Mixed Monarchy Research Articles

Medieval Origins of the “Jagiellonian Idea” and Its International Contexts

The purpose of the article is to show the genesis of the “Jagiellonian idea,” which the author links to the political and social changes in medieval Poland of the Piast era. Ecclesiastical law, which was associated with close relations with the Holy See and Rome, exerted a great influence on the formation of the state system of that time. Under the influence of these ties, the social system in Poland took shape somewhat differently than in other regions of Europe that were dominated by absolutism and had autocratic rulers. Under the law of the time, all members of society, despite class differences, were bound by the same ethical and moral principles. After the Jagiellonians took over the reign, the system evolved into a mixed monarchy, in which power was shared by three parliamentary branches: the king, the senate and the chamber of deputies.

The concept of mixed monarchy and the monarchical principle in the study of modern state systems

ABSTRACT This paper has three main goals. Firstly – to draw attention to the phenomenon of the democratic paradigm in the study of modern state systems (especially monarchical ones), characterise it and outline its sources. Also - to question the basis of this phenomenon (by pointing out, among other things, the durability of monarchical systems and the phenomenon of partial ‘re-monarchization’ – real or apparent – of certain contemporary republican systems on the examples of: Montenegro, Romania, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland). Secondly, to present the negative consequences of the functioning of the democratic paradigm, also (paradoxically) those affecting the political practice of republics. Thirdly, to propose a way to reduce these negative consequences by changing the optics adopted in comparative studies about monarchies and republics. This change is based on the restoration, in comparative analyses of contemporary state systems (including monarchical ones), of the concepts of ‘mixed system’ and ‘monarchical principle’, which are still used in research on the history of the state and law, and should be disseminated in research on contemporary political systems and constitutional law. An explanation of the terms ‘mixed system’ and ‘monarchical principle’ as I use them here will follow in the final part of the paper.

Early stirrings of modern liberty in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas

AbstractIn a 2021 contribution to Politics and Religion, Jesse Russell wrote that St. Thomas Aquinas “had a decidedly illiberal view of a government.” He says Aquinas “advocates a government in which the people are not given public liberty” and did not “prepare the way for the mixed monarchy of the English constitution.” But Aquinas places the rule of moral law above politics, endorses participatory government, prioritizes reciprocal duties rather than coerced conformity, favors a mixed regime with democratic representation, and sanctions resistance to tyrants. Each idea is an important component of modern understandings of freedom. Liberal democracy as a constitutional arrangement, and its various philosophical defenses, postdate Aquinas by centuries. It would be anachronistic to cast him as their partisan. But neither was he a proto-reactionary: his political philosophy is congenial to free, limited government that belongs to the people.

How to Mix Monarchy with Democracy. Precepts from Roman History

The article deals with several aspects of the theory of mixed government (mixed constitution), given that many scholars, including Max Weber, considered such phenomenon of modern political systems as Ceasarism to be a mix of monarchy and democracy. In the beginning an analysis of a famous statement from the “Roman History” of Cassius Dio (who wrote that Augustus has “mixed monarchy with democracy”) is provided. Such terms from Ancient Greek as demokratia and monarchia had a very specific meaning during the time of writing of this book, i.e. 220–230 CE. But apart from studying the peculiarities of the historical meanings of the terms used to designate these forms of rule what is important is also how their juxtaposition or mixing was theorized. The article studies different terms used in such interpretations. Briefly, the term krasis meant a fusion of the components and thus a creation of a new substance with new qualities and homogeneity, while the term mixis could also mean that the components of the mixture retained their distinct existence, though acquiring an ability to influence each other. The second version of conceptualizing mixes eventually served as the basis for a famous theory of checks and balances within a political regime. Thus Dio, one could argue, uses the term mixis rather than krasis — and this makes his different from the other authors of the school of the Second Sophistic — because he wants to stress that one form of rule should check and balance another form, and they should not constitute a total fusion within a uniform political regime. In the end of th article, the conceptual vocabulary of Dio is tested in its felicity while describing present day political phenomena.

"THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES (1829-1835): AUTONOMY AND CONSTITUTIONAL FEATURES IN THE COMPARATIVE EUROPEAN CONTEXT "

The main themes covered in this study concern the changes in die political and juridical status of die Dannbian Principalities (Moldavia, Wallachia and Serbia), following die Treaty of Adrianople, in the sense of defining tiieir internal autonomy, as well as die institutional transformations that followed, which shaped die modem architecture of die state, but also die means of interference and control of die protecting power, Russia. Analysed in a European constitutional context, die Organic Regiilations of die Romanian Principalities and die "constitrution" projects drafted in die Principality of Serbia tended to establish a political regime of mixed monarchy, of real modern substance, but also suitable for Russian interests in the Lower Danube region.

Homer Revised? Echoes of the Behemoth in the Hobbesian Translations of the Iliad and Odyssey

Abstract By moving on from the findings of literature concerning the connections between the Leviathan and the Hobbesian translations of the Homeric poems, this article aims to problematize these relationships further with regard to the Behemoth. Three principal issues will be taken into account – the prophecy, the ruling over the Militia, and the mixed monarchy – given that, although themes typical of the philosopher’s political thought, their peculiarities in the Behemoth enable us to draw attention to possible significant political connections between Hobbes’s translations of the Iliad and Odyssey and his narrative of the English Civil War.

СОЦІАЛЬНО-ПОЛІТИЧНІ Й ІСТОРИЧНІ ПЕРЕДУМОВИ ФОРМУВАННЯ ІДЕЇ КОНСТИТУЦІЙНОГО РОЯЛІЗМУ В АНГЛІЇ СЕРЕДИНИ XVII СТОЛІТТЯ

The article is dedicated to the study of such a direction of political thought of the English Revolution of the 17th century as the constitutional royalism. This ideological direction has not been the subject of research by historians, who have focused mainly on the analysis of the ideas of supporters of Parliament. But the theory of constitutional royalism underlies the modern political system of Great Britain. This fact determines the relevance of this study. The term "constitutional royalism", first proposed by the English historian David Smith, characterizes a group of royalists who submited the idea of the king's rule in Parliament, or the idea of "mixed monarchy". The article aims to consider the historical context of the formation of the theory of constitutional royalism. The article describes the socio-political and ideological conditions that helped to form this area of political thought. The author concludes that the idea of constitutional royalism could have arisen and received its further development only in connection with the conditions prevailing in England in the 17th century. The new ruler James I wanted to strengthen the power of the monarch and make it absolute. The king and Parliament argued over the issue of the royal prerogative, namely the extraordinary rights of the monarch. James I sought to increase this prerogative, and Parliament wanted to limit it. Over time, there is a group of constitutional royalists – those who advocated the reign of the king in Parliament. Proponents of this idea believed that the monarch should retain all power, but Parliament at the same time performs advisory functions and helps the king to rule the state. Appearing during the English Revolution of the 17th century, the idea of constitutional royalism influenced on the political life of England and contributed to the formation of its modern state of affairs.

Reading by Design: The Visual Interfaces of the English Renaissance Book

Reading by Design: The Visual Interfaces of the English Renaissance Book

The draft Constitution of the Polish State of 1917, on the idea of resurrecting the Polish state in 1918 as a mixed (constitutional) monarchy and the main provisions of the monarchical constitution for Poland

The draft Constitution of the Polish State of 1917, on the idea of resurrecting the Polish state in 1918 as a mixed (constitutional) monarchy and the main provisions of the monarchical constitution for Poland

O SYMULOWANEJ NAUCE, CZYLI O NIEKOMPETENTNEJ, NIEUDOLNEJ I NIEUDANEJ REKONCEPTUALIZACJI SPOŁECZNEJ, KULTUROWEJ, GOSPODARCZEJ I POLITYCZNEJ HISTORII I RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ, NIERZETELNYM POSTęPOWANIU HABILITACYJNYM I GROŹNYM POMRUKU METODOLOGICZNYM à LA OTWOCK

StreszczenieW artykule zawarto ocenę książki Jana Sowy pt. „Fantomowe ciało króla. Peryferyjne zmagania z nowoczesną formą” (TAiWPN UNIVERSITAS, Kraków 2011, ss. 572). Książka ta traktowana jest przez niektóre środowiska naukowe jako odkrycie „nowego paradygmatu badań w naukach historycznych”. Autorzy artykułu, będący historykami państwa i prawa polskiego, kwestionują wartość naukową tej pracy, kwalifikując ją jako przykład pseudonauki i naukowego pozoranctwa. Opisując stosunki gospodarcze, społeczne i polityczne w I Rzeczypospolitej (1572 – 1795) J. Sowa dopuszcza się rażących uchybień metodologicznych. W szczególności niezwykle często ignoruje fakty albo interpretuje je według z góry przyjętych założeń. Podjęta przez niego „rekonceptualizacja” odnosi się do wiedzy historycznej na poziomie podręczników licealnych, bez jakiejkolwiek wiarygodnej analizy źródłowej. Materiał historyczny wykorzystywany został wybiórczo z notoryczną ignorancją rzeczywistości. Za pseudonaukę należy uznać zwłaszcza rozważania poświęcone psychoanalizie polskiej przeszłości oparte na metodologii Jacque’a Lacana, w obliczu poddania jej w literaturze gruntownej krytyce w zakresie zastosowań matematyki (A. Sokal, J. Bricot). Fundamentalna teza J. Sowy o nieistnieniu państwa polskiego po 1572 r. (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów jako „fantomowe ciało króla”) jawi się jako nonsens, wynikający z niezrozumienia teorii Ernsta Kantorowicza o dwóch ciałach króla: fizycznym i politycznym i fałszywej jej aplikacji do polskich realiów historycznych. Poprzedzająca I Rzeczpospolitą monarchia Jagiellonów nigdy nie była ciałem politycznym króla („jednoosobową korporacją”), lecz ciałem politycznym zbiorowym o uznanej osobowości prawnej (Corpus Regni, Corona Regni Poloniae). Nie ma wątpliwości, że Rzeczpospolita jako państwo istniała także po wygaśnięciu dynastii Jagiellonów, aż do 1795 r., a wolna elekcja czy liberum veto nie pozbawiały tego państwa realnego bytu prawnego. Teza o nieistnieniu I Rzeczypospolitej jako państwa nie opiera się na żadnej teorii państwa, a więc tym bardziej nie ma wartości naukowej. W pracy występują błędy rzeczowe, jak teza o trwałości granicy na Łabie i Dunaju. Aprioryczna założenie o wyższości monarchii absolutnej nad ustrojem monarchii mieszanej, jaką była I Rzeczpospolita, rozmija się tezami najnowszej historiografii. Wartość pracy jako samodzielnego dzieła naukowego podważają liczne zapożyczenia z prac innych autorów bez poszanowania autorstwa.

Propiedad, democracia y monarquía en John Locke. (¿Era Locke un partidario de la igualdad política y la democracia?)

RESUMENEl presente trabajo discute aquellas interpretaciones de Locke como un continuador del radicalismo leveller y un partidario inequívoco de la igualdad política y la democracia. Sostiene que su obra y pensamiento político persigue más bien un retorno a «our ancient government» y «its original constitution», esto es, un modelo de «monarquía moderada» o «mixta» que no sólo representa un retroceso democrático respecto al «republicanismo popular» de los levellers sino también una forma de gobierno en la que los elementos democráticos e igualitarios quedan debilitados. PALABRAS CLAVELOCKE, LIBERALISMO–IGUALDAD–DEMOCRACIA–MONARQUÍAABSTRACTThis paper questions those interpretations of Locke as a follower of leveller radicalism and an unequivocal supporter of political equality and democracy. It argues that his work and political thought seek mainly a return to «our ancient government» and «its original constitution», that is, a model of “moderate or mixed monarchy” which not only represents a democratic regression compared to the «popular republicanism» of the Levellers but also a form of government in which the democratic and egalitarian elements are weakened. KEY WORDSLOCKE–LIBERALISM–EQUALITY–DEMOCRACY–MONARCHY

Bad Queen Bess? Libels, Secret Histories, and the Politics of Publicity in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I by Peter Lake

Queen Bess? Libels, Secret Histories, and the Politics of Publicity in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I. By Peter Lake. (New York: Oxford University Press. 2016. Pp. xii, 497. $60.00. ISBN 978-0198753995.)Peter Lake's new study of Elizabethan politico-religious conflicts extends both his recent efforts to relocate Catholic texts and culture at the center of early modern English historical studies and his techniques of reading literary and polemical texts as historical evidence. Lake examines the ongoing dialogue between, on the one hand, Latin and vernacular Catholic texts and, on the other, Elizabethan Protestant polemics: despite their common use of paranoid, conspiracy-obsessed discourse, they highlight the national and international political and religious stakes involved in such subjects as the mixed monarchy, religious persecution or toleration, the succession question, the uncertain boundary between Church and State, foreign intervention for religious or political reasons, and papal temporal (and deposing) power. Lake focuses on several crisis moments from the late 1560s through the early 1590s, highlighting the texts generated by the Northern Rebellion (1569) and the prospective match of the Duke of Norfolk with Mary, Queen of Scots; Queen Elizabeth's negotiations for a royal marriage with the French Catholic Duke of Anjou; the conspiracies and assassination plots associated with the Scottish queen; the 1588 Spanish Armada and its aftermath; and the resurgence of Catholic polemic in the early 1590s following new anti-Catholic legislation.Departing somewhat from ordinary historiographical procedures, Lake devotes a lot of space to the close examination of each of the propagandistic texts he has chosen-not only summarizing what is said in them, but also including a very large number of quotes in order to animate and inhabit imaginatively, certain sorts of Catholic political thought (p. 4): he enters the mindset of the authors he discusses and ventriloquizes their voices, repeatedly postponing critical analysis. He argues that the Catholic texts pioneered the kinds of political critique that were elaborated throughout the seventeenth century and that, without them, our understanding of Elizabethan politics is distorted.William Cecil, Lord Burghley, emerges as the main shaper and defender of the English Protestant state, usually hiding behind other authors (such as his client Thomas Norton) or the pose of anonymity to produce answers to Catholic libels and critiques of the Elizabethan regime. Bad Queen Bess is not really the focus of the book, since she is the explicit target only in the most radical of the Catholic pamphlets. …

Friars on the Frontier: Catholic Renewal and the Dominican Order in Southeastern Poland, 1594–1648 (review)

Reviewed by: Friars on the Frontier: Catholic Renewal and the Dominican Order in Southeastern Poland, 1594–1648 Dariusz M. Bryćko Friars on the Frontier: Catholic Renewal and the Dominican Order in Southeastern Poland, 1594–1648. By Piotr Stolarski. [Catholic Christendom, 1300–1700.] (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. 2010. Pp. xvi, 265. $124.95. ISBN 978-1409-40595-5.) The gist of Piotr Stolarski’s argument lies in the underappreciated (if not forgotten) role of the mendicant Orders, especially Dominicans, and the overestimated role of Jesuits in the Counter-Reformation of Poland-Lithuania. For Stolarski, the mendicant Orders—more than the Jesuits—should be credited with bringing the genuine spiritual renewal that ushered in consensual and internalized conversion of Protestants to Catholicism. Jesuits, he argues, were actually less effective, as they were generally perceived as arrogant, intolerant, manipulative, and supportive of absolute monarchy; and thus they were distrusted by the freedom-loving Polish szlachta. The advantage of the mendicants, Stolarski argues, was in their longevity (they predated the Council of Trent and the formation of the Society of Jesus), theological realism, religious irenicism, and openness to mixed monarchy. He also mentions miraculous healings credited to the intercession of friars and humble piety expressed in vows of poverty—both of which made the mendicants better-equipped agents for the genuine spiritual renewal that encouraged reconversions of Protestants back to Rome. Certainly, this book is to be valued for bringing to the surface the role of the Dominicans, which has been sorely neglected, and for seeking continuities with the pre-Trent role of the mendicants in Poland-Lithuania. The author’s commitment is to look into Catholic orthodoxy “on its own terms”—carefully avoiding interpretive frameworks that are unhelpful (especially for Poland-Lithuania)—thus bringing greater complexity and understanding to the post-Reformation period. Further, religious historiography of early-modern Poland-Lithuania (both Polish and English) is insufficient, and Stolarski fills gaps, offers analysis of interesting primary sources, and provides a provocative thesis that will galvanize a much-needed discussion on the issue. However, the book has some serious drawbacks, especially when commenting on Reformed theology. For instance, the author shows unfamiliarity with the Protestant realist tradition, equating Protestantism with nominalism (pp. 39, 190). Furthermore, when Stolarski comments on the writings of Fabian Birkowski, he fails to mention how the Dominican preacher misrepresented Protestant theology (p. 127), giving the impression that Birkowski accurately presented Reformed teaching. Similarly, when the author comments on Dominican-Jesuit disputes over the doctrine of grace (pp. 39–40), he seems unaware of the doctrinal proximity between the Reformed Scholastics and Dominicans, who both took a stance against Alfred Molina’s Middle Knowledge. Finally, Stolarski seems unable to differentiate between the terms Calvinist and Reformed. These should be used and defined carefully, as Henrich Bullinger, Jan Laski, and others greatly influenced the Polish [End Page 813] Reformed Church, not simply John Calvin. Broadly speaking, the author’s general notion that the victory of Polish Catholicism is due to its spiritual vibrancy and doctrinal coherence alone is overstated. The fall of the Polish Reformed Church was more complex than that, partially owing to the schism it suffered that resulted in the emergence of the anti-Trinitarian Polish Brethren (later known as Socinians or Unitarians). The schism weakened the Polish-Lithuanian Reformed Church from within and made it a feeble rival, compared to the Reformed Church in the West. Despite these drawbacks, the book may help to further discussion and achieve a more balanced view of the reasons behind the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian Reformation. Dariusz M. Bryćko Grand Rapids, MI Copyright © 2012 The Catholic University of America Press

The Ancient Constitution and the Origins of Anglo–American Liberty , and: Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders' Constitution , and: M'Culloch v. Maryland: Securing a Nation (review)

Reviewed by: The Ancient Constitution and the Origins of Anglo–American Liberty, and: Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders' Constitution, and: M'Culloch v. Maryland: Securing a Nation George Van Cleve, PhD candidate in history The Ancient Constitution and the Origins of Anglo–American Liberty. By John Phillip Reid. (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2005. Pp. 188. Cloth, $32.00.) Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders' Constitution. By Calvin H. Johnson. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. xv, 294. Cloth, $75.00.) M'Culloch v. Maryland: Securing a Nation. By Mark R. Killenbeck. (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2006. Pp. xii, 227. Cloth, $35.00; Paper, $16.95.) To paraphrase Rousseau, modern constitutionalism means that today the popular will is born free, yet is everywhere in chains. This becomes evident from a review of these three works of constitutional history spanning two centuries in which one can trace the evolution of the idea of liberty. The supposed grounding of liberty changed dramatically between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, from its protection by the rule of law to its protection by the clash of competing political and economic centers of power. That period also saw a vastly expanded definition of liberty, including within liberty political and economic freedoms held by the people. Despite this, constitutional advocates rejected unrestrained rule by popular will as inimical to freedom; and they did so while proclaiming popular sovereignty as the sole basis of political legitimacy.1 In his book The Ancient Constitution, John Phillip Reid undertakes to "survey the use made by lawyers, constitutionalists, and parliamentarians of the suppositive ancient constitution as the forensic tool with which to create, defend, and define the concept of liberty and of representative government" (5). The ancient constitution was the "putative aboriginal political structure of Anglo-Saxon governance . . . free people living under elected kings, vested with limited authority, and confined by the rule of customary law" (5–6). In "the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the ancient constitution provided a standard with which to argue against the actions . . . of contemporary government" (6). The early chapters of Reid's book discuss underlying historical issues related to the ancient constitution, such as the extent to which supporters thought that it was timeless and unchanging, and what significance that belief had for their use of the concept. Later chapters discuss specific issues raised by the ancient constitution, such as the significance of the Norman Conquest and Magna Carta. Throughout, Reid relies on a distinction between "forensic history," or history as practiced by advocates [End Page 144] (mostly lawyers), and more objective history as practiced by historians. Reid argues that historians should study what advocates actually do with history, not whether their history is "good" history from a historian's perspective, and he seeks to provide a history of such advocacy based on the ancient constitution concept. For Reid, that concept was a tool used by advocates to oppose arbitrary power and defend traditional civil liberties. Reid thus has a markedly different view of the concept's history than do many other historians. Many modern historians have deemed inaccurate the view that an "ancient constitution" gave Parliament the substantial powers for which its supporters argued in the seventeenth century when opposing the Stuart kings. Historians have also argued that the common early-seventeenth-century view that the ancient constitution was timeless and unchanging was flawed, and that this flaw was recognized by the late seventeenth century.2 Reid asserts to the contrary that the ancient constitution was not primarily an institutional framework for a broad model of government such as mixed monarchy. It was, first and foremost, a defense of governance by the rule of law. Second, the purpose of the ancient constitution was advocacy, not history. (47–48) Reid's evidence for both of these debatable claims is unpersuasive. The idea of the "rule of law" was inextricably embedded in a debate over sovereignty through much of the English seventeenth century. Consequently, many of the arguments made by supporters of the ancient constitution were indeed about the structure of government, often in the form of claimed rights against the royal...

The Politics of Masochism in Mary Wroth's Urania

Mary Wroth's Urania registers a widening fissure in seventeenth-century England between royal claims to discretionary authority and a communitarian view of sovereignty emphasizing counsel and consent. The depictions of erotic torment in Wroth's romance literalize absolutist representations of political obligation as eager abasement to a beloved sovereign, and thereby show how such idealized narratives may compel subjects to assent to their own abuse. Yet even as the Urania relinquishes romanticized notions of rule in favor of a mixed monarchy, its fragmented, incomplete narrative suggests that there is no definitive solution to political discord, only a series of contingent, and necessarily imperfect, responses to the shifting Jacobean terrain.

The Case of Lady Anne Clifford; or, Did Women Have a Mixed Monarchy?

I became a feminist critic of the renaissance in 1989, when a professor, in answer to my question about why there were no women on the syllabus, replied that there were no women writers in the seventeenth century. This comment took me to the library, where I discovered what he should have known but did not have to: not only were there women writers in the period, but feminist literary critics were retrieving them from the archives and rewriting literary history in the light of their contributions. One of these women writers was Lady Anne Clifford (1590–1676), the author of a singularly massive amount of genealogical, historical, and personal writings and a subject of interest, long before the 1980s, for Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf. In 1985, the Marxist feminist critic Katharine Hodgkin wrote an essay about Clifford's conflicted status as a woman (victim of patriarchy) and as a landlord (oppressor). Clifford has received different treatment in recent years, considered primarily as a diarist (with the attendant and often ahistorical assumptions the genre solicits [see Kunin]) and as a heroic resister of patriarchal forces. My goal here is to use Clifford as a case study for the role of feminist criticism today, not only because she has raised such complex issues for feminist critics of the Renaissance and early modern period but also because the issues her life and work raise about kinship and the household, property and political agency, and the intersectionality of determining forces of identity and power are of continuing relevance to feminist methodologies and politics. I am particularly concerned with feminist claims that have become axiomatic—for the early modern period as well as others—both at the level of historical progression (the march toward modernity) and in more synchronic analyses of social and cultural practices and relationships (including our assumptions that we know what patriarchy, kinship, and household mean). By unsettling these axioms and reconsidering the stories Clifford tells, I hope to illustrate the truth that feminist criticism is by its nature a reconsideration, a form of doing rather than being.

La monarquía inglesa en la crisis del Antiguo Régimen: polémicas e identidades políticas en la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII

This essay will try to expose the elements that made the Anglo-Saxon historiography describe England at the XVIII century as a society of “Ancien Regime”. The notion of mixed monarchy is wrong if used to describe the political reality of the Hannoverian England. Submission date: 12/12/2003 Acceptance date: 21/03/2004

The English Accession of James VI: 'National' Identity, Gender and the Personal Monarchy of England

In this paper, the contexts in which the Scottish king James VI succeeded to the English throne are reconsidered. In 1603 James was an experienced and successful Scottish ruler, with a strong theoretical view of the function and powers of monarchy. He expected that his new subjects shared his commitment to masculine, ‘trewe’ monarchy, and viewed the English language of mixed monarchy as a temporary accommodation for a female monarch. His understanding of the importance of the gender of the monarch, it is argued, was a major explanation for many of the difficulties which James encountered in his early years in England, at least a important as the more conventional argument that his problems were those of Scottish outsider. The ultimate irony of his accession is that in his English reign, he sought to establish the obvious advantages of masculine rule. His rule, however, also lead to the construction an image of Elizabeth as the model (incidentally female) ruler, and the exemplar of all royal virtues, so many of which her explicitly misogynist successor was seen to lack.

Political culture in the reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 1558-1585

Acknowledgements Introduction 1. 'To be Deborah': The political implications of providentialism under a female ruler 2. Announcing the godly common weal: Knox, Aylmer and the parameters of counsel 3. Feats of incorporation: the ideological bases of the mixed monarchy 4. Contesting the social order: 'resistance theory' and the mixed monarchy 5. Godly men and nobles: the bicephalic body politic 6. Godly men and parliamentarians: the politics of counsel in the 1570s 7. Rewriting the common weal: Sir Thomas Smith and the De Republica Angelorum Afterword Bibliography Index.

Paradigms in English political economy: Interregnum to Glorious Revolution

The paper provides a model for describing how paradigms of political economy were engendered in England, 1647-c.1690. It is submitted that 1 a paradigmatic distinction can be drawn between an atomistic perspective and a corporatist one; 2 the two perspectives were simultaneous, and engendered by alternative theories of sovereignty as presented by political discourse; 3 the connection between economic and political freedom was the opposite of what is commonly assumed. Free trade in any sense was endorsed by champions of absolute royal sovereignty, and state intervention in the economy was a common outcome of the way economic activities were conceptualized by supporters of a free constitution or a mixed monarchy. No historical narration follows the model, but some evidence for its historical plausibility is provided in sections 2 and 3.