Andrew Bradstock's _Radical Religion in Cromwell's England:
A Concise History from the English Civil War to the End of the Commonwealth_
comes at a time when the historiography of the English Revolution has been
increasingly stripped of its revolutionary elements. Since Christopher Hill's
passing, academic narratives have shifted towards a revisionist view that
dismisses the rise of the bourgeoisie, portrays the Civil War as an avoidable
elite quarrel, and denies it as a true revolution. Simon Schama's claim of
being a "born-again Whig" exemplifies this ideological retreat, highlighting
the current trend away from revolutionary interpretations.
Bradstock's book is influenced—indeed limited—by this
climate. Although it claims to be a "concise history," it functions more as a
theological overview of radical Protestant sectarianism. Its interpretive
approach mirrors the modern attempt to depoliticise the English Revolution and
portray its commoner movements as harmless in the eyes of the current ruling class.
The Theological Frame: A Category Error
Bradstock, a trained theologian, naturally approaches
'Radical Religion in Cromwell's England' with his scholarly discipline. His
previous book, 'Faith in the Revolution,' presented his view of the
Levellers, Diggers, Ranters, Fifth Monarchists, and early Quakers as a
recoverable tradition of radical Christian witness. In this new work, that
perspective is not just evident—it forms the core of his analysis.
The issue is not that religion had no part in the English
Revolution. As Engels noted in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, 17th-century
bourgeoisie used religious language in their revolutionary efforts because a
secular political language had not yet emerged. Calvinism supported the idea
that the accumulation of wealth and the challenge to the feudal hierarchy were justified.
Bradstock challenges the usual view by reversing the
relationship. Instead of seeing religious language as a medium for expressing
class forces, he considers theology the core of the radical movements
themselves. The Levellers are portrayed as radical Protestants; the Diggers as
Christian communitarians; the Fifth Monarchists as millenarian dissenters.
Their class content becomes obscured behind doctrinal analysis.
The Plebeian Wing of a Bourgeois Revolution
The radical sects Bradstock chronicles were not theological
curiosities. They were the plebeian wing of the bourgeois revolution,
representing the rural poor, the dispossessed, and the lower‑middle strata who
sought to push the revolution beyond the limits acceptable to the grandees
around Cromwell.
Bradstock's theological
framework fails to account for several historical events: Cromwell's
suppression of the Levellers at Burford in 1649, which was driven by
bourgeoisie counter-revolution rather than religious doctrine; the Diggers'
occupation of St George's Hill, which was more a protest against enclosure and
primitive accumulation—key aspects of early capitalist development—than a
utopian Christian project; and Winstanley's shift from a mystical visionary to
a critic of property, which only makes sense when viewing class dynamics as
central.
By viewing these movements as chapters in Christian dissent,
Bradstock hides the revolutionary ambitions of the petty bourgeoisie and rural
poor. His "concise history" is brief because it leaves out the crucial element:
the class struggle.
The Political Function of Revisionism
The revisionist view of the English Revolution's collapse
isn't just an academic curiosity; it's a political tool today. By claiming
Britain never underwent a bourgeois revolution, the ruling class sustains the
myth that the country's history is marked by gradual reforms, compromise, and
constitutional stability. As a result, Marxism appears as an outsider,
disconnected from English history.
Hill's work significantly challenged this mythology.
However, "Radical Religion in Cromwell's England," despite its
narrative strengths, does not advance that challenge. Instead, it depoliticises
the radical sects, portraying them as a safe, sanitised religious heritage,
which ultimately renders them acceptable to the very establishment they once
challenged. The subtitle—"A Concise History from the English Civil War to the
End of the Commonwealth"—reveals this approach. Here, "concision" is
not a virtue but a limitation, as it narrows the focus and omits class dynamics
that are essential to understanding the radical sects.
Conclusion
Bradstock provides a clear and organised overview of
seventeenth-century radical religion. However, it is the religious perspective
that makes the book politically ineffective. At a time when the ruling
elite aims to erase revolutionary history from Britain, Radical Religion in
Cromwell's England—despite its sincerity—tends to mask the class forces behind
the English Revolution and to diminish its radical impact. A truly historical
perspective must start where Bradstock leaves off: recognising that groups such as the Levellers, Diggers, Ranters, and Fifth Monarchists were not just religious
dissenters but the working-class leaders of a bourgeois revolution whose
lessons remain highly relevant today.
No comments:
Post a Comment