Search Results

This chapter examines publications in the early 1650s about James I's murder. Official newsbooks mined early Stuart scandals to ward off the threat of resurgent Royalism, while other publications opened Whitehall's ‘closets’ and ‘cabinets’ to expose the ‘mysteries of state and government’ to public scrutiny. Histories became a common genre and all were deeply partisan retellings of early Stuart history designed to speak to present concerns. Eglisham's secret history was transformed by revolutionaries into a providentialist account of the fall of the Stuart dynasty, an account that equated monarchy with tyranny and debauchery; justified resistance, regicide, and republican revolution; and helped sustain the military struggle to save that revolution from its monarchical enemies.

Discusses the translation of Hobbes's De cive, which was published in England in 1651 under the title Philosophicall Rudiments. A few surviving copies include a dedicatory epistle (addressed to Lady Fane) by the translator, signed 'C. C.' In this essay, evidence is presented for identifying this translator with the young poet Charles Cotton. His indirect connections with both Hobbes and Lady Fane are explored, and attention is paid to the way in which Hobbes's text was assimilated (by Cotton and his publisher) to a moral and political position that combined quasi-Stoic moralism with fervent Royalism.

In the National Assembly of 1871–1875, conservatives hesitated between restoration of the monarchy and support for an authoritarian non-monarchical regime. The ‘Moral Order’ government of 1873 failed to restore the monarchy; then moderate monarchists helped established a conservative Republic. Both options were designed to preserve the leadership of the ‘elite’, but conservative factions understood the nature of the ruling class and its relationship to the ‘people’ differently. The conflict between the bourgeoisie and aristocracy still mattered, although understood as much culturally as sociologically.rleanists and moderate Legitimists envisaged elite rule through parliament, and distrusted all forms of populism. Ultra Legitimists mobilized Catholic women and men through pilgrimages. Bonapartists mobilized the anti-urban populism of the peasantry. Ultimately, some constitutional monarchists came to feel that the conservative Republic was the best antidote to the popular politics of both the Left and Extreme Right.

Monarchists soon regretted having helped establish the Republic, for it quickly set about removing them from positions of power. In the 1885 election, they set aside dynastic differences and embraced ‘conservatisme’, which was based on the premise that since the masses were fundamentally conservative and materialist, monarchists must demonstrate that they alone could defend order. Although conservatisme brought relative electoral success, monarchists feared that it would turn them into constitutional conservatives, and so they were open to Boulanger's secret offer to restore the monarchy.Monarchist and radical republican supporters of Boulanger found common ground in opposition to parliamentarianism. Furthermore, rank-and-file monarchist discontent with parliamentarianism helped push monarchist leaders into Boulangism. Monarchists and radicals met in the developing culture of commercialized leisure and in the evolving debate concerning citizenship and immigration. Boulangism permanently radicalized some monarchists and Catholics, and contributed to the emergence of Nationalism in the 1890s.

The failure of Boulangism, coupled with fear of socialism and radical republicanism, persuaded the Pope to order monarchists to defend property and religion within the Republic. Monarchists who had ‘rallied’ to the Republic increasingly cooperated with conservative republicans, especially under the leadership of Jules Méline, with whom they shared elitism, parliamentarianism, and an interest in organicist social and political science, notably crowd psychology. Yet tensions concerning the very nature of the social order that was to be defended undermined this alliance, which anyway barely extended into the country. Moreover, the Pope's simultaneous endorsement of democracy and Social Catholicism provoked the emergence of Christian Democracy, which combined social radicalism with militant religiosity. Christian Democrats attacked moderate republicans and Ralliés for social conservatism and for their weak defence of Catholic interests. Increasingly, Christian democrats and monarchists used anti-Semitism to attack the Republic, thus provoking the Dreyfus Affair.

This chapter outlines how we can understand why men and women risked themselves by expressing seditious memories. It does so by establishing the Restoration’s ‘politics of memory’; that is, the efforts by certain parties, including former parliamentarians and royalists, to gain control of how the events of the 1640s and 1650s were remembered publicly (‘mnemonic hegemony’). It is put forward that, following an attempt to cast the divisions of the wars into oblivion, royalists seized the authority to speak for the past, legitimising thereby the censure and censorship of parliamentarians and republicans. The chapter finishes by measuring the impact of censorship and censure on their targets.

This article examines the ideas of religious toleration that can be found in royalist proposals in both England and Ireland in the 1640s, and the manner in which bishops and chaplains were forced into often uncomfortable contemplation of its implications. While practical issues relating to external jurisdiction had posed significant problems in the Irish debates, English discussions at times seemed to leave a theoretical door open for the existence of multiple self-governing religious groups, although the precise degree to which they could exercise jurisdiction over themselves was not entirely clear. It is perhaps not surprising that in both England and Ireland Charles and his clerical advisors were often not particularly averse to granting a degree of formal religious toleration to alternative religious groups. For royalist clergy in particular, such grants of toleration constituted a far more tempting alternative than having to accept the radical reform of the established church on Presbyterian lines.

This chapter’s title quotes Margaret Cavendish’s description of Amadis and it explores the return to prominence post-1660 of Amadis’s relationship to French, rather than Spanish, literary culture. Don Quixote’s ‘witty abusing’ of chivalric romance is tempered from the 1650s by the importation of heroic romance from French and the development of ‘serious’ romance which defines itself in opposition to its Iberian forebears. Amadis became part of the Restoration refashioning of antebellum literary culture partly thanks to English writers’ experience of exile in France and the Low Countries. After the Restoration, Amadis continued to be a popular reference point in comedies, as the archetypal text of ‘amour and adventure’ and a window onto the lost world of Caroline theatre. Behn’s Luckey Chance (1686) and Farquhar’s The Inconstant (1702) are representative of this refashioning of the literary past, while D’Urfey’s Don Quixote plays of the 1690s look back to Jacobean stage satire.

This chapter locates the origins of the first Scottish Enlightenment in James VII and II’s patronage in 1680s Edinburgh and the psychological and social impact of the revolution of 1688 on Jacobite, Episcopalian, and Catholic scholars. It closely examines the institutional structures of learned societies, libraries, and churches, demonstrating the ways in which they shaped the agenda of subsequent writers. In doing so, it offers new readings of important moments such as the foundation of the Advocates Library and the ill-fated Catholic presence at Holyroodhouse while offering case studies in the form of the well-known polymath Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh and the more obscure scholar John Cockburn.