtive,[42] he conducted himself with such assumed superiority that he could not help but arouse hostility and suspicion among those who came into his presence. By the 1640s, emboldened Puritan preachers had begun spreading a revolutionary gospel telling that the Commons were in fact rightful heirs of Elizabeth, not Charles or any Stuart.

The decline of governmental prestige in public estimation throughout the seventeenth century was, then, a multifaceted cause-and-effect problem that called into question the elite’s right to rule. When Nixon took office, he was warned that ‘the sense of institutions being legitimate - especially the institutions of government - is the glue that holds society together. When it weakens, things come unstuck.[43]’ As the Stuart citizenry at large lost their unblinking faith in authority, parliament could grow in confidence and an air of rebellion would naturally come to flavour the ostensibly gentle breeze.

Meanwhile, Europe’s alarming 16th century bellicosity had hardly abated with the 17th’s dawn. Across the continent, wars lasted longer, killed more and erupted with a more frightening frequency. ‘This is the century of the soldier,’ wrote Italian poet Falvio Testir in 1641.[44] He was not wrong - within the entire hundred year span, only three were without violent continental squabble. Conflict had become institutionalised. ‘War,’ wrote Sir George Clark, ‘was not a mere succession of occurrences, but an institution, a regular and settled mode of action, for which provision was made through the ordering of social life.’[45] So profound was the new social centrality of conflict that many historians have talked of a ‘Military revolution.’ [46]. Armies ballooned beyond all previous imagining, training increased in intensity and the state - that nebulous conception - grew more powerful. In Clausewitz’s dictum, war in the modern age became ‘a mere continuation of policy.’[47] The Thirty Years War had plunged Europe’s northern Protestant states into bitter conflict with their southern, Catholic counterparts. The sheer wanton scope of almost unprecedented sanguinary brutality impressed itself deeply upon the English national consciousness and hung like a spectre over both the foreign policy critics, militarists and pacifists of the country. ‘I could never have believed a land could have been so despoiled had I not seen it with my own eyes,’[48] wrote one traveller in post-war Germany - a nation whose population declined from twenty to fifteen million between the war’s first and final acts. A great swarm of English soldiers - one among them Alexander Leslie - were forged in the hellfire of continental conflict and found civilian life difficult to re-enter. Of Leslie an officer wrote, ‘he took up the trade of killing men abroad, and now is returned to kill, for Christ’s sake, at home.’[49] These battle-hardened war-merchants worried English command, who tended to the belief that their loyalty had been exposed to erosion during the war. While admitting to Lord Ruthven, the continental veteran, that he was a ‘better soldier,’ the Marquis of Worcester opposed letting him fight for the king since because as a ‘soldier of fortune [he was] here today and God knows where tomorrow.’ The Lord Lieutenant of Warwickshire agreed, ‘in Germany they fought only for spoil, rapine and destruction. Merely money it was and hope of gain.’[50] Another question was whether or not these continental veterans would introduce the horrors of Germany to an as yet unspoiled England.

Within the country itself, however, peace continued to reign. Europa’s desire for territorially motivated bloodletting had not yet overpowered Albion, but her drifting red mist certainly affected attitudes within the country. In 1628 Sir Edward Cecil complained that ‘This Kingdom hath too long been at peace,’[51] while the prevailing opinion among the Spanish Netherlands told that the English had become ‘effeminate, unable to endure the fatigations and travails of war: delicate, well-fed, given to tobaccos, wine, strong drink, feather beds, undisciplined, unarmed, furnished with neither money nor munitions.’ [52] The English tended to agree: ‘What hath effeminated our English, but a long disuse of arms?’[53] questioned Richard Johnson rhetorically in 1631. Four years later, James Wemyss - master gunner of England - wrote to Charles I on the First Bishops War’s eve to complain of the realm’s woeful unpreparedness. Only four men in the land, he complained, knew how to fire a mortar! Collective memories of the Elizabethan campaigns similarly retained their explosive weight. Fathers and grandfathers imparted tales of their youthful heroism, engendering a line of thought which emasculated those who had yet to partake of battle-carnage.

That is not to say the country was wholly bereft of temporising, pacifist influence - Ben Jonson urged those entering Whitehall Banqueting Hall to ‘look up [and] read the king in all his actions.’ [54] Above them spread Rubens’ masterpiece, heralding James an angelic peacemaker presiding over the nation’s tranquility. In another prominent Stuart painting, Charles is a St. George having just rescued a fair maiden (bearing more than a passing resemblance to Henrietta Maria) from the Dragon of War. On the left two women support a third who has survived some horrific war-trauma. In the foreground an array of corpses rots among civilians begging for mercy. Symbolic victims, all, of the Thirty Years War and its theatre of excess from which the King’s England has been spared - made apparent by the background’s bucolic idyll and heavenly choir of cherubs floating in the air above.

Phalia not an option for those decimating middle Europe.

Phalia not an option for those decimating middle Europe.

The continent-stalking militarism was matched in England by a sharp rise in religious indignation - an indignation Charles inflamed with his apparent Catholic sympathies and proclivity to popery.[55] In Suffolk, conscripts took to wearing white sheets in low parody of bishops’ surplices. Hertfordshire and Essex churches saw their recently installed Laudian altar rails chopped down for firewood, while officers suspected of Catholicism were regularly murdered. At Wellington, recruits beat their officer to death, convinced he was a papist upon his refusal to attend dinner service. [56]. Parliamentarians, meanwhile, wielded Irish Catholicism as an ideological weapon in the battle against the king. [57] A widely published propagandistic polemic described how in the hours after capturing Marlborough, the ‘popish’ enemy ‘most cruelly pillaged the same, ravishing the women and maidens in a most barbarous manner, showing themselves to be the true sons of the rebels in Ireland’.[58] The widely referenced Soldier’s Catechism drew the cavaliers ‘papists and atheists… for the most part inhuman, barbarous and cruel… the enemies of God.’

The failure of so many Anglican bishops and clergy during Elizabeth’s reign to match lay expectations had led to a widespread search by society’s more discerning elements for a more inspiring religious experience and a more responsive religious organisation. The absentee clergy established by Elizabeth had created a vacuum of zealotry - into which rushed two groups. The first were the seminary priests who flooded back into England to convert a wholly new, firmly entrenched Catholic minority of noblemen and gentlemen. [59] The second were the Puritans, who sought a return to the Early Fathers’ primitive Christian Church of their ideals, before it received the perceived vitiating influence of later, sinful accretions. Such radical Puritan conservatives as William Prynne believed firmly in the outlaw of long hair, stage plays and fornication,[60] while the lawyers sought a return to the medieval past - assured as they were by Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke that in those days king, bureaucracies and church courts were all guided by the opinions of common lawyers and the conventions of common law. Common law itself became an embattled crux of reformist thought - the quarrel took on a political character.[61] The use made by this reformist vanguard of medieval precedent culled from the records in Sir Robert Cotton’s library was not merely self-serving appeal to authority. The pedantic search for antiquarian precedent came from a genuinely held position of belief in the wisdom of bygone eras.

The Puritan ministers tended to be Marian exiles and enjoyed support from such economically disparate groups as peers, courtiers and gentry; all pressed for purification of the Anglican Church from within.[62] The nexus of a 17th century Puritan is difficult to pin down - fundamentally his thrust must be a driving enthusiasm for moral improvement in every aspect of life: ‘a holy violence in the performing of all duties,’ as Richard Sibbes put it.[63] Practically, this drive manifested as a desire to simplify the Church’s services and improve the quality of its ministers while reducing clerical authority and ensuring that moral standards were applied to Church, society and State. Elizabeth’s obduracy in dealing with these mildly radical reformers was the most disruptive failure of her monarchic career - upsetting not only her relations with parliament, but also driving the mildly radical to form much more zealous reformist notions. [64] A true revolution relies upon ideals to fuel it - without them, one is left with either simple rebellion or complex coup d’etat. Devotion to common law was an ancient intellectual current, but Puritanism, legalism and scepticism all undermined confidence in the centralised institutions which had thus far enacted a supreme control on belief in the nation. Although the fires of Presbyterianism were successfully quenched beneath Elizabeth’s frilly dress-tails, Puritanism remained a dissident force that subsisted unimpaired under the protection of its varied and powerful lay patrons.

No monarch unplagued: the Puritans nip around James' ankles at Hampton Court

No monarch unplagued: the Puritans nip around James' ankles at Hampton Court

With Elizabeth’s death, the ascendant ideological framework was unlike to cease its expansion, but even such palatable Puritan notions as were contained in 1603’s Millenary Petition found themselves facing the brunt of absolutist rejection. [65] The dissident ideology constructed a theoretical framework inside which authority could be challenged and motions raised. What if the Elect of God are not necessarily the leaders of State? What if the Anglican Church can, should, or does exist outwith the Covenant?

It is true, however, that the nobility assembled at Westminster were not revolutionaries in any meaningful sense of the word.[66] Reformers at best, they had no interest in altering the social structure and though they planned widespread alteration of the dominant religious bodies, no such corresponding governmental overthrow scheme existed. Nobody dreamt of abolishing the House of Lords, and very few supported abolishing episcopacy or tithes. Notions of participatory democracy floated on the radical Puritan fringes, but only but the most zealous or discerning saw the same as anything but a far-distant cloud on the horizon.[67] By 1640, however, it became acceptable to deliver and listen to frankly radical speeches, such as that of Jeremy Burroughs who orated ‘Zion’s Joy’[68] with such blustering passion that its revolutionary undertones could not have escaped notice: ‘Reform must be universal… Reform all places, all persons and callings. Reform the benches of government, the inferior magistrates… Reform the universities, reform the cities, reform the counties, reform inferior schools of learning. Reform the Sabbath, reform the ordinances, the worship of God… You have more work to do than I can speak.’ This was the language of cultural revolution, preached to a pre–1642 audience willing to sit and listen complacently to such incendiary sentiment. Hobbes describes the pre-war kingdom as ‘boiling hot with questions concerning the right of dominion and the obedience due from subjects.’[69] By the 1640s, Puritan preachers were calling the House of Commons ‘The House of Gods and the House of mortal Gods’[70] - the Lord’s chosen instrument to rebuild Zion and overthrow false divinity. Throughout the House were arrayed men by birth and by right conservative who supported this desire for widespread change, a change in the political mythos and a push towards ‘balanced constitution,’ in which authority would be balanced more evenly between the monarch and his subjects. These perhaps accidentally subversive ideas formed an embryo from which more forcefully radical cells grew. The Presbyterian classes of the 1570s and congregations clustered around Puritan lecturers of the 1620s and 1630s were the models for ideological party organisations, fashioned in exclusive units of dedicated enthusiasts under ‘the leadership of an elite’.[71] The passions which divided the populace made it extremely difficult to keep at peace. When toleration was eventually implemented by Cromwell’s hand, it was actualised not as forward-thinking triumph of individualism, but as pure political expedient.

The ruminative parliament devour cans of Coke 

The ruminative parliament devour cans of Coke 

At the same time, England’s economic life was undergoing changes of unprecedented magnitude. As division of labour and the incipient notion of capital accumulation came to achieve productive preponderance, the feudal ties which kept tenant and lord locked together were coming undone at the seams.[72] The Crown’s value remained static while the rapidly advancing bourgeoisie shot into preposterous wealth, coming to rely less and less upon Crown wealth and arbitration. In urban environments, labour was becoming a commodity and in the countryside landowners came to understand the elasticity of profits: ‘the psychology of landowning,’ summates Professor Tawney, ‘had been revolutionised.’[73] Class mobility was suddenly a very cogent possibility - physically as well as socially. Families and individuals moved from village to village, countryside to town and up and down in the social scale on an unprecedented scale. Less than 43% of the landed families in Norfolk and Yorkshire had been established there before 1485, and the number hovers around 33% for Suffolk, Essex and Herts. In rural villages the annual migration rate was around 5% p.a. In Sussex, a majority of adult males - 6/10 - lived in more than one parish during their lives, with 1/6 living in three or more. London was drawing immigrants from as far afield as the North - even during the eighteenth century its gravitational field extended only as far as the home counties. [74]

This great mass of roving people clashed with the day’s conservative value system, creating discontent rather than satisfaction. The fiscally ascendant group of merchants felt themselves denied social prestige in a society where land ownership was the criterion of status.[75] Others in a similarly privileged position of economic ascent such as lawyers and greater squires felt excluded from power by Court, resenting the affront. The wage-earners, fighting the rock of rising prices and hard place of declining wages reposed in nothing but abject misery, venting in periodic bouts of popular protest and mob violence.[76] The younger sons of the gentry, meanwhile, were bound by the strictures of primogeniture to a wandering fate, unless they could be saved by their own exertions. The wealth of contemporary aspirants made their plight one very difficult to remedy, however - even with the best will in the world. To many of these we can only imagine the Civil War must have been a welcome relief from the social obscurity for which they felt themselves bound. In war they could sign up as officers and distinguish themselves with ideological ties.[77]

Equally, the noble hold over tenant gentry and tenantry was weakened as a result of the former’s absenteeism and the increasing predominance of economic rents, severely reducing the service element of landlord-tenant relationships. Schools replaced noble households as the source of education and it was now possible to take positions in local government over service in the household administration of a local magnate.[78] At the same time, noble military strength slowly eroded - as their preposterous estates were broken up for capital to maintain perceived aristocratic status, so infantry control went with the land. Even once their financial prowess had been restored by the abandonment of feudal production methods and rigorous embrace of capitalistic exploitation, the loyalty they had once been owed by the tenantry was now void - sunk into the dark recesses of producer-exploited enmity.

Pride and Privilege: magnates render their still-loyal tenants supine.

Pride and Privilege: magnates render their still-loyal tenants supine.

This release from local loyalty had a secondary symptom in the form of gentry-liberation. Pouring into the universities and Inns of Court, they were filling the benches of Justice and crowding into other social groups in the House of Commons. The very large increase in grammar school, university and Inn of Court enrollment owed its source in large part to the desire of the propertied classes to train their children for social responsibility.[79] The Commons assembled in 1640 held the greatest percentage of higher-education attendees than any parliament before or since. Many of these newly influential figures had been exposed at their universities to a raft of influential Puritan dons whose sermons can but have made an indelible impression upon their wide-eyed students. ‘Men…’ wrote Hobbes, ‘become acquainted with the democratic principles of Aristotle and Cicero, and from the love of their eloquence fell in love with their politics, and that and more, until it grew into the rebellion.’[80] The influence of Thomas Beard on the young Oliver Cromwell is only one instance of a phenomenon which was gripping the nation at large. The educated gentry were a force to be reckoned with, and any who found themselves at odds with their political beliefs would have a difficult time forging a future career. During Henry’s reign, they had organised their disapproval by staging such rebellions as the Pilgrimage of Grace.[81] By the time of Charles, they were demanding open debate in the House of Commons and blocking local administration. There is no wonder that the Restoration’s many restorations included neither feudal tenures, restraints upon the enclose of lands nor such monopolies or economic controls as did not suit the particular predispositions of influential interest groups.

The professional class similarly surfaced in an impressive fashion throughout the period. The most numerous, wealthy and influential were the lawyers who increased in numbers so much that by 1688 Gregory King could comfortably estimate 10,000 working in London. While a large percentage struggled on the fringes of middle class respectability, yet more were wealthy and flaunted it through the capital’s streets. Between 1590 and 1630, the bar’s call rose by 40%. Those most fortunate among the class amassed great fortunes. Medical professionalism similarly skyrocketed, with the more popular practitioners amassing such vast material wealth that they could rival even the most fortunate of merchants.[82]

Between 1540 and 1640 an enormous shift of wealth away from the Church and Crown swept society, fuelling the politicised and passionate bourgeois ascendancy. Crown economic control, exacted since the days of Elizabeth, was inimical to the social objectives of this newly dominant caste and their desire to purge its influence created a discordant channel along which could be demanded more than law, order and security from the government. The instability of society in the run-up to Civil War was partly a result of the unprecedented social mobility which undermined time-honoured modus operandae at their most fundamental, human levels.

In England did the professional classes an Usurdome erect

In England did the professional classes an Usurdome erect

To flip the shilling and peer at its opposite face, it becomes clear that the incumbent elites were not passive bodies enduring the wear of social and historical trends. With early-modern cries of MMGA (Make Monarchy Great Again), the authoritarian Stuarts looked with envy at the reigns of Henry II, Edward I or Henry VIII, all of whom had enjoyed untrammelled control of obedient nations. Laud cast lustful eyes upon the vastly wealthy, politically powerful and socially preponderant church of the late middle ages. Among his advisers, Charles desired a restoration of an antediluvian past where social caste was harsh and inflexible, one in which solemn deference in obedient unison was the only form of conduct acceptable.

The monarchs’ lusty misty-eyes proved a discordant note in the naturally delicate harmony of the Court system. Between 1618 and 1629 the Stuarts allowed policy and patronage to be placed at the whim of Buckingham - a particular favourite.[83] From 1603 to 1629 they flaunted state resources on balls and merriments of obscene opulence, angering fringe nobles and incensing the Commons, providing in turn the representatives legitimate reason to refuse Crown demands for taxation. [84] This refusal in turn led to further obduracy from the King, forcing his vice-lock on economic controls to grow ever-more pained and desperate by the day in the face of an increasingly powerful parliament which had grown from about 300 to 500 members. Similarly, the gentry component had risen from 50% to 75%, and the members gained a sense of continuity by the increased assemblies between 1590 and 1614, strengthening both their coherence and dual senses of identity and purpose.[85] Members of Parliament increasingly came to see themselves as representatives of the property-owning constituents they left behind in the country. As such, the implementation of economic deregulation beneficial to their voter-base became the most salient object. Local offices were to be left in local hands, economic controls exercised by the centralised Crown were to be abolished, the end was to be seen of interference by bishops in local lay patronage, regional courts like those of Wales and the North were to be demolished, Court expenditure was to be reduced and finally a thoroughly Protestant foreign policy was to be actualised. By the early 17th century, men were emerging whose careers were founded on taking the lead and playing key roles in parliamentary debates. Since the earliest years of her reign, Elizabeth had come to blows with parliament over specific issues - religion, taxation, foreign policy - but by the early seventeenth century, the Crown was forced to meet a unified, formal opposition who came to parliament with strict agendas on the horizons to which their eyes were affixed.[86] Their insistence and temerity grew apace with the indignation aroused by James’ pro-Spanish foreign policy. If the Crown wished to continue in like manner, it would be forced to find alternative streams of finance - presuming any such thing existed.

The Constitutional Crises - namely Apology of the House of Commons, Bate’s Case 1606, the revival of impeachment in 1621, the Five Knights’ Case in 1627, the Petition of Right in 1628 and the Ship Money Case in 1636[87] were thus all symptomatic of broad changes which were affecting English social and political life. The increased confidence, doctrinal cohesion and assertiveness of the Commons clashed with Elizabethan and Stuart failure to make concessions where they were necessary to send heated sparks flying to the tinder of English politics and bring forth the fire of civil war.

Civil war was inevitable as far as my eating braised chops for dinner last night was inevitable. A grand suite of precursive factors - my trip to the supermarket, the proximity of bought chops’ sell-by date, the convenience of my recently-bought slow cooker sitting atop the counter - coalesced to ensure that said dinner happened. Which it did. Thusly was it inevitable.


  1. Bodleian: Joseph Banks Letter Collection, MSS, 63/ 39.  ↩

  2. Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.114  ↩

  3. Crankshaw, Edward. Bismark. London: Bloomsbury Reader, 2013. Digital. Loc. 2348  ↩

  4. See Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Print.  ↩

  5. See: Forlines, F. Leroy., and J. Matthew Pinson. Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation. Nashville, Tenn: Randall House, 2011. Print.  ↩

  6. see McDonald, Grantley. Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016. Print; Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Print.  ↩

  7. Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. Pages 14–43, 143–161  ↩

  8. Quoted in: Pocock, J. G. A. The Discovery of Islands: Essays in British History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print. p.86  ↩

  9. See: Woodward, G. W. O., and John McIlwain. Dissolution of the Monasteries. Andover: Pitkin, 1993. Print.  ↩

  10. Adair, John Eric. A Life of John Hampden, the Patriot (1594–1643). London: Macdonald and Jane’s, 1976. Print.  ↩

  11. Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.22  ↩

  12. Dryden, John. The Poetical Works of John Dryden. London: Bell. Print. P.105  ↩

  13. Collinson, Patrick. Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and … Seventeenth Centuries. Place of Publication Not Identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.  ↩

  14. Congleton, Roger D. Perfecting Parliament: Constitutional Reform, Liberalism, and the Rise of Western Democracy. New York: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print. P.306–315  ↩

  15. “Elizabeth vs Stalin: Contest of the Cult of Personality 1.” Times Higher Education (THE). 22 May 2015. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.  ↩

  16. Quoted in: Durston, Christopher. Charles I. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. P. 73  ↩

  17. Gardiner, Samuel Rawson., Charles, and James. A History of England under the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I.: 1624–1628. London: Longman, 1875. Print. P.111–135  ↩

  18. Longueville, Thomas. Life of Sir Kenelm Digby. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print. P. 233  ↩

  19. Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.16  ↩

  20. Bradshaw, Richard Lee. Gods Battleaxe: The Life of Lord President John Bradshawe (1603–1659). Manhattan Beach, CA: R.L. Bradshaw, 2010. Print. P. 83  ↩

  21. Quoted in: William Hunt, The Puritan Moment (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 183– 4.  ↩

  22. Durston, Christopher. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. P. 95–96  ↩

  23. D.Stevenson, Alisadair MacColla and the Highland Problem in the Seventeenth Century (Edinburgh, 1980), 16– 19. G.Parker, The Military Revolution (Cambridge, 1988), P. 29.  ↩

  24. Parker, op. cit., 29. A.Macfarlane, The Justice and the Mare’s Ale (Cambridge, 1981), 191.  ↩

  25. D’Arcy, Éamonn. The Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Woodbridge: Royal Historical Soc., 2015. Print. P.53–55  ↩

  26. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 33  ↩

  27. Quoted from: Ackroyd, Peter, and Peter Ackroyd. Rebellion: The History of England from James I to the Glorious Revolution. New York: Thomas Dunne, 2015. Print. P. 221  ↩

  28. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 33  ↩

  29. Royle, Trevor (2004), Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1638–1660, London: Abacus, ISBN 0–349–11564–8 p.142  ↩

  30. Butler, Samuel, and T. Nash. Hudibras by Samuel Butler .London: Printed by T. Rickaby, 1793. Print. P. 172  ↩

  31. GENTLES, I. J. English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms 1638–1652. Place of Publication Not Identified: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2016. Print.’ P.147  ↩

  32. Bennett, Martyn. Historical Dictionary of the British and Irish Civil Wars, 1637–1660. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.  ↩

  33. Cust, Richard. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2014. Print. P. 176  ↩

  34. Dascal, Reghina. Episodes from a History of Undoing: The Heritage of Female Subversiveness. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2012. Print. P.38  ↩

  35. Farrell, Kirby, and Kathleen M. Swaim. The Mysteries of Elizabeth I: Selections from English Literary Renaissance. Amherst: U of Massachusetts, 2003. Print.  ↩

  36. Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print.  ↩

  37. Foxe, John, Paul L. Maier, and R. C. Linnenkugel. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2016. Print.  ↩

  38. Maynard, Theodore. Queen Elizabeth. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954. Print. P. 242  ↩

  39. Jansohn, Christa. Queen Elizabeth I: Past and Present. Münster: Lit, 2005. Print.  ↩

  40. Rye, William Brenchley. England as Seen by Foreigners in the Days of Elizabeth and James the First. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print. P.299  ↩

  41. Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print. P. 105  ↩

  42. Forster, Robert. Preconditions of Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Ann Arbor, MI: U Microfilms Intern., 1994. Print. P. 108  ↩

  43. P., Huntington Samuel. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge: Harvard Univ, 1983. Print. P.180  ↩

  44. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 8  ↩

  45. Ibid, P.8  ↩

  46. See: Eltis, David. The Military Revolution in Sixteenth-century Europe. London: I.B. Tauris, 1998. Print. P43–99  ↩

  47. See Clausewitz, Carl Von, and F. N. Maude. On War. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1962. Print.  ↩

  48. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 18  ↩

  49. Ibid, P.20  ↩

  50. Ibid, P.20  ↩

  51. Quoted from Firth, C. H. Cromwell’s Army: A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and the Protectorate. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2007. Print. P.6  ↩

  52. Bedford, Ronald Davis Lloyd. Early Modern English Lives: Autobiography And Self-representation 1500 1660. S.L.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.126  ↩

  53. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 7  ↩

  54. Quoted from: Kelsey, Sean. Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1997. Print. P.57  ↩

  55. Cust, Richard. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2014. Print. P.145  ↩

  56. Carlton, Charles. This Seat of Mars: War and the British Isles, 1485–1746. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2013. Print. P. 117  ↩

  57. Terrar, Edward F. Liberation Theology along the Potomac: Labor’s Golden Rule in Early American Catholicism. Silver Spring, MD: CWP, 2011. Print.P. 13  ↩

  58. CARLTON, CHARLES. GOING TO THE WARS: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print. P.37  ↩

  59. Simpson, William. The Reign of Elizabeth. Oxford: Heinemann, 2005. Print. P. 140  ↩

  60. Suranyi, Anna. The Genius of the English Nation Travel Writing and National Identity in Early Modern England. Newark: U of Delware, 2008. Print. P.119  ↩

  61. Berman, Harold J. Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000. Print. P. 120–130  ↩

  62. STONE, LAWRENCE. CAUSES OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION 1529–1642. S.l.: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2017. Print. P.92  ↩

  63. Quoted from: Ackroyd, Peter. Civil War. London: Pan, 2015. Print. P.7  ↩

  64. Bremer, Francis J. Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. P.7  ↩

  65. Vischer, Lukas. Christian Worship in Reformed Churches past and Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Print. P.69  ↩

  66. See: Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.  ↩

  67. Coward, Barry. Oliver Cromwell. Place of Publication Not Identified: Routledge, 2015. Print. P. 44  ↩

  68. STONE, LAWRENCE. CAUSES OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION 1529–1642. S.l.: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2017. Print. P. 57  ↩

  69. Hobbes, Thomas. Elements of Law, Natural and Political. London: Routledge, 2015. Print. P. vii  ↩

  70. Quoted from: Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print. P. 101  ↩

  71. Ibid, p. 115  ↩

  72. Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. P 15–43  ↩

  73. Quoted from: Green, Anna, and Kathleen Troup. The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in History and Theory. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016. Print.  ↩

  74. See: Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.  ↩

  75. Ibid, P.43  ↩

  76. CARLTON, CHARLES. GOING TO THE WARS: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print. P. 32  ↩

  77. Carlyle, Thomas, and H. D. Traill. The Works of Thomas Carlyle. New York: C. Scribner, 1903. Print. P.30  ↩

  78. Jamoussi, Zouheir. Primogeniture and Entail in England: A Survey of Their History and Representation in Literature. Cambridge Scholars, 2011. Print. P.29  ↩

  79. Blackwood, B. G. The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640–60. Manchester: Manchester UP for the Chetham Society, 1978. Print. P. 24  ↩

  80. Quoted from: Kraynak, Robert P. History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1990. Print. P. 48  ↩

  81. See: Moorhouse, Geoffrey. The Pilgrimage of Grace: The Rebellion That Shook Henry VIII’s Throne. London.: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003. Print.  ↩

  82. Quoted from: Grassby, Richard. The Business Community of Seventeenth-century England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print. P. 133  ↩

  83. PECK, LINDA LEVY. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England. Place of Publication Not Identified: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print. P. 126  ↩

  84. The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print. P. 296  ↩

  85. Konnert, Mark W. Early Modern Europe: The Age of Religious War, 1559–1715. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2008. Print. P.143  ↩

  86. Ibid, P. 143  ↩

  87. See: Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print.  ↩

Bibliography:

Ackroyd, Peter. Civil War. London: Pan, 2015. Print.

Ackroyd, Peter, and Peter Ackroyd. Rebellion: The History of England from James I to the Glorious Revolution. New York: Thomas Dunne, 2015. Print.

Adair, John Eric. A Life of John Hampden, the Patriot (1594-1643). London: Macdonald and Jane's, 1976. Print.

Alston, Wallace M., and Michael Welker. Reformed Theology. Identity and Ecumenicity. 2007. Print.

BEDFORD, RONALD DAVIS LLOYD. EARLY MODERN ENGLISH LIVES: Autobiography and Self-representation 1500 1660. S.l.: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print.

Bennett, Martyn. Historical Dictionary of the British and Irish Civil Wars, 1637-1660. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.

Berman, Harold J. Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000. Print.

Blackwood, B. G. The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-60. Manchester: Manchester UP for the Chetham Society, 1978. Print.

Bradshaw, Richard Lee. Gods Battleaxe: The Life of Lord President John Bradshawe (1603-1659). Manhattan Beach, CA: R.L. Bradshaw, 2010. Print.

Bremer, Francis J. Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Butler, Samuel, and T. Nash. Hudibras by Samuel Butler . London: Printed by T. Rickaby, 1793. Print.

CARLTON, CHARLES. GOING TO THE WARS: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638-1651. S.l.: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print.

Carlton, Charles. This Seat of Mars: War and the British Isles, 1485-1746. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2013. Print.

Carlyle, Thomas, and H. D. Traill. The Works of Thomas Carlyle. New York: C. Scribner, 1903. Print.

Clausewitz, Carl Von, and F. N. Maude. On War. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1962. Print.

Collinson, Patrick. Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and ... Seventeenth Centuries. Place of Publication Not Identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.

Congleton, Roger D. Perfecting Parliament: Constitutional Reform, Liberalism, and the Rise of Western Democracy. New York: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

Coward, Barry. Oliver Cromwell. Place of Publication Not Identified: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Crankshaw, Edward. Bismark. London: Bloomsbury Reader, 2013. Print.

Cust, Richard. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2014. Print.

D'Arcy, Éamonn. The Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Woodbridge: Royal Historical Soc., 2015. Print.

Dascal, Reghina. Episodes from a History of Undoing: The Heritage of Female Subversiveness. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2012. Print.

Dryden, John. The Poetical Works of John Dryden. London: Bell. Print.

Durston, Christopher. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2004. Print.

"Elizabeth vs Stalin: Contest of the Cult of Personality 1." Times Higher Education (THE). 22 May 2015. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.

Eltis, David. The Military Revolution in Sixteenth-century Europe. London: I.B. Tauris, 1998. Print.

Farrell, Kirby, and Kathleen M. Swaim. The Mysteries of Elizabeth I: Selections from English Literary Renaissance. Amherst: U of Massachusetts, 2003. Print.

Firth, C. H. Cromwell's Army = A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars. = Being the Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford 1900-1. London: Methuen, 1962. Print.

Firth, C. H. Cromwell's Army: A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and the Protectorate. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2007. Print.

Forlines, F. Leroy., and J. Matthew Pinson. Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation. Nashville, Tenn: Randall House, 2011. Print.

Forster, Robert. Preconditions of Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Ann Arbor, MI: U Microfilms Intern., 1994. Print.

Foxe, John, Paul L. Maier, and R. C. Linnenkugel. Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2016. Print.

GENTLES, I. J. English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms 1638-1652. Place of Publication Not Identified: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2016. Print.

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson., Charles, and James. A History of England under the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I.: 1624-1628. London: Longman, 1875. Print.

Grassby, Richard. The Business Community of Seventeenth-century England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print.

Green, Anna, and Kathleen Troup. The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in History and Theory. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016. Print.

Hamilton, Ernest. Irish Rebellion of 1641. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print.

Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Hobbes, Thomas. Elements of Law, Natural and Political. London: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Jamoussi, Zouheir. Primogeniture and Entail in England: A Survey of Their History and Representation in Literature. Cambridge Scholars, 2011. Print.

Jansohn, Christa. Queen Elizabeth I: Past and Present. Münster: Lit, 2005. Print.

Kelsey, Sean. Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1997. Print.

Konnert, Mark W. Early Modern Europe: The Age of Religious War, 1559-1715. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2008. Print.

Kraynak, Robert P. History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1990. Print.

Longueville, Thomas. Life of Sir Kenelm Digby. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print.

Maynard, Theodore. Henry the Eighth: Theodore Maynard. Milwaukee: Bruce. Print.

Maynard, Theodore. Queen Elizabeth. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954. Print.

McDonald, Grantley. Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016. Print.

Moorhouse, Geoffrey. The Pilgrimage of Grace: The Rebellion That Shook Henry VIII's Throne. London.: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003. Print.

PECK, LINDA LEVY. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England. Place of Publication Not Identified: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print.

P., Huntington Samuel. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge: Harvard Univ, 1983. Print.

Pocock, J. G. A. The Discovery of Islands: Essays in British History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.

Rye, William Brenchley. England as Seen by Foreigners in the Days of Elizabeth and James the First. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print.

STONE, LAWRENCE. CAUSES OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION 1529-1642. S.l.: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2017. Print.

Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763-1848. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Print.

Simpson, William. The Reign of Elizabeth. Oxford: Heinemann, 2005. Print.

Terrar, Edward F. Liberation Theology along the Potomac: Labor's Golden Rule in Early American Catholicism. Silver Spring, MD: CWP, 2011. Print.

Vischer, Lukas. Christian Worship in Reformed Churches past and Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Print.

Woodward, G. W. O., and John McIlwain. Dissolution of the Monasteries. Andover: Pitkin, 1993. Print.

The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.



  1. Bodleian: Joseph Banks Letter Collection, MSS, 63/ 39.  ↩

  2. Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.114  ↩

  3. Crankshaw, Edward. Bismark. London: Bloomsbury Reader, 2013. Digital. Loc. 2348  ↩

  4. See Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Print.  ↩

  5. See: Forlines, F. Leroy., and J. Matthew Pinson. Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation. Nashville, Tenn: Randall House, 2011. Print.  ↩

  6. see McDonald, Grantley. Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016. Print; Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Print.  ↩

  7. Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. Pages 14–43, 143–161  ↩

  8. Quoted in: Pocock, J. G. A. The Discovery of Islands: Essays in British History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print. p.86  ↩

  9. See: Woodward, G. W. O., and John McIlwain. Dissolution of the Monasteries. Andover: Pitkin, 1993. Print.  ↩

  10. Adair, John Eric. A Life of John Hampden, the Patriot (1594–1643). London: Macdonald and Jane’s, 1976. Print.  ↩

  11. Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.22  ↩

  12. Dryden, John. The Poetical Works of John Dryden. London: Bell. Print. P.105  ↩

  13. Collinson, Patrick. Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and … Seventeenth Centuries. Place of Publication Not Identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.  ↩

  14. Congleton, Roger D. Perfecting Parliament: Constitutional Reform, Liberalism, and the Rise of Western Democracy. New York: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print. P.306–315  ↩

  15. “Elizabeth vs Stalin: Contest of the Cult of Personality 1.” Times Higher Education (THE). 22 May 2015. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.  ↩

  16. Quoted in: Durston, Christopher. Charles I. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. P. 73  ↩

  17. Gardiner, Samuel Rawson., Charles, and James. A History of England under the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I.: 1624–1628. London: Longman, 1875. Print. P.111–135  ↩

  18. Longueville, Thomas. Life of Sir Kenelm Digby. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print. P. 233  ↩

  19. Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.16  ↩

  20. Bradshaw, Richard Lee. Gods Battleaxe: The Life of Lord President John Bradshawe (1603–1659). Manhattan Beach, CA: R.L. Bradshaw, 2010. Print. P. 83  ↩

  21. Quoted in: William Hunt, The Puritan Moment (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 183– 4.  ↩

  22. Durston, Christopher. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. P. 95–96  ↩

  23. D.Stevenson, Alisadair MacColla and the Highland Problem in the Seventeenth Century (Edinburgh, 1980), 16– 19. G.Parker, The Military Revolution (Cambridge, 1988), P. 29.  ↩

  24. Parker, op. cit., 29. A.Macfarlane, The Justice and the Mare’s Ale (Cambridge, 1981), 191.  ↩

  25. D’Arcy, Éamonn. The Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Woodbridge: Royal Historical Soc., 2015. Print. P.53–55  ↩

  26. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 33  ↩

  27. Quoted from: Ackroyd, Peter, and Peter Ackroyd. Rebellion: The History of England from James I to the Glorious Revolution. New York: Thomas Dunne, 2015. Print. P. 221  ↩

  28. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 33  ↩

  29. Royle, Trevor (2004), Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1638–1660, London: Abacus, ISBN 0–349–11564–8 p.142  ↩

  30. Butler, Samuel, and T. Nash. Hudibras by Samuel Butler .London: Printed by T. Rickaby, 1793. Print. P. 172  ↩

  31. GENTLES, I. J. English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms 1638–1652. Place of Publication Not Identified: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2016. Print.’ P.147  ↩

  32. Bennett, Martyn. Historical Dictionary of the British and Irish Civil Wars, 1637–1660. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.  ↩

  33. Cust, Richard. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2014. Print. P. 176  ↩

  34. Dascal, Reghina. Episodes from a History of Undoing: The Heritage of Female Subversiveness. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2012. Print. P.38  ↩

  35. Farrell, Kirby, and Kathleen M. Swaim. The Mysteries of Elizabeth I: Selections from English Literary Renaissance. Amherst: U of Massachusetts, 2003. Print.  ↩

  36. Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print.  ↩

  37. Foxe, John, Paul L. Maier, and R. C. Linnenkugel. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2016. Print.  ↩

  38. Maynard, Theodore. Queen Elizabeth. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954. Print. P. 242  ↩

  39. Jansohn, Christa. Queen Elizabeth I: Past and Present. Münster: Lit, 2005. Print.  ↩

  40. Rye, William Brenchley. England as Seen by Foreigners in the Days of Elizabeth and James the First. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print. P.299  ↩

  41. Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print. P. 105  ↩

  42. Forster, Robert. Preconditions of Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Ann Arbor, MI: U Microfilms Intern., 1994. Print. P. 108  ↩

  43. P., Huntington Samuel. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge: Harvard Univ, 1983. Print. P.180  ↩

  44. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 8  ↩

  45. Ibid, P.8  ↩

  46. See: Eltis, David. The Military Revolution in Sixteenth-century Europe. London: I.B. Tauris, 1998. Print. P43–99  ↩

  47. See Clausewitz, Carl Von, and F. N. Maude. On War. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1962. Print.  ↩

  48. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 18  ↩

  49. Ibid, P.20  ↩

  50. Ibid, P.20  ↩

  51. Quoted from Firth, C. H. Cromwell’s Army: A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and the Protectorate. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2007. Print. P.6  ↩

  52. Bedford, Ronald Davis Lloyd. Early Modern English Lives: Autobiography And Self-representation 1500 1660. S.L.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P.126  ↩

  53. Quoted from: Carlton, Charles. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: Routledge, 2016. Print. P. 7  ↩

  54. Quoted from: Kelsey, Sean. Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1997. Print. P.57  ↩

  55. Cust, Richard. Charles I. London: Routledge, 2014. Print. P.145  ↩

  56. Carlton, Charles. This Seat of Mars: War and the British Isles, 1485–1746. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2013. Print. P. 117  ↩

  57. Terrar, Edward F. Liberation Theology along the Potomac: Labor’s Golden Rule in Early American Catholicism. Silver Spring, MD: CWP, 2011. Print.P. 13  ↩

  58. CARLTON, CHARLES. GOING TO THE WARS: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print. P.37  ↩

  59. Simpson, William. The Reign of Elizabeth. Oxford: Heinemann, 2005. Print. P. 140  ↩

  60. Suranyi, Anna. The Genius of the English Nation Travel Writing and National Identity in Early Modern England. Newark: U of Delware, 2008. Print. P.119  ↩

  61. Berman, Harold J. Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000. Print. P. 120–130  ↩

  62. STONE, LAWRENCE. CAUSES OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION 1529–1642. S.l.: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2017. Print. P.92  ↩

  63. Quoted from: Ackroyd, Peter. Civil War. London: Pan, 2015. Print. P.7  ↩

  64. Bremer, Francis J. Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. P.7  ↩

  65. Vischer, Lukas. Christian Worship in Reformed Churches past and Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Print. P.69  ↩

  66. See: Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.  ↩

  67. Coward, Barry. Oliver Cromwell. Place of Publication Not Identified: Routledge, 2015. Print. P. 44  ↩

  68. STONE, LAWRENCE. CAUSES OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION 1529–1642. S.l.: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2017. Print. P. 57  ↩

  69. Hobbes, Thomas. Elements of Law, Natural and Political. London: Routledge, 2015. Print. P. vii  ↩

  70. Quoted from: Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print. P. 101  ↩

  71. Ibid, p. 115  ↩

  72. Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. P 15–43  ↩

  73. Quoted from: Green, Anna, and Kathleen Troup. The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in History and Theory. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016. Print.  ↩

  74. See: Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603 - 1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.  ↩

  75. Ibid, P.43  ↩

  76. CARLTON, CHARLES. GOING TO THE WARS: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651. S.l.: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print. P. 32  ↩

  77. Carlyle, Thomas, and H. D. Traill. The Works of Thomas Carlyle. New York: C. Scribner, 1903. Print. P.30  ↩

  78. Jamoussi, Zouheir. Primogeniture and Entail in England: A Survey of Their History and Representation in Literature. Cambridge Scholars, 2011. Print. P.29  ↩

  79. Blackwood, B. G. The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640–60. Manchester: Manchester UP for the Chetham Society, 1978. Print. P. 24  ↩

  80. Quoted from: Kraynak, Robert P. History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1990. Print. P. 48  ↩

  81. See: Moorhouse, Geoffrey. The Pilgrimage of Grace: The Rebellion That Shook Henry VIII’s Throne. London.: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003. Print.  ↩

  82. Quoted from: Grassby, Richard. The Business Community of Seventeenth-century England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print. P. 133  ↩

  83. PECK, LINDA LEVY. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England. Place of Publication Not Identified: ROUTLEDGE, 2016. Print. P. 126  ↩

  84. The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print. P. 296  ↩

  85. Konnert, Mark W. Early Modern Europe: The Age of Religious War, 1559–1715. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2008. Print. P.143  ↩

  86. Ibid, P. 143  ↩

  87. See: Stone, Lawrence. Causes Of The English Revolution 1529–1642. S.L.: Taylor & Francis, 2017. Print.  ↩

Relax, don't Xanadu it (When you wanna Khan)

Relax, don't Xanadu it (When you wanna Khan)

The Diaspora Dispossessed: White Teeth, Fences and Edouard Glissant

The Diaspora Dispossessed: White Teeth, Fences and Edouard Glissant