tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.comments2015-01-20T10:38:43.793-08:00 A Trumpet of Sedition.Org A Trumpet of Seditionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15939277501123944811noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.post-36535679660636897312015-01-20T07:52:23.065-08:002015-01-20T07:52:23.065-08:00I am an author of historical fiction and my WIP is...I am an author of historical fiction and my WIP is about the Kent Rebellion.This is the best article I've come across concerning Sir Michael Livesey, and goes a long way to answering some questions I had about him. Thank you so much for posting it. Evelyn Tidmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03842383416965177046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.post-42804766318347728212011-01-04T11:36:29.469-08:002011-01-04T11:36:29.469-08:00The landed elite remained dominant in the mid- sev...The landed elite remained dominant in the mid- seventeenth century and later just as it had done one hundred, two hundred and three hundred years before. There was no change consequent upon the decline of "feudal tenures" in Harrington's argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.post-90616078553127332202011-01-04T05:44:15.180-08:002011-01-04T05:44:15.180-08:00I'm not saying that Harrington's thesis is...I'm not saying that Harrington's thesis is based on an exact or even correct 'analysis of the contemporary distribution of land'. But he did perceive significant changes which - as you rightly say - were caused by 'the decline of feudal tenures'. And this decline of feudal tenures gave rise to a new type of landownership and at the same time a new type of society characterised increasingly by merit rather than birth. The senators who replace the old lords in Harrington's ideal state hold their office because they are 'wiser than the rest', not by the virtue of their birth. That is what matters. Changes in property ownership produce changes in a country's power structures. In the long term freehold tenure facilitates popular participation in politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.post-90944442398720826272011-01-04T01:41:07.822-08:002011-01-04T01:41:07.822-08:00But Harrington's argument was not "the pr...But Harrington's argument was not "the product of an analysis of the contemporary distribution of land, because it does not claim to be" such: it was an investigation of the decline of feudal tenures and the development of freehold tenure, which made possible a state in which a Classical Republic of the kind described by Livy and advocated by Machiavelli. Scholars like J.G.A.Pocock and Judith Schklar showed as long ago as the 1950s that Tawney's view of Harrington was erroneous.Christopher Thompsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.post-27102688982917102882011-01-03T11:55:44.868-08:002011-01-03T11:55:44.868-08:00That's an interesting point. The 'rise of ...That's an interesting point. The 'rise of the gentry' hypothesis has long been contested. However, I find it significant that Harrington still perceived a shift of property and power towards the gentry and yeomanry. Of course one might wonder how far this perception was influenced by a political agenda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.post-5715989438064563142011-01-03T09:53:12.427-08:002011-01-03T09:53:12.427-08:00I am afraid that these assertions about the transf...I am afraid that these assertions about the transfer of land between the nobility and gentry. The peerage in 1601 may have held less land than in 1558 but it still held more than in 1534. By 1641, the much enlarged peerage had far more land in its hands than in 1601. This is true even using Lawrence Stone's highly improbable figures. The English Civil War or Revolution was preceded by a notable shift in landed possessions towards the peerage and by the rise of "aristocratic constitutionalism".Christopher Thompsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4995438334891885282.post-89933167907208154182010-09-11T03:09:43.151-07:002010-09-11T03:09:43.151-07:00This work belongs in the Nonconformist/Whig tradit...This work belongs in the Nonconformist/Whig tradition of hero-worshipping Oliver Cromwell. After Thomas Carlyle, he came to be seen as embodying the values of relgious and political freedom for which he was taken, like later Nonconformists, as standing. There was and is a strong hagiographical element in this line of analysis just as there is in Marxist/Socialist works on the Levellers and Diggers. Christopher Hill once compared early modern Puritanism and later Nonconformity to wine and vinegar. He was right.Christopher Thompsonnoreply@blogger.com