The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution, 1603-1660

by Samuel Rawson Gardiner

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: History

266 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1876

Reviews

[Jesse]

I'd seen Gardiner's name mentioned in more recent histories of the English Revolution as a prime example of a sort of Whig Consensus that 20th century scholarship was reacting against. This little book was clearly intended to be a popular companion to his reputedly meticulous scholarly volumes. I found its depictions of James I and Charles I's foreign policy regarding Spain, France, Scotland, and the German principalities quite useful, as well as the portrayal of prominent royal advisors such as Buckingham and Laud.

The beginning of the book argues that the ancient balance between the King and Parliament had been disrupted in the previous century by the Tudor royalty amassing additional power to put down abuses among the nobility. Queen Elizabeth was wise or lucky enough to govern largely in consensus with the people, so that the greater royal power did not give rise to conflict.

James I is portrayed as a relatively wise ruler in his foreign engagements, with his negotiations with Catholic Spain and France largely justified. The Puritan desire for England to lead a Protestant Crusade against Catholicism stemmed from their ignorance of international affairs. His main misstep was to not understand that he could not govern without the sympathies of the people, being fooled by the Tudor power he had inherited. Charles I, and his advisor, the Duke of Buckingham, are portrayed much more negatively.

It was interesting to see how Gardiner attempted, not particularly successfully to my eyes, to trace a thread of Toleration through the revolution. The Puritans and Laudians and Scottish Covenanters and all of the Puritan Parliaments under Cromwell are portrayed as intolerant. Somehow Cromwell and the Army, despite their Puritanism, are the lone champions of tolerance, trying to impose a lofty ideal which the people were not ready for. Gardiner admits that this was only a tolerance for and among Puritans, but this does not sully the ideal for him. This opposition to the intolerance of Puritan parliaments is used to explain most of Cromwell's conflicts with them, and the nation's tiring of Puritan asceticism is used to explain the ultimate restoration of the monarchy. The distinction between Cromwell and his army was not clearly depicted - if Gardiner discussed Cromwell's suppression of Levellers and other sectarians in the ranks, I missed it.

Although it was admittedly out of the main time period of the text, I didn't find Gardiner's suggestion that true tolerance for all Christians excepting Catholics had really been introduced by the 1688 Toleration Act plausible - the 1662 Acts of Uniformity that excluded dissenting Christians from public office and education were only repealed in 1871.

[Yibbie]

What a time of persecution and political struggles. Some of those struggles seem ridiculous to us today. Was it really so important how the preachers dressed? Or where the pulpit was set in the building? Clearly it did then, to those deeply religious men and women. May we have even half their conviction. It was fascinating to see the interaction of politics and religion. It's hard not to draw parallels with events today. I also found it especially interesting as it helped me put the movements of the puritan settlers in America in more perspective.
It was well worth reading. Once you get the hang of the older style of writing it flows well and presents the information clearly. It was also worth reading for the different perspective. It is saved from the constant handwringing of modern scholarship by being older. It clearly sees the faults of the people and some of their ideas, presents them as they were, but isn't out to force the reader to censure them at every turn.

[Sandra Lannon]

I love reading the "older" histories; I love the language and the viewpoint and then comparing to more recent treatments of the same historical periods. For example, an older history of Catherine the Great contained a lot more substantive content than a later version which seemed to sanitize aspects of her life (perhaps because of the "Puritan influence" on the mindset of the U.S.!) At any rate, this Gardiner book from 1908 is part of an 18 volume series "Epochs of Modern History." from the Middle Ages to The French Revolution. (And it was $18 for the complete hardback set!). I'm going to look for more volumes.