Today's readings in early modern history

 

Wednesday, 5th March, 2025

I had not posted on my blog for a couple of days, so my first task this morning was to find some material for that site. I found references on ‘X’ to a discussion on The World Turned Upside Down website by Andrew Hopper of Oxford University on the relationship between Sir Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, who were, in succession, the commanding officers of the New Model Army, so that went up. And I then added a note that Waseem Ahmed would be speaking at Westminster University on the Levellers in a few weeks time. Waseem Ahmed is a postgraduate at University College, London working on the politics of the 1650s and contributing to a conference commemorating the late Anthony Wedgwood Benn, the Labour politician, at that time.

 

When I checked my incoming e-mail I found a request to connect with Lauren Working of the University of York on LinkedIn. I duly accepted and sent her some notes of mine on the early history of the English colony of Virginia, a topic upon which we share an interest. These I copied to other historians of Virginia - Peter Mancall, James Horn, Alexander Haskell and Paul Musselwhite - based in the U.S.A. But, as yet, no replies.

 

After that I went to the Open University’s CORE database to look for articles, books and theses on the history of the county of Essex and its towns. Just over half a dozen came to light in a short twenty minute search. I then sent these on to Dr Jane Pearson of the Essex Society for Archaeology and History in the hope of interesting her in their contents and as a prelude to suggesting that they or a link to them might go up on the Society’s website. There is also a more serious issue to hand because the future of the Essex Record Office in Chelmsford is uncertain in the light of the prospective reorganisation of loal government in Essex. I do not want it to disappear or its collections to be broken up between any successor authorities. The EAH needs, however, to prepare for any eventualities.

Later in the day, I brought up Jonathan Scott’s January, 2016 review of The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution from the H-Albion site. It had a witty opening comparing the important figures in the historiography of the 1950s and 1960s to the prehistoric creatures of the distant past before moving on to the asteroid shower of revisionism which, if Scott was to be believed, pushed these fabled creatures offstage and reduced the appeal of the events of the Civil Wars and Interregnum to external observers in the rest of the historical world. European contexts and divisions within and between multiple lingdoms came to the fore. I did enjoy this analytical foray.

 

Jonathan Scott thought that this new venture was to be welcomed. He found that its coverage of the political and constitutional history of the three Stuart kingdoms was incisive and, perhaps, a degree better than on the ideological and moral cores fuelling these conflicts. This advance had been made possible by improvements in access to archives, electronic and bibliographic resources. Long-term causes had given way to long-term contexts covering price inflation, the military revolution and the cultural impact of Protestantism. King Charles I’s rigid authoritarianism provoked the rebellion of the Scottish Covenanters while Ireland was caught in struggles over religion and land settlement. He also had some cautionary words over the extent to which (and when) the three-kingdom crisis involved Britannic dimensions, particularly in 1640-1642 and 1654-1660. Richard Cust’s contribution and that of Philip Baker on King Charles I’s personal commitment to his conception of the role of the monarchy attricted his endorsement. The social issues discussed by John Walter, Stephen Roberts and Ann Hughes clearly informed these struggles even if they did not necessarily bring about social change. Similarly, he found the peace negotiations discussed in this volume threw more light on the distinctive cultural developments of the English Revolution in politics, religion, petitioning and print. Even when the Restoration took place in 1660, the clock could not be entirely put back in England, Ireland and Scotland. The innovations, moreover, of the period between 1660 and 1720 were built on the policies of the preceding period in taxation, trade, colonial plantation, committee government in matters of finance, politics and war, thereby laying the foundations for the growth of an imperial power based on its economic strength.