What do you think?
Rate this book
La revolución inglesa 1640
«El objeto de este trabajo consiste en sugerir una interpretación de los acontecimientos que tuvieron lugar en el siglo XVII, distinta a la que muchos de nosotros aprendimos en la escuela. Esta interpretación, resumida muy brevemente, sostiene que la Revolución inglesa de 1640-60 fue un gran movimiento social al igual que la Revolución francesa de 1789. El Estado feudal que preservaba el orden social antiguo fue violentamente destruido y el poder pasó a manos de una nueva clase, haciendo posible un desarrollo más libre del capitalismo. La Guerra Civil fue una guerra de clases, en la que el despotismo de Carlos I fue defendido por las fuerzas reaccionarias de la Iglesia oficial y de los terratenientes conservadores. El Parlamento venció al Rey porque podía apelar al apoyo entusiasta de las clases comerciantes e industriales de la ciudad y del campo, de los labradores acomodados y de las gentes cultas, e incluso, de amplias masas de la población siempre que éstas estuvieran dispuestas a comprender el significado y alcance de la lucha. El resto de este ensayo intentará probar e ilustrar esas generalizaciones.»
Fragmento de la Introducción del cuaderno.
Serie: Documentos.
Fragmento de la Introducción del cuaderno.
Serie: Documentos.
104 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1940
4 people are currently reading
258 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Hill
177 books93 followersJohn Edward Christopher Hill was the pre-eminent historian of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English history, and one of the most distinguished historians of recent times. Fellow historian E.P. Thompson once referred to him as the dean and paragon of English historians.
He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford. During World War II, he served in the Russian department of the British Foreign Office, returning to teach at Oxford after the war.
From 1958-1965 he was University Lecturer in 16th- and 17th-century history, and from 1965-1978 he was Master of Balliol College. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the British Academy. He received numerous honorary degrees over the course of his career, including the Hon. Dr. Sorbonne Nouvelle in 1979.
Hill was an active Marxist and a member of the Communist Party from approximately 1934-1957, falling out with the Party after the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprisings of 1956.
In their obituary, The Guardian wrote of Hill:
"Christopher Hill…was the commanding interpreter of 17th-century England, and of much else besides.…it was as the defining Marxist historian of the century of revolution, the title of one of the most widely studied of his many books, that he became known to generations of students around the world. For all these, too, he will always be the master." [http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/...]
He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford. During World War II, he served in the Russian department of the British Foreign Office, returning to teach at Oxford after the war.
From 1958-1965 he was University Lecturer in 16th- and 17th-century history, and from 1965-1978 he was Master of Balliol College. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the British Academy. He received numerous honorary degrees over the course of his career, including the Hon. Dr. Sorbonne Nouvelle in 1979.
Hill was an active Marxist and a member of the Communist Party from approximately 1934-1957, falling out with the Party after the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprisings of 1956.
In their obituary, The Guardian wrote of Hill:
"Christopher Hill…was the commanding interpreter of 17th-century England, and of much else besides.…it was as the defining Marxist historian of the century of revolution, the title of one of the most widely studied of his many books, that he became known to generations of students around the world. For all these, too, he will always be the master." [http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/...]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
January 31, 2021
Reading books like this is great because it shows how enormous the gaps in my knowledge really are. For a 60 page pamphlet so much of this went over my head, and I'll certainly be rereading it again. However, one of the few points I retained from this volume is that the English Revolution of 1640 represented a progressive historical step. The landed interests hoarded their resources and thus limited the market mechanism, and created a monopoly which caused prices to rise. This created a huge level of discontentment, and allied the progressive gentry, the peasant class, and the progressive middle classes. An explosive revolution broke out, which created the conditions for industrial capitalism and the subsequent destruction of the feudal system...
April 8, 2013
This book is an early work from a scholar who would become one of the 20th century’s greatest English historians. ‘The English Revolution, 1640’ (1940) was published when Hill was still only 28 years old and a member of the CPGB. He subsequently went on to modify, develop and refine his Marxian analysis of the English Revolution.
Here Hill writes what could be regarded as a counter-balance to two influential historical approaches: the Whig interpretation – that views the Revolution as a struggle for political liberty – and the ‘Gardiner thesis’ – that regards it in religious terms. In contrast, Hill insists on an emphasis on economic history and uncovering class antagonism / conflict. He characterises the Revolution as essentially a class war between the aristocracy (defending the feudal order) and a coalition led by the rising bourgeois (representing the emergent capitalism). Moreover, following Weber and Tawney, Hill appears to endorse the view that Protestant Puritanism contributed to the development of capitalism. He also comes across as quite dismissive of the left wing of the revolution, particularly Levellers (‘petty bourgeois’), implying that they were essentially premature revolutionaries who could not succeed in 17th century England.
Later in his career, Hill qualifies his earlier notion that pre-Revolutionary England was ‘essentially feudal’. Further, he clarifies that whilst the Revolution was bourgeois it was not self-consciously so. A slowly emerging class consciousness was frequently submerged within complex religious disputes. Hill also becomes increasingly and explicitly critical of any tendency to economic determinism in utilising the Marxist ‘base-superstructure’ model. The political, religious and economic aspects of the Revolution were all important. These had to be understood as interwoven. Hill now clarified that there was nothing inherent in Protestantism that gave rise to capitalism; only that, in a society already becoming capitalistic, Protestantism’s implicit individualism inadvertently “facilitated the triumph of the new values”. However, even here there is a caveat: the sharpest critics of the ‘Protestant ethic’ were themselves Protestants.
Within the English Revolution there were two distinctive drives, one – the bourgeois revolution – succeeded, the other – the radical revolution – failed but remained influential. Hill wrote of the radicals: “Levellers called for political democracy, Diggers for communism, Ranters for free love”. A variety of radical Protestant groups questioned other important aspects of the age’s ‘common sense’, often articulating their far-reaching ideas in religious language. Crucially, “without the pressure of the radicals the civil war might not have been transformed into a revolution”. Also, many of their ideas enriched a native radical tradition that continues ebbs and flows to the present day.
For anyone interested in 17th century England, reading this introductory text should only be the starting point for further study. Several of Hill’s later texts (from the 1960s onwards) are absolutely essential reading. Particular recommended are his books on Oliver Cromwell (1599 – 1658), Gerrard Winstanley (1609 - 1669), John Milton (1608 - 1674) and John Bunyan (1628 - 88).
Here Hill writes what could be regarded as a counter-balance to two influential historical approaches: the Whig interpretation – that views the Revolution as a struggle for political liberty – and the ‘Gardiner thesis’ – that regards it in religious terms. In contrast, Hill insists on an emphasis on economic history and uncovering class antagonism / conflict. He characterises the Revolution as essentially a class war between the aristocracy (defending the feudal order) and a coalition led by the rising bourgeois (representing the emergent capitalism). Moreover, following Weber and Tawney, Hill appears to endorse the view that Protestant Puritanism contributed to the development of capitalism. He also comes across as quite dismissive of the left wing of the revolution, particularly Levellers (‘petty bourgeois’), implying that they were essentially premature revolutionaries who could not succeed in 17th century England.
Later in his career, Hill qualifies his earlier notion that pre-Revolutionary England was ‘essentially feudal’. Further, he clarifies that whilst the Revolution was bourgeois it was not self-consciously so. A slowly emerging class consciousness was frequently submerged within complex religious disputes. Hill also becomes increasingly and explicitly critical of any tendency to economic determinism in utilising the Marxist ‘base-superstructure’ model. The political, religious and economic aspects of the Revolution were all important. These had to be understood as interwoven. Hill now clarified that there was nothing inherent in Protestantism that gave rise to capitalism; only that, in a society already becoming capitalistic, Protestantism’s implicit individualism inadvertently “facilitated the triumph of the new values”. However, even here there is a caveat: the sharpest critics of the ‘Protestant ethic’ were themselves Protestants.
Within the English Revolution there were two distinctive drives, one – the bourgeois revolution – succeeded, the other – the radical revolution – failed but remained influential. Hill wrote of the radicals: “Levellers called for political democracy, Diggers for communism, Ranters for free love”. A variety of radical Protestant groups questioned other important aspects of the age’s ‘common sense’, often articulating their far-reaching ideas in religious language. Crucially, “without the pressure of the radicals the civil war might not have been transformed into a revolution”. Also, many of their ideas enriched a native radical tradition that continues ebbs and flows to the present day.
For anyone interested in 17th century England, reading this introductory text should only be the starting point for further study. Several of Hill’s later texts (from the 1960s onwards) are absolutely essential reading. Particular recommended are his books on Oliver Cromwell (1599 – 1658), Gerrard Winstanley (1609 - 1669), John Milton (1608 - 1674) and John Bunyan (1628 - 88).
February 24, 2013
The classic exposition of the Marxist approach to the English Revolution from Christopher Hill in 1940. Hill summarizes his argument best in the very first paragraph: "...this interpretation is that the English Revolution of 1640-60 was a great social movement like the French Revolution of 1789. The state power protecting an old order that was essentially feudal was violently overthrown, power passed into the hands of a new class, and so the freer development of capitalism was made possible. The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords. Parliament beat the King because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about." Obviously, schools of thought on the subject have come and gone over the last 70+ years, but there is an excitement that is palpable in the text as Hill applies Marxist notions of historical and dialectical materialism and economic determinism to a subject that had been mired largely in Whig historiography for more than a century.
November 23, 2025
La lectura es ligera pero está muy centrado en las causas económicas de la revolución desde su perspectiva marxista. Ese es el núcleo central del libro y el resto lo explica superficialmente, dedicándole solo 10 páginas a 30 años de cambios (Restauración y Revolución Gloriosa).
Entiendo que se debe al propio título, centrado en la primera revolución, pero aun así no profundiza apenas en otros aspectos como lo hace en la economía y las cuestiones de clase.
Entiendo que se debe al propio título, centrado en la primera revolución, pero aun así no profundiza apenas en otros aspectos como lo hace en la economía y las cuestiones de clase.
January 21, 2021
This is one of the first books on the English Civil War which aimed to give credit where credit is due. Instead of regarding the war as a tragic error, as the product of a less educated and more barbaric time, Hill tells us of men who gave their lives in pursuit of social change, in defence of their values, and who knew exactly what their aims were. In other words, it was a battle between committed revolutionaries and reactionaries, not fools or blood-thirsty mercenaries.
Challenging the term 'interregnum', with its connotations of 'interlude' or 'taking a break', Hill shows us how the English Revolution sparked permanent changes which made possible Britain's subsequent economic growth, innovation and world domination. The domestic changes, such as those made to the relationship between parliament and crown, have shaped Britain today more than is often realised. Despite the English Revolution being driven more by class self-interest than equality or 'good will to all men', the Churchill quote 'Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few' could nonetheless be applied to the Revolution as well as WW2.
Hill writes clearly and concisely, using Marxist language without letting it drift into jargon or cringey 'inner party' talk. His incisive and honest commentary allows us to see what truly motivated the actors in the period, and he particularly shines when talking about the more radical groups of the time; the Levellers, Quakers and Diggers, who sound incredibly ahead of their time, and who Hill believes we still have a lot to learn from.
If you are a conservative, do not let the Marxist approach put you off. It merely allowed Hill to see more clearly the intentional nature of the conflict, and to truly appreciate the impact it had on the rise of capitalism in Britain. Furthermore, he does not leave out the vital role of religion, intellectual thought or free discussion in the Civil War.
I would highly recommend this book, only 68 pages long, to anyone who would like an introduction to a period to which the American revolutionaries, Marx, and modern Britain owe a lot, particularly because Marx and the American revolutionaries knew it, whereas modern Britain not so much.
Challenging the term 'interregnum', with its connotations of 'interlude' or 'taking a break', Hill shows us how the English Revolution sparked permanent changes which made possible Britain's subsequent economic growth, innovation and world domination. The domestic changes, such as those made to the relationship between parliament and crown, have shaped Britain today more than is often realised. Despite the English Revolution being driven more by class self-interest than equality or 'good will to all men', the Churchill quote 'Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few' could nonetheless be applied to the Revolution as well as WW2.
Hill writes clearly and concisely, using Marxist language without letting it drift into jargon or cringey 'inner party' talk. His incisive and honest commentary allows us to see what truly motivated the actors in the period, and he particularly shines when talking about the more radical groups of the time; the Levellers, Quakers and Diggers, who sound incredibly ahead of their time, and who Hill believes we still have a lot to learn from.
If you are a conservative, do not let the Marxist approach put you off. It merely allowed Hill to see more clearly the intentional nature of the conflict, and to truly appreciate the impact it had on the rise of capitalism in Britain. Furthermore, he does not leave out the vital role of religion, intellectual thought or free discussion in the Civil War.
I would highly recommend this book, only 68 pages long, to anyone who would like an introduction to a period to which the American revolutionaries, Marx, and modern Britain owe a lot, particularly because Marx and the American revolutionaries knew it, whereas modern Britain not so much.
November 21, 2025
Jesusito de Nazaret, qué difícil ha sido esto.
July 22, 2019
Read against my will! For the histroy of capitalism! But written accessibly and almost interesting!
October 9, 2024
A short but extremely concise essay, giving a Marxist interpretation on the English Revolution of 1640 and indeed, it is Christopher Hill's first book on a subject that now sees him as arguably the era’s most eminent historian.
It kicks off with the understanding of how the country at the beginning of the seventeenth century was transitioning from the old feudal system to capitalism, bringing with it a new class of capitalist farmers, that egregiously thought nothing of the old traditions and customs and enthusiastically evicted sitting tenant farmers for the grazing of sheep,
"Thus, were the agricultural people, firstly forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system."
The essay itself is excellent and really succeeds in its aim and is best summed up in the words of Christopher Hill himself,
"The heads of a king and many peers had to roll in the dust before it could be certain that future kings and the peerage would recognise the dominance of the new class.
For many years during and after the Civil War, in their eagerness to defeat the old order, the moneyed classes willingly accepted taxes three and four times as heavy as those they had refused to pay to Charles I. For the objection was not to taxes as such, it was to the policy to implement which those taxes were collected. The bourgeoisie had no confidence in Charles, would not trust him with money, because they knew that the whole basis of his rule was hostility to their development. But to a government of their own kind the purse-strings were at once loosed.
Nor was it a war of the rich only. All sections of society in southern and eastern England brought in their contributions to help win the war, for in the overthrow of the old regime men saw the essential preliminary condition of social and intellectual advance. Many of those who fought for Parliament were afterwards disappointed with the achievements of the revolution, felt they had been betrayed. But they were right to fight. A victory for Charles I and his gang could only have meant the economic stagnation of England, the stabilisation of a backward feudal society in a commercial age, and have necessitated an even bloodier struggle for liberation later."
"The Parliament's battles were won because of the discipline and unity and high political consciousness of the masses organized in The New Model Army"
So, thanks to Christopher Hill's unique and profound grasp of seventeenth century history, I have come away with quite a lot from this concise and detailed summary of the social and political background to the English Revolution of 1640, through to the second Civil War in quick succession and on into the restoration of Charles II, crucial turning points in British history.
It kicks off with the understanding of how the country at the beginning of the seventeenth century was transitioning from the old feudal system to capitalism, bringing with it a new class of capitalist farmers, that egregiously thought nothing of the old traditions and customs and enthusiastically evicted sitting tenant farmers for the grazing of sheep,
"Thus, were the agricultural people, firstly forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system."
The essay itself is excellent and really succeeds in its aim and is best summed up in the words of Christopher Hill himself,
"The heads of a king and many peers had to roll in the dust before it could be certain that future kings and the peerage would recognise the dominance of the new class.
For many years during and after the Civil War, in their eagerness to defeat the old order, the moneyed classes willingly accepted taxes three and four times as heavy as those they had refused to pay to Charles I. For the objection was not to taxes as such, it was to the policy to implement which those taxes were collected. The bourgeoisie had no confidence in Charles, would not trust him with money, because they knew that the whole basis of his rule was hostility to their development. But to a government of their own kind the purse-strings were at once loosed.
Nor was it a war of the rich only. All sections of society in southern and eastern England brought in their contributions to help win the war, for in the overthrow of the old regime men saw the essential preliminary condition of social and intellectual advance. Many of those who fought for Parliament were afterwards disappointed with the achievements of the revolution, felt they had been betrayed. But they were right to fight. A victory for Charles I and his gang could only have meant the economic stagnation of England, the stabilisation of a backward feudal society in a commercial age, and have necessitated an even bloodier struggle for liberation later."
"The Parliament's battles were won because of the discipline and unity and high political consciousness of the masses organized in The New Model Army"
So, thanks to Christopher Hill's unique and profound grasp of seventeenth century history, I have come away with quite a lot from this concise and detailed summary of the social and political background to the English Revolution of 1640, through to the second Civil War in quick succession and on into the restoration of Charles II, crucial turning points in British history.
Read
September 26, 2020İngiliz Tarih Profesörü Christopher Hill'in tüm dünyada ünlenmiş kitabı "1640 İngiliz Devrimi"ni Kaynak Yayınları yeniden yayınlarken, 17. Yüzyıl'dan 21. Yüzyıl'a kalmış izleri ile "1640 İngiliz Devrimi" ("Cromwell Devrimi") yeniden canlanıyor gözümüzde! Christopher Hill, 20. Yüzyıl'ın en önemli tarihçilerinden biridir, İngiliz Tarihi ile ilgili sayısız yazıları, kitapları ile tarihçilik biliminde yenilikler yapmış bir Tarihçidir. "1640 Devrimi"nde, Christopher Hill, "1640 Devrimi"ni farklı boyutları ile inceliyor, bir "hukuk devrimi" olarak, "politik bir devrim" olarak, "sosyal bir devrim" olarak, bir "kültür devrimi" olarak, bir "felsefe devrimi" olarak "1640 Devrimi" vardır Christopher Hill'in kitabında. Cromwell'in "dünya tarihinin en önemli devrim liderlerinden biri" olarak ünlenmesinin nedenlerini de "1640 Devrimi"nde okuyoruz. "1640 Devrimi"nde, modern İngiltere'nin oluşumunun ayrıntılı bir öyküsünü açıklıyor Christopher Hill.
June 16, 2023
This small book was the first in-depth presentation of a Marxist analysis of the 17th century English Revolution, published in the tricentennial year of 1940. All honest historians of the period owe it a great debt, and all interested students should place it very high on their reading lists.
July 3, 2020
This long essay (available for free online) is the best thing that I have read for a long time. At the very least it makes the Civil war appear to be exciting and sparks an interest in history.
May 9, 2021
Muito bom!
April 13, 2025
Brilliantly concise "big picture" history
August 6, 2025
put0 cromwell
May 27, 2016
Hill's first published work. An essay rather than a full on book, but a pivotal work as his main focus was 17th century England with his hero Winstanley making a cameo. Hill's very readable and excellent at showing how our political climate is shaped by these times. It's an enervating pleasure to read his work.
February 20, 2010
Helpful and short, but Marxist.
February 7, 2014
Krallık-burjuvazi ve kilise ilişkilerini anlatan güzel bir kaynak.O dönemdeki Avrupa aydınlanması ile ilgilenenlerin okumasını tavsiye ederim.
March 25, 2013
A very good introduction to the ''English Revolution''.
November 14, 2015
Ainda que se trate de uma obra de juventude, sua abordagem é extremamente simplificadora e esquemática.
December 29, 2017
1640-1660 arasi Ingiltereyi kokten degistiren devrimin icyuzune hem ekonomik hem siyasal nedenler acisiyla hem de kilit gelismeler ve gruplar arasi cekismeler acilarindan bakan kisa ama oz bir kitap.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews