1688: The First Modern Revolution (The Lewis Walpole Series in Eighteenth-Century Culture and History)

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.

For the lover of history this is a fine read, a page turner. The author does an excellent job of building his case, weaving quotations seamlessly into the text. The term "modern" has always intrigued me. Most authors throw it around carelessly, but Mr. Pincus clearly explains what he means. "Modernization" being one of the primary concepts making this period in history significant. The relevance of the period to later events is also made clear. The issues debated then obviously anticipated those articulated in the American Declaration of Independence and Constituton.

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.

Well, love it is not really the way to describe.The author's style is driven by a need to conclusively prove his findings! The result is a bit tedious, yet without the full evidence, people in general might think his proposals irrelevant. So I read on and find much understanding of the times and the idea of revolutions, especially the Great Revolution of 1688! For his comprehensive result he deserves 5 stars!

It’s boring. It’s repetitive. It doesn’t tell a narrative. It’s just a guy repeating the same arguments and conclusions over and over again. Skip it n

I think this is a really interesting book - over long, not well written, vastly over evidenced - but definitely interesting.Pincus is concerned with taking on both Whiggish, conservative and revisionist historians interpretations of what 1688 was about and where it sits in the long view of English, British, European and world history. This he succeeds in doing for the most part.Pincus argues that 1688 was not a coup, was not a foreign invasion, was not motivated by religion, was motivated by opposition to an absolutist vision of the state, and, so, was European in outlook, but that Tory and Whig visions of the alternative to absolutism would be played out over the coming decades and that 1688 set England and Britain on the road to being a modern capitalist, manufacturing society.In most of these arguments, Pincus succeeds. There are places where he doesn’t succeed. I don’t think that he makes a case for a genuinely popular revolution, at least not one where lower classes develop political agendas independently of higher social classes. Pincus also suffers because he views James II’s absolutism and the opposing Williamite vision as both being ‘modern’ without addressing how absolutism really fitted into societies with emerging capitalism and was essentially conservative.All the way through the book, the revolutionary events of 1640-60 assume ‘elephant in the room’ proportions and eventually, in his conclusion, Pincus addresses how England’s two revolutions relate to one another. Unfortunately, this analysis is quite superficial and Pincus is quite dismissive of the mid-century events but does concede that 1688 was not possible without 1640 to 1660.There's lots to chew over and anyone interested in how changes in modes of production interact with changes in political/state structures will be interested in what Pincus has to say......even though he says it ever so stodgily.

Very well written and holds your attention from start to finish. His research opens up a new insight into the social history of the period. His argument that the revolution was not just a political or religious one but supported by a wide spectrum of society is convincing and the evidence is overwhelming. However amateur historians should be warned that the author assumes that the reader has a good background knowledge of the actual events that preceded and caused the flight of James II as he will not find the details here.

When the author, Steve Pincus, cannot even get the place that William of Orange landed in England right, he asserts many, many times that William Landed in Torbay, whereas the actual landing site (commemorated by a large plaque) was Brixham, it does make me wonder what else he got wrong in this book.

This book transformed the debate about late seventeenth-century England.Good. Just what I needed. Arrived in good time and as described.

I consider his whole premis to be wrong and he can't justify it