Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Disciplines in the Making

Disciplines in the Making 17:1 © 2011 by Duke University Press of 1848 before him, wrote the history of James’s reign and William’s as a narrative of profound change and disturbance, contained within English history by the willingness of most of the Revolution’s opponents to accept the victory of legal procedures; his history remained unfinished. The historiographic story was further complicated by a school in the midtwentieth century that held there was no historic reality beyond the innenpolitik of oligarchy and thus stated and overstated the truth that the English oligarchy had preferred oligarchy to civil war. From this sequence (Burke, Macaulay, Namier) has arisen a myth of consensuality which has now become the myth of a myth, since Macaulay and all his successors depicted the reign of William as a “rage of party” arising from dispute over whether, how far, and on what terms the Revolution was to be accepted — disputes that lasted long after the Revolution’s acceptance de facto, until they were replaced by disputes (some old and some new) in the reign of George III. Steve Pincus, in this massive and in some ways brilliant book, has chosen the myth of consensuality as his sole target, with the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Common Knowledge Duke University Press

Disciplines in the Making

Collins, Randall
Common Knowledge , Volume 17 (1) – Jan 1, 2011
Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/disciplines-in-the-making-d6q0epdVbc

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2011 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0961-754X
eISSN
1538-4578
DOI
10.1215/0961754X-2010-056
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

17:1 © 2011 by Duke University Press of 1848 before him, wrote the history of James’s reign and William’s as a narrative of profound change and disturbance, contained within English history by the willingness of most of the Revolution’s opponents to accept the victory of legal procedures; his history remained unfinished. The historiographic story was further complicated by a school in the midtwentieth century that held there was no historic reality beyond the innenpolitik of oligarchy and thus stated and overstated the truth that the English oligarchy had preferred oligarchy to civil war. From this sequence (Burke, Macaulay, Namier) has arisen a myth of consensuality which has now become the myth of a myth, since Macaulay and all his successors depicted the reign of William as a “rage of party” arising from dispute over whether, how far, and on what terms the Revolution was to be accepted — disputes that lasted long after the Revolution’s acceptance de facto, until they were replaced by disputes (some old and some new) in the reign of George III. Steve Pincus, in this massive and in some ways brilliant book, has chosen the myth of consensuality as his sole target, with the

Journal

Common Knowledge – Duke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.