In this first episode of Series 9, a a chance to talk about some of the themes which will drive our period of 1660 to 1715. The continuing role of religion in politics, the Rage of Parties, the varying fortunes and influences of the Three Kingdoms, the growing involvement of Britain in European conflict. But most of all a growing transformation of society, the age of improvement, the ‘crucible  of modernity’ – the English Enlightenment.

Download Podcast - 433 9.1 Restoration, Revolution and the English Enlightenment (Right Click and select Save Link As)

Transcript

This episode though is not just the next one in line, it’s the first in a new series; welcome to series 9, which will cover the period from 1660 to 1714. I had to give this a name, a title, and thinking of snappy, energizing and illuminating titles have never been a personal strength. As an editor back in the dim and distant I published a book called Integral Logistic Structures, the meaning of which is still hidden from me, and I have been mulling it over for 40 years. There are so many constraints fopr Titles, and so I threw it open for the discussion to the FB group which was very helpful indeed. I have gone for Restoration, Revolution and Enlightenment, which is a bit long, and not one many people voted for, sorry about that! But look, I have prejudices and bigotries which need to be oiled, watered and nourished, so that’s what I have done.

So today’s episode will mainly be a scene setter, and I am going to do three things. Firstly, I am going to give you a pretty brief survey of the headline events of our period, split into three bits; then in the bulk of the episode we are going to talk about the historiography. Then I am going to talk more about some of the themes of the story. Don’t expect it to be too comprehensive, but a few of the big things to look out for.

Ok first part, some general periods within our period, I am going to split it into three within 1660 to 1714, of very unequal length.

Firstly, the Restoration of the Stuart monarchy in all three kingdoms, which looks pretty solid to start off with, everyone is pleased to see the king back, and boy, is he pleased to be back. His reign will be a story of dealing with what has happened for the last 20 years, which will haunt the reign. Despite his good start, by the early 1680s it’s all looking pretty rocky, with concerns about absolutism and the succession and moral torpidity, until Charles pulls off a remarkable comeback with support of the Tories, and hands over a solid and secure inheritance to his bro’, James.

Which is the second period 1685 –1689, James’ reign and the Glorious Revolution which sends the senior Stuart line into exile and opens the Reign of William and Mary, the Bill of Rights and all that. Which you might think of as many of those fundamental issues raised in the 1640s finally arriving at a resolution – a resolution acceptable to a majority in England, probably in Scotland, not at all in Ireland. With William comes a very noticeable change in pace as regards the outside world. I reckon when I did history at school a lot of it used to be about Foreign Policy – that was the really interesting stuff, though it was 19th century, Empire and all that. But the importance of foreign policy and international warfare starts hear, with William, being the first of a line of monarchs with territorial interests outside our islands.

And then the third period, 1690 to 1714, the running out of the Stuart line as monarchs of Britain and Ireland and the seismic events that Anne, the best of the Stuarts in my humble, helps bring about – the victory of the sovereignty of the people over the divine, hereditary principle of monarchy, and the Union of Wales, England and Scotland. Just to warn you out there – in discussing the union, the particular personal bigotry I need to oil means that I shall not stint in my whiggish view that far from being some corrupt underhand deal of extension of an English empire , this was the most inspired act of statesmanship of which the Scots should be glowingly proud, and that while Rab Burns might be a brilliant poet and a lovely man, he was a rubbish political scientist. You have been warned.

 

 

 

 

 

So, what are the headline themes we going to hear about in Series 9, what are the big issue? I am excited to arrive at this period of history, because there is so much that changes, so many fundamental things which make the Britain I love the way she is now. I have to say equally I don’t love all of the things that went on, good lord no, it is a time of the most discombobulating contrasts and impossible illogicalities, more so than ever. I will in just a moment or two have a rant about the absence of the phrase the English Enlightenment in our historiography – so you might want to nip out and put the kettle on for a nice cup of tea – but to give you just one example of discombobulating nature of the opposites in the English Enlightenment let me mention John Locke. A key figure in the Enlightenment, who as Roy Porter points out, argued for the natural freedom of mankind, but then in Fundamental constitutions of Carolina 1669 which he drafted gave masters absolute authority over enslaved people. So – conflicting emotions then, and there’s a lot of that coming up.

I have a feeling also a few of you might be a bit excited too. After all the pain and puritanism of the Civil Wars, at last a bit of fun, the Merrie Monarch, king of Bling, all of that. And it’s also a period punctuated by serious political events, and we might with some justice have called it something even grander like the making of Great Britain.

Surely there’s enough good stuff there to keep us going. So when I did my customary dig into the historiography of the period, I was surprised, shocked, and, I’m not going to lie to you – a little tearful. One strand, and particularly hurtful I might add, is a complete lack of interest in the Restoration period itself among academics, and even a distaste; for many it was nothing more than

a squalid interlude between interregnum and Enlightenment.[1]

Basically, a corrupt court had replaced an innovatory republic, Cromwell’s cherished religious liberty was crushed beneath the heel of the Anglican establishment. And even worse, having been kicked by Cromwell’s slippers, the Dutch become more kicking than kicked upon; the image of the Royal Charles being towed by giggling Dutch from the haven of Chatham has got to be one of the lowest points in English military history since the Battle of Maldon. Even Kipling got stuck into that with a poem

Mere powder, guns, and bullets,

We scarce can get at all,

Their price was spent in merriment

And revel at Whitehall,

The bad mouthing started quite soon; Charles II’s funeral was nothing to talk about, and by the end of the 18th Century, the famous Whig Charles James Fox dismissed Charles II’s reign as

‘a disgrace to the history of our country’

The product of a corrupt, dissolute and immoral king and court. It has be said that if you are given to searching for example of the pot calling the kettle black, or people chucking stones around in glasshouses, Charles James Fox calling anyone dissolute has got to be right up there. However, Fox was foursquare in the Whig tradition; and Charles’ royal power had been saved by his alliance with dreaded Tories in the 1680s, and their relentlessly hounding of whigs from power. And it’s the Whigs who would write the history.

James II did get any love either. A 19th century academic, even as a Tory minded one to boot, skinned James II as ‘a bad, cheap copy’ of Charles I, ouch, without ‘the dignity and courage of his father in adversity’ ooof, nothing more than ‘bad, unromantic and a fool’. Stop now, show some mercy!

The Scots didn’t help; the Restoration saw the most severe religious repression in its history in the Killing Times and also the actual arrival of royal absolutism. Nor did the Irish, whose historiography is dominated by the establishment of the Protestant Ascendancy, which I think is fair to say is not generally considered a Good Thing these days. Correct me if I am wrong.

You might think that English historians at very least would get excited by the Revolution of 1688; after all it would be called the Glorious Revolution, a phrase invented, I learn, by one John Hampden in 1689, John Hampden being the grandson of THE John Hampden, the Great Patriot, who died on Chalgrove Field and all that. By golly, it’s amazing what you find out when you read books.

But even there well, it’s always had an ambiguous place in English history. To the liberal minded it was fuelled simply by anti Catholic bigotry, and rude to mention since it was an afront to Irish sensibilities for whom it was anything but glorious, and indeed it’s as hard to get through a conversation about the Glorious Revolution without someone rolling the Irish view out as a bit of a gotcha, a bit like the St George was Turkish thing that comes up annually on 23rd Aril, and then the other delighted Gotcha by pointing out that this was in fact, the first successful invasion since 1066. And then there are the Tories of course for whom the Revolution and the Act of Succession were always problematic, not to mention the poor old Jacobites.

Now the great Whig historians, Macauley and the like did talk it up, but even they were a bit half-arsed; a bit Edmund Burke like, they presented it as

A revolution not made, but prevented

It was Glorious, because it was a conservative revolution against an innovating absolutist; ancient rights were preserved, that sort of line. And it was a genteel affair, largely perpetrated by an aristocratic elite, not like that horrid revolution thingy, and don’t things go so much better when the plebs stay in their track? That sort of thing. G M Trevelyan called it ‘The Sensible Revolution’ which has to be the least sexy kind of revolution. Not exactly Che Guevara is it? Having said that of course, given the viciousness of the lad Che’s career, that is almost certainly a Good Thing.

And finally, although there’ll be a lot more to say when we get there, the shine has most definitely come off the Act of Union, which in the heyday of Victorian Britain when the benefits of the deal seemed glaringly obvious to all, was pretty universally talked up. But now with the resurgence of Nationalism, you have to work very hard to find anyone bold enough to talk it up. And don’t say the Union was a great thing on the interwebs, unless you enjoy being a keyboard warrior.

 

 

 

So, as I say, I was a bit shocked. In all of this, the point to emphasise about the historiography, is that even within the Later Stuart Period as a whole, the Restoration has been the Cinderella period, and it’s been argued that not very much happened to change the lives of ordinary people. In evidence, Historians could contrast our period with the population surge from the mid 18th century, the spread of industrialisation, the growth of Empire, colonialisation and trade, wealth, the flowering of public sphere with newspapers and Samuel Johnson and all that. Whereas in our period, the progress of Empire, international trade and colonialism is still relatively hidden; though this will indeed be a theme of the period in terms particularly of the trade in enslaved people; it is in our period when the English begin to take a serious share in the evil trade, and sees the establishment of hellish slave based economies in the English Caribbean islands. Luxury goods will increasingly appear, but not on the scale of the 18th century. And meantime population stays pretty static and even falls, the industrial revolution was not yet obvious. All of this lead one historian to write

The changes in English society between the reign of Elizabeth and the reign of Anne were not revolutionary[2]

But that does seem bonkers. And over the last few decades there has been at least some push back from historians which has emphasised just radical our period is. And these are some of the themes we’ll explore during Series 9. Here we go with a bit of a list, and a rant at the end, when you can put the kettle on, and I hope it fits.

One of the fascinating things about the revolutionary period is the explosion of print and the first appearance of many aspects of a public sphere. That does not stop, not for one moment, despite Charles’ attempt to re-impose censorship and close coffee houses; the Glorious revolution will very much rely on the public voice and politics out of doors, as historians call it, as well as parliamentary politics. It’s also one of the most fun of all times to talk about parliamentary politics, because party politics have arrived, in a big way, whoop whoop let’s give it up for the Rage of Parties, whig and Tory. What a hoot. If you are looking for polite and reasoned debate – you’ve come to the wrong place. It is a partisanship which reaches right down into society. Identity politics, 17th century style.

Secondly, the need to talk about Three Kingdoms rather than just England is as strong as ever. Scotland, England and Ireland’s experiences were very different; and in this Scotland’s experience under the Restoration is fascinating, and Tim Harris in particular makes the argument that it was here where Charles succeeded in fulfilling his absolutist dreams, which fed English fears and contributed to the resistance to James’ policies.

A third theme is the growing insertion of European conflict into English politics. I mean I know it’s always been around, but it’s always seemed like an optional extra. Well, Charles will go to war with the Dutch; but more significantly, while William of Orange obviously sailed to England with 15,000 of his closest mates simply to save English liberties and so on, actually while he was about it, it suddenly occurred to him one night that hey! Maybe he could also use the resources of the Three Kingdoms to save the Netherlands from the predatory ambitions of Louis XIV? Why didn’t he think of that before coming over? Well, maybe he did actually. But either way, this means England will be re-organised to finance decades of continual warfare.

Fourthly, is the continuing importance of religion. I’m really sorry about that, I expect you are looking forward to the days when it isn’t a big thing, but that’s a way off. Secularisation is on the way. There is already a level of toleration – no one is executed for their religious beliefs anymore. The last one in England was Edward Wightman in 1612, the last one in Scotland will be in 1697 Thomas Aikenhead. It’s said the last in Wales was 1679, but since that’s part of Titus Oates Popish plot affair, I’ll need to verify that sometime, it might have instead been for treason – let me get back to you. But,that categorically does not mean an end to persecution; the most serious to suffer in England under Charles will be Quakers, but there are discriminatory laws against both protestant Dissenters and Catholics. And there is still a very strong association in the Anglican political mind of Dissenters with social upheaval and division, not necessarily fairly. But that’s not the theme here; the thing we will keep coming back to is the influence of that public fear of Catholicism.

There’s still for some the traditional fear that the Pope is not just a person with differing views, but the actual tool of the devil, who is fooling poor Catholics and dragging souls to hell. It is now more about secular fears – an external threat to liberty and freedom. Catholicism is associated in the political and public mind with tyrannical foreign states. Throughout the 17th century, the English have increasingly felt the threat of encirclement by Catholic powers, especially after the 30 years war went so wrong, and Protestantism was extinguished in Bohemia, and under pressure in the Palatinate. The link between religion and the fear of arbitrary power and tyranny is what makes the threat of Catholic powers so potent in political debate. The English look at the absolutism of Louis XIV, Spain, and the Empire and they fear losing their independence and rights. This will be the key to James’ disastrous career; if Catholicism = tyranny, and a Catholic king starts promoting Catholics, this becomes an existential threat. It is political dynamite, and of course very polarising; once you start talking about good and evil, there’s not much common ground – ‘not as evil as you might think’ isn’t a good debating position.

 

PLACE GAP HERE 18:59

 

 

 

But the most exciting theme to the period really, or the one that gets me most excited, is all about an increasingly strong, and fundamental change in society. Which prompted Neil Mortimer to disagree pretty much 180 degrees with the ‘nothing very important happens’ brigade, and announce excitedly in his Time Travellers Guide to Restoration Britain that

In English history, probably the only year which stands comparison with 1660 as a turning point is 1066

I can heartily recommend Mortimer’s book which is as excellent as all of them are. Mortimer’s point, which I suspect many would now agree with, is that this is the time

When the last dying notes of the medieval worlds are drowned out by the rising trumpet fanfare of modernity, and the rationalism that you take for granted

Now I would take issue with Mortimer about 1660, because of course many of the things we will talk about actually start before then; and he appears not to see the link between radical Protestantism – including puritanism – and radical political ideas. I agree with him that the death of puritan government is critical, though, but I’d rather put it that this is the time, when, the intellectual innovation sparked by the chaos of the revolutionary period will start to come to full flower. The networks of Samuel Hatlib that sought for Improvement based on rational enquiry will not die but be adopted by others – a man called Henry Oldenburg. The research and work, patronised by Katherine Ranlegh, and carried out by Robert Boyle, Hooke and the Oxford Experimental Society in the gardens of Wadham college will became the Royal Society – and Henry Oldenberg will be the first secretary. There will be a growing stream of innovations which will start to transform daily life – the basic attitudes of rationalism and reason is the most important but the output of that are museums, tourist maps, improved postal services, improving communications – the list is endless. Well, I exaggerate for effect which is not very English of me; the list is not inconsiderable shall we say.

Hand in hand with this rationalism and search for improvement is an increasing secularism. But we need to be careful about this; it’s a long process. And make no mistake one of the things of which you can be sure, is that religion is still the central part of most peoples’ lives and as discussed will have an absolutely explosive influence in politics. The religious wars aren’t over, but the secularisation is on its way, and in fact one of the most distinctive features of the Restoration period specifically is an orgy of rejection of the rule of the saints of the 1650s. And I chose the word orgy quite deliberately. The wild sexual freedom exercised by the royal court and Restoration theatre were an active rejection of the past – as well as the return of a nobility celebrating their renewed domination of society and politics, wallowing in their privilege like pigs in muck.

Which brings me on to the word Enlightenment. I have stubbornly included this in the series 9 title because it seems to me while the English don’t invent the Enlightenment – that would take English exceptionalism too far – from the second half of the 17th century our leadership is indeed exceptional in many aspects of the central features of the Enlightenment movement – the emphasis on reason, the importance of scientific enquiry, a relentless search for improvement, political reform, a focus on individual liberty and rights. And most of all – above all the others – a spirit of optimism, and confidence that the world could and would be changed for the better.

The historiography of English Enlightenment is really a bit odd. A bit odd because it is a phrase that almost never appears anywhere. The Scots now, they are very good at self promotion; W R Scott in 1900 proudly coined the term, the Scottish enlightenment, and loyal English academic Hugh Trevor Roper made it popular – before torching his career over the Hitler diaries.  And he was right to do so, because they have a proud, tradition which sprang from specifically Scottish roots  – from Francis Hutcheson in the 1730 – he was an Ulsterman actually but did his work at Glasgow University – to the likes of David Hume in the mid 18th century and Adman Smith later on – these are giants of Enlightenment thought.

But English Enlightenment? That has never been a thing, and indeed an American historian once said that the term

‘English Enlightenment would be jarring and incongruous’.

But then America has always bigged up their enlightenment role, as in the claim that

Europe dreamed the enlightenment and Americans made that dream come true

But the English have played into this – and rather agreed to it all. Agreed that Enlightenment has a definite article attached to it, and that ‘The Enlightenment’ was work of a group of European and mainly French Philosophe of the 18th century. It’s not helped that the early work of historians in defining this movement focussed on the period leading up to the French Revolution, and after a first flush of enthusiasm the English didn’t get on board that particular bus, on the grounds that countless thousands of people were dying as a result and the new boss it produced wanted to take over the world. Our lack of enthusiasm sullied our Enlightened reputation.

 

 

 

But it is odd, and I am very happy to join Roy Porter’s campaign to have the term adopted fully and enthusiastically, and make the argument that, in his words, Britain was “the true crucible of modernity’. Now I need to leaven the bread of this statement – Roy Porter would be the first to acknowledge that all the trends in England and then Britain more generally, were very much part of a European tradition, and that the multiple English geniuses stood, in the words of Isaac Newton, one of those aforementioned geniuses, on the shoulders of giants, and not just from Europe, from Asia and the Arabic world too. And that most of Europe would be going through the same process of secularisation and the growth of reason, not just England and Britain. And indeed that international conversation between natural philosophers across nations was a critical enabler to the renaissance and enlightenment. But still – England’s role during the early enlightenment gives some support for Porter’s contention that it has a claim to be the crucible of modernity.

In defence of his horrid lapse into English Exceptionalism, boo, hiss, Porter has the seemingly unanswerable support of the very French Philosophes who are credited with the crucible of modernity; possibly the only time in history when the French have spoken positively about les rosbifs. Voltaire, Montesquieu, Abbe Prevost, Diderot – all these blokes spoke of the debt Europe owed to English Enlightenment. Here’s just one quote from them, Voltaire in 1733 – though it’s longish

The English are the only people upon earth who have been able to prescribe limits to the power of kings by resisting them; and who, by a series of struggles, have at last established that wise Government where the Prince is all-powerful to do good, and, at the same time, is restrained from committing evil; where the nobles are great without insolence, though there are no vassals; and where the people share in the Government without confusion.

That is one of the achievements of the period we are entering – work that was started by John Hampden and John Pym, Henry Parker and the like – will be taken to a more complete solution. Though the work of John Lilburne and Gerald Winstanley remain unfinished of course.

Now, it is also important to note that the interpretation of Enlightenment has very much changed in the last few decades; widening out from those French philosophers across Europe, focussing less on individuals and more on wider social change. And also that many have made the argument that enlightenment can’t be seen simply as a Good Thing; it’s been described as a force of social control, a conspiracy of dead white men, Hume’s racial attitudes have seen his name removed from a university tower block, the Enlightenment has been presented as an enabler of 20th century nazi states and Foucault claimed its aim was to control and dominate not to emancipate. The spirit of Improvement of the Scottish Enlightenment would lead to the horrors perpetrated by Scottish landlords on their Gaelic clansmen. None the less it is at least extraordinarily significant in the history of the world and modernity.

And despite our inexplicable lack of self promotion of our role in it, people at the time did have a consciousness that something amazing was happening. It is critical not to fall into the trap of hindsight here – most people were terrified in Charles’ reign that the horrors of civil war would return, the Restoration and ancient constitution would once more be engulfed in flames – the fear of revolt was constant. But here for example is Anthony Ashley Cooper, about whom we will hear much more, and who you have already met in these pages. We will soon be referring to him as Shaftesbury, in that irritating way we have here of changing names. Well Shaftesbury wasn’t shy about getting excited about the changes he saw, and talking them up

There is a mighty light which spreads itself over the world especially in these two nations of England and Holland…it is impossible but that letters and knowledge must advance in greater proportion than ever

Shaftesbury looked forward to what he called a ‘philosophical Liberty’. So, in short I expect to be using the term, English Enlightenment, despite the possible jarring, and for it to be a theme in series 9. And there is an impressive roll call of names the period produces; one of the greatest British architects, Christopher Wren, a troop of scientists who radically advance human knowledge and understanding in Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Edmund Halley and Isaac Newton  to name but a few. It will produce one of the most influential philosophers in the English Language, John Locke – a protégé of the aforementioned Shaftesbury, and it is the period when that balance in the constitution is achieved that so impressed Voltaire, the destruction of the idea of Divine right which buttressed hierarchical social power. Along the way there’s something of a renaissance in the arts – Henry Purcell in music, Grinling Gibbons in carving, Milton, Dryden in poetry and of course theatre with the likes of Aphra Behn, William Congreve.

The bigger point though, just one more and then I’ll stop ranting about this particular topic, is not necessarily the Superstars I have just listed. The progression of the principles of reason and spirit of improvement is slow, and there are a lot of aspects of 17th century society which are more than a little gobsmacking – cruelty to animals for example. But the currency of this new spirit grows steadily, and it is not restricted to these few superstars or even to London, Dublin and Edinburgh, however much those cities will come to stand out; towns and individuals all over the country quickly get involved, and can take part through the explosion of print and eventual death of censorship. There are enlightenments, rather than The Enlightenment. One historian pointed out that in England and Britain there was no monolithic Enlightenment project led by a small group of philosophers. It was not a crusade, it was driven by a tone of voice, a sensibility, a way of looking at the world; and an intense pragmatism to use experimentation, discovery to drive improvements; as in the words of Francis Bacon’s dictum, ‘Every man is the maker of his own fortune’. The historian E P Thompson would talk about the 18th century as generating

‘scores of intellectual enclaves, dispersed over England, Wales and Scotland, which made up for what they lacked in cohesion by the multiplicity of initiatives afforded by these many bases[3]

The historian J H Plumb also emphasised that it is this increasingly widespread culture which is most important in changing society

Ideas acquire dynamism when they become social attitudes, and this is what was happening in England

What went on 1650 to 1750 ish was not a project called The Enlightenment, capital T capital E – afterall the term only appears in the late 19th century; it is instead a series of enlightenments in every walk of life, a mission to modernise. Roy Porter argues that one of the reasons the British don’t get enthusiastic about the French Revolution, is that a large number of them were firmly convinced they already lived in a, enlightened, fully free and prosperous society with no need for what the French were selling; I mean we might disagree with them from today’s perspective but that is what many thought. If you are looking for modesty by the way, the England in the 18th century is not the place to look for it.

Now then, I hope I have given you a taster of what to expect over series 9, Restoration, Revolution and Enlightenment. Next time we’ll get down to brass tacks and talk about what happened when the king came back, and kick it off by considering the principal player in the drama – the personality and the legend of Charles II.

[1] Southcombe, George; Tapsell, Grant. Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture: Britain and Ireland, 1660-1714 (British History in Perspective) (p. 3). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[2] Mortimer, I ‘Time Traveller’s Guide to Restoration Britain’, p19

[3] Porter, R, ‘Enlightenment: Britain and the Creation of the Modern World’, C1