|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 英国的清教徒革命，一场国王和议会间的权力之战！ |
 |
启明
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
英国的清教徒革命（The Puritan Revolution ）
英国清教徒革命是发生在英格兰和苏格兰的一系列对世界具有重大意义的事件。
英格兰和苏格兰清教属于卡尔文教宗教信仰的一个分支，它们和法国的胡格努社会有着密切的商业和资本方面的联系。然而，英格兰和苏格兰的清教徒的历史特殊性在于，他们成功地在一次中产阶级革命中，推翻了国王的统治并获取了全面的政治权力。只有在荷兰才有过类似的事件发生过，然而荷兰人的抗争是为了从西班牙人统治下获得解脱，它没有英格兰事件的那种对民主的深远的和典范作用。
应该说伊丽莎白女王继承人詹姆士一世国王的傲慢态度，是逐步把苏格兰和英格兰推向革命的原因。出于对其具有卡尔文信仰老师的逆反心态，詹姆士国王坚持认为统治者是上帝的选择，是至高无上的，他们只对上帝负责，所以是超然于法律的，在他的眼中，统治者就是旧约中的国王或王子。
从詹姆士一世时代初期，他就经常与由拥有农村土地的士绅组成的下院发生争执。在经过长达7年的争论后，他停止了议院的一切活动并直到1621年才恢复，这期间他独自执掌所有的国家权力。在这个时期，他的权力也曾遭到宪法律师爱德华.库克爵士的严重挑战。直到詹姆士一世解除了爱德华的长老院首席大法官的职务，这个挑战才被消除。从那以后，爱德华所宣称的国王不能凌驾于法律之上的观点，一直对后世产生着巨大的影响，特别是对今天的美国。比如在美国的法律条文中规定，最终的宪法判决必须由最高法院作出，并且一旦作出，即便是美国总统也不能违抗。
詹姆士一世之所以仇视议院的原因之一是，这些士绅议员们居然同情清教徒。于是詹姆士国王下命所有的清教徒都必须服从英格兰教会制度。他威胁道：如果这些清教徒不服从的话，他将让他们受尽苦难，以至于他们情愿自动离开英国。最后，确实有很多清教徒离开了英国，最初一部分人去了荷兰，后来的人去了美洲。虽然这并不是詹姆士国王的初衷，但他确实应对美国是个由昂格鲁人占主要成分的国家这个事实负责。
詹姆士一世于1625年去世，继承他王位的是他的儿子查尔斯，查尔斯是一个在各方面都要比他的父亲更让人感到亲近的人。他坚信支持普通人和下层人反对贵族和富人是他的天职。但不幸的是，这个信念是出于他认为国王是特殊的人，是由上帝选定的。它甚至比他的父亲更坚信这一点，并愿意为这个信念献身。糟糕的是，他经常听信那些胆小如鼠并完全由他指定的大法官们对他的谗言，说国王对他属下的臣民及他们的财产拥有绝对的全部的法律控制。同时，还有一个他的首席政治顾问，对他说国王不用服从普通法律和行政裁决。更糟糕的是，查尔斯国王是天主教的同情者，这使得他比他父亲更激烈地反对清教徒。在这点上，他与他的父亲一样，他们都反对清教并希望控制议院。
显而易见地，查尔斯与议院的争执主要集中在为与西班牙和法国的战争募捐上。查尔斯觉得，他拥有征收这种税收的天然权力。作为另一方，议院却想向国王显示他们也拥有这个权力。最后的结果是产生了历史著名的1628年权利案，国王被迫接受了该法案。查尔斯国王被迫同意了若干市民的权利。特别是他被迫同意，在未获议院同意的情况下，不得擅自向国民开征任何税赋或是把他们投入监狱。一年之后，议院在认定查尔斯国王缺乏信守承诺的诚意后，通过了一项决议，阐明：任何企图改变英国宗教系统或建议征收并实际交纳了非经议院同意税赋的人，都是国家的敌人。这个决议最终导致了查尔斯国王的反叛，及20年后他被处死的结局。
应该强调的是，英国清教徒革命是由一系列事件组成的。它们是在没有任何计划，理论，或宣言的情况下发生的。它所显示出的创新性和卓越的政治辩论都是之后的事。当时议院只不过是想保持国王，议院，和国民自由之间的传统权利结构。在这种观点里，国王的权力是被置于法律之下的。詹姆士和查尔斯国王都破坏了这种传统的权力平衡，他们摧毁了独立的司法机构，强迫财产拥有者向他们贷款，并随意地把人投入监狱。导致内战发生的原因是，议院在企图把时钟倒转的过程中，无意的过激行为和过多的要求。
一旦议院中的地主士绅们决定抵制他的时候，查尔斯国王就失去了控制财政和行政事务的能力了。而他当时是英国教会的直接首领，于是他决定利用这个权力反击清教徒的士绅们。这也是为什麽，英国的内战成了一场宗教战争，至少在清教徒一方的眼中，它确实如此。
清教徒都是些什麽人呢？他们是那些希望英国教会改革的人，他们在亨利八世时，曾与罗马的天主教会脱离关系。他们都以卡尔文为共同的宗教信仰。他们主要是由两个大的宗教团体组成，一个是希望改革教会的管理结构和宗教仪式，另一个是希望拥有完全的思想自由。
查尔斯国王和罗德首席大主教，在这个看法上有分歧。为了国家政治统一，他们希望教会的设计和崇拜仪式都能标准化，比如，他们想在每个教会的最东边设置一个祭坛。由于在17世纪，社会上的人们是通过各自不同的宗教观点而不是经济地位来彼此聚合的，国王和他的大主教所推广的这个教会设置对中上层清教徒而言是从未有过的巨大的挑战。在之后的几年里，整个社会中那些不愿意从属于英国教会的人被称为不遵从者（Non-conformists）。在现代英语中，这个词汇具有“社会反叛者”或“独立思想家”的含义。
罗德首席大主教，企图让苏格兰的教会和英格兰教会采用一样的标准化，这种努力引起了苏格兰卡尔文派的反抗。于是国王开始传唤议院，向他们要钱以便向这些苏格兰人开战。从这开始，以国王和议院为代表的两方之间的内战，开始被逐步升级，一度国王甚至迫不得已送自己的王妃到国外去变卖自己王冠上的珠宝，以换取钱来购买所需的军械。
由于议院的领袖们多是些服装/家具制造商或是牧羊场的场主，出现这种结局决不是偶然。同样，罗德大主教把中世纪道德用于当时的商业活动，也决不是一个偶然，这就是说，罗德本人对新兴的资本主义经营方式一点也不了解。
最后是乡下士绅，那些清教徒，赢得了内战，这首先要感谢他们的军事领袖，奥立佛.库姆维尔在人员组织和军事上的优秀才能。库姆维尔本人并不是一个革命家，他是上层阶级中的一员，他相信一个伟大的国家应该由三个不同的主要社会阶层构成，贵族，绅士，和农民。库姆维尔反对国王的第一个动机是，身为一个绅士他觉得在查尔斯的统治下，他的个人财产是不安全的。他的第二个动机则更正面并具有说服力，他认为宗教信仰应该是一种自由。由于库姆维尔的宗教意识非常强烈，他的信仰非常激进，他对上帝的态度也是很神秘的。库姆维尔坚信，他和卢瑟一样在对上帝的祷告中，获得了上帝的口谕，并被上帝选为斗士。如果没有这种坚定的信念，他是不可能把国王送上审判台并处以死刑的，信念使他变得坚强。
1649查尔斯一世国王被砍掉头的事件，使整个欧洲恐惧了，甚至连下达执行令的人都被震惊了。所震惊的不是国王杀了多少人，而是国王本人被中产阶级送上法庭并处死这个事实。这种事直到法国革命前，再也没有发生过。由臣民处死自己的国王，这在当时被看作是大逆不道的，是和弑父一样的罪恶，甚至在某些人的眼光中，这种行为无异于杀了自己的上帝。
初死国王并不是清教徒革命打破的唯一禁忌，这个革命还产生了一种新型的军队。库姆维尔组织的新型军队，是第一支大规模的采用民主方式管理的军队。士兵都是自愿入伍的，他们参加战斗的目的是为了保卫自己的或其他人的公正权利和思想自由。在这个新型的军队中，所有的军人都穿着同样的制服，任何具有才能的士兵都能迅速得到提升成为军官。有些军队的成员有很卓越的政治见解，他们会被授予每两年在自己的选区，或甚至到议院参加投票的权利，他们还被授予宗教自由权和平等的司法权。
除了军事激进分子外，还有清教徒们的观点甚至更为极端，他们被称为是极端平等主义者，他们通常期望一个更平等的社会。他们不欢迎皇家，甚至也不喜欢议院，他们由人民直接来统治整个社会。在这些极端的平等主义者中的最极端的叫做掘墓人，他们最后成为了共产主义的产倡导者，也就是说社会财富的拥有者不是个人而是整个社会。
这些极端的平等主义者，在当时只有很有限的社会影响力，他们的思想直到很久以后才绽露影响。反而是库姆维尔的思想和那些来自清教徒中那些被称为独立主义者的小团体的思想才更具有社会的和政治的影响力，这个影响力一直持续到了下个世纪。他们这些人相信自由教会这个主张，也就是说，人民有权自由自愿地成立属于他们自己的教会，同时也应该对他人的这种愿望采取宽容的态度。库姆维尔在对待犹太人方面也以慷慨著称，尽管完全的宗教宽容直到1871年才得以实现，但这种思想的首先提出应该归功于这些英国的独立者。
自由教会是有一群自愿组合的人组成。因为这种自愿的形态，它不仅成为整个英国教会的一种模式，甚至整个英国社会在18世纪也是这种组织模式。英国的保险业和伦敦股票交易所都是从这种自愿模式开始的。早期英国殖民地也是由自愿组成的企业集团开发的。甚至到了18世纪英国的各政党也是由持有相似政见的人们自愿组成的。
在库姆维尔及他的新型军队统治下，清教徒革命的最后就是个独裁。所以，当库姆维尔一死，新的集权统治者就又回潮了。在这个意义上，英国的清教徒革命是失败的，但是，它的主张，它追求社会宽容的思想，以及自由教会和限制国家权力的信念，都成了整个西方近代文明的中心思想。可以说，英国清教徒革命的发展和延续塑造了整个世界的宗教，政治，和个人经济的观念。
The Puritan Revolution
The Puritan Revolution was an English and Scottish event that had great consequences for the rest of the world.
English and Scottish Puritanism was a branch of Calvinism. It was related also to the world of the Huguenots of France with their interest in business and capitalism.
What made the English and Scottish Puritans special, however, was that in their case a middle class revolution was able to overcome a king and gain, for a while, complete political power. Only in Holland did similar events take place. And Holland, fighting for survival against Spain, could not afford the experiments in democracy made by the English.
It was the arrogant attitude of James I, the successor of Queen Elizabeth, which slowly pushed the Scots and the English toward revolution. Reacting against his Calvinist teachers, James insisted that monarchs were chosen by God, were accountable only to God, and were above the law. Monarchs, in King James' view were a combination of Old Testament king and Machiavellian prince.
From the very beginning of his reign James I quarreled with his House of Commons, which consisted mostly of landowning gentleman farmers. After 7 years of arguments he stopped summoning Parliament and until 1621 ruled alone. During that time the constitutional lawyer Sir Edward Coke challenged his power. This challenge was defeated when King James dismissed Coke from his position as lord chief justice. Nevertheless, Coke's assertions that the king was not above the law have continued to be influential, and are especially important in the United States today. Under the US system the Supreme Court makes final constitutional decisions, which not even the President can disobey.
One reason for King James' hostility to the House of Commons was the fact that its gentleman members tended to sympathies with the Puritans. King James ordered the Puritans to conform to the teaching of the Church of England. He threatened that, if they did not conform, he would make them so miserable that they would want to leave Britain. In the end many of them did leave, at first for Holland and then for America. Though it was not his intention, James I is responsible for the fact that the USA, until very recently, has been an Anglo-Saxon dominated land.
James I died in 1625 and was succeeded by his son Charles, a much more likeable man than his father. Believing that it was his duty, Charles often supported the common man against the noble and the rich. Unfortunately, this was because he too believed that kings were special and were chosen by God. He believed this even more strongly than his father and was ready to die for his beliefs. To make matters worse, Charles was told by his cowardly judges, who could be dismissed by the king at will, that he had complete legal control over his subjects and over their money. At the same time one of his chief political advisors told him that he did not have to obey the usual rules of law and administration.
To make matters even worse, Charles was a Catholic sympathies and this made him even more anti-Puritan than his father. As in his father's case, his anti-Puritanism and his wish to control the House of Commons overlapped.
Inevitably Charles' quarrel with the House of Commons focused on the tax money, which was needed for fighting wars against France and Spain. Charles felt that he had an automatic right to such tax money. On the other hand, the House of Commons wanted to show the king that it too had power. The final result was the famous Petition of Right of 1628, which the king was forced to accept. Charles was forced to agree to observe various citizens' rights. In particular, he had to agree not to imprison or tax any citizen without the consent of Parliament. Only a year later, however, it was felt that Charles had not been sincere in his promises. The House of Commons passed resolutions declaring that anyone who tried to change the English religious system and anyone who recommended paying or actually paid taxes not approved by Parliament was an enemy of the country. This was the beginning of the process that eventually led to Charles being tried for treason and executed 20 years later.
It should be emphasized that the English Puritan revolution was simply a series of events. It happened without any plan, philosophy, or manifesto. The creative and dramatic political debates came later. The House of Commons wished only to maintain the traditional rights of the king, and of the Parliament, and also the freedom of citizens. In its opinion the king's power was limited by the ﾔcommon law.' James and Charles had disturbed the traditional balance by destroying the independent judiciary, by forcing property owners to loan them money, and by arbitrarily arresting citizens. The Civil War happened because the Parliament, in its efforts to turn the clock back, unintentionally overreacted and demanded too much.
Once the landowning gentlemen of the House of Commons had decided to resist him, it became difficult for Charles I to control either financial or administrative matters. He was, however, the direct head of the Church of England and he decided to use that power to attack the often Puritan gentlemen. That is the reason why the English Civil War became, on the Puritan side at least, a war carried out in the name of God.
Who were these Puritans? They were people who wished for greater changes in the Church of England, which, in the time of Henry VIII, had broken off its relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. They shared the basic beliefs of Calvinism, especially the belief in predestination. Within them there were two major groups, those who wished to reform the structure of church government and church ceremonies, and those who wished for complete liberty of conscience.
King Charles and Archbishop Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had different ideas. They wanted, for the sake of national political unity, to standardize church design and church worship. For example, they wanted every church to have an altar at its eastern end. Since, in the 17th century, people defined themselves by their religious ideas and not by their economic or social status, the campaign of the King and his Archbishop was the most direct challenge that could have been made to the Puritan gentry. In later years, people of all social levels who did not wish to belong to the Church of England were called ﾔnon-conformists.' In modern English this expression often simply means ﾔsocial rebel' or ﾔindependent thinker.'
The efforts of the Archbishop Laud to make worship in Scotland similar to that in England caused a rebellion to begin among the Scottish Calvinists. As a consequence the King was forced to summon Parliament to get the money to fight them. From there events escalated to civil war between the Parliament and Charles with the King being forced to send his wife abroad to sell the crown jewels in order to buy arms and ammunition.
It was not a coincidence that the leaders of the Parliament side were businessmen/farmers involved in sheep farming, and in the cloth and furniture making industries. Nor was it a coincidence that Archbishop Laud was a man very like Thomas More who applied medieval ethical standards to commercial life. In other words he did not care for the new capitalist way of doing business.
It was the country gentlemen, the Puritans, who eventually won the Civil War, in part thanks to the personality and military skill of their leader Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was not a revolutionary. He was a member of the ruling class, believed that a great country should be divided according to class, and that the three main classes should be noblemen, gentlemen, and yeoman farmers. Cromwell opposed King Charles firstly because as a gentleman farmer he felt that under Charles his property was not safe. His second motive for resistance, however, was much more positive and powerful. Cromwell believed there should be freedom of conscience in religion. But because Cromwell's religious feelings were very strong, this was not a gentle belief. His attitude to God was that of a mystic. Cromwell believed that God had chosen him as his instrument. Like Luther he believed that God spoke to him through his prayers. Without that certainty he could never have pushed for the trial and execution of King Charles. Faith made him strong.
The beheading of Charles in 1649 horrified all of Europe and shocked even the men who had ordered it. What was shocking was not so much the killing of the king but the fact that he had been put on trial by the middle classes. This was something, which would not happen again until the French Revolution. The execution of a king by his subjects was felt to be like the murdering of your own father, or even, in some people's opinion, of your own god.
The execution was not, however, the only new taboo breaking aspect of the Puritan Revolution in England. A new type of army had come into existence. Oliver Cromwell's victorious New Model Army was the first mass, democratic army. Its soldiers were volunteers not mercenaries or men looking for plunder. They were fighting, they said, to ﾔdefend their own and the people's just rights and liberties.' In the New Model Army all soldiers wore the same coats and anyone with talent could become an officer. Some members of the army had particularly advanced political ideas. They advocated the right to vote for all men, equal electoral divisions, and new Parliaments every two years, as well as freedom of religion and equality before the law.
In addition to these army radicals there were other Puritans with even more extreme views. They are usually called ﾔlevelers' because they wanted a more egalitarian society. They wanted not royal or even parliamentary government but direct rule by the people. The most radical of the levelers were called the Diggers and they advocated communism, that is to say the owning of property not by individuals but by society as a whole.
These levelers, however, had very little influence at the time, and their ideas did not flower until much later. It was the thinking of Cromwell and the relatively small group of Puritans, called the Independents, to which he belonged, which most powerfully influenced the social and political ideas of the next century. Cromwell and the Independents believed in the idea of the free church, that is to say, that people should be free to start their own churches if they wanted to, and that they should tolerate others who wished to do the same. Cromwell is particularly famous for his generous treatment of the Jews. While complete religious toleration was not achieved until 1871, it was the Independents who pointed the way.
The free church was, of course, a kind of voluntary group. As a voluntary group, it became a model for the way not only English religion but English society, as a whole would be organized in the 18th century. Lloyds the insurers and the London Stock Exchange began as freely gathered groups. Early English colonization was undertaken by freely formed companies ﾐ company after all means ﾔa group of companions.' And political parties, which began in the 18th century, also may be said to be groups of freely gathered men of similar views.
Under Cromwell and the New Model Army, the Puritan Revolution itself became dictatorial. For this reason, soon after Cromwell's death, the monarchy was restored. In a way the Puritan Revolution had failed. But its ideas did not die. Those ideas, that is to say a desire for tolerance, the belief in a free church within a free state, and the conception of a limited state, are central to modern Western civilization. The Puritan Revolution may be said to have developed and extended the Reformation belief in religious, political and economic individualism.
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
- 顶。翻译的很有匠心！ -- 鲁肃 - (318 Byte) 2005-3-29 周二, 上午9:03 (276 reads)
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
