Customer Reviews

A Monarchy Transformed: Britain, 1603-1714 (Penguin History of Britain)

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

 

 

I can certainly appreciate the critiques of some of the earlier reviewers. No, it does not cover every aspect of English life in the period, and "Monarchy Transformed" is by no means an exhaustive exploration of the (mostly) Stuart dynasty that it covers. Kishlansky is primarily a political historian, and that somewhat shows. That being said, if any friend, family member or student asks for an overview of the period this is the book that I immediately recommend. Even though it is a narrative overview it remains on my top five list of books for the period. Why? Kishlansky is one of the top five historians (both in quality and stature) working in the field, and as far as "serious" academic history goes, it does not get better than this. His prose sparkles, and as far as "serious" academic books go, this one is a barn-burner. That might say something more about academic discourse than anything else, but this book has no equal for pure reading pleasure underlined by top-notch historical research. If you are new to Stuart history, or are looking for an overview of the "long seventeenth century", look no further. This is as good as it gets for a narrative overview, of this period or any other.

There are no boring centuries in the history of Great Britain, but the seventeenth century has many claims to be the most eventful of them all. At the start, England and Scotland were separate countries, with England ruled by Elizabeth I. In 1707, just before the end of the Stuart era, England and Scotland were fully united under a single government, after a century including the civil war, regicide, an attempted "government of saints", the English Revolution and many lesser events such as the Great Fire of London. Science burgeoned, American colonies were planted, the nation's finances were transformed, and the roots of the industrial revolution began to grow.

Not all of this is adequately covered by Kishlansky. He eulogizes the century in his introduction, but the book focuses primarily on politics. This necessarily introduces religion too, and Kishlansky covers Arminianism, dissenters, the struggles over Presbyterianism and Catholicism, and the final restrictive Test Acts. The political background is done concisely and well, with good portraits of the key characters and clearly laid out ideologicial conflicts -- no mean achievement given the bewildering complex and contradictory positions most of the players adopted.

Kishlansky is excellent on the monarchs, their finances and rule, and their relationships with their governments. He is equally readable on the political state of the country, and the details of the conflicts in Parliament. His coverage of foreign policy is less complete, and he only provides any details when there is a clear interaction with the internal politics of Great Britain -- which, to be fair, is much of the time. He is also fairly thorough in his coverage of Ireland.

The weak points are the social and economic world, and the world of ideas. The first two chapters are titled "The Social World", and "The Political World", and though the second chapter serves as a springboard for the chronological narration of the rest of the book, the first chapter is the last we hear of social issues. The chronology ignores science and literature completely; Newton, for example, is mentioned only in the Prologue.

These first two chapters are also, unfortunately, the hardest to read. Kishlansky can write clearly and well, but perhaps because of the "survey" nature of these chapters he succumbs to complex abstract statements, though there is real information there too. As a result it took me a couple of tries to get through these first two chapters, but they are worthwhile, if a little hard going, and the rest of the book is highly readable.

Overall, this is an excellent overview. Recommended, with the caveat that any one area that you may be interested in, such as the civil war or the English revolution, gets no more than twenty pages.

This book is primarily a political and religious history of the period; British society during this period is relegated to a single chapter, while cultural history and the great scientific discoveries merit only the briefest of mention in the prologue. In a different context this might not matter so much, but for a volume in a series that purports to provide an introduction to the history of the British Isles the decision to focus on just a single aspect of that history is disappointing.

Nevertheless, what this book does it does well. Kishlansky offers a clear and readable narrative of a century wracked with political and religious turmoil, something that in itself is no small achievement. It is also free of the numerous historiographical disputes, and as such is a safe book for readers wanting an introduction to the Stuarts' reign. The inclusion of Scotland and Ireland into the picture is especially welcome, as it gives a fuller understanding of the era than was available in the traditionally England-specific studies. As a result, it provides a good starting point for understanding how the government of Great Britain developed during the tumultuous decades of the seventeenth century, one that saw the permanent redefinition of the role of the crown in British political life.

If, like me, you are interested in British history but not a hard core scholar, this one may be a bit on the dull side. However, I did manage to make my way through it without having to force myself to pick it up. It is well worth the effort.

This is an enjoyable book to read. Kishlansky's depth of knowledge is evidenced in the comprehensive annotated reading list he provides, a practice I wish more historians would emulate. This is a general history of a century and his sources are secondary as you would expect, but at times there is a lack of depth of analysis, in particular at the time of the 1688 revolution. When parliament and the English people had bent so far backwards to accommodate Charles II in his skilful efforts to prepare the country for the succession of his Catholic brother, why exactly did they turn on James so abruptly? OK, James tried to push Catholicism down everyone's throat in the last year or so, but Kishlansky tells us nothing about how the English people reacted to this, other than the broad facts of William's invasion. He has of course earlier in the book alluded to the English strength of feeling about Protestantism, but that is about all we get. In general Kishlansky you feel slightly disapproves of chaps that rock the boat. But then he's an American and no doubt has his own perspective.

What I really like about this book is the clarity of it's exposition of a series of immensely complex situations, ie the accession of a Scottish monarch, James I to a country which has just found a coherent and stable English identity; the principled and conscientiousness defense of the divine right of kings by Charles I, the brilliance of Cromwell, the incredible successions of shifts and changes under Charles II as he tries to make the best of what with hindsight was a hopeless problem. He also puts the heroics of William and in some ways the unsung brilliance of Anne's adaptability into good perspective. As I say I am less convinced by his portrayal of James II, or more perhaps the reaction of the English to him.

But Kishlansky in general does a great job of bringing all the different factors in situations into balance, religion, finance, ancestry and so on.

I also feel he does more than justice to very complex situations over the century in Scotland and Ireland. In many histories of Britain you feel the historian is saying `Oh, I guess we better put in a bit about Ireland (or Scotland)'. However here I do not feel (contrary to one reviewer on Amazon.com) that they are given short shrift. If there is a sense in which they are treated with contempt that is down to the Stuarts, not Kishlansky, and as he points out, at least in Scotland that was to some extent put right.

Kishlansky's thesis is not meant to be an all-encompassing presentation, but more of an attempt to chronicle the major events in the Stuart reign while paying only cursory attention to the more minor details in his eyes. His goal to limit the minor details is met, but he minimizes key figures such as Queen Ann and the subsequent rulers after the fall of Oliver Cromwell. The majority of the piece is devoted to Charles I, while James I and Queen Ann are allocated one chapter each. Charles II is not covered until more than two hundred pages into the thesis. This could be explained by the more important events occurring during the years of Charles I and Cromwell, but gives the impression that Kishlansky is biased towards them.

Kishlansky further misses the mark by not follow his thesis of explaining how the monarchy was transformed. The ever-growing strength of the Parliament is discussed extensively, but the author fails to identify this aspect as a pivotal episode. While the issue of religion played a major role in the era, Kishlansky seems to attribute it as the source of unrest and turmoil. Scotland and Ireland play minor roles in the piece, and are portrayed as more of a nuisance than a part of Great Britain.

Kishlansky's book is incomplete but informative. Good companion to other books of the era.

This is a solid overview of Stuart/17th century Britain. The major focus of the book is the complex political history of this period. This book has several virtues. It is well written and organized. The politics of this period include the Civil Wars and are very complex. Kishlansky does a nice job setting out the narrative and provides measured assessments of the major actors. The historiography of the Civil War is messy and this is a topic that has been dogged by controversy for decades. Kishlansky essentially elects to stay out of the fray by sticking primarily to the narrative. As a basic introduction, this is an excellent job and there is a nice bibliography for further reading. As commented by a prior reviewer, it would have been good to have in text citations for references, though this is a limitation that may have been imposed by the publisher. Even though Kishlansky does a good job of fulfilling his objectives of providing the basic narrative and political analysis, it would have been good to have some more social and economic history. A more important defect is the failure to provide more international context for the events described. Implicit in the narrative is the recurrent theme of monarchs seeking to expand the power and instruments of central government. This was a pan-European phenomenon, often entangled with issues of religion. Ambitious monarchs were pushing against elites, often bulwarked by traditional feudal political institutions. The struggle of Charles I against Parliament would have been seen by many in the context of the successful Hapsburg assault on the largely Protestant nobility and Estates of Bohemia. Similarly, the Protestant sense of being part of a broader and threatened movement doesn't come across very well.

Mr. Kishlansky provides a concise narrative of the events that characterized seventeenth century English history and that resulted in the modern British parliament and constitutional monarchy. His attention to detail shows his thorough knowledge of the history of Great Britain and most importantly, shows how the rise of the modern parliamentary system & constitutional monarchy at century's end provided mechanisms to many of the legal questions which gave rise to the various revolutions and civil wars that characterized the century's previous history. An excellent book for anyone interested in British history or who wishes to know where the founding fathers of the American revolution obtained so many of the ideas that characterize the American constitution and its emphasis on the paramountcy of the rule of law.

An interesting and brief history of this most violent and rapid-changing period in English history.

Thirty years of intense historical debate and disagreement have clouded the underlying story of seventeenth-century Britain; with this addition to the Penguin History of Britain series, Mark Kishlansky mediates the academic controversy in an introductory narrative of the Stuart era. From the ascension of James I to the death of Queen Anne, he chronicles the political events which elevated Britain from isolation to international predominance. In so doing, he vividly develops the characters who helped to spark this transformation. He hopes that this universally accessible narration will kindle his audience's interest in the period.

In pursuit of this goal, Kishlansky avoids examining the contradictory interpretations which he believes necessitate this work. His prefatory remarks fully acknowledge the limited nature of his discussion. Apologizing to his colleagues, he explains that any effort to conflate the conflicting opinions into one coherent narrative would prove futile. Therefore, he claims to have used his discretion in writing a flowing account.

Still, an author's discretion is seldom neutral. Correlating with Kishlansky's past contributions to British historiography, this book contains definite revisionist undertones. Focusing on the impact of individuals, he emphasizes the contingency of each event he describes. Accident and circumstance drive his story. This perspective does not accommodate the vital component of progressive interpretations: inevitability. Furthermore, Kishlansky's story is essentially a political narrative. He frequently dismisses the social and economic factors which progressives view as so influential in governmental development.

The work itself is a combination of three stylistic techniques. To orient the audience for the narrative, the prologue and first two chapters analyze the social and political institutions of seventeenth-century Britain. The narrative itself dominates each of the succeeding eleven chapters, introduced in each by a dramatic vignette. By describing one of the most exciting or extraordinary events yet to come, these vignettes entice the reader to continue. Separating them from the main narrative are brief contextual introductions, similar to those of the first two chapters. Kishlansky also uses this analytical style in his disappointingly short four-page epilogue.

Additionally, the title of this book is quite misleading. This is neither a history of the monarchy's transformation nor a history of Britain. In reality, Kishlansky recounts the transformation of the entire British governmental system. Also, while he does incorporate the roles of Scotland and Ireland into his story, he does so only from an English point of view. Added to this are only minor references to Britain's overseas colonies. Thus, a more appropriate title would be: A Government Transformed: England 1603-1714.

Kishlansky's lack of citation is also troublesome. Though his extensive bibliography is impressive, it is not inclusive. He references general works on broad topics, yet his audience learns of specific events and people. If his readers become interested in researching any of the specific topics which he describes, his bibliography will prove only slightly more helpful than a library's card catalogue. Overall, Kishlansky accomplishes what he set out to do; he creates an interesting and coherent story which provides a solid base for further study. For people with a limited knowledge of the events that transpired during the seventeenth century, this is a clear introduction. This book is by no means comprehensive, but that was never the goal of the author. Its accessibility comes from its simplicity. After reading it, students are ready for and hopefully interested in more critical research in the field.