Agreed. Shakespeare isn’t a good comparison. I do think Don Quixote works though to demonstrate the style of language of the day. I’m happy to meet you halfway. I certainly agree about the necessity of clarity of expression. I’d add conciseness as well. And nobody ever accused Owen of being concise.
Interesting. I found myself reading Owen this morning and thinking it seemed to be more in a speaking style. Made me wonder about reading it or loud. When I started reading it out loud in my head and thinking about how I’d emphasize the words, I found it easier to understand.
To bring it back on topic again a bit more, I think if engineerish men want to grow in usefulness, they need to understand not just how to be systematic and thorough in addressing every aspect of something. They need to know which of the aspects are important and need to be emphasized in the end to be useful. This means they need to understand how people work, not just machines and logic.
From what I can tell, the other thing which soured the Puritans’ good name in the English mind was the English Civil War and Revolution: Cromwell’s ‘rule of the righteous’ did not last much longer than he did, and the royal regime that the Parliamentary forces had done so much to get rid of in 1645, was welcomed back in 1660 with open arms. It was probably another century - that is, in the time of Whitefield and Wesley - before the Gospel could regain some initiative.
It would be interesting to understand why you think this is the case. I understand that Calvin’s Geneva did not long survive him: The Wikipedia article on Calvin points out that, “By 1585, Geneva, once the wellspring of the reform movement, had become merely its symbol”.
Cromwell’s rule was unpopular. The people of England did not support the strictness.
Questions in my mind:
Was there a sound biblical basis for the execution of Charles I, or was that act a great crime that should have been publicly repented of by Cromwell and others responsible?
Did the people reject the strictness of Cromwell rule because the strictness was beyond what was proper and fitting—i.e., were they justifiably exasperated as children by a father who lacks tenderness—or were they chafing at godly government?
To what extent did the Cromwell rule try to erase biblical distinctions between sins and crimes, effectively making all sins crimes in a way that went beyond the Scriptures?
To what extent was the people’s rejection of the Cromwell rule due to that rule’s failure to make a biblical place for unbelievers in society?
Both Cromwell’s Protectorate and the Massachusetts Bay Colony were harsh, overbearing governments that do not compare well in my opinion to governments among similar people at similar times. It’s not an accident that the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts remains harsh and overbearing to this day.
I know less about Calvin’s Geneva than I do about Cromwell and the Massachusetts Bay Colony, so I will refrain from commentary on it. I probably wouldn’t call Calvin a Puritan for these purposes either.
I would largely echo Daniel’s criticism of Cromwell with the caveat that beheading Charles I was wrong and unbiblical. The nature and origins of human and governmental authority is complex, Biblically, and there may be good reasons to oppose a king, or even to kill one, but regicide in the name of the people just won’t do.
