Comments on: The World Turned Upside Down http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/10/22/the-world-turned-upside-down/ Failing better at understanding the past Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:11:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Serendipities http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/10/22/the-world-turned-upside-down/#comment-7842 Serendipities Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:10:50 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/10/22/the-world-turned-upside-down/#comment-7842 [...] Does this image look familiar? Gavin Robinson used to think of it as a cliché. When he looked closely at the image and pamphlet, it defied his expectations. [...] [...] Does this image look familiar? Gavin Robinson used to think of it as a cliché. When he looked closely at the image and pamphlet, it defied his expectations. [...]

]]> By: Gavin Robinson http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/10/22/the-world-turned-upside-down/#comment-7258 Gavin Robinson Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:40:26 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/10/22/the-world-turned-upside-down/#comment-7258 Maybe "so far so Laudian" was a bit flippant. It was only the bowing that suggested it. There isn't any mention of altar rails, and no evidence of Arminian theology (although I think some people have argued that Laud wasn't Arminian; I don't know enough about religion to know how convincing that argument is). It's interesting that there isn't any mention of bishops or Presbyterians either. It logically follows from other things that are said in the pamphlet that he would be in favour of bishops but in a similar vein to what you said about parliament, it might not have been a good idea to come out in favour of bishops at that time. Maybe “so far so Laudian” was a bit flippant. It was only the bowing that suggested it. There isn’t any mention of altar rails, and no evidence of Arminian theology (although I think some people have argued that Laud wasn’t Arminian; I don’t know enough about religion to know how convincing that argument is). It’s interesting that there isn’t any mention of bishops or Presbyterians either. It logically follows from other things that are said in the pamphlet that he would be in favour of bishops but in a similar vein to what you said about parliament, it might not have been a good idea to come out in favour of bishops at that time.

]]> By: mercurius politicus http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/10/22/the-world-turned-upside-down/#comment-7181 mercurius politicus Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:31:11 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/10/22/the-world-turned-upside-down/#comment-7181 Thanks for posting on this. I'd never read this pamphlet before, although the woodcut is familiar to me from the illustrations of various books! It seems that T.J. is generally reckoned to be <a href="http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27044" rel="nofollow">John Taylor</a>, a waterman and poet with connections with the court. You can see his experience as a waterman in some of the imagery of the poem - eg the long list of ports, and some of the marine life referenced. He was strongly anti-Catholic - hence his antipathy to the Irish - although I'm not sure how Laudian he was. True, he objected to the smashing of altar rails in his parish church, but more than anything he strikes me as a solidly-middle of the road late Elizabethan Protestant (suspicious both of Catholicism and of "the hotter sort of protestants"). He also seems to have had topsy-turvy adventures of his own... for example: "Taylor and a friend sailed down the Thames to Quinborough in a boat he had fashioned, for a wager, out of brown paper, kept half afloat by inflated animal bladders attached to the sides". The tradition of the English eccentric goes back a long way, clearly! On your point about Parliament's rebellion against the king upsetting the natural order, I suspect it would not have been too provident of Taylor at this point to be too anti-Parliament (no royalist court left, and his source of employment had gone as a result - he seemed to have been running a pub in Covent Garden by this point). There is a <a href="http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_id=xri:eebo&rft_id=xri:eebo:citation:11815303" rel="nofollow">wonderfully touching account</a> he wrote of his visit to the Isle of Wight in 1648 to see his king one last time, which concludes with an account of all the people Charles has healed thaumaturgically through the royal touch. Of course Parliament itself got round this little conundrum by saying their fight was with the king's advisers, rather than the king itself... Thanks for posting on this. I’d never read this pamphlet before, although the woodcut is familiar to me from the illustrations of various books! It seems that T.J. is generally reckoned to be John Taylor, a waterman and poet with connections with the court. You can see his experience as a waterman in some of the imagery of the poem - eg the long list of ports, and some of the marine life referenced. He was strongly anti-Catholic - hence his antipathy to the Irish - although I’m not sure how Laudian he was. True, he objected to the smashing of altar rails in his parish church, but more than anything he strikes me as a solidly-middle of the road late Elizabethan Protestant (suspicious both of Catholicism and of “the hotter sort of protestants”).

He also seems to have had topsy-turvy adventures of his own… for example:

“Taylor and a friend sailed down the Thames to Quinborough in a boat he had fashioned, for a wager, out of brown paper, kept half afloat by inflated animal bladders attached to the sides”.

The tradition of the English eccentric goes back a long way, clearly!

On your point about Parliament’s rebellion against the king upsetting the natural order, I suspect it would not have been too provident of Taylor at this point to be too anti-Parliament (no royalist court left, and his source of employment had gone as a result - he seemed to have been running a pub in Covent Garden by this point). There is a wonderfully touching account he wrote of his visit to the Isle of Wight in 1648 to see his king one last time, which concludes with an account of all the people Charles has healed thaumaturgically through the royal touch.

Of course Parliament itself got round this little conundrum by saying their fight was with the king’s advisers, rather than the king itself…

]]>