No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Winstanley's “Righteous Actors”: Performance, Affect, and Extraordinary Politics in the Seventeenth Century
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 August 2021
Extract
On the first day of April 1649, on the predominantly rural manor of Walton, Surrey, the sight of people preparing land for the plow was unremarkable. To see men up at dawn, dressed for the field in broad-brimmed hats, homespun waistcoats, and short breeches, loosening or breaking up clods with their spades, stooping to toss aside root and rock, was typical. What did raise eyebrows, however, was the sight of such busyness on a Sunday, the Sabbath, and on no less remarkable ground than George Hill, with its “very barren,” sandy soil. When questioned, Gerrard Winstanley reframed this performative break with religious, social, and agricultural norms as he did in his soon to be published manifesto, The True Levellers’ Standard Advanced. To work this land was to “declare . . . by action,” as well as by word, that Winstanley, the self-described “prophet” William Everard, and a small number of others had been sent by the Creator to begin their mission of transforming “the Earth [into] a common Treasury for all, both Rich and Poor.” Rural, religious, and resource poor, the Digger collective has not received substantial attention from performance studies scholars. Even some historians of the seventeenth century have questioned the significance of this small, nonviolent agrarian group in the intensely “charged political atmosphere of the 1640s,” but as a collective whose theatrical social performances raised them from obscurity to national visibility, Diggers are in some ways the epitome of this era.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors, 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society for Theatre Research, Inc.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: CWGW, Complete Works of Gerrard Winstanley; TT, Thomason Tracts.
All Winstanley quotations are taken from the Thomason Tracts housed in the British Library. I provide shelf numbers but have adopted, for accessibility, the closer-to-standardized spelling and pagination of The Complete Works of Gerrard Winstanley, hereafter CWGW, ed. Thomas N. Corns, Ann Hughes, and David Loewenstein (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). The “righteous actors” in this essay's title is taken from Winstanley's The Law of Freedom in a Platform; or, True Magistracy Restored, CWGW 2: 290, 278; TT E.655[8].
References
Endnotes
1 Winstanley published a number of earlier tracts, but True Levellers was notably different in its urgent tone. Everard [and Winstanley], The True Levellers Standard Advanced; or, The State of Community Opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men, CWGW 2: 15, 10; TT E.552[5], 17, 12.
2 John Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (Harrow, Essex, UK: Longman Group Ltd., 1993), 362. Like the English civil wars, Diggers have generated vigorous debates since Christopher Hill's resurrection of Winstanley as an important precursor to Marxian thought in works like The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution (New York: Viking Press, 1972). For a brief reflection on the importance of the Diggers, see Loewenstein, David, “Afterword: Why Winstanley Still Matters,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 90–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 As John Gurney notes, Winstanley avoided naming his influences, so tracing them has been largely a matter of conjecture, Brave Community: The Digger Movement in the English Revolution (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 96.
4 Thomas N. Corns, “Radical Pamphleteering,” Cambridge Companion to the Writing of the English Revolution, ed. N. H. Keeble (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 71–86, at 75. On the connection between pamphlets and the critical function of theatre, see Susan Wiseman, Drama and Politics in the English Civil War (1998; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
5 Phil Withington, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 120.
6 The present overview of the years leading up to the civil wars is indebted to Withington's argument in The Politics of Commonwealth in the context of Anne Hughes's admirably clear overview of a complex historical debate, The Causes of the English Civil War, 2d ed. (Houndmills, Hampshire, UK: Macmillan, 1998).
7 Christian DuComb, Haunted City: Three Centuries of Racial Impersonation in Philadelphia (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2017), 13.
8 See the “Etymology” for “religion, n.,” OED Online, March 2021, Oxford University Press, www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/161944, accessed 17 April 2021.
9 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 13, 6; TT E.552[5], 16, 8.
10 Like performance studies, affect theory has always been interdisciplinary, drawing on research from neurobiology to religious studies. As such, there is no single interpretive framework but rather an agreement that affects are embodied states of emotion or feeling that move us with or without conscious cognitive processing. Theorists debate the extent to which affect is separate from cognition, and this study follows Ruth Leys, Eve Kosofsky-Sedgwick, and others in resisting the body–mind dichotomy some, like Silvan S. Tomkins, use to argue that affect engages neither cognition nor ideology. For an overview of the debate, see Ruth Leys, The Ascent of Affect: Genealogy and Critique (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
11 Donovan O. Schaefer, Religious Affects: Animality, Evolution, and Power (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015), 179, 59. Ahmed, Sara, “Collective Feelings; or, The Impressions Left by Others,” Theory, Culture & Society 21.2 (2004): 25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Randall Collins argues that religious movements, which are “so obviously and centrally emotional,” are especially illuminating for thinking about the formation of collectives, in “Social Movements and the Focus of Emotional Attention,” in Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements, ed. Jeff Goodwin, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 27–44, at 34.
12 Andreas Kalyvas, Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary: Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 7.
13 Most recently, see Erica Chenoweth and Jeremy Pressman's study debunking the erroneous framing of Black Lives Matter protests as violent riots, “Black Lives Matters Protestors Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds,” Harvard Radcliffe Institute for the Washington Post, 20 October 2020, www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds, accessed 14 April 2021. Landmark works that seek to delegitimize mass political movements include Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols. (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1945) and Karl Loewenstein's Max Weber's Political Ideas in the Perspective of Our Time (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1966).
14 Thomas Fairfax, Baron, The Speeches of the Lord General Fairfax . . . to the Diggers (London, 1649), TT E.530[24], 40.
15 Some, like Winstanley, ultimately found their way to a millenarian sect with a kindred immanentist theology but more traditional economic profile. See Vann, Richard T., “Diggers and Quakers, a Further Note,” Journal of the Friends Historical Society 50.1 (1962): 65–8Google Scholar.
16 Gurney, Brave Community, 138.
17 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 11; TT E.552[5], 13.
18 Ibid., CWGW 2: 14; TT E.552[5], 18. Gurney, Brave Community; James Holstun, Ehud's Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution (London: Verso, 2002), 376; and Hughes, Ann, “Gerrard Winstanley, News Culture, and Law Reform in the Early 1650s,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 67.
19 Ariel Hessayon, “Winstanley and Baptist Thought,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 15–31, at 24–5.
20 Winstanley, A Watch-word to the City of London, CWGW 2: 82; TT E.573[1], sig. A2r.
21 Collins, 28.
22 More about this in the upcoming section. Winstanley, The Saints Paradise, CWGW 1: 128, 356; TT E.2137[1], 86, 90.
23 Diana Taylor, The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003). Richard Schechner, Performance Theory (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), quote at 157.
24 A good start for such reconstructive work would include Gervase Markham, The English Husbandman: The first part: contayning the knowledge of the true nature of euery soyle within this kingdome: how to plow it; and the manner of the plough, and other instruments belonging thereto (London: T.S., 1613); Thomas Tusser, Five hundred points of good husbandry As well for the champion or open countrey, as also for the vvoodland or seuerall, mixed in euery month with huswifery, ouer and besides the booke of huswifery (London: T. Purfoot, 1630); and any agricultural history by Joan Thirsk, including England's Agricultural Regions and Agrarian History, 1500–1750 (London: Macmillan, 1987).
25 Mercurius Republicus (22–9 May 1649), 5; TT E.556[29].
26 Winstanley, A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England, CWGW 2: 35; TT E.557[9], sig. A3r.
27 Féral, Josette and Bermingham, Ronald P., “Theatricality: The Specificity of Theatrical Language,” SubStance 31.2–3, iss. 98–99 (2002): 94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 98, 101.
28 Schechner, 177. At least one form of early modern analogy, macrocosm and microcosm, is taught in many American public schools, but numerous others structure early modern thought.
29 Both Féral's and my thinking about this effect of performance take a page from Winnicott's theory of “potential space,” D. W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London: Routledge,1971), 47–52.
30 Schechner, 318.
31 T. G. Bishop, Shakespeare and the Theatre of Wonder (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 43.
32 Henry Sanders, letter of 16 April 1649 to Thomas Lord Fairfax, in The Clarke Papers, 4 vols., ed. C. H. Firth (London: Camden Society, 1891–1901), vol. 2 (1894), 210–11, at 211, https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/firth-the-clarke-papers-selections-from-the-papers-of-william-clarke-vol-2, accessed 27 May 2021.
33 For example, continual support for Winstanley's Diggers came out of Iver, Buckinghamshire, which was later the site of a Digger colony, Gurney, Brave Community, 110.
34 Collins, 30.
35 The language of “sorts” is the way early modern people described what we would call “class.” For the characteristics that distinguished the “meaner” or “poorer sort” from the “middling sort,” and these from the “better sort,” see Keith Wrightson, “Sorts of People in Tudor and Stuart England,” in The Middling Sort of People: Culture, Society and Politics in England, 1550–1800, ed. Jonathan Barry and Christopher Brooks (Basingstoke, UK: St. Martins Press, 1994), 28–51.
36 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 10; TT E.552[5], 12.
37 Ibid., CWGW 2: 10–11; TT E.552[5], 13, 16.
38 See Hugh MacLachlan's entry for Saint George in The Spenser Encyclopedia, ed. A. C. Hamilton (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 329–30. For Saint George as “rustic” boy, see Edmund Spenser, “Letter to Raleigh,” The Faerie Queene, edit. A. C. Hamilton, Hiroshi Yamashita, and Toshiyuki Suzuki (London: Pearson Education, 2001), 713–18, at 716–17.
39 Fairfax, TT E.530[24], 40.
40 Gurney, Brave Community, 140.
41 Winstanley, Law of Freedom, CWGW 2: 310; TT E.65[8], 30.
42 George M. Shulman, Radicalism and Reverence: The Political Thought of Gerrard Winstanley (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 45–7. “Job 14:7–9,” 1599 Geneva Bible (Dallas, GA: Tolle Lege Press, 2006), www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+14.7-9&version=GNV, accessed 17 April 2021.
43 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 13; TT E.552[5], 16.
44 The Life and Death of Iacke Straw, a notable rebell in England who was killed in Smithfield, by the Lord Mayor of London (London: William Jaggard, 1604), STC, 2d ed. [23357], 1–21, at 3.
45 Annabel Patterson, “The Very Name of the Game: Theories of Order and Disorder,” Literature and the English Civil War, ed. Thomas Healy and Jonathan Sawday (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 21–37, at 21–9, quotes at 28.
46 David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 375.
47 See Hindle, Steve, “Imagining Insurrection in Seventeenth-Century England: Representations of the Midland Rising of 1607,” History Workshop Journal 66 (2008): 21–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 21.
48 Thomas More, Utopia, ed. George M. Logan and Robert M. Adams, rev. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 2.42.
49 Daniel Ogdon, “Utopias in the Fallen World: Sir Thomas More, the Anabaptists and Gerrard Winstanley,” in Aspects of the European Reformation: Papers from Culture and Society in Reformation Europe, 10 (26–7 November 1999) (Växjö, Sweden: Växjö University Press), 64–73.
50 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW, 2: 3; TT E.552[5], title page. Bradstock, Andrew, “Theological Aspects of Winstanley's Writings,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 10; TT E.552[5], 12.
52 Winstanley, Watch-word, CWGW 2: 80; TT E.573[1], sig. A2.
53 Smith, Nigel, “Gerrard Winstanley and the Literature of Revolution,” Prose Studies 22.2 (1999): 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rowland, Christopher, “Gerrard Winstanley: Man for all Seasons,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 81; Corns, Thomas N., “‘I Have Writ, I Have Acted, I Have Peace’: The Personal and the Political in the Writing of Winstanley and Some Contemporaries,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 46. Gurney, Brave Community, 127, argues Winstanley's idea of acting “materially” is adapted from the traditional discourse of popular protest.
54 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 17; TT E.552[5], 20.
55 Ibid., CWGW 2: 9; TT, 11.
56 Ibid., CWGW 2: 16; TT, 18.
57 Winstanley, Watch-word, CWGW 2.97; TT E.573[1], 14.
58 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2.14, 19; TT E.552[5],17, 22. Compare Robert Applebaum, who discusses action and word before collapsing both into rhetoric that privileges “language” above all else, “‘O power . . .’: Gerrard Winstanley and the Limits of Communist Poetics,” Prose Studies 22.1 (1999): 39–58, at 46–7.
59 Taylor, Archive and Repertoire, 36, 21.
60 Winstanley, verses 1 and 3 of “The Diggers’ Song,” n.d., Clarke Papers, 2: 221–4, https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/firth-the-clarke-papers-selections-from-the-papers-of-william-clarke-vol-2, accessed 27 May 2021.
61 For the salubrious mental and physical effects of singing field songs see William H. McNeill, Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
62 Christopher Kendrick, “Preaching Common Grounds: Winstanley and the Diggers as Concrete Utopians,” Writing and the English Renaissance, ed. William Zunder and Suzanne Trill (New York: Longman Group, 1996), 213–37, at 223.
63 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 4; TT E.552[5], 6.
64 Winstanley, Law of Freedom, CWGW 2: 342–3; TT E.655[8], 58.
65 Schechner, 156–7.
66 Ahmed, 26–7.
67 Jeff Goodwin, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta, “Introduction: Why Emotions Matter,” in Passionate Politics, ed. Goodwin et al., 1–24, at 1–3; Collins, 29–30, quote at 30. Clare Wright also touches on the unifying emotional work of synchronized movement in her discussion of “kinesthetic empathy” in medieval drama, although what she describes, after Dee Reynolds, as affect's “‘pre-cognitive’” status, I attribute to unconscious impulses; Clare Wright, “Empathy with the Devil: Movement, Kinesthesia, an Affect in The Castle of Perseverance,” Theatre Survey 60.2 (2019): 179–206, at 196, 201.
68 Kalyvas, quoting Weber at 61.
69 Taylor, 167.
70 Winstanley, New-Yeers Gift, CWGW 2: 146–7; TT E.46.
71 Schaefer, 72.
72 Winstanley, New-Yeers Gift, CWGW 2: 146–7; TT E.46. On the pathologizing of “collective joy” see Barbara Ehrenreich's Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), 13–15.
73 Fairfax, TT E.530[24], 40.
74 Hessayon, 19.
75 Hughes, “Gerrard Winstanley, News Culture,” 63.
76 Mercurius Pragmaticus (for King Charles II), 17–24 April 1649. Most believe this issue, and several others, were misattributed to poet-satirist John Cleveland but written by the opportunistic Nedham, who furnished propaganda for both sides, royalists and antiroyalists, around the wars.
77 The rumor about tumultuous meetings is in a letter by John Bradshaw, president of the Council of State (1602–59), to the J.P.'s of Surrey's Middle Division, The National Archives, London, SP25/94 (Council of State: Books and Accounts, Letter Books), 94. Marchamont Nedham is probably responsible for the news report associating Diggers with “fanaticall insurrection,” in Mercurius Pragmaticus (for King Charles II), 17–24 April 1649.
78 Winstanley, New-Yeers Gift, CWGW 2: 146–7; TT E.587[6], 44–5.
79 Ibid., CWGW 2: 146; TT E.587[6], 44.
80 Sanders, letter of 16 April 1649 to Fairfax, in Clarke Papers, 2: 210 (see n. 33).
81 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2: 10; TT E.552[5], 12.
82 Sanders, letter of 16 April 1649 to Fairfax, in Clarke Papers, 2: 210 (see n. 33).
83 Withington, 152, 210.
84 Winstanley, Bloudie and Unchristian, CWGW 2: 59–60; TT E.561[6], 1–2. John Taylor was a carpenter from a local family of successful builders, and William Star came from a long line of local yeomen. Both men grazed sheep on the commons, a point Gurney offers as a motive for their outrage over the Digger occupation of George Hill. To my mind, the large size of the manor's commons, combined with the relatively poor quality of soil and scrub atop George Hill, casts doubt on this motive. An old grudge between Star's father and one of the Digger's fathers seems more likely but still does not explain, for me, the intensity of the attack; Gurney, Brave Community, 156–7.
85 Winstanley, Bloudie and Unchristian, CWGW 2: 60; TT E.561[6], 1–2.
86 Ahmed, 33, 39.
87 Winstanley, Bloudie and Unchristian, CWGW 2: 61; TT E.561[6], 4.
88 Applebaum, 47–9. Gurney, Brave Community, 155–6.
89 For more on cottagers, the wage laborers who had rights to the commons for renting a small cottage with garden from men like Star and Taylor, see Christopher Dyer, Everyday Life in Medieval England (1994; London: Hambledon & London, 2000), 244.
90 C. Kendrick, 222. While Winstanley's New Law of Righteousness does briefly warn against contributing to one's own oppression by selling rather than using one's labor to make the earth a common treasury, this is different in tenor if not content than calling for a strike to soften an employer to employee demands.
91 Those arguing that the Diggers’ flouting of manorial custom raised traditionalist ire include Gurney in “Gerrard Winstanley and the Context of Place,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 1–14, Brian Manning in “The Peasantry and the English Revolution,” Journal of Peasant Studies 2.2 (1975): 133–58, and Morrill, 385. Winstanley, Bloudie and Unchristian, CWGW 2. 60; TT E.561[6], 2.
92 Winstanley, Law of Freedom, CWGW 2: 283, TT, E.65[8], 7; True Levellers, CWGW 2: 7; TT E.552[5], 9.
93 Winstanley, Bloudie and Unchristian, CWGW 2: 61; TT E.561[6], 3–4.
94 For more on custom, see Wood, Andy, “The Place of Custom in Plebeian Political Culture: England, 1550–1800,” Social History 22.1 (1997): 46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 Winstanley, Bloudie and Unchristian, CWGW 2: 61; TT E.561[6], 4.
96 This is Wrightson's now-classic characterization of the middling sort, 48–9.
97 As Christopher Hill notes, “freedom,” from libertas, “conveys the idea of a right to exclude others from your property, your franchise” in The Century of Revolution, 1603–1714 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1961), 44.
98 Morrill, 385.
99 Gurney, Brave Community, viii–ix, 8.
100 Winstanley, Bloudie and Unchristian, CWGW 2: 60; TT E.561[6], 2.
101 See Hill's World Turned Upside Down for conservative appropriation of that trope as a pejorative during the civil wars; Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 539. David Cressy, for example links cross-dressing to “festive inversion” in enclosure riots, where it was a gesture of contempt, in Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England: Tales of Discord and Dissension (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 109. Christopher Kendrick is unusual in noting that the crowd of cross-dressed men “strikes an odd note.” However, his reading of “symbolic strategies inherent in the action” largely reiterates the argument that the anti-Digger attack is rough music, in “Preaching Common Grounds,” 218.
102 David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603–1660 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 99.
103 Mercurius Republicus, 22–9 May (1649), 5; TT E.556[29].
104 Winstanley, True Levellers, CWGW 2.4; TT E.552[5], 6. The Saints Paradise, CWGW 1.128; TT E 2137[1], sig. A2v.
105 The multitude of eyewitness accounts of attacks on Quakers only a decade later supports this reading, for like the Diggers, early Quaker practices significantly challenged the period's gender norms.
106 Sarah Apetrei's discernment of a veiled critique of patriarchy in Winstanley's doctrine is persuasive. See “‘The Evill Masculine Powers’: Gender in the Thought of Gerrard Winstanley,” Prose Studies 36.1 (2014): 52–62, at 54, 55.
107 “Skimmington” is one of several regional names for rough music.
108 Barry Coward, The Stuart Age: England, 1603–1714, 4th ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), 208.
109 Alexandra Shepard, Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
110 Diane Purkiss, “Material Girls: The Seventeenth-Century Woman Debate,” in Women, Texts and Histories, 1575–1760, ed. Clare Brant and Diane Purkiss (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), 69–101, at 76, 82.
111 Cf. C. Kendrick's suggestion that the freeholders’ presence in the midst of lower-born cross-dressers sends a message that “the people have no will of their own,” in “Preaching Common Grounds,” 219. Research suggests that an entire crowd of husbandmen in this region are unlikely to have obeyed an order to don women's clothing if it did not already suit their purposes.
112 Extending Ahmed, both dressing and beating create felt alignments against detested others, 33.
113 Barbara D. Palmer ventriloquizes then debunks this outmoded view of premodern audiences in “Early Modern Mobility: Players, Payments, and Patrons,” Shakespeare Quarterly 56.3 (2005): 259–305, at 295.
114 Charles Whitney's argument for what a nondramatic archive can tell us about audience reception reveals much about the capacities of early modern audiences of social performance, in Early Responses to Renaissance Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 2–5.
115 Winstanley, Declaration, CWGW 2: 31; TT E.557[9], sig. A2v.
116 Winstanley, New-Yeers Gift, CWGW 2: 122–3; TT E.587[6], 17.
117 Evidence that supports this possibility can be found in the subsequent success, despite their own trials, of the 1650s Friends (Quakers), whose doctrine shared many points of contact with Winstanley's.
118 Schaefer notes that ritual “becomes a strategy for rewiring affective configurations” (111), like despair and mourning.
119 Hughes, “Gerrard Winstanley, News Culture,” 63–4, and Hughes, Causes, 68 (citing Fox, Adam, “Rumour, News and Popular Political Opinion in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England,” Historical Journal 40.3 [1997]: 597–620Google Scholar, at 598).
120 Taylor, Archive and Repertoire, 143. Ahmed, 38.
121 Kendrick, Matthew, “Politics and Poetics of Embodiment in Gerrard Winstanley's Digger Writings,” Clio 42.3 (2013): 283–308Google Scholar, at 283. For more on Foucault's engagement with Digger tracts in building a “counterhistory of power,” see Leo, Russ, “Michel Foucault and Digger Biopolitics,” Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 58.1 (2018): 169–92Google Scholar, at 170.
122 D. Loewenstein, 91. Winstanley is also listed eighth on the marble obelisk in Moscow's Alexander Garden commemorating activists in the struggle for workers’ liberation.