This is fascinating! The more I learn about radicalism of this period, the less convinced I am that it was ever a coherent thing. Seems to be more a biproduct of religious and political instability than it was a cause? I often wonder if historians in the future will look back at our social media posts in the same way we look at the printed works of seventeenth-century radicals, and how accurate their interpretation of the 21st century may or may not be because of it.
Thanks Leah; glad you found it interesting. Couple of great points / questions.
(1) It could be, and indeed has been argued that radicalism was a significant cause of the English Revolution (Civil Wars); and that the main source of that radicalism was either (a) religious, i.e. puritanism; or (b) class; i.e. a rising 'bourgeoisie' challenging the aristocrats. That has been downplayed on both counts by the so-called 'revisionists' who explain the causes as a sort of blow-by-blow account of events; i.e. short-term thinking, chance, miscalculation, etc. On the other hand, with the disintegration of pre-publication censorship, the collapse of monarchical authority in London, factional fighting within Parliament, etc. there was certainly a space and indeed an opportunity for 'radical' ideas to emerge - particularly when publicity (through print, preaching, scribal manuscript circulation, etc.) was used to mobilise opinion and pull together what we might think of as coalitions or constituencies in support of particular policies. Most famously the Levellers. So I agree that radicalism certainly becomes more visible; but it did have roots. This hidden backstory has sometimes been called a 'puritan underground', the term likely ultimately borrowed from Dostoevsky's 'Notes from the Underground'. In my view, this 'underground' or whatever term you might want to use helps explain why the radicalism that we're talking about became visible so quickly in the 1640s and 1650s. And that is because it built upon pre-existing ideas and social networks. Something to think about, for example in the case of Giles Calvert and his sister Martha (you know that their father was prosecuted in the church courts).
(2) Yes, quite possibly. One of the things about much of the print literature of the 1640s and 1650s was that it was ephemeral; it wasn't intended to last and we're very fortunate that George Thomason collected so much of it. Obviously, the media that we use today is even more susceptible to erasure. Just think of the chances of this little exchange surviving in 100 years time; or indeed anything else on Substack.
It's pitiable all our most esteemed madmen espouse natural servitude and cannot imagine any link between body and soul more sanctified than blockchain cryptography.
Well done, Ariel! This is a very nice biographical note on Tany, and a very helpful one, too. This said, your monograph on this remarkable figure is irreplaceable, and is definitely worth reading in its entirety.
I can see why you were compelled to write about him for your thesis, Ariel. Who's to say where the line between madness and sanity lies? Without one, we have no way to define the other. What you see depends on where you stand.
Yes, I agree Cynthia - indeed I made a similar point in a lecture recently. And the same can be said for the relationship between 'heresy' and 'orthodoxy', not to mention many other concepts.
The history of religion is a fascinating topic, especially religious schisms. For me, a modern and non-religious person, there is another side to this: how could those prophets keep their exceeding exaltation and logic by years? In the same 17c, almost in the same years, the Russian Church had considerable dissent with the schismatic Father Avvakum and his followers.
Thanks for this Larisa; it's an interesting question. These people had very strong beliefs; sometimes they adapted their beliefs as a consequence of things not happening in a way they had been anticipating; at other times they merely re-interpreted events so as to conform to their world view. The challenge was what to do when 'prophecy fails'.
And yes, the schism within the Russian church during this period is also very interesting - although unfortunately we don't have nearly so many sources for 17th century Russian history as we do for many European states.
Thank you for your reply. The topic of religious schisms is really so interesting that I went to my literary encyclopedia and found out that Avvacum's followers were burned by order of the official church. In every country at any time, there were dissidents. But they seemed to be mad.
Nicely done. A good introduction to this man’s life. I am very miuch looking forward to reading your book based on your doctoral dissertation (which I procured)👌 Cheers, Doron
Hello Ariel, I am confident I shall, considering all the discussions on style and composition you and I are bound to have :-) More seriously, I am, indeed very much looking forward to reading it.
This is fascinating! The more I learn about radicalism of this period, the less convinced I am that it was ever a coherent thing. Seems to be more a biproduct of religious and political instability than it was a cause? I often wonder if historians in the future will look back at our social media posts in the same way we look at the printed works of seventeenth-century radicals, and how accurate their interpretation of the 21st century may or may not be because of it.
Thanks Leah; glad you found it interesting. Couple of great points / questions.
(1) It could be, and indeed has been argued that radicalism was a significant cause of the English Revolution (Civil Wars); and that the main source of that radicalism was either (a) religious, i.e. puritanism; or (b) class; i.e. a rising 'bourgeoisie' challenging the aristocrats. That has been downplayed on both counts by the so-called 'revisionists' who explain the causes as a sort of blow-by-blow account of events; i.e. short-term thinking, chance, miscalculation, etc. On the other hand, with the disintegration of pre-publication censorship, the collapse of monarchical authority in London, factional fighting within Parliament, etc. there was certainly a space and indeed an opportunity for 'radical' ideas to emerge - particularly when publicity (through print, preaching, scribal manuscript circulation, etc.) was used to mobilise opinion and pull together what we might think of as coalitions or constituencies in support of particular policies. Most famously the Levellers. So I agree that radicalism certainly becomes more visible; but it did have roots. This hidden backstory has sometimes been called a 'puritan underground', the term likely ultimately borrowed from Dostoevsky's 'Notes from the Underground'. In my view, this 'underground' or whatever term you might want to use helps explain why the radicalism that we're talking about became visible so quickly in the 1640s and 1650s. And that is because it built upon pre-existing ideas and social networks. Something to think about, for example in the case of Giles Calvert and his sister Martha (you know that their father was prosecuted in the church courts).
(2) Yes, quite possibly. One of the things about much of the print literature of the 1640s and 1650s was that it was ephemeral; it wasn't intended to last and we're very fortunate that George Thomason collected so much of it. Obviously, the media that we use today is even more susceptible to erasure. Just think of the chances of this little exchange surviving in 100 years time; or indeed anything else on Substack.
This is excellent. Thanks so much! 🙂😁
Thanks so much Ben. I'm glad you liked it!
It's pitiable all our most esteemed madmen espouse natural servitude and cannot imagine any link between body and soul more sanctified than blockchain cryptography.
I think I've got the gist of your allusions!
Well done, Ariel! This is a very nice biographical note on Tany, and a very helpful one, too. This said, your monograph on this remarkable figure is irreplaceable, and is definitely worth reading in its entirety.
Thanks so much for your kind words Diego! And indeed for mentioning my book which, I suppose, gives me an excuse to link to it!
https://www.routledge.com/Gold-Tried-in-the-Fire-The-Prophet-TheaurauJohn-Tany-and-the-English/Hessayon/p/book/9780754655978
I can see why you were compelled to write about him for your thesis, Ariel. Who's to say where the line between madness and sanity lies? Without one, we have no way to define the other. What you see depends on where you stand.
Yes, I agree Cynthia - indeed I made a similar point in a lecture recently. And the same can be said for the relationship between 'heresy' and 'orthodoxy', not to mention many other concepts.
So true!
The history of religion is a fascinating topic, especially religious schisms. For me, a modern and non-religious person, there is another side to this: how could those prophets keep their exceeding exaltation and logic by years? In the same 17c, almost in the same years, the Russian Church had considerable dissent with the schismatic Father Avvakum and his followers.
Thanks for this Larisa; it's an interesting question. These people had very strong beliefs; sometimes they adapted their beliefs as a consequence of things not happening in a way they had been anticipating; at other times they merely re-interpreted events so as to conform to their world view. The challenge was what to do when 'prophecy fails'.
And yes, the schism within the Russian church during this period is also very interesting - although unfortunately we don't have nearly so many sources for 17th century Russian history as we do for many European states.
Thank you for your reply. The topic of religious schisms is really so interesting that I went to my literary encyclopedia and found out that Avvacum's followers were burned by order of the official church. In every country at any time, there were dissidents. But they seemed to be mad.
Nicely done. A good introduction to this man’s life. I am very miuch looking forward to reading your book based on your doctoral dissertation (which I procured)👌 Cheers, Doron
Thanks Doron! Hope you enjoy the book...
Hello Ariel, I am confident I shall, considering all the discussions on style and composition you and I are bound to have :-) More seriously, I am, indeed very much looking forward to reading it.