Reflections on early modern history in the last 7 days

 

Monday, 14 th October, 2024

It was inevitable, I suppose. Thirty seven years of computer use starting

with an Amstrad 9512 and continuing with half a dozen laptops and on

CD-Roms and DVD-Rs. That is without counting the thousands of files

written and downloaded and a myriad of photographs. Sadly, I had not

kept proper track of these resources having forgotten where many of

them were saved, what names they had been given and how to find

them. Having a number of external hard drives too has not helped very

much. Once I had decided to embark on the task of collating all of this

material, I invariably found that there were multiple files bearing the

same name but with differing contents. They have to be distinguished

anew. I have a feeling it will be a long winter. If I survive the challenge, I

will let you know.

Saturday, 19 th October, 2024

I have to confess that I succumbed to temptation last Tuesday morning

whilst shopping. A copy of History Extra caught my eye: its contents

covered in part the ‘Civil Wars. Roundheads versus Cavaliers in 17 th -

century Britain’ (November, 2024 issue, Pp.48-75) which I chose to buy.

Guided by Mark Stoyle, the magazine provided a pretty straightforward

guide to the origins of the Civil Wars concentrating mainly but not

exclusively on England, to King Charles I’s personal character and his rule

after his accession to the throne, to the significance of religious and

political divisions in his kingdoms and to the military struggles that

ensued from the late-1630s onwards. The text was supported by some

well-chosen coloured illustrations. But one or two reservations also

occurred to me. It is true that, in many respects, Charles I’s regime

shared the characteristics he inherited from that of his father. What was

more distinct was Charles I’s expectation that he was to be directly

obeyed and that the processes of bargaining with his subjects, whether

in Parliaments or in the counties and towns of his realms were to be

attenuated. I am not entirely persuaded that the origins of the

subsequent conflicts can be traced back to the religious settlement of

Henry VIII or to the events of the early months of 1642, i.e. to the

arguments of Lawrence Stone or Conrad Russell. A medium-term

explanation dating from the mid to late-1620s seems more plausible.

The claim that the period of Personal Rule in England after 1629 brought

a degree of stability and lessened hostility to the King does not seem

compatible with the outpouring of grievances in and after 1640. There

are, moreover, one or two errors of fact. Ship Money was extended

inland after 1635 not to ‘inland towns’ but to English and Welsh counties.

The Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 was not a simple copy of the English

one designed to spread Anglican observances nor was the Earl of

Strafford a ‘former Lord Deputy’ of Ireland when he was tried and then

executed at the behest of the Long Parliament in 1641. Ireland’s

rebellion was defeated after 10, not 11 years. But these are mere

quibbles. Overall, the publication provides a more than helpful vade

mecum to the events of these tumultuous years in the Stuarts’ realms. It

was well worth succumbing to temptation, to buying and reading it.

Sunday, 20 th October, 2024

Two days ago, the World Turned Upside Down website published the

reflections of Peter Gaunt of the University of Chester on the subject of

‘New Understandings of Charles I’s kingship’. This was originally given to

an audience of school teachers and has been made available in audio

and transcript form. Much of his address concerned changes in the views

of historians on the reign of Charles I in recent decades and how far

these took a negative or positive approach to his record. The question

he asked right at the start was how far blame for the events of the 1640s

should be placed on his shoulders or whether some might be placed on

those of his opponents. It was not difficult to find historians who took

the former position. Here he cited the works of Michael Young and Mark

Parry. Even Richard Cust, who had produced probably the best overall

assessment of the reign, regarded the King as a man frightened of

popularity, over anxious about his honour and afraid that his

Parliaments wished to diminish his powers. Cust did, however, take a

more favourable view of Charles’s record in the 1640s even though

Gaunt as a military historian was unimpressed by his leadership in the

first Civil War. On the other hand, Mark Kishlansky’s short narrative

biography characteristically went against the consensus by emphasising

the positive aspects of Caroline rule. Kevin Sharpe’s mammoth study of

the Personal Rule put the King at the centre of his analysis as a

conviction ruler, the driving force behind the reform of the state in

matters of administration and government, in finance and church affairs.

More recently, the work by Richard Cust and Peter Lake on the county of

Cheshire suggested that there had been a degree of compliance over

financial and secular matters and that conforming Anglicans found

Caroline reforms in the Church acceptable. Peter Lake had followed this

up with a major study of Laudianism published in 2023 which argued

that it was a coherent programme of reform in the Church linked to the

style of the monarchy and the philosophy of the Personal Rule. Given a

longer period of time, it might well have succeeded in consolidating its

programme and driving out its Puritan critics.

Overall, Peter Gaunt appeared cautiously sympathetic to this recent

change in approach whilst acknowledging that it still had to dislodge the

embedded criticisms of the King and his regime amongst historians

wedded to more traditional historiography. It was slightly unfortunate

that the transcript of these proceedings did not reveal how his audience

responded. What was missing too, in my view, was a discussion of the

reactions of opponents of the regime in England, Ireland and Scotland to

Caroline policies in Church and State. This was a feature of Conrad

Russell’s post-1972 work as well. Fortunately, a lot is known about their

deep and growing animus towards the King and his allies at Court and in

the country. There is no sign that they were being reconciled to the

regime’s policies. On the contrary, they were already planning for the

institution of a form of aristocratic constitutionalism in the place of

Charles I’s arbitrary rule well before 1640. Ironically, it was the King’s

political myopia and lack of skill that gave them their opportunity