"The Glorious Revolution of 1688 has long been consigned to the revolutionary B-list, dismissed as a bloodless back-room deal. A new history proves the event worthy of its name..."
Good article, looks like a good book ... but as a corrective to history this article still leaves me unsatisfied. It doesn't mention the fact that the English had their first modern revolution in 1640. This revolution, in which they killed their king and tried to create a perfect society, had much more in common with the later French and Russian versions that the 1688 arrangement. I have never understood why historians would emphasize the story of 1688 over the story of 1640, except perhaps that it's a prouder story for England.
Good article, looks like a good book ... but as a corrective to history this article still leaves me unsatisfied. It doesn't mention the fact that the English had their first modern revolution in 1640. This revolution, in which they killed their king and tried to create a perfect society, had much more in common with the later French and Russian versions that the 1688 arrangement. I have never understood why historians would emphasize the story of 1688 over the story of 1640, except perhaps that it's a prouder story for England.
ReplyDeleteLevi: I appreciate your commentary, esp. that last sentence. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue. --Jesse
ReplyDelete