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

近代早期英格兰的大众政治研究中，很少有人试图在国家和教区的层面上追溯党派意识形态问题。内战在过去一直是这种企图的典型案例。最近的研究将效忠的证据与社会经济因素联系起来，但是，尽管这些因素很微妙，仍然容易受到决定论的指责，而且在处理内战效忠的复杂性和流动性方面相对薄弱。我自己最近工作的一个中心主题是，在更广泛的公众中动员政治和物质支持的必要性对政治的影响。这导致了重叠，冲突和交叉的运动，旨在将教区和国家的政治联系起来：请愿，示威，征兵，税收，小册子等。这与最近强调1640年代对“公共领域”转型重要性的研究有关。对动员的分析，相对于对忠诚的分析，允许更广泛的公众在国家运动中进行部分的、工具性的参与，将这些运动用于地方优先事项，并在相同的人群中成功地动员不同的“方面”。它将动员的社会学——对支撑它的网络的分析——与文化史突出的代表性问题联系起来，同时也与代理和计算联系起来——特定动员证明有用或有效的潜力。对这些多重动员的分析对于理解政治争论的流动性和创造性以及战争的进展至关重要。与此同时，一小部分关于人际交往的研究表明，人际交往可能会带来政治意义的影响——表面上微不足道的手势或言语行为，可能会表达在重大问题上的分歧。在米尔斯·阿什比（米尔斯·阿什比）举起帽子可能是对国家甚至宇宙问题的评论。这些发展表明，超越二元划分（教区和国家、上层和下层、精英和大众）的方法是有用的，可以寻找共同的意义、拨款和部署；以及沟通和动员的手段。这种方法的特殊性是至关重要的：分析可识别的行动者为动员或表达对特定党派目的的支持而使用共同比喻和话语的时间敏感性。这种复杂性最好在有限的背景下，通过对特定运动或个人活动的个案研究来解决。它将通过使用一系列来源（印刷品和手稿）和方法（社会，文化和政治）的四个案例研究进行探索：两个特定时刻；还有两个重要的人物。对政治动员的研究将揭示地方和国家、精英和大众政治之间的相互作用，详细探索潜在的分裂问题如何被淹没在广泛公众动员的共同事业中。然而，这些战役在解决了一些困难的同时，也制造了新的断层线，造成了内战联盟的不稳定。对两位活动家的研究将揭示对这些机会的利用，以及他们的项目、可用资源（话语和交际）和政治环境之间的相互作用。这些复杂的相互作用为话语、交际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在意识形态归属的基础上培养和表达排他性身份。最后一篇论文将探讨社会深度与政治动员、辩论升级、话语、交流和智力创造力的多元性之间的关系；也将公共领域、大众政治和内战的史学，以及斯图亚特早期和复辟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.