DOCSLIB.ORG

6Th Form Text.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6Th Form Text.Pdf THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS social rank, driven by principle rather than personal material grievance. Lilburne, in particular, had been an active campaigner for a decade. In 1637, he had been flogged, pilloried, and imprisoned for publishing pamphlets critical of the bishops; nine years later, he was imprisoned by the House of Lords on various charges of seditious conduct (and indeed was still in the Tower at the time of the Putney Debates.) Lilburne argued that true sovereignty derived from the people. Popular sovereignty, he maintained, was an inalienable right, which had only been subverted after the Norman Conquest by the new landowning class as it developed institutions and The Putney Debates are an important practices which consolidated its own landmark in English political history. power. Following the Civil War, it was At St Mary’s Church, Putney, in the not enough to replace monarchical autumn of 1647, leading members of tyranny with a system which the Army Council, which then perpetuated the power of the effectively controlled England in the landowners represented in parliament. aftermath of Charles I’s defeat in the As Lilburne told the Lords at his trial Civil War, deliberated on proposals for in 1646, “all you intended when you a radical overhaul of the constitution. set us a - fighting was merely to These proposals, which for their time unhorse and dismount our old riders were breathtaking in their and tyrants, so that you might get up revolutionary boldness, anticipated and ride in their stead.” What was many of the ideological fault lines of needed was a system which reflected the next three to four centuries. Should the interests of, and was directly the electorate be widened to form accountable to, the people. something approaching a democracy? Should the monarchy and the House of Lilburne and other radicals might Lords survive? And how should the simply have operated on the margins condition of the people be improved? of political debate had it not been for three important developments. First, These proposals emanated from a the breakdown of censorship, as group of radicals, known to history as Charles I’s authority collapsed in the the Levellers (a term coined by years immediately before the Civil opponents who believed that they War, allowed radical ideas to circulate envisaged a “levelling down” of social far more freely. An increasingly distinction.) Prominent amongst these literate population, especially in the Levellers were three prolific urban centres, read an ever growing pamphleteers and consistent critics of number of pamphlets and newspapers autocratic governance, John Lilburne, (722 in 1645 alone), many highlighting Richard Overton, and William Walwyn. the Leveller agenda. Second, the All three were men of a reasonable country was in economic crisis. A poor THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS harvest in 1646 pushed grain prices up People, proposing widespread by about a quarter in a year, while constitutional change. wages remained depressed. When Lilburne and others talked about ending the “oppression” of the people, they had a captive audience. The most important single factor in the emergence of popular radicalism in 1646-7 was the politicisation of the New Model Army. The soldiers, who had delivered victory over the King, shared in the economic distress of the country, but had particular grievances of their own. Many looked on with suspicion as firstly their supposed political masters in Westminster and then their own commanders tried to forge a settlement with the King on relatively lenient terms. Was this not a betrayal of the “cause” for which they had fought? Worse, many in the parliamentary leadership wanted to Assuming the end of the monarchy, the ease the tax burden on the country by Agreement advocated a totally elective disbanding the troops without meeting representative assembly, itself their arrears of pay, which amounted to explicitly inferior to a sovereign people, some 43 weeks in the case of some as well as elections every two years cavalry regiments. Was this not and a redistribution of seats according confirmation of Lilburne’s argument to population. This posed a real that only a more representative and dilemma for the Army’s commanders, fully accountable parliament, rather Sir Thomas Fairfax (commander-in- than one dominated by landowners, chief), Oliver Cromwell, and Henry lawyers, and merchants, could enact Ireton. While they needed to retain the the priorities of ordinary people? The support of their radicalised rank-and- response of many regiments was swift. file, they could hardly endorse such a Increasingly influenced by Leveller package. This was not so much attitudes, they elected agitators to because, as members of the gentry plead their case to their commanders; class, they were seeking to defend the and, over the summer and early political and social status quo from autumn of 1647, agitators and civilian which they all profited. It was rather Levellers collaborated in the that the Agreement threatened their publication of a series of pamphlets entire strategy. In order to achieve a setting out an alternative constitutional political settlement with the King, an manifesto which would deliver the end to which they remained committed, sovereignty of the people. they needed an Army united around broadly conservative objectives. They In late October 1647, agitators also needed to be mindful of the presented their commanders with a interests of the traditional political document, The Agreement of the classes in the shires, for, if the Army THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS leadership endorsed Leveller the agitators were proposing. They radicalism, the established “political were not advocating universal suffrage, nation” would have little option but to for, despite the important role played support the King. When the Army by many women in the Leveller cause, Council, comprising both leaders and there was no suggestion that women agitators, met at Putney Church on 28 should have the vote. Nor was it clear October 1647, the ideological battle that they wanted full adult male lines were drawn. suffrage. But a vast extension of the electorate was nevertheless envisaged. As Colonel Thomas Rainsborough put it: “Sir, I think it’s clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not a voice to put himself under.” In response, Ireton, the commander most at ease in discussing political ideas, endorsed the status quo: “No person hath a right to a share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom that hath not a permanent fixed interest.” In other words, participation in the political process had to be left to the property owners. Cromwell backed him up, observing that manhood suffrage must end in anarchy because “all bounds and limits” are taken away if men who had “no interest but the From the outset, the debates revealed a interest of breathing” vote. In his reply, great divergence of views and Sexby pointed out that men without significant personal animosities. On interest had been “the means of the the first day, the agitator Edward preservation of the kingdom.” Sexby put forward the view of the rank and file, complaining about the King Over the next week, the ideological and a “rotten parliament.” In his chasm between the two sides remained response, Cromwell highlighted the huge. The commanders tried different radicalism of the Agreement (“truly tactics to break the Leveller inspired this paper does contain in it very great resistance. Ireton maintained his alterations of the very government of principled defence of the propertied the kingdom”) and emphasised the franchise, while Cromwell, a far more severe “consequences” of any political animal, tried a variety of alteration. stratagems – giving the appearance of compromise to divide the opposition On the second day, the issue of (he was “not wedded and glued to suffrage was discussed. At this point, it forms of government”), then calling is important to recognise exactly what for unity (“let us be doing, but let us be THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS united in our doing”), then subsequent centuries and beyond these recommending that a committee look shores. In England, most of their objectives gradually came to fruition, albeit slowly. Regular, though not biennial, elections became the norm in the eighteenth century; more equal constituencies were established in 1885; universal suffrage was finally conceded in 1928 after a century of agitation; and the powers of the monarchy and the House of Lords have been steadily trimmed. Their ultimate goal, the sovereignty of the people, remains, however, a more elusive concept. into the problem, and finally summoning a prayer meeting. None of this had any effect. On 4 November, the Army Council voted, in defiance of Cromwell and Ireton, in favour of extending the franchise to all except Richard Allnatt teaches History at servants. The following day, it passed Westminster School and is a a resolution for a general rendezvous member of the Cromwell of the Army, where “things (would be) Association. settled.” This was clearly a situation which the commanders could not tolerate; and so the tactics switched Illustrations: Fairfax and the Council of War; from discussion to suppression. An Agreement of the People, The Christian Cromwell put the agitators to the Mans Triall, A Word for the Armie: Worcester College Oxford, John Lilburne, Cromwell sword at their rendezvous at Ware (15 Museum November), and subsequent mutinies, as at Burford in 1649, were crushed with equal severity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Social Impact of the Revolution
    THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE REVOLUTION AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE'S DISTINGUISHED LECTURE SERIES Robert Nisbet, historical sociologist and intellectual historian, is Albert Schweitzer professor-elect o[ the humanities at Columbia University. ROBERTA. NISBET THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE REVOLUTION Distinguished Lecture Series on the Bicentennial This lecture is one in a series sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute in celebration of the Bicentennial of the United States. The views expressed are those of the lecturers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff,officers or trustees of AEI. All of the lectures in this series will be collected later in a single volume. revolution · continuity · promise ROBERTA. NISBET THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE REVOLUTION Delivered in Gaston Hall, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. on December 13, 1973 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. © 1974 by American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. ISBN 0-8447-1303-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number L.C. 74-77313 Printed in the United States of America as there in fact an American Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century? I mean a revolu­ tion involving sudden, decisive, and irreversible changes in social institutions, groups, and traditions, in addition to the war of libera­ tion from England that we are more likely to celebrate. Clearly, this is a question that generates much controversy. There are scholars whose answer to the question is strongly nega­ tive, and others whose affirmativeanswer is equally strong. Indeed, ever since Edmund Burke's time there have been students to de­ clare that revolution in any precise sense of the word did not take place-that in substance the American Revolution was no more than a group of Englishmen fighting on distant shores for tradi­ tionally English political rights against a government that had sought to exploit and tyrannize.
    [Show full text]
  • The Return of the King (1658±1660)
    1 The Return of the King (1658±1660) 1 The Fall of the Protectorate (September 1658±April 1659)1 `All Men wondred to see all so quiet, in so dangerous a time' wrote the Puritan minister Richard Baxter of the autumn of 1658.The death of Oliver Cromwell on 3 September signalled no discernible quickening of either royalist or repub- lican pulses.There was no sudden or general upsurge of public opinion either against the Protectorate or for a return to monarchy: `Contrary to all expec- tation both at home and abroad, this earthquake was attended with no signal alteration', recalled Charles II's Chancellor, Edward Hyde, afterwards Earl of Clarendon.2 Nor, though `all the commonwealth party' may have `cried out upon [Richard's] assuming the protectorship, as a high usurpation', was there any concerted attempt by republicans to undo what they saw as the perversion of the Good Old Cause into the tyranny of rule by a single person: `There is not a dogge that waggs his tongue, soe great a calm are wee in', observed John Thurloe, Oliver's, and now Richard's, Secretary of State.3 The Humble Petition and Advice, the Protectorate's constitution since 1657, empowered Cromwell to name his successor, but this was managed `so sleightly, as some doubt whether he did it at all' reported John Barwick, future Dean of St Paul's, in a letter to Charles II.Nevertheless, despite the want of any formal or written nomination, Richard Cromwell's succession was generally accepted not only without opposition but with signs of positive relief.The proclamation of his
    [Show full text]
  • A True Account of the New Model Army
    Paul Z. Simons A True Account of the New Model Army 1995 Contents The Set Up . 3 The New Model Army . 4 What They Believed . 5 What They Did . 7 Where They Went . 9 Conclusion . 10 2 Revolutions have generally required some form of military activity; and mili- tary activity, in turn, generally implies an army or something like one. Armies, however, have traditionally been the offspring of the revolution, impinging little on the revolutionary politics that animate them. History provides numerous examples of this, but perhaps the most poignant is the exception that proves the rule. Recall the extreme violence with which rebellious Kronstadt was snuffed out by Bolshevism’s Finest, the Red Guards. The lesson in the massacre of the sailors and soldiers is plain, armies that defy the “institutional revolution” can expect nothing but butchery. The above statements, however, are generalizable solely to modernity, that is to say, only to the relatively contemporary era wherein the as- sumption that armies derive their mandate from the nation-state; and the nation- state in turn derives its mandate from “the people.” Prior to the hegemony of such assumptions, however, there is a stark and glaring example of an army that to a great degree was the revolution. Specifically an army that pushed the revolution as far as it could, an army that was the forum for the political development of the revolution, an army that sincerely believed that it could realize heaven on earth. Not a revolutionary army by any means, rather an army of revolutionaries, regicides, fanatics and visionaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity 6. Putney Debates Define the Rights of Englishmen Source
    Activity 6. Putney Debates Define the Rights of Englishmen Source: Adapted from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUputneydebates.htm, accessed May 30, 2010 Background: The Putney Debates in England took place in 1647. They involved leaders of the New Model Army and Parliament that were challenging King Charles I for power. The question debated was whether ordinary men without property were entitled to the right to vote. Participants in the debate included Thomas Rainsborough, a military officer and Member of Parliament, who was considered a radical and supporter of the Leveller movement, Edward Sexby and John Wildman, military officers who were leaders of the Levellers, and Henry Ireton, who represented the senior officers in the New Model Army and argued that the vote should be based on the ownership of property. Ireton and his supporters believed that while men might have the same “natural rights” before God, they had different civil rights awarded by government. The political program of the Levellers included voting rights for all adult males, annual elections, complete religious freedom, an end to the censorship of books and newspapers, trial by jury, and the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords. A year after the Putney Debates, Thomas Rainsborough was murdered by his opponents. Instructions: After you read and reenact the debate, imagine you are assigned to be the final speaker and write a presentation expressing your views. As a follow-up, write a 250- word editorial for an American colonial newspaper explaining how the Putney Debates and the positions taken by the Levellers will affect colonial rights.
    [Show full text]
  • The Levellers Movement and Had Been Amongst the Leaders of a Mutiny Against Cromwell, Whom They Accused of Betraying the Ideals of the ‘Civil War ’
    Levellers Day book cover_Levellers Day book cover 04/05/2015 08:33 Page 1 Written by PETA STEEL T H E L E THE V Published in May 2 01 5 by SERTUC E Congress House, Great Russell Street L L London WC1B 3LS E R LEVELLERS MOVEMENT 020 7467 1220 [email protected] S M O V AN ACCOUNT OF PERHAPS THE FIRST POLITICAL MOVEMENT E M TO REPRESENT THE ORDINARY PEOPLE E N T Additional sponsorship from Including THE DIGGERS AND RANTERS, ASLEF, Unison South East Region, and Unite OLIVER CROMWELL, THE AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE and MAGNA CARTA South East S E R T U C Printed by Upstream PUBLISHED BY SERTUC 020 7358 1344 [email protected] £2 Levellers Day book cover_Levellers Day book cover 04/05/2015 08:33 Page 2 CONTENTS THE LEVELLERS 1 THE DIGGERS AND THE RANTERS 11 THE CIVIL WARS 15 THE NEW MODEL ARMY 19 AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE 23 THE PUTNEY DEBATES 27 THOMAS RAINSBOROUGH 31 PETITIONS 34 THE BISHOPSGATE MUTINY 37 THE BANBURY MUTINY 38 THE MAGNA CARTA 40 OLIVER CROMWELL 43 JOHN LILBURNE 49 GERRARD WINSTANLEY 55 RICHARD OVERTON 58 KATHERINE CHIDLEY 60 KING CHARLES I 63 THE STAR CHAMBER 66 JOHN MILTON 68 Levellers Day book new_Levellers book new to print 04/05/2015 09:07 Page 1 FOREWORD THERE’S little to disagree with the Levellers over: “they wanted a democracy where there was no King, and a reformed House of Commons that represented the people, and not the vested interests of the ruling classes ”.
    [Show full text]
  • Putney Started Life As a Small Dwelling by the River Thames, and Has
    THE CENTRE OF PUTNEY SINCE 1990 1684 1883 The Waterman School in Putney is founded in by Former Prime Minister Clement Attlee a London merchant as a token of his gratitude for 1729 is born in Putney. being saved from drowning by a Putney Waterman. An Act of Parliament is passed due to the efforts of Sir Robert Walpole and the original timber Putney Bridge is eventually built in 1729. Only the second bridge to be built across the 1880 Thames in London after London Bridge. 1990 Putney Bridge underground station opens, with Putney Exchange opens in May 1990. The mall East Putney following in 1889. Both were served costs £40million to build, and is bought 5 years by steam locomotives until electrification in 1905. later by our current owners. Designed by Chapman Taylor, with Stained Glass windows designed by Alan Younger, famous in his field. 2015 1302 For the first time in history the Putney started life as a small dwelling by the river Putney church near the bridge is dedicated 1846 men and women’s Oxford & to St Mary, built originally as a chapel of Cambridge boat races both start Putney Station opens. ease to Wimbledon. Precise date unknown from Putney, with both teams but records date an ordination in 1302. 1780 racing on the same day. Thames, and has evolved into one of the most A hurricane strikes the Putney area, damaging buildings and land from Lord Besborough’s desirable and celebrated areas of London. house at Roehampton, ending at Hammersmith where the church sustained considerable damage It is also the birthplace of some of history’s most 1647 The Putney debates, where officers and soldiers of ST.
    [Show full text]
  • On William Walwyn's Demurre to the Bill for Preventing
    ON WILLIAM WALWYN’S DEMURRE TO THE BILL FOR PREVENTING THE GROWTH AND SPREADING OF HERESIE by Andrew LeClair A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL December 2018 Copyright 2018 by Andrew LeClair ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to his committee members, Dr. John Leeds, Dr. Emily Stockard, and Dr. Tom Martin for all of their guidance and support, and special thanks to my advisor for his persistence, patience, and encouragement during the writing of this manuscript. iv ABSTRACT Author: Andrew LeClair Title: On William Walwyn’s Demurre to the Bill for Preventing the Growth and Spreading of Heresie Institution: Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr. John Leeds Degree: Master of Arts Year: 2018 During the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, writers like William Walwyn produced documents contesting the restriction of their liberties. This thesis is a critical edition of Walwyn’s Demurre to the Bill for Preventing the Growth and Spreading of Heresie, unedited since its original publication in 1646. In this text Walwyn advocates for man’s right to question religious orthodoxy in his search for Truth and urges Parliament not to pass a proposed Bill for the harsh punishment of religious sectarians. Prior to a transcription of the text is an introduction to Walwyn and an attempt to situate the reader in the context of his time. Following that is a style and rhetorical analysis, which concludes that despite his rejection of rhetorical practices, Walwyn’s own use of them is effective.
    [Show full text]
  • The English Civil War: the Declaration of 14Th June 1647 And
    History 7A, Merritt College, Instructor John Holmes The English Civil War: The Declaration of 14th June 1647 and the Putney Debates “We were not a mere mercenary Army, hired to serve any arbitrary power of a state, but called forth and conjured by the several declarations of Parliament, to the defence of our own and the people’s just rights and liberties. And so we took up arms in judgment and conscience … and are resolved … to assert and vindicate the just power and rights of this kingdom in Parliament, for those common ends premised, against all arbitrary power, violence and oppression.” So the Army justified its intervention in politics.… The soldiers were citizens in uniform, who had regained the rights of freeborn Englishmen. Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1982, page 110. The Declaration was issued by the Army Council of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army. The New Model Army had just won the Civil War, defeating the royalist forces. The Army Council was an historically unprecedented body, because it was elected. Officers and rank and file soldiers were represented together. It was formed after the Army, in defiance of the majority of Parliament which wanted to disband the Army and restore the King, marched on London and seized Charles I’s royal person. The Declaration further called for a purge of Parliament, its dissolution, and new elections. Many historians regard this Declaration as the commencement of modern politics founded on popular sovereignty. The English Civil War, its impact on the American colonies, and the relationship between it and modern concepts of freedom and democracy are discussed in your textbook on pages 81-86.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Southampton Research Repository Eprints Soton
    University of Southampton Research Repository ePrints Soton Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination http://eprints.soton.ac.uk i ii UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF LAW, ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Doctor of Philosophy MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS IN THE FIRST ENGLISH CIVIL WAR 1642 – 1646 By John Edward Kirkham Ellis This thesis sets out to correct the current widely held perception that military intelligence operations played a minor part in determining the outcome of the English Civil War. In spite of the warnings of Sir Charles Firth and, more recently, Ronald Hutton, many historical assessments of the role played by intelligence-gathering continue to rely upon the pronouncements made by the great Royalist historian Sir Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion. Yet the overwhelming evidence of the contemporary sources shows clearly that intelligence information did, in fact, play a major part in deciding the outcome of the key battles that determined the outcome of the Civil War itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence Forces Review 2016
    Defence Forces Review Defence Forces 2016 Defence Forces Review 2016 Pantone 1545c Pantone 125c Pantone 120c Pantone 468c DF_Special_Brown Pantone 1545c Pantone 2965c Pantone Pantone 5743c Cool Grey 11c Vol 13 Vol Printed by the Defence Forces Printing Press Jn14102 / Sep 2016/ 2300 Defence Forces Review 2016 ISSN 1649 - 7066 Published for the Military Authorities by the Public Relations Branch at the Chief of Staff’s Division, and printed at the Defence Forces Printing Press, Infirmary Road, Dublin 7. © Copyright in accordance with Section 56 of the Copyright Act, 1963, Section 7 of the University of Limerick Act, 1989 and Section 6 of the Dublin University Act, 1989. The material contained in these articles are the views of the authors and do not purport to represent the official views of the Defence Forces. DEFENCE FORCES REVIEW 2016 PREFACE “By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true. This right implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. It is evident that any restriction on academic freedom acts in such a way as to hamper the dissemination of knowledge among the people and thereby impedes national judgment and action”. Albert Einstein As Officer in Charge of Defence Forces Public Relations Branch, it gives me great pleasure to be involved in the publication of the Defence Forces Review for 2016. This year’s ‘Review’ continues the tradition of past editions in providing a focus for intellectual debate within the wider Defence Community on matters of professional interest.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Turned Upside Down • to Stir up Political and Religious Thoughts
    Teachers’ Resource Pack The ideas in this Teacher’s Resource Pack can committed during the war. With the growing influence of be adapted by primary and secondary school the Leveller movement in the rank and file, the army had produced political pamphlets challenging ancient teachers to suit the needs of their schools, feudalism. One such pamphlet An Agreement of the classes and pupils. People prompted the Putney debates, which began on 28th October 1647. A study of the Putney Debates would form an excellent basis for the study of Local History, The Debates were a meeting of the General Council of and offers cross-curricular opportunities with the Army which consisted of senior officers such as Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton, as well as ‘agitators’, English, Geography, Art, RE, and such as Edward Sexby and Thomas Rainsborough, Citizenship. who had been elected by the junior officers and rank and Background to the Putney Debates file to represent them. Their aim: to re-establish unity in the army. After the first English Civil War of 1642-1646 England was in a state of confusion and upheaval never experienced before. Although England had seen civil war before, never in its history had fighting gone to such unimaginable lengths and concluded so dramatically. In 1647 Parliament found themselves in an unprecedented and very difficult situation. King Charles I was in prison at Hampton Court Palace under the guard of the army and negotiations had begun with the intent to create a new system of government, proposals which the King neither accepted nor rejected.
    [Show full text]
  • Cromohs Seminari - Hessayon - Fabricating Radical Traditions
    Cromohs Seminari - Hessayon - Fabricating radical traditions http://www.cromohs.unifi.it/seminari/hessayon2_radical.html Cromohs Virtual Seminars Seminar index Fabricating radical traditions 1. Radicalism and the English revolution Ariel Hessayon Mario Caricchio Goldsmiths, University of London Glenn Burgess A. Hessayon, "Fabricating radical traditions", in M. Caricchio, G. Tarantino, eds., Cromohs Virtual Seminars. Recent historiographical trends of the British Ariel Hessayon Studies (17th-18th Centuries) , 2006-2007: 1-6 Nicholas McDowell <http://www.cromohs.unifi.it/seminari/hessayon2_radical.html> Nigel Smith 2. Britain 1660-1714: competing 1. Introduction historiographies Giovanni Tarantino It is a commonplace that the past is at the mercy of the present and that in every generation there are those who deliberately distort Mark Knights aspects of it to reflect a vision of their own or another's making. Most Yaakov Mascetti historical writing about radicalism and the English Revolution can be considered fabrication - in the sense of both manufacture and 3. The Church of England invention. There have been several important studies documenting this in the eighteenth century [1] process, including recent work by Mario Caricchio. I do not wish to Guglielmo Sanna argue here that there was a single, continuous English radical tradition, William Gibson but nor would I like to dismiss the notion entirely. Instead what I want to suggest is that though radicalism lacks a connected history the Robert G. Ingram imagined relationship between radicals of the English Revolution and Robert D. Cornwall their predecessors and successors has served as a powerful substitute. So much so, that multifaceted traditions have emerged as part of the 4.
    [Show full text]