Expanding
Sharp’s argument within this broader historiographical context reveals that his
book is not just a corrective to conservative or Whiggish interpretations of
popular unrest. Instead, it forms part of a larger effort to recover plebeian
agency, class consciousness, and material struggles, especially in a period
often narrated from the perspectives of the gentry, court, and emerging
bourgeoisie.
Sharp’s
Intervention: Class Agency Against the “Better Sort” Thesis
Sharp’s main
discovery is quite clear. The rural poor in the West Country—cloth workers,
smallholders, labourers, artisans—did not rebel because disgruntled gentlemen
manipulated them. Instead, their riots were driven by hunger, unemployment,
dispossession, and anger at the gentry who held land, grain, and political
power. They self-organised, pinpointed their enemies, and acted together with a
coherence that contradicts the idea of the “inarticulate crowd.”
This directly
confronts a long-standing historiographical tradition that views popular
protest as reactive, aimless, and reliant on elite leadership. Sharp
demonstrates that food riots were caused not solely by shortages but by poverty
and market manipulation; forest riots were sustained campaigns against
enclosure and the loss of common rights; rioters openly showed class hostility
toward the wealthy; and organisation was inherently local rather than
externally imposed. This challenges more than just a misinterpretation of
events; it questions an entire ideological framework that sees the poor as
passive, easily manipulated, and lacking political agency. Sharp’s rioters are
not merely supporting characters in others' narratives but are active
historical agents. This emphasis on plebeian agency aligns Sharp with Thompson,
Manning, Wood, and Hill—even if he did not explicitly frame his work within a
Marxist context.
Thompson:
Moral Economy, Class Formation, and Sharp’s Unsparing Materialism
E. P.
Thompson’s impact on researching popular protest is significant. His idea of
the “moral economy” — suggesting that 18th-century crowds sought to uphold
traditional fairness in markets — has influenced scholarly work for many years.
Thompson’s crowds are not early revolutionaries but advocates of a
community-based ethic challenged by capitalist market dynamics.
Sharp’s
research complicates this view. He finds that in the period he explores
(1586–1660), rioters rarely enforced a “fair price.” Instead, they seized grain
and distributed it directly without staging ritualised market interventions,
mainly because they were starving. Sharp cautions that broad application of the
moral-economy framework might romanticise plebeian actions, masking the
desperation and anger behind them. However, this critique does not undermine
Thompson’s larger argument; rather, it bolsters it. Thompson argued that class
is a relationship rooted in struggle, not a fixed structure. Sharp’s rioters
exemplify this by identifying their enemies (the gentry, wealthy farmers, grain
dealers), voicing grievances, and acting collectively. They do not rely on a
“moral economy” to explain their actions; they possess an emerging class
consciousness.
Thompson’s
idea of moral economy emphasises the significance of customs, while Sharp
concentrates on material deprivation. Despite their different focuses, both
scholars reject the idea that crowds are irrational. Sharp’s emphasis on
poverty—not scarcity—as a crucial element in food riots aligns with Thompson’s
broader perspective that popular protests are rational, organised, and rooted
in lived experience. In "The Making of the English Working Class,"
Thompson examines the political agency of artisans and labourers in the 18th
and 19th centuries. Similarly, Sharp investigates this for the 17th
century—both challenge elite-centric narratives, arguing that people
experiencing poverty understood their situations and acted with purpose within
them. Sharp’s divergence from Thompson on moral economy is thus a refinement,
not a repudiation. It pushes us to recognise that plebeian politics in the
early modern period were often more direct, more desperate, and more openly
confrontational than the ritualised protests of the eighteenth century.
Manning:
The English Revolution from Below
Brian
Manning’s analysis of the English Revolution, especially in *The English People
and the English Revolution*, argues that the Civil War was more than a
political conflict among elites; it was a social upheaval driven by widespread
popular grievances. Manning highlights that ordinary people played active roles
rather than just observing, with their economic and social demands shaping
events—the forest riots recorded by Sharp support Manning’s view. The Western
Rising (1626–32), a protest against enclosure and the loss of common rights,
illustrates these grievances. Sharp shows that these issues persisted and
fueled the chaos of the 1640s. Manning suggests that the Civil War opened a
political space for longstanding social conflicts, and Sharp’s evidence backs
this. Manning stresses that plebeian actors followed their own agendas, often
ignoring the constitutional disputes of Parliament and the court. Sharp’s
rioters exemplify this: they focused on food, work, and land, not on the
Petition of Right or the Grand Remonstrance.
Manning’s
Marxist reading of the Civil War emphasises class conflict—between landlords
and tenants, employers and workers, the rich and the poor—as the core issue.
Sharp’s rioters openly display class hostility, viewing the gentry as
oppressors and acting together against them. This exemplifies pure class
struggle. Therefore, Sharp supplies microhistorical evidence supporting
Manning’s broader thesis: the English Revolution was as much a social upheaval
as a constitutional crisis.
Hill:
Radicalism, Common Rights, and the World Turned Upside Down
Christopher
Hill’s analysis of the English Revolution, especially in The World Turned
Upside Down, highlights the radical ideas shared by ordinary people:
egalitarianism, communalism, anti-clericalism, and visions of a world without
masters. Hill emphasises that these radicals are not just thinkers but include
artisans, soldiers, and labourers whose experiences of exploitation influenced
their political ideas. Sharp’s rioters differ from Levellers or Diggers; they
do not create manifestos, but their actions reflect Hill’s themes. Hill notes
the importance of common land for plebeian life and politics, and Sharp’s
forest rioters fought specifically over this—facing enclosure and sale of royal
forests that threatened their livelihoods. Their resistance serves as a
physical counterpart to Hill’s ideological radicalism.
Hill’s
radicals show hostility toward the wealthy and influential, similar to Sharp’s
rioters. Their anger is focused and directed at specific beneficiaries of
enclosure and grain speculation. Hill contends that the English Revolution
created room for radical plebeian politics. At the same time, Sharp
demonstrates that this space was soon occupied by both ideological movements
and enduring economic grievances that led to direct action. Together, Sharp’s
work complements Hill’s: while Hill uncovers radical ideas, Sharp reveals
radical practices.
Wood:
Market Dependence, Social Property, and the Logic of Capitalism
Ellen
Meiksins Wood’s work in early modern historiography, especially in "The
Origin of Capitalism," emphasises that capitalism arose not from commerce
but from shifts in social property relations. For Wood, capitalism is characterised
by market dependence—the necessity of participating in the market to survive.
Sharp’s research aligns closely with this idea, demonstrating that food riots
were caused not by scarcity but by market forces, as grain was often redirected
from the hungry to those willing to pay higher prices. This exemplifies market
dependence: the poor riot because market forces regulate their access to food.
Wood emphasises that enclosure was vital in capitalism’s rise, as it dismantled
traditional rights and pushed people into the market economy. Similarly,
Sharp’s forest riots illustrate this conflict, with rural communities defending
social property and common rights against growing market influence. Wood argues
that class struggle is fundamental to capitalist social relations. Sharp also
shows that class struggle existed before capitalism, driven by the ongoing
transformation of social property—not because capitalism was already present.
Therefore, Sharp offers empirical support for Wood’s theory, highlighting how
early modern countryside conflicts were fueled by market dependence and
enclosure transforming social relations.
Sharp’s
Contribution: A Marxist History Without Marxist Vocabulary
Sharp's
writing differs from Thompson, Manning, Hill, or Wood. He avoids Marxist
terminology and does not discuss class formation, social property, or
revolutionary agency. Nevertheless, his conclusions echo theirs in four key
aspects: Sharp emphasises that ordinary people acted intentionally, aligning
with Thompson’s and Manning’s perspectives. He highlights issues like poverty,
unemployment, enclosure, and market manipulation, which are Wood’s focus areas.
Additionally, Sharp’s depiction of rioters showing clear hostility toward the
gentry reflects Hill’s perspective of societal upheaval.
Sharp
demonstrates that long-standing economic grievances contributed to the
political crisis of the Civil War. This aligns with Manning’s view on the
social origins of revolution. Although called a Marxist history, Sharp’s book
embodies Marxist ideas by highlighting class struggle, plebeian agency, and
material conflict with clarity. This approach supports the broader Marxist
understanding of early modern England.
Why Sharp
Matters Now
Sharp’s book remains important because it challenges the idea
that popular protests are merely manipulation, irrationality, or apolitical
frustration. His rioters clearly understood the reasons for their anger and
whom to blame. They acted collectively, with rationality and purpose. In a time
when unrest is often attributed to “outside agitation,” “misinformation,” or
“chaos,” Sharp’s emphasis on working-class clarity corrects this view. His work
shows that people recognise their oppression, act on real grievances, and do
not need elites to define their interests. Sharp’s West Country rioters are
similar to Thompson’s artisans, Manning’s radicals, Hill’s commoners, and
Wood’s peasants who depend on the market. Together, they illustrate that early
modern England was not a society of passive subjects but of active, aware, and
often angry people whose struggles shaped future history.
Primary
Sources
(These are
representative of the kinds of documents Sharp uses; they are not exhaustive.)
- Acts of the Privy Council of
England, various
volumes, 1580–1660.
- Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles
I.
- State Papers Online, National Archives.
- Contemporary petitions,
examinations, and depositions relating to food riots and forest disputes
(National Archives, SP and STAC series).
- Municipal records from Bristol,
Exeter, Taunton, Dorchester, and other West Country towns (local record
offices).
- Quarter Sessions records for
Somerset, Dorset, Devon, and Wiltshire.
- “Letter to the Mayor of Norwich
on the price of grain,” c. 1590s (quoted in Sharp).
Buchanan
Sharp
- Sharp, Buchanan. In Contempt of All Authority:
Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1980.
- Sharp, Buchanan. “The Enforcement of the Law in
Seventeenth-Century England.” Historical Journal 24, no. 2 (1981):
267–295.
- Sharp, Buchanan. “Measuring the ‘Moral Economy’:
Food Riots in Early Modern England.” In The Origins of the English
Civil War, edited by Conrad Russell. London: Macmillan, 1973.
E. P.
Thompson and the Moral Economy Tradition
- Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English
Working Class. London: Victor Gollancz, 1963.
- Thompson, E. P. “The Moral Economy of the
English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century.” Past & Present 50
(1971): 76–136.
- Thompson, E. P. Customs in Common.
London: Merlin Press, 1991.
- Thompson, E. P. Whigs and Hunters: The Origin
of the Black Act. London: Allen Lane, 1975.
Brian
Manning and the English Revolution from Below
- Manning, Brian. The English People and the
English Revolution, 1640–1649. London: Heinemann, 1976.
- Manning, Brian. The Far Left in the English
Revolution. London: Bookmarks, 1999.
- Manning, Brian. Revolution and
Counter-Revolution in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1658–1660.
London: Bookmarks, 2003.
- Manning, Brian. “Popular Movements and the
English Revolution.” Past & Present 48 (1970): 65–87.
Christopher
Hill and Radicalism in the English Revolution
- Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down:
Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1972.
- Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution,
1603–1714. London: Nelson, 1961.
- Hill, Christopher. Puritanism and Revolution.
London: Secker & Warburg, 1958.
- Hill, Christopher. The Experience of Defeat:
Milton and Some Contemporaries. London: Faber & Faber, 1984.
- Hill, Christopher. Liberty Against the Law: Some
Seventeenth-Century Controversies. London: Allen Lane, 1996.
Ellen
Meiksins Wood and Social Property Relations
- Wood, Ellen Meiksins. The Origin of Capitalism: A
Longer View. London: Verso, 2002.
- Wood, Ellen Meiksins. The Pristine Culture of
Capitalism. London: Verso, 1991.
- Wood, Ellen Meiksins. Democracy Against Capitalism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- Wood, Ellen Meiksins. “The Agrarian Origins of
Capitalism.” Monthly Review 50, no. 3 (1998): 14–31.
Supplementary
Scholarship (Highly Relevant)
These works
deepen the historiographical context and are often cited alongside Sharp:
Popular
Protest and Social Conflict
- Walter, John. Crowds and Popular Politics
in Early Modern England. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2006.
- Walter, John, and Keith
Wrightson.
“Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern England.” Past &
Present 71 (1976): 22–42.
- Wood, Andy. The Politics of Social
Conflict: The Peak Country, 1520–1770. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
- Wood, Andy. The Memory of the People:
Custom and Popular Senses of the Past in Early Modern England.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
- Hindle, Steve. The State and Social Change
in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1640. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000.
Enclosure,
Common Rights, and Rural Society
- Neeson, J. M. Commoners: Common Right,
Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700–1820. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
- McDonagh, Briony. Elite Women and the
Agricultural Landscape, 1700–1830. London: Routledge, 2017.
- Sharp, Buchanan, and Andy Wood, eds. Land, Custom and
Practice in the Early Modern English Countryside. London: Routledge,
2019.
Food Riots
and Market Regulation
- Kaplan, Steven L. Bread, Politics and Political
Economy in the Reign of Louis XV. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976.
- Bohstedt, John. The Politics of Provisions:
Food Riots, Moral Economy, and Market Transition in England, c. 1550–1850.
Farnham: Ashgate, 2010.
Archival
and Reference Works
- National Archives (UK): SP, STAC, ASSI, E 134 series.
- British Library: Thomason Tracts; Early English
Books Online (EEBO).
- Local Record Offices: Somerset Heritage Centre; Devon
Heritage Centre; Dorset History Centre; Wiltshire and Swindon History
Centre.
