Freedom of Speech in Early Stuart England (review)
demonstrate that it was “not a revolution against authority so much as a revolt by authority” (232) as citizens, burgesses, and freemen claimed that in resisting the crown they were defending the commonwealth, sentiments they had learned from godly ministers and their civic experiences. He sums up his argument by adopting Marvell’s praise of civic ideals and the failure of the Stuarts to live up to them. It was not so much Charles II’s “Revelling, Drinking and Whoring” that made him unworthy of his crown, as in doing so he had failed to learn his trade and thereby “broke his Indentures” (265). In short, Charles was not so much a bad king as he was a bad apprentice. ROBERT C. BRADDOCK Saginaw Valley State University