Much ink has been spent on accounts of the English Civil Wars of the mid-seventeenth century, yet royalism has been largely neglected. This 2007 volume of essays by leading scholars in the field ...seeks to fill that significant gap in our understanding by focusing on those who took up arms for the king. The royalists described were not reactionary, absolutist extremists but pragmatic, moderate men who were not so different in temperament or background from the vast majority of those who decided to side with, or were forced by circumstances to side with, Parliament and its army. The essays force us to think beyond the simplistic dichotomy between royalist 'absolutists' and 'constitutionalists' and suggest instead that allegiances were much more fluid and contingent than has hitherto been recognized. This is a major contribution to the political and intellectual history of the Civil Wars and of early modern England more generally.
‘A whipper whipped’ is a thoroughly new account of the 1634 Star Chamber case against William Prynne for publishing the seditious work Histrio-mastix. It is based upon a hitherto unused manuscript ...account that provides previously undisclosed information about the proceedings and especially about the intentions of the prosecution. This case is one of the most celebrated events of the 1630s, often viewed as the watershed event in the history of Caroline censorship. It has also become a prime example of Archbishop William Laud's attack against puritan conformists. This article argues that Laud played little role in the case; that the issue before Star Chamber was primarily the charge of sedition; and that Prynne received every possible legal advantage during his hearing. Through a careful reconstruction of the legal proceedings, the case is seen in an entirely new light. Though historians and literary critics have accepted Prynne's self-serving accounts of his prosecution, this fuller record demonstrates their inadequacy.
Martyrs’ Tales Kishlansky, Mark
The Journal of British studies,
04/2014, Letnik:
53, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
This article recounts the legal proceedings against those Puritan activists who challenged the government of Charles I in the 1630s. It demonstrates that most of our knowledge of these events has ...come from the highly colored accounts written by the defendants themselves. Closer examination demonstrates that Leighton, Prynne, Bastwick, Burton, and Lilburne set out to challenge the government, first by writing incendiary tracts about religion and then by refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the courts into which they were brought. While they saw their causes as cases of conscience, Caroline officials saw them as attacks upon the legal and political system. They were convicted in formal legal proceedings, and while the penalties they received appear barbaric to our sensibilities, they were typical in such cases.
It is believed that Charles I was intransigent and implacable to the end, as he rejected every offer until his opponents finally ran out of options and patience. S.R. Gardiner has written that ...'Charles's rejection of the last overture from the army destroyed all opposition' to the king's trial. The king refused to yield no matter how desperate his condition was.
Almost every conflict between subjects and sovereign in the early part of the reign of Charles I resulted from fear. Leading men of his realm misinterpreted his intentions and misconstrued his ...character. He could not see himself as the king that they feared and therefore could do little to allay their suspicions.
The author replies to preceding comments by the historians Clive Holmes, Julian Goodare, and Richard Cust on his article "Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity", published in "Past and Present" no. ...189 (Nov.2005). Notes that his critics respectively challenge his account of Charles's mobility and accessibility, reassert the story of the king's absolutist practices in Scotland, and underscore his untrustworthiness, inflexibility and refusal to compromise. Accuses his critics of emotional animus against Charles, maintaining that the revaluation he undertook in 2005 was not motivated by a desire to rehabilitate the king's reputation, but to better reflect the evidence that can be found in the historical remains of his reign. (Quotes from original text)
