Part Representation and the Public

Download 2.07 Mb.
Size2.07 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5
aption: This 1709 Tory satire suggests that there was a hidden republican and anti-clerical agenda behind the work of the Whig, Low Church polemicist Benjamin Hoadly (the Whig canon of authors, of which Locke is the last, stand in the bookshelf). Hoadly himself invited readers to guess at his meaning, since on at least one occasion he wrote impersonating a Tory. But the image also asks us to confer meaning: is the axe raised to execute Hoadly? The ‘truth’ and ‘meaning’ was thus both disguised and created by the partisan reader.
Moreover, 'science' has been reinterpreted as a public activity. Public science and public politics relied on rather similar bases. 'Popular lectures and cheap pamphlets smashed the boundaries of public education. And Whig coffee-houses formed the matrix of Newtonian persuasion'.175 Science adopted the rhetoric of public interest and hence 'it was the public that would increasingly be the arbiter of the value of natural philosophy in the first half of the eighteenth century'.176 There is also an intriguing, though by no means straightforward correlation, between Newtonians and whiggery.177 But the most important way in which the study of the history of science overlaps with that of publicly contested politics has to do with the nature of truth, of fact, of credit, credibility and judgement. These are social and scientific constructs. But, as might already be apparent from the discussion so far, such concepts are political as well. Political contest turned on the credibility of key participants, on how the public could be informed of political ‘truths’ and how the public might judge what was politically true. At a national level public credit and party identity rested on partisan truth-claims and credibility. Given this overlap it is important to review some of the recent literature about science, for it contains valuable concepts that are applicable to any study of public politics and political discourse. Since students of political culture might not be familiar with such literature it is worth sketching some of its features.

A ground-breaking book by Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer focused on the controversy between Thomas Hobbes and Robert Boyle over how knowledge should be constructed.178 Shapin and Schaffer contrasted the experimental methods of Boyle and the Royal Society, with those of Hobbes. Boyle sought to privilege a restricted public space within which free debate and private judgement about uncertain things could flourish. Such a debate could take place without animosity so long as members agreed on certain rhetorical and methodological rules. Yet Hobbesian philosophy sought right reasoning that could enforce assent on a public that included all men. In outlining the differences between Boyle and Hobbes, Shapin and Schaffer recognised that 'solutions to the problem of knowledge are solutions to the problem of social order' and that hence the disagreement over experimentation was a contribution 'to political history as well as to the history of science and philosophy'. Thus, they concluded, 'the solution to the problem of knowledge is political'. Indeed, their book ends with a suggestive section on 'the relationships between knowledge and political organisation'. They (rightly) argue that the history of science occupies the same terrain as the history of politics because scientific practitioners helped create and shape the polity in which they worked and 'the knowledge they produced and authenticated became an element in political action in a wider polity'.179

Shapin took this insight a stage further, or perhaps in a slightly different direction, in his book The Social History of Truth, which argues that truth is as much a social construct as an intellectual one. Thus what is 'true' rests on validation by men of credit, and credit is conferred socially, through wealth and status and ways of talking. Shapin argues that there was a 'special relationship between the idea of a gentleman and the idea of truth-telling. To acquire the reputation of a liar was to endanger membership in gentlemanly society'.180 He suggests that conceptions of free action and virtue were regarded as reliable indicators of truth-telling and contemporaries perceived these to be the qualities of gentlemen. Truth was a matter of collective judgement, decided by the majority, and relied on shared notions of trust. Research by social historians on the use of the courts made by men and women quite low down the social scale to defend their reputation suggests that Shapin's stress on gentility is overstated. But there is also a political history of truth that is largely ignored. Though partisans may have drawn on social status to reinforce truth claims, partisan allegiance could also confer credibility on what might otherwise seem highly implausible or even erroneous; and parties had a credit and credibility that had to be defended through the vindications of individual adherents. Political parties routinely made truth-claims, even though they contradicted one another. As we shall see in future chapters, truth could be something dependent on, even determined by, the authority of party. In some ways, then, we might agree with Barbara Shapiro who has charted the emergence of a probabilistic society in the later seventeenth century, one that accepted degrees of certainty about what was true. On the other hand her more recent suggestion that this was a culture of fact seems far more questionable.181

Collectively these works offer us means of approaching issues that were common to later Stuart politics and its wider religious, political, scientific and cultural context. These were issues of enthusiasm and rationality, certainty and credibility, and public judgement.182 Put crudely, the concern to establish the criteria for establishing truth which had preoccupied religious thinking in the aftermath of the reformation and which also concerned those working in scientific fields, also preoccupied those engaged in publicly partisan politics, who found themselves in a contest to establish credibility with the public. Truth was a political issue. ‘Enlightenment’, if by that term we mean a movement concerned with the rational inquiry and the discernment of ‘truth’, was thus not just the product of science and political thinkers, but also the result of everyday political culture.183 And science provided a new language in which politics could be discussed. For example, the later Stuart period witnessed the flowering of ‘political arithmetic’, the attempt to use the language of certain mathematics to describe the uncertainties of political calculations.184

C. Fiction and Disguise in Public Discourse.
Ideas of credit and credibility have also fascinated economic historians and literary scholars who therefore also have something interesting to tell the student of partisan politics. Craig Muldrew has investigated the early modern economy and concluded that it was one dominated by credit. He argues that such financial credit was dependent on an array of social and religious factors that conferred credibility.185 Muldrew’s work suggests that the type of credit-driven financial revolution that enabled Britain to fight and sustain war was in keeping with a wider economy reliant on notions of credit. The notion of a credit economy has applicability in the political sphere. Parties maintained public credit or their stock would fall. And this credit was created and sustained by public discourse.

A connection has been asserted by Margaret Poovey between the new mercantile economy and the production of fact. She suggests origins for the 'fact' in double-entry book-keeping that relied on converting fictions about credit and money into something that looked like fact. Although stressing the way in which science borrowed from mercantile habits before the later C17th, Poovey also recognises that the financial and scientific revolutions were linked by concerns with objectivity, credibility, credit and impartiality. But, she recognises, these also relate to the partisan struggle between parties which was fuelling debate over the financial revolution. Both experimental observation and political parties made claim to be impartial, disinterested, and true. There is thus a nexus of concepts to do with credit, credibility and credible information that intersect with science, economics, politics and culture. And hence 'inevitably, although in some unpredictable ways, the rise of modern political parties affected the relation between facts and interests'.186

Credit was something constructed, representational, dependent on opinion and therefore in some sense fictional. For this reason, credit has interested literary scholars. Stocks and shares, lotteries and the new forms of finance that constituted the financial revolution of the later Stuart period were both dependent on fictions and helped foster a fictional mentality. Important links have been uncovered between the historical context of the later Stuart period and the development of new forms of fiction, most notably the novel. The literature on this subject is huge and varied.187 But it is possible to discern a number of fictional impulses stemming from the transformation of political culture.

The first is the fictional potential of news. News was contested. A ‘fact’ had to be created; and contemporaries frequently accused each other of inventing the news.188 The second is the epistemological uncertainty created by this but also by a wider contest over meaning. Literary scholars have tended to examine this in relation to contests over religion, economy, and credit. But the analysis can very usefully be extended to embrace partisan political culture. Indeed, this book seeks to demonstrate that the contest over meaning necessarily produced by public political strife was a key element of later Stuart political culture and hence an important element in preparing and stimulating a public appetite for prose fiction. Party polemic is, for this reason, full of interest. A third element to emerge from literary studies is the fictions deployed in historical writing. As we have already seen, partisan politics was embroiled in rival interpretations of the recent and not-so-recent past, which could be condemned by the rival parties as fictitious. We should, then, return to the ‘Whig interpretation of history’ with new eyes, seeing it less as a tired formula insistent on progress and more as a creative, contested and utterly political view of the past. A fourth, rather undeveloped, strand in literary analyses has been to stress the relationship between the conspiratorial, plotting mindset of the later Stuart period and the plot offered by politics to writers.189 Politics offered a narrative peopled with characters and rogues. To this catalogue of fictions we might also add the fiction of party, of a national will, and of the public – all were in some sense abstractions that nevertheless, because they could appear real, exerted real political force.190

Indeed, political fictions were of great concern to contemporaries (and still to us in the twenty first century). The later Stuart period was one fascinated by disguise and dissimulation.191 Steven Zwicker’s studies of the Restoration recreate a world 'where the enterprise of literature is understood as political'.192 As such 'the self-conscious manipulation of language for political interest characterises the dominant mode of political discourse in the later seventeenth century and suggests that an important change had taken place, not only in politics, but also in the perception of language'. At the heart of this manipulation lay a passion for disguise. Zwicker finds deception and deceit to have permeated all genres: in comedy, in epic, in satire, in the rise of fables, and in the refinement of historical parallels so that they became political commentaries. The Advice-to-a-painter genre is a particularly good example. Such a preoccupation with disguise suggests to Zwicker that 'words had come loose from things, and this condition had an effect not only on the way in which political discourse was practised but on discourse in general, on the language of politics and on the language of high culture'. He also speculates that such ambiguity may have been 'a necessary means of political accommodation' and that 'by using the rift between words and things, men brought about change and explained its legitimacy to one another as stasis'. Divorcing words from things thus accommodated conflict.193

Zwicker's analysis, and the detailed study of Dryden on which it is based, is wonderfully suggestive. Above all, it demands two responses: does the historian find supportive evidence, and if so, might we not extend such analysis? John Spurr, for example, has recently found considerable evidence in the politics of the 1670s to reinforce Zwicker’s conclusion. This book will seek to show that disguise, dissimulation and deceit were high on the political and literary agenda throughout the later Stuart era.194

B. Conclusion

Later Stuart political culture, building on a representational revolution that had been gathering head at least since the 1640s, was one of competing public voices, each claiming to represent the majority will or the public good or both. This competition was facilitated by the dispersed and overlapping nature of the early modern state, though the contest to capture public speech also helped change the relationship between state and public. Ultimately, though not completely in this period, a public of officeholders gave way to a representative public. Electioneering, petitioning, publishing and public debates helped contribute to that shift, within a framework of an expanding state. In order to understand this process we need to highlight contemporary anxieties: about the nature of the representative process, the abuse of language, the corruption of the state and the individual, the danger of self-interest and misrepresentation. And these are best explored by adopting and adapting techniques and models developed outside the study of partisan politics: sensitivity to linguistic usage and context; a notion of a public opinion and a public sphere; the languages of politeness, reason and truth; debates about truth; and the mask of literary representations.

If a study of cognate disciplines can assist our understanding of the later Stuart period, an appreciation of partisan political culture may also extend the insights developed in these other areas. By fore-grounding the importance of political practice and public discourse it is possible to restate the importance of political history to a holistic understanding of the past. This is not a plea to prioritise political history over any other branch; but to stress its usefulness in ways that may not always have been apparent as a result of the sub-discipline's eclipse.
C. The Structure of the Book.

The next chapter offers two case studies to apply some of the approaches already outlined and to highlight some of the interconnecting themes of the book. Probing the political culture of Hertford and Chester also serves to set out the aim of the first half of the book: to show how the public was repeatedly invoked and asked to judge public affairs. The third chapter pursues this theme further by taking one genre - the petition and address - in order to show the interplay between politics and language. It also seeks to answer a series of questions: given the dispersed and overlapping nature of authority in the early modern period, what happened when legitimately authorised voices conflicted? And how were partisan rivalries and allegiances formed, maintained and articulated within such a structure of authority? The fourth chapter examines the emergence of advice literature that was printed in large quantities to influence the frequent elections of the period. Again, the genre is taken in order to explore questions about the nature of representation in the period: what was the imagined character of the represented and their representatives, and how did such fictions influence the practice of politics? The election literature also raises the question of judgement: if voters were idealised as a rational and impartial public umpire, how could they preserve a sense of judgement amid partisan polemic that sought to manipulate them?

The first section of the book thus attempts to show the centrality of the public and a contest to represent it. The second section of the book then explores in more detail the nature of public discourse, or at least how contemporaries viewed the appeal to the people. Chapter five examines its dialogic and rhetorical nature, and its boundaries, particularly after the lapse of the pre-publication licensing laws in 1695. Chapter six studies the problem of how, in a partisan world, voters and readers could know what was true or right and on how contemporaries feared that partisan polemic was abusive, slanderous, uncivil, lying and fictitious. The final chapter suggests that the reaction against the rage, irrationality, and abusive nature of the partisan political culture fostered notions of an ideal, rational, and polite discourse. It argues that this trend sought to restrict the turbulent public sphere and exclude the people. 1716 thus witnessed the repeal in 1716 of the 1694 Triennial Act that had guaranteed frequent elections. By then the Whigs feared that Tory and Jacobite misrepresentations were in danger of winning the day. But it was also the case that, despite the repeal, the political culture had been changed for good. The tensions observed by Montesquieu remained embedded in the British political system.

1 D. Ogg, England in the Reigns of James II and William III (Oxford, 1984 edition), 128.

2 Q. Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism (Cambridge, 1998),107.

3 What Has Been, May Be: or a View of a Popish and Arbitrary Government (1713), introduction, iii.

4 P. Collinson, 'The Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth I', Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 69:2 (1987), 394-424; D. Cressy, 'Binding the Nation: the Bonds of Association, 1584 and 1696', in Tudor Rule and Revolution ed. D.J. Guth and J.W. McKenna (Cambridge, 1982); E. Vallance, 'Loyal or Rebellious? Protestant Associations in England, 1584-1696', The Seventeenth Century 17 (2002), 1-23; D.M. Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: the Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements (Rochester, 1999). See also chapter 3.

5 P. Collinson, 'Ecclesiastical Vitriol: Religious Satire in the 1590s and the Invention of Puritanism', in J. Guy (ed.), The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade (Washington, 1995); M. Goldie, 'The Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument: an Essay and an Annotated Bibliography of Pamphlets on the Allegiance Controversy', Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, 83 (1980), 477.

6 Charles-Louis, Baron de Montesquieu, De L’Esprit des Lois (1748), book 19 chapter 27.

7 For their continuing relevance see, for example, H. Redner, New Science of Representation; Political Parties and Democracy, ed. L. Diamond and R. Gunther (Baltimore, 2001).

8 For an English or British Enlightenment embracing this period see R. Porter, Enlightenment: Britain and the Creation of the Modern World (London, 2000); J. Champion, Republican Learning: John Toland and the Crisis of Christian Culture, 1696-1722 (Manchester, 2003); M. Jacob, The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republicans (London, 1981).

9 French historians have, of course, been much more alive to the importance of the press and public debate for the enlightenment. See the works of Robert Darnton, François Furet, Mona Ozouf, Roger Chartier and Keith Baker.

10 For discussions of periodisation see J. Scott, England's Troubles: Seventeenth-century English Political Instability in European context (Cambridge, 2000); J.C.D. Clark, English Society 2nd edition; and A. Houston and S. Pincus, A Nation Transformed: England after the Restoration (Cambridge, 2001), introduction. Scott (46, 492-3) does not see 1660 as a watershed but thinks change may have occurred 1688-1714. Clark praises Scott but nevertheless sees 1660 as a key watershed, with continuity over 1660-c.1820s. Whilst both accounts are flawed they do, at least engage, with the question of 'early modernity'. For accounts spanning the period see J.H. Plumb, The Growth of Political Stability in England, 1675-1725 (London, 1967); G. Holmes, The Making of a Great Power. Late Stuart and Early Georgian Britain 1660-1722 (Harlow, 1993); P. Halliday, Dismembering the Body Politic: Partisan Politics in England's Towns, 1650-1730 (Cambridge, 1998).

11 For a reconsideration of 1689 as a turning point see H. Dickinson, 'How Revolutionary was the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688?' British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 11 (1988), 125-42.

12 N. Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640-1660 (New Haven, 1994); J. Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers (Aldershot, 2004); S. Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader (Princeton, 1994); Achinstein, ‘The Uses of Deception: from Cromwell to Milton' in K.Z. Keller and G.J. Schiffhorst (eds.), The Witness of Time. Manifestations of Ideology in Seventeenth Century England (Pittsburgh, 1993); Achinstein, 'The Politics of Babel in the English Revolution', in J. Holstun (ed), Pamphlet Wars: Prose in the English Revolution (1992), 14-44; E. Skerpan, The Rhetoric of Politics in the English Revolution, 1642-1660, (1992); J. Raymond, The Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2002).

13 What follows should be regarded as overly schematised, ignoring the subtlety of the way in which continuity and change work dialectically.

14 D. Hirst, The Representative of the People? Voters and Voting in England under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge, 1975); M. Kishlansky, Parliamentary Selection: Social and Political Choice in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1986).

15 There were general elections in 1679 (twice), 1681, 1685, 1689, 1690, 1695, 1698, 1701 (twice), 1702, 1705, 1708, 1710, 1713, 1715. For their context see the ‘Chronology of National Events’ at the start of the book.

16 The lowest number of contests was 85 (in 1695), the highest 131 (in 1710), representing 32% and 49% of seats respectively [for more detailed analysis of contests see D.W. Hayton, 'Introduction' in The History of Parliament. The House of Common 1690-1715 (Cambridge, 2002), vol. 1]. Compare these figures with only a dozen or so contests at the beginning of the century, a peak of 40 in the 1620s in 1624, and a sharp rise in 1640 to 80 in the second election of that year. 79 constituencies were uncontested in the early Stuart period [Hirst, The Representative of the People?, 111].

17 For local lobbying see S. Handley, 'Provincial Influence on General Legislation: the Case of Lancashire, 1689-1731', Parliamentary History, 16 (1997), 171-84; Ibid., 'Local legislative initiatives for economic and social development in Lancashire, 1689-1731', Parliamentary History, 9 (1990), 14-37.

18 J. Plumb, 'The Growth of the Electorate in England from 1600 to 1715', Past and Present, 45 (1969), 90-116; Hirst, The Representative of the People?, p.2

19 G. Holmes, The Electorate and the National Will in the First Age of Party (Lancaster, 1976).

20 The numbers voting were only a proportion - perhaps 75%- of the electorate as a whole. For a discussion see HOP, i. 40-42.

21 F. O'Gorman, Voters, Patrons and Parties: The Unreformed Electoral System of Hanoverian England 1734-1832 (Oxford, 1989), tables 4.2 and 4.3. In Bristol almost all adult male householders were freemen qualified to vote in parliamentary elections [J. Barry, ‘Popular Culture in C17th Bristol’ in B. Reay, Popular Culture in C17th England (Sydney, 1985), 60]. Geoffrey Holmes has argued persuasively that the total English and Welsh electorate was 330-340,000 by 1722 [Holmes, Electorate]. Although the English counties had a uniform 40s freehold qualification, the franchises of the English, Welsh and (after 1707) Scottish boroughs varied significantly – the variety is mapped out in the introductory volume of HOP II.

22 Holmes, Electorate, 30-3; W.A. Speck, Tory & Whig: the Struggle in the Constituencies, 1701-1715 (London, 1970), 17, 26.

23 For views of the electorate as relatively uninformed and deferential see J.C.D.Clark, English Society, 1688-1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice During the Ancien Regime (Cambridge, 1985), 17-19. Clark drew support from Norma Landau, 'Independence, Deference and Voter Participation: The Behaviour of the Electorate in early C18th Kent', HJ, 22 (1979), 561-83, and L. Colley, In Defiance of Oligarchy: The Tory Party 1714-60 (Cambridge, 1982). A study of Cheshire evidence also suggests a strong correlation between landlord and tenant in voting patterns, and therefore questions the ‘participatory model’ [S. Baskerville, P. Adman and K. Beedham, ‘The Dynamics of Landlord Influence in English County Elections 1701-1734: the Evidence from Cheshire’, Parliamentary History 12 (1993), 126-42].

24 M. Braddick, The Nerves of State. Taxation and the financing of the English state 1558-1714 (Manchester, 1996).

25 J. Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783 (New York, 1989); P.G.M. Dickson, The Financial Revolution in England: a Study in the Development of Public Credit, 1688-1756 (London, 1967); M. Duffy, The Military Revolution and the State 1500-1800 (Exeter, 1980); D.W. Jones, War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough (Oxford, 1988); P.K. O'Brien and P. Hunt, 'The Rise of a Fiscal State in England 1485-1815', Historical Research, 66 (1993), 129-76; B. Carruthers, City of Capital: Politics and Markets in the English Financial Revolution (Princeton, 1996); C. Brooks, ‘Public Finance and Political Stability: the Administration of the Land Tax 1688-1720’, HJ (1974), 281-300.

26 Braddick, Nerves of State, 31.

27 P.K. O'Brien, 'The Political Economy of British Taxation, 1660-1815', Economic History Review 2nd ser., 41 (1988), 1-32.

28 A distinction should be made between a royal and a national debt.

29 Besides the works cited above see also Ming-Hsun Li, The Great Recoinage of 1696-9 (London, 1963); P. Laslett, 'John Locke, the Great Recoinage, and the Origins of the Board of Trade, 1695-1698', William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 14 (1957), 370-402; J.E.T. Rogers, The First Nine Years of the Bank of England, (Oxford, 1887); W.Scott, The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish and Irish Joint-Stcok Companies to 1720 (Cambridge 1951, 3 vols.); J.K. Horsfield, British Monetary Experiments, 1650-1710 (London, 1960).

30 P. Gauci, The Politics of Trade. The Overseas Merchant in State and Society, 1660-1720 (Oxford, 2001); R. Grassby, The Business Community of Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1995); W.E. Minchington (ed.), The Growth of English Overseas Trade in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1969); R.Davis, A Commercial Revolution (London, 1967); J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition (Princeton, 1975).

31 Braddick, Nerves of State, 13.

32 See below, note 54.

33 D. Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England (Princeton, 2000); D. Freist, Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637-1645 (London, 1997); J. Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641-1649 (Oxford, 1996); S. Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader (Princeton, 1994).

34 The graph is taken from ESTC web-site. It does not take into account the frequency of editions. For important caveats about such statistics see D. McKenzie, 'Printing and publishing 1557-1700: Constraints on the London Book Trades' in J. Barnard and McKenzie (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book. Volume IV 1557-1695 (Cambridge, 2002).

35 The remarkable quantity of print was noticed at the time [Knights, Politics and Opinion, part two] and subsequently [Remarks Upon the Most Eminent of our Anti-Monarchical Authors (1699), ‘introductory remarks’, alleging that treasonable print had turned ‘every corporation into a pest house’].

36 F.S. Siebert, Freedom of the Press in England 1646-1776 (Urbana, 1952); T.Crist, 'Government Control of the Press after the Expiration of the Licensing Act in 1679', Publishing History, 5 (1979), 49-97; R. Astbury, 'The Renewal of the Licensing Act in 1693 and its Lapse in 1695', The Library, 5th ser., 33 (1978), 296-322.

37 See chapter 5.

38 M. Treadwell, ‘Lists of Master Printers: the Size of the London Printing Trade 1637-1723’ in R. Myers and M. Harris (eds.), Aspects of Printing from 1600 (Oxford, 1987), pp.141-170.

39 D. Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1980); K. Thomas, 'The Meaning of Literacy in Early Modern England', in G. Baumann (ed), The Written Word: Literacy in Transition (Oxford 1986); R.S. Schofield, 'The Measurement of Literacy in Pre-Industrial England' in J. Goody (ed.) Literacy in Traditional Societies (Cambridge, 1968); W. Ford, 'The Problem of Literacy in Early Modern England', History, 78 (1993), 22-37; A. Fox, Oral and Literate Culture in England 1500-1700 (Oxford, 2000).

40 Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order, 176.

41 Ibid., 154 and table 7.3.

42 S. Pincus, ''Coffee politicians does create': Coffee-houses and Restoration Political Culture,' Journal of Modern History, 67 (1995), 807-34; L. Klein, 'Coffeehouse Civility, 1660-1714: An Aspect of Post-Courtly Culture in England,' Huntington Library Quarterly, 59 (1997), 30-51. P. Borsay, The English Urban Renaissance: Culture and Society in the Provincial Town 1660-1770 (Oxford, 1989), 145-6.

43 P. Clark, British Clubs and Societies, 1580-1800: The Origins of an Associational World (Oxford, 2000).

44 E.S. De Beer, ‘The English Newspapers from 1695 to 1702’ in William III and Louis XIV. Essays 1680-1720 ed. R. Hatton and J.S. Bromley (Liverpool, 1968).J.R. Sutherland, ‘The Circulation of Newspapers and Periodicals 1700-1730’, The Library, 4th series 15 (1934), 110-24; J.M. Price, ‘A Note on the Circulation of the London Press 1704-14’, BIHR, 31 (1958), 215-24; J. Feather, The Provincial Book Trade in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1985).

45 For discussions of later Stuart ideology see J. Kenyon, Revolution Principles: The Politics of Party, 1689-1720 (Cambridge, 1977); H. Dickinson, Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain (London, 1979); R. Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics & Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, 1986); J.H. Burns with M. Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1400-1800 (Cambridge, 1991); M. Goldie, 'The Roots of True Whiggism, 1688-1694', History of Political Thought, 1 (1980), 195-236; Goldie, 'The Political Thought of the Anglican Revolution' in R. Beddard (ed.), The Revolutions of 1688 (Oxford, 1989); Goldie, 'The Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument', Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, 83 (1980), 473-564; T. Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion Crisis (Cambridge, 1987); Harris, Politics under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society 1660-1715 (London, 1993); J.G.A. Pocock, Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History (Chicago, 2nd edition, 1989); Pocock, 'The Varieties of Whiggism from Exclusion to Reform: A History of Ideology and Discourse' in Virtue, Commerce and History (Cambridge, 1985); G. Schochet, Patriarchalism in Political Thought (New York, 1975); B. Behrens, 'The Whig Theory of the Constitution in the Reign of Charles II', Cambridge Historical Journal, 7 (1941), 42-71; O.W. Furley, 'The Whig Exclusionists: Pamphlet Literature in the Exclusion Campaign, 1679-81', Cambridge Historical Journal, 13 (1957), 19-36; G. Straka, The Revolution of 1688 and The Birth of the English Political Nation (Lexington, 1973); D. Bahlman, The Moral Revolution of 1688 (New Haven, 1957); J. Daly, Sir Robert Filmer and English Political Thought (Toronto, 1979); T.Claydon, William III and the Godly Revolution (Cambridge, 1996); Champion, Republican Learning; J. Rudolph, Revolution by Degrees. James Tyrrell and Whig Political Thought in the Late Seventeenth Century (2002); M. Zook, Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in late Stuart England (Pennsylvania, 1999); A. Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America (Princeton, 1991); J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis, 1677-1683 (Cambridge, 1991).

46 R.L. Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688-1689 (Stanford, 1992); Greaves, Enemies under his Feet: Radicals and Nonconformists in Britain, 1664-1677 (Stanford, 1990); Greaves, Deliver us from Evil: the Radical Underground in Britain, 1660-1663 (New York, 1986); P. Hopkins, 'Aspects of Jacobite Conspiracy in England in the Reign of William III', Cambridge Ph.D (1981); E. Cruickshanks (ed.), Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689-1759 (Edinburgh, 1982); J. Garrett, The Triumphs of Providence. The Assassination Plot of 1696 (Cambridge, 1980).

47 B. Worden, 'The Question of Secularisation', in Houston and Pincus, The Nation Transformed. See also my '"Meer" religion and the "church-state" of Restoration England: the impact and ideology of James II's declarations of indulgence' in the same volume, and C.J. Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern England (Oxford, 1992).

48 Justin Champion sees continuity with the seventeenth century's periodic convulsions that revolved around the relationship between priest and civil society [The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and its Enemies, 1660-1730 (Cambridge, 1992), 17-18]. He challenges notions of secularisation, arguing that the radical programme sought not to destroy religion but to deprive a corrupt priesthood of political power [24]. In his most recent work Champion suggests that Toland pursued political concerns through religious discourse [Republican Learning, 13]. Yet the language of priestcraft itself seems to suggest a contemporary recognition of the politicised nature of clerical authority and a sense of religion as a political veil. The importance of religious language in introducing the concept of political pluralism is also ably explored in P. Ihalainen, The Discourse on Political Pluralism in Early-Eighteenth Century England. A Conceptual Study with Special Reference to Terminology of Religious Origin (Helsinki, 1999). Ihalainen admits (244-5), however, that there was a gradual 'shift from a religion-dominated political discourse towards an increasingly secular political discourse' and quotes Peter Paxton, Civil Polity (1703), 588, that 'the very nature of the dispute between the two parties is gradually changed: For now it is not, as formerly, so much upon the score of religion (though that is continued, or rather revised) as it is upon points of government'. For the civil implications of the rejection of puritanism see D. Zaret, 'Religion and the Rise of Liberal-Democratic Ideology in 17-Century England', American Sociological Review, 54 (1989), 163-79. For primary sources see J.A.W. Gunn, Factions No More: Attitudes to Party in Government and Opposition in Eighteenth Century England, Extracts from Contemporary Sources (London, 1972).

49 M. Goldie, 'Danby, the Bishops and the Whigs', 81 n.22, in Harris, Seaward and Goldie, The Politics of Religion (1990).

50 E. Vallance, ‘The Decline of Conscience as a Political Guide: William Higden’s View of the English Constitution (1709), in H. Braun and Vallance (eds.), Contexts of Conscience in Early Modern Europe 1500-1700 (Basingstoke, 2004).

51 See note 1. For more detailed and nuanced views of continuity see C. Rose, England in the 1690s: Revolution, Religion, and War (Oxford, 1999); Claydon, William III; Goldie, 'Political Thought'; Bahlman, Moral Revolution.

52 Scott, England's Troubles, 35; Clark, English Society (2nd edition), 82. For attacks on the idea that contract and Lockean theory was prevalent after 1689 see Dickinson, Liberty and Property; Pocock, 'The Myth of John Locke and the Obsession with Liberalism' in Pocock and Ashcraft (eds.), John Locke (Los Angeles, 1980); Kenyon, Revolution Principles; H. Nenner, The Right to be King. The Succession to the Crown of England 1603-1714 (Chapel Hill, 1995), chapter 8; M. Thompson, 'The Reception of Locke's Two Treatises of Government 1690-1705', Political Studies 24 (1976), 184-91 and the debate in vols. 26 (1978) and 28 (1980).

53 J. Oldmixon, The Life … of Arthur Maynwaring (1715), 245.

54 Halliday, Dismembering the Body Politic, 5-18.

55 This is not to deny that politics (or religion) could be contested publicly before the civil war; rather that an appeal to 'popularity' was not routine. For some illuminating discussions of early Stuart political culture see T. Cogswell, R. Cust and P. Lake, Politics, Religion and Popularity. Essays in Honour of Conrad Russell (Cambridge, 2002); P. Lake and M. Questier, 'Puritans, papists and the "public sphere": the Edmund Campion affair in context', JMH, 72 (2000), 587-627; Peter Lake with Michael Questier, The Antichrist's Lewd Hat. Protestants, papists and players in post-reformation England (New Haven, 2002); A. Bellany, The Politics of Court scandal in early modern England: news culture and the Overbury affair 1603-1660 (Cambridge, 2002); Bellany, 'Libels in Action: Ritual, Subversion, and the English Literary Underground 1603-42' in T.Harris (ed.) The Politics of the Excluded (Basingstoke, 2001); Bellany, 'Rayling Rhymes and Vaunting Verse: Libellous politics in early Stuart England 1602-28' in Sharpe and Lake, Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (1994); T. Cogswell, 'Underground Verse and Early Stuart Culture' in Amussen and Kishlansky, Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995); Cogswell, 'The Politics of Propaganda: Charles I and the People in the 1620s', JBS, 29 (1990), 187-215; Cogswell, Home Divisions: Aristocracy, the State and Provincial Conflict (Manchester, 1998); P. Croft, 'The reputation of Robert Cecil: Libels, Political Opinions and Popular Awareness in the early Seventeenth Century', TRHS 6th series 1 (1991), 43-69; Croft, 'Libels, Popular literacy and public opinion in early modern England', HR 68 (1995), 266-85; A. Fox, 'Ballads, libels and popular ridicule in Jacobean England', P&P 145 (1994), 47-83; Fox, 'Rumour, News and Popular Political Opinion in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England', HJ 40 (1997), 597-620; Fox, 'Popular verses and their readership in the early seventeenth century' in Raven, Small and Tadmor, The Practice and Representation of Reading; J. Raymond (ed.), News, Newspapers and Society in Early Modern Britain (London, 1999); F. Levy, 'How information spread among the gentry 1550-1640', JBS 21 (1982), 11-34; R.Cust, 'News and Politics in Early Seventeenth century England', P&P 112 (1986), 60-90; E.Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2002); I. Archer, 'Popular Politics in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries' in Griffiths and Jenner (eds.), Londinopolis (Manchester, 2000); E. Shagan, ‘Constructing Discord: Ideology, Propaganda, and English Responses to the Irish rebellion of 1641’, JBS, 36 (1997), 4-34; A. McRae, 'The Literary Culture of Early Stuart Libeling', Modern Philology 97 (2000), 364-92.

56 Much of the literature is summarised in Harris, Politics under the Later Stuarts. The existence of party was challenged first by the Namierite school and more recently by Jonathan Scott's revisionism. For the Namierite view and the refutation of it see R. Walcott, English Politics in the Early Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1956); Walcott, 'English party politics, 1688-1714' in Essays in Modern English History in Honour of W.C. Abbott (Harvard, 1941); D. Rubini, Court and Country 1688-1702 (London, 1967); G. Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London, 1967, revised 2nd edition 1987); Holmes (ed.), Britain after the Glorious Revolution 1689-1714 (London, 1969); H. Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III (Manchester, 1977); Speck, Tory & Whig; C. Jones (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680-1750: Essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes (London, 1987); C. Jones (ed.), Party and management in Parliament, 1660-1784 (Leicester, 1984); B.W. Hill, The Growth of Parliamentary Parties, 1689-1742 (London, 1976); G. De Krey, A Fractured Society: The Politics of London in the First Age of Party, 1688-1715 (Oxford, 1985). A host of local studies reinforce these works, the most important of which are listed at HOP, i. 32, though the constituency articles in HOP add considerably to them. For the debate generated by Scott, for the Restoration period, see the special issue, 'Order and Authority: Creating Party in Restoration England', Albion, 25 (1993); discussions in my Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678-1681 (Cambridge, 1994), 5-15; and J. Montaňo, Courting the Moderates. Ideology, Propaganda and the Emergence of Party, 1660-1678 (Newark, 2002), 27-52.

57 R. Willman, ‘The Origins of "Whig" and "Tory" in the English Political Language’, HJ, 17 (1974), 247-64.

58 T. Ball, 'Party' in Ball, J. Farr and R.L. Hanson (eds.), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge, 1989). For a very stimulating discussion of the nature and language of party see Ihalainen, Discourse on Political Pluralism, 159-228. Ihalainen argues that political pluralism owed much to a developing notion of religious pluralism. See also J.A.W. Gunn, Beyond Liberty and Property: the Process of Self-Recognition in Eighteenth-Century Political Thought (Kingston, 1983), 50; Tone Sundt Urstad, Sir Robert Walpole’s Poets. The Use of Literature as Pro-Government Propaganda 1721-42 (Newark, 1999), 174.

59 D. Hayton, 'The "Country" Interest and the Party System, c.1689-1720' in C. Jones (ed.), Party and Party Management in Parliament 1660-1784 (Leicester, 1984); Hayton, 'Moral reform and Country Politics in the Late Seventeenth-Century House of Commons', P&P 128 (1990), 48-91; L. Schwoerer, No Standing Armies! The Anti-Army Ideology in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore, 1974).

60 Three years working on constituency articles at the History of Parliament drove this message home. HOP I and HOP II chart numerous varieties of localised political culture and offer a wealth of references to local studies. For important studies of provincial political cultures see P. Gauci, Politics and society in Great Yarmouth, 1660-1722 (Oxford, 1996); Halliday, Dismembering the Body Politic; D. Beaver, Parish Communities and Religious Conflict in the Vale of Gloucester, 1590-1690, (Cambridge (MA), 1998); D. Rollison, Local Origins of Modern Society: Gloucestershire, 1500-1800 (London, 1992); J.M. Triffitt, ‘Politics and the Urban Community. Parliamentary Boroughs in the South West of England 1710-1730’ (Oxford University, D.Phil, 1985); Speck, Tory & Whig; Barry, ‘Popular Culture'; and works cited on Knights, Politics and Opinion, 14. For the early eighteenth century see also K. Wilson, The Sense of the People. Politics, Culture and Imperialism in England, 1715-1785 (Oxford, 1995); N. Rogers, Whigs and Cities: Popular Politics in the Age of Walpole and Pitt (Oxford, 1989). For explorations of Scottish and Irish political cultures see HOP II, i. 141-77; J.G. Simms, War and Politics in Ireland 1649-1730 ed. D.W. Hayton and G. O'Brien (1986); D.G. Boyce, R. Eccleshall, and V. Geoghegan, (eds.). Political Discourse in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Ireland (Basingstoke, 2001); and forthcoming studies by Tim Harris and Clare Jackson.

61 Research on the town is synthesised in R. Sweet, The English Town, 1680-1840: Government, Society and Culture (1999). See also P. Withington, 'Two Renaissances: Urban Political Culture in Post-Reformation England Reconsidered', HJ, 44 (2001), 239-68; 'Views from the Bridge: Revolution and Restoration in Seventeenth-Century York, P&P, 170 (2001), 121-51; 'Citizens, Community and Political Culture in Restoration England' in Shepherd and Withington (eds.), Communities in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2000), 134-55; P.Borsay and L.Proudfoot, Provincial Towns in Early Modern England and Ireland: Change, Convergence and Divergence (Oxford, 2002).

62 E.A. Wrigley, 'A Simple Model of London's Importance in Changing English Society and Economy, 1650-1750', P&P, 37 (1967), 44-70; De Krey, Fractured Society; A.L. Beier and R. Finlay (eds.), London 1500-1700: the Making of the Metropolis (London, 1986); HOP II, ii. 374-96; P. Griffiths and M. Jenner (eds.), Londinopolis. Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London (Manchester, 2000); N. Rogers, 'Popular Protest in Early Hanoverian London', P&P, 79 (1978), 70-100. For an analysis of the wider franchises see HOP II, i. 78-96, 105-124. Besides the counties, about a quarter of borough constituencies had over 1000 voters each, but of course electoral contests could be fierce even in restricted franchises.

63 Borsay, English Urban Renaissance; P. Clark, The Transformation of English Provincial Towns, 1600-1800 (London,1984); Klein, 'Coffee-house civility'.

64 R. L'Estrange, Citt and Bumpkin (1680), which went into 5 editions in the space of a year and prompted a sequel that also ran to four editions. See also The Humours and Conversation of the Town [c.1681] for an extended satire of town life in comparison with country living; Spectator, no.119, 17 July 1711. For a discussion of stereotypical rural dialects see Fox, Oral and Literate Culture, 104-111. A distinction between court and country had drawn on a similar dichotomy but the city appears to have been replacing the court. For the resistance of rural communities to urban influence see C. Estabrook, Urbane and Rustic England: Cultural Ties and Social Spheres in the Provinces, 1660-1780 (Manchester, 1998).

65 J. Locke, Works (1823), iii. 211-2.

66 Baskerville et al, 'Dynamics of Landlord influence'; HOP II, i. 36-72, which nevertheless notes many examples of deep politicisation. For the role of estate stewards as electoral agents see D.R. Hainsworth, Stewards, Lords and People (Cambridge, 1992), chapter 7. My aim is not to deny the power of landed influence, which was huge in the counties and some boroughs; but to examine the vigorous public debate about politics.

67 P. Steinberger, The Concept of Political Judgment (Chicago, 1993) is a useful, but ahistorical, treatment.

68 J. Van Horn Melton, The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe (Cambridge, 2001); T.W. Blanning, The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture. Old Regime Europe 1660-1789 (Oxford, 2002); B. Harris, Politics and the Rise of the Press: Britain and France 1620-1800 (London, 1996).

69 C. Harline, Pamphlets, Printing and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic (Dordrecht, 1987); J.L. Price, Dutch Society 1588-1713 (Harlow, 2000).

70 J. Sawyer, Printed Poison. Pamphlet Propaganda, Faction Politics and the Public Sphere in Early Seventeenth Century France (Berkeley, 1990); C. Jouhard, Mazarinades: la Fronde des Mots (1985); J. Klaits, Printed Propaganda under Louis XIV (Princeton. 1976); P. Burke, The Fabrication of Louis XIV (New Haven, 1992); A. Farge, Subversive Words: Public Opinion in Eighteenth-Century France (Cambridge, 1994); J.A.W.Gunn, Queen of the World: Opinion in the Public Life of France from the Renaissance to the Revolution (Oxford, 1995).

71 M. Warner, The letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century America (Cambridge, Mass., 1990); P. Thompson, Rum Punch and Revolution: Taverngoing and Public Life in Eighteenth-century Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, 1999); M.L. Lustig, Robert Hunter 1666-1734: New York's Augustan Statesman (Syracuse, 1983). I am very grateful to Simon Middleton for discussing these, and showing me his forthcoming Privileges and Profits: Tradesmen in Colonial New York City.

72 G.R. Elton, Political History (1970).

73 For a discussion of the meaning of political culture see K. Wilson, The Sense of the People. Politics, Culture and Imperialism in England, 1715-1785 (Cambridge, 1995), 1-2; The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, 1; Whithington, 'Urban Political Culture', chapter 1; K. Sharpe and P. Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, introduction; Amussen and Kishlansky, Political Culture and Cultural Politics, introduction; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture c.1815-1867 (Cambridge, 1993), introduction.

74 Stuart Hall (ed.), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, (London, 1997), 2. The limits to what is ‘political’ are perhaps best defined by considering the central concern of politics: power. Power is always exercised unequally and whenever power is exercised over others it is political, but it is not necessarily politicised.

75 K. Sharpe, Reading Revolutions: the Politics of Reading in Early Modern England (New Haven, 2000), 12.

76 An entire periodical was intended, in 1705, as 'an antidote to popular Mis-representation' [James Drake's Mercurius Politicus, subtitle] and a tract of 1702 referred to as the 'Year of … Misrepresentation' [The Tryal, Sentence, and Condemnation of Fidelity (1702), dedication].

77 [J.Drake], Some Necessary Considerations Relating to All Future Elections (1702), 3, 5, 15, 17. Apparently reworked as Necessary Considerations touching the election of members to serve in Parliament (1702).

78 H. Pitkin, 'Representation' in Ball et al (eds.), Conceptual Innovation and Change, quotations at 139-40. For a more extended treatment see Pitkin, The Concept of Representation (London, 1967). A.H. Birch, Representation (London, 1971) is also a useful conceptual analysis.

79 T. Hobbes, Leviathan ed. R. Tuck (Cambridge, 1996), 121.

80 Hobbes, Leviathan, 114.

81 'There are few things that are uncapable of being represented by fiction' [Leviathan, 113]. John Locke also refers to ‘the image, phantom or representative of the commonwealth’ [Two Treatises of Government (1690), second treatise, chapter 13, para. 151.

82 Hobbes, Leviathan, 84-5.

83 M. Earbery, Elements of Policy Civil and Ecclesiastical in a Mathematical Method (1716), 8.

84 G. Elton, 'The body of the whole realm': Parliament and Representation in Medieval and Tudor England in Elton, Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics II (London, 1974); H.M. Cam, 'The Theory and Practice of Representation in Medieval England', in E. Fryde and E. Miller (eds.) Historical Studies of the English Parliament, 1 (Cambridge, 1970), 262-78.

85 D. Wootton, Divine Right and Democracy: an Anthology of Political Writing in Stuart England (London, 1986), p.52. Edmund Morgan's Inventing the People: the Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York, 1988) is particularly useful in exploring some of these issues. Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex (1644) talked about the people as 'constituents' of power who entrusted not only to the king but also their knights and burgesses ('representators') revocable 'commissions' in parliament [151-2, 170, 178]. Rutherford asserted that the king 'doth unproperly represent the people'. His work was burnt by Oxford University in 1683.

86 [Prynne], A Remonstrance and Declaration of Severall Counties, Cities and Burroughs (1648), 6.

87 CJ. vi.111.

88 B. Worden, 'The Bill for a New Representative: the Dissolution of the Long Parliament, April 1653', EHR, 86 (1971), 473-96. For the mid-century debate more generally see V.F. Snow, 'Parliamentary reapportionment proposals in the Puritan Revolution', EHR, 74 (1959), 409-42.

89 Wootton, Divine Right, 57; 'Conquest and Consent: Thomas Hobbes and the Engagement Controversy', in G. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: the Quest for Settlement, 1646-60 (1972), 79-98.

90 Morgan, Inventing the People, 94.

91 For arguments in 1675 about the unrepresentativeness of parliament see PRO, SP 30/4 Two Seasonable Discourses Concerning this Present Parliament [Oxford, 1675].

92 PRO, SP29/391/67, endorsed 'Ag[ains]t the parliam[en]t Febr. 1676/7'. There is another copy at BL, MS Stowe 354, f.133.

93 Lord Holles, A Letter to Monsieur Van. B---- de M---- at Amsterdam, Written Anno. 1676 [1676], 5-6, argued that the Cavalier ‘Parliament represented the sickly times in which they were chosen, when the people of England were in a kind of delirium or dotage, so a new Parliament would represent a People restored to their wits, cured of the evil, and steadily pursuing the great Interest of the Commonwealth.’ Another tract suggested that the Cavalier Parliament, by the 1670s, could not be said to have been representative, 'many of those who chose them being dead, and others were either grown up or had purchased estates, whose opinion both of the persons and things might be much changed from what the sense of the nation was when that parliament was first called' [An Enquiry; or a discourse between a yeoman of Kent and a Knight of the Shire (1693), 11]. A Collection of State Tracts (1706), vol. ii, 'contents', ascribes this to 'Major Wildman, Mr Hampden etc'.

94 Treated in my Politics and Opinion; 'London's "Monster" Petition of 1680', HJ, 36 (1993), 39-67; 'London petitions and parliamentary politics in 1679', Parliamentary History, 12 (1993), 29-46; 'Petitioning and the Political Theorists: John Locke, Algernon Sidney and London's "Monster" Petition of 1680', P&P, 138 (1993), 94-111.

95 Brewer, Sinews of Power, 155-61; G. Aylmer, 'Place bills and the Separation of Powers: Some 17th Century Origins of the 'Nonpolitical' Civil Service', TRHS 5th ser., 15 (1965), 45-69; G. Holmes, 'The Attack on the "Influence of the Crown", 1702-16', BIHR, 39 (1966), 47-68; C. Brooks, 'The Country Persuasion and Political Responsibility in England in the 1690s', Parliament, Estates and Representation, 4 (1984), 135-46; HOP II, i. 189-96, 491-3; D.Hayton, 'The Reorientation of Place Legislation in England in the 1690s', Parliament, Estates and Representation, 5 (1985), 103–108.

96 H.T. Dickinson, 'The Eighteenth Century Debate on the Sovereignty of Parliament', TRHS 5th series 26 (1976), 189-210.

97 M. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England c.1550-1700 (Cambridge, 2000); M. Braddick, and J. Walter (eds.), Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society: Order, Hierarchy and Subordination in Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2001); S. Hindle, The State and Social Change; P. Griffiths, A. Fox and S. Hindle (eds.), The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1996); A. Shepard and P. Withington (eds.), Comunities in Early Modern England: Networks, Place and Rhetoric (Manchester, 2000); M. Goldie, 'The Unacknowledged republic: office-holding in early modern England' in T. Harris (ed.) The Politics of the Excluded c.1500-1850 (Basingstoke, 2001); Joan Kent, 'The Centre and the Localities: State Formation and Parish Government in England c.1640-1740', HJ, 38 (1995), 363-404; Paul Rock, 'Law, Order and Power in late C17th and early C18th England', in S. Cohen and A. Scull (eds.), Social Control and the State (Oxford 1983). For a pre-1660 focus see also C. Herrup, 'The counties and the country: some thoughts on C17th historiography', Social History, 8 (1983), 169-81 and K. Wrightson, 'The Politics of the Parish in Early Modern England', in Griffiths, Fox, and Hindle (eds.), The Experience of Authority (1996). For an older, but still very useful, outline of local governance see S and B. Webb, The Development of English Local Government, 1689-1835 (London, 1963).

98 Goldie calls for a shift of attention 'away from voting and towards governance' and criticises the 'psephological' approach to participation ('Unacknowledged Republic', 153, 156-9).

99 D. Eastwood, Government and Community in the English Provinces 1700-1870 (Basingstoke, 1997); J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, c.1815-1867 (Cambridge, 1993).

100 Braddick, State Formation, 170.

101 I hope to write more extensively about the interaction between participation and representation elsewhere.

102 Goldie ('Unacknowledged republic', p.161) estimates about 50,000 parish officeholders c.1700; yet even if contests only regularly affected a third of constituencies, some 250,000 voted in general elections, and many more in annual local elections for borough officials.

103 R. Chartier, Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations trans. L.G. Cochrane (Cambridge, 1988), 9.

104 For a stress on the virtue of republican ideas about participation see P. Pettit, Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government (Oxford, 1997).

105 But see P. Hirst, Representative Democracy and its Limits (Oxford, 1990); D. Judge, Representation: Theory and Practice in Britain (London, 1999); A. Przeworski, S. Stokes and B. Manin (eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (Cambridge, 1999). Much of the literature on parties is overly pre-occupied with organisation but for the relationship between parties and representation see B.D. Graham, Representation and Party Politics: a Comparative Perspective (Oxford, 1993).

106 The translation and discussion of Habermas (see next chapter) is nevertheless testament to a desire to explore these problems. There is, of course, a substantial literature on politics and the media.

107 Pitkin, Concept of Representation, 8, 240.

108 The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge, 1997), 1.

109 Ibid., 6.

110 Pocock, 'The Ideal of Citizenship since Classical time' in Queens Quarterly, 99 (1992), 33-55, quotations at 52-3.

111 The best account is R. Weil, Political Passions. Gender, the Family and Political Argument in England 1680-1714 (Manchester, 1999). See also A. Kugler, Errant Plagiary. The Life and Writings of Lady Sarah Cowper 1644-1720 (Stanford, 2002); P. McDowell, The Women of Grub Street. Press, Politics and Gender in the London Literary Marketplace 1678-1730 (Oxford, 1998); K. Shevelow, Women and Print Culture: the Construction of Femininity in the Early Periodical (1989); H. Smith, 'English "feminist" Writings and Judith Drake's An Essay in Defence of the Female Sex (1696)', HJ, 44 (2001), 727-47; R. Perry, The celebrated Mary Astell : an early English Feminist (Chicago, 1986); H. Berry, '"Nice and curious questions": Coffee Houses and the Representation of Women in John Dunton's Athenian Mercury', Seventeenth Century, 12 (1997), 257-76; Berry, Gender, Society and Print Culture in Late Stuart England: The Cultural World of the Athenian Mercury (London, 2003); Women Writers and the Early Modern British Political Tradition ed. H.L. Smith (Cambridge, 1998); B. Cowan, 'Reasonable Ecstasies: Shaftesbury and the Languages of Libertinism', JBS 37 (1998), 111-138.

112 The work of John Walter, Andy Wood, Steve Hindle and Mike Braddick offers excellent examples of the fruitful integration that is possible. In intend to write more about this elsewhere.

113 Thus although I will mainly be discussing perceptions of political practice, as articulated in print, many parallels can be found in HOP I and HOP II (where the reader will find many studies written by me of boroughs, counties and individual MPs). Indeed, my interpretation of the public discourse is informed by three years working on the mechanics of constituency and parliamentary politics.

114 Holmes, British Politics, 13.

115 Q. Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996).

116 J.G.A. Pocock, 'The concept of language and the metier d'historien: some considerations on practice', in A. Pagden (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1987), 19.

117 L. Montrose, 'Renaissance Literary Studies and the Subject of History', English Literary Renaissance, 16 (1986), 8. That issue of the journal is devoted to 'studies in renaissance historicism'. See also J. Goldberg, 'The Politics of Renaissance Literature: a Review Essay', A Journal of English Literary History, 49 (1982), 514-42; S.Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-fashioning (Chicago, 1980); K. Sharpe and S. Zwicker (eds.), The Politics of Discourse: the Literature and History of Seventeenth-Century England (Berkeley, 1987); D. Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance (1984, revised edition 2002); Norbrook, Writing the English Republic : Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics, 1627-1660 (Cambridge, 1999); Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering; N. Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640-1660 (New Haven, 1994).; T. Corns, Uncloistered Virtue: English Political Literature, 1640-1660 (Oxford, 1992). D. Womersley, 'Literature and the History of Political Thought', HJ 39 (1996), 511-520, notes that Pocock and Skinner were nevertheless very guarded about how much engagement with 'literature' to allow their method. Womersley also warns that historians are frequently insufficiently alert to literary techniques and arguments.

118 Perhaps the clearest treatment comes in his ‘Bolingbroke vs Walpole', in N. McKendrick (ed.), Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society in Honour of J.H. Plumb (London, 1974), now extensively revised as 'Augustan Party Politics and Renaissance Constitutional Thought' in Skinner, Visions of Politics Volume II: Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge, 2002).

119 Q. Skinner, 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas', History and Theory, 8 (1969), 48-49, now revised as chapter 4 of Skinner, Visions of Politics Volume I: Regarding Method.

120 Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment.

121 C. Condren's The Language of Politics in Seventeenth-Century England (Basingstoke, 1994) is an ambitious attempt and he notes that 'it is a pity that so much of what people might have been doing with words is skipped in the hurry to get to the concepts' [136].

122 Knights, 'Politics after the Glorious Revolution' in B. Coward (ed.), A Companion to Stuart Britain (Oxford, 2003).

123 'Words absolutely force the understanding' [Bacon, Novum Organum (English translation, 1676), section II, aphorism vi].

124 'The modes of speech available to [an author] give him the intentions he can have' [Pocock, Virtue, Commerce, and History, 5]. Thus although Pocock shares many of Skinner’s views, for him it is not always clear that languages are deliberately chosen. For a similar criticism see A. Cromartie, 'Harringtonian Virtue: Harrington, Machiavelli, and the Method of the Moment', HJ, 41 (1998), 1007-8.

125 G.S. Jones, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History (Cambridge, 1983); P. Joyce, Democratic Subjects: the Self and the Social in Nineteenth Century England (Cambridge, 1994).

126 A. Ludtke (ed.), Was Bleibt van Marxistischen Perspectiven inder Geschichtsforschung? (Gottingen, 1997), 183. I am grateful to Simon Middleton for drawing this piece to my attention. See also see D. Wahrman's review essay 'The New Political History' in Social History, 21 (1996), 343-354.

127 For critiques see D. Mayfield and S. Thorne, 'Social History and its Discontents: Gareth Stedman Jones and the Politics of Language', Social History 17 (1992), 165-88; J.E. Cronin, 'Language, Politics and the Critique of Social History', Journal of Social History 20 (1986), 177-83.

128 D. Wahrman, Imagining the Middle Class, 9.

129 Although his earliest work on Hobbes was rooted in an analysis of the pamphlet literature of the engagement controversy, Skinner's later work is far less based on such material, perhaps as a response to the accusation that his approach encourages antiquarianism [Liberty before Liberalism, 107-8 ].

130 J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Cambridge, 1988), 12.

131 There is also a question here of how the canon is invented by the Whig and Tory traditions.

132 Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, 7, makes a plea to expand the remit of political theory to 'newspapers, pamphlets, sermons, broadsides and various literary forms' see Revolutionary Politics, p.7. See also R. Tuck, Philosophy and Government 1572-1651 (Cambridge, 1993).

133 Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, iii. vi. 26; x. 5.

134 For the literature on readers see M. Spufford, Small Books and Pleasant Histories: Popular Fiction and its Readership in C17th England (London, 1981); T. Watt, Cheap Print and Popular Piety 1550-1640 (Cambridge, 1991); S. Zwicker, 'Reading the Margins' in K.S harpe and S. Zwicker, Refiguring Revolutions: Aesthetics and Politics from the English Revolution to the Romantic Revolution (Berkeley, 1998); Sharpe and Zwicker, Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2003); Sharpe, Reading Revolutions; I. Rivers (ed.), Books and their Readers in Eighteenth-century England (Leicester, 1982); J. Raven, H. Small and N. Tadmor, The Practice and Representation of Reading in England (Cambridge, 1996); A. Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England (1984); R. Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Cambridge, 1994).

135 R. Ashcraft, 'The Language of Political Conflict in Restoration Literature' in Politics as reflected in Literature, Papers presented at a Clark Library Seminar 1987 (1989). Ashcraft identified about fifty key words, all linked as 'a constellation of meaning', out of which he makes five related groups, by which one might chart linguistic and conceptual change. One group, followed in this book, included lying, betraying, hypocrisy, deceived, disguise. Such words, he argued, 'should be viewed as the site of a political struggle between partisans on both sides to gain control of their meaning' [15]. Definitions of meaning were thus made not just by great thinkers but by everyday polemicists. Ashcraft wondered whether, during the 1680s, political conflict did not increase 'the sensitivity of individuals to the ways in which words were used' [19]. For a similar sensitivity to sets of words see M.Richter, The History of Political and Social Concepts (New York, 1995).

136 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by T. Burger and F. Lawrence (Cambridge, 1989). The book was first written in German in 1962.

137 Ibid., 15-16.

138 Ibid., 27.

139 Ibid., 176.

140 Ibid., 161.

141 Ibid., 171.

142 There have been curiously few attempts to relate his ideas to the later Stuart period, even though Habermas associated it with the origins of the public sphere. But see T. Claydon, 'The Sermon, the "Public Sphere" and the Political Culture of Late Seventeenth-Century England', in L.A. Ferrell, and P. McCullough (eds.), The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and History 1600-1750 (Manchester, 2001); Berry, Gender, Society and Print Culture; McDowell, Women of Grub Street.

For an excellent overview of how Habermasian ideas have been treated more generally see H. Mah, ‘Phantasies of the Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of Historians’, JMH 72 (2000), 153-182.

143 Besides works listed in chapter 1, see also B. Robbins (ed.), The Phantom Public Sphere (Minneapolis, 1993); A. Halasz, The Marketplace of Print. Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1997); D. Norbrook, 'Areopagitica, Censorship and the Early Modern Public Sphere' in R. Burt (ed.), The Administration of Aesthetics: Censorship, Political Criticism and the Public Sphere (Minneapolis, 1994); P. Lake and M. Questier, 'Puritans, Papists, and the "Public Sphere" in Early Modern England: the Edmund Campion Affair in Context', JMH 72 (2000), 587-627; G. Schochet, 'Vices, Benefits and Civil Society: Mandeville, Habermas and the Distinction between Public and Private' in P. Backscheider and T. Dystal (eds.), The Intersections of the Public and Private Spheres in Early Modern England (1996).

144 See also Klein, 'Coffee-house civility', note 5 and 35-9, 44.

145 J. Miller, ‘Public Opinion in Charles II’s England’, History 80 (1995), 359-81; B. Sharp, ‘Popular Political Opinion in England 1660-1685’, History of European Ideas 10 (1989), 13-29; I. Atherton, 'The Press and Popular Political Opinion', in B.Coward (ed.), A Companion to Stuart Britain (Oxford, 2003); S. Pincus, Protestantism and Patriotism: Ideologies and the Making of English Foreign Policy, 1650-1668 (Cambridge, 1996); Pincus, 'Coffee Politicians'; Harris, London Crowds; Montano, Courting the Moderates.

146 K. Baker, ‘Public Opinion as Political Invention’ in his Inventing the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); M. Ozouf, ‘”Public Opinion” at the End of the Old Regime’, JMH 60 (1988); F. Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1981).

147 They reject the Habermasian model as inappropriate to the conditions of early Stuart England and suggest that cultural change occurs through 'processes of appropriation and reappropriation, of interpretation and reinterpretation, whereby the "popular" or "the traditional" were taken over by a variety of ideological factions and fractions only to be resold to (and appropriated for the often very different purposes of) the people'. This process results in a 'bricolage' of 'ideological materials, core assumptions and resonant figures' [Lake, with Questier, The Antichrist's Lewd Hat, 324, 360-1, 483; 'Puritans, Papists and the "Public Sphere", 590]. For reservations about the applicability of Habermas to the early Stuart period see A. Bellany, The Politics of Scandal in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2002), 17-18.

148 Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader, 3.

149 Ibid., 9-10, 32.

150 Ibid., 18, 31.

151 Ibid., 86.

152 A. Bryson, From Courtesy to Civility. Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1998), 50, 276-7, 283; P. Burke, ‘A Civil Tongue: Language and Politeness in Early Modern Europe’, and J. Barry, ‘Civility and Civic Culture in Early Modern England: the Meanings of Urban Freedom’, both in Burke, B. Harrison and P. Slack (eds.), Civil Histories. Essays Presented to Sir Keith Thomas (Oxford 2000); J.G.A. Pocock, 'Post-Puritan England and the Problem of the Enlightenment' in P. Zagorin (ed.) Culture and Politics from Puritanism to the Enlightenment (California, 1980); N. Phillipson, ‘Politics and Politeness in the Reigns of Anne and the early Haonverians’ in J.G.A. Pocock (ed.), The Varieties of British Political Thought 1500-1800 (Cambridge, 1993); L. Klein, 'The Political Significance of "Politeness" in Early Eighteenth Century Britain', in Politics, Politeness and Patriotism ed. G. Schochet (Folger Institute Center for the History of British Political Thought Proceedings vol. 5, Washington, 1993); Klein, 'Coffee House Civility'; Klein, 'Liberty, Manners and Politeness in Early Eighteenth Century England', HJ 32 (1989), 583-604; Klein, Shaftesbury and the Culture of Politeness (Cambridge, 1994); 'The Third Earl of Shaftesbury and the Progress of Politeness', Eighteenth Century Studies (1984-5), 186-214; Klein, 'Politeness and the Interpretation of the British Eighteenth Century', HJ 45 (2002), 869-98. But B. Cowan, 'Reasonable Ecstasies: Shaftesbury and the Languages of Libertinism', JBS 37 (1998), 111-138 argues that Shaftesbury’s 'vision of who should be included in the public sphere was far more restrictive than that of many of his fellow Whig ideologists' [137]. Civility was, as Barry points out, necessary for a wide number of people in their urban relationships; politeness was more exclusive but ironically more necessary when expectations of civil unity had broken down. For urban civility see also Withington, 'Civility', forthcoming.

153 A. Boyer, The English Threophrastus (1702), 106, quoted by Klein, 'The Third earl of Shaftesbury and the Progress of Politeness', 190.

154 Klein, 'Political Significance', 75.

155 Ibid., 76; Phillipson, 'Politics and Politeness', 243. Phil Withington, however, challenges this chronology by stressing a cult of civility in urban society that accompanied rapid urbanisation between 1540 and 1640. He argues that well-ruled discourse, honesty, and discretion were all apparent in urban civility well before 1660. This is true; but the norms of this civility (secrecy, consensus, counsel by the select) all seem to have been violated after 1640 and the virtues highlighted by Withington as urban might equally apply to a ‘country’ rhetoric. One might also say that neighbourliness gave way to clubability or a form of exclusive sociability.

156 Klein, Shaftesbury, 8-9, 21.

157 Ibid., 3.

158 Klein, 'Political Significance', 75, 88, 90.

159 Ibid., 75.

160 Borsay, English Urban Renaissance, 282.

161 Burke, ‘A Civil Tongue’, 38.

162 Borsay, Urban Renaissance, 280, also suggests that while polite urban culture could on occasion be exploited for political ends, even before 1720 'fashionable town culture developed an apolitical, even anti-political complexion, that may have helped to stem the tide of party prejudice and warfare'.

163 Spectator, 125.

164 Ibid. cf. Nos. 57, 81.

165 Ibid., 126.

166 F. Beiser, The Sovereignty of Reason: the Defense of Rationality in the Early English Enlightenment (Princeton, 1996), 149.

167 Ibid., 223-4. For Toland see also R. Sullivan, John Toland and the Deist Controversy (Harvard, 1982); S. Daniel, John Toland: his Methods, Manners and Mind (Montreal, 1982); Champion, Republican Learning.

168 Champion, Republican Learning, 13; I. Rivers, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment: a Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780 (Cambridge, 2 vols., 1991 and 2000).

169 Beiser, Sovereignty of Reason, 184-5; M. Heyd, 'The Reaction to Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth Century: Towards an Integrative Approach', JMH 53 (1981), 258-80; Heyd, 'Be Sober and Reasonable': the Critique of enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Centuries (1995); B. Shapiro, Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth-century England: a Study of the Relationships between Natural Science, Religion, History, Law, and Literature (Princeton, 1983); Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550-1720 (London, 2000).

170 Amongst the medics and scientists who became involved with politics and polemics were John Locke, Bernard de Mandeville, James Drake, Samuel Garth, Hugh Chamberlen, John Arbuthnot, Isaac Newton, Richard Lower, William Wagstaffe and James Welwood.

171 R.F. Jones et al, The Seventeenth Century: Studies in the History of English Thought and Literature (Stanford, 1951); R. Adolph, The Rise of Modern Prose Style (Cambridge, MA, 1968); George Williamson, 'The Restoration Revolt against Enthusiasm', Studies in Philology 30 (1933), 571-603.

172 S. Clauss, 'John Wilkins' Essay Towards a Real Character: its Place in the C17th Episteme', Journal of History of Ideas 43 (1982), 531-54; M. Slaughter, Universal Language Schemes and Scientific Taxonomy in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1982).

173 M. Poovey, The History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society (Chicago, 1998).

174 R. Markley, Fallen Languages. Crises of Representation in Newtonian England 1660-1740 (New York, 1993), 22. R. Kroll, The Material World. Literate Culture in the Restoration and Early Eighteenth Century (1991) sees the restoration as marking a major shift in discursive practices, largely through a revival of interest in Epicureanism.

175 L. Stewart's The Rise of Public Science: Rhetoric, Technology and Natural Philosophy in Newtonian Britain 1660-1750 (Cambridge, 1992), 108, 118, and chapter 5, quotation at 146. For coffee houses, print and science see also A. Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago, 1998), chapter 8.

176 Stewart, Rise of Public Science, xv.

177 Ibid., 153-4, 156, 163-4, 206-11, 317-8. For a less subtle attempt to link Newtonianism and Whiggery see M. Jacob's The Newtonians and the English Revolution (1976).

178 S. Shapin and S.Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton 1985).

179 Ibid., 332, 342.

180 S. Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, 1994), xxi.

181 Shapiro, Probability and Certainty; Culture of Fact; H. G. van Leeuwen, The Problem of Uncertainty in English Thought 1630-1690 (The Hague, 1963). I. Hacking, The Emergence of Probability (Cambridge, 1975) argues that a modern concept of probability emerged around 1660 [9, 23, 82]. D. Patey, Probability and Literary Form: Philosophic Theory and Literary Practice in the Augustan Age (Cambridge, 1984) offers a critique of the Hacking thesis but admits that probability ‘is on every pen’ after 1650 [272].

182 The best application of these to the later Stuart political culture are C.Condren, Satire, Lies and Politics: the Case of Dr. Arbuthnot (Basingstoke, 1997); R. Weil, '"If I did say so, I lyed": Elizabeth Cellier and the Construction of Credibility in the Popish Plot Crisis', in Amussen and Kishlansky (eds.), Political Culture; S. Schaffer, 'Defoe's Natural Philosophy and the Worlds of Credit', in J. Christie and S. Shuttleworth, Nature Transfigured. Science and Literature, 1700-1900 (Manchester, 1989). For important application to the rest of the seventeenth century see also Achinstein, 'The Uses of Deception'; B. Dooley, 'News and Doubt in Early Modern Culture' in Dooley and Baron (eds.), The Politics of Information in Early Modern Europe (London, 2001).

183 Roy Porter, who did so much to foster the study of the enlightenment, nevertheless confessed he did 'not give much space to political debate' in his account of the British enlightenment [Enlightenment, xix].

184 S. Schaffer, 'A Social History of Plausibility: Country, City and Calculation in Augustan Britain', in A. Wilson (ed.), Rethinking Social History (1993). Hobbes, of course, attempted something similar in Leviathan.

185 C. Muldrew, The Economy of Obligation: the Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1998).

186 Poovey, History of the Modern Fact, 145.

187 Besides works already mentioned, see I. Watt, The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding (Berkeley, 1957); M. McKeon, The Origins of the English Novel 1600-1740 (Baltimore, 1987); L. Davis, Factual Fictions: the Origins of the English Novel (New York, 1983); J.P. Hunter, Before Novels: the Contexts of Eighteenth Century Fiction (New York, 1990); R. Ballaster, Seductive Forms: Women's Amatory Fiction from 1684 to 1740 (Oxford, 1992); J. Spencer, The Rise of the Woman Novelist: from Aphra Behn to Jane Austen (Oxford, 1986); S. Sherman, Finance and Fictionality in the Early Eighteenth Century: Accounting for Defoe (Cambridge, 1996); M. Schonhorn, Defoe's Politics: Parliament, Power, Kingship, and Robinson Crusoe (Cambridge, 1991); C. Nicholson, Writing and the Rise of Finance: Capital Satires of the Early Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994); J. Thompson, Models of Value: Eighteenth-Century Political Economy and the Novel (Durham, N.C., 1996); D. Eilon, Faction's Fictions: Ideological Closure in Swift's Satire (Newark, 1991).

188 J. Raymond, Invention of the Newspaper.

189 Some of this is explored in R. Braverman, Plots and Counterplots: Sexual Politics and the Body Politic in English Literature, 1660-1730 (Cambridge, 1993).

190 For this last point see Mah, 'Phantasies', 168.

191 Such an interpretation had also preceded new historicism (see especially M. Novak (ed.), English Literature in the Age of Disguise (Berkeley, 1977), albeit in a form less explicitly related to politics. See also L. Trilling, Sincerity and Authority (1974) for a wider context.

192 Zwicker, Lines of Authority: Politics and English Literary Culture, 1649-89 (New York, 1993), 5.

193 Zwicker, 'Politics and Literary Practice in the Restoration' in Renaissance Genres: Essays on Theory, History and Interpretation ed. B.K. Lewalski (Harvard, 1986), 269-298; Zwicker, 'Language as Disguise: Politics and Poetry in the Later Seventeenth Century', Annals of Scholarship 1 (1980), 47-67; 'Lines of Authority: Political and Literary Culture in the Restoration' in Sharpe and Zwicker, The Politics of Discourse (Los Angeles, 1987). For Dryden and the problems of words and meanings see also Kroll, Material World, 308-11.

194 J. Spurr, England in the 1670s: 'This Masquerading Age' (Oxford, 2000).

Download 2.07 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page