The politics of the parish and the politics of the nation during the English civil wars

最近对早期现代英格兰民众政治的研究很少试图追踪国家和教区层面上的党派意识形态问题。过去，内战一直是此类尝试的典型场所。最近的研究已经将效忠的证据与社会经济因素相关联，但尽管这些因素很微妙，但仍然对决定论的指控持开放态度，在处理内战效忠的复杂性和流动性方面相对薄弱。我最近工作的一个中心主题是，需要在更广泛的公众中动员政治和物质支持，这对政治的影响。这导致了旨在将教区和国家的政治联系起来的重叠、冲突和交叉的运动：例如请愿、示威、征兵、税收和宣传册。这与最近强调17世纪40年代对于‘公共领域’转型的重要性的工作有关。对动员的分析，而不是对忠诚的分析，允许更广泛的公众在国家运动中进行局部的、工具性的参与，将这些运动分配给地方优先事项，并在相同的人口中由不同的‘方’成功地动员起来。它将动员的社会学--对支撑它的网络的分析--与文化历史所强调的代表性问题联系起来，还与代理和计算联系在一起--特定动员的潜力被证明是有用的或有效的。分析这些多重动员对于理解政治辩论的流动性和创造性以及战争的进展至关重要。与此同时，一小部分关于人际接触的研究表明，它们可能承载的政治意义--手势或表面上琐碎的言语行为--可能会在非常重大的问题上表达分歧。在米尔斯·阿什比举起帽子，或许是对国家乃至世界问题的评论。这些事态发展表明，超越二元划分(教区和国家，高和低，精英和流行)的方法是有用的，以寻找共同的意义、拨款和部署；以及沟通和动员的手段。对于这一方法来说，特殊性是至关重要的：分析可识别的行为者对常见比喻和话语的时效性使用，以动员或表达对特定党派目的的支持。这种复杂性最好是在有限的背景下，通过具体运动或个人活动的案例研究来探讨。它将通过四个案例研究，利用一系列来源(印刷品和手稿)和方法(社会、文化和政治)：两个特定时刻；以及两个重要个人。对政治动员的研究将有助于揭示地方和国家、精英和民众政治之间的互动，详细探索潜在的分裂问题如何被更广泛的公众动员起来的共同事业所掩盖。然而，这样的运动在解决一些困难的同时，也造成了新的断层，并加剧了内战联盟的不稳定。对两位活动家的研究将有助于了解如何利用这些机会，了解他们的项目、可用的资源(话语和交流)和政治环境之间的互动。这些复杂的互动为论述、交流和智力创造提供了重要的背景。第五篇文章将探讨手势代码如何帮助培养和表达基于意识形态联系的排他性身份。最后一篇文章将探讨社会深度与政治动员的多元化、争论的升级和话语、交流和智力创造力之间的关系；也将公共领域的历史学、大众政治和内战，以及对早期斯图亚特和恢复政治的研究联系起来。

Few recent studies of popular politics in early modern England have tried to trace partisan ideological issues at the level both of the nation and the parish. The civil war has in the past been the locus classicus of such attempts. Recent studies have correlated evidence of allegiance with socio-economic factors but, despite their subtlety, remain open to the charge of determinism and relatively weak in dealing with the complexity and fluidity of civil war allegiances. A central theme of my own recent work is the effect on politics of the need to mobilise political and material support among wider publics. This led to overlapping, conflicting and intersecting campaigns aimed at connecting the politics of the parish and of the nation: petitions, demonstrations, recruitment to the armies, taxation, and pamphleteering for example. This connects to recent work emphasising the importance of the 1640s for the transformation of the 'public sphere'.The analysis of mobilisation, as opposed to allegiance, allows for partial, instrumental engagements by wider publics in national campaigns, the appropriation of those campaigns to local priorities, and for successful mobilisation by different 'sides' among the same populations. It connects the sociology of mobilisation--the analysis of the networks that underpinned it--with the issues of representation highlighted by cultural history, but also with agency and calculation--the potential of a particular mobilisation to prove useful or effective. Analysis of these multiple mobilisations is crucial to an understanding of the fluidity and creativity of political argument and of the progress of the war. At the same time a small body of work on interpersonal encounters illustrates the freight of political meaning which they might carry--gesture, or speech acts of apparent triviality, could express differences over very big issues. Raising a hat in Mears Ashby might be a comment on national or even cosmic issues.These developments demonstrate the usefulness of approaches that go beyond binary divides (parish and nation, high and low, elite and popular) to look for shared meanings, appropriations and deployments; and at means of communication and mobilisation. Specificity is crucial to this approach: analysis of the time-sensitive use of common tropes and discourses by identifiable actors in order to mobilise or express support for particular, partisan purposes. This complexity is best approached in limited contexts, through case-studies either of particular campaigns, or the activities of individuals. It will be explored through four case-studies using a range of sources (print and manuscript) and approaches (social, cultural and political): of two particular moments; and of two significant individuals. Studies of political mobilisations will throw light onto the interaction of local and national, elite and popular politics, exploring in detail how potentially divisive issues could be submerged in common causes mobilised among wider publics. Such campaigns, however, while negotiating some of the difficulties also created new fault lines and contributed to the instability of civil war alliances. Studies of two activists will throw light on the use made of these opportunities, on the interaction between their projects, available resources (discursive and communicative) and political circumstance. These complex interactions provide important context for discursive, communicative and intellectual creativity. A fifth essay will explore how gestural codes helped to foster and express exclusive identities on the basis of ideological affiliation. A final essay will explore relationships between the social depth and plurality of political mobilisation, polemical escalation, and discursive, communicative and intellectual creativity; also connecting historiographies of the public sphere, popular politics and the civil war, and studies of early Stuart and restoration politics.