Couplets, commonplaces and the
creation of history in The Famous Tragedie
of KingCharlesI (1649) and Cromwell’s
Famous Tragedie of KingCharlesI (1649) is the first dramatic
account of the defeat and execution of KingCharlesI.1 It is neither
a conventional history play representing the King’s exploits nor a masque
allegorising monarchical power, but rather a play pamphlet, a short, polemical play printed in the same pamphlet format as contemporary news. Like
other play pamphlets from this era, The Famous
Twelve friends of the late Mark Kishlansky reconsider the meanings of England’s mid-seventeenth-century revolution. Their essays range widely: from shipboard to urban conflicts; from court sermons to local finances; from debates over hairstyles to debates over the meanings of regicide; from courtrooms to pamphlet wars; and from religious rights to human rights. Taken together, these essays indicate how we might improve our understanding of a turbulent epoch in political history by approaching it more modestly and quietly than historians of recent decades have often done.
Milton, Harrington and the Williamite monarchy, 1698–1714
conduct of a man who railed against revelation and flung Scripture to the floor
in the same breath as scolding the monarchy gives us an insight into Toland’s
less discreet aspirations. The starting point for this unorthodox political theory
was a condemnation of divine right monarchy.
Printed in the ‘10th year of our redemption from Popery and Slavery’ the
short pamphlet KingCharlesI. No such Saint, martyr, or Good Protestant as
commonly reputed (1698) made extraordinarily clear the author’s commitment
to an anticlerical republicanism. Vilifying Charles I as a ‘cruel
Although few would contend that London and its inhabitants were indispensable to parliament’s war effort against King Charles I, the matter remains to be delineated in detail. This book explores how London’s agitators, activists, and propagandists sought to mobilize the metropolis between 1641 and 1645. Rather than simply frame London’s wartime participation from the top down, this book explores mobilization as a series of disparate but structured processes – as efforts and events that created webs of engagement. These webs joined parliamentarian activists to civic authorities, just as they connected parishioners to vestries and preachers, and forced interaction between committees, Common Council, liverymen, and apprentices. The success of any given mobilizing effort – or counter-mobilization, for that matter – varied. Activists adapted their tactics accordingly, meeting their circumstances head-on. Londoners meanwhile heeded the entreaties of preachers and civic leaders alike, signing petitions, donating, and taking to the streets to protest both for and against war. Initially called upon to loan money and fortify the metropolis in 1642–3, Londoners had by 1644 become reluctant lenders and overburdened caretakers for sick and wounded soldiers. Revealed here by way of a wealth of archival and printed sources is the collective story of London’s evolving relationship to the challenges of wartime mobilization, of the evolution of efforts to move money and men, and the popular responses that defined not only parliament’s wartime success, but the arrival of novel financial expedients that gave rise to the New Model Army and eventually became apparatuses of the state.
This volume challenges a traditional period divide of 1660, exploring continuities with the decades of civil war, the Republic and Restoration and shedding new light on religious, political and cultural conditions before and after the restoration of church and monarchy. The volume marks a significant development in transdisciplinary studies, including, as it does, chapters on political theory, religion, poetry, pamphlets, theatre, opera, portraiture, scientific experiment and philosophy. Chapters show how unresolved issues at national and local level, residual republicanism and religious dissent, were evident in many areas of Restoration life, and recorded in plots against the regime, memoirs, diaries, historical writing, pamphlets and poems. An active promotion of forgetting, the erasing of memories of the Republic and the reconstruction of the old order did not mend the political, religious and cultural divisions that had opened up during the civil wars. In examining such diverse genres as women’s writing, the prayer book, prophetic writings, the publications of the Royal Society, histories of the civil wars by Clarendon and Hobbes, the poetry and prose of Milton and Marvell, plays and opera, court portraiture and political cartoons the volume substantiates its central claim that the Restoration was conditioned by continuity and adaptation of linguistic and artistic discourses.
William and Mary did not provide a natural target for radicals. The nonjurors and the emerging ‘Church in Danger’ faction most certainly did. It thus became again imperative to present the Eikon Basilike as a clerical plot, rather than the legitimate legacy of KingCharlesI.
Thanks to the Anglesey memorandum, sceptics of the Eikon now had a named suspect. The memo provoked a stream of print defending the royal authorship or assailing it. Some of these settled for stylistic arguments, but others included new information and testimonials. The Restitution to the
English Renaissance artists and
connoisseurs with a particularly intense relationship to Italian
culture, including Inigo Jones, Ben Jonson, and the first notable
British collectors of Italian painting, the Earl and Countess of Arundel, Henry
Prince of Wales and KingCharlesI. And “Ganymede Agonistes”
offers a reading of the history of interpretations of the Ganymede myth
in the Renaissance through both
belligerent of all factions in England aiming to punish Catholic Ireland for the rebellion of 1641, the Adventurers frustrated all attempts to bring the conflicts in Ireland to an early conclusion, including KingCharlesI’s cessation in 1643 and the efforts of Cromwell’s under-officers to bring the war to a close almost a decade later. Their relentless campaign to take the estates of the defeated Catholic Irish was pursued over a period of some twenty-five years. Few Adventurers, however, attempted any kind of plantation scheme in Ireland and fewer still brought in any new
the 1970s. As Alexander Walker puts it, ‘Winstanley’s
vision of England in disarray was historically apposite.’28
Oliver’s army: Cromwell
Winstanley was not the only film made in Britain during the late
1960s and 1970s that looked back to events surrounding the
English Interregnum. Cromwell (Ken Hughes, 1970) – produced
by Irving Allen for Columbia – stars Richard Harris as Oliver
Cromwell, and Alec Guinness as KingCharlesI. The film was
shot primarily on location in Spain, but interiors were filmed at
Shepperton Studios. Cromwell is an epic, big budget production
she maintained connections
in the 1650s to royalist circles in London, including those of the musician
Henry Lawes, who set several of her poems to music. Many of her poems
express her royalist sympathies, including ‘Upon the Double Murder of
KingCharlesI’ and ‘To Antenor, on a Paper of Mine’, a poem in which
she is at pains to set her political leanings against those of her husband.
James Philips (whom Katherine dubbed ‘Antenor’ in her poems and
letters) supported the Cromwellian government, although he had a
reputation among his contemporaries as a moderate, and