Christopher Hill saying Bourgeoisie was Puritan in 17th century - 0 views

• 
  #1 Ian Schlom on 18 Nov 11

   

  The part where Simpson says that Christopher Hill was saying that the Bourgeoisie were Puritans (Simpson, Alan. Puritanism in Old and New England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1972. Print. 11, ft. nt. 12) comes from "the opposition which faced Charles was organised and worked up to serve their own purposes by those business men who identified their interests with the House of Commons in politics and Puritanism in religion." (Hill, Christopher. The English Revolution 1640. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1940.  EPUB manufactured from Marxists.org.  Ref: 3.23).  He's just saying that the bourgeoisie were Puritan, which Simpson later validates citing people who say that those with liesure time had the chance to 'have salvation' in Puritanism.  The working people, the peasantry and farm and city labourers were not able to have that possibility because they were over-worked.  ...

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><p>The part where Simpson says that Christopher Hill was saying that the Bourgeoisie were Puritans (Simpson, Alan. <em>Puritanism in Old and New England</em>. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1972. Print. 11, ft. nt. 12) comes from "the opposition which faced Charles was organised and worked up to serve their own purposes by those business men who identified their interests with the House of Commons in politics and Puritanism in religion." (Hill, Christopher. <em>The English Revolution 1640.</em> London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1940.  EPUB manufactured from Marxists.org.  Ref: 3.23).  He's just saying that the bourgeoisie were Puritan, which Simpson later validates citing people who say that those with liesure time had the chance to 'have salvation' in Puritanism.  The working people, the peasantry and farm and city labourers were not able to have that possibility because they were over-worked.  ...</p></div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top