Review

General Books

Edwards designed this book for an upper level survey course in English history. His task was more difficult than writing a general textbook. He wanted to describe two centuries worth of key events that produced significant changes in the nature of the English government, and evaluate the historiography, all in just fewer than four hundred and fifty pages. By and large he does this quite well in clear, straightforward language that the students should understand without much difficulty. Nonetheless, this very solid survey does have uneven portions. The title suggests a focus on the central government, but occasionally other topics occupy center stage. In the sections on the Wars of the Roses, and the seventeenth century Civil Wars, the details of the battles and their results appear central. While it is certainly possible to make the argument that military action has an impact on the central government, that line of reasoning is not applied to the same extent in the Armada war or to the Irish rebellion of the same era. Both receive very little coverage.	1
Actually, it is during the Elizabethan period that Edwards seems to have the most trouble maintaining his balance and his focus. Early on he does make a point about the clergy in the first decade of Elizabeth's reign that needs to be made more often, namely that the vast majority of these men were ordained Roman Catholic priests. Thus, despite remaining in Elizabeth's version of the church, Roman Catholics could take communion from them without violating their conscience. The plight of the English Roman Catholics dominates this chapter out of all proportion to their impact on the central government and the changes it undergoes. Perhaps that is why the chapter seems to wander about with the Essex rebellion of the final years appearing some place in the middle. Another point of attention in this era is the question of faction. Along with several other modern authors, Edwards criticizes the assertion offered by the contemporary author, Sir Robert Naunton, that Elizabeth created factions for her own purposes. Since Naunton does not define the term, however, that is no way to tell if what he calls faction meets Edwards' definition. The net effect is that his critique makes it sound as if a twenty-first century author believes an Elizabethan observer is either not telling the truth about what he saw or misunderstood it. Since we don't know what Naunton meant in the first place, that seems like a harsh judgement.	2
Once Edwards leaves Elizabeth behind, he regains his equilibrium. He is especially strong at analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the historians who looked at the first sixty years of the seventeenth century. This task is rather complex because the historical pendulum has swung at least three times since historians first examined the era, and students reading other books frequently come away confused. In the first instance the Whig historians of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries show a straight line from the Tudors to revolution and the limited monarchy that appears in the eighteenth century. Using a different line of approach, so do the Marxists. Then toward the end of the last century came the revisionists who see everything as an unplanned accident, and they were followed quickly by the post-revisionists who see a fight for genuine principles grounding the conflict. Edwards picks his way through all of these disagreements with great skill and common sense, even as he describes the battles and changes in government. As a result, students reading his work are likely to come away enlightened.	3
If there is any weakness in this part of the book on the Civil Wars and their aftermath, it is in the rather slim list of sources used and recommended. His analysis of the post war era would have been strengthened by consulting such works as John Kelsey's Inventing a Republic and William Lamont's Godly Rule. Whatever the problems, while this may not be the perfect book, it is certainly a very good one for its intended audience and I would not hesitate to use it.	4
Indiana University South Bend Roy Schreiber

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.