9

Ehud's Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution - Book Review Criticism, Spring, 2 2 !" Sharon #chinstein by James Holstun. London and New York: Verso Press, 2000. Pp. xix !"0. #!0.00 $lot%. &%ud's (a))er: *lass +tru))le in t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution is an ambitious, witty and pro-o$ati-e book. .t is as mu$% a polemi$al atta$k on strands in $ontemporary s$%olars%ip as an a$$ount o/ radi$al a$tion in t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution, /or Holstun demands readers t%ink beyond t%e /amiliar oppositions: ,ound%eads -s. ,oyalsts0 Puritans -s. 1is%ops0 Parliament -s. 2in). 3s one o/ its stars, 4erard 5instanley, put it, 6No priest, no kin)0 no kin), no 7ud)e0 no 7ud)e, no landlord0 no landlord, no priest6 8!90:, an utterly radi$al extension o/ James +tuart's 6No bis%op, no kin)6 re7oinder to $alls /or e$$lesiasti$al re/orm. Populated by %eroes 8Jean;Paul +artre, *%ristop%er Hill, t%e 1ritis% <arxist %istorians, &rnest 1lo$%, Jur)en Habermas: and -illains 8<i$%el =ou$ault, a plet%ora o/ new %istori$ists, and a dra)ons' mout%/ul o/ re-isionists:, Holstun's book o//ers ri$% readin)s in early modern &n)lis% politi$al $ulture t%at are bound to interest a ran)e o/ s$%olars /rom t%e dis$iplines o/ literature and %istory. <ountin) a power/ul de/ense o/ 6pre;post <arxist6 interpretation, Holstun $%allen)es new %istori$ists in literary studies and re-isionists in %istory to $onsider t%e et%i$al norms and politi$al subtexts o/ t%eir work. .t s%ould be re>uired readin) /or t%ose wis%in) to do politi$ally;alert $riti$ism. ?%e book pursues two related t%eses. =irst, t%at t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution was bot% $ause and $onse>uen$e o/ t%e transition /rom /eudalism to $apitalism. +e$ond, t%at t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution may be understood as a $lass stru))le, a 6stru))le amon) -arious )roups t%at were endea-orin) to maintain or trans/orm t%e relations o/ produ$tion6 8@@:. =or t%ose w%o re7e$t t%ese t%eses, or w%o did so years a)o, w%en <arxist a$$ounts o/ t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution went out o/ /a-or, t%e book demonstrates t%at t%e %istory o/ popular $olle$ti-e praxis is a -iable met%od, pre/erable to ot%er explanatory models, spe$i/i$ally new %istori$ism and re-isionism. ?%e book is not simply a t%row;ba$k to a pre;post stru$turalist <arxist %umanism or an unre/le$tin) 5%i) %istory %owe-er. ,at%er, be$ause %e takes seriously postmodernist $riti$al pra$ti$e, Holstun $o-ers a lot o/ t%eoreti$al )round to 7usti/y %is diale$ti$al met%od. ?%is is a book as mu$% written to $lear t%e /orest as to preser-e t%e endan)ered spe$ies %idin) in t%e trees. ?%e book di-ides into two %al-es: Part Ane en)a)es wit% $riti$al >uestions0 and Part ?wo takes up parti$ular examples. ?%e /irst $%apter atta$ks re$ent a$$ounts o/ t%e mid;$entury stru))les by %istorians w%o stress personal relations%ips amon) elites, lo$al traditional loyalties, and $ontin)en$y, rat%er t%an lookin) at w%at intentions dro-e radi$als to a$t. Holstun approa$%es t%e $%ar)e o/ ana$%ronism t%at %as been le-eled a)ainst 5%i) or <arxisant %istori$al interpretations. 6,e-isionist6;;and %ere %e tar)ets *onrad ,ussell, Jo%n <orrill, J. *. (. *lark, 2e-in +%arpe, *onal *ondren, and <ark 2is%lansky;;6ri)orously poli$e $ontemporary %istori$al writin) /or interlopin) modern p%enomena, so$ial models, and s$%emes o/ analysis6 829:. 3s Holstun ar)ues, 6?%is prero)ati-e ri)or re)ardin) terminolo)y and $on$epts aims not to keep t%e empiri$al dis$ussion o/ %istori$al $%an)e /rom startin) o// on t%e wron) /oot, but to t%rottle it in its $rib6 829:. ?%e re-isionists' pur)in) o/ analyti$ terms alon) wit% %istori$al models $on$eals a broad a)enda: an e//ort 6to pur)e intention and ideolo)y /rom %istori$al explanation6 892:. Holstun wants an a$$ount o/ t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution t%at re$laims popular a$tions in t%e /a$e o/ a risin) modernity t%at is bot% pro$ess and produ$t o/ mid;se-enteent% $entury stru))les. =or t%e re-isionist J. *. (. *lark, /or instan$e, 6modernity is not%in) more t%an ele$tri/i$ation plus t%e paris%.6 +o >uips Holstun, as %e %its %ome a lar)er point t%at t%e re-isionist $ase $an do little to explain t%e -ast $%an)es /rom t%at early modern so$iety to our own. +o$ial $%an)e explanations, %e ar)ues, are -ital to t%e on)oin) work o/ explainin) %istory, and to i)nore t%em is to miss w%at is important about studyin) t%e past, at best, and to produ$e a %istory t%at is disin)enous at worst. ?%e se$ond $%apter turns its li)%ts on new %istori$ism in &n)lis% literary studies, explorin) t%e in/luen$e o/ <i$%el =ou$ault. (espite an interest in t%e mar)inal and t%e mar)inaliBed, =ou$ault is 6$onstitutionally opposed to %istory /rom below6 8C9:, emp%asiBin) t%e top;down, oppressi-e power stru$tures. ?%e last $%apter in t%is openin) se$tion o//ers an ex$ellent biblio)rap%i$ essay in <arxist t%ou)%t t%at pursues a 6way a%ead6 892D: /or %istorians and literary $riti$s. Holstun $laims, paradoxi$ally, t%at preser-in) a baseEsuperstru$ture model is a )ood means to preser-e a domain o/ /ree praxis0 superstru$ture is t%e realm /or $reati-e re-olutionary a)en$y. Holstun's $entral aim, e-en i/ some o/ %is lo$al skirmis%es seem /amiliar, is to re-i-e interest in t%e %umanist sub7e$t, $olle$ti-e a$tion, and et%i$al norms. .n t%e se$ond %al/ o/ %is book, Holstun o//ers se-eral 6pro7e$ts in %uman eman$ipation6 8xi: stret$%in) /rom 9"2C to 9""0. *%apter =i-e presents t%e $ase o/ Jo%n =elton, assassin o/ t%e (uke o/ 1u$kin)%am, as a means to examine modes o/ resistan$e to absolutist power o/ t%e +tuart state. 6?yranni$idal pra$ti$e,6 89C9: Holstun ar)ues, is e-ident in =elton's ideolo)i$al moti-ations and in t%e -arious literary atta$ks on t%e (uke. ?%is is a +artrean, existential radi$alism: 6=elton met%odi$ally le/t t%e patrona)e system /or t%e realm o/ /reedom,6 89"F: writes Holstun, meanin) t%e /reedom to die. .t was di//i$ult, but not impossible, to posit a)en$y in an asymmetri$al power stru$ture. Holstun looks /or t%ese kinds o/ a$tors employin) near; impossible a)en$y to understand t%e meanin) o/ ideolo)i$al and material stru))le. =our ensuin) $%apters $onsider radi$al pro7e$ts /ormed in t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution, ea$% a $%allen)e to *romwellian aut%ority. Holstun pro-ides an ex$ellent, i/ at times mi$ros$opi$ presentation o/ t%e %istori$al moments in w%i$% to set %is $lose readin)s o/ texts and e-ents. Ane $ase is t%at o/ t%e 3rmy 3)itators, a )roup o/ army spokesmen w%o $%allen)ed t%e )randees to widen t%e s$ope o/ /reedoms demanded in t%eir re-olutionary pro)rams /or $%an)e. ?%ese men represent 6a bottom;up model o/ martial praxis6 89F":, aut%oriBed by t%e t%reat o/ /or$e and appeals to natural ri)%t. ?%eir )oal was to spread to so$iety at lar)e t%e 3rmy's radi$al trans/ormation /rom a %ierar$%i$al to an asso$iati-e $olle$ti-e. ,at%er t%an a 6possessi-e indi-idualism,6 t%ese radi$als $%ose an ideal o/ /raternity, a $olle$ti-ist )uild et%os, as t%e startin) point o/ t%eir $laims. ?%is /urt%er radi$alism *romwell and t%e )randees $ould not brook. 3not%er su$% $ase is t%at o/ 3nna ?rapnel, a reli)ious radi$al w%o prop%esied a)ainst Ali-er *romwell in t%e 9"C0s. ?rapnel, w%o /asted and w%o turned %er bed $%amber into a publi$ meetin) pla$e, $reated a kind o/ politi$al t%eater to ri-al 5%ite%all as a spa$e /or t%e dis$ussion o/ politi$s. 3/ter ?rapnel's arrest by *romwell and t%e *oun$il, s%e was imprisoned at 1ridewell, w%ere s%e prea$%ed /rom %er $ell to $rowds t%at were so )reat t%at ?rapnel %ersel/, in a si$k and weakened state, asked to %a-e t%em limited. Holstun looks at %er pra$ti$e o/ radi$al prop%e$y wit%in a $ontext o/ a new kind o/ politi$al publi$ sp%ere, re/usin) to pla$e it outside t%e politi$al spe$trum as merely reli)ious or -isionary, but rat%er de/inin) it as a kind o/ rational politi$al spee$%. 3)ainst t%ose /eminist s$%olars w%o would rat%er 7uxtapose a /eminist r%etori$ o/ t%e body or t%e senses to t%e rationalist dis$ourses o/ politi$s and s$ien$e, Holstun ar)ues t%at ?rapnel's $%oi$e to speak in publi$ was indeed an attempt to brin) into existen$e a new $olle$ti-e experien$e, a rational, demo$rati$ and )enuinely popular mode o/ opposition to eart%ly power. =i/t% monar$%ists, as small produ$er radi$als, sou)%t to demo$ratiBe reli)ion and /as%ion an oppositional $olle$ti-e. 3 t%ird $%apter presents t%e -iews o/ t%e republi$an &dward +exby, w%ose $onspira$y $%allen)ed

2
*romwell's di$tators%ip /rom t%e -anta)e point o/ an ideolo)y o/ /raternal republi$anism wit% reli)ious aspe$ts. ?%e /inal $%apter makes )ood on t%e book's early promise to $onsider t%e &n)lis% ,e-olution as a node in t%e trans/ormation /rom /eudalism to $apitalism. 1y lookin) $are/ully at t%e re-olutionary pro)ram o/ t%e (i))ers, and parti$ularly at t%eir $%arismati$ and -isionary leader, t%e plebeian autodida$t 4erard 5instanley, Holstun s%ows %ow %is %opes /or non;$apitalist $olle$ti-e li/e, and %is $lear writin)s proposin) radi$al reworkin) o/ t%e $onditions o/ produ$tion, were made real in a $lut$% o/ a)rarian $ommunist $ommunities, smas%ed by *romwell's poli$e. ?%is /inal $%apter is a brilliant examination o/ an un7usti/iably i)nored so$ial t%inker. 3 passionate, sympat%eti$ a$$ount o/ %ow %un)er dri-es people to radi$al a$tion, t%is $%apter in a nuan$ed way explores %ow t%e $apitalist dri-e /or Gimpro-ement' le/t out many people. ?%e book is lon), li-ely, and /illed wit% 7udi$ious >uotation o/ little;examined materials. +till, t%e >uestion arises: w%o are its readersH (oes Holstun mean to wake up t%e laBy and indi//erentH *on-ert t%e re-isionist or new %istori$istH ,ouse t%e /ait%/ulH Holstun %as a bent /or exa))eration arisin) /rom outra)e, and in t%is %e speaks to t%e /ait%/ul. 3 mis$%ara$teriBation su$% as 6Po$o$k %as said t%at t%e G%istorian o/ dis$ourse' s%ould pay no attention to t%e pra$ti$al, extra;dis$ursi-e results o/ politi$al writin),6 8I2D: is /ollowed up by a >uotation /rom Virtue, *ommer$e, History, w%i$% is in a$tuality two >uotations spli$ed to)et%er /rom text /i/teen pa)es apart. Po$o$k's text re-eals more nuan$e0 t%e openin) o/ Po$o$k's next para)rap% re/le$ts, 6?%e %istorian t%ere/ore expe$ts t%e relation between lan)ua)e and experien$e to be dia$%ronous, ambi-alent, and problemati$6 8J. 4. 3. Po$o$k, Virtue, *ommer$e, History, 2F:: surely t%is $omment s%ould miti)ate Holstun's absolutist readin). Holstun's >uotations are a$$urate, but t%e impression le/t is sli)%tly misleadin), parti$ularly sin$e %e /ails to set Po$o$k's 9F@C words in t%eir appropriate $ontext in debates amon)st politi$al s$ientists about t%e -alidity o/ doin) %istori$al work at all. Holstun is not entirely wron) about Po$o$k, but %e is not >uite /air eit%er0 t%is kind o/ redu$in);o/;s%ades;o/;meanin) may lessen $redibility /or some readers. Holstun does not need t%is polemi$al o-erkill. ./ readers $an look past t%e o$$asional polemi$al extra-a)en$es, t%ey will pro/it mi)%tily /rom t%e ways t%at Holstun takes into -iew t%e material imperati-es t%at )a-e past a$tors meanin), and %i)%li)%ts t%e diale$ti$al relation between so$ial /or$es and indi-idual a$tion. .n-itin) normati-e so$ial t%eory, Holstun's /ramework is a )ood deal broader t%an t%at o/ ot%er re$ent $ultural studies in t%e /ield. =or in many pla$es, t%is is a bra-e, and mu$%;needed, %istory /or today: Holstun $ompares +exby's ri)%ts; based stru))le to today's debates between liberal and <arxist proponents o/ natural ri)%ts a)ainst $onser-ati-e politi$al t%eorists0 t%e (i))ers' a)rarian resistan$e to $apitalist a$$umulation is likened to t%e 3maBonian =orest People's $%allen)e to 1raBilian $apitalist en$roa$%ment. Holstun pra$ti$es a ri$%, diale$ti$al %istori$al met%od in w%i$% t%e past and t%e present are in produ$ti-e dialo)ue. ?%is is a book t%at s%ould en)ender mu$% dis$ussion, and w%en it does, it will %a-e a$$omplis%ed mu$%. +%aron 3$%instein Ax/ord Jni-ersity