Politics and the Nobility in Civil-War England
The suggestion that the nobility had a central role in the politics of the 1640s has recently been strenuously attacked by Professor Mark Kishlansky in his article, 'Saye what?'. 2 Professor Kishlansky argues, first, that such a view is so radical a break with the existing (and of course whig) historiography as to be implausible; and second, by way of a case-study, that the argument presented for the influence of the Lords in my article 'The English nobility and the projected settlement of 1647' 3 is entirely based on evidence which is at best tendentious and more often demonstrably false. 4 At stake is a fundamental tenet of the whig interpretation of the 'Puritan Revolution', one which as yet has been only partially eroded by revisionism: the dominance of the Commons and its political leaders within the political process. For over a century, that has been one of orthodoxy's most sacred cows. The suggestion that it should be put out to graze will, perhaps inevitably, be countered with accusations of heresy and falsifying canonical texts. of in I Kishlansky out of 5 the remainder of charges cannot be sustained. The case Professor Kishlansky up for is not mine.
FIFTY YEARS OF THE HISTORICAL JOURNAL*
ABSTRACT The half-centenary of the Historical Journal is here used as an opportunity not for celebration but for historical analysis. How well does the journal's claim to publish ‘on all aspects of history’ stand up to scrutiny? Do its contents and contributors reflect the state of the profession, or are they skewed? These questions are explored both conceptually and quantitatively. The notion of a ‘general’ historical journal is examined, as also the distinction between a journal's research and pedagogic functions. Some implications of the HJ's origins in the period of high modernism are suggested. Finally, current dilemmas are examined, especially in the new era of electronic access.
Italian Influence on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism
THIS ARTICLE TRIES to show that the rise of Calvinist scholasticism, which was the most important development in Calvinist theology during the second half of the sixteenth century, stemmed largely from several converging Italian influences, particularly from the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi. Here Calvinist theology refers not only to the personal thought of John Calvin but also to the teachings of the founders of the Reformed or Calvinist tradition as it spread out from Geneva and Switzerland to France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland, and the Low Countries. In this context Calvin emerges as the brightest star in a galaxy of Reformed theologians which includes Heinrich Bullinger, Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza and Wolfgang Musculus as well as Martyr, Zanchi and others. These theologians were often more influential than Calvin himself at a given place or time or on a given point of doctrine. Bullinger, Martyr, and Martin Bucer were all more important for spreading Calvinist ideas to Edwardian England than was John Calvin. Early Elizabethan Protestantism looked more to Zurich than to Geneva, as did early Polish Calvinism. German Calvinism owed more to Heidelberg than to Geneva.' These leaders developed their theologies sometimes in mutual dependence, sometimes with surprising independence. By no means was their relation to Calvin simply that of disciple to master, for each gave a personal nuance to his style of Calvinism. Thus the sixteenth century Jesuit Cornelius Schulting states on the opening page of his five volume polemic against Calvin and Peter Martyr that Martyr was clearer and far more learned than Calvin.2 Recently John Bray has pointed out that research in seventeenth century Calvinism leads "to the conclusion that the impact of Calvin upon the Calvinistic movement has been greatly over-rated. It may well be that some of