Titlebook: Marriage in Seventeenth-Century English Political Thought; Belinda Roberts Peters Book 2004 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Pu

修剪過的樹籬

Introductionom. Long ago, when I began the project, I was interested a single question: what happened to this metaphor in the early seventeenth century when a married king succeeded a virgin queen? Out of that relatively simple problem grew a project much larger than the one I had envisioned. Thematically, it n

cinder

“Union is a marriage”otland became, in 1603, James I of England. His deepest hope and greatest project, according to one recent biographer, was a full, peaceful unification of his two kingdoms, but he also recognized that such a union was unprecedented. For centuries, independent kingdoms had been fully unified only thr

雄辯

“A mutuall covenant betwixt King and people”is fellow monarchs in the mid-seventeenth century, inherited a “composite state,” ostensibly united under a central government, but in reality divided by differences in regional law and customs, governing practices and personnel, and, particularly, religious liturgy and clerical government.. James,

確定無疑

記憶法

expansive

“All natural power is in those which obey”eir English neighbors had been attempting for several years to defend their “l(fā)iberties” through litigation. For them, liberty involved primarily property, in this case the collection of extra-parliamentary rates such as Ship Money.. The problem was that there was some difference of opinion about whe

安撫

狗窩

“As David’s dealing with Uriah”h the peculiar condition of English subjects and the special religious and political role of their kingdom. Ideally, by maintaining chastity in marriage, each householder ensured his own honorable position at its head – his right to claim liberties as a member of the polity – and confirmed the polit

鋼盔

Senescent