Sermons, Separatists, and Succession Politics in Late Elizabethan England
Abstract In late 1599 the population of York was able to witness a fairly extraordinary sight. In York Castle, the Catholic prisoners of conscience, as they saw themselves (though others regarded them as dangerous political dissidents), were being compelled to listen, once a week, to a Protestant sermon. These sermons were preached at them by a slate of godly ministers. This exercise was something the prisoners actively contested by murmuring, blocking their ears, shouting, and attempting to rush out of the hall. The prisoners' antics provoked the authorities into increasingly coercive measures to make them hear the Word of God. This outwardly rather ridiculous and unseemly charade went on, week after week, for nearly a year, at which point the whole business was abandoned by the lord president, Lord Burghley, as a waste of time. However, by decoding the extant manuscript narrative that we have of the sermon series and by looking at who was involved in this business and why, and what political messages were being sent during the course of it, we can say something about the popular politics of late Elizabethan England. In particular, we can comment on the strategies adopted by those who were anticipating the moment, surely not far off, when Tudor power would be extinguished and Elizabeth's crown would pass to her successor.
Popularity and Monarchy: The Hampton Court Conference and the Early Jacobean Church
Abstract:Building on recent reconsiderations of James I's Church policies, this article ties James's performance at the Hampton Court conference to his Scottish experiences, his texts on kingship and what he perceived in the Church of England upon arrival in his new realm. The linking thread is not theology but rather his fervent anti-popularity, bred in his reaction to the Scottish Reformation, rejection of Buchanan's limited monarchy theories and struggles to exert and expand his kingship in Scotland. In England, he found natural allies in a late Elizabethan tradition of anti-popularity. The puritan petitioning campaign for Church reform convinced him that nonconformity equated with popularity and that he had to crush it immediately (as intimated in Basilikon Doron), if he was to be a "free" monarch. At the conference, James made clear that he would have a strong episcopal church as a bulwark protecting his kingship against any popular challenge. The subsequent rigorous conformity campaign and purge of unyielding ministers indicate that far from seeking an irenic compromise, James sought to extirpate any challenge from below to his authority as Supreme Governor.Résumé analytique:Leprésent article, qui s'appuie sur des réexamens récents des politiques de l'Église de Jacques Ier,établit un lien entre sa prestation à la Conférence de Hampton Court et ses expériences écossaises, ses textes sur la royauté et ce qu'il a perçu au sein de l'Église d'Angleterre en arrivant à son nouveau royaume. Le fil de liaison n'est pas la théologie, mais plutôt sa fervente anti-popularité, qui s'est formée dans sa réaction à la Réforme écossaise, le rejet des théories de la monarchie limitée de Buchanan et les luttes visant à exercer et à étendre sa royauté en Écosse. En Angleterre, il s'est trouvé des alliés naturels dans une tradition élisabéthaine tardive d'anti-popularité. Les campagnes pétitionnistes menées par les puritains en vue de la réforme de l'Église le convainquirent que la non-conformité était assimilable à la popularité et qu'il devait l'écraser immédiatement (comme indiqué dans le Basilikon Doron), s'il voulait être un monarque « libre ». Au cours de cette conférence, il avait clairement fait comprendre qu'il se doterait d'une église épiscopaleforteen tant querempartcontre toute contestation populaire. La campagne de conformité rigoureuse qui s'ensuivit et la purge sans merci à l'égard des ministres indiquent que, loin de rechercher un compromis irénique, Jacques Ier cherchait plutôtà éliminer toute opposition à son autorité en tant que Gouverneur suprême de l'Église d'Angleterre.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.