History and ideology : Milton, the levellers, and the council of state in 1649
Martin Dzelzainis seeks to clarify the views of Milton and the Levellers in relation to the “Norman Yoke,” the belief that the Conquest had installed an alien legal system that continued to restrict the natural rights of free subjects. Although Milton was in 1649 asked by the Council of State to respond to two incendiary Leveller pamphlets, he never seems to have done so in print (although other polemicists did). Many modern commentators have sought to interpret this silence as evidence of Milton’s views. Dzelzainis argues that Milton, recently appointed as secretary for foreign tongues, could not easily have refused the request. He shows that the Levellers’ own anti-Norman posture was at the time being modified; thus Milton’s anti-Norman rhetoric after 1649 is no indication of support for the Levellers. Furthermore, such rhetoric was applicable to those who opposed the Rump, including Presbyte77. See Milton, Political Writings, ed. Martin Dzelzainis (Cambridge, 1991), xxi–xxv. 78. See James Tyrrell, The General History of England, 3 vols. (London, 1700–1704), 1:110–11, 115–16, 150; 116 (second pagination); for more on Whig responses, see Nicholas von Maltzahn, Milton’s “History of Britain”: Republican Historiography in the English Revolution (Oxford, 1991), 176–78. 79. Tyrrell, General History, 1:vi (second preface). This content downloaded from 207.46.13.128 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 06:14:53 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Ship Money Case, The Case of Shipmony, and the Development of Henry Parker's Parliamentary Absolutism
Henry Parker's The Case of Shipmony (1640) may be the first intellectually significant political pamphlet of the Long Parliament era. In this crisp and well printed quarto, Parker, a publicist and man of affairs, used issues raised during John Hampden's celebrated test case of 1637 to develop his own political views.Parker wrote in opposition to the royalist majority in the case. But his carefully circumscribed objections to ship money in The Case of Shipmony show him of two minds – his opposition was of a different order from that heard in the house of commons in 1640 and 1641, and was strangely resonant of the royalist arguments. This was not a sign of political timidity. Rather, as Parker grew bolder and as his notions matured in 1640– his views and those of the royalist counsel and judges, mutatis mutandis, became even more congruent. This can be seen by comparing the ship money arguments not only with the positions taken in The Case of Shipmony but also with the idiom of Parker's fully developed thought, which is usually (though excessively) identified with his most famous tract, Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses (June 1642).
The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the Problem with Jerusalem
Following Knauf's suggestion (2000), the article raises the possibility that in most periods in the second and first millennia BCE the main built-up area of Jerusalem was limited to a mound on the Temple Mount. This mound, which may have covered an area of five hectares and more, was boxed-in under the Herodian platform. At these periods activity in the City of David ridge was restricted to the area near the Gihon spring. In the Iron IIB and late Hellenistic Periods the fortified settlement expanded simultaneously to both the City of David ridge and the southwestern hill. In these two periods there was no need to fortify the western side of the City of David, as this line ran in the middle of the city.