What do you think?
Rate this book
1688: The First Modern Revolution
For two hundred years historians have viewed England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689 as an un-revolutionary revolution—bloodless, consensual, aristocratic, and above all, sensible. In this brilliant new interpretation Steve Pincus refutes this traditional view.
By expanding the interpretive lens to include a broader geographical and chronological frame, Pincus demonstrates that England’s revolution was a European event, that it took place over a number of years, not months, and that it had repercussions in India, North America, the West Indies, and throughout continental Europe. His rich historical narrative, based on masses of new archival research, traces the transformation of English foreign policy, religious culture, and political economy that, he argues, was the intended consequence of the revolutionaries of 1688–1689.
James II developed a modernization program that emphasized centralized control, repression of dissidents, and territorial empire. The revolutionaries, by contrast, took advantage of the new economic possibilities to create a bureaucratic but participatory state. The postrevolutionary English state emphasized its ideological break with the past and envisioned itself as continuing to evolve. All of this, argues Pincus, makes the Glorious Revolution—not the French Revolution—the first truly modern revolution. This wide-ranging book reenvisions the nature of the Glorious Revolution and of revolutions in general, the causes and consequences of commercialization, the nature of liberalism, and ultimately the origins and contours of modernity itself.
By expanding the interpretive lens to include a broader geographical and chronological frame, Pincus demonstrates that England’s revolution was a European event, that it took place over a number of years, not months, and that it had repercussions in India, North America, the West Indies, and throughout continental Europe. His rich historical narrative, based on masses of new archival research, traces the transformation of English foreign policy, religious culture, and political economy that, he argues, was the intended consequence of the revolutionaries of 1688–1689.
James II developed a modernization program that emphasized centralized control, repression of dissidents, and territorial empire. The revolutionaries, by contrast, took advantage of the new economic possibilities to create a bureaucratic but participatory state. The postrevolutionary English state emphasized its ideological break with the past and envisioned itself as continuing to evolve. All of this, argues Pincus, makes the Glorious Revolution—not the French Revolution—the first truly modern revolution. This wide-ranging book reenvisions the nature of the Glorious Revolution and of revolutions in general, the causes and consequences of commercialization, the nature of liberalism, and ultimately the origins and contours of modernity itself.
664 pages, Hardcover
First published September 29, 2009
54 people are currently reading
905 people want to read
About the author
Steven C.A. Pincus
8 books7 followersSteven Pincus is a professor of history at Yale University, where he specializes in 17th- and 18th-century British and European history. He is also the Chair of Yale's Council on European Studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
June 10, 2021
Pincus presents the classic Whig version of the Revolution (as largely consensual, bloodless, led from the top of English society, with limited lasting change and a reaction to a short sighted James who myopically alienated the people) as well as various post modern interpretations (that it was essentially anti-Catholic and was largely Tory led when the Tories realised that James was indulging both non-conformists and Catholics).
Pincus himself starts with a theory that revolutions occur when the existing authorities present (often due to necessity) their own programme of drastic modernization which then means that the revolutionaries are not trying the much trickier task of overthrowing the status quo but the easier one of presenting a more compelling alternative.
He postulates that England was a rapidly modernizing society on which James was with forethought and rationality attempting to impose a centralised, bureaucratic, controlled state (with a standing army, religious and local political controls), explicitly modelled on Louis XIV version of state Catholicism and believing land and foreign monopolies to be the basis of prosperity and the mercantile Dutch the greatest threats to England. This was at odds with the view of the populace who largely regarded the French as the threat to peace and were alarmed at James’s rewriting of the constitution and alliance with the perceived enemy. The only way to oppose James was a revolution and William was not part of a Tory mini-coup, an anti-Catholic action or a Dutch invasion but the deliberate choice of a large part of the English population.
He believes the revolution to have been: a popular one – i.e. at all levels of society but very far from consensual, one that was accompanied by widespread violence, one that led to lasting (and just as crucially pre-intended, and also just as crucially controversial and opposed by the landed Tory interests) changes in foreign policy, the church and religion.
Pincus particularly draws on the understanding of correspondents at the time as to what was happening, particularly after the later assassination crisis which stopped William’s attempt to achieve a minimal revolution by allying with the Tories that had initially opposed much he stood for and instead allowing the Whigs to make both their cause (for a mercantile England, supported by a merchant based national bank and with an explicit commitment to religious tolerance and to active intervention in European affairs) and their case (which they had partly suppressed in the actual revolution so as to encourage both Tories and William to their side). Pincus argues that too many scholars have focused on the narrow period of the revolution rather than examining how it was worked out over time.
Effectively a lengthy academic treatise with absolutely no attempt to provide an explanation of what actually happened (e.g. Anne is only mentioned once or twice and the birth of James’s heir covered by a single allusion in 500 pages – and there to say that it wasn’t this heir's birth that caused the revolution - contrary of course to conventional views).
Extremely opinionated – in every single area Pincus believes he has found a third explanation of events and provides excessive amounts of evidence to support his case while only very very occasionally providing new evidence which could challenge it (and then to dismiss it out of hand).
Nevertheless a very interesting and thought provoking read. Each chapter starts setting out clearly the traditional and more recent post modern interpretation of events and Pincus’s own third view and concludes with a similar summary of the evidence he has presented (and often have subsections with similar introductions and conclusions).
Pincus himself starts with a theory that revolutions occur when the existing authorities present (often due to necessity) their own programme of drastic modernization which then means that the revolutionaries are not trying the much trickier task of overthrowing the status quo but the easier one of presenting a more compelling alternative.
He postulates that England was a rapidly modernizing society on which James was with forethought and rationality attempting to impose a centralised, bureaucratic, controlled state (with a standing army, religious and local political controls), explicitly modelled on Louis XIV version of state Catholicism and believing land and foreign monopolies to be the basis of prosperity and the mercantile Dutch the greatest threats to England. This was at odds with the view of the populace who largely regarded the French as the threat to peace and were alarmed at James’s rewriting of the constitution and alliance with the perceived enemy. The only way to oppose James was a revolution and William was not part of a Tory mini-coup, an anti-Catholic action or a Dutch invasion but the deliberate choice of a large part of the English population.
He believes the revolution to have been: a popular one – i.e. at all levels of society but very far from consensual, one that was accompanied by widespread violence, one that led to lasting (and just as crucially pre-intended, and also just as crucially controversial and opposed by the landed Tory interests) changes in foreign policy, the church and religion.
Pincus particularly draws on the understanding of correspondents at the time as to what was happening, particularly after the later assassination crisis which stopped William’s attempt to achieve a minimal revolution by allying with the Tories that had initially opposed much he stood for and instead allowing the Whigs to make both their cause (for a mercantile England, supported by a merchant based national bank and with an explicit commitment to religious tolerance and to active intervention in European affairs) and their case (which they had partly suppressed in the actual revolution so as to encourage both Tories and William to their side). Pincus argues that too many scholars have focused on the narrow period of the revolution rather than examining how it was worked out over time.
Effectively a lengthy academic treatise with absolutely no attempt to provide an explanation of what actually happened (e.g. Anne is only mentioned once or twice and the birth of James’s heir covered by a single allusion in 500 pages – and there to say that it wasn’t this heir's birth that caused the revolution - contrary of course to conventional views).
Extremely opinionated – in every single area Pincus believes he has found a third explanation of events and provides excessive amounts of evidence to support his case while only very very occasionally providing new evidence which could challenge it (and then to dismiss it out of hand).
Nevertheless a very interesting and thought provoking read. Each chapter starts setting out clearly the traditional and more recent post modern interpretation of events and Pincus’s own third view and concludes with a similar summary of the evidence he has presented (and often have subsections with similar introductions and conclusions).
August 17, 2019
Pincus posits a grand political struggle -- dare we say 'revolution'? -- between two competing and modern conceptions of government, James II's absolutism and the Whig's radically new vision of popular sovereignty. Pincus sometimes writes as if he suffered from a lack of confidence in his own literary voice, choosing to harvest a plethora of quotations from anyone it seems whoever penned a thought on the meaning of 1688. But come on, is it really necessary to include direct quotations from a sociologist from the late 1970s who happened to remark that 'theories of revolution have sprung up thick and fast on the American social scene' since the 50s?! Or how about the more academically dangerous quoting from fictitious characters? (Pincus actually does just that on page 150 to support his point that James II had a vast network of spies). What strikes as problematic is Pincus' almost wholesale acceptance of his evidence at face value. No one should be surprised to learn that James' detractors wrote unflattering things about their king; the question remains should we believe what they wrote? Pincus 'supports' his arguments by amassing scads of quotations, but provides little reason why this bishop or that lord should be considered a credible source. Pincus' addiction to quotations also makes for choppy, schizophrenic reading.
IS Pincus' theory of so-called modern revolution actually neo-Whiggism dressed up in new clothes? It certainly appears to be. 'Catholic modernization of government' is Pincus' battle cry, and the reader is constantly beaten over the head with variations of the assertion of James and his giant peach of a modern government, BUT WHERE IS THE SWEET FLESH TO THIS FRUIT? Pincus never quite explains precisely why James' actions are especially modern.
With his constant harping upon the strings of theorists across the spectrum, Pincus loses his own voice and, at times, his reader. But then swings the pendulum, and Pincus attempts to establish the exceptionalism of his thesis by trashing almost every historian who has written on the subject of 1688. Somehow they all just got it wrong and proud Pincus has discovered the Philosopher's Stone. All too often it appears that Pincus' main scholarly target is Macaulay, a formidable opponent to be sure, but a bit dated as historiography goes.
IS Pincus' theory of so-called modern revolution actually neo-Whiggism dressed up in new clothes? It certainly appears to be. 'Catholic modernization of government' is Pincus' battle cry, and the reader is constantly beaten over the head with variations of the assertion of James and his giant peach of a modern government, BUT WHERE IS THE SWEET FLESH TO THIS FRUIT? Pincus never quite explains precisely why James' actions are especially modern.
With his constant harping upon the strings of theorists across the spectrum, Pincus loses his own voice and, at times, his reader. But then swings the pendulum, and Pincus attempts to establish the exceptionalism of his thesis by trashing almost every historian who has written on the subject of 1688. Somehow they all just got it wrong and proud Pincus has discovered the Philosopher's Stone. All too often it appears that Pincus' main scholarly target is Macaulay, a formidable opponent to be sure, but a bit dated as historiography goes.
October 4, 2014
I bought this book when it was originally published in 2009, but like many history books, it sat on my shelf until I needed it for a paper, haha. My graduate dissertation dealt with the development of popular sovereignty in 18th c. England, so reading about the the revolution of 1688 was of course, necessary.
This book is fantastic. It's clearly written and the author does a great job of explaining a complicated thesis and providing a great deal of primary sources to support his argument. Coming away from this book, I do see how his supposition that 1688 was a modern revolution in the way that France and later modern ones would be understood. It also inspired me to continue studying in this period.
The only drawbacks lay in the immense amount of repetition. This is a 485 page book with about two hundred pages of endnotes, but it could have been written more concisely and lost fifty, if not more pages. Pincus repeats himself constantly to the point that I skimmed his conclusion because it was a reiteration of what he had said on three or four times earlier in the book. I like books that sum up each chapter and then at the end of the book, but the repetition bordered on the annoying. I wish he had opted for a more tightly written prose style.
That being said, it's still a fantastic piece of scholarship.
This book is fantastic. It's clearly written and the author does a great job of explaining a complicated thesis and providing a great deal of primary sources to support his argument. Coming away from this book, I do see how his supposition that 1688 was a modern revolution in the way that France and later modern ones would be understood. It also inspired me to continue studying in this period.
The only drawbacks lay in the immense amount of repetition. This is a 485 page book with about two hundred pages of endnotes, but it could have been written more concisely and lost fifty, if not more pages. Pincus repeats himself constantly to the point that I skimmed his conclusion because it was a reiteration of what he had said on three or four times earlier in the book. I like books that sum up each chapter and then at the end of the book, but the repetition bordered on the annoying. I wish he had opted for a more tightly written prose style.
That being said, it's still a fantastic piece of scholarship.
January 11, 2026
Pincus confidently makes a case for the ‘Glorious Revolution’ being the first ‘modern revolution’ through assessing the different aspects of the revolution. He contends that the revolution irrevocably changed aspects of political economy, religion and state power in Britain. His case is well grounded in the then-established historiography of the period that traditionally downplays the revolutionary aspects of 1688. Core the Pincus’s argument is that 1) it was not a bloodless revolution and 2) that 1688 should be framed as a response against James II’s attempts to establish a French-style absolutist monarchy and not purely as a confessional struggle against Catholics and Protestants.
While at times it feels that the existence of unified, warring ideologies are taken for granted, this is a must-read book for anyone interested in learning more about 1688 or more generally British history of the long eighteenth century.
While at times it feels that the existence of unified, warring ideologies are taken for granted, this is a must-read book for anyone interested in learning more about 1688 or more generally British history of the long eighteenth century.
March 12, 2014
The British Revolution of 1688 - 1689 has often been portrayed as a mild, almost non-event, and a mostly religious conflict. Steve Pincus portrays a revolution that was indeed revolutionary, made a significant change in the course of events, and was about far more than religion. Reading this book will make you appreciate the enormity of this overlooked event in western history.
December 30, 2014
History as it should be written. Gives a lucid account of the events of 1688 but the real strength of this book is the broad sweep of the context he puts this first revolution into. His theory about revolutions is challenging and thought provoking. If you like British history this is a must read.
November 2, 2021
Un muy buen libro sobre la revolución de 1688. Es interesante la hipótesis del autor, argumentada durante todo el libro que las revoluciones surgen ante la divergencia en los caminos para realizar un proceso modernizador.
August 15, 2019
In 1688 Steve Pincus makes the case that the “Glorious Revolution” was the first modern revolution. It pitted Tories against Whigs, land against labor, internal markets against expanding trade. Of course it also pitted the Catholic king James II against Protestant William of Orange. James began with goodwill in 1685 but had squandered it all by 1688 with a pro French, Jesuitical variant of absolutist divine right monarchy that aped Louis XIV. The alienation that ensued ended James’ kingship and changed British and European history. Scholarly but turgid prose.
February 19, 2020
A fascinating look at the intellectual and social history of the glorious revolution of 1688, Pincus redefines the history of the event as a true uprising of many members of society, rather than simply a return to past values. Well worth a look particularly for the religious and intellectual history of the period, I would recommend reading a basic text about the period first.
September 29, 2023
Convincingly shows 1688 to have been a pivotal moment with radical changes ideologically, socially & economically — as James II.'s French-inspired modernist program lost out to William III.'s Dutch/commercial-based vision. Also shows James II.'s ideological background and his efficient government programs,which forced a response - James II. was neither a fool, nor a fighter for liberty but an opportunistic Gallician. Also nicely shows the evolution from universalism to nationalism in English foreign policy. Well-written.
April 19, 2020
My daughter the history Phd gave me this book when I said I had never heard of the Great Revolution, which in 1688 took the Catholic King James II off the throne, replaced by William of Orange. I had no idea that the Dutch organized an invasion of England. Indeed I learned a lot from this book, which is clearly deeply researched and meticulously documented. The top line message is that commentators have misdescribed the Great Revolution as an elite led, nearly bloodless event caused almost exclusively by James' desire to return England to the Catholic church.
Pincus does an excellent job of describing the many changes James sought to bring to the governance of England, but then undercuts it all by stating over and over again that James wanted to make his monarchy a "modern Catholic" realm. He demonstrates that James' affinity for France led to his desire to make his authority absolute. He also instutued many changes in taxation and the army and navy. But can these really be described as an attempt to make a modern kingship? Undoubtedly some changes were modernizations, but is having a bigger navy or quartering soldiers in homes modern in any sense of the word? Pincus gets stuck on trying to prove this point and in my view falls short. Just saying the phrase "Catholic modernity" over and over again just isn't convincing. James may have wanted to be an absolute king and he may have wanted to be more like the French king and he may have wanted to redistill Catholicism, but I don't see how that make these all "modern."
So too with his arguments that the revolution was a popular revolt against Catholic modernity, rather than an elite rejection of Catholicism. He certainly supports the view that there was popular agitation and awareness throughout the country of James' desire to bring back Catholicism. But when he describes events and words, they certainly seem to have mostly been animated by anti-Catholic fervor. My sense from reading this book is that if James had done much of what he wanted from an Anglican perspective he would not have aroused such animus in England. And as far as a popular revolution, there were certainly rebellious acts all around the realm, but there were not many people involved. At one point Pincus refers to active revolters as numbering in the "thousands," which just isn't a very big number.
My prediction is that scholars will in time revert to the their view that the Great Revolution was relatively bloodless and not a popular revolution, but one that was led by elites alarmed at the king's advocacy of Catholicism and absolute power. Was it the first "modern" revolution as Pincus asserts? I don't know enough to answer that, but am skeptical that it is much more than another label that Pincus thinks can be proved by repetition.
Pincus does an excellent job of describing the many changes James sought to bring to the governance of England, but then undercuts it all by stating over and over again that James wanted to make his monarchy a "modern Catholic" realm. He demonstrates that James' affinity for France led to his desire to make his authority absolute. He also instutued many changes in taxation and the army and navy. But can these really be described as an attempt to make a modern kingship? Undoubtedly some changes were modernizations, but is having a bigger navy or quartering soldiers in homes modern in any sense of the word? Pincus gets stuck on trying to prove this point and in my view falls short. Just saying the phrase "Catholic modernity" over and over again just isn't convincing. James may have wanted to be an absolute king and he may have wanted to be more like the French king and he may have wanted to redistill Catholicism, but I don't see how that make these all "modern."
So too with his arguments that the revolution was a popular revolt against Catholic modernity, rather than an elite rejection of Catholicism. He certainly supports the view that there was popular agitation and awareness throughout the country of James' desire to bring back Catholicism. But when he describes events and words, they certainly seem to have mostly been animated by anti-Catholic fervor. My sense from reading this book is that if James had done much of what he wanted from an Anglican perspective he would not have aroused such animus in England. And as far as a popular revolution, there were certainly rebellious acts all around the realm, but there were not many people involved. At one point Pincus refers to active revolters as numbering in the "thousands," which just isn't a very big number.
My prediction is that scholars will in time revert to the their view that the Great Revolution was relatively bloodless and not a popular revolution, but one that was led by elites alarmed at the king's advocacy of Catholicism and absolute power. Was it the first "modern" revolution as Pincus asserts? I don't know enough to answer that, but am skeptical that it is much more than another label that Pincus thinks can be proved by repetition.
May 21, 2012
This is what I wrote when I began to read the book (first try: April 13, 2011; second try: 7 October 2011):
-----------------------
I just began to read this book. My interest in the 1688 revolution in England is that it produced reforms that the founders of the United States of America understood and appreciated well. Their deep understanding of the history of governance allowed them to implement many of those governance ideas in their newly established country. My bias in reading the book will be that: the effect of the revolution on the Constitution of the United States, through its Bill of Rights.
------------------------
I finished reading it on May 15, 2012. Here's my concluding impression:
------------------------
Using awe-inspiring research from all manner of sources that deal with that period (1685 to 1699, for the most part), Mr. Pincus produced an equally awe-inspiring analysis of the 1688-9 revolution that deposed James II and replaced him with William of Orange. The title may have been more accurate if it read "1688: The First Modernizing Revolution". The book takes a deep look into all the currents that led to the deposing revolution and its aftermath. Most attractive is Mr. Pincus analysis of the political (domestic and foreign) and economic ideologies extant at the time, together with the no less important religious influences that both divided and energized the people of England.
Early in the book, I became interested in the revolution and its energizing undercurrents independently of the revolution's effect on the eventual creation of the United States of America.
Great treat!
-----------------------
I just began to read this book. My interest in the 1688 revolution in England is that it produced reforms that the founders of the United States of America understood and appreciated well. Their deep understanding of the history of governance allowed them to implement many of those governance ideas in their newly established country. My bias in reading the book will be that: the effect of the revolution on the Constitution of the United States, through its Bill of Rights.
------------------------
I finished reading it on May 15, 2012. Here's my concluding impression:
------------------------
Using awe-inspiring research from all manner of sources that deal with that period (1685 to 1699, for the most part), Mr. Pincus produced an equally awe-inspiring analysis of the 1688-9 revolution that deposed James II and replaced him with William of Orange. The title may have been more accurate if it read "1688: The First Modernizing Revolution". The book takes a deep look into all the currents that led to the deposing revolution and its aftermath. Most attractive is Mr. Pincus analysis of the political (domestic and foreign) and economic ideologies extant at the time, together with the no less important religious influences that both divided and energized the people of England.
Early in the book, I became interested in the revolution and its energizing undercurrents independently of the revolution's effect on the eventual creation of the United States of America.
Great treat!
December 16, 2025
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is one of the most important events in American and British history, but today goes largely unrecognized. The event has been dismissed as a religious quarrel, a palace coup, a seizure of power by aristocrats from an overweening King. It has been seen has bloodless, but not a real revolution of politics and culture. Pincus corrects these notions with his thesis: 1688 was the first modern revolution, unleashed by advancing and competing forces of modernity in England; the Catholic Modernity of James II which sought overseas trade and alliance with France, and the Protestant Modernity of the Whigs and King William III, which saw England aligned with the Dutch and more continental interests.
One of the biggest misconceptions about 1688 that Pincus tackles is that James II was seeking to bring England back to Rome. He was certainly seeking to proselytize and to carve out a public space for Catholics to practice their religion without harassment, but King James’ interests were much more aligned with France and Louis XIV than the Pope in Rome. James sought to create a modern centralized state, and used France and the monarchy of his cousin Louis XIV as his direct model. When faced with resistance, James fled to France, and it was French support that enabled James to wage
war in Ireland and rebellion in the Scottish Highlands against the Williamite regime. The exile of James II and the subsequent Nine Years War and War of Spanish Succession should be seen as England aligning herself against France, not against Rome. Even the Pope himself did not like Louis XIV, and blessed William III’s war effort against the French!
The next misconception that Pincus tackles is that he largely deemphasizes the role of religion in the events around 1688. He argues that the forces at work were competing conceptions of modernity, not competing faiths and creeds. He bases this claim on several factors:
1. Monmouth’s Rebellion in 1685 failed because of its narrow religious aims.
2. The Williamite regime was in favor of toleration, not religious dogmatism.
3. Jacobitism was supported by both Protestants and Catholics.
4. Many English Catholics came to support King William over the course of the 1690s.
And here I just can’t follow him. The aims of Monmouth’s Rebellion were so confused, I don’t think Monmouth himself knew what he was trying to accomplish. It may have failed for lacking clear goals, but certainly not for being narrowly religious. The Williamite policy of toleration, Jacobite beliefs in hereditary succession and passive obedience, the acceptance by English Catholics of William as their de facto king after the Revolution: religious faith and ethics are at the center of all of these things. It is easy for modern people to dismiss religion as a motivation in our day simply because moderns rarely think about religion themselves, but it is a back-projection. Even someone as unscrupulous as John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough cited his Protestant faith in his letter explaining his defection from James to William. You might very well cry hypocrite, but even hypocrisy is indicative of a sincere cultural ideal.
The next misconception that Pincus attacks is the notion that 1688 was merely a coup carried out by ambitious noblemen, without the consent or involvement of the common people. But Pincus provides ample evidence of the involvement of all ranks of society, from the bourgeois middle-sort to the London mob. Without the landing of William III with a large army, the populace of England could never have stood up to James’ professional army. But without the support of the common people, William could never have hoped to be swept into power as easily as he was. William’s military power, and the support of both the Lords and Commons of England were vitally necessary for the success of the Glorious Revolution.
Another issue Pincus discusses is that the so called “Bloodless Revolution” was far from bloodless. While there were no major battles in England, yet there was bloodletting between James’ and William’s armies and by the Whig mob against Catholics. Outside of England, there was a bloody rebellion in Scotland by Viscount Dundee, and a full scale war in Ireland that lasted three years. The loss of life in these insurrections and in the Nine Years War against France was compared by contemporaries to the destructiveness of the Roman Civil War between Caesar and Pompey. Comparatively, the Glorious Revolution was much much less bloody than the English Civil Wars, roughly 1640 to 1660, but it was not bloodless.
The chapter on the Revolution and the Church was fascinating. It seems that one effect of the Revolution in the long-term was to weaken the moral authority of the Church of England. Pre-1688, the CoE had been staunchly in support of passive obedience and non-resistance. They supported James II’s right to succeed to the crown, they decried resistance against him, and they supported measures to persecute Catholics and Protestant dissenters, in order to bring them into the Church of England. After the Revolution, many clergymen and bishops refused to swear the oath to King William, becoming “non-jurors”. Many of those became Jacobites. But broadly, the character of the Church of England changed with new Bishops installed by King William. The worship of dissenters like Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists was now tolerated. The doctrinal standards for admission into the Church of England were lowered. The church became less “high” and more “broad,” or “big-tent” as we might say today. The belief of many of the new Williamite Bishops was that Dissenters should be received with charity because they loved God and lived well. But that meant that faith in the CoE became based less on articles of religion and more on morality. In seeking to become more broad, the church lost conviction. Ultimately I think this has proved disastrous for the Christian faith in England. At least when Protestant churches were persecuting each other, they recognized that differences in doctrine really do matter.
“1688” is an excellent study into a neglected chapter of American, British, and even Church history. The Glorious Revolution was a precursor to our own revolution, which produced a constitutional order and even a Bill of Rights that inspired our own. An American ought to know something of what happened in 1688, and this is a very thick and scholarly work to help you learn.
One of the biggest misconceptions about 1688 that Pincus tackles is that James II was seeking to bring England back to Rome. He was certainly seeking to proselytize and to carve out a public space for Catholics to practice their religion without harassment, but King James’ interests were much more aligned with France and Louis XIV than the Pope in Rome. James sought to create a modern centralized state, and used France and the monarchy of his cousin Louis XIV as his direct model. When faced with resistance, James fled to France, and it was French support that enabled James to wage
war in Ireland and rebellion in the Scottish Highlands against the Williamite regime. The exile of James II and the subsequent Nine Years War and War of Spanish Succession should be seen as England aligning herself against France, not against Rome. Even the Pope himself did not like Louis XIV, and blessed William III’s war effort against the French!
The next misconception that Pincus tackles is that he largely deemphasizes the role of religion in the events around 1688. He argues that the forces at work were competing conceptions of modernity, not competing faiths and creeds. He bases this claim on several factors:
1. Monmouth’s Rebellion in 1685 failed because of its narrow religious aims.
2. The Williamite regime was in favor of toleration, not religious dogmatism.
3. Jacobitism was supported by both Protestants and Catholics.
4. Many English Catholics came to support King William over the course of the 1690s.
And here I just can’t follow him. The aims of Monmouth’s Rebellion were so confused, I don’t think Monmouth himself knew what he was trying to accomplish. It may have failed for lacking clear goals, but certainly not for being narrowly religious. The Williamite policy of toleration, Jacobite beliefs in hereditary succession and passive obedience, the acceptance by English Catholics of William as their de facto king after the Revolution: religious faith and ethics are at the center of all of these things. It is easy for modern people to dismiss religion as a motivation in our day simply because moderns rarely think about religion themselves, but it is a back-projection. Even someone as unscrupulous as John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough cited his Protestant faith in his letter explaining his defection from James to William. You might very well cry hypocrite, but even hypocrisy is indicative of a sincere cultural ideal.
The next misconception that Pincus attacks is the notion that 1688 was merely a coup carried out by ambitious noblemen, without the consent or involvement of the common people. But Pincus provides ample evidence of the involvement of all ranks of society, from the bourgeois middle-sort to the London mob. Without the landing of William III with a large army, the populace of England could never have stood up to James’ professional army. But without the support of the common people, William could never have hoped to be swept into power as easily as he was. William’s military power, and the support of both the Lords and Commons of England were vitally necessary for the success of the Glorious Revolution.
Another issue Pincus discusses is that the so called “Bloodless Revolution” was far from bloodless. While there were no major battles in England, yet there was bloodletting between James’ and William’s armies and by the Whig mob against Catholics. Outside of England, there was a bloody rebellion in Scotland by Viscount Dundee, and a full scale war in Ireland that lasted three years. The loss of life in these insurrections and in the Nine Years War against France was compared by contemporaries to the destructiveness of the Roman Civil War between Caesar and Pompey. Comparatively, the Glorious Revolution was much much less bloody than the English Civil Wars, roughly 1640 to 1660, but it was not bloodless.
The chapter on the Revolution and the Church was fascinating. It seems that one effect of the Revolution in the long-term was to weaken the moral authority of the Church of England. Pre-1688, the CoE had been staunchly in support of passive obedience and non-resistance. They supported James II’s right to succeed to the crown, they decried resistance against him, and they supported measures to persecute Catholics and Protestant dissenters, in order to bring them into the Church of England. After the Revolution, many clergymen and bishops refused to swear the oath to King William, becoming “non-jurors”. Many of those became Jacobites. But broadly, the character of the Church of England changed with new Bishops installed by King William. The worship of dissenters like Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists was now tolerated. The doctrinal standards for admission into the Church of England were lowered. The church became less “high” and more “broad,” or “big-tent” as we might say today. The belief of many of the new Williamite Bishops was that Dissenters should be received with charity because they loved God and lived well. But that meant that faith in the CoE became based less on articles of religion and more on morality. In seeking to become more broad, the church lost conviction. Ultimately I think this has proved disastrous for the Christian faith in England. At least when Protestant churches were persecuting each other, they recognized that differences in doctrine really do matter.
“1688” is an excellent study into a neglected chapter of American, British, and even Church history. The Glorious Revolution was a precursor to our own revolution, which produced a constitutional order and even a Bill of Rights that inspired our own. An American ought to know something of what happened in 1688, and this is a very thick and scholarly work to help you learn.
June 23, 2018
This is a very scholarly history of the "Glorious Revolution", and something of a polemic. Pincus contrasts his understanding of the revolution (i.e., as a modern revolution) to a couple of standard models held widely by other historians. To rebut them, he really pounds home his points with copious citations, relentlessly.
I found that, after a while, I gave up on reading the middle of many of his paragraphs as he would present a series of citations, from various sources, in support of the proposition he presented in the paragraph's opening sentence. I eventually concluded that he did, indeed, have evidence for his statements but skipped over that evidence.
I also skipped a couple of the final chapters for similar reasons. I could read the opening and closing pages, and be satisfied that he had made his points.
If I were a scholar studying the period, I would find this book invaluable. As a lay-person, interested in history in a broad way, I found this book to be enlightening, but pretty hard sledding at times. I am glad I read it; I am REALLY glad I am finished.
I found that, after a while, I gave up on reading the middle of many of his paragraphs as he would present a series of citations, from various sources, in support of the proposition he presented in the paragraph's opening sentence. I eventually concluded that he did, indeed, have evidence for his statements but skipped over that evidence.
I also skipped a couple of the final chapters for similar reasons. I could read the opening and closing pages, and be satisfied that he had made his points.
If I were a scholar studying the period, I would find this book invaluable. As a lay-person, interested in history in a broad way, I found this book to be enlightening, but pretty hard sledding at times. I am glad I read it; I am REALLY glad I am finished.
February 15, 2022
An exceptionally wordy account of the English Revolution
I wanted to give this book two stars, but felt that would be too harsh. The author gives a very complete and in-depth account of the events before and after 1689, but a great deal of what is presented is repeated in chapter after chapter. I found myself saying "you've already said that, now get on with it!!". I did learn a lot, but I had to wallow through much turgid prose to find the nuggets. The book would be served well by having an editor remove and condense a large amount of material. Not recommended.
I wanted to give this book two stars, but felt that would be too harsh. The author gives a very complete and in-depth account of the events before and after 1689, but a great deal of what is presented is repeated in chapter after chapter. I found myself saying "you've already said that, now get on with it!!". I did learn a lot, but I had to wallow through much turgid prose to find the nuggets. The book would be served well by having an editor remove and condense a large amount of material. Not recommended.
November 1, 2014
This was a pretty good book though I think I would have enjoyed it more if I had been more familiar with the subject when I started it. Even for history buffs, this might not be a terribly fun read. It is more academic in tone, refuting the mainstream interpretation of the Glorious Revolution and presenting his own. It was well written, but if you don't already know much about this era, the full impact of his arguments may fall short.
January 13, 2026
This is a beast of a book, weighing in at over 650 pages. However, for all of that detail, it lacks readability. Rather than presenting a history of the period, Mr. Pincus has written a legal brief as to why his interpretation is unique compared to all other work. For the reader looking for a history of the period, rather than a polemic against previous scholarship, this makes for a tough read. Mr. Pincus relies on repetition too much and he cites evidence from 10 letters, when 2 examples would suffice. I was left wondering what was left out that supported other points of view rather than being convinced.
Sadly, there could be a very interesting history here. Mr. Pincus appears right that the events of the last 20 years of the 17th Century re-framed our understanding of sovereignty, religious co-habitation, if not tolerance, and the role of trade and finance in our economy. Unfortunately, Mr. Pincus is too much on the attack against other works and these themes get somewhat lost. Additionally, Mr. Pincus does too little to develop why this revolution was different than the revolution earlier in the Century leading to the rise of the commonwealth. He also fails to really explore how these changing attitudes were exported to the English colonies and gave rise to independence movements.
At the end of the day, I would summarize as good topic, poorly executed. Don't waste your time (and a lot of it).
Sadly, there could be a very interesting history here. Mr. Pincus appears right that the events of the last 20 years of the 17th Century re-framed our understanding of sovereignty, religious co-habitation, if not tolerance, and the role of trade and finance in our economy. Unfortunately, Mr. Pincus is too much on the attack against other works and these themes get somewhat lost. Additionally, Mr. Pincus does too little to develop why this revolution was different than the revolution earlier in the Century leading to the rise of the commonwealth. He also fails to really explore how these changing attitudes were exported to the English colonies and gave rise to independence movements.
At the end of the day, I would summarize as good topic, poorly executed. Don't waste your time (and a lot of it).
early-modern-britain
January 23, 2023A handful of lingering questions:
1) Steve mentions Charles II on several occasions throughout the work. A telling instance is in the conclusion: “Charles II increasingly, and James II with fanatical energy, committed themselves to adapting the French political model to England” (480). Yet if the process of Gallican state formation which reached its apogee under James II began under Charles (presumably in the 1680s) why was James welcomed with open arms? Who was unclear where they stood vis-a-vis Charles’s modernization scheme that was forced to choose Whig revolutionary modernity after James escalated it?
[Draft]
1) Steve mentions Charles II on several occasions throughout the work. A telling instance is in the conclusion: “Charles II increasingly, and James II with fanatical energy, committed themselves to adapting the French political model to England” (480). Yet if the process of Gallican state formation which reached its apogee under James II began under Charles (presumably in the 1680s) why was James welcomed with open arms? Who was unclear where they stood vis-a-vis Charles’s modernization scheme that was forced to choose Whig revolutionary modernity after James escalated it?
[Draft]
Read
December 18, 2025DNF 20% -ABANDONADO AL 20%
Leí un 20% y parece que repite la misma idea una y otra vez. No avanza nunca.
Y la idea que repite, no me interesa para nada. Esperaba un libro más abarcativo sobre diferentes aspectos de la sociedad (particularmente me interesaba la revolución científica y la Royal Society) pero no, habla solamente de aspectos políticos bastante acotados. Así que, aquí nos despedimos.
Si a alguien le interesa el libro y quiere comprármelo o canjearlo por otro, que me chifle.
Leí un 20% y parece que repite la misma idea una y otra vez. No avanza nunca.
Y la idea que repite, no me interesa para nada. Esperaba un libro más abarcativo sobre diferentes aspectos de la sociedad (particularmente me interesaba la revolución científica y la Royal Society) pero no, habla solamente de aspectos políticos bastante acotados. Así que, aquí nos despedimos.
Si a alguien le interesa el libro y quiere comprármelo o canjearlo por otro, que me chifle.
October 3, 2018
Interesting and well-demonstrated/well-argued thesis, but gets a bit repetitive by the later half of the book. Also, despite the book's claims to look at the events of 1688 in context, it presumes that readers have rather more knowledge of early 18th British History (Robert Walpole, etc.) than I do.
April 27, 2020
I actually wrote a review for this one. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/guts-g...
May 4, 2012
While I'm only about 75% into the book, it has been interesting thus far and the author's premise is certainly not the usual view of the Glorious Revolution. The consensus view of the 1688 revolution for the past couple of centuries is that it was not a revolution in the modern sense, but merely a recovery of rights stripped from the English people by an oppressive and increasingly tyrannical king and centralized state. Pincus' premise is that it was indeed a true revolution in the modern meaning of the term.
Although I haven't completed the book to read all his arguments and reasoning, I must say it concurs with my own conclusions about the Glorious Revolution from previous books on the period. Certainly the people who lived through it, as well as their continental neighbors, saw it as a major cultural upheaval.
Although I haven't completed the book to read all his arguments and reasoning, I must say it concurs with my own conclusions about the Glorious Revolution from previous books on the period. Certainly the people who lived through it, as well as their continental neighbors, saw it as a major cultural upheaval.
April 4, 2013
The theme of the book is: "Everything you always thought about the 1688 Revolution was wrong." So it's not the perfect book for someone like me, who never thought much about the subject at all, and just wanted to learn about it. From what I could tell, the author's point of view isn't as totally unconventional as he tries to persuade the reader it is: a lot of what he said seemed pretty much consistent with what he describes as the received wisdom. I would have preferred a more straightforward narrative history. And he's not a fabulous writer. But he seems to know what he's talking about, and I sure came out knowing more about 1688 than I did before.
Read
June 25, 2010I’m reading 1688: The First Modern Revolution by Steve Pincus. The conventional wisdom is that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 wasn’t really a revolution but a kind of coup d’état that preserved England’s form of government and ancient liberties from James II’s effort to create an absolute monarchy. Pincus argues that the Glorious Revolution was a revolution. It involved a political and social upheaval that resulted in a modern state different from the one envisioned by James II but also quite different from the pre-modern system that it replaced. - Eric Posner
December 22, 2014
Pincus provides a thorough presentation of evidence on why the Glorious Revolution should be considered the first modern revolution, and that it is more instrumental to the forming of modern Britain than earlier considered. The book reads like a very well written doctoral dissertation. I would have liked more narration of events, to provide the context for his arguments. The mass of primary documents is fascinating but also bogs down the progress. Certainly interesting nonetheless.
December 16, 2012
Grand treatment of James II' rise and fall within the context of Gallican absolutism and Catholicism as well as the usual context of English politics. Pincus is a little bit too fond of tooting his own horn as well as repeating every key point as he move along but still a surprisingly easy read for a weighty volume. However, I'd recommend the non-scholar zip past the first two chapter which are mostly about interpretations of the Revolution and why any but his suck!
May 10, 2010
An amazing book - incredibly well-researched and written. I did get a just a wee bit impatient with the author constantly reminding us what the purpose of his book was but that is a small price to pay. Highly recommended for anyone interested in English history and/or the development of Western democracy.
September 8, 2011
Nice argument. Pincus says that England's Glorious Revolution was not a bloodless Protestant revolt against a Catholic King, but rather an attempt by reformers to transform England into a modern state: government support for economic freedom and industry, shift to manufacturing, with a strong military and increased political participation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews