• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1104 0

Evesham taken by plain valour, and were it not for that accursed Cauda in Aquarius we should seldom be losers, but be gainers, but Division and Treason have got an habit and live with us, and are your friends, yea your only friends. The figure doth at the beginning promise success, but the end of this march will be unlucky, and foreshow some wilful obstinate Commanders on his Majesty’s side will afford us an absolute victory over you’. ‘Keep Leicester if you can, July may give it to us again’: postscript (unpaginated). Lilly reported this success with pride: A collection of prophecies (London, 1645), p. 55.

34. John Booker, Mercurius Coelicus (London, 1646), unpaginated, ‘Of Harvest’.

35. Curry, Prophecy and Power, pp. 5–8, ch. 2.

36. Figures for sales and prices from Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, ch. 10; for Lilly’s sales see p. 348; for the price, p. 349; and for the income of leading astrologers, pp. 380–82. Curry, ‘Lilly, William’; Curry, Prophecy and Power, ch. 2.

37. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 364.

38. William Lilly, Merlinus Anglicus Junior (London, 1644), sig. A2v. Curry characterizes Lilly’s astrology as ‘democratic’: Prophecy and Power, pp. 28–31. For the relationship with Christian orthodoxy see Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, ch. 12. See also C. Scott Dixon, ‘Popular Astrology and Lutheran Propaganda in Reformation Germany’, History (1999), 403–18.

39. See above, p. 110; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 465 and n, 487. There is some useful material in Harry Rusche, ‘Merlini Anglici: Astrology and Propaganda from 1644 to 1651’, EHR, 80 (1965), 322–33; and Harry Rusche, ‘Prophecies and Propaganda, 1641 to 1651’, EHR, 84 (1969), 752–70.

40. Lilly, Merlinus Anglicus Junior, p. 4.

13. Naseby and the End of the War

1. Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), ch. 2; Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), ch. 1; J. S. A. Adamson, ‘The Baronial Context of the English Civil War’, TRHS, 5th ser., 40 (1990), 93–120, esp. pp. 112–16.

2. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 42–6; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 10–16; Adamson, ‘Baronial Context’, pp. 113–19. I have followed Gentles, who differs from Kishlansky over the extent of political partisanship he discerns in the arguments over the officer list, but not over the revision of the view that it was an army of Independents, or that its origin was marked by political compromise.

3. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 37–8; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 11–12. Fairfax was not simply a cipher in these manoeuvres: Andrew Hopper, ‘Black Tom’: Sir Thomas Fairfax and the English Revolution (Manchester, 2007), pp. 54–66.

4. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 46–8; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 21–4; Adamson, ‘Baronial Context’, pp. 117–18. For the Vow and Covenant, see above, p. 293.

5. For Lilburne and the Covenant see Edward Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant: State Oaths, Protestantism and the Political Nation, 1553–1682 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 154–5; David Martin Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: The Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements (Woodbridge, 1999), esp. pp. 140–41.

6. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 24–7; Gardiner, II, p. 195.

7. Gentles, New Model Army, ch. 2.

8. Ian Gentles, ‘The Iconography of Revolution: England 1642–1649’, in Ian Gentles, John Morrill and Blair Worden (eds.), Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 91–132.

9. Ian Gentles, ‘The Civil Wars in England’, in John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1638–1660 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 103–55, at p. 114. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars (London, 1992), pp. 86–7 (catechisms); for plunder see ibid., ch. 11, and the effects of royalist support, pp. 187–9, 268–9.

10. The Kingdomes VVeekly Intelligencer, no. 111, 29 July–6 August 1645, p. 887: it was condemned as a ‘libellous, and scandalous pamphlet