The Russian Marxist Leon Trotsky was fond of saying that
"every sociological definition is at bottom a historical prognosis."
When John Morrill stated that "the English civil war was not the first
European revolution but the last of the wars of religion" [1]
he was forming a historical prognosis of the English revolution that has defended
all his life.
This collection of essays is a reply albeit rather late to
the publication, twenty years ago, of John Morrill's significant collection of
essays The Nature of the English Revolution (1993). This current volume of
essays was written by former students, colleagues, and historians who have
collaborated with Morrill and broadly support Morrill's historical viewpoint.
While not all essays break new ground, some like John Walter's
and Phillip Baker do. It is also evident that this volume of essays will
provoke further work on their related topics. There have been two interrelated developments that have
characterized the historiography of the English Revolution over the last few
decades. The first one has been the systematic and protracted attack on Marxism
in the form of hostility to the method of historical materialism.
The second one and a by-product of the first has seen the
demise of a "grand narrative" as regards the English revolution. The
theory that England passed through a bourgeois revolution during the
seventeenth century was championed by historians Christopher Hill and Brian
Manning. The rejection of this theory has led to an increasingly
specialized field of study and with it the adoption of a smaller and more parochial
narrative. An approach conducted by John Morrill and his book Revolt in the
Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War, 1630-48.
From very early on in his career, Morrill opposed the
Marxist approach to the English revolution. He rejected the "rather
triumphalist claim that you could now produce a kind of social determinist view
of the long-term causes and origins of the English Revolution. It was that I
think, which some people quite independently reacted against" [2].
In his lower narrative, Morrill characterized the Civil Wars as England's 'Wars
of Religion.'
This recent collection of essays gives us an excellent
opportunity to examine the state of seventeenth-century English historiography,
especially the contemporary post-revisionist historians. The first thing that should strike the reader about this collection
of essays is the title. Why bother with the English revolution since very few
of the contributing writers, including Morrill, believed that one took place. Moreover,
as one reviewer pointed out, the "global dimensions of the Revolution are
barely acknowledged."
Chapter one -Charles I and Public Opinion on the Eve of the
English Civil War (pp. 1-26) is by Tim Harris who is perhaps best known for his
work on the Post-Restoration period, in this chapter he examines the formation
of a Royalist Party. When we talk about a party, we cannot compare a 17th-century
structure of today's political parties, but the Royalist party did begin to
take on specific characteristics that we are familiar with such as the use of
propaganda which the king saw as a valuable tool against his enemies. As Harris
points out, the first use of this against the Scots did not work out too well.
Harris's chapter is something of an attempt to reevaluate
and rehabilitate Charles Ist. There is a view among contemporary
post-revisionist historians that it is crucial to concentrate on the king's
strengths as opposed to his weakness of character.
Harris does not sufficiently convince this reader that Royalist
forged a coherent ideology. Nevertheless, if they did, Harris tends to divorce
it from its economic base. Harris does not investigate what social or class
forces the disparate groups who fought for the king represented.
Harris also rejects the conception of a long-term cause of
the war. G R Elton began the attack on this theory which has been peddled by
countless revisionist historians ever since. Harris also promotes the belief
that things went disastrously wrong for Charles through no fault of his own.
Harris belongs to the camp of historians who include Kevin Sharpe who regard
the personal rule as a period of constructive and welcome reform in England.
Chapter 2 Rethinking Moderation in the English Revolution:
(pp. 27-52) is by Ethan H. Shagan, whose article is closely related to his
recent book[3]
. He admits that it does seem paradoxical that in the midst of the bloodiest
and revolutionary conflict England had ever seen all parties both left and
right sought the mantle of moderation.
Much of this moderation was a smokescreen to hide very
controversial political opinions. Take, for instance, the Levellers their main
publication was called the Moderate, but in reality, their political program
called for a more extensive franchise, a revolutionary act if there ever was
one. This outlook was summed up by the words of Col Thomas Rainsborough "I
think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the
greatest he ". An extraordinary call for social equality, given that the
only people who could vote were a tiny section of the population.
In many ways, this chapter more than the rest reflects
current historiography to downplay the revolutionary actions of the leading
participates of the revolution. The killing of a king, the establishment of a
republic and to top it all a coup d'état by the New Model Army are not the
actions of reasonable men.
Chapter 3 The Parish and the Poor in the English Revolution
(pp. 53-80) is by Tim Wales. Wales essay is firmly in the spirit of John
Morrill. He examines the bitter political and religious conflicts within
Norwich in the middle 1640s. There is nothing wrong with exploring local political events
as long as they reflect broader socio-political groupings. Wales's chapter does
not examine the connection between politics and economics.
Wales is one of many historians who reject a materialist
outlook as regards the English revolution. Historians like Christopher Hill
have been accused of being too "social determinist." As the Marxist
economist, Nick Beams points out "Another "frequently employed
caricatures of Marxism is the claim that it argues that ideology is just a
cover for the real economic motivations of social actors. Accordingly, Marxism
is "disproved" by the discovery that individuals act, not according
to economic motives but by dominant ideologies. Marxism does not deny that
historical actors are motivated and driven into action by their ideological
conceptions, and it does not claim that these ideologies are merely a
rationalization for the real economic motivations. However, it does insist that
it is necessary to examine the motives behind the motives—the real, underlying,
driving forces of the historical process—and to make clear the social interests
served by a given ideology—a relationship that may or may not be consciously
grasped by the individual involved"[4]
To give Wales his due, he correctly states that the English
Revolution was a pivotal moment in how the poor were treated in England. This
period saw the escalation of taxes to fund poor relief that lasted well into
the restoration period. Chapter 4 Body Politics in the English Revolution (pp.
81-102) is by John Walter.Walter's essay is a useful barometer of class
relations during the English revolution. His examination of the use of gestures
indicates a growing radicalism amongst the middling sort and sections of the
poor. The question of "hat honour" is important in that the refusal
to take one's hat off in the presence of a superior person was seen as the
height of political opposition.
As one writer states "Walter discusses the body
language that reflected the lack of deference paid to figures of authority and
status during this period. I think this a critical point, as it struck at the
very heart of traditional English society. Turning one's back or refusing to
doff one's cap were tremendously symbolic actions. Walter does an excellent job
in calling attention to this relatively unexplored subject. One is reminded of
the story that King Charles II took his hat off in a conversation with the
Quaker, William Penn, saying that someone had to doff their hat in the presence
of a king".
Chapter 5 The Franchise debate revisited is by Philip Baker.
Baker's essay adds substantially to a growing interest in the Levellers. The question of the Levellers is one of the most contentious
issues arising out of the English revolution. Morrill wrote little on them, and
his views on the Putney are that no Levellers were present during the debates
Morrill argues that Leveller rhetoric was fundamentally
opposed to a standing army and that Lilburne's experience made him suspicious
and out of touch with its rank and file. While Baker sees the Levellers as
radicals not revolutionary, his work is essential in so much that it
contributes significantly to our further understanding of this group.
The central plank of the Levellers manifesto was the call
for a democratic republic in which the House of Commons would be more important
than the House of Lords. A Leveller would have a wanted redistribution and
extension of the franchise, legal and economic reform on behalf of men of small
property, artisans, yeoman, small merchants, and the very layers, which made up
the composition of the Levellers themselves.
However, as Baker points out, there was a limit to the
extension of the franchise. The poor in the 17th century, and this contains a
large section of the population would not be given the vote. However, this does
not undermine the revolutionary implications of the call by the Levellers to
widen the franchise.
As Andrew Hopper points out "Phil Baker's contribution
builds on his recent work on the New Model Army and the Levellers to approach
the issue of the franchise from a new direction. In view of the "unacknowledged
republic," he argues that Leveller thinking was shaped by office holding
and local political participation, specifically the world of London politics in
which many of their leaders had participated. Provocatively, he terms the New
Model's concern that their rank and file had won the right to vote as "elitist"
because it fell short of advocating a universal male franchise. Based on the
experience of New Model soldiers and civilian Levellers, Baker concludes that
we should reconnect the disputed relationship between voting and governance in
early modern England and that a republican tradition of citizenship and
officeholding existed alongside a contemporary concern for the right to vote."[5]
As regards the Putney debates as John Rees shows many Levellers were in the Army themselves.
Lilburne had an exemplary and widely publicized military record. But Lilburne
was not alone in this. Leveller William Allen served in Holles' regiment.
Leveller printer William Larner served as a sutler in Lord Robartes' regiment.
Thomas Prince fought in the London Trained Bands until he was injured at
Newbury in 1643. John Harris ran an Army printing press. Leveller ally Henry
Marten had a close engagement in military affairs in London and eventually
raised his regiment in Berkshire. Thomas Rainsborough and his brother William
were Leveller sympathizers. Edward Sexby was a central figure in the actions of
the Agitators. Army chaplains Jeremiah Ives and Edward Harrison supported the
Levellers."[6]
Conclusion
In total, there are eleven essays in this book. The articles
are well written and researched, and some do break new ground and explore new
trends in post-revisionist historiography. The one area that certainly does
need far more extensive research is the debates at Putney. It is clear that
despite his hostility to a Marxist Historiography, Professor Morrill has
produced a distinguished body of work. Despite having deep disagreements with
the essays, they are a fitting tribute to an outstanding historian. They will
be of interest to specialists and students and are written in a style that
would be acceptable to the general reading public interested in this period.
[1]
The Religious Context of the English Civil War. John Morrill
[2]
Interview with John Morrill-www.estraint in
Early Modern Englan Paperback – 29 Sep 2011-by Ethan H. Shagan
[4]
Imperialism and the political economy of the Holocaust-By Nick Beams-wsws.org
[5]
Reviewed Work(s): The Nature of the English Revolution Revisited: Essays in
Honour of John Morrill by Taylor and Tapsell Review by: Andrew Hopper Source:
Renaissance Quarterly , Vol. 67, No. 3 (Fall 2014), pp. 1020-1022
[6]
John Rees, review of The Levellers: Radical Political Thought in the English
Revolution, (review no. 1519)
