This article re-evaluates Christopher Hill’s view of the English Revolution by considering both his long-standing membership in the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and the influence of the Popular Front ideology. Hill’s main argument, that the period of 1640–1660 was a bourgeois revolution in which rising capitalist classes overthrew a declining feudal system, is often seen as a clear example of Marxist historical materialism. However, to fully understand this argument, we must examine the intellectual and political context in which Hill developed it. This article suggests that Hill’s work was influenced, though not solely determined, by Stalinist ideas in the mid-twentieth century, especially the Popular Front’s focus on national traditions, progressive bourgeois forces, and a staged view of history.
The analysis begins by situating Hill within the CPGB
Historians’ Group, a collective of Marxist scholars, including Eric Hobsbawm,
Rodney Hilton, Victor Kiernan, and Edward Thompson, who aimed to rediscover a
“usable past” for the British left. This group’s work was closely aligned with
the Popular Front’s cultural strategy, which promoted Communist parties as
successors to national democratic traditions. In Britain, this led to
historical narratives emphasising the continuity between past popular struggles
and current socialist goals. Hill’s early work, especially The English
Revolution 1640 (1940), was developed within this environment and reflected its
intellectual priorities. His praise for a progressive bourgeoisie, his
portrayal of 1640 as a completed bourgeois-democratic phase, and his framing of
English radicalism as a national legacy all adhered to Popular Front ideology.
This article contends that Hill’s scholarship also included
elements that conflicted with the CPGB’s political stance. The view of the
English Revolution as a bourgeois revolution predated the Popular Front and was
supported by Marx, Engels, and Trotsky. For instance, Trotsky’s analysis of
Cromwell’s revolution highlighted the importance of revolutionary force. It
dismissed parliamentary gradualism, which fundamentally contrasted with the
CPGB’s post-war program, The British Road to Socialism. Hill’s emphasis on the
revolutionary nature of 1640–1660 thus conflicted with the party’s reformist
leanings. Additionally, the timing of Hill’s early work complicates its reading
as Popular Front propaganda: The English Revolution 1640 was published during
the Stalin–Hitler Pact, when the CPGB had temporarily stopped promoting Popular
Front rhetoric. Criticism from within the party, claiming the essay was overly
schematic and simplified, indicates that Hill’s interpretation was not merely a
party directive.
This article then explores the theoretical and political
limitations of the Historians’ Group. Although its members contributed some of
the most significant Marxist historiography of the 20th century, they operated
within a party that supported the Moscow Trials and suppressed the history of
the Left Opposition. Their sympathetic focus on seventeenth-century radicals
stood in stark contrast to their silence on contemporary revolutionary Marxism.
The 1956 crisis split the group, prompting Hill and many others to leave the
CPGB. However, most did not thoroughly critique Stalinism's core theories, such
as stages theory and socialism in one country. These unresolved issues
continued to influence Hill’s later work, even as he shifted focus from the
bourgeois revolution to the “revolution within the revolution” embodied by radical
sectarian movements.
Ultimately, the article evaluates Hill’s lasting importance
amid revisionist critiques. Since the 1970s, historians like Conrad Russell and
Kevin Sharpe have questioned whether the English Civil War qualifies as a true
revolution. In this context, Hill’s focus on the conflict's structural and
class dimensions offers a clear alternative to revisionist doubts. The
conclusion suggests that while Hill’s interpretation was influenced by Popular
Front ideology, it cannot be solely attributed to it. To appreciate his
contributions, it’s essential to separate his historical materialism from the
Stalinist political framework in which he originally developed it.
Introduction
Christopher Hill (1912–2003) is a pivotal figure in
twentieth-century interpretations of the English Revolution. In his early
essay, "The English Revolution 1640" (1940), he argued that the Civil
War was primarily a class struggle that ended feudalism and led to the rise of
capitalism. Unlike the dominant Whig perspective, which viewed the conflict as
a constitutional dispute between the Crown and Parliament, Hill highlighted the
societal transformations and revolutionary actions of merchants, gentry, and
yeomen. His work marked a notable departure from constitutionalist orthodoxy
and the revisionist scepticism that had long shaped studies of
seventeenth-century England. Overall, Hill’s contribution was both
historiographical and political, reaffirming the significance of class analysis
at a time when British history increasingly focused on institutional and
constitutional issues.
Hill’s intellectual development closely reflects his
political beliefs. As a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB)
from 1936 to 1957, he actively participated in the party’s Historians’ Group.
This key collective included figures such as Eric Hobsbawm, Rodney Hilton,
Victor Kiernan, Dorothy Thompson, and Edward Thompson. This group aimed to develop
a Marxist interpretation of English history, drawing on extensive archival
research and engaging with contemporary debates in historical materialism. The
broader political climate of the Popular Front, formalised at the Seventh
Congress of the Communist International in 1935, influenced their work. Led by
Georgi Dimitrov, communist parties were urged to ally with progressive
bourgeois forces to oppose fascism and to position themselves as successors to
national democratic traditions. In Britain, this approach appeared in cultural
projects such as pageants, pamphlets, and historical narratives that emphasised
the link between past popular resistance and modern socialist goals.
Hill’s early writings reflect the themes of his milieu. He
depicted the English Revolution as a moment when a progressive bourgeoisie
overthrew reactionary feudal forces, aligning with the Popular Front’s
celebration of democratic capitalist elements. His portrayal of the Revolution
as a completed bourgeois-democratic stage aligned with the CPGB’s post-war programme,
'The British Road to Socialism,' which supported achieving socialism through
parliamentary reform rather than revolution. Additionally, Hill often framed
English radicalism as a national heritage, as seen in essays like “The Norman
Yoke' (1954), echoing the Popular Front’s cultural strategy of integrating
socialist politics into a narrative of national continuity.
However, the link between Hill’s scholarship and Popular
Front ideology was complex and not straightforward. The idea of the English
Revolution as a bourgeois revolution predated the Popular Front and was central
to Marxist thought, from Marx and Engels to Trotsky. Trotsky’s view of
Cromwell’s revolution highlighted the importance of revolutionary force and
opposed parliamentary gradualism, clashing with the CPGB's reformist stance.
Hill’s emphasis on the revolutionary nature of 1640–1660 conflicted with the
party’s political line. Additionally, The English Revolution 1640 was published
during the Stalin–Hitler Pact, when the CPGB had temporarily set aside Popular
Front rhetoric. Some internal criticism of the essay as overly schematic suggests that Hill’s interpretation went beyond party directives.
The key question is not whether Hill’s scholarship simply reflected Stalinist doctrine, but to what extent his interpretation was shaped by the ideological context in which he worked.
Hill’s historiography resulted from a dynamic interaction among Marxist theory,
CPGB cultural politics, and his personal intellectual independence. Recognising
this interplay is crucial to evaluating both the merits and constraints of his
contribution to understanding the English Revolution.
The Popular Front and the Construction of a “National
Tradition”
The 1935 Seventh Congress of the Communist International formalised
the Popular Front strategy, marking a decisive shift in Communist parties'
political and ideological orientation across Europe and beyond. Under Georgi
Dimitrov’s leadership, the Comintern urged Communist parties to build alliances
with “progressive” bourgeois groups to counter the rise of fascism. This was
not merely a tactical adjustment but a redefinition of Communist political
practice. The working class was no longer conceived as an independent
revolutionary force acting against the bourgeoisie; instead, it was encouraged
to join broad, cross-class coalitions to defend and extend democratic
institutions. The Popular Front thus entailed a significant ideological
reorientation: Communist parties were encouraged to present themselves not as
revolutionary vanguards seeking to overthrow the existing order, but as
defenders of national democratic traditions.
This ideological shift had profound cultural consequences.
Communist parties were instructed to embed their political programmes in national-history
narratives, emphasising continuity over rupture. In Britain, this translated
into a wide array of cultural initiatives, pageants, pamphlets, exhibitions,
and historical reinterpretations, designed to show that socialism was the
logical culmination of a long native tradition of popular resistance. The
CPGB’s cultural apparatus worked to show that the struggle for democracy,
liberty, and social justice had deep roots in English history. A. L. Morton’s A
People’s History of England (1938) stands as a paradigmatic example of this
trend. Morton traced a continuous line of popular struggle from the Peasants’
Revolt through the Levellers and Chartists to the modern labour movement,
presenting socialism as the inheritor of a centuries‑long democratic tradition.
His narrative exemplified the Popular Front’s cultural logic: socialism was not
foreign or revolutionary in the classical Marxist sense, but rather the
fulfilment of England’s own historical trajectory.
This intellectual and political context shaped Christopher
Hill's early work. The 1640 tercentenary gave the CPGB an ideal opportunity to
position the English Revolution as a foundational moment in a progressive
national history. Hill’s The English Revolution 1640 (1940) appeared as
the party actively sought to reinterpret English history in ways that aligned
with Popular Front ideology. Although Hill’s analysis was grounded in Marxist
historical materialism, it also resonated with the Popular Front’s emphasis on
national democratic traditions. By presenting the English Revolution as a
bourgeois revolution that cleared the way for modern parliamentary democracy,
Hill’s work implicitly reinforced the idea that England possessed a native
tradition of progressive struggle that contemporary socialists could legitimately
claim as their own.
The 1640 tercentenary played a crucial role in shaping the
intellectual and political environment in which Christopher Hill’s early work
emerged. Anniversaries of major historical events often intensify public
reflection, scholarly activity, and political appropriation. The three‑hundredth
anniversary of the Long Parliament's opening was no exception. In Britain, the
late 1930s and early 1940s were marked by profound political uncertainty, the
rise of fascism in Europe, and intense debates about the nature of democracy,
national identity, and the historical roots of political liberty. Against this
backdrop, the tercentenary gave various political actors, including the
Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), an opportunity to reinterpret the
English Revolution to fit contemporary ideological needs.
For the CPGB, the tercentenary arrived as the Popular Front
strategy reshaped the party’s cultural and political orientation. The Popular
Front encouraged Communist parties to present themselves as defenders of
national democratic traditions rather than as revolutionary outsiders. In
Britain, this meant emphasising the continuity between past struggles for
liberty and the modern socialist movement. The English Revolution, long a
subject of Marxist interest, could now be framed as a foundational moment in a
progressive national narrative. The tercentenary thus gave the CPGB a chance to
claim the events of 1640–1660 as part of a native tradition of democratic
resistance, one it could mobilise in the fight against fascism and reaction.
The CPGB’s cultural apparatus responded energetically.
Pageants, lectures, pamphlets, and commemorative events sought to present the
English Revolution as a struggle for popular rights and parliamentary
democracy. This was not merely propaganda; it reflected a broader intellectual
project within the party to reinterpret English history through a Marxist lens
while simultaneously aligning that interpretation with the Popular Front’s
emphasis on national unity. The Historians’ Group, formed shortly after the war
but intellectually active during the tercentenary period, played a central role
in this endeavour. Its members aimed to recover a “usable past,” a phrase that
captured both the scholarly ambition to reinterpret historical events and the
political imperative to make those events relevant to contemporary struggles.
Christopher Hill’s early work must be understood within this
context. The English Revolution 1640 (1940) was published as the
tercentenary heightened public interest in the seventeenth century and as the
CPGB sought to position the English Revolution as a key episode in a
progressive national tradition. Hill’s interpretation of the Civil War as a
bourgeois revolution aligned with Marxist historical materialism, but it also
resonated with the Popular Front’s cultural strategy. By emphasising the
revolutionary agency of emergent capitalist classes and the overthrow of feudal
reaction, Hill’s narrative implicitly reinforced the idea that England
possessed a native tradition of democratic struggle that modern socialists could
legitimately claim.
The centennial also shaped how people received Hill’s work. At
a time when defending democracy was a central political concern, Hill’s
insistence on the revolutionary origins of parliamentary government offered a
powerful counter‑narrative to conservative and revisionist interpretations. His
work provided intellectual ammunition for those who argued that democracy was
won through struggle rather than bestowed through constitutional evolution.
This framing particularly appealed to Popular Front intellectuals, who wanted
to present socialism as the heir to a long tradition of English radicalism.
Convergences Between Hill’s Thesis and Popular Front
Ideology
Central to Popular Front politics was the assertion that
sections of the bourgeoisie retained a progressive historical role. This claim marked
a significant departure from classical Marxist theory, which emphasised the
inherently contradictory and ultimately reactionary character of the capitalist
class once it had completed its revolutionary tasks. Under the Popular Front,
however, Communist parties were encouraged to identify and collaborate with
“progressive” elements of the bourgeoisie, liberal professionals, democratic
parliamentarians, and segments of the middle class, presumed to share an
interest in resisting fascism and defending parliamentary institutions. This
ideological repositioning required a corresponding reinterpretation of national
history that highlighted moments when bourgeois forces acted as agents of
democratic advance.
Christopher Hill’s interpretation of the English Revolution
aligned comfortably with this conception. In The English Revolution 1640
and subsequent works, Hill foregrounded the revolutionary agency of merchants,
gentry, and yeomen, presenting them as the driving forces behind the overthrow
of a feudal order that had become an impediment to economic development and
political liberty. His narrative emphasised the dynamism of emergent capitalist
classes, their capacity for decisive political action, and their role in
clearing the way for modern parliamentary democracy. Although this
interpretation drew on Marx and Engels’ analysis of bourgeois revolutions, its
political utility for the CPGB lay in its ability to legitimise alliances with
liberal and “democratic” bourgeois forces in the mid‑twentieth century.
The Popular Front’s valorisation of a progressive
bourgeoisie required historical exemplars, and Hill’s account provided them. By
portraying the seventeenth‑century bourgeoisie as a class capable of
revolutionary leadership, Hill’s work implicitly suggested that contemporary
bourgeois elements might again play a constructive role in defending democracy.
This reading dovetailed with the CPGB’s post‑war programme, The British Road
to Socialism, which argued that socialism could be achieved through
parliamentary means and through cooperation with progressive sections of the
middle class. Hill’s historical narrative thus served a dual purpose: it
offered a Marxist interpretation of the English Revolution while reinforcing
the Popular Front's ideological foundations.
Yet Hill’s interpretation was not simply a reflection of
party doctrine. His insistence on the bourgeoisie's revolutionary character in 1640–1660 rested on serious engagement with Marxist theory and
historical evidence. Marx and Engels long argued that bourgeois revolutions
were necessary stages in capitalist development, clearing away feudal
constraints and establishing political forms conducive to economic growth.
Hill’s work extended this analysis by exploring the ideological, religious, and
social dimensions of the English Revolution, demonstrating how emergent capitalist
classes mobilised religious radicalism, political theory, and popular
discontent to achieve their aims.
Nevertheless, Hill’s interpretation has political
implications that cannot be ignored. By emphasising the bourgeoisie's
progressive role, Hill’s narrative risked obscuring the limits of bourgeois
leadership and the contradictions inherent in capitalist development. The
Popular Front’s celebration of bourgeois progressivism tended to downplay the
class antagonisms that persisted within capitalist society and to present
democratic institutions as the nation's natural inheritance rather than the
product of ongoing struggle. Hill’s work, while more nuanced than party
propaganda, nonetheless contributed to a historiographical environment in which
the bourgeoisie could be seen as a historical ally rather than as a class whose
revolutionary potential had long since been exhausted.
The tension between Hill’s Marxist commitments and the Popular
Front's ideological demands is therefore central to understanding his
interpretation of the English Revolution. His work demonstrated the bourgeoisie's
revolutionary agency in the seventeenth century. Still, it also offered a
historical narrative the CPGB could mobilise to support its mid‑century
political strategy. This dual character- both theoretically grounded and
politically useful- helps explain the enduring influence of Hill’s
interpretation and the complexity of his relationship to Popular Front
ideology.
Stalinism revived and institutionalised the Menshevik notion
that societies must pass through a bourgeois‑democratic stage before socialism
becomes historically possible. This schema, codified in the doctrine of “non‑capitalist
development” and reinforced through the Comintern’s Popular Front strategy,
held that the working class in advanced capitalist societies should not pursue
immediate revolutionary objectives but instead support the consolidation and
extension of bourgeois democracy. The stages theory thus justified alliances with liberal and “progressive” bourgeois forces and the CPGB’s increasing orientation toward parliamentary
reform. Within this framework, the bourgeois revolution was not merely a
historical event but a normative model: a necessary, completed stage whose
achievements must be defended and extended, not transcended through
revolutionary rupture.
Christopher Hill’s depiction of the English Revolution as a
completed bourgeois revolution fitted neatly into this schema. In The
English Revolution 1640 and subsequent works, Hill argued that the
upheavals of 1640–1660 destroyed the remnants of feudalism, cleared the way for
capitalist development, and established the institutional foundations of modern
parliamentary democracy. His narrative emphasised English society's structural
transformation, the decisive role of emergent capitalist classes, and the
revolutionary overthrow of reactionary forces. While grounded in Marxist
historical materialism, Hill’s interpretation resonated strongly with the
CPGB’s mid‑century political strategy. By presenting the English Revolution as
a successful bourgeois‑democratic transformation, Hill’s work implicitly
reinforced the idea that England had already passed through the necessary
revolutionary stage and that the contemporary working class's task was to
complete and perfect the democratic institutions inherited from the seventeenth
century.
This reading aligned closely with the CPGB’s post‑war
programme, The British Road to Socialism (1951), which envisaged
socialism emerging through parliamentary reform rather than through
insurrectionary struggle. The programme argued that Britain’s democratic institutions,
Parliament, the rule of law, and civil liberties, were products of earlier
popular struggles and could serve as vehicles for socialist transformation.
Hill’s historical narrative supported this position by portraying the English
Revolution as the foundational moment in creating those institutions. If
parliamentary democracy resulted from a revolutionary bourgeois transformation,
it could plausibly be presented as a legitimate, historically grounded arena
for socialist advance.
The political utility of Hill’s interpretation for the CPGB
lay precisely in this compatibility. The stages theory required a historical
narrative in which the bourgeoisie had played a progressive role, and Hill
supplied it. His work demonstrated that the bourgeoisie had once acted as a
revolutionary class, overthrowing feudal reaction and establishing democratic
institutions. This historical precedent could then be mobilised to justify
alliances with contemporary bourgeois forces and to argue that socialism could
be achieved through the peaceful extension of existing democratic structures.
Yet Hill’s adoption of the bourgeois revolution framework
was not simply a reflection of Stalinist orthodoxy. His interpretation drew on
serious engagement with Marx, Engels, and the classical Marxist tradition, all
of whom emphasised the importance of bourgeois revolutions in clearing the way
for capitalist development. Hill’s scholarship was also shaped by the broader
historiographical debates of his time, including the transition debate and the
emerging interest in social and ideological history. Nevertheless, the
alignment between his historical conclusions and the CPGB’s political strategy
was striking and cannot be dismissed as coincidental.
The tension between Hill’s Marxist commitments and the
ideological demands of the stages theory is therefore central to understanding
his work. While Hill’s analysis retained a revolutionary core emphasising class
conflict, structural transformation, and the overthrow of reaction, it also
contributed to a historiographical environment in which parliamentary democracy
could be presented as the legitimate inheritance of a completed bourgeois
revolution. This dual character helps explain both the enduring influence of
Hill’s interpretation and the complexity of his relationship to Stalinist
politics.
The Nationalisation of Radical Traditions
Christopher Hill often framed English radicalism as a
national inheritance, a tradition rooted in the longue durée of popular
resistance rather than the specific class antagonisms of particular historical
moments. His essay “The Norman Yoke” (1954) exemplifies this approach. In that
piece, Hill traced the evolution of a powerful ideological motif- the belief
that the Norman Conquest decisively ruptured English liberty, replacing an
imagined Anglo‑Saxon egalitarianism with feudal oppression. Hill demonstrated
how this myth circulated through centuries of popular agitation, appearing in
the writings of seventeenth‑century radicals, resurfacing among eighteenth‑century
reformers, and persisting into nineteenth‑century democratic movements. The
essay was intellectually innovative: it illuminated how historical memory,
myth, and political ideology could shape popular consciousness and mobilise
collective action. Yet it also revealed a tendency in Hill’s work to subsume
class struggle within a broader narrative of national continuity, aligning
closely with the cultural politics of the Popular Front.
The Popular Front encouraged Communist parties to present
themselves as defenders of national democratic traditions rather than as
revolutionary vanguards seeking to overthrow the existing order. In Britain,
this meant emphasising the continuity between past struggles for liberty and
the modern socialist movement. The CPGB’s cultural strategy sought to
demonstrate that socialism was not a foreign ideology but the culmination of a
long native tradition of popular resistance. Hill’s exploration of the Norman Yoke
myth fitted neatly into this framework. By tracing a lineage of radical thought
from the Anglo‑Saxon period through the English Revolution and into later
democratic movements, Hill presented English radicalism as a continuous
national inheritance. This framing allowed the CPGB to claim historical
legitimacy for its political programme by situating contemporary socialist aims
within a centuries‑long struggle for liberty.
Hill’s approach in “The Norman Yoke” was not simply a
reflection of party doctrine. It emerged from his broader interest in the
ideological and cultural dimensions of historical change. Hill was deeply
concerned with how ordinary people understood their social world, articulated
grievances, and imagined alternatives. His work on radical sects, popular
religion, and plebeian political thought demonstrated a commitment to
recovering the voices and experiences of those excluded from elite
historiography. The Norman Yoke essay exemplified this commitment by showing
how a myth of lost liberties could serve as a vehicle for expressing social
discontent and political aspiration. Hill’s analysis revealed the complexity of
popular ideology and how historical memory could be mobilised for radical ends.
Nevertheless, Hill’s framing cannot be taken at face value.
By presenting English radicalism as a national inheritance, Hill risked
obscuring the specific class dynamics that shaped particular moments of
struggle. The Norman Yoke myth, while historically significant, was not a
timeless expression of national sentiment but a malleable ideological construct
that different social groups deployed in different ways. Hill’s emphasis on
continuity tended to flatten these distinctions, presenting radicalism as a
unified tradition rather than a series of contested, class‑specific movements.
This tendency aligned with the Popular Front’s cultural politics, which sought
to emphasise national unity and democratic continuity rather than class
antagonism and revolutionary rupture.
The alignment between Hill’s historiography and Popular
Front ideology is particularly evident when contrasted with the classical
Marxist tradition. Marx and Engels emphasised the specificity of class struggle
and the importance of analysing historical events through their material
conditions and social relations. In his writings on the English Revolution,
Trotsky stressed the revolutionary character of class conflict and rejected
attempts to subsume it within narratives of national development. Hill’s work,
while grounded in Marxist analysis, often moved in a different direction. His
focus on national traditions, popular myths, and ideological continuity
reflected the CPGB’s desire to present socialism as the heir to a long English
democratic tradition rather than as a break with the existing order.
This tendency became more pronounced in Hill’s later work,
particularly in The World Turned Upside Down (1972), where he shifted
attention from the bourgeois revolution that succeeded to the “revolution
within the revolution” that failed. This shift reflected a broader
historiographical interest in popular culture and dissent, while also echoing
the Popular Front’s emphasis on democratic traditions and national radicalism.
Hill’s celebration of plebeian movements and popular ideology reinforced the
idea that English radicalism was a continuous national inheritance, even as he
acknowledged the class conflicts that shaped these movements.
In sum, Hill’s framing of English radicalism as a national
inheritance was both intellectually productive and politically consequential.
It illuminated the ideological dimensions of popular movements and recovered
neglected traditions of dissent. But it also aligned with the cultural politics
of the Popular Front, subsuming class struggle within a broader narrative of
national continuity. Understanding this dual character is essential for
assessing Hill’s contribution to Marxist historiography and for situating his
work within the political and intellectual context of mid‑twentieth‑century
Britain.
Reducing Christopher Hill’s interpretation of the English
Revolution to Stalinist orthodoxy would distort it. The conception of the
English Revolution as a bourgeois revolution predated the Popular Front and
belonged to the classical Marxist tradition. Marx and Engels consistently
treated the seventeenth‑century upheavals as a decisive moment in the
transition from feudalism to capitalism, emphasising the structural
transformation of English society and the revolutionary agency of emergent
bourgeois forces. Later Marxists, including Trotsky, reaffirmed this
interpretation. In Where Is Britain Going? (1925), Trotsky invoked
Cromwell’s revolution to criticise Labour’s parliamentary gradualism, arguing
that ruling classes are historically overthrown by revolutionary force rather
than constitutional evolution. For Trotsky, the English Revolution showed that
decisive political change required mobilising class power, not the slow
accretion of parliamentary reforms.
Hill’s insistence on the revolutionary character of
1640–1660 thus sat uneasily with the CPGB’s reformist orientation. The party’s
post‑war programme, The British Road to Socialism, envisaged socialism
emerging through parliamentary transition, alliances with progressive bourgeois
forces, and the peaceful extension of democratic institutions. A historical
narrative emphasising armed class struggle was an awkward foundation for such a
programme. Hill’s depiction of the English Revolution as a violent rupture,
driven by class antagonism and culminating in the overthrow of the monarchy,
implicitly challenged the CPGB’s claim that socialism could be achieved without
revolutionary confrontation. His work demonstrated that the bourgeoisie had
come to power through civil war and the execution of a king, not through polite
constitutional evolution. This was precisely the lesson Trotsky had drawn
against the Labour leadership in the 1920s, and it was a lesson that sat in
tension with the CPGB’s mid‑century political strategy.
The timing of Hill’s early work further complicates any
attempt to read it as a straightforward expression of Popular Front ideology. The
English Revolution 1640 appeared in 1940, during the Stalin–Hitler Pact,
when the CPGB had temporarily abandoned Popular Front rhetoric and adopted a
line hostile to the British war effort. The party’s cultural apparatus was in
disarray, and its political messaging was inconsistent. In this context, Hill’s
essay cannot be understood simply as a product of Popular Front cultural
politics. Indeed, party circles criticised the essay for schematic over‑simplification,
suggesting that Hill’s interpretation was not merely handed down from above.
The criticism reflected both internal tensions within the CPGB and the Historians’
Group's broader intellectual independence, whose members often pursued
scholarly questions that did not align neatly with party directives.
Hill’s relationship to Stalinism was therefore complex. He
accepted the CPGB’s political framework for much of his membership, including
its defence of the Moscow Trials and its hostility to Trotskyism. Yet his
historical work frequently exceeded the limits of Stalinist orthodoxy. The
classical Marxist conception of bourgeois revolution emphasised structural
transformation, the overthrow of reactionary classes, and the decisive role of
revolutionary force. Hill’s interpretation retained this revolutionary core,
even as the Popular Front's ideological environment shaped it. His work
demonstrated that the English Revolution was not a constitutional quarrel but a
profound social transformation driven by class conflict. This emphasis on
rupture, conflict, and revolutionary agency was difficult to reconcile with the
CPGB’s increasingly parliamentary orientation.
Moreover, Hill’s scholarship was shaped by broader
historiographical debates that transcended party politics. The transition
debate, initiated by Maurice Dobb and later developed by Paul Sweezy, Rodney
Hilton, and others, sought to explain the origins of capitalism in Europe.
Hill’s work contributed to this debate by emphasising the role of ideological,
religious, and political factors in the English transition. His interest in
popular religion, radical sects, and plebeian political thought reflected a commitment
to understanding the cultural dimensions of revolutionary change. These
concerns were not reducible to Stalinist doctrine; they emerged from Hill’s
engagement with Marxist theory, archival research, and the intellectual
currents of mid‑twentieth‑century historiography.
The tension between Hill’s Marxist commitments and the
CPGB’s political line became more pronounced after 1956. Khrushchev’s Secret
Speech and the suppression of the Hungarian uprising shattered the CPGB’s
intellectual credibility. Hill joined the minority advocating internal reform
and left the party in 1957. Yet even after his departure, Hill did not systematically
critique the theoretical foundations of Stalinism, including the stages theory
and socialism in one country. His later work shifted toward studying radical sects and popular ideology, reflecting both a broader historiographical trend and the unresolved legacy of Popular Front cultural politics.
In sum, Hill’s interpretation of the English Revolution
cannot be reduced to Stalinist orthodoxy. The Popular Front's ideological
environment shaped it, but it also retained a revolutionary core rooted in
classical Marxism. Hill’s work demonstrated the complexity of bourgeois
revolution, the centrality of class conflict, and the transformative power of
revolutionary agency. These insights went beyond the CPGB’s reformist programme
and contributed to a richer understanding of the English Revolution’s place in
Marxist historiography.
The Historians’ Group: Achievements and Limitations
The CPGB Historians’ Group produced some of the most
influential Marxist historiography of the twentieth century. Its members were
serious scholars who engaged in genuine intellectual debate, contributed to
major historiographical controversies, and helped to establish social history
as a central field of academic inquiry. The group’s involvement in the
Dobb–Sweezy “transition debate” exemplified this intellectual seriousness.
Maurice Dobb’s Studies in the Development of Capitalism (1946) and Paul
Sweezy’s subsequent critique opened a wide-ranging discussion on the origins of
capitalism, drawing in Rodney Hilton, Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, and
others. The debate was conducted with scholarly rigour and shaped Marxist
historiography for decades. It showed that the Historians’ Group was not merely
a cultural adjunct of the CPGB but a genuine intellectual collective capable of
producing original, sophisticated historical analysis.
Yet the group operated within a party that defended the
Moscow Trials, endorsed the destruction of the Old Bolsheviks, and suppressed
the history of the Left Opposition. This contradiction was profound. The
Historians’ Group could sympathetically recover the Levellers, Diggers, and
other radical movements of the seventeenth century, celebrating their
democratic aspirations and revolutionary agency, while remaining silent about
the Trotskyist movement, the living continuation of revolutionary Marxism in
their own time. The radicals of the 1640s were safely in the past; the
revolutionary internationalists of the 1930s were politically dangerous. The
CPGB’s hostility to Trotskyism was absolute, and the Historians’ Group, despite
its intellectual independence, did not challenge this aspect of party
orthodoxy.
This silence was not merely political; it had
historiographical consequences. By recovering early modern radicalism while
ignoring contemporary revolutionary Marxism, the group distorted historical
continuity. The group could celebrate English radicalism as part of a national
democratic tradition. Still, it excluded the internationalist critique of
Stalinism, rooted in the same Marxist method it claimed to uphold. This
selective recovery of the past reflected the Popular Front's broader cultural
logic, which encouraged Communist parties to present themselves as heirs to
national democratic traditions rather than representatives of an international
revolutionary movement.
The 1956 crisis exposed the limits of this intellectual and
political framework. Khrushchev’s Secret Speech, which acknowledged aspects of
Stalin’s crimes, and the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian workers’ uprising
shattered the CPGB’s moral and political authority. The Historians’ Group, like
the party as a whole, was thrown into turmoil. Many of its members had long
harboured doubts about aspects of Stalinist policy, but the events of 1956
forced a reckoning they could no longer defer. The group fractured. Christopher
Hill joined the minority advocating internal reform, supporting attempts to
democratise the party and reassess its political line. When these efforts
failed, he left the CPGB in 1957, along with Edward Thompson, John Saville,
Rodney Hilton, and many others. Eric Hobsbawm remained, though increasingly
isolated.
The 1956–57 departures marked a decisive break in the
group’s history, but they did not produce a systematic critique of Stalinism.
Hill, Thompson, Saville, and Hilton rejected the CPGB's bureaucratic practices
and its refusal to confront the truth about Hungary. Still, they did not
thoroughly reassess Stalinism's theoretical foundations. The stages theory,
which held that socialism could emerge only after a completed
bourgeois-democratic stage, did not undergo sustained critique. Nor did it
address the doctrine of “socialism in one country,” which marked a fundamental
departure from classical Marxism and underpinned the Popular Front’s
nationalist orientation. The group did not systematically revisit its silence on Trotskyism, its most conspicuous political omission.
Instead, most former members moved toward the emerging New
Left. This milieu rejected Stalinism’s bureaucratic authoritarianism but
retained much of its nationalist and anti‑Trotskyist content. Hill’s later
work, including The World Turned Upside Down (1972), reflected this
shift. His focus on popular religion, radical sects, and plebeian ideology
represented a move away from the structural analysis of class power that had
characterised his early work. While these studies were historically fruitful, they
also reflected a broader retreat from the question of revolutionary agency and
the international dimensions of class struggle.
The unresolved legacy of Stalinism thus persisted in Hill’s
scholarship even after he departed from the CPGB. His work continued to
emphasise national traditions of radicalism, popular democratic sentiment, and
cultural forms of dissent, while largely remaining silent on the
internationalist critique of Stalinism and the Trotskyist movement's
theoretical insights. This silence was not merely political; it shaped the
conceptual architecture of Hill’s historiography, contributing to a narrative
in which English radicalism appeared as a continuous national inheritance
rather than part of a broader, contested, international revolutionary
tradition.
In this sense, the Historians’ Group’s achievements and
limitations were inseparable. The group produced pioneering Marxist
historiography, but it did so within a political framework that constrained its
theoretical horizons. Hill’s work exemplifies both the strengths and contradictions
of this tradition: intellectually rigorous and historically innovative, yet
shaped by an ideological environment that left key aspects of Marxist theory
unexamined.
Hill’s Later Work and the Persistence of Popular Front
Legacies
Hill’s post‑1956 scholarship, most notably The World
Turned Upside Down (1972), marked a significant shift in his interpretation
of the English Revolution. Whereas his earlier work centred on the bourgeois
revolution and the structural transformation of English society, his later
writing turned to the radical sects that Cromwell’s regime defeated: the
Levellers, Diggers, Ranters, Fifth Monarchists, and other plebeian movements.
This shift was historically productive. It illuminated what Hill famously
called the “revolution within the revolution,” the constellation of popular
aspirations and ideological experiments that flourished in the interregnum but
were ultimately suppressed by the victorious grandees. Hill’s recovery of these
movements broadened the historiography of the English Revolution, bringing to
light forms of religious enthusiasm, social egalitarianism, and political
imagination that academic accounts had long marginalised.
Yet Hill’s turn toward radical sectarianism also reflected a
broader intellectual trend within the post‑1956 New Left. The 1956 crisis, the
revelations of Khrushchev’s Secret Speech and the Soviet suppression of the
Hungarian workers’ uprising, fractured the CPGB. For many of its intellectuals,
it discredited Stalinism as a viable political framework. Hill, along with
Edward Thompson, John Saville, and Rodney Hilton, left the party in 1957. But
the departure did not lead to a systematic re‑engagement with the classical
Marxist critique of Stalinism. Instead, many former CPGB intellectuals
gravitated toward the emerging New Left, a milieu that rejected Stalinist
bureaucratic authoritarianism while retaining much of its nationalist and cultural
orientation.
In this context, Hill’s shift in focus reflects a broader
retreat from questions of class power and revolutionary agency toward the study
of popular culture, dissent, and subaltern experience. The New Left’s
intellectual priorities emphasised cultural forms of resistance, everyday
practices, and the lived experience of ordinary people. Hill’s work on radical
sects aligned with these priorities. His attention to religious enthusiasm,
millenarian expectations, and plebeian political thought reflected a move away
from the structural analysis of class relations that had characterised his
earlier work. Instead of foregrounding the bourgeoisie’s revolutionary role,
Hill now emphasised the aspirations of those defeated by the revolution’s
outcome.
This shift was not merely thematic; it represented a change
in the conceptual architecture of Hill’s historiography. In The World Turned
Upside Down, Hill presents the radical sects less as expressions of class
struggle in the strict Marxist sense and more as embodiments of a democratic
and egalitarian tradition in English history. Hill’s narrative emphasises
continuity: the radicalism of the 1640s is linked to later movements such as
the Chartists, the nineteenth‑century labour movement, and even modern forms of
protest. This framing reflects the unresolved legacy of Popular Front
historiography, which had encouraged Communist intellectuals to present
socialism as the culmination of a long national tradition of popular
resistance.
This legacy persists in Hill’s tendency to treat English
radicalism as a national inheritance rather than part of an international
revolutionary process. The Levellers and Diggers are presented as the ancestors
of later English democrats, not as participants in a broader European
revolutionary tradition. The international dimensions of seventeenth‑century radicalism
the influence of Dutch republicanism, German millenarianism, or transnational
Protestant networks receive less attention than the national narrative of
English dissent. This emphasis on national continuity echoes the Popular
Front’s cultural politics, even as Hill’s political commitments had shifted
away from the CPGB.
Hill’s post‑1956 work thus occupies an ambiguous position
within Marxist historiography. On the one hand, it represents a major scholarly
achievement. His recovery of radical sectarianism transformed the study of the
English Revolution, opening new avenues for research and inspiring generations
of historians. On the other hand, it reflects a conceptual retreat from analysing
class power and revolutionary agency. The radical sects are celebrated for
their democratic aspirations, but their relationship to the broader dynamics of
class struggle is less clearly articulated. The bourgeois revolution remains in
the background, but the cultural and ideological richness of plebeian movements
overshadows its structural significance.
This ambiguity is inseparable from the unresolved
theoretical legacies of Hill’s earlier political commitments. Although he left
the CPGB, Hill did not systematically critique Stalinism's theoretical
foundations, including the stages theory and the doctrine of socialism in one
country. As a result, elements of Popular Front historiography persisted in his
later work, particularly the emphasis on national traditions of radicalism and
the tendency to frame popular movements as expressions of democratic continuity
rather than as manifestations of international class struggle.
In this sense, Hill’s post‑1956 scholarship exemplifies both
the strengths and the limitations of the New Left’s historiographical project.
It expanded the field of inquiry, recovered neglected voices, and enriched the
cultural history of the English Revolution. But it also reflected a retreat
from the structural analysis of class power and a continued reliance on
national frameworks inherited from the Popular Front. Understanding this dual
character is essential for assessing Hill’s place within the broader trajectory
of Marxist historiography in the twentieth century.
Hill and the Revisionist Challenge
Since the 1970s, revisionist historians such as Conrad
Russell, Kevin Sharpe, John Morrill, and their successors have questioned
whether the English Civil War can be understood as a revolution at all. Their
work constituted a sustained historiographical challenge to the Marxist
interpretation that had dominated mid‑twentieth‑century scholarship, including
Hill’s. Revisionists emphasised contingency, local grievances, and the
complexities of multiple monarchy, arguing that the conflict arose not from
deep structural tensions within English society but from short‑term political
mismanagement, religious discord, and the difficulties inherent in governing
three kingdoms with divergent political cultures. In this view, the Civil War
was less a revolutionary rupture than an unintended crisis produced by the
interplay of elite politics, confessional anxieties, and the personal failings
of Charles I.
Against this backdrop, Hill’s insistence on the conflict’s
structural and class dimensions remains a significant counterpoint. Rooted in
classical Marxism, his interpretation emphasised long‑term socio‑economic
transformations, the rise of emergent capitalist classes, and the decline of
feudal structures. Hill argued that the Civil War was not merely a
constitutional quarrel but a profound social revolution driven by class
antagonism. The bourgeois merchants, gentry, and yeomen sought to remove
obstacles to capitalist development, while the monarchy and conservative
landlords defended a feudal order increasingly incompatible with economic
change. This structural analysis stood in stark contrast to revisionist
scepticism, which rejected the idea that the conflict had any coherent socio‑economic
logic.
The revisionists’ critique was part of a broader
methodological shift in English historiography. Influenced by the linguistic
turn, the rise of political history, and scepticism toward grand narratives,
revisionists sought to dismantle what they saw as Marxist interpretation's
teleological and overly schematic frameworks. Russell, for example, argued that
the causes of the Civil War were “multiple, contingent, and local,” resisting
any attempt to impose a unifying explanatory structure. Sharpe emphasised
political culture, royal ideology, and court politics. Morrill stressed the conflict's
religious dimensions, portraying it as a “war of religion” rather than a social
revolution. Together, these historians sought to dissolve the English
Revolution into a mosaic of particularities, undermining the very concept of
revolution as an explanatory category.
Despite its political inflexions, Hill's thesis remains a
coherent alternative to this revisionist scepticism. His insistence that the
Civil War must be understood in terms of class conflict and structural
transformation provides a framework that integrates the crisis's diverse elements
religion, politics, ideology, and local grievances into a broader socio‑economic
narrative. Hill did not deny the importance of contingency or political
miscalculation; rather, he argued that these factors operated within a deeper
structural context shaped by the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The
rise of market relations, the growth of a commercially oriented gentry, and the
increasing assertiveness of urban merchants created pressures that the monarchy
could no longer contain. These pressures found political expression in the
conflicts of the 1640s and ideological expression in the radical movements that
emerged during the war.
Moreover, Hill’s interpretation offers an account of
revolutionary agency that revisionism struggles to accommodate. By emphasising
the role of emergent classes and popular movements, Hill restored agency to
groups often marginalised in elite‑focused political histories. His work on the
Levellers, Diggers, and other radical sects showed that the Civil War unleashed
a wave of ideological creativity and political mobilisation that contingency or
elite politics alone cannot explain. These movements articulated visions of
political equality, economic justice, and religious liberty that challenged the
existing order and revealed the conflict's revolutionary potential. Revisionist
accounts, by contrast, tend to treat such movements as epiphenomena or local
disturbances rather than as expressions of deeper social tensions.
Hill’s structural interpretation also offers a more
compelling explanation for the Civil War's long-term consequences. The
revisionists’ emphasis on contingency makes it difficult to account for the
profound institutional and ideological changes that followed the conflict: the
rise of parliamentary sovereignty, the decline of feudal tenures, the expansion
of market relations, and the emergence of new forms of political consciousness.
Hill’s thesis situates these developments within a coherent narrative of social
transformation, linking the events of the 1640s to the broader trajectory of
English capitalism.
Finally, Hill’s work remains relevant because it addresses
questions that revisionism leaves unanswered. If the Civil War was not a
revolution, why did it produce such far‑reaching changes? If it was merely a
crisis of multiple monarchy, why did it generate radical movements demanding
political equality and economic reform? Despite its political inflexions,
Hill's interpretation offers a framework that explains both the causes and
consequences of the conflict in a way revisionist scepticism cannot.
In this sense, Hill’s thesis endures not because it is
ideologically convenient but because it provides a coherent, structurally
grounded alternative to the fragmentation of revisionist historiography. His
work shows that the English Civil War can be understood as a revolution complex,
contested, and incomplete, yet transformative.
Conclusion
The Popular Front’s ideological environment shaped
Christopher Hill’s interpretation of the English Revolution, but it cannot
reduce or exhaust its meaning. Hill’s core proposition, that the upheavals of
1640–1660 constituted a bourgeois revolution, belongs to the classical Marxist
tradition and predates the political imperatives of mid‑twentieth‑century
Stalinism. Marx and Engels treated the English Revolution as a decisive moment
in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and Trotsky, in Where Is
Britain Going?, defended this interpretation against the Labour leadership's
reformist misreadings. Trotsky invoked Cromwell’s revolution precisely to
demonstrate that ruling classes are overthrown by revolutionary force, not by
constitutional evolution. Hill’s insistence on the conflict's structural and
class dimensions thus aligned with Marxism's revolutionary core, even as the
political environment in which he worked encouraged different conclusions.
The Popular Front offered a framing that emphasised the
progressive bourgeoisie, a completed national stage, and a homogenised “people”
rather than the international working class. Within this framework, the English
Revolution could be presented as a foundational moment in a national democratic
tradition that modern socialists were encouraged to inherit and extend. Hill’s
early work resonated with this cultural logic. His depiction of the bourgeoisie
as a revolutionary class, his emphasis on destroying feudalism, and his framing
of English radicalism as a national inheritance all aligned with the CPGB’s
attempt to embed socialism in a narrative of national continuity. Yet Hill’s
interpretation also exceeded this framework. His insistence on the
revolutionary rupture of 1640–1660, the centrality of class conflict, and the
transformative power of emergent capitalist forces sat uneasily with the CPGB’s
increasingly parliamentary orientation.
Recovering what endures in Hill’s work requires
disentangling his historical materialism from the Stalinist political framework
in which he first articulated it. This means recognising that Hill’s
scholarship emerged from a complex interplay between Marxist theory, CPGB
cultural politics, and his own intellectual independence. The Popular Front
shaped the language, emphases, and cultural framing of his early work, but it
did not determine its conceptual core. Hill’s analysis of the English
Revolution retained a commitment to structural explanation, class agency, and
revolutionary transformation that cannot be assimilated to the reformist
conclusions of the CPGB’s post‑war programme.
It also requires recognising the tension between Hill’s
revolutionary subject matter and the CPGB’s reformist conclusions. As Hill
showed, the English Revolution was a violent rupture driven by class antagonism and culminating in the monarchy's overthrow. The CPGB’s claim
that socialism could be achieved through parliamentary transition sat in stark
contrast to this historical lesson. Hill’s work implicitly challenged the
party’s political strategy by demonstrating that decisive social change in
England had historically required revolutionary force. This tension was never
fully resolved, either within Hill’s scholarship or within the broader
intellectual milieu of the CPGB Historians’ Group.
Hill’s post‑1956 trajectory further complicates this
picture. His turn toward the radical sects in The World Turned Upside Down
reflected both a historiographical innovation and a broader New Left retreat
from questions of class power. The unresolved legacy of Popular Front
historiography persisted in his tendency to treat English radicalism as a
national tradition rather than as part of an international revolutionary
process. The Levellers and Diggers were presented as ancestors of later English
democrats, not as participants in a wider European revolutionary tradition.
This emphasis on national continuity, even after Hill left the CPGB, reveals
the depth of the Popular Front’s cultural imprint on his work.
Yet Hill’s scholarship continues to offer a coherent
alternative to revisionist scepticism. Since the 1970s, historians such as
Conrad Russell and Kevin Sharpe have sought to dissolve the English Revolution
into contingency, local grievances, and the complexities of multiple monarchy.
Against this backdrop, Hill’s insistence on the conflict’s structural and class
dimensions remains indispensable. His work offers a framework that integrates
political, religious, and ideological factors into a broader narrative of
social transformation. It restores agency to emergent classes and popular
movements and explains the long‑term consequences of the Civil War in ways revisionist accounts struggle to accommodate.
Ultimately, Hill’s scholarship invites a reconsideration of
the relationship between national historical traditions and internationalist
Marxist theory. His work demonstrates both the possibilities and the
limitations of interpreting revolutionary history within a national framework.
To recover the most valuable in Hill’s contribution, we must return to the
classical Marxist insight that class forces, acting within an international
context, drive revolutionary transformations. Once disentangled from the
political inflexions of the Popular Front, Hill's interpretation of the English
Revolution remains a powerful reminder that history's great social
transformations have been accomplished not through parliamentary gradualism but
through the conscious action of revolutionary classes.
Bibliography
Primary Works by Christopher Hill
- Hill,
Christopher. The English Revolution 1640. London: Lawrence &
Wishart, 1940.
- Hill,
Christopher. Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of
the English Revolution of the 17th Century. London: Secker &
Warburg, 1958.
- Hill,
Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603–1714. London: Nelson,
1961.
- Hill,
Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the
English Revolution. London: Temple Smith, 1972.
- Hill,
Christopher. Change and Continuity in Seventeenth‑Century England.
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1974.
- Hill,
Christopher. Milton and the English Revolution. London: Faber &
Faber, 1977.
Other CPGB Historians’ Group Members
- Hobsbawm,
Eric. Labouring Men: Studies in the History of Labour. London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964.
- Hilton,
Rodney. Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English
Rising of 1381. London: Temple Smith, 1973.
- Kiernan,
Victor. The Lords of Human Kind: European Attitudes to Other Cultures
in the Imperial Age. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969.
- Thompson,
E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Victor
Gollancz, 1963.
- Saville,
John. The Consolidation of the Capitalist State, 1800–1850. London:
Pluto Press, 1994.
Marxist Theory and Classical Foundations
- Dobb,
Maurice. Studies in the Development of Capitalism. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1946.
- Engels,
Friedrich. The Peasant War in Germany. 1850.
- Marx,
Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. 1867.
- Marx,
Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 1848.
- Sweezy,
Paul. The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. New York:
Science & Society, 1950.
- Trotsky,
Leon. Where Is Britain Going? London: George Allen & Unwin,
1925.
- Trotsky,
Leon. The History of the Russian Revolution. 1932.
Popular Front, CPGB, and Stalinism
- Communist
Party of Great Britain. The British Road to Socialism. London:
CPGB, 1951.
- Dimitrov,
Georgi. The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War. New
York: International Publishers, 1938.
- Klugmann,
James. History of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Vol. 2.
London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1969.
- Morgan,
Kevin. Bolshevism and the British Left. London: Lawrence &
Wishart, 2006.
- Saville,
John. The Politics of Continuity: British Foreign Policy and the Labour
Government, 1945–1946. London: Verso, 1993.
Radicalism, Religion, and Ideology in the English
Revolution
- Coffey,
John. Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689.
London: Longman, 2000.
- Davis,
J. C. Fear, Myth and History: The Ranters and the Historians.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
- Reay,
Barry. The Quakers and the English Revolution. London: Temple
Smith, 1985.
- Underdown,
David. Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in
England, 1603–1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Revisionist and Post‑Revisionist Historiography
- Morrill,
John. The Nature of the English Revolution. London: Longman, 1993.
- Russell,
Conrad. The Causes of the English Civil War. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990.
- Sharpe,
Kevin. The Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1992.
- Hexter,
J. H. The Reign of King Pym. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1941.
- Cust,
Richard, and Ann Hughes, eds. Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies
in Religion and Politics, 1603–1642. London: Longman, 1989.
- Hughes,
Ann. The Causes of the English Civil War. London: Macmillan, 1991.
New Left, Culture, and Historiographical Context
- Anderson,
Perry. Arguments Within English Marxism. London: Verso, 1980.
- Thompson,
E. P. The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. London: Merlin Press,
1978.
- Samuel,
Raphael. Theatres of Memory. London: Verso, 1994.
- Kaye,
Harvey J. The British Marxist Historians. Cambridge: Polity Press,
1984.
General Works on the English Revolution
- Ashton,
Robert. The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution, 1603–1649.
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972.
- Gentles,
Ian. The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms,
1638–1652. London: Pearson, 2007.
- Woolrych,
Austin. Britain in Revolution, 1625–1660. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
