On top of all that, MPs didn't know whether they were coming or going as whatever monarch was on the throne was forever proroguing them. The century began with James VI of Scotland heading south to become England's James I and ended five monarchs later with a Dutchman and his English wife on the throne. Donald Trump appears to have had plenty of experience of the American legal system without it improving his regard for the country's constitution. ↩︎ However, constitutional niceties clearly weren't the primary motivator for all participants in the Civil War: Cromwell, for example, described constitutions as mere 'dross and dung' in comparison with Christ. The author speculates that post-Civil War England might have taken a different direction under the stewardship of a more constitutionally minded leader such as John Lambert, who he describes as a 'constitutional genius' (an interesting judgment on someone who came up with a constitution which failed). Things can only get better

A sparkling account of a period that is crucial for any understanding of the history of the UK, Europe and the world beyond.” —Peter Frankopan, author of The Silk Roads A continuous thread runs from the accession of England’s first Stuart king, James I, in 1603, to the dynasty’s fall in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. Yet historians often balk at telling the tumultuous, ideologically charged story in one go. Often it is divided into three chunks. First come increasing resistance to absolutism and religious intolerance, civil war, the parliamentary army’s victory, the execution of Charles I, and the establishment of the Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell. Next, the monarchy’s restoration under Charles II; finally, the disastrous reign of James II and invitation to William of Orange to take his place and establish a proto-constitutional monarchy. Charles was defeated in his wars by the New Model Army, full of religious zeal, though its grandees, including its most able commander, Oliver Cromwell, remained in favour of monarchy almost to the end. In 1647, the year of the extraordinary Putney Debates – skilfully documented here by Healey – at which army agitators comprehended modern democracy, a bovine Charles failed to seize his great opportunity. He could have accepted General Henry Ireton’s generous proposed settlement, the Heads of Proposals, and “marched into London, garlanded by a grateful New Model Army”, to prosper under a balanced constitution. This is a wonderful book, exhaustively researched, vigorously argued and teeming with the furious joy of seventeenth-century life' The Times Despite the radical changes that transformed England, few today understand the story of this revolutionary age. Leaders like Oliver Cromwell, Charles II, and William of Orange have been reduced to caricatures, while major turning points like the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution have become shrouded in myth and misunderstanding. Yet the seventeenth century has never been more relevant. The British constitution is once again being contested, and we face a culture war reminiscent of when the Roundheads fought the Cavaliers.

Reviews

On these terms, this really was a revolutionary age, with at least seven seismic resets between 1640 and 1688. It was also a time of revolution as we conceive of it today, namely, of fundamental alteration to politics or society. Healey’s ambitious book aims to explore these two connected realms, reanimating the lives of ordinary people through the wealth of sources they left behind. Next, the Empress meets the immaterial spirits, who are the Blazing World’s most advanced theoretical philosophers. Since they have no physical bodies, the spirits can travel anywhere in an instant and learn anything they wish. The Empress asks the spirits to explain creation and the universe to her because she wishes to write a Cabbala, or a philosophical treatise about the nature of God, the soul, and the physical world. The spirits explain that the world is made up of self-moving matter, and the soul is really just the rational part of beings’ material bodies. But when the Empress asks about original sin, the spirits suddenly disappear—they get banished to the other side of the planet. As the notable Marxist historian Christopher Hill asserted, this was period of great political and intellectual excitement, a period where the old world could be transformed. And these political and religious ideas would emerge from across the social spectrum, including those usually excluded from formal politics. Likewise, the revolution opened up new vistas of political participation. Mass petitioning, lobbying and popular demonstrations would become increasingly commonplace. Healey presents early-seventeenth-century England as highly fractured. Changing socio-economic conditions, a rising gentry and middling sort that was becoming increasingly politicised, religious polarisation tied to Puritan moralising reform and anti-Puritans attached to traditional culture (one would be forgiven for seeing the parallel with contemporary culture wars), debates over the nature of sovereignty and an increasingly litigious society. Civil war was not inevitable, but as one leading historian argued, it was made possible by these conflicting views over politics, religion and society.

I read Devil Land last year and thought it was excellent (I would have given it four stars out of five, the same as this book review) but didn't review it at the time as I was a bit occupied with other things (moving house). ↩︎ Healy] makes a convincing argument that the turbulent era qualifies as truly ‘revolutionary,’ not simply because of its cascading political upheavals, but in terms of far-reaching changes within society.... Wryly humorous and occasionally bawdy”— The Wall Street Journal

Need Help?

In his wide-ranging new history of revolutionary England, Jonathan Healey has given us a masterly account of a period that urgently needs to be reclaimed and recognised for its importance and interest. . . . Perhaps the greatest strength of Jonathan Healey’s book is how much it reveals of the lives and interests of those whom their contemporaries were pleased to describe as ‘the middling sort’. During the seventeenth century their voices were being raised—and heard—more vociferously and eloquently as the years went by. He is also very good on the role of women in society. . . . Painstakingly researched and elegantly written, The Blazing World is that rare achievement—a window into the past that is at once profoundly different and yet startlingly familiar.” —Dr Linda Porter, Writing Desk What happened in the English Revolution, or civil wars, took an exhaustingly long time to unfold, and its subplots were as numerous as the bits of the Shakespeare history play the wise director cuts. Where the French Revolution proceeds in neat, systematic French parcels—Revolution, Terror, Directorate, Empire, etc.—the English one is a mess, exhausting to untangle and not always edifying once you have done so. There’s a Short Parliament, a Long Parliament, and a Rump Parliament to distinguish, and, just as one begins to make sense of the English squabbles, the dour Scots intervene to further muddy the story. But the story of this century is less well known than it should be. Myths have grown around key figures. People may know about the Gunpowder Plot and the Great Fire of London, but the Civil War is a half-remembered mystery to many. And yet the seventeenth century has never seemed more relevant. The British constitution is once again being bent and contorted, and there is a clash of ideologies reminiscent of when Roundhead fought Cavalier. W riting an accessible history of Britain in the turbulent 17th century, as Jonathan Healey sets out to do in “The Blazing World”, is a noble aim. Starting with the seeds of one revolution and ending with a second, the period teems with ideas about what it means to be a citizen as opposed to a subject, and about how God should be worshipped. By the end of it, a modern concept of the state was emerging. Yet even in Britain it is neglected. It definitely confirmed to me that hereditary titles above Baron (which can be earned in the UK) should be abolished, if you can’t “earn” a title like you could when they were relevant, then you shouldn’t be able to pass them on either!