The English Revolution is the very topic for a person of this character.
It is eminently an unimpassioned movement. It requires no appreciation
of the Cavalier or of the zealot; no sympathy with the romance of this
world; no inclination to pass beyond, and absorb the mind’s energies
in another. It had neither the rough enthusiasm of barbarism nor the
delicate grace of high civilisation; the men who conducted it had neither
the deep spirit of Cromwell’s Puritans nor the chivalric loyalty of the
enjoying English gentleman. They were hard-headed sensible men, who knew
that politics were a kind of business, that the essence of business is
compromise, of practicality concession. They drove no theory to excess;
for they had no theory. Their passions did not hurry them away; for
their temperament was still, their reason calculating and calm. Locke
is the type of the best character of his era. There is nothing in him
which a historian such as we have described could fail to comprehend,
or could not sympathise with when he did comprehend. He was the very
reverse of a Cavalier; he came of a Puritan stock; he retained through
life a kind of chilled Puritanism; he had nothing of its excessive,
overpowering, interior zeal, but he retained the formal decorum which
it had given to the manners, the solid earnestness of its intellect,
the heavy respectability of its character. In all the nations across
which Puritanism has passed you may notice something of its indifference
to this world’s lighter enjoyments; no one of them has been quite able
to retain its singular interest in what is beyond the veil of time and
sense. The generation to which we owe our Revolution was in the first
stage of the descent. Locke thought a zealot a dangerous person, and
a poet little better than a rascal. It has been said, with perhaps an
allusion to Macaulay, that our historians have held that ‘all the people
who lived before 1688 were either knaves or fools.’ This is, of course,
an exaggeration; but those who have considered what sort of person a
historian is likely to be, will not be surprised at his preference for
the people of that era. They had the equable sense which he appreciates;
they had not the deep animated passions to which his nature is insensible.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account