On the Short Parliament of 1640

 I have been contemplating writing an essay on the Short Parliament of 1640 for a considerable period of time. My interest was first aroused when Esther Cope was kind enough to show me the draft copy of the edition of the sources she later edited for the Camden Society, sources which have been amplimented by the later work of Judith Maltby on the Aston Diary. In the process, I have read the analyses of John Adamson, Mark Kishlansky, Kevin Sharpe and Conrad Russell, the last three of whom have passed away. John Adamson's piece in his book, The Noble Revolt, seems the most lucid of these while I was surprised to note that Kishlanky's defence of King Charles I's handling of the Parliament failed to mention his contemporaneous negotiations with the Spanish Habsburgs: contemporaries would, I suspect, not have regarded these overtures as contingency-planning but as duplicitous. The one I had real trouble with was that by Conrad Russell, much of which was a precis of the surviving material in the Cope and Maltby volumes. What does not appear, prima facie, to have attracted much attention is the teleological element in Russell's work on the 1640s pointing forward to the choices individual M.P.s and peers would make in 1642. He was not as free from the influences of the Whigs as he might have believed.

:  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lawrence Stone and the historiography of the 'gentry controversy'

  LAWRENCE STONE AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE GENTRY CONTROVERSY The controversy over the economic and social origins of the English Revolution was a topic that excited ferocious debate over sixty years ago. Historians of the calibre of R.H.Tawney and Hugh Trevor-Roper, J.P.Cooper, Christopher Hill and Lawrence Stone advanced radically different interpretations to explain the violent events of the 1640s and 1650s in the British Isles. American scholars, most famously of all, J.H.Hexter, like Willson Coates, Harold Hulme, Judith Shklar and Perez Zagorin also commented with varying degrees of sharpness on the issues at stake. But only one of the major participants, Lawrence Stone, offered an account of the historiography of the dispute, first of all in his introduction to the anthology of academic articles and documentary sources entitled Social Change and Revolution in England 1540-1640 which he edited in 1965 and then, in slightly revised form, in Chapter 2 of his work...
Read more

Transcribing Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 1642 and 1645

  In the spring of 1967, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, then the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, wrote to me to ask if I would assist Dr Pearl in her work by transcribing Walter Yonge’s diaries held (in Additional Mss.18,777-18,780) in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum at that time. I agreed and it was settled that I would be paid £150 per volume by the History Faculty of the University. I duly transcribed the first of these volumes in 1967 and the remaining three by 1973. I was not her “assistant” in this task but undertook it myself. I did not, moreover, keep copies of the first three volumes. In mid-1975, I read in The Times Higher Education Supplement that she was preparing the Yonge volumes for publication. But nothing happened. By 1984, seventeen years after I had transcribed the first volume and eleven years after finishing the last one I was puzzled by this failure to proceed and, having asked several academic friends if they th...
Read more

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more