Definently a really nice suprise read for what was about to be a bleak sunday.
I covered the Fifth Monarchists in college and yet was never personally inclined or otherwise pushed to take their revolt seriously and it was instead taught as the equivalent as the street preachers at stratford warning commuters about endtimes but quite a bit more violent.
In retrospect I'm sure that was done to make things more digestible but it doesn't make it any less of a disappointing memory after reading this piece.
Of course that's more indicative of how breif things have to be at A-Level which is a shame. They're revolters in their own right not so drastically different than any protestant or catholic uprising.
Odd to think I was ever so dismissive of a religious uprising in a time where religious uprisings are focal to the era. Still I've said and done stupider things and will continue to do so, one of those magical things about being alive.
Thanks August! Really glad you liked it. I'll actually be covering the Fifth Monarchists tomorrow for my Special Subject on Radicalism during the English Revolution. So the topic's been on mind a few days.
Fantastic account. Any thoughts on why Coleman Street (and Swan Alley) was such a notorious site of radicalism throughout the period? Or did it just coast, as it were, on its reputation? It's really striking how long it lasted.
Thank you! It's a great question. As I'm sure you know there's some secondary literature on Coleman Street. The best known is Adrian Johns's article in Huntington Library Quarterly (2008). But there's also some older work - notably a late 60s' DPhil by D.A. Kirby and earlier still an article by D.A. Williams on puritanism in the parish. What that indicates is certainly a heritage of religious dissent - and dissent that is sufficient to get the attention of Thomas Edwards (Coleman Street features in his Gangraena of 1646). Perhaps most famously the parish is home to notable preachers such as John Goodwin (subject of a book by my friend John Coffey). But there are also lesser known figures living there such as Mrs Attaway, a female Baptist preacher mentioned in Gangraena; and also (at least intermittently from 1654 to 1662) the notorious anti-Trinitarian John Biddle. So perhaps with that heritage and reputation other figures are attracted to it and come to live there. I haven't looked at the population size of the parish but expect that Roger Finlay's work on the demography of London together with more recent studies will indicate that it may have been one of the larger parishes.
Ariel, wonderful job, as always. I wonder if you see the Fifth Monarchy aligning with the Old Testament or the New Testament. The focus on Jesus and Revelations suggests an emphasis in the NT, but the adoption of Jewish traditions and the movement advocating and engaging in violence feel more aligned with the wrathful god of the OT. Pardon the oversimplification; I was just thinking that seeking Jesus through violence conveys liminal tones of both the OT and NT.
Thanks so much Hallie; I'm glad you liked it! It's a great question and one that gets to the heart of the matter. For contemporary opponents Venner's rising was an opportunity to associate the Fifth Monarchists with violence (although not all advocated this course of action), and in particular to link them with their supposed forerunners the Anabaptists of Münster (1534-35). So yes, you can see a preoccupation with the Old Testament in their writings - and not just Daniel. But at the same time, as you note, they read the Hebrew Bible through a particular lens - especially the idea that Jesus was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies. This also meant that all prophecies interpreted as related to his first coming could be made applicable to his second coming as well.
Was there a particular tenor in the Fifth Monarchists' writings toward violence, as opposed to the opposition, which contextualized Venner's rising afterward? Your answer, "not all advocated this course of action," suggests that there were factions that were either silent on violence or rejected violence.
The anabaptists are so fascinating! I reached that point in Eire's Reformations: the early modern world, 1450-1650 just recently.
It's a great question Hallie. The most important older study on Anabaptist attitudes towards violence (to my mind) is James Stayer's 'Anabaptists and the Sword' (1972). Essentially there were a range of positions which meant that during the 16th century a variety of Anabaptist leaders developed different positions regarding capital punishment, holy war, military service and non-resistance. So on the one hand there were people like Balthasar Hubmaier who echoed a view commonplace among Protestant reformers: namely that wielding the sword was necessary to preserve order in a sinful post-lapsarian world. But on the other, as indicated in the Schleitheim Articles (1527), there were those who rejected capital punishment. Then there were people like Hans Hut who argued that Anabaptists should keep their swords sheathed until the right time - i.e. the impending Day of Judgment. Others still argued that they needed to take up arms immediately so as to prepare for battle against the entire ‘Babylonian power’ and ‘godless establishment’. Then were the Swiss Brethren, who refused military service, and the Hutterites who preached love for their enemies.
I've argued elsewhere that one strand of these attitudes forms an important backdrop for understanding the attitude of Digger leader Gerrard Winstanley towards violence (the Diggers advocated turning the other cheek). And I think, if we look closely, that there was probably similar variation in Fifth Monarchist attitudes towards violence - with Venner and company situated at one extreme. It's certainly something that could do with more research!
Ariel- I can only imagine what this was like, when: "there were also the widows and orphans of slain combatants who had to beg to survive. So too did the wounded. Bad weather did not help. There was famine as harvests failed, animals died and humans succumbed to plague. To paraphrase a couple of contemporary pamphleteers, the old world had been turned upside down and was burning up like parchment in the fire." It always seems like great paradigm shifts have a rippling wave that raises many questions on how things should be run, and why things that have always been--might not be the way forward anymore? A great thought-piece, Ariel.
Thanks so much for your kind words Thalia, it's greatly appreciated. I think you're right and the 'rippling wave' from 'great paradigm shifts' is nicely put. By way of comparison, there's a similar 'rippling wave' following the French Revolution; there was even talk of Napoleon as a messianic figure while in England there was Richard Brothers (1757-1824) and several like-minded people.
Wonderful Post! So insightful and interesting, thank you so much Ariel!
Thanks so much! Glad you liked it.
Definently a really nice suprise read for what was about to be a bleak sunday.
I covered the Fifth Monarchists in college and yet was never personally inclined or otherwise pushed to take their revolt seriously and it was instead taught as the equivalent as the street preachers at stratford warning commuters about endtimes but quite a bit more violent.
In retrospect I'm sure that was done to make things more digestible but it doesn't make it any less of a disappointing memory after reading this piece.
Of course that's more indicative of how breif things have to be at A-Level which is a shame. They're revolters in their own right not so drastically different than any protestant or catholic uprising.
Odd to think I was ever so dismissive of a religious uprising in a time where religious uprisings are focal to the era. Still I've said and done stupider things and will continue to do so, one of those magical things about being alive.
Thanks for the good read Ariel!
Thanks August! Really glad you liked it. I'll actually be covering the Fifth Monarchists tomorrow for my Special Subject on Radicalism during the English Revolution. So the topic's been on mind a few days.
Fantastic account. Any thoughts on why Coleman Street (and Swan Alley) was such a notorious site of radicalism throughout the period? Or did it just coast, as it were, on its reputation? It's really striking how long it lasted.
Thank you! It's a great question. As I'm sure you know there's some secondary literature on Coleman Street. The best known is Adrian Johns's article in Huntington Library Quarterly (2008). But there's also some older work - notably a late 60s' DPhil by D.A. Kirby and earlier still an article by D.A. Williams on puritanism in the parish. What that indicates is certainly a heritage of religious dissent - and dissent that is sufficient to get the attention of Thomas Edwards (Coleman Street features in his Gangraena of 1646). Perhaps most famously the parish is home to notable preachers such as John Goodwin (subject of a book by my friend John Coffey). But there are also lesser known figures living there such as Mrs Attaway, a female Baptist preacher mentioned in Gangraena; and also (at least intermittently from 1654 to 1662) the notorious anti-Trinitarian John Biddle. So perhaps with that heritage and reputation other figures are attracted to it and come to live there. I haven't looked at the population size of the parish but expect that Roger Finlay's work on the demography of London together with more recent studies will indicate that it may have been one of the larger parishes.
Ariel, wonderful job, as always. I wonder if you see the Fifth Monarchy aligning with the Old Testament or the New Testament. The focus on Jesus and Revelations suggests an emphasis in the NT, but the adoption of Jewish traditions and the movement advocating and engaging in violence feel more aligned with the wrathful god of the OT. Pardon the oversimplification; I was just thinking that seeking Jesus through violence conveys liminal tones of both the OT and NT.
Thanks so much Hallie; I'm glad you liked it! It's a great question and one that gets to the heart of the matter. For contemporary opponents Venner's rising was an opportunity to associate the Fifth Monarchists with violence (although not all advocated this course of action), and in particular to link them with their supposed forerunners the Anabaptists of Münster (1534-35). So yes, you can see a preoccupation with the Old Testament in their writings - and not just Daniel. But at the same time, as you note, they read the Hebrew Bible through a particular lens - especially the idea that Jesus was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies. This also meant that all prophecies interpreted as related to his first coming could be made applicable to his second coming as well.
Was there a particular tenor in the Fifth Monarchists' writings toward violence, as opposed to the opposition, which contextualized Venner's rising afterward? Your answer, "not all advocated this course of action," suggests that there were factions that were either silent on violence or rejected violence.
The anabaptists are so fascinating! I reached that point in Eire's Reformations: the early modern world, 1450-1650 just recently.
It's a great question Hallie. The most important older study on Anabaptist attitudes towards violence (to my mind) is James Stayer's 'Anabaptists and the Sword' (1972). Essentially there were a range of positions which meant that during the 16th century a variety of Anabaptist leaders developed different positions regarding capital punishment, holy war, military service and non-resistance. So on the one hand there were people like Balthasar Hubmaier who echoed a view commonplace among Protestant reformers: namely that wielding the sword was necessary to preserve order in a sinful post-lapsarian world. But on the other, as indicated in the Schleitheim Articles (1527), there were those who rejected capital punishment. Then there were people like Hans Hut who argued that Anabaptists should keep their swords sheathed until the right time - i.e. the impending Day of Judgment. Others still argued that they needed to take up arms immediately so as to prepare for battle against the entire ‘Babylonian power’ and ‘godless establishment’. Then were the Swiss Brethren, who refused military service, and the Hutterites who preached love for their enemies.
I've argued elsewhere that one strand of these attitudes forms an important backdrop for understanding the attitude of Digger leader Gerrard Winstanley towards violence (the Diggers advocated turning the other cheek). And I think, if we look closely, that there was probably similar variation in Fifth Monarchist attitudes towards violence - with Venner and company situated at one extreme. It's certainly something that could do with more research!
Ariel- I can only imagine what this was like, when: "there were also the widows and orphans of slain combatants who had to beg to survive. So too did the wounded. Bad weather did not help. There was famine as harvests failed, animals died and humans succumbed to plague. To paraphrase a couple of contemporary pamphleteers, the old world had been turned upside down and was burning up like parchment in the fire." It always seems like great paradigm shifts have a rippling wave that raises many questions on how things should be run, and why things that have always been--might not be the way forward anymore? A great thought-piece, Ariel.
Thanks so much for your kind words Thalia, it's greatly appreciated. I think you're right and the 'rippling wave' from 'great paradigm shifts' is nicely put. By way of comparison, there's a similar 'rippling wave' following the French Revolution; there was even talk of Napoleon as a messianic figure while in England there was Richard Brothers (1757-1824) and several like-minded people.