F.D. Dow’s 1985 monograph, published by the Historical
Association, offers a brief yet insightful analysis of one of the most
politically charged areas of English historiography: the interpretation of
radicalism in the mid-seventeenth century and its connection to the English
Revolution overall. Its significance lies not only in its discussion of the Levellers, Diggers, and other radical factions but also in what it unintentionally reveals about the intellectual environment in which it was written—a context shaped by the rise of revisionist ideas and the decline
of Marxist historical analysis.
The Book’s Purpose and Context
Dow’s goal is simple: to introduce students and general
readers to the radical movements of the English Revolution in an accessible
way. However, the straightforward format conceals a deeper tension within
historiography. By 1985, revisionism had become the dominant perspective in
academic history. Its key ideas—favouring contingency over causation, emphasising
elite politics rather than class conflict, and prioritising locality over
national change—had overshadowed traditional structural and socio-economic
analyses associated with scholars such as Christopher Hill, Brian Manning, A.L.
Morton, and the broader Marxist tradition.
Dow’s book is written at a
time when Marxist historiography faced persistent criticism, radicalism was
often dismissed or minimised, and the English Revolution was seen as a
political crisis rather than a social revolution. In response, Dow challenges
the revisionist tendency to downplay radicalism, but she stops short of fully
adopting the Marxist perspective that contextualises radicalism historically.
This creates the book’s main paradox.
Restoring Radicalism to the Narrative
Dow’s key contribution is her
assertion that radicalism was central rather than peripheral. She persuasively
argues that radical ideas originated from genuine social pressures; the
Levellers and Diggers presented coherent political agendas; radicals were rooted
in identifiable social groups like artisans, small producers, insecure tenants,
and journeymen; and the revolution created political space for normally
suppressed demands. This serves as a valuable correction to the revisionist
view that sees radicalism as a minor or eccentric element. Additionally, Dow
offers clear summaries of Leveller constitutional proposals, insightful
analyses of Winstanley’s religious and political beliefs, and useful overviews
of Fifth Monarchists, Baptists, and other sects. He also emphasises that
radicalism was structurally linked to the crisis of the 1640s. Overall, Dow
reestablishes radicalism’s importance in history — and that alone makes the
book worthwhile.
The Limits of the “Middle Way”
Dow struggles when trying to balance Marxist structural
analysis with revisionist contingency. This middle ground is intellectually
unviable. Dow recognises social pressures such as economic dislocation,
pressure on small producers, insecurity among copyholders, and the rise of
commercial agriculture, but stops short of seeing them as manifestations of
class conflict. As a result, she views radicalism as a reaction to hardship
rather than as the political voice of a class whose economic base is being
undermined by capitalist growth.
She does not accept the
concept of bourgeois revolution. As a result, Cromwell becomes a pragmatic
commander, not the representative of a rising class. The Levellers become a
“radical party,” not the political expression of a declining class. The Diggers
become moral visionaries, not utopian communists limited by the absence of a
proletariat. Without class analysis, the revolution loses its structural
coherence.
Dow’s claim that the Levellers lacked leadership is
unwarranted. His assertion that they were “doomed from the start” because of
weak leadership is historically inaccurate. Lilburn, Walwyn, and Overton were
among the most advanced political thinkers of the century. Their failure stemmed
from structural issues, not personal shortcomings: the class they represented
was unable to sustain the revolution. Dow’s emphasis on leadership reflects his
reluctance to view the situation through a class-based perspective.
Dow’s portrayal of the Diggers is sympathetic yet somewhat
incomplete. She praises Winstanley’s intelligence but fails to link the
Diggers’ shortcomings to the lack of a class capable of actualising communism.
As a result, the Diggers are seen more as tragic idealists than as forerunners
of later socialist movements. Dow’s work should be viewed within the larger
ideological debate over the significance of the English Revolution. By
dismissing long-term causes, class conflict, and structural changes, revisionism
served a political purpose: it effectively eliminated the concept of revolution
itself. Dow resists this trend — but cautiously. She reintroduces radical
elements into the story, yet he does not fully restore the idea of revolution.
He recognises social conflict but not class struggle; he acknowledges the
Levellers and Diggers but not the bourgeois revolution that enabled them.
The book is valuable yet politically cautious. Dow opposes
revisionism but does not fully reject it. As a result, her work serves as a
transitional text—a partial rehabilitation of radical ideas that avoids a
complete Marxist interpretation.
Bibliography
Primary and Secondary Sources on the English Revolution
Dow, F.D. Radicalism in the English Revolution,
1640–60. Historical Association Studies. London: Historical Association,
1985.
Manning, Brian. Referenced in Dow, Radicalism in
the English Revolution, 1640–60, p. 5.
Morton, A.L. Freedom in Arms: A Selection of
Leveller Writings. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975.
Underdown, David. Riot, Rebellion and Popular
Politics in England, 1603–1660. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. (Referenced
for caution on applying “class” to 17th‑century society.)
Everitt, A.M. The County Committee of Kent in the
Civil War. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1966. (Referenced as
part of conservative localist revisionism.)
Morrill, John. The Revolt of the Provinces:
Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 1630–1650. London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1976. (Referenced for short‑term, locality‑focused
revisionism.)
Adamson, John. The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of
Charles I. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007. (Referenced for elite‑centric
interpretation of the Civil War.)
Pamphlets and Radical Writings
Walwyn, William. Quotation from the pamphlet
beginning:
“That an inequitable thing it is for one man to have
thousands, and another want bread…” (From your document.)
Anonymous (Leveller tract). The Mournful Cries of
Many Thousand Poor Tradesmen, who are ready to famish through decay of Trade.
Or, the Warning Tears of the Oppressed. 22 January 1648. Available at:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/leveller-tracts-9#9.21 (oll.libertyfund.org in Bing)
“O hearke, hearke at our doores how our children cry bread,
bread, bread…” (from your document)
Mercurius Elencticus. Issue of 7–14 June 1648.
British Library, E447/II, 226. (Quoted for hostile description of Fifth
Monarchists.)
No comments:
Post a Comment