Customer Reviews

1688: The First Modern Revolution (The Lewis Walpole Series in Eighteenth-C)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Previous readers have all shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of this important book by Steve Pincus. While the author has clearly done very significant research on England's Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, his book will not appeal to casual readers who primarily want to know what happened and why the Glorious Revolution was important.

The problem is that Pincus is overly focused on showing that the Glorious Revolution was actually a modern revolution and on comparing his interpretation with interpretations of other historians. Instead of providing a linear narrative of the events, he summarizes what makes some revolutions modern and then demonstrates that the Glorious Revolution meets all the criteria. Unfortunately, this leads Pincus to jump around a lot within the overall chronology. For historians interested in the period, this probably won't matter; they will find the book rich in analysis and very thought-provoking. I would not be surprised to see Pincus win awards for his book based on the quality of his scholarship. I found his arguments generally persuasive and can see his interpretation eventually becoming the mainstream interpretation. If that occurs, he will have certainly met his main goal in researching and writing the book.

Given the author's focus on justifying his interpretation of the Glorious Revolution, it is not surprising that he fails to paint full portraits of the main actors. While he does give a good sense of what James II was all about, he does not give any insight on why William III was willing to risk invading Great Britain when he was already the ruler of the Netherlands. The same is true of the bit players; Pincus is really only interested in quoting them to support his argument.

Finally, the book suffers from the fact that Pincus beats his argument to death, using 10 quotations when 2 or 3 would have sufficed. This was the main criticism of noted historian Bernard Bailyn in his review of "1688" in "The New York Review of Books" (11/19/2009) which generally praised Pincus for his scholarship and fresh interpretation.

Readers looking for a more accessible narrative of the Glorious Revolution might be better served by The Glorious Revolution: 1688-Britain's Fight for Liberty (2008) by Edward Vallance. I have not yet read it and no Amazon readers have reviewed it yet, but Amazon's Look Inside feature makes it clear that Vallance provides a more conventional narrative history. (The back cover even promises a "thrilling narrative".) Vallance agrees with Pincus that the Revolution was a bloody event. Another possibility is Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685-1720 (2008) by Tim Harris. Bernard Bailyn indicated in his review of the Pincus book that Pincus and Harris were friends in graduate school and made a deal to avoid stepping on each other's books; while Pincus set his history in a broader European context, Harris focused more on the internal dynamics between England, Scotland, and Ireland. (Nobody has reviewed it yet on Amazon.) Readers interested in a history of the broader period, 1603-1714, might want to check out The Century of Revolution: 1603-1714, which was originally written by Christopher Hill in 1961 and updated in 1980; this received 5 star reviews from all 3 Amazon readers who reviewed it.

A superb history of one of the foundation events upon which the modern Western/liberal state was built.

Professor Pincus brings broad and deep scholarship to this book, which, in turn, provides impressive value to the serious reader.

If you want to learn more about why the English turned away from James II and his style of modernization (focused on the French model) and the effects of this revolution on foreign relations, military (blue water navy or a standing army?), economics (land vs. manufacturing as the source of a country's wealth), religion (tolerant?), read this book.

It is not focused on personalities: you will not learn much about William and Mary, for example. However, this book is a remarkable synthesis of various strands of historical thought on what many heretofore have viewed as almost a peaceful, conservative non-event.

Professor Pinucus hammers his firmly held opinions home repeatedly, backed up by multiple citations. His views on the Glorious Revolution seem to this common reader to be sound and quite useful toward explaining not only 1688 England, but also much of the political, economic, and religious world of today.

There are easy subjects, hard subjects, very hard subjects, and those precious few subjects that center around the question, "How did we become Modern"? In this last group, the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 is a particularly tough one to get right, and Pincus succeeds both with the strength of his argument and the clarity (and ease) of his writing. He manages to explain what the old "Whig history" of Macaulay gets right, while also making clear what it gets wrong. The same goes for the more recent revisionist history, where he manages to pick out the very few grains of the revisionist critique that are correct. More than that, he paints a new picture of the events of 1685-1689 that are more vivid, richer, and more plausible than either of these views--this picture partly draws on the largely lost "Radical Whig" narrative, and partly on Pincus' own reading and assembly of the current evidence about the Revolution. In addition to simply being the best, most complete telling of the story of this period that I've read, there are three strengths and one weakness that are worth highlighting, I think:

Strength 1. What stands out in this book is Pincus' new theory of revolutions. Instead of seeing revolutions as a revolt of the new against the old, he argues that the *first* step is that the ruling regime *breaks* with the past to offer a new vision of a modernized state we can call "Model A". That is, the entrenched power structure begins a program of modernization on Model A. A revolution is the result of a new group, who have a different ideal for a modernized state, which we can call Model B, rising up against Model A, not the old traditional ways. In other words, The state does the heavy lifting of destroying traditional, conservative ways, so the revolutionaries only have to compete with an alternate program of modernity. In the case of 1688, James II tried to modernize England as an Absolutist Monarchy along the lines of Louis XIV's France. The revolutionaries rejected this approach, instead electing to "Go Dutch" as Lisa Jardine would have it--they imported a modernization scheme based on the open society of the United Provinces. Not only is this a great explanation of 1688, but this new way of looking at revolutions sparks all sorts of interesting ideas about other revolutions. There is a weakness buried in this strength, however--the book would have benefitted from a more fleshed-out, if still brief, discussion of why the English Civil War is not a "modern revolution" in his eyes.

Strength 2. Pincus does an excellent job of countering the recent narrative (pace Johnathan Israel and others) that the Glorious Revolution was essentially a Dutch invasion and hostile takeover of England (though this is closer to the truth in Scotland, and almost entirely correct in Ireland). Israel and others have done a marvelous job of showing that the old Whig narrative of a small elite inviting Willem van Oranje and Mary Stuart to accept the throne to protect The Protestant Religion and Willem altruistically crossing the channel to bloodlessly march to London and accept the crown on behalf of a grateful nation is horribly inadequate. Pincus adds to this, showing just what a major military operation this was, the fact that it was not bloodless, and that this was an enormous risk for Willem, who very definitely was prepared to fight. He also shows, however, that while he was prepared for great opposition from James, some loyalists, and the French and Irish, he expected to have the overwhelming support of the English people. Pincus is convincing that Willem never would have attempted a hostile takeover, while he was willing to take part in a popular, yet partially opposed, coup d'etat.

Strength 3. Pincus explains, in careful and eye-opening detail, what James II's program was, and what it was not, and what the opposition was concerned about, and what it was not. In particular, he demolishes the notion that this was, at the root, a confessional struggle, based either in unthinking anti-Catholicism on the part of Radical Whigs, or a pox-on-both-your-houses revolt of Anglican hard-liners against a Dissenter-Catholic alliance. James's program was Catholic, to be sure, but it was French Catholic Absolutism, and the "Catholic" was the least important of those three words, and "Absolutism" the most important. He catalogs exactly what Louis XIV's centralized, absolutist police state was, and how James was very successfully copying it in England from 1685-8. The picture painted is not one of Louis merely weakening the old French nobility of Versailles, but of Louis (and James) creating early versions that presage the authoritarian, and ultimately totalitarian states of the later modern centuries. For example, James' quadrupling of the size of the peacetime army and quartering these troops in pubs and private dwellings, while at the same time developing a huge domestic spy network, almost certainly felt to the English as a *massive* increase in military-governmental control of their lives, and a reduction of personal freedoms.

Weakness. While Pincus touches on this, his treatment of the Dutch system the revolutionaries were importing and the background to Willem's Great Gamble in Dutch history is too light to understand the Dutch part of the story. In other words, it's less clear what the revolutionaries thought they were fighting *for* in bringing over Willem and Mary than the Absolutist monarchy they thought they were fighting *against*. It's equally true that Pincus' description the strong support Willem knew he would receive on landing in England explains why he thought the adventure was likely to be successful, while it remains less clear why he was so anxious to try in the first place. If one knows 17th century Dutch history well, Pincus leaves enough breadcrumbs that you can "fill in the blanks", but if you don't, you might be forgiven for thinking that Willem just wanted more provinces to his name like a typical Medieval aristocrat. Without a detailed understanding of Willem II's refusal to disband the army in the 1640s, the near-siege of Amsterdam, and the Stadtholderless period, you can't understand why the willingness of the Staten Generaal to support the Glorious Revolution was so remarkable, and without a much better explanation of the Anglo-French invasion of the United Provinces in 1672 and the fiscal strains of that event, you can't understand why Willem saw this as a defensive maneuver, the only possible way to ensure the survival of the Dutch state and the "True Freedom" that the Dutch saw as their national identity. In telling a broader story in the "European context", Pincus did a fabulous job in explaining the English and French pieces of the puzzle that is the events of 1685-9, as well as the Scottish-Irish pieces, but the Dutch piece is a little light.

All of that said, the book is one of the best history books I've read in some time, and I think will establish the new standard view of this important topic, as well as spinning off other excellent books from Pincus and others that build on this foundation.

In 1688, James II of England fled the country and the following year his daughter, Mary, and son-in-law William of Orange were named Queen and King. In recent times, this "Glorious Revolution" has been portrayed as either a typically English sensible conservative movement to protect the ancient constitution or as a reaction to the increasing encouragement of Roman Catholicism by James. In either case, this was not a true modern revolution unlike e.g.the French or Russian ones. Steve Pincus, professor of history at Yale University sets out, and I believe convincingly, to overthrow this view and establish 1688-9 as "The First Modern Revolution".

Pincus argues it is wrong to assume that revolution is due to a failure of the existing regime to react to changing circumstances. He argues that, in fact, revolutions only occur when the regime attempts to modernize and is faced with competing ideas as to how to do that. He traces the steps that changed the popular mood from enthusiastic support of James in 1685 to one that forced him to flee in 1688. James II wished to develop a modern, centralized, absolutist monarchy modeled on that of Louis XIV, the"Sun King" of France. During this process he alienates not only the reforming Whigs but also many of the Tories (who fear the expanding power of Louis) and Catholics (who do not agree with his approach to Catholicism). Pincus examines the events of the revolution itself and shows how it was much more popular, violent and divisive then is often portrayed, with a significant minority remaining Jacobins, culminating in a foiled assassination and invasion plan in 1696. After William becomes king, Pincus argues convincingly that in foreign policy, the economy and the Church of England radical changes were made.

This book is not a general history and requires some knowledge of the events of the period. Pincus has clearly done considerable research and draws very heavily on contemporary sources. Although it is interesting to hear the actual thoughts of people at the time, the sheer volume of quotes can overwhelm the point being made. He also has a tendency to be repetitive. These two characteristics can make the book much harder work than it need be. It's worth reading for the insights and sheer depth of research but I fear many will give up before the end.

After reading 1688 I literally put it on the same shelf with David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed. Pincus is clearly aiming to drop some knowledge on the 17th century history community, and he does it by framing a novel thesis (Glorious Revolution was the first modern revolution) and incorporating several different strands of social science narrative: traditional "high" history, social history, economic history, critical history into an effective and convincing whole.

I think when you look back at the last 20 years or so of narrative histor ty, you have to look at the attempt by American historians to work in the field of English/UK/European history. Such a thing would have been hard to contemplate 100 years ago, but a half century of expansion by the American empire has placed its scholars in the driver's seat when it comes to describing "anglo american" relations.

Explicit in 1688 is a critique of English historians that is as his main thesis- he castigates the "British exceptionalism" that historians used to justify their interpretation of the events of 1688 as "hardly a revoliution at all."

Although the United States appears almost not at all in the text, it's not hard to consider the impact of the events of 1688 on the American Revolution. You really get a sense of the Whig movement that would inspire many Founding Fathers. For example, the issue of quartering soliders in people's houses was a hot issue in the Revolution of 1688.

Finally, I think it's important to note two things:
1. This book is just as much histiography as narrative history so bring your thinking cap.
2. The last 80 pages is a discussion of the English Church which really stops the momentum of the preceding 400 pages.

Very impressed by this book. The amount of research was astounding. The author seems to have read every pamphlet published and letter written in England during the 1680's. But the book is well organized and the argument persuasive (the argument being that the revolution of 1688 was not a bloodless restoration of traditional English values but a much more contentious clash between two different models of the modern state,(1) a Dutch-like / Parliamentarian / Anglican/ republican model and (2) a Louis XIV - like / Catholic / absolutist regime). I thought the chapter on Revolution and Foreign Policy was going to be a bit of a tangent, but when I got through it, I felt it was the strongest of the book.

As my interests lie more in early American history, I was struck by the echoes between (1) the debate between those two models and (2) the rhetoric and ideals that drove the American revolution a century later. The roots of American political theory seem to be in the Glorious Revolution. Along those lines, I was further struck by the extent to which property rights were co-equal with religious and civic issues in the minds of the leaders of the Glorious revolution, frequently being listed one after another in the rhetoric of the day.

England's disenchantment with James II, its embattled monarch for only four short years, ended in late-1688 with James' flight to France. William, the Stadtholder of Holland, and his wife Mary arrived triumphantly to take the throne as co-regents. The failure of England's king to enforce absolute loyalty to the crown, the second such event in forty years, stemmed from tidal changes in the ambitions of the English people and a transformation in the organization of the government that would rule them.

James made too many mistakes. His Catholic faith was the faith of only a small percent of the English people and he continually tried to impose his Catholicism on the mainsprings of English life: its military, its government, and its universities. This just did not work with the vast majority of Englishmen, the majority of whom migrated to the Anglican faith after Henry VIII's epic struggle with the papacy. He turned back an early threat to his rule from the Duke of Monmouth and then proceeded to shred his opposition in a bloody and unnecessary hunt for revenge. His principal involvement with Europe was a subservient relationship with the king of France, Louis XIV. No European ruler was more reviled in England than Louis. He dismissed Parliament after only one brief session early in his rule. Parliament never met again during his regency but political discontent nevertheless reached the boiling point. He suppressed the free and open discussion of political issues. In short, England was an unhappy land in the late-1680's, largely without a leader who could inspire the nation.

Underneath all of this, however, major changes were evolving. The landed gentry held on to their estates and their high positions in English society and government but the merchant class began to elbow into positions of increasing prominence and power. The early outlines of what would become the Whig party became increasingly evident. Champions of dissent raised their voice, ending in a full throated howl late in James' rule from John Locke in his closely-argued and highly influential tract, A Declaration of Rights. It seemed that James was left with only islands of support when the first tentative invitation was made to William to come rule England in mid-1688.

William arrived, with boatloads of men and horses, pushed swiftly up the English Channel by a providential easterly wind, gliding quickly past the English fleet. The wind, which has been called the "Protestant Wind", carried William onto English shores and, almost without a battle, the government of James II dissolved, James fleeing France, never to return to his native country.

Steve Pincus tells this marvelous story in great detail with considerable skill. Many of the English-speaking world's greatest historians have told the story and most have emphasized the gradual nature of the revolution. In these accounts, no great changes in society or government occurred. The revolution was part of a grand evolution towards a limited monarchy, with the passions of the people controlled and temperate. The revolution, in these accounts, was relatively bloodless, cerebral and aristocratic. The early versions of the Glorious Revolution concentrated intensely on the events within England, minimizing or ignoring the tumultuous struggles in Ireland and Scotland and, even more importantly, the shifting tides in Europe.

These defects may have been true in the earlier histories of the revolution but a number of versions of the history of England in the late-1680's, many predating Pincus' account, have altered the traditional views of the revolution. This limits the novelty of many of Pincus' viewpoints. He argues for their uniqueness throughout the book, claiming a freshness and novelty that the scholarship of recent histories dilutes.

Nevertheless, Pincus presents the story of the Glorious Revolution in great detail, with many fascinating sidelights. This is a complicated story, with a huge cast of characters, many of whom are related either by marriage or blood to each other. The struggle against the king was by no means a forgone conclusion. James had huge assets, including his the credentials of the Stuart monarchy. These assets were slowly, and then swiftly, dissipated. Pincus lets the story unfold with great care. The details of the revolution - the changes in society, government, religion, and culture - are all presented in this wonderful history.

Other historians have presented parts of this story but none has told it in such detail. This is a long, complicated book. Be aware that many complex topics will be discussed. But hold on for a great story, wonderfully told.

I have read considerably on the subject and this is the best. This author writes well and with authority. Personally, I would have preferred more violence, such as a stirring accout of the battle of Aughrim. He blows away the revisionists. I learned things about this subject that I never knew before, and learned new ways of thinking about what I already knew. The research is the most exhaustive on the subject that I've ever encountered. I became interested in this subject when I first read Macauley as a youngster. This author gives the occasional nod to Macauley, which I appreciate. This book would be an excellent addition to your collection and is well worth the price.

Pincus shows in "1688" what every CEO needs to know: which business model - think Apple and Dell - will succeed? Mine? Or the other guy's.

Looking back over three centuries we know which model, French conservative or English liberal, succeeded in 1688 and which failed. But it was not at all clear at the time. James II thought that Louis XIV, the power of Europe, had the true path to modernity. He had overcome the Fronde, dispatched the Parlements, eliminated his Protestant opposition, and established a thoroughly modern state as it was conceived at the time.

In the event, Louis' high conservative policy of centrism, statism, and religious orthodoxy ended up bankrupting France - so badly that not even Napoleon could bring it back. "1688" is about avoiding this fate. Steve Ballmer, Read this book!

Pincus is at pains to show that the early liberals, by contrast, were all over the map, did not know what they wanted -- woe to the CEO who doesn't get this -- and were unified in only one thing, their rejection of Louis' conservatism. Not a promising beginning. Yet, very much like many successful businesses: Apple muddled through for decades until Steve Jobs saw a clear path and, like the England of William and Mary, destroyed far more value for others than he created for Apple. Watch out Samsung!

Key liberal tools, like the Bank of England, were, as Braudel emphasized over and over, impossible to make work effectively in France's highly structured environment. We see the same thing today as iTunes eviscerates the music, movie, and soon publishing and other industries. None of this was obvious to CEOs in those markets ten years ago.

Pincus' great accomplishment is to show that, if we know what we are looking for, we can discern winners from losers earlier than we think. But for a little thought, AOL could have been Google.

The outcome of 1688 is that we all speak English rather than French. No small matter three centuries on, and something that Microsoft and Google need to think about. Hard.

Where Pincus falls down is in not having a full-blown theory of information. Information costs were clearly falling much faster in England than in France during this period. Indeed, Pincus describes a blog-like, viral spread of views through the cheap mails, in free flowing coffees houses and in rapidly disseminated pamphlets that no amount of high conservative statism could stop. Kind of like China today.

By contrast, Louis control of the presses, mails, and other tools of communication raised the cost of information to unsustainable levels, very much like the old Soviet Union. The lesson for CEOs: as always in history, whoever is ahead on the falling information cost curve gains competitive advantage and wins.

Sadly, the copyediting is simply dreadful for a book of this high caliber. The adjective "apologetic" is used repeatedly for the noun "apology." "Modern" is repeatedly endlessly on some pages when once is more than enough. The French Great Fear of 1789 is variously said to have happened in 1789, 1780, and 1689. People are "intruded" (p. 184) which is hard to imagine, and some things are "instantiated," which is correct but such an uncommon use the copy editor should have replaced it.