126

“A Great Event To Narrate”: A

Historiographical Analysis Concerning
the Causes of the English Civil War

Jason W. Young

The historical debate concerning the causes of the English

Civil War1 is an example of how different cultural, personal,
historical, and methodological influences have shaped historians’
erceptions of the past. Historians have had many different views
n this debate, but regardless o f their positions, historians’
arguments have been formed by various influences which, when
investigated, allow for a deeper understanding o f their
conceptions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the
writings of five significant historians who have offered their
educated opinions on the causes o f the English Civil War. By
doing so, the overall historiographical trends which have
developed since the conflict began will become evident. This
exercise is essential for those interested in the English Civil War,
since investigating the explanations o f several historians increases
one’s ability to reach a more educated opinion on a debated theme.
To start, it is important to interpret the ideas set forth by
Thomas Hobbes, who blamed intellectual currents, which arose
from the English universities at the time. Not only are Hobbes’
ideological motivations apparent, but he also illustrates how
contemporary history is affected by the time in which these writers
Jived. Next, an investigation into the ongoing debate between
Tory and Whig historians, demonstrated by the writings of
 127
The English Civil War

eighteenth-century philosophe David Hume and Victorian-era

historian Samuel Rawson Gardiner, is useful since this quarrel
has polarized many historical interpretations. Both attempted to
create unbiased interpretations, but after an analysis of their works
and lives, it is clear that they failed in this ambition. A look at
the work of nineteenth-century Frenchman François Guizot
demonstrates the moderate contrast of non-British viewpoints,
as Guizot’s post-1789 nationalism and particular conception of
history, along with other factors, influenced his views on the
historical significance of the Civil War. The work of twentieth-
century historian Christopher Hill provides a logical conclusion
to the analysis of these five men as he re-examined the debate
with a fresh Marxist interpretation, exactly three centuries after
the calling o f the Long Parliament in 1640. Before an
investigation into these various and often contradictory theses,
we must first journey back to Stuart England at the beginning of
the seventeenth century and take a look at the various political,
religious, and economic developments that influenced English
society and government in the period leading to the outbreak <
war in 1642.
For many historians, the First question of importance t
ask is, chronologically speaking, when to commence an
investigation o f the conflict. The conventional date when most
historians begin their analyses is 1603, the year when James IV,
King of the Scots, inherited the English crown as James I,
although certain economic and political considerations - such as
the gentry’s increasing economic status and the crown’s waning
power - were evident at the end of Elizabeth’s reign. On the
other hand, it has been suggested that to begin at 1603 is
misleading since many elements of the conflict were not evident
until the ascension of James’ son, Charles I, in 1625. Despite
this, the rise of the Stuart house to the English throne is a logical
starting point when investigating the causes o f the Civil War.2
p
128
The Mirror
The reign o f James I demonstrated signs o f conflict that
would influence the events o f the succeeding years. The
Parliament of 1621, for example, is remembered for its strong
opposition to James’ attempts to increase royal prerogative in his
fiscal program and what was seen as pro-Catholic foreign policy.
James did not have strong relations with Parliament, and by the
time of James’ death in 1625, the division between the crown
and Parliament had grown, creatin g a com plicated and
troublesome political situation for his son Charles, now King of
England.3
With the ascension of Charles I in 1625, Parliament tested
the new king by granting customs duties on the condition that
this income would be reconsidered per annum. The following
year, however, Parliament denied Charles this needed income.
As a result, the king asked for a failed free gift of moneys from
his subjects, followed by a further unsuccessful attempt to force
’oans which met with much resistance. Charles’ next parliament
i 1628 produced the infamous Petition of Right, which he signed
i exchange for desperately needed funds. This document
guaranteed two principles: consent o f Parliament for royal tax
collection, along with the guarantee of habeas corpus.4 Yet
Charles continued to receive tremendous parliamentary opposition
towards his fiscal policies. A year after the document was signed,
the speaker of the House announced Charles' decision to dissolve
Parliament. At that moment, the Commons announced those who
consented to the crown’s religious and fiscal prerogatives “shall
be reputed a capital enemy to the kingdom and the
commonwealth.”5 The growing division between king and
Parliament had become much more obvious.
With this, Charles commenced an eleven year period of
personal rule. Three divisive factors noticeable since the days of
James began to grow. First, the issue o f taxation and its political
effects provided great agitation towards the crown. In June 1635,
 129
The English Civil War

the king began to order that “ship money," traditionally imposed

solely on coastal areas in times of national defense, would be
levied on all towns. This act raised the question of crown’s
prerogative - could the king tax without the consent o f Parliament?
Charles’ decree led to much opposition, namely by former MP
John Hampden, who refused to pay this tax in 1636. Although
the courts sided with the crown on a seven to five margin,
Hampden’s move polarized the country into two camps: those
who supported the king, and those who did not.6 Second, Charles’
religious policy created further division as some feared secret
Catholic ambitions of the king was evidenced to them by the
king’s promotion of William Laud to the position of Archbishop
of Canterbury in 1633. Laud, who has been called “the most
hated archbishop in history”7imposed numerous religious reforms
during this period, which alienated the Protestant majority. C
note, a minority within pre- and post-personal rule parliamer
consisted of a radical Protestant sect loosely called the Puritai
Their strong religious affections only exacerbated the problem,
that Parliament posed for Charles.8 This religious opposition
related to a third factor - matters of foreign policy, as many
resistors believed Charles’ intentions to be motivated by Catholic
sympathies.9 Nevertheless, Charles was able to maintain some
form of order throughout the majority of his personal rule. This
would soon change with a revolt of the Scots in 1638, motivated
by Laud’s incorporation of an Anglican Common Prayer Book
in the Stuarts’ northern kingdom.10
For fiscal reasons, Charles’ personal rule could only
proceed if his kingdom was at peace. The Scottish Rebellion
ended such an aspiration. On the advice of one of Charles’ closest
ministers, the earl of Strafford, the king summoned Parliament
early in 1640 to put down the rebellion in Scotland by increasing
the royal coffers. This body, however, refused to do so unless
Charles agreed to a number of concessions, which would have
130
The Mirror
compromised much of his sovereignty. Charles dissolved what
became known as the Short Parliament after only three weeks."
Soon after, the Scottish rebels invaded Northern England, and
due to Charles' lack of funds for a strong militia, a truce was
agreed which resulted in an unbalanced treaty weighing in favour
of the Scots. Since one condition promised that Scottish garrisons
could occupy territories in Northern England at the expense of
the English crown, Charles was once again forced to summon
Parliament.12
The calling of what would become known as the Long
Parliament in late 1640 began an obvious attempt by the
Commons to emerge victorious in their growing constitutional
battle against the crown.n Due to Charles’ Scottish concessions,
Parliament could now impose a number o f reforms which they
had long struggled to accomplish. Two of Charles’ most despised
ninisters, Strafford and Laud, were impeached as Parliament
ttempted to gain the constitutional right to select ministers.14 A
umber of other measures were passed: the prohibition of ship
money; a guarantee that only under Parliament’s consent could
the body be dissolved; and the abolishment of a number of the
crown’s royal courts. Soon afterwards the Commons passed the
Grand Remonstrance, which listed a number of parliamentary
objections towards the crown’s actions. Added to this, a rebellion
in Ireland soon commenced and by December of 1642 Parliament
demanded control of the English army, for fear that the king would
use force against the Commons. Most significantly, this was a
direct threat to the crown’s sovereignty.15 The final step occurred
during the first week of 1642 when Charles attempted to arrest
the leading members of the parliamentarian opposition. Both
the royalist and parliamentary factions began to arm themselves,
and by August, England was immersed in civil war.16
An analysis o f the key aspects causing the conflict could
not be complete without considering religious, economic, and
 131
The English Civil War

social developments of this age. Although the majority of English

subjects remained Anglican, Puritanism had posed a threat to
this hegemony since the Elizabethan age. Not only did the
Puritans desire a number of religious reforms including the
abolishment of the episcopacy, they had a deep dislike towards
Catholicism or any symbols related to the Roman faith. This
new sect was most prevalent in rising capitalistic professions,
including trade and other professions which were highly affected
by ship money and other Caroline fiscal policies. As well, one
third of the gentry considered themselves of Puritan faith.17 These
last developments are important because they add a social context,
which only later historians would investigate to its full potential.
Nevertheless, in simple terms, the parliamentary side of
the Civil War emerged victorious and Charles was beheaded in
1649. This was followed by eleven years of republican rule,
during which Oliver Cromwell Riled throughout a majority of
the period. Ensuing political and social disorder resulted in th
restoration of the English crown to Charles’ son, who ascende
to the throne as Charles II in 1660. The return of Stuart rule di
not last long as Charles IPs successor, James II, was dethroned
by Parliament in the Glorious Revolution o f 1688. These
succeeding events are too complicated to give any justice in this
paper. Is essential to note, however, that 1688 represented the
beginning of a new era of political stability. William III, England’s
new monarch, agreed to a parliamentary Bill of Rights, ending
the constitutional battles that had plagued the kingdom for more
than half a century.18
As the events of the English Civil War unfolded, many
contemporary historians were left with varied interpretations on
the causes of the conflict. These historians, although often
agreeing on which religious and political factors led to the war,
had different perceptions on these factors, which would broadly
develop into the two original schools of English Civil War
132
The Mirror
historical thought: the “Tories,'* or supporters of the King’s
prerogative, and the “Whigs,” who advocated the actions of the
Parliamentarians. An essential example of the contemporary Tory
school19 is demonstrated in Thomas Hobbes’ (1586 - 1679)
Behemoth or Long Parliament (1682). To Hobbes, the English
Civil War originated from anti-monarchist intellectual thought
stemming from the universities. Both religious and political
opponents of the crown, motivated by ancient texts espousing
anti-monarchist rhetoric taught in the institutions, united to create
a momentum of disobedience that severely abrogated Charles’
ability to collect taxes, control his militia, and manage his
kingdom effectively.
Hobbes commenced his work by discussing the fall of
he Roman Empire and the concurrent rise of the Catholic church
centred in Rome. Numerous political conflicts between various
monarchs and popes demonstrated the inseparable power struggle
between these two powerful sets of rulers. In order to gain an
upper hand in this battle, in the twelfth century the church created
the institution of the university as a method o f instilling doctrines
of papal supremacy in spiritual and secular matters. The Church
of Rome received “the maintenance of the Pope’s doctrine, and
o f his authority over kings and their subjects.”20
Papal hegemony21 continued in the sixteenth century until
the Protestant Reformation, which Hobbes noted revolved around
matters of spiritual authority rather than questions of religious
doctrine. This event had a particular English context, as Henry
VIII shook o ff the shackles o f papal authority in London with the
aid of the supportive English bishops. These bishops partook in
Henry’s reformation since their own authority - along with Henry’s
- was vastly promoted in the process.22 This observance of a
political power struggle between religious forces influenced
H obbes’ analysis of the religious dissent that was in part
responsible for the English Civil War. Religious forces such as
 133
The English Civil War

the Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans, educated in

universities which had taught them the supremacy of religious
experts over their temporal leaders, challenged Charles’ reforms
and prerogatives not as a motive of religious dogmatical
differences, but rather because of a desire to increase their
authority on religious matters in their respective areas. This
religious opposition would play an integral part in the mounting
opposition towards the Caroline government.
A lon g with religiou s dissent, the opposition o f
“democratical gentlemen” led to the outbreak of war in England.
These men were also educated in the universities, and while
religious dissenters utilized what they leamt to influence peoples’
religious thoughts, these “gentlemen,” who either sat in or
influenced Parliament, incorporated political ideas of popular
government learnt from the ancient texts.23 Hobbes, however,
made it clear that these men were not as educated as they believed
since these texts were actually misinterpreted by these men r
“learned folly.”24
To summarize Hobbes' position, the seed of oppositic
towards Charles’ royal prerogative was born in the universities.
Both the religious and political dissenters allied with each other
to challenge Charles’ royal claims whenever they saw such actions
profitable. This is evidenced by the religious opposition to
Charles’ and Laud’s spiritual reforms, and political confrontations,
which look place during his reign, making it nearly impossible
for Charles to receive funds needed to run his kingdom effectively
without compromising his sovereignty. In other words, the
universities’ radical ideas had “been to this nation, as the wooden
horse was to the Trojans.”25
In order for true stability to return to England, the root of
the Civil War - the universities - had to be reformed to avoid
further conflict. Rather than continue to teach the ancient texts
that had been used for centuries to weaken royal prerogative,
134
The Mirror
schools must teach “absolute obedience" to the laws o f the
sovereign crown, which Hobbes believed were God’s laws. When
this reform was accomplished, the currents that had led to royal
opposition would evaporate and the king would rightfully regain
his total sovereignty with improved tax collection and law
enforcement.26 The sole fundamental law of the state, which
Hobbes termed “soluspopuli, the safety and well-being o f [the
king’s] subjects”27 would be enhanced, and thus guarantee civil
peace in England.
Now that Hobbes’ position is clear, it is obvious that he
espoused sympathy for the crown and persecuted all who opposed
Charles’ measures. This viewpoint can be considered a “Tory”
interpretation, since Parliament is blamed for challenging the
royal prerogative, which led to civil disorder in England during
he last half-century. Not only does his thesis indicate a strong
royalist position, but various comments peppered in Behemoth
make this sympathy obvious to the reader. For example, Charles,
“the best King perhaps that ever was [,]... was murdered, having
been persecuted by war.”28 What reasons could there be for
Hobbes to have held such a strongly royalist stance?
Although Hobbes emigrated to Paris in 1640 and resided
there until 1651,29 the key to understanding this question is to
remember that Hobbes lived in England as tensions mounted
and would have witnessed the unrest that such events created.
Family and friends still living in England would have been
affected by the war, which despite key battles, had a tremendous
effect on the everyday lives o f the English populace.30 As a result,
Hobbes’ writings demonstrated a desire for order that would only
be accomplished with university reform, allowing the king to
gain the true sovereignty needed for effective government. Of
note, Hobbes wrote Behemoth during the 1660s while supported
by the court o f Charles II31 and ended his work with a reference
to the restoration, which was “the greatest stratagem that is extant
 135
The English Civil War

in history.”32 Hobbes must have felt more comfortable with this

position after the restoration, when his anti-parliamentarian
writings would not have caused him as much danger as before.
Despite the restoration, however, Hobbes’ Behemoth contains
an aura of pessimism that another civil war was inevitable. He
was not confident that his aspiration of a reformed university
system loyal to the king would occur, since the victors of the
Civil War had penetrated the English populace’s minds and thus
would remain weary of unchecked royal authority.33 Hobbes’
paranoia may be explained by noting that he had not experienced
the Glorious Revolution in 1688 which saw the conclusion of
the English Constitutional question; he would not live long
enough to see the end of an era of unstable political and religious
conflict. However, considering his belief in a sovereign crown,
Hobbes would not have been content with this ending anyway
The second consideration of Hobbes’ writing as
contemporary interpretation is Behemoth's lack of sources a.
documentation. Much of his factual information seems to be
from memory, as he admitted in many passages that certain dates,
names, and events have slipped his mind. Hobbes’ lack of varied
sources and interpretations explain such errors. Although these
factual shortcomings would probably not have changed his overall
royalist interpretation, these faults do make his argument seem
less convincing.
Behemoth utilizes a dialogue form of writing whereby two
interlocutors discuss the thoughts that Hobbes wished to express.
This is a highly effective writing style since it allows for the
exchange of ideas, which can be rebutted to demonstrate Hobbes’
polemical aims.34 What is ironic, however, is that this method is
similar to the dialectic method of Socrates, an ancient Greek
philosopher who Hobbes blames for the republican ideas of the
anti-monarchists. In this context, Hobbes’ true bias com es forth
- the use of ancient texts is acceptable if it is, as Hobbes was
136
The Mirror
practicing, for the benefit of royal prerogative. Indeed, the
influence of the ancients should only be eliminated if their ideas
are used for anti-monarchical purposes.
Behemoth must be considered within the context of
Hobbes’ famous political writings. The arguments demonstrated
in his interpretation coalesce with his most important political
treatise - Leviathan (1651) - in which Hobbes infamously wrote
that only complete royal sovereignty could allow mankind to
avoid the “state o f nature,” defined as a perpetual conflict that
made life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”35 Hobbes’
eyewitness of the conflict must have been a similar factor in his
creation of Leviathan, as they both repudiate any non-monarchical
form of power - the essence of Hobbes' historical and political
•hilosophy.36
The debate over the origins of the English Civil War
continued between Tory and Whig historians into the eighteenth
century. One heavily influential interpretation was presented by
Scottish historian and philosopher David Hume (1711 - 1776).
In his six-volume set entitled The History o f England, Hume
attempted to provide an unbiased approach to the debate which
had become infested with Tory and Whig party polemics.
The origins of the war, according to Hume, arose from a
constitutional crisis developing from English society’s long­
standing attempts to find a suitable balance of liberty and order.
Hume had stated in a treatise entitled “On the Origin of
Government” that in all governments “there is a perpetual
intestine struggle, open or secretly, between Authority and
Liberty.”37 This sentiment is a common theme in many o f his
writings. In contrast to many earlier historians who believed
that the conflict originated in religious turmoil, Hume suggested
that it was a political contest revolving around liberty and
authority.38 Parliament, not the crown, instigated much of the
conflict, with intentions to increase liberty for Englishmen.
 137
The English Civil War

Although this struggle was evident throughout all English history,

one only had to look to the reigns of James 1 and Charles I to
discover this battle at work.
Hume noticed men in James’ parliaments who were
interested in ideologies of popular rule, due to their growing
financial power over the last century, combined with religious
doctrines of Puritanism, which divided these men from the
aspirations of James.-9 This observance has similarities to the
interpretation of Hobbes, who noted the importance of liberal
ideologies taught in the universities. The aspirations of these
men were exacerbated with Charles’ attempt to extract as much
wealth from Parliament as possible. Due to Charles’ encroaching
royal prerogative, certain subjects became aware of the king’
threats to their liberty. In numerous conflicts between the crow
and Parliament, Hume attested that it was the principle of liberty
that was foremost at stake. On the issue of ship money, although
Hampden lost his case, he had “obtained by the trial the end [;].
. . [t]he people were roused from their lethargy, and became
sensible of the danger, to which their liberties were exposed."40
The cause of the English Civil War could be reduced to what
was perceived as constant threats primarily to the political, and
second, religious liberties o f Charles’ subjects. Ironically, once
these men were able to take control of the government with the
forced summoning of the Long Parliament, they too began to
restrict political and religious liberties that they had apparently
fought so hard to gain.41
It was not until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that a
conclusion was evident regarding the constitutional battle
between liberty and order, parliament and crown. This event
marked a new constitutional era, which Hume admitted was, in
the end, a positive result whereby the most acceptable balance
of liberty and order in English history was procured. Hume
decreed when concluding H istory, that “we, in this island, have
138
The Mirror
ever since enjoyed, if not the best system of government, at least
the most entire system of liberty, that ever was known amongst
mankind.”42
In assessing Hume's historiographical influences, it is
essential to note that he viewed this period to be the most
important era in English history, which is evident by the order in
which Hume completed his various volumes. The first volume
of History, published in 1754, investigated the reigns of the first
two Stuart kings, followed by a second volume focused on the
period from Charles’ execution to the Glorious Revolution. With
these volumes finished, Hume worked in reverse chronological
fashion from the House ofTudor to the invasion of Julius Caesar.
This demonstrates how integral the Civil War and its effects were
to the development of the English political system which he
espoused.43 Because of this, it may be possible that Hume
embellished the historical significance of many of the events since
he had a natural bias of the importance of these situations.
Hume's philosophy o f history is equally important. To
Hume, history was a method in which to discover “general truths
about man, politics and society.”44 Historians could investigate
human societies o f the past to discover facts useful in the
exploration contemporary society, similar to how scientists
observe their surroundings to reach conclusions on the laws of
nature. Hume desired to examine various issues of the Civil
War - such as the causes o f the conflict - as an attempt to
understand his own eighteenth-century society, which was heavily
influenced in all sectors by the events of the proceeding century.
Hume intended History to be a popular work, which
would be readable and thus enjoyed by many.45 This may have
been motivated by a desire for wealth, fame, or widespread
political influence. Nevertheless, the fact that Hume intended
his interpretation to be read by a large audience would have had
some influence on his writing. Hume also utilized an extensive
 139
The English Civil War

number of sources in his research. Various government

manuscripts and a large body of historical works on the topic are
documented through the use o f footnotes. Thus, it is interesting
to examine the progress of the discipline of history from the time
of Hobbes until Hume. While Hobbes’ work, a contemporary
document, made little reference to any other interpretations, Hume
utilized the extensive literature, which had begun to compile by
the time that Hume began to write History. It was in 1752 that
Hume began to write the first volume of History only after he
had secured the post of librarian of the Faculty of Advocates in
Edinburgh. This post provided access to a number of important
documents and publications, which allowed for extensive
research which Hume utilized in his mammoth work.46 Hume's
research and use of documentation represents the progression of
the historical method evident in Enlightenment historiography
an era, which signified the transition from “antiquarianism
“professionalization” within the historian’s craft.47
Hume intended to create an unbiased account of Englii
history,48 yet his views on the causes as well as other aspects 01
the Civil War must be considered “anti-Whig." By asserting
that Parliament, rather than the crown, had been the aggressor in
the conflict. Hume was repudiating the classic Whig interpretation
that Charles had been gradually increasing his prerogative and
Parliament was simply defending their ancient rights. Hume s
six volume coipus ends with an acerbic attack on the W higs,
who “for a course of near seventy years, has, almost without
interruption . . . proved destructive to the truth o f history."49 If
Hume’s work seemed impartial to the reader, these last pages
provide insight into Hume’s personal beliefs. Some have even
seen this attack as an envious reaction towards various Whi
(JO (jo

sympathizers who controlled aspects of British society durin

Hume’s time.50
Despite this, Hume attested that he was not a Tory
140
The Mirror
historian since he considered himself a proponent of liberty and
believed that the Tories had a penchant for excessive authority.
In an essay written before he commenced H istory, Hume
remarked that refutation o f a particular party does not
automatically confirm that an individual supports the other party.51
Nevertheless, a historical debate still exists on Hume’s true
polemic intentions. This demonstrates that not only are there
many historical interpretations on important debates such as the
causes of the English Civil War - there is also a prevalent debate
on numerous historiographic investigations of interpretations,
which have become important to the debate at hand. In other
words, the analyzers are now the ones being analyzed, and just
as there are numerous positions on the Civil War, there are many
explanations of Hume’s intentions in History. Possibly most valid
to regard him as an “Establishment” historian who believed
at the current constitutional monarchy of the Hanoverians52 was,
s he wrote in History, the best form of government that had yet
been created by man.
Regardless of Hume’s failure to create an impartial
account of the English Civil War, he was successful in writing a
work, which would become a standard account of the conflict
for over a century. Within this period, the transition from
“antiquarianism” to “professionalization” of historical study,
which Hume wrote within was complete, represented by the new
so-called scientific historical method of the German school lead
by Leopold von Ranke. This new technique was based on heavy
integration of primary documents along with the growth of the
historical discipline in various universities.53 It was not until the
work of nineteenth century Victorian historian Samuel Rawson
Gardiner (1829 - 1902) that a new popular account of the conflict
incorporated these developments.54 Gardiner based his studies
on extensive manuscript research, supplemented by investigations
of various continental documents which gave him a fresh insight
 141
The English Civil War

on foreign relations at the time.55 Like Hume, however,

Gardiner’s multi-volume History o f Englandfrom the accession
of James 1 to the Outbreak o f Civil war 1603-1642 (1893-6),
was an attempt to provide an unbiased account o f the conflict by
overcoming the Tory- versus-Whig divide that had dominated
the debate for so long.56 Yet Gardiner’s valiant attempt did not
succeed, as his interpretation contained a Whig bias.
Gardiner wrote a number of other books on the Civil War,
including his 1888 student text entitled The First Two Stuarts
and the Puritan Revolution 1603-1660, a concise edition of what
would become History of England.51 In Puritan Revolution,
Gardiner attested that the conflict originated from the quest of
both Parliamentarians and Puritans, despite certain errors, to retain
their rights of liberty, which became abrogated with the growing
tyranny of the Caroline crown. This struggle, however, had
always been present in England. “[E]ach generation is sure to
want something done which the last generation did not want,”
and as a result, rulers wished to prevent these desires from
reaching fruition.58 Specifically, Gardiner traced the origins of
the conflict to the Tudor constitution, an era of expanding royal
prerogative. The ascension of James in 1603 was significant
since he espoused the monarchical theory of divine right,
evidenced by his arbitrary treatment of Parliament. James
constantly desired more funds for the royal coffers but Parliament
continually declined his requests as their fundamental right.
Agitation grew between the two parties, which continued until
his death in 1625.
With the ascension of Charles, the situation grew more
serious. Gardiner was not favourable of the second Stuart king,
noting that he “neither had the energy nor the capacity required
for the wise conduct of affairs.”59 Charles’ attempts to increase
his royal prerogative motivated Parliament to impose a number
of declarations - such as the Petition of Right - its first success in
142
The Mirror
limiting the advances that the crown had made during the Tudor
era. Because of these actions, Charles dissolved Parliament in
1629. Gardiner’s aim to provide an unbiased interpretation is
evident when he stated that Charles should not be criticized for
the dissolution. Following this concession, however, Gardiner
remarked that Parliament now represented the “good-will of [the]
nation,”60 which implies the Commons, not Charles, embodied
the interest of the English people.
The battle between Parliament and Charles was
exacerbated by the religious m eddling o f the Caroline
government, especially by Archbishop Laud. Gardiner noted that
the religious situation in 1633 was still somewhat tolerable which
soon changed in the mid- 1630s when “moderate men” started to
believe that Laud’s reforms represented a “design to bring
England under the papal domination.”61 The Parliamentarians
and the Puritans joined forces in opposition to the crown, and
when combined with growing Scottish rebellion - also motivated
by Laud’s reforms - created an unstable situation for Charles.62
To Gardiner, the Civil War, in effect, commenced with
the execution of Strafford. This particular event represented in a
microcosm the struggle between Parliament and the crown which
had grown over the last half-century. In this battle, the Commons,
in action with religious opposition o f the Puritans, attempted to
subvert the encroaching gains that the crown had made since the
reigns of the Tudors. This contrasts Hume’s position because
although both historians believed the conflict was a struggle of
liberty, Gardiner postulated it was the crown that encroached on
the rights of Parliament, juxtaposed against Hume’s view of a
Parliament, which desired to repeal the traditional rights of the
English monarchy. Parallel to Hume, how ever, various
historiographical explanations can answer why Gardiner believed
his position.
Gardiner saw the conflict through the viewpoint of a
 143
The English Civil War

liberal Victorian.63 This attribute affected him in three ways: his

stress of the importance of religious toleration; his view o f the
greatness of the British constitution; and his strong nationalism.
In terms of the first effect, Gardiner wrote during an age o f
growing antagonism between religious orthodoxy and dissent.
It has been suggested that Gardiner’s attempt at creating an
impartial view of religious elements present in the conflict was a
polemical attempt to consolidate this pressing question during
his own era.64 Although Gardiner had recently converted to the
Church of England, he was for much of his life a member o f the
dissident millennial sect called Irvingitism.65 He had witnessed
the pain that religious prejudice had on his life, including the
problems it had presented in his professional career as a*
academic.66
Gardiner’s belief in the glory of the British Constitute
a view held by many Victorians, also affected his thesis. Hl
believed many of the measures of the Parliamentarians and
Puritans were quite harsh, yet their promotion of liberty influenced
the modern constitution that Gardiner deemed so strong. Even
the title of his work attests to the tremendous political and
religious transformations that occurred during this period,
eventually influencing the modern political system Gardiner and
other Victorians enjoyed. This is related to the third supposition
of liberal Victorian influence - his strong British nationalism.
The preface of Puritan Revolution stated that “in England, happier
than France or Germany, the problem of religious liberty was
worked out in close connection with the problem of parliamentary
government.”67 This statement must be considered in conjunction
with trends present in many European nations at the end of the
nineteenth century, an age o f rampant nationalism and
imperialism, which lead to the outbreak of war in 1914. During
this time it was France, and most notably the new German Empire,
that posed a threat to the industrial and imperial hegemony of
144
The Mirror
the British Empire. Gardiner attempted to construct an unbiased
history of the conflict, yet he saw no problem with attacking his
nation's bitter rivals on the first page o f his work. It has been
suggested that Gardiner's attempt to create a history to overcome
party polemics was motivated by a desire for national unity.68
Possibly this desire itself was triggered by various international
threats to Britain's hegemony during the years leading to the turn
of the century and the First World War.
Another consideration, which affected Gardiner’s position
is his distant relation to one of the most prolific and controversial
Parliamentarian figures of the conflict, Oliver Cromwell.69 Like
many historians with familial lies to figures they study, Gardiner’s
elation to Cromwell must have had some impact on the scholar’s
Whig bias. This may have been a factor in why Gardiner felt he
needed to end Puritan Revolution with a reference to the Glorious
Revolution, since ending the book with the restoration of 1660
(as the title eludes it shall end) would have hinted at Tory victory
and Whig defeat.70 This section serves a dual purpose as
Gardiner's time admiration for his ancestor becomes evident. He
conceded that 1688 does not at first seem like a victory for
Cromwell’s aspirations, yet he soon eluded that all the fine
traditions o f peaceful British rule, which distinguishes his nation
from the rest of Europe have “become possible because all the
reasonable objections of Cromwell . . . have been satisfactorily
met.”71 It is here too, that the significance o f Puritan Revolution
as a school text becomes obvious. By instilling in the minds of
young people that their excellent government would not be
possible without the actions o f his ancestor Cromwell, Gardiner
guaranteed that the next generation o f British subjects would
respect the institutions that have made the Empire so magnificent,
and also remember Cromwell in a fine light since he was partly
responsible for the origins o f this most excellent form of rule.
Despite the difference in opinion between Hobbes, Hume
 145
The English Civil War

and Gardiner, all three shared one similar characteristic - they all
resided in Britain. It is useful to change perspective and consider
the interpretations of continental European historians. Nineteenth
century Frenchman François Guizot ( 1787 - 1874) provides such
an example. Guizot wrote his interpretation after the French
Revolution and demonstrates the influence that other liberal
revolutions had on the changing historical perceptions regarding
the English Civil War. Guizot wrote in his 1826 work History of
the English Revolution72 that the conflict was “the greatest event
which Europe had to narrate’’73 and in his 1825 lectures compiled
in the anthology H istory o f Civilization in Europe, Guizot
investigated the history of representative institutions in Europe
from the beginnings of civilization until the French Revolution.
One lecture was spent solely on the causes and effects of the
English Civil War. Guizot utilized the term “revolution” when
referring to the conflict, which hitherto had not been used in
reference to the English Civil War.74 With this, it is important |
outline Guizot’s interpretation on the debate at hand.
To Guizot, society in seventeenth-century Englarn
similar to pre-revolution France, represented the end of a powei
struggle between the crown, aristocracy, and clergy. Until this
period, these three factions had kept each other’s aspirations in
check, resulting in continued progress of European civilization.
The “people” started to conceive that for progress to continue,
they would have to claim from the “crown liberty, of the
aristocracy equality, of the clergy the rights of human intellect.”75
This was inevitable since the emergence of a new governing class
guaranteed the continued progress the former ruling classes had
created.
In History o f Civilization, Guizot attested that under the
rule of the Tudors, royal prerogative in England reached its height.
At the same time, however, the various crowns in continental
Europe were strengthening their interests but with much more
146
The Mirror
dramatic methods. Nonetheless, the key importance of this period
in England was the emergence of a more systematic and effective
monarchy. In terms o f religious matters, the continental
reformation was more complete than in England, were this event
was due more to the work of Henry VIII and his successors. The
impetus for reform that led to the reformation throughout all of
Europe, still existed in many forms in England. These motives
would soon reappear in popular form with the attack o f the
English episcopacy by religious reformers, while at the same time
royal power began to be assaulted by gentlemen whose rapid
accumulation of wealth created a desire for political liberty.76
The influence of intellectual factors growing from the time of
Elizabeth, an “era of lofty and fertile imaginations,"77 added to
the movement. Guizot felt that whenever such strong intellectual
currents are present in society, the desire for liberty will grow in
o a demand, and as a result, governments must heed to such
pressure. Unlike on the continent, England had a tradition of
liberal institutions and documents such as Parliament and the
Magna Carta, which provided a “fulcrum and a means of action"
for the parties that desired change.78 These four factors found
solely in England - the need for complete religious reform, the
desire for political reform, the growth of intellectualism, and a
liberal tradition - represented to Guizot the causes of the English
Civil War. The result was the first liberal revolution that would
eventually reach the continent in 1789 with the outbreak of
revolution in France.
Guizot’s interpretation of the conflict demonstrate many
historiographical influences. Most essential in Guizot's writings
was his strong French nationalism combined with a practical
conception o f history based on cumulative knowledge. The
central aim of his studies was to provide harmony to France in a
time when the nation had been ravaged by over thirty years of
political and social instability. Guizot believed that the study of
 147
The English Civil War

history could provide France with the solution to end its current
problems. France had always been at the center o f European
civilization, and would continue to be so if it could find a stable
political system that guaranteed the continuation o f progress -
the key theme of Guizot’s writings.79 With the onset o f the French
Revolution, Guizot affirmed that his countrymen could now
analyze the same conflict which took place in England over a
century ago with greater historical insight since they themselves
had witnessed a similar liberal revolution in their own country.
The true solution for stability in France was a constitutional
monarchy similar to post-1688 England, a form of government
that did not compromise liberty and progress.80
Not only was history a factor in Guizot’s endorsement of
constitutional monarchy, but events in his personal life had le'
him to such conclusions. His parents’ marriage had not bee
recognized during the Ancient Regime since his mother was
Protestant. As well, a young Guizot had witnessed his father’s
death at the hands of the Jacobine Terror. It has been suggested
that the result was Guizot's dislike of both absolutism and
republicanism, and thus only the moderation of a constitutional
monarchy could be the best form of rule for France.81
Along with these factors, Guizot’s deep admiration for
English society reflected his writings and political preferences.
He loved many English intellectual currents and edited many
works o f Shakespeare,82 which is connected to Guizot’s
comparison of the English and French Revolutions. Like the
influence that French philosophes such as Voltaire, Rousseau and
Montesquieu had on French political consciousness, one gets
the impression that Guizot attempted to note further similarities
between both events by including the intellectual trends present
in England as a reason for its own so-called revolution.
Guizot was a leading member o f the Doctrinaires, an
influential clique of liberal intellectuals. To the Doctrinaires,
148
The Mirror
France's instability since the dawn of the revolutionary age had
been the result of Einseitgkiet, or "the fault of only seeing one
side of things.”83 Some have suggested that it was this moderate
philosophy that separates G uizot’s seem ingly W higgish
interpretation from others. Although his writings demonstrate
the positive nature and outcome of the English conflict, he still
maintained a balanced view of Charles’ rule.84 G uizot’s
endorsement o f understanding various positions may have
influenced his extensive and varied use of sources within his
scholarship. The preface o f History o f the English Revolution
notes that he examined both contemporary and modern
interpretations, along with contemporary French documents
elating to the conflict. Guizot once again bound England and
ranee, stating that his research led him to conclude that the
‘French public was more occupied than is imagined with the
English Revolution; many pamphlets were published in France
for and against it . . ,”85 This integrated relationship between
both nations was symbolic of Guizot’s belief in the unity of
European civilization. Likewise, both situations in sixteenth-
century England and later seventeenth-century France were the
outcome o f emerging political, religiou s, econom ic, and
intellectual factors - amalgamating to result in revolution - which
to Guizot was an inevitable result of these recent developments.
The twentieth century marked a turning point in the study
o f the English Civil War as some historians repudiated scientific
historians’ claims of objectivity and began look at the conflict
through the eyes of the burgeoning field o f social history.86
Consequently, Guizot’s concept of inevitability in the English
Civil War would be expanded in the twentieth century by a
number of Marxist historians, namely Christopher Hill (1912 -
2003), who added a fresh impetus to debate that had been growing
for three centuries.
Oxford Professor Christopher Hill’s essay “The English
 149
The English Civil War

Revolution/' published as a Marxist reader on the tricentennial

of the conflict, refuted the two classic schools of thought that
had been dominant since the conflict. Hill conceded that the
Whig view of liberal struggle had validity, yet he retorted that
their victory was only beneficial for the “richer classes in
society.”87 The classic Tory interpretation - developing from a
distrust of the liberalism advocated by anti-monarchical forces
and carried on by the Whigs - was the result of a lack of historical
understanding.88 It is only a Marxist interpretation, according to
Hill, that truly comprehends the causes of the conflict. Unlike
both classic views, Marxist historians understand that the origins
of the conflict must be analyzed by investigating the social
structure of this period rather than individuals, a flaw which H’
accused the classic interpretations of practicing.89
Hill’s Marxist conception was based on a number of factors. Mv
important, the conflict was an inevitable outcome of thv
progression from feudal society to capitalism. This was evident
in various developments in trade, agriculture, and industry. In
order for the development of capitalism to continue, Hill attested
that the conflict was the result of attempts from a new emerging
progressive capitalist class, entitled the “bourgeoisie,” to break
free from the yoke of a constricting, traditional, feudal society.90
The clash of social classes also led to religious and foreign
policy divisions. The Church of England defended the feudal
order and was used by the crown as a means of propaganda,
while the emerging capitalist class desired a reformed religion
that would suit its own needs.91 Hill noted that unlike the so-
called bourgeoisie, the feudal class supported the “reactionary”
alliance with Spain which resulted in lost opportunities for
economic expansion in the Americas.
What resulted was the feudal class’ attempt to maintain
its dominant social position, which was threatened by the
capitalist cla ss’ increasing economic leverage. The crown -
150
The Mirror
representing the old order - thus began to arbitrarily tax the
capitalist class. This met with much resistance, evident with the
ship money issue. By the time Charles was forced to summon
Parliament in 1640, the so-called revolution had begun, and “the
bourgeoisie had gone on strike.”92
Further evidence of Hill’s Marxist interpretation could
be found in the restoration o f the English crown in 1660.
Although Charles II claimed to have pretensions o f divine right,
Hill remarked that the monarch’s true power originated from the
capitalists, as Charles II did not have any executive authority
independent from Parliament.93 By extension of Hill’s argument,
it could also be said that the Glorious Revolution kept the
revolution of 1640 in check as the capitalists once again removed
a monarch sympathetic to the old order, and replaced him with
William III, a king much more sympathetic to the bourgeoisie’s
nterests.
Hill’s writings were heavily influenced by Marxist theory.
Marx’s Das Capital, for example, is often quoted in his essay.
Hill had become a member of the British Communist Party
following what he perceived to be the failure of capitalism during
the Great Depression.94 Hill also utilized Marxist speech in his
essay. Not only was the conflict a “class war,” but the bourgeoisie,
a M arxist term to start, were “ le ft-w in g Protestant
revolutionaries.”95 Despite the historical anachronism of using
such jargon, it could be concluded that Hill chose these terms to
make the English Civil War seem relevant to his time. “This . .
. has been the purpose,” Hill wrote o f his essay, for “an
understanding o f the problems and ideas of the seventeenth
century will help us solve the problems o f today.”96 In other
words, he desired to endorse Marxist historical understanding,
and thus a promotion of Marxist principles in general.
Hill’s sudden interest in Marxism during the 1930s led
to a journey to the Soviet Union in 1935, and as a result, the
 151
The English Civil War

interpretations o f numerous Soviet historians had a large influence

on Hill's conception of the English Civil War.97 Also related to
Hill’s use of sources, it is interesting that Hill was the first of
five historians studied in this paper to observe the “price
revolution” in its most accurate detail.98 Hill had the advantage
of drawing from a generation of social historians who
comprehended this phenomenon to a higher degree compared to
previous historians. This information was also key in his
formulation o f a bourgeois revolution in England during the
seventeenth century. Hill dealt with a large amount of criticism
throughout his scholarly career, due to his radical position in the
eyes of the western academic world. Opponents criticized his
selective use of sources, which exaggerated social conditions
integral to his argument. Despite this, Hill continued to espouse
his Marxist interpretation with small variations throughout h
lengthy career.99
Like all of the historians studied in this paper, tl
influence of the time in which Hill wrote must be noted. Hit
composed his controversial essay during the Second World War
and it has been suggested that it was to be his Marxist testament
were he to perish during the war.100 Hill attacked modern liberal
capitalists in his essay by comparing their ignorant desire for
laissez-faire capitalism to the wish of the seventeenth-century
feudal class to retain their dominant social position.101 The essay
concludes with a call for revolution, noting that without action,
the seventeenth-century bourgeoisie would have never defeated
the old parasitic order. With the ambience of a Marxist
revolutionary, Hill’s last words provided the purpose for his essay:
“We still have much to learn from the seventeenth century”.102
This statement has two meanings: it was a call for historians to
continue to study the Civil War and a cry to regular citizens to
loose their chains like their ancestors had exactly three centuries
ago.
152
The Mirror
Hill's Marxist approach, despite numerous criticisms, was
useful in the progression of Civil War historiography by providing
new viewpoints based on social factors. Nevertheless, since Hill’s
time many new trends in historiography have emerged. Starting
in the 1970s, some scholars, known as “Revisionists,” began to
attack earlier historians for exaggerating the deep-rooted political,
social, and religious causes of the conflict. They claimed that
many earlier viewpoints were inaccurate due to the use of
historical hindsight which distorted the influence of such factors.
As the debate moves into the twenty-first century, there is a
growing reaction to these recent objections, which have coalesced
under the umbrella of “Post-Revisionism.” This new school
criticizes the Revisionists for their subsequent overemphasis of
short-term causes. New areas o f study, based on increasing
scholarship in Stuart Wales and Scotland, a return to the
importance of ideology, a new look at literary sources, and fresh
insights on Stuart government structure, have guaranteed that
the debate on the causes of the English Civil War will remain as
controversial as it has for over three hundred years.103
The preceding investigation o f these five great historians,
along with aspects, which have only begun to em erge,
demonstrates the vitality of historical debate. It is not possible
to “pick a side” since all of these historians have arguments which
have remained strong, as others have fallen by the wayside as
new research and modern ideologies emerge. Hobbes, even in
the seventeenth century realized the importance o f intellectual
factors, which although exaggerated and tainted with prejudice,
was present in the conflict. Hume and Gardiner, although failing
in their attempts at complete objectivity, ironically promoted
historical understanding by demonstrating that an unbiased
approach to history is impossible. Guizot, although negating
some o f the dissimilar characteristics of the English Civil War
and the French Revolution, nonetheless provided a stimulating
 153
The English Civil War

study of two events, which have immense historical significance.

Hill, by incorporating new information generated by the influx
of social history, utilized the ideology o f Marxism to create an
interpretation that challenged the status quo o f the time. What
binds all of these historians together is their drive to improve
their own societies with the lessons that the English Civil War
provided. For this, their works are immeasurable.
In summary, the preceding historiographical analysis
demonstrates how different cultural, personal, historical, and
methodological influences have shaped historians’ perceptions
of the past. It is interesting that in a debate with a magnitude of
historical importance such as the causes of the English Civil War,
one can only begin to truly comprehend the issues at stake once
the motivations o f various historians have been uncovered. A
study of historiography can also assist a student of history to
understand w hy they them selves agree with various
interpretations within the debate. Once this occurs, the student
becomes a part of this exciting historical dilemma, one which
has been around for over three centuries, and as recent scholarship
has demonstrated, shows no signs of disappearing.

NOTES

'Many historians have used different terms when referring to the topic at hand.
Although some utilize the term “English Revolution," I prefer “English Civil
War” or “the conflict.” both of which will be used in the majority of this paper. I
will, however, use the term “revolution” if the historian, which I am investigating
has used the term.
"Austin Woolrych. “The English Revolution: an introduction.” in The English
Revolution: 1600-1660 (London: Edward Arnold. J968). 8-9.
3John Merriman. A History of Modern Europe: From Renaissance to the Present
(New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1996). 234.
4Woolrych. 12-13.
5Merriman. 238.
154
The Mirror
6Barry Coward. The Stnan Age: England, J603-1714, 3,d ed. (London: Pearson
Education, 2003) 168.
1lbid., 174.
sMerriman, 237.
9Samuel Rawson Gardiner, The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution:
1603-1660 (New York: Thomas Crowell Company. 1970 [1888)). 55. As well, it
did not help matters that Charles* wife. Henrietta Maria, was Catholic.
l0Merriman. 239. Since the 1560s Scotland's national faith had been Presbyterian,
strongly related to Calvinist principles. The Scots saw the Common Prayer Book
as both a religious imposition and an act of political domination.
u lbid„ 240.
,2Woolrych. 15.
^Robert Ashton. The English Civil War: Consennlisnt and Revolution, 1603-
1649. 2,kl ed. (London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson. 1989). 130.
14Merriman. 242.
,sWoolrych. 16-18.
I6Memman, 243.
]1lbid., 236-7.
]Slbid., 259.
9An argument could be made that Hobbes was more precisely a "proto-Tory."
incc the debate between Tories and Whigs did not begin to reach its full potential
jntil approximately the turn of the 18* century. Yet Hobbes’ position was based
on a belief of strong royal prerogative and thus could be interpreted as being
simply “Tory.” which his work, for ease of omprchension. will be regarded as in
this paper.
20Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth or Long Parliament, ed. Ferdinand Tonnics, 2nd ed.
(London: Frank Cass & Co., 1969 [1682]), 17.
21
Hobbes did not write of various instances in late medieval history when
monarchs influenced the affairs of the Church. The Babylonian Captivity, for
example, signifies a crisis which significantly weakened the papacy. Similar to
Hobbes’ views, however, this conflict concerned matters of church authority, not
spiritual dogma.
22Hobbes. Behemoth. 19-20.
73Ibid., 23.
24Robert P Kraynak.
History and Modernity in the Thought o f Thomas Hobbes (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press. 1990). 54.
 755
The English Civil War

~ Hobbes. Behemoth. 40.

26Ibid., 57-8.
21Ibid, 68.
n Ibid, 95.
~9Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan, ed. by J. C. A. Gaskin (Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 1996 [1651 J). i. It is possible that Hobbes’ time spent in France during this
period may have influenced his writings, especially when considering that France
was ruled by a strong monarchy that would eventually evolve into the absolutist
monarchy of Louis XIV.
30Memman, 244.
'Hobbes. Leviathan, i.
3“Hobbes. Behemoth, 204.
" ib id , 56-7.
MKraynak. 34.
Hobbes, Leviathan, 84.
?6Kraynak, 32.
7David Hume, David Hume's Political Essays, ed. Charles W. Hendel (New
York: Bobbs-Merril Company, 1953), xxix.
38David Hume. History o f England: From the Invasion o f Julius Caesar to The
Revolution in 1688. vol. 5. (Indianapolis: LibertyClassics. 1983 [1778]). 303.
39Ibid., 36.
40/bid., 248.
41Ibid., 302-3.
'"Hume. History o f England, vol. 6. 531.
43Victor G. Wexler, David Hume and the History of England (Philadelphia: The
American Philosophical Society, 1979), viii.
Hume. Political Essays, 104.
45Wex!er. 17.
46Hume, Political Essays, vii.
47WexIer. 10!.
J*There are many passages that demonstrate Hume’s desire to create an
unbiased account of history. For example, Hume described the G rand
Rem onstrance as consisting of “many gross falsehoods, interm ingled w ith
som e evident truths.” (Hume. History o f England, vol, 5., 353) H um e,
ironically, attempted to create an unbiased account by purposely attack in g
the accepted position o f the Whigs.
156
The Mirror
44Hume. H istory o f England. vol. 6. 5 3 1.
"W exler, 8.
"Ib id ., 23.
52Lucian Boia. ed. et al.. G reat H istorians fro m Antiquity to 1800: A n
International D ictionary (N ew York: G reenw ood Press, 1989). 1 18.
53R. C R ichardson. The D ebate on the English Revolution.. 3rd ed.
(M anchester: M anchester U niversity. 1998) 82. For example o f this
growth o f the historical discipline in universities one only has to consider
the birth o f independent faculties of History at both Oxford and
Cam bridge in the early 1870s.
^G ardiner had a fond adm iration for the work o f von Ranke, stating that
Ranke’s own w ork on the conflict entitled H istory o f England P rincipally
in the Seventeenth Century w as “ by far the best general history o f the
period.” (G ardiner, xviii)
55Timothy Lang. The Victorians and the Stuart Heritage: Interpretations
o f D iscordant /Y/.svWisharl Ltd. 1940.
5hRichardson, 92.
57Evcn modern books intended for students regarding the English Civil
War can be quite polemic. A recent children’s text stated that C h arles I
was “extremely stubborn, the sort who would never give in.” (B renda
^alph Lewis, Kings and Q ueens Book 2 (Leicestershire. United
Kingdom: Ladybird Books. 1986). 20].
5sGardiner, 7.
59Ibid., 50.
MIbid., 75.
"Ibid., 93.
“ Ibid., 107-10.
631bid., ix.
“ Long, 140.
650 n e reason for G ardiner’s conversion was that the scientific historical
method contradicted the Irvingile belief that the Bible should be
interpreted in a literal m anner (Ibid., 147).
66Ibid.
“ Gardiner, xvii.
“ Long, 163.
69Lucian Boia, ed. et al.. G reat H istorians o f the M odem Age: A n
International D ictionary (N ew York: G reenw ood Press, 1991). 199.
70Gardiner, xv.
11Ibid., 212.
 157
The English Civil War
7*The preface to H istory o f the English R evolution is contained in Guizot s
Historical Essay am i Lectures.
' François Guizot, H istorical Essays an d Lectures, ed. by Stanley Mellon ,
University o f Chicago Press, 1972), 128.
7JRichardson. 87.
7'G uizot. H istorical Essays, 132-33.
7f,François Guizot. The H istory o f Civilization in Europe, trans. by William
Hazlitt (New York: A.L. Burt Company, 19?), 278-80. This resource has
no date given. Guizot presented these lectures in 1825 and Weldon
Library provides only “ 19?” concerning its English publication
11Ibid., 280 .
nIbid., 280 - 1.
7vGuizot, H istorical Essays, xviii.
S0(lbid.. xiv). Guizot’s first political pamphlet entitled Du Government
Représentatif, et de T Etat actuel de la France was a treatise on the strengths of
constitutional monarchy, written at a lime when this belief put him in a minority
in France. (Guizot, History of Civilization, ix) As well. Guizot is remembered lor
his ministerial post in the government of the July Monarchy, which embodied
many of the principles of government that Guizot endorsed in his writings. But
Guizot held this position after the completion of History o f Civilization and
History o f the English Revolution, thus his political position should not be
considered an influence in both of these writings. Even after the fall of the July
Monarchy following the Revolution of 1848. however. Guizot continued to
endorse constitutional monarchy as evident in several more of his polemic
histories, including Why Was the Revolution in England So uccessful? (1850) with
the similar basic positions held in his earlier writings (Richardson, 87-8).
Guizot. History o f Civilization. Hi.
S ')
' "Guizot. Historical Essays, xxii.8345
83
Ibid., xxxvii.
84Ibid.
85Ibid., 139.
“ Richardson, 113. One o f the first historians to look at the English Civil
War through this eyes of social history was R.H. Tawney (1880-1962),
whose works, including The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth C entury
( 1912) and Religion and the Rise o f Capitalism ( 1926), investigated how
the rise o f capitalism affected various areas o f sixteenth-century E nglish
society (Richardson, 114-5).
s7C hristopher Hill, “The English Revolution.” In The English R evolution,
640: Three Essays (London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd. 1940), 1 1.
158
The Mirror
™lbid., 12.
wIbid.. 56.
y0There are sim ilarities between Guizot's and H ill’s conceptions o f a new
progressive group that emerged victorious from the conflict. However,
unlike Guizot. H ill's argument was based on the promotion o f a new
“class.” intent on creating a new economic and social system , while
Guizot’s was a revolt of the third “order” desiring political liberty. Yet
both Guizot and Marx lived in Paris during an era when the city was
described as “the Paris of François Guizot " (Guizot. H istorical Essays,
xix) and it is possible that the Frenchman’s ideas would have influenced
Marx.
'Hill, 47.
2Ibid., 53.
n lbid., 76.
"R ichardson. 128.
95Ibid.. 9. 44.
961bid., 7-8.
"R ichardson, 125.
9sHilI. 21. The Price Revolution is an um brella term referring to the
phenomenon o f rising prices throughout E urope during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.
"W illiam G. Palmer. “The Burden o f Proof: JH H exter and C hristopher
Hill,” Jo urnal o f British Studies 1 9 , no. 1 (1979) 123.
100Richardson, 126.
10lHiIl, 81.
,0-7bid.. 81-2.
lu;,Coward, xiv-xxi.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashton. Robert. The English Civil War: C onservatism and R evolution,

¡603-1649. 2 11“ ed. London: W iedenfeld and N icolson, 1989.

Boia, L ucian, et al., ed. G reat H istorians fr o m A ntiquity to 1800: An

International D ictionary. New York: G reenw ood P ress, 1989.

---- . G reat H istorians o f the M o d em A ge: A n International D ictionary.

N ew York: G reenw ood Press, 1991.
 159
The English Civil War
Coward. Barry. The Stuart Age: England, 1603-1714. 3,d ed. London:
Pearson Education. 2003.

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan
Revolution: 1603-1660. New York: Thomas Crowell Company,
1970. Originally published in 1888.

Guizot, François. Historical Essays and Lectures. Edited by Stanley

M ellon. University of Chicago Press, 1972. Contains the Preface
to G uizot's History o f the English Revolution, originally
published in 1826.

— . The H istory o f Civilization in Europe. Translated by William Hazlitt.

New York: A.L. Burt Company, 19?. This resource has no date
given. Guizot presented these lectures in 1825 and Weldon
Library only provides “ 19?” concerning its English publication.

Hobbes, Thom as. Behemoth o r Long Parliament. Edited by Ferdinanc

Tonnies, 2nded. London: Frank Cass & Co., 1969. Originally
published posthum ously in 1688.

— . Leviathan. Edited by J. C. A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1996. Originally published in 1651.

Hill. Christopher. “The English Revolution.” In The English Revolution,

1640: Three Essays. London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1940.

— . H um e, David. D avid H um e’s Political Essays. Edited by Charles W.

H endel. New York: Bobbs-Mcrril Company, 1953.

History o f England: From the Invasion o f Julius Caesar to The Revolution

in 1688. 6 vols. Indianapolis: LibertyCIassics, 1983. Hume
continually revised History. This source is based on H um e's final
edition, first published in 1778.

Kraynak, Robert P. History and Modernity in the Thought o f Thomas

H obbes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1990.
160
T he M irror
Lang. Tim othy. The Victorians a n d the Stuart H eritage: Interpretations o f
D iscordant Past. C am bridge: Cam bridge University Press. 1995.

Lew is. B renda Ralph. Kings and Q ueens Book 2. Leicestershire. United
K ingdom : Ladybird Books, 1986.

M errim an. John. A H istory o f M odern Europe: From R enaissance to the

Present. New York: W. W. Norton & Com pany. 1996.

Palmer, W illiam G. “The Burden o f Proof: J.H. H exter and C hristopher

H ill.” Journal o f B ritish Studies 19, no. 1 (1979): 122.

Richardson, R. C. The D ebate on the English R evolution. 3rd cd.

M anchester: M anchester University, 1998.

Wexler. V ictor G. D avid Hume and the H istoiy o f England. Philadelphia:

The Am erican Philosophical Society, 1979.

W oolrych, A ustin. “The English Revolution: an introduction.” In The

English Revolution: 1600-1660. London: Edw ard A rnold. 1968.