Comments on: Conrad Russell http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/09/10/conrad-russell/ Failing better at understanding the past Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:00:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Gavin Robinson http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/09/10/conrad-russell/#comment-6011 Gavin Robinson Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:28:40 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/09/10/conrad-russell/#comment-6011 I'm not really taking a position on whether Russell under- or over-estimated religion (or got it just right), just trying to get a clear idea of what his position was. That can be tricky because he seems so equivocal about it, although it eventually comes down to saying that religion made the war possible but not inevitable. I'm not convinced that inevitable should necessarily be privileged over possible as they can both be classed as causal factors which need to be accounted for. I'm even wondering if inevitability is a useful concept here at all. From what I've read of The Noble Revolt so far (up to about p. 160) it seems that Russell pays far more attention to religion than Adamson does. Russell devotes an awful lot of space to describing and explaining religious divisions and takes great care to define different theological positions. In comparison Adamson seems a bit vague and sloppy when he bothers to mention religion. He repeats the truism that politics and religion can't be separated, but maybe not with very much conviction. I’m not really taking a position on whether Russell under- or over-estimated religion (or got it just right), just trying to get a clear idea of what his position was. That can be tricky because he seems so equivocal about it, although it eventually comes down to saying that religion made the war possible but not inevitable. I’m not convinced that inevitable should necessarily be privileged over possible as they can both be classed as causal factors which need to be accounted for. I’m even wondering if inevitability is a useful concept here at all.

From what I’ve read of The Noble Revolt so far (up to about p. 160) it seems that Russell pays far more attention to religion than Adamson does. Russell devotes an awful lot of space to describing and explaining religious divisions and takes great care to define different theological positions. In comparison Adamson seems a bit vague and sloppy when he bothers to mention religion. He repeats the truism that politics and religion can’t be separated, but maybe not with very much conviction.

]]> By: mercurius politicus http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/09/10/conrad-russell/#comment-5992 mercurius politicus Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:59:04 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/09/10/conrad-russell/#comment-5992 Time was when this was guaranteed to be one of the tattiest and most heavily borrowed books in any history library... the few copies in the Seeley in Cambridge were so heavily annotated you could have written another book just from the notes! I'm sure you're right about Russell underestimating the role of religion - this is also something that comes through in Adamson's books (Adamson was heavily influenced by Russell, something he acknowledges in the foreword of The Noble Revolt). To read both you get the impression of the Junto as a Machiavellian bunch of politicking power-grabbers. And while there's lots of truth to this, I don't think it's a contradiction to combine this with analysis of the puritanism of, for example, Saye and Sele or Pym. The Providence Island connection and the links to the Artillery Company don't just reflect politics. And Adamson's attempt to disconnect Bedford from religion and connect him instead to classical republicanism doesn't really convince. And I do side with Morrill in looking to religion as the spark that mobilised gentry for one side or the other (or neither). Where I think Russell has something is in looking to high politics for the short-term causes. Have fun with Adamson - the last chapter in particular is a good statement of his arguments of religion following politics (cuius regio, eius religio), although I think he makes a category error in arguing that his narrative "explains" the causes of the English Civil War. It explains the short-term triggers, perhaps. Time was when this was guaranteed to be one of the tattiest and most heavily borrowed books in any history library… the few copies in the Seeley in Cambridge were so heavily annotated you could have written another book just from the notes!

I’m sure you’re right about Russell underestimating the role of religion - this is also something that comes through in Adamson’s books (Adamson was heavily influenced by Russell, something he acknowledges in the foreword of The Noble Revolt). To read both you get the impression of the Junto as a Machiavellian bunch of politicking power-grabbers. And while there’s lots of truth to this, I don’t think it’s a contradiction to combine this with analysis of the puritanism of, for example, Saye and Sele or Pym. The Providence Island connection and the links to the Artillery Company don’t just reflect politics. And Adamson’s attempt to disconnect Bedford from religion and connect him instead to classical republicanism doesn’t really convince. And I do side with Morrill in looking to religion as the spark that mobilised gentry for one side or the other (or neither). Where I think Russell has something is in looking to high politics for the short-term causes.

Have fun with Adamson - the last chapter in particular is a good statement of his arguments of religion following politics (cuius regio, eius religio), although I think he makes a category error in arguing that his narrative “explains” the causes of the English Civil War. It explains the short-term triggers, perhaps.

]]>