God's Fury, England's Fire_ A New History of the English Civil Wars - Michael J. Braddick [366]
54. Quentin Skinner, ‘Classical Liberty and the Coming of the English Civil War’, in Van Gelderen and Skinner (eds.), Republicanism, vol. 2: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, pp. 9–28.
55. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, ch. 1; See also David Norbrook, ‘Lucan, Thomas May, and the Creation of a Republican Literary Culture’, in Sharpe and Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics, pp. 45–66. Republican values were not necessarily anti-monarchical: ‘In general English republicanism defined itself in relation not to constitutional structures but moral principles’: Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political Stability in European Context (Cambridge, 2000), ch. 14, quotation at p. 317. See also Jonathan Scott, Commonwealth Principles: Republican Writing of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 2004). Significantly, perhaps, there was a strong imperial theme in representations of Charles during the Personal Rule: John Peacock, ‘The Image of Charles I as a Roman Emperor’, in Ian Atherton and Julie Sanders (eds.), The 1630s: Interdisciplinary Essays on Culture and Politics in the Caroline Era (Manchester, 2006), pp. 50–73.
56. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, esp. pp. 54–5.
57. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, ch. 7.
58. Quoted in Kevin Sharpe, ‘The King’s Writ: Royal Authors and Royal Authority in Early Modern England’, in Sharpe and Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics, pp. 117–38, at p. 133.
59. The classic cutting-down-to-size of Stuart parliaments is Conrad Russell, ‘Parliamentary History in Perspective, 1604–1629’, reprinted in Conrad Russell, Unrevolutionary England, 1603–1642 (London, 1990), pp. 31–57. See also Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, ch. 1. For the frequency of meetings see Michael A. R. Graves, Tudor Parliaments: Crown, Lords and Commons, 1485–1603 (Harlow, 1985), p. 7; Cogswell, ‘Low Road’, p. 285. For a crisp overview see David L. Smith, The Stuart Parliaments 1603–1689 (London, 1999), pt 1.
60. Much of the literature relating to this and the next paragraph is cited and summarized in Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 48–56, 104–7. For a fuller survey see Keith Wrightson, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain (New Haven, Conn., 2000), chs. 5–9; and for the lives of the poor, Steve Hindle, On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550–1750 (Oxford, 2004). For 1623 see Andrew B. Appleby, Famine in Tudor and Stuart England (Liverpool, 1978), chs. 8–9. For famine and the social practices which limited the effects of harvest failure see John Walter and Roger Schofield, ‘Famine, Disease and Crisis Mortality in Early Modern Society’, in John Walter and Roger Schofield (eds.), Famine, Disease and the Social Order in Early Modern Society (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 1–73; and John Walter, ‘The Social Economy of Dearth in Early Modern England’, reprinted in John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 124–80.
61. The classic account is Keith Wrightson, ‘Aspects of Social Differentiation in Rural England, c.1580–1660’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 5:1 (1977), 33–47; See also Keith Wrightson, English Society 1580–1680 (London, 1982), ch. 5.
62. Braddick, State Formation, ch. 3. Essential reading includes: Paul Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1988); Paul Slack, From Reformation to Improvement: Public Welfare in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1998), chs. 1–2; Hindle, On the Parish?.
63. Michael J. Braddick, ‘State Formation and Social Change: A Problem Stated and Approaches Suggested’, Social History, 16:1 (1991), 1–17; Braddick, State Formation, pp. 27–38, 68