In England's Culture Wars eminent English historian Bernard Capp weighs in on the question of the extent to which the puritans in power during the 1650s were able to transform England's political, moral, and cultural identity. Puritans, whom Capp defines as possessing an “ethos of godly discipline and moral reformation, reinforced by humanist values of civility, sobriety and good order,” were only ever a minority in England, but they were a substantial and influential minority (3). Following their seizure of power after the execution of Charles I, the puritans were in a position to impose their political and moral reform agenda on the English people. To what extent did they achieve this reformation? Marshalling an impressive array of sources from all over the country, Capp provides support for a handful of scholars in the past twenty years or so who have highlighted the achievements of the puritan regime of the 1650s. Capp concedes that it is easy to see why many historians have written off the Interregnum reformation as a political and cultural failure, but he insists that we should not harp on those failures: instead, we should assess the 1650s on its own terms, “within the context of what was possible within the space of eleven turbulent years” (258).

In the first of three parts of his book, Capp lays out the puritan agenda and the men and machinery that they would use to implement it. The puritan leaders had three goals: to erase the language and symbols of monarchy and replace them with a culture of republicanism; to eradicate the traditional mental landscape that they viewed as popish, pagan, and profane (and here they focused on Christmas); and to build on the legislative framework for religious and moral reform that was already in place to a considerable extent by 1649. To accomplish these goals, the puritan leadership in the national government would need allies in local governments, in the local magistracy, in the Cromwellian church, and in the New Model Army. They would also need to engage in a propaganda war, both to silence the many dissenting voices and to convince a skeptical public of the legitimacy of their regime and their reform program. Capp convincingly argues that in the first two years, they were able to remove most of their open enemies in local governments, the magistracy, and the church, and to threaten many of the rest into a general compliance. In addition, while their vigorous propaganda campaign never made the English people love the puritan regime, at least it convinced many of them that conformity was a rational choice. They were unable to obliterate all royal images and symbols or to introduce a republican culture in England, but they were successful in their more modest aim of persuading all political and religious interests to recognize the Commonwealth government and live quietly under its rule. Likewise, while the reformers were never able to convince English men and women that Christmas was pagan, popish, and profane, and that it ought to be just another working day, they largely triumphed in their goal of suppressing church services on Christmas Day. Finally, while the puritan impulse to legislate on religion and morals ebbed and flowed during the Interregnum, the legislative framework for reform continued to expand throughout the 1650s.

Part 2 focuses on puritan parish ministry during the Interregnum and the campaign to reform English manners and morals. Here the conclusions are weaker. While some historians have painted a bleak picture of parish life in the 1650s, Capp insists that the puritan ministry must be judged in the context of the enormous problems faced by a leaderless, splintered, and poor Interregnum church. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that England did not experience a spiritual transformation in the 1650s. While Capp would like to see the 1650s as a decade of religious fervor for some and significant pastoral, evangelical, and philanthropic achievements, he acknowledges that the evidence is contradictory and that historians have arrived at very different conclusions. As for the reformation of manners and morals, while the puritans were eager to crack down on blasphemy, swearing, Sabbath breaking, illicit sex, drinking, theater, sports, and traditional pastimes, Capp admits that their success in doing so was mixed.

In part 3, Capp shifts his focus from the national goals of the reformers to how their policies were implemented within local contexts. The best prospects for reformation lay in the corporate towns. Here, if there were enough reforming magistrates and ministers and they effectively cooperated with each other, much could be accomplished. Exeter, Kidderminster, Wallingford, Maidstone, King's Lynn, Rye, and Gloucester are all examples of cities and towns where substantial progress was made. Headon, Chester, and Southampton are notable examples where reformation failed. Reformation in rural parishes required an active, settled minister, a core body of parishioners to lead by example, and a supportive justice of the peace residing not far away. Few communities possessed all three, which made substantial reformation in rural areas an impossible goal. As such, puritans in rural communities simply scaled back their expectations of what was achievable: it was enough for them “to gather and inspire the elect, encourage the majority to lead decent lives, and shame or punish the profane” (238). What part 3 really demonstrates, although this is not Capp's take on it, is the remarkable capacity of humans to conform to unloved regimes only as much as they need to in order to avoid persecution.

In England's Culture Wars, Capp successfully demonstrates that, despite the myriad challenges it faced and the short time within which it had to work, the Interregnum puritan regime achieved a remarkable amount. Nevertheless, it is hard to agree with his conclusion that, had the regime lived on, “it is by no means impossible that the nation would have grown to accept it” (262). While it is true that the puritans survived into the Restoration as nonconformists, and would continue to play a significant role in England's religious and political life and in movements for social reform, they still remained a minority. The majority of English men and women, who simply conformed enough to avoid punishment, seemed more than happy in 1660 to revert to their old ways.