Ask Nathan Anything: Quarantine Edition

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Opinion of Oliver Cromwell?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Another question I just thought of: who and what are your favorite composers/works of the Catholic choral tradition? I like Palestrina, Byrd, and pretty much all the other Renaissance polyphonists. My favorite works are probably Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli and Allegri’s Miserere mei.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Do you have any thoughts on Queen Christina of Sweden, daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, who was forced to abdicate after converting to Catholicism? Famous for her intelligence and philosophical discussions with Descartes, as well as her possible lesbianism.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Conciliarism or ultramontanism?

Was the Council of Trent good or bad for the Catholic Church?

Thoughts on Quietism?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Alexander VI or Julius II?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

What's your opinion on the Book of Common Prayer (if you have one)?

Oh, I adore the BCP. I have multiple copies and editions of it going back to the mid-nineteenth century. I think many versions of it are not only masterpieces of liturgical writing but a masterpieces of English literature, and having everything in one place like that is something I've greatly missed in the Catholic Church. I think the shift away from the stability and dependability of the BCP towards more up-to-the-minute and--I would argue--flash-in-the-pan liturgical forms in certain Anglican churches is a real shame; at least in America, the Episcopal Church's BCP already contains quite a bit of flexibility and alternative options for things when needed.

You don't think all copies should be burned for heresy?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

HenryWallaceVP once again displaying his prejudices and false assumptions about Catholics. Sad!

[I love you Henry]

In other news, I came to this realization yesterday: since your two favourite foreign countries are Italy and Japan, does that mean you really love old people?

"You know I have ever been averse to toleration of an intolerant religion" - Horace Walpole

The feeling is mutual

That's two out of the three oldest countries, but what about Germany? Oh wait...

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Was the Glorious Revolution the first modern revolution?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Was the Glorious Revolution the first modern revolution?

ayy lmao

No, the French Revolution was, for better or for worse (normal, arguably-sane, boring answer). The Glorious Revolution, like the Restoration before it, was an elite-driven project more similar to a modern coup than to a revolution as we now understand the word.

Boy do I have a book for you then:



I used to think like you did, but this book changed my mind. It completely overturns the (normal, insane, boring) Whig history interpretation of the Revolution, just by examining evidence and sources (like newspapers, pamphlets, letters, etc.) that other historians have long ignored. As Pincus shows, the Glorious Revolution was a bloody, popular uprising marked by extensive mob violence and an extremely politically active public. In other words, the first modern revolution.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Was the Glorious Revolution the first modern revolution?

ayy lmao

No, the French Revolution was, for better or for worse (normal, arguably-sane, boring answer). The Glorious Revolution, like the Restoration before it, was an elite-driven project more similar to a modern coup than to a revolution as we now understand the word.

Boy do I have a book for you then:



I used to think like you did, but this book changed my mind. It completely overturns the (normal, insane, boring) Whig history interpretation of the Revolution, just by examining evidence and sources (like newspapers, pamphlets, letters, etc.) that other historians have long ignored. As Pincus shows, the Glorious Revolution was a bloody, popular uprising marked by extensive mob violence and an extremely politically active public. In other words, the first modern revolution.

Mob violence and a politically active public does not a modern revolution make, or else Julius Caesar is the first modern revolutionary!

Well I should clarify; that's not what makes it the first modern revolution, but it is what makes it a revolution rather than a coup (or Dutch invasion), as Nathan said. A good chunk of Pincus' argument is just proving that it was a revolution at all, since most scholars have made it out to be so unrevolutionary and aristocratic. What made it the first modern revolution was that it 1) occurred in a definitively modern, rather than premodern society, and 2) was a conflict between competing groups of modernizers.

For claim one, Pincus spends a good chapter of 50 or so pages explaining how England in the late 17th century was a truly modern society, in many ways much more so than we realize today. Thomas Babington Macaulay serves as a sort of foil in this chapter, as Pincus sets out to disprove the 19th century Whig historian's description of late 1600s England as an old-fashioned backwater full of "thatched roof cottages". He does this by listing off endless statistics about how agriculture, population, economic industries, trade, and other demographics grew tremendously in the 17th century, especially in the last 50 years. For instance, London went from a city smaller than Naples at the beginning of the century to the largest city in Western Europe by the end; from a medieval walled city to a thriving modern metropolis and the shopping capital of Europe. One statistic that particularly struck me was that apparently it was not until the late 19th century that America had the same level of urbanization that England had had 200 years earlier. He also notes more practical changes that occurred in the 17th century, like the creation of an efficient and nationwide postal system, the adoption of streetlamps in London, and the paving of roads all over the kingdom. I obviously can't replicate the effect of reading the chapter in this one paragraph, but by the end you definitely get the sense that England in 1688 was a truly modern nation.

For claim two, Pincus presents a theory of modern revolutions. His thesis is that all such modern revolutions begin as conflicts between competing competing groups of modernizers, those who are in the government and those who are not. He points to Louis XVI's financial reforms before 1789, Tsar Alexander's concessions to the Duma, and considerable other examples in modern revolutions. The decision of a government to modernize opens up all sorts of new opportunities for dissent, as it makes evident that things don't have to just stay the same and change is not only possible, but a reality. Soon, people outside the government can start claiming they have better ideas, that they can do modernization in their own better way, and that's when it all spirals into revolution. Having established this as a hallmark of modern revolution, he then turns to the Glorious Revolution, which he also argues was a conflict between rival modernizers. On the one side was King James II and his circle, a group of Catholic modernizers who were deeply committed to creating a modern state based on the government of Louis XIV of France. Their vision of modernity, identified as Catholic modernity, consisted of centralized power, absolute monarchy, a large standing army, and a sort of proto-police state that monitored and suppressed seditious speech throughout the nation's coffeehouses and printing presses. On the other side were the opposition, mostly Whigs, who sought to model England after the modern state of the Dutch Republic. This vision of modernity, Protestant modernity, entailed a strong Parliament, limited monarchy, no standing army, and protection for civil and religious liberties. Again, it's hard to fully explain Pincus' "conflicting modernizers are essential to modern revolution" theory in a single paragraph, but read the book and I think you'll find his argument very convincing. For this reason, I'd highly recommend this book not only to readers interested in early modern and English history, but also those interested more generally in theoretical and comparative studies in revolution.

Anyway, this is not my AMA, and I think I've gone on well long enough.

...a bloody, popular uprising marked by extensive mob violence and an extremely politically active public...

Most distressing. Hopefully we have a base on that God-forsaken island and can dispatch the marines to restore the rule of law and good governance!

I'm not sure if this is a joke aimed at American imperialism or Britain's anti-revolutionary self-perception since the 1790s, but either way it is an accurate description of 17th century Britain, which was frequently described by contemporaries as the most tumultuous, convulsive, and riotous part of Europe, in sharp contrast to the stable and orderly monarchical regime of Louis XIV's France. One book in particular that Pincus references captures the mood quite well, and has a rollicking title: History of all the Mobs, Tumults and Insurrections in Great Britain, by the constantly plotting Whig radical turned Jacobite Robert Ferguson.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Since you were asked about Napoleon, opinion of Louis XIV? I feel like they're often held to a double standard.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

This is what I'm talking about. Why is Louis XIV so awful but Napoleon is mixed? I don't like it when people brush off Napoleon's warmongering as necessary for the spread of liberalism or whatever. What he was was a conqueror who made himself Emperor of France and dominator of Europe. His incessant warring led to the deaths of millions of people. The enemies he fought against were the exact same enemies that the Ancien Regime of Louis XIV had battled. Only Louis was interested in acquiring defensible frontiers for France whereas Napoleon sought to take over the entire continent, making him far more deadly and dangerous.