The century of revolution

¶ … Christopher Hill's ideology and opinion of historical analysis in terms of religion and economics

According to the British Marxist historian Christopher Hill in 1961, the then-common historical interpretation of the revolutionary events of the 17th century was "that the English Revolution of 1640-60 was a great social movement like the French Revolution of 1789," at least in the eyes of most liberal historians, while conservative or Tory British historians tended to see the entire movement as misguided. (Hill, 1961, Introduction) Thus, more often than not, the transformation of the English Civil War is seen as a fight between the forces of reaction and the forces of democratic pluralism, with the forces of reaction embodied in "the despotism" of the British King Charles I, who "was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords," after the king was set upon by the forces of Parliament and the emerging middle class and gentry. (Hill, 1961, Introduction) Or, the Revolution is seen as a misguided attempt to do away with the divine right of kings, with resulting bloodshed rather than real reform being the ultimate result for all the land.

But Hill's book The Century of Revolution, 1603 -- 1714 predicated not merely upon analyzing a change in 17th century history. The historian's analysis is also motivated to spur the reader to question what he or she presumably learned in school, to change in the ways that this period history is and was analyzed. What did the leaders of Parliament, he asks, actually say they were fighting about, in the terms and rhetoric of their own lives and religious beliefs, and how did these statements actually play out in the lived experience of history? Hill states that rhetoric has, despite itself become fact, in other words, that the explanation that "the Parliamentary armies were fighting for the liberty of the individual and his rights in law against a tyrannical Government that threw him into prison without trial by jury, taxed him without asking his consent, billeted soldiers in his house, robbed him of his property, and attempted to destroy his cherished Parliamentary institutions," although quite assuredly true in fact, in Hill's eyes, was not so very different from previous historical eras of monarchical dominance. Even liberal historians and laypersons alike, he says, have not been asking the right questions, namely why did the transformation of England occur then, and why did the outrage against monarchical abuses arise? (Hill, 1961, Introduction) In fact, Hill suggests that the popular parties in parliament were far more vigorous and ruthless than the bourgeoisie itself, or the King's supporters because of their economic motivations to be so ruthless against the despotism of the monarchy at the time.