The Blazing World: A New History of Revolutionary England

Product Information

Of course I knew about the stunning execution of King Charles in the Banqueting House, which I have had the opportunity to tour in the past decade after a recent restoration, and I knew about Oliver Cromwell's everyman reign. But I wanted to learn more about the drivers behind these great events. And Healey's history open my eyes to a century of much broader and deeper change than I had imagined. "[The] gentry and middling sort were becoming more engaged with law, politics,and government. It meant that any ruler, or administration, that wanted to succeed in governing England would have to work with and through these groups." (p. 39). Although the "age of revolution" in America and France was a century in the future, the ferment was rising in England now, driven in part by rising literacy and an explosion in the publishing of pamphlets for popular consumption. "There are just over 600 surviving titles per year in the 1630s. . . . In 1641, there are 2,042" (p. 145), driving the "politicisation of the English population" (p. 171) in a "clash of ideologies, as often as not between members of the same class." (p. 182)

A] lively, compelling and combative study of the most dramatic and consequential century in English history . . . The Blazing World offers a thrilling panorama of the period, from perspectives high and low, told with a winning combination of impish wit, sound judgment, and serious scholarship . . . It will delight those new to its extraordinary age, and fire up its grizzled veterans Genre: Early Modern Prose Fiction, Proto-Novel, Science Fiction, Utopian Literature, Feminist Literature, Philosophical Dialogue, Metafiction The book states that between the mid-sixteenth century and the second quarter of the seventeenth century, the yeomen saw their wealth rise fourteenfold, which I found remarkable. ↩︎Dogged original research and superb narrative skills come together in this gripping account of pitiless evil. Charles I was king, and his belief in his divine right to rule came into direct conflict with a variety of constituencies within Parliament that insisted a king must prove himself a “lawful magistrate” of his realm. Some groups were more radical than others, but all agreed ultimate sovereignty lay with the people. Any ruler who hoped to reign needed to accept this new political consciousness. Charles I refused and paid for it with his head. The seventeenth century was a revolutionary age for the English. It started as they suddenly found themselves ruled by a Scotsman, and it ended in the shadow of an invasion by the Dutch. Under James I, England suffered terrorism and witch panics. Under his son Charles, state and society collapsed into civil war, to be followed by an army coup and regicide. For a short time—for the only time in history—England was a republic. There were bitter struggles over faith and Parliament asserted itself like never before. There were no boundaries to politics.In fiery, plague-ridden London, in coffee shops and alehouses, new ideas were forged that were angry, populist, and almost impossible for monarchs to control. Lucy Hughes-Hallett The radicals of 17th-century England began to think the unthinkable Jonathan Healey describes how Diggers, Levellers and other revolutionary sects started proposing universal male suffrage, legal aid and even a national health service

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. 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. This is a wonderful book, exhaustively researched, vigorously argued and teeming with the furious joy of seventeenth-century life' The TimesThese political novices had to build a new world upon the ruins of the old. By the end of the Civil Wars, around 6 2,000 soldiers were dead; perhaps 100,000 more had died from war-related disease; 150 towns had been severely damaged and 10,000 homes destroyed. Within a few more years the king had been executed, the monarchy and House of Lords abolished, and Ireland and Scotland brutally conquered. The seventeenth century was a revolutionary age for the English. It started as they suddenly found themselves ruled by a Scotsman, and it ended in the shadow of an invasion by the Dutch. Under James I, England suffered terrorism and witch panics. Under his son Charles, state and society collapsed into civil war, to be followed by an army coup and regicide. For a short time—for the only time in history—England was a republic. There were bitter struggles over faith and Parliament asserted itself like never before. There were no boundaries to politics. In fiery, plague-ridden London, in coffee shops and alehouses, new ideas were forged that were angry, populist, and almost impossible for monarchs to control. The Restoration, widely welcomed, saw a return towards monarchical absolutism, for which Louis XIV, the French Sun King, was the model and apogee. James II, who inherited the Crown after his brother Charles II’s death in 1685, had learnt nothing from the tumultuous age into which he had been born. His misjudgments climaxed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which ensured the Protestant Crown in Parliament under William and Mary, in whose reign scientific and economic innovations would pave a path to global ascendancy. Not that this book wasn’t interesting or worthwhile. For one thing, it reminded me how Protestant views changed the world. These ideas eventually led to the belief that a government should serve at the behest of the people. If you could select your own pastor rather than accept an appointed bishop, then why not select your own ruler as well? If your king is a heretic, isn’t it your duty to resist rather than to obey? One can easily understand the simple progression from battling against hierarchies within a church to fighting against hierarchies anywhere. Conversely, Catholics tended to support royal absolutism. To the extent there is any overarching theme emerging from the book, it is that the Civil War wasn't just about religion – people were also motivated by deeply held beliefs about the constitution and the accountability of those in power to those they ruled. In that sense, the book is a subtle nod towards the original Whig interpretation of events in seventeenth century England (but with due regard given to the importance of religion). One thing I took from this book was how ideas that were quite radical for the time (such as suffrage for all adult males, or something close to it) were discussed and taken seriously (by some within the Parliamentarian side) during the Civil War (for example, at the Putney Debates of 1647). Dross and dung