Last evening I read your work on Marxism and the English Revolution for the second time. I should like to make some points about its arguments very briefly indeed.
1. If one looks at the late Conrad Russell's corpus of works
post-1975, it is possible to see that, deeply embedded within it, there is a
degree of subscription to a teleological explanation of the English Civil War,
e.g. about incipient support for royalism. pre-1642. I noticed this some time
ago and found myself asked not to write about it.
2. One of the key economic and social changes in Anglo-Welsh
society before 1640 is the strengthened position of landowners, whether peers
or gentry. This goes back to the work of W.R.Emerson and helps to account for
the failure of the post-1646 regimes to consolidate themselves in power. The
'revolution' took place against one of the key economic developments of the
period.
3. As a corollary to point 2, there is good evidence to
show that the tenantry of landowners out in the counties were linked not just
to their landlords but also amongst and between themselves, hence the coherence
of the landed interests before, during and after the 1640-1660 period.
4. One of the important themes in the Stuart realms and in
continental states is the retreat from traditional bargaining methods due in
measure to the fiscal and military demands of post-1618 wars. In the Stuarts'
kingdoms, these forms of consensus and complaint, bargaining and negotiation
declined after 1603 and atrophied post-1625, even when the wars against France
and Spain ended by 1630. Their Parliaments were only one means by which
negotiations took place in these societies, pace Russell, but
one can see how at county and borough levels, with corporate organisations,
etc., this retreat took place and accelerated under Charles I.
I am not a Marxist, as you must know, but I enjoy debating the
issues of the seventeenth century,
Christopher Thompson
