The Blazing World: A New History of Revolutionary England, 1603-1689

by Jonathan Healey

"At the beginning of the seventeenth century, English politics centered on the king and the royal court. Ninety percent of the population lived in the countryside, the vast majority was illiterate and famine and plague were regular scourges. However, by the turn of the eighteenth century, a new world had arisen. A world more familiar to our own: parliamentary politics, thriving arts and culture and even an embryonic welfare state. How did this happen?

The story of this turbulent period is less well-known than it should be. Myths have grown around key figures; turning points like the Civil War are opaque for many. Yet the seventeenth century has never been more relevant. The British constitution is once again being bent and contorted, and there is a clash of ideologies reminiscent of when the Roundheads fought the Cavaliers.

From raw politics to religious divisions, civil wars to witch trials, plague to press freedoms, The Blazing World is the story of a strange but fascinating century. Drawing on vast archives and his own expertise, Jonathan Healey portrays the lives not just of public figures but of ordinary people to illuminate a revolutionary society that forged a new world."

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, Politics, European History, Audiobook, Religion

512 pages, Hardcover

First published February 2, 2023

Reviews

[Rick Riordan]

The country is trapped in a culture war, with some arguing for a return to the Good Old Days and others arguing for greater personal freedom and less enforcement of religious and moral laws. The 'sides' are fluid, but each group uses new technology to rapidly share its ideas with likeminded individuals, creating echo chambers that highlight only the news they want to hear while distorting news that would contradict their worldview. The groups jeer at each other -- calling their political opponents 'cuckholds,' 'idiots,' 'traitors,' and worse. Chaos increases, leading to violent confrontations between angry mobs on the street. Everything becomes 'political,' from church to entertainment to schools. Eventually, the country slides into a civil war that nobody really thought would happen, and that would tear the country apart.

I'm taking about England in the 1600s. But if it sounds like this could be a scenario playing out today, well . . . that's why I think history is so valuable. As it says in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. People are people, and what happened over four centuries ago is still echoing through the world in 2024.

The Blazing World is probably not a read for everyone. It is thorough, comprehensive in scope, and juggles a cast of hundreds of characters. Nevertheless, if you're a history nerd like me, Revolutionary England is a fascinating time period to read about, and one that I only knew about superficially before this. What struck me as most relevant and scary: The people of the time had no idea what direction things would go, and events moved at such a whiplash pace that they were quickly plunged into situations that would've been unthinkable only a few years before. For the first time in memory, a king was beheaded by his own people. The English were faced with a clean slate and a chance to completely remake their society. Utopian ideas flourished (briefly). England could be a communist collective with no property ownership. Or a Republic. Or a Theocracy. Or a kingdom without a king. In the end, the country swung between extremes, back and forth, looking to a dictator (Oliver Cromwell) to stabilize the nation and save them from anarchy, only to eventually decide that maybe the old king and country idea wasn't so bad after all (with a few new checks and balances). My other major takeaway was the effect of the printing press and the increase in literacy rates, especially in London, which meant that for the first time, the common folk, the 'blue collar workers,' were reading and discussing political ideas, becoming a force unto themselves -- a powerful counterweight to the crown and to landed aristocracy. There are differences compared to the rise of social media, yes, but the disruptive potential of new communication media is a factor today, just as it was then.

All in all, a fascinating book about a different time that echoes our own, though I want to be mindful of Healey's warning -- the people in the past were not us, and they could not have existed or acted as they did in any other time period. Still, yikes! The 1600s in England are what it looks like when social and political polarization run amok, and the results are not pretty.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very readable, comprehensible, and always engrossing account of the monumental seventeenth Century in England – one which is ideal for (and I think aimed at) the interested amateur historian/reader rather than the academic/expert.

It provides a narrative based history which proceeds at pace through the period from the ascension of King James I (of England) to the Proclamation of William and Mary as King and Queen, taking in all of the major events of the era (from Gunpowder plot, to Charles I ascension, the Civil Wars, the King’s execution, the Republic and the Restoration and the brief reign of James II culminating in the Glorious Revolution).

Many other books I have read concentrate on only one of these events/periods – or often even only certain aspects/sub-periods of them – so where this book really works is in bring the whole period into one cohesive account.

As an Epilogue demonstrates the author shows how the events of the 17th Century were Revolutionary in both the 17th Century sense (of a revolution of a wheel – with the ideas of changes in fortunes but also of restorations back to the “normal state of affairs) and in the modern sense (of a “fundamental alteration”).

I also enjoyed the way in which the traditions of Skimmingtons (which I have to say was entirely new to me despite being part of the name of a well known local pub - one which I pass when accompanying hacks and which actually dates from the 17th Century) bookends the book as well as being featured throughout.

Overall and for someone who has already read about much of the period this functions as a really excellent summary and reminder.

[Farah Mendlesohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Too short. Would have happily read on to Culodden.

The best thing about this book is that it really draws attention to the way careers spanned from the 1620s through the 1690s and that many of the people who made the Commonwealth, also made the Restoration.

I am also glad to see more and more historians drawing attention to what a nasty, repressive, cruel regime the Restoration was. Most of what we were taught in school was essentially Royalist propaganda.

Listened to on audible. An excellent reading.

[Tony · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Blazing World covers Britain's political, religious, and social evolution throughout the tumultuous 1600s.  This vast scope is both the book's greatest strength and its chief weakness.  On the one hand, Healey writes about many momentous happenings such as the Gunpowder Plot, Civil War, Restoration, and Glorious Revolution.  On the other hand, the work's vast breadth requires the reader to be assaulted with so many facts and names that it all passes by in a blur.  While I admire the author's ambition and goal, I am not sure such summary treatment of events is of much use. 

[Christian Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

The 17th Century in England was a jolly time of incident, no doubt about it. Queen Elizabeth went away, King James arrived to confuse undergraduates as Jacobean and rule as an individual backed up by God, a provenance to which King Charles stubbornly clung until his head got cut off. Now Cromwell! The Puritans! Until, oops! Back to kings again, and it was OK to be Roman Catholic, more or less, and rock and roll. Until it wasn't, and Englishmen figured they really felt better about representation, and proclaimed a Glorious Revolution, and a new king from the Netherlands who didn't even speak English. All this set against a backdrop of a backdrop in a world i n a w o r l d ! of horror-movie radical change. Yes, but if they wanted representation so much, how come 76 years later they gave the American colonies the finger? I mean, really? They learned nothing from their own mistakes?

But that's another book.

Now in the case of Professor Healey's rendering of this exciting century, well, I may guardedly say that as a reader, disappointment set in immediately. Of the forest he gives no account, he is concerned only with trees. A thicket of one-sentence research tidbits. Small type. An academic fascination with the obscure and specific, with lists and minor figures, as if a jigsaw puzzle dumped for the reader to put together. In a century rich with individuals he brings none of them to life, even Cromwell. He seems incapable or uninterested in people, even kings, or the living breath they breathed, or in any sense telling a story. As a scholarly work, well--is it scholarly to prove complication? I would rather think that both popular history and lunch at the dons' table at Oxford have theme and humor, and as their goal communication of the spirit and incident of a time. Maybe the second 200 pages are better. I never got there. I suppose that to be the author's fault, not mine.

[Carlton · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like narrative history and I like concrete examples to illustrate and amplify the broad story being told. This excellent history of seventeenth century England reads easily, with this from the introduction:
So this book is about raw politics, but it is also about the social change that conditioned those politics. It is narrative history, and for this it makes no apologies, but it’s also about how those two forces combined to create nearly a hundred years of turbulence, out of which arose a remarkable new world, one which – for better or worse – was blazing a path towards our own.
As has been said, “history is just one damn thing after another”, but I begin to understand how true this is for the English Civil War, which forms the central section of this book. Although the events cover many years, with unexpected twists and turns, Healey helped me follow the important changes, and the accidents that create historical turning points, and as importantly, when they do not.

The book is split into twenty chapters and for my own reference I have made well over a hundred notes.

There is one chapter (17) which felt out of place, perhaps because I have already read detailed histories of this period, 1665 and 1666, discussing the Dutch naval wars, the Plague and the Great Fire of London.
It also includes rather a lot about Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, which although interesting, read as though inserted to introduce a female voice. Cavendish’s achievements were considerable, including a early work of speculative/utopian fiction, The Blazing World and Other Writings, and being the first female inducted into the Royal Society (discussed natural philosophy, which is the contemporary description of scientific knowledge). However, Cavendish comes across as very much unique because of her social position, ahead of her time, and not part of some larger feminist movement.

To cover such a long period I am sure that Healey has had to make many choices over what to emphasise and what to omit, but for me as a lay reader, the book gives a wonderful understanding of a complex period. There are many detours that can be taken into the various Protestant religious sects (Quakers, Socinians, Muggletonians, Seekers etc) and political groups (Levellers, Diggers etc), which are mentioned sufficiently, but which don’t lose the overall narrative drive of the book. I really enjoyed this and highly recommend it to the interested reader of popular history.

I received a Netgalley copy of this book, but this review is my honest opinion.

[Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship]

Read through page 110 and maybe I’ll return to it someday, but right now I’m not feeling it. It’s long and slightly dense and the deckle edge pages don’t help. Mostly it’s a detailed play-by-play of 17th century English politics, and there are certainly interesting tidbits although it’s not my era of greatest interest. But then there are paragraphs like this:

Beyond London, a postal system was created to connect the country and an attempt was made to standardize the grammar taught in schools. [King Charles I] tried to discourage people from taking tobacco, because it led them to drink and to the “depraving of their manners.” He issued a proclamation ordering the enforcement of the 1624 statute against swearing (although at least one individual had to be prosecuted because he said he didn’t care a fart for it). He went after those who depopulated the land through enclosures, with rather overblown claims made that some 2,000 farms had reopened, even while Charles himself allowed enclosures on his own estates. He also tried, as his father had, to get the landed elites to leave London and to tend to their affairs in the country. Unlike his father, though, he backed proclamations with actual enforcement, and in the process caused some irritation. Simonds D’Ewes, peeved at having to leave Islington for the sticks, complained that the policy “took away men’s liberties at one blow,” though he was being rather dramatic. Some, indeed, took a more positive view. A report in 1632 claimed that in the countryside “more chimneys are likely to smoke this Christmas than have been seen many years before.” In the bleak winter, the presence of landed families in their country homes was supposed to bring warm hospitality to their poorer neighbors.

Which leaves out all the detail that would make this most interesting! How did this 17th century postal system work? What were the discrepancies in grammar being taught and how did they go about deciding the winner? What did the king do to try to make people stop taking tobacco, let alone to force all these rich people to change their residences? (And is it really that dramatic to complain about loss of liberty when someone else is dictating where you live? We are talking privileged people who likely restricted the liberties of those beneath them far more severely, but it’s not a mandate many of us today would think much of either.) Was the 1632 report the product of a different faction of landowners who supported the country living edict, or the government? What kind of punishments were visited upon people who swore, or who enclosed land? These are the details that really make history fascinating to me, and I wasn’t getting them here.

[Stuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Comprehensive Review of A Truly Tumultuous Period
After living in England for 6 years and developing a consuming interest in British history from the Celts and Romans to Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, and spanning the Plantagenet, Tudor, and Stuart dynasties, I've learned that the further you dig, the more you discover and want to understand. It's a never-ending process, so you have to keep some kind of focus or you'll be forever going down different rabbit holes on Wikipedia, from one page and link to the next.

So I won't attempt a proper review of this book. Suffice to say I was inspired to specifically seek out something on this period after stopping in the Nottinghamshire cathedral town of Southwell, and having dinner at The Saracen's Head, a coaching inn dating back to the 14th century, that had pictures of Charles I featured prominently, with this explanation:

"The unfortunate King Charles I entertained the Scottish Commissioners for dinner at the Saracens Head the night before surrendering to the Commissioners at Newark Castle. Charles believed he had secured sanctuary from Cromwell and the Parliamentarians. The Scottish Commissioners betrayed the King and handed him over to the Parliamentarians for a substantial fee."

[A.J. Sefton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who is slightly aware of English history will know that the seventeenth century is the century of English revolution, civil war and the death of the English monarch accused of treason. The author compares this period of devastating upheaval to where England is now: facing the birth of a new world.

The introduction explains how the seventeenth century was a bad time for everyone throughout the world, with dynasties collapsing and colonialism expanding. It was a time of turbulence with the Gunpowder Plot hoping to blow up the Houses of Parliament, religious issues and riots caused by the Puritans banning all the fun, such as football and Christmas. As if that didn't put a dampener on things, there was famine, the Great Plague, witchcraft, war with Scotland and the king being replaced with William of Orange from Holland. Oh, and the weather was very bad and taxes rose.

But what is best about this book is that there is a focus on the common people who normally don't get a shout in comparison to the leaders. Enclosure was the fencing off of common land and caused many riots as did the exporting of grain for profit, leading to many taking the grain back. These stories are relayed through individuals and there is a feel of reading a novel. With the rise of literacy more records of ordinary people were recorded and the author has researched them very well.

​This is a solid, unbiased piece of research that covers the revolutions in great detail whilst always being immensely readable. Healey notes that this was the century of change and the start of modernity that includes power, industrial, welfare and economic progress. After all this revolution England was becoming more tolerant. Maybe. A great read, accessible to all and highly recommended.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and detailed look at 17th century England with the end of tudor rule to the stuarts of Scotland and changes overall in society and gradual unrest changing viewpoints and civil war

[Carol · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5*

[Nooilforpacifists · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is by no means an easy-to-read, tertiary history. It’s a bit of an awkward middle between that and a secondary academic text; it has the feel of a expanded Ph.D. thesis.

That is no bad thing. Though hard work at times, it’s extremely rewarding to this American reader, who had no reason to learn this in school. I assume it would be second nature across the pond.

Some advice: don’t bother reading the footnotes, which are uninteresting. I’m one of those people who compulsively inhales footnotes—but it’s pointless here, save for references to other books I would like to read.

Also, the book is chock-a-block with statistics. Interesting ones. Increases in wealth; increases in poverty; decreases in capital punishment, etc. It is helpful to learn how rapidly Britain became literate, for example, because it meant literate commoners could be (and were) swayed by newspapers and books. Yet, some of the stats aren’t actually connected to the text (in one section, after explaining the reduction in crime and punishment after 1660, the author details the cruelties of James II in locking up the Anglican establishment, not to mention the Whig opponents).

Then there’s James I’s sexual preference, a subject I never dreamed of knowing. He made an especially handsome catamite named George Villiers into the Marquees of Buckingham (1618), and then Lord High Admiral (1619). Then he “even had the honor of having a ship named for him, ‘Buckingham’s Entrance’, though the name was hastily changed for fairly obvious reasons.”

All kidding aside, there are entirely too many “fairly”s in this book. Fairly is a word like ‘very’—acceptable in oral communication, but never to be written. This author should have had an editor.

The most interesting aspect of this book is its suggestion that Cromwell wasn’t sufficiently radical, which stayed his hand. The author is not asserting that because he’s a dedicated republican. Rather, he’s saying the Commonwealth was, if you will, half slave and half free, and so couldn’t survive. Either it had to have expanded the franchise (as it was during the late Victorian era), or should have found an alternative to the Stuarts. The author highlights some Cromwellians who had they lived, the author suggests, might have made a better (and longer lasting) head of state.

There is much to like about Charles I (who was pious and neither rake nor dandy, and still had his head separated from his body), less so about Charles II (good governor, but a rake), and nothing at all good to say about James II (terrible judgment, who thought he could convert all Britain to his not-so-secret Catholicism). Somewhat surprisingly, the Glorious Revolution (when the Protestant William of Orange lands in the South of England, and most of the army, including its best tactician, John Churchill, defect to William (and Mary) forcing James II to flee, and turning Churchill into the Duke of Marlborough). At least as I was taught, this is the cherry on top of the sundae, but politically less complicated, so perhaps not worth explaining to a British audience. (The author spends more time on John Locke than on William of Orange.)

But the constant thread is the rise of Parliamentary power, if not popular sovereignty itself (viz. Locke). Secondarily, it’s about the parish vs. gathered church—and if parish, whether it’s to Rome or to whichever druid now is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Quakers get a surprising amount of pages; surprising because they have little or no effect on this story.

My point is: this is a damn good book, if not the easiest to read. It gets a few things wrong (Newton did NOT believe that his explanation of gravity meant there was a “clockwork God” who set up the laws of the universe, then walked away—although many of Newton’s contemporaries believed that’s what Newton implied). But it’s not very often I’ve learned this much in 400 pages.

[Sharon · Rating 4 out of 5]

CW: war, religious bigotry, antisemitism, sexism/misogyny, death, murder, islamophobia
Actual rating: 4.5 stars

A fascinating history of a turbulent time. Many of the government policy changes enacted during these revolutions have made a clear impact on the world today and the way both the US and UK governments run.

I have been lucky enough to engage with some lesser-known fiction media based on or inspired by this period of time that I'd like to recommend if this point in time is of interest to you.
Fly by Night and Fly Trap by Frances Hardinge are two favorites of mine. (Fly by Night has been my favorite book since I read it at 9 years old.) Set in a fictional period inspired by the religious and political fracturing of the English revolutionary period, down to the banished royalty, the religious social control, and the banning of printing.
The Conquerer Worm or Witchfinder General (both titles are used), a 1968 film starring Vincent Price and based on/inspired by Matthew Hopkirk.

[Aaron Watling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uncontroversial Waterstones front table stuff. Doesn’t just cover the “revolutionary period” as Marxist historians would understand it (1640s-50s) but stretches from the crowning of James I & VI up to the Glorious Revolution of 1689, which is useful. It allows the reader to be guided through the full revolution (to use the literal meaning) that took place in the 17th century; a society ran by and for a basically absolute monarch to a society ran by and for mercantile interests with a royal figurehead. Of course, none of this would’ve been possible without the financial and religio-political innovations of the time. Charles I was a man behind the times who couldn’t grasp what was going on around him, Cromwell effectively overshot the runway of what was possible; but William, tempered by his experience in the Dutch republic, was able to fill the role the “middling sort” of Britain required of him as the coagulating form of empire took shape.

[Daniel Byrd · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jonathan Healey’s work is no doubt well-researched and that research is laboriously, meticulously, and throughly written throughout the text. The book itself, however, is dry and does not offer much in the way of a comprehensive argument nor is it thematically coherent. Healey attempts a “narrative history” but leaves the reader with a disembodied set of dry facts and dates.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 17th century in England was a time of change, conflict and confusion. New radical thought was discussed, scientific discoveries made and society was changed from the top down. Healey's book on this period is accessible and eminently readable as he takes us from the accession of James I to the Glorious Revolution.

[Michael Beck · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this due to a recommendation from Al Mohler's 2023 summer reading list and because I enjoy learning more about the 17th century due to the context of the Puritan movement. This book focuses more on the political and military history of the period, and only lightly touches on the religious history of the time. Healey tends to misunderstand the Puritan movement (as most modern writers), along with the Calvinistic belief on predestination. He does rightly class early Anglicanism as Calvinistic though, and adds that Arminiansim was a latter movement of this century. Recommended to those who enjoy history, particularly English history.

[Geraldine Burnett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating and at times quite moving. It was a great insight into how society shaped democracy as we know it today. It documents the struggles for democracy and the many attempted forms of this. And makes very clear that absolute power corrupts absolutely, whether monarchy or republic. It sets out the twists and turns of history and the impact they made.

It was interesting to see the rise and fall of the aristocracy as well. A man could come from relatively humble beginnings and become a Duke in one lifetime. And lose their titles, lands (and heads) even faster.

This book details many such changes in fortunes and makes clear that most modern aristocrats wouldn’t have managed to hang on to their titles over the last few centuries without the peace and stability of democracy. An irony if ever there was one.

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!

The book was at times slightly hard going with a lot of characters and documents popping up that weren’t re-explained, so a bit easy to get lost if you’d put it down for a while. It would have been good to have an index of characters and key laws/treaties. But I soldiered on through and got the main thrust of it.

The most interesting parts to me were the glimpses of the impact on every day people, and I do wish that we had learnt a bit more about what the government of the day was doing outside of the various plots to get either Protestants or Catholics in power - e.g how was healthcare provided, how was literacy going? Etc… but maybe that would have made it a ridiculously long book.

Although it finished on a nice note, I could have read on! I would have loved to see the impact of the French Revolution on the UK.

As a Londoner, my favourite bit was learning about the crucial role the citizens of London played in the revolutions that eventually resulted in the democracy we enjoy today. Power to the people!

[Jerry Jonckheere · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great scholarly read on how England grew and developed as a world power in the 1600s. While England's prosperity grew it battled political balancing between Parliament and the monarchy, battle religion pluralism and plays for supremacy, and laid the background for many of the civil structures present in today's England and in the U.S.. The foundations of the monarchy in the houses of on again/off again Stuarts and then the Hanovers, the Tories, Quakers (named because they 'quaked' when they prayed, Presbyterians & Episcopalians, and Whigs all were laid in the 1600s. The title was brought in several times during the book and provided a common link to the great London fires, important books of the age, and traditions. Highly recommended.

[Bethany Pehora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Healey provides a comprehensive view of a near century of turmoil and the changes in politics, religion, and thought in a country seeking to understand what it means to govern and to be governed.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great stuff: this is the big story of the 17th century, the 1600s, in England and environs, with Civil Wars and more progress, too. In many ways, I absorb the chaos from this era as it affects our own.
Recommended.

[Carolyn Cash · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book. It is a must-have for anyone interested in 17th-century history, from King James VI of Scotland's accession as James I to the Hanoverian succession.

It provides an alternative view of the Stuart Era. It helps explain how Britain became a constitutional monarchy after the Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution, and its effect on society today.

[Kristopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

This the overlooked revolution. Healey’s coherent thesis-wise. If I could have kept track of any of the names, this would easily be 4 stars.

“At the sound of a screaming newborn, the European balance of power was overturned.”

Just such a different world

[Chrisorc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book.
Highly enjoyable.
Please read.

[Hinch · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great narrative history of England from the accession of James I to the Glorious Revolution (note this is a history of England, not the Isles). The focus is on interesting characters, various factions and religious movements, with the occasional breath to take a step back and going over English society broadly. This is a social history not a military history - battles and even wars are summarised in a sentence or two - and by breezing through the military aspects of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms the book is all the better. I think this book is great for people who know of one or two parts of this era, but not the others - I knew a lot about James I-Charles I, but little about the Commonwealth and nothing about the restoration or the really super interesting reign of James II who some thought designed to turn England Papist again. It’s also great for people looking for an introduction to the period, or a refresher.

The focus on religious and political movements is really interesting, but alas it could always be more in depth. But that’s not the aim of this book - it’s wide, not deep.

[James Cary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a solid but zippy primer on the 17th Century. Loads of detail and anecdote, but nothing ponderous or irrelevant. Maybe it slightly runs out of steam in the 1680s, or should have been a separate book, so the overall analysis of the century was a little lacking, but that’s for a longer or different book. Overall, I recommend it if you want to get a handle on how the English Civil War started, finished and what happened next.

[Aled]

"For really I think, that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly, 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" — Thomas Rainsborough (p.233)

Where is your Good Old Cause now? "Here, in my bosom, and I shall seal it with my blood" — Thomas Harrison (p.325)

Just in time to make the 2024 list!

Did a great job of proving one's ignorance of history (I never knew the Dutch invaded England!), and left me with with a large appetite for more. I just wish it spent longer on the Glorious Revolution.

The thread of British radicalism doesn't only go through the Diggers, Levellers, and anti-enclosure riots, but also through the Puritans and the Independents, the middling sorts and mechanical preachers, the New Model Army and the Agitators in its ranks (Thomas Rainsborough, Johns Lilburne and Wildman, etc). Crises are brought to a head when radical citizens build strong bonds with the soldiery.

The collapse of the Commonwealth demonstrates the weakness of a revolution "for the people" that is not "of the people". In passages that often echo Fanon, Healey describes how English Radicalism's moderates and extremists clash with and mould each other, often to the regime's detriment — the New Model grandees against the Levellers, Fairfax against the Diggers, etc.

However, a collapsed regime can still spring revolutions — in law, in warfare, in science, in public financing (with taxation powers passing from King to Parliament after the Restoration) and in politics (with the primacy of the People as Sovereign through Parliament implied with the Act of Settlement).

[Davis Kedrosky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Narrative histories usually aim to entertain, with explanation and analysis relegated to happy coincidence. But Healey manages to nail both here: an engaging read that lays out a clearly-stated intellectual framework for thinking about the political convulsions of England’s troubled 17th century. His narrative focus flits from the halls of Parliament to the camps of the armies, and from the village square to the bustling, often hostile city life of London, but generally focuses on the key players, with a cast of intellectuals to offer color via quotation. Healey centers constitutional questions—the absolute power of the monarchy and the role of the body politic—but laces them with deep religious overtones; the two spark separate brush fires that, in 1640-42, ignited into one furious blaze. What Healey doesn’t show (something common to many chroniclers of the period) is where the radicals that seized the NMA and thus control of the English political agenda came from. It’s sort of jarring to see first the efflorescence of popular feeling for reform in the 1640s, then the rapid disillusionment and welcoming of the Restoration, followed by renewed rage at the ‘tyrannical’ Stuarts soon toppled by Dutch invasion. Deeper engagement with the social context and more systematic integration of background factors and ‘evenements’ would have been welcome.

Nevertheless, a well-written, engaging, and lucid read. Perhaps better than Kishlansky as a textbook for the period.

[Elan Garfias]

The long view of English history from the beginning of the Jacobean era all the way to the Glorious Revolution. Rather than just focusing on the English Civil War portrays the entire seventeenth century as a continuous era of tumult, one in which English maritime power expanded around the world despite internal conflict. Religion is at the center of the narrative, with mainstream Anglicans trying to maintain something of a status quo against both Catholic intriguers and upstart dissenters. In a weird combination of the French and Russian Revolutions, the army gradually became politicized and started entertaining all sorts of rising democratic factions, most famously the Levellers. Yet rather than the rational/deist traditions influencing France and Russia, English radicalism was fully rooted in religion, allowing for a flourishing of sects such as the proto-communist Diggers to the Puritan dictatorship under Cromwell to the safe version of state Protestantism that triumphed in 1688. It's just worth remembering that although England was normally considered a pretty stable place in comparison to its European neighbors, the seventeenth century is the exception, and set the stage for the superpower that was to come.

[Eli Kentner · Rating 5 out of 5]

The tradition of ‘social deconstruction’ has been part and parcel of the anglo-Protestant tradition for centuries.
After the end of the Puritan Revolution (the English Civil War) the chaos and social dysfunction is easily comparable to the other revolutions that would follow throughout Europe and the world. This book demonstrates how tremendously congruent the murder of Charles I and Louis XVI were. One can really see how the French Revolution was really the Puritan Revolution, but in France. Antinomianism (anti social/moral law) has had a recent wellspring of production in the 20th and early 21st centuries, but it is by no means a new thing in the anglo tradition.
You can even see the puritan hostility towards the indigenous regimes/mores of the rest of the world. The drive to overthrow monarchies and old aristocracies is espoused by countless puritan and protestant revolutionaries. This is seen in the foreign policy of the U.S. for about a quarter of a millennia. The United is a puritan empire. Sure, its elites may not believe in God, but it carries with it all of the metaphysics, and metahistory of the puritans from centuries ago.