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.
Paul D. Halliday, Eleanor Hubbard, and Scott Sowerby
before the 1640s. These explore fissures in England’s society and polity, even if those fissures did not run along lines drawn in traditional accounts of political contests under the early Stuarts. Some of these essays simultaneously operate within, while also stretching or rebutting, crucial claims in Mark’s own work. Consider Eleanor Hubbard’s account of shipboardpolitics, in which the deference of the crew to the captain they selected required that captain’s attention to what the crew understood as their rights. Just as Mark argued in Parliamentary Selection