A Tale of Two Stones - Essay Example

A Tale of Two Stones: An Analytical Comparison of Lawrence Stone's The Causes of the English Revolution and Bailey Stone's Reinterpreting the FrenchRevolution Lawrence Stone and Bailey Stone both delve into comprehensive investigations surrounding the evolution of revolution. While Lawrence Stone aims to better understand the root Causes of the English Revolution, Bailey Stone explores the role that external forces played in the French Revolution. Both works are parallel in that they do not primarily focus on state affairs, but dive deep into the social fabric of the times in which revolution organically evolved. Lawrence Stone and Bailey stone examine external and internal factors, and they subsequently assess revolution in terms of the socio-political, cultural, economic, and international tensions of the times. As a result, they present a more thorough macro-historical perspective on revolution than previously offered by historians. The English Civil War is directly related to the ensuing revolution that followed, and though it had a plethora of origins, the character of Charles I must be regarded as one of the main catalysts. It is doubtful that one could have foreseen that the civil war, which began in 1642, would have resulted in the execution of Charles I. Furthermore, it was surprising that Oliver Cromwell, Charles' most notorious opponent, would be one of the men who would sign Charles' death decree. Prior to this incident, a king had never been put to death in England, and Charles' execution was not met with joy. But, in order to get at the root of the war, one must explore both the short and long term causes. In 1611, James suspended the Parliament, and it did not reconvene for another ten years. James allowed his friends to govern the country, and he heaped titles upon them. This was a cause of great offence to members of Parliament who felt that they had been granted the right to govern the country. In 1621, James summoned Parliament to confer about a proposed union of his son, Charles, to a Spanish princess. Parliament was enraged by the news. If the marriage were to proceed, would the children of this marriage be raised as Catholics Spain was by no means thought of as a friendly ally to England, and many could recall 1588 when the Spanish Armada occurred. Consequently, the marriage never happened, but the soiled relations between the king and Parliament would not be repaired by the time of James' death in 1625. In 1642, Charles took three hundred soldiers to Parliament to seize his five biggest detractors. But, someone from within the Kings' inner circle had already alerted Parliament that these men would soon be arrested, and they had previously fled to shelter of London where they could easily hide in the city. But, Charles had already revealed his true colors. The members of Parliament were supposed to stand for the people, and yet Charles attempted to arrest five of the members simply because they dared to disagree with him. If Charles was capable of arresting five members of Parliament, then how many others were in danger It was not long before Charles began to realize that relations between himself and Parliament had been severed. Only six days following the attempted arrest of the five members of Parliament, Charles went to Oxford in an effort to raise an army that could regain control of England. A civil war could not be prevented. Monarchial clout had already declined under the rule of James I. What ensued was civil war, and ultimately, revolution. In his book, Lawrence Stone explores these factors and the ways they coincide with other external stimulus. Lawrence Stone's book begins with theory and then attempts to arrange origins into three classifications: preconditions, precipitants, and triggers. Stone's preconditions have already been outlined. His precipitants encompass the political and religious tensions that had been heating up since 1603. And, his triggers are closely aligned to the Crisis of 1637-1642. The long-term economic and social changes can also be linked to Stone's preconditions. First published in 1972, Lawrence Stone's Causes of the English Revolution compacts the entire English Revolution within a text illuminates an age in British history that inspired a country to act. Lawrence Stone takes an interdisciplinary approach that Bailey Stone also emulates. Separating the country and instigating colossal political reform, the English civil war is one of the most critical and remarkable conflicts of English history. The Causes of the English Revolution not only explores the factors that lead to the removal of Charles I in 1642, but it also analyzes the crisis of conviction which was at the source of his deposition. In his comprehensive study, Lawrence Stone investigates prior theories of revolution and tracks the social and economic changes that resulted in this age of unrest. Similarly, Bailey looks at the internal and external pressure cooker that surrounded France before and leading up to the French Revolution. The British calamity of 1640-1660 has often acted as a benchmark for the debate surrounding the roots of modern society. The "Whig" and "social historical" perspectives of this crisis, agree that the English Revolution paved the way for modern industry and democracy. So, it came as a surprise when the "revisionists" decided that there was, in fact, no revolution, and the civil war arose primarily from the impotent dictates of Charles I and turbulence among the elite. Lawrence Stone felt that modern works return to the "Whig" and "social historical perspectives," and so decided to blend the two within his own text. Britain's crisis was not necessarily an incident in which the elites erected a more moderate state, nor was it entirely a farce in which the King stumbled clumsily into a bloody, yet preventable crisis. In any case, it was an enormous tragedy in which compelling social forces led the actors to an unwanted catastrophe. Population increases bearing down on very limited resources was to blame for price inflation that destabilized England's finances and could not be stymied by currency manipulations or new economic legislation. Huge shifts in the age perceptions led to a larger number of young men contesting for posts in the government, which in effect created inevitable conflicts over patronage and title. An enormous urban development undermined the urban government and injured the grip of the Established Church. The social chaos that was imposed on the middle classes and elites as a result of broad demographic modifications led many people to seek remedies in a more regimented Puritan faith. Some of Lawrence Stone's critics would assert that the English Revolution did not result from a "heroic" struggle over new constitutional rights, nor did it stem completely from despotic error. Instead, many believe that the crisis developed simply because the impending structures of authority and social control could not deal with the economic and demographic tension that was undermining the social and economic order. Lawrence Stone felt that these causal factors helped boost a heroic perspective. It was his belief that all these structural flaws in the old regime paved the way for a stronger nobility to gain power. Like Lawrence Stone, Bailey Stone also exploits structural shortcoming and places them within the context of a larger historical background. Within his text, Bailey poses the internal history within the context of the external history. Bailey's aim in writing Reinterpreting the French Revolution was to position the complete event of the French revolution within the framework of post-Renaissance French history. In order to do this, Bailey focused on the long-term vocal relations among foreign and state interactions. Within his work, Bailey accentuates the connections between the old regime and the resulting revolutionary politics. But, he also distinguishes the upheaval of the 1790's and its consequences within and surrounding France as groundbreaking. Bailey's book is a unification of the most current academic literature on the political, diplomatic, economic, cultural, and social history of eighteenth century France. In his work, he attests that the eruption of the French Revolution, and the remarkable events in the years that followed, could be attributed to the interrelated demands of global and domestic politics. The national leaders that were trying to administer and amend French institutions endured a lot of pressure from the outside world. Bailey argues that the Revolution of the 1780s should be examined within the larger perspective of early modern and modern French history as well as within the realm of modern progressive political revolutions. In staking these claims, Bailey provides a unique analysis of the French Revolution. His position breaks away from both the Marxian principles of previous years and the more modern political cultural perspective. Reinterpreting the French Revolution complements Bailey's prior works on the long term groundwork of the French Revolution. In his text, Bailey makes a strong case for the global-historical analysis. This perspective is demonstrated in Stone's words, "the men dictating the French destinies in this period were driven in their politics and policy-making by a 'dialectic' of foreign and domestic concerns" (Stone, Bailey Reinterpreting the French Revolution 259 RFR). Stone aims to remind historians of some universal truths regarding revolutions and power. He affirms that revolution, by any definition, entails the confiscation of power. But, state power, as history recalls, is implemented within a scaffold of commonly aggressive and always strained dealings with other states. Bailey takes a shamelessly synthetic position in his work, and he does not deny the influence of other historians. In some instances, Bailey leans heavily on a narrow scope of sources. For instance, Timothy Thackett's text is referenced numerous times within eleven pages (Stone, Bailey RFR 144-55). But, Bailey balances this influence with an exceptionally broad assortment of other reading. His work reflects comprehensive studies of European diplomacy in the 16th century, domestic reforms made by the revolutionaries, and the politics of terror at a provincial level. One of the elements that gives Bailey's argument merit is his explanation of the "critical geopolitical context" of France in the years preceding July of 1789 (Stone, Bailey RFR 65). The calamity of events leading up to the French Revolution corresponded with the decline of French influence all throughout Europe. New provisions of influence appeared to remove the self proclaimed "arbiter of Europe" from the callous political game (Stone, Bailey RFR 66). France, in effect, was incapable of making any substantial intercession. This humiliation allied with the evident breakdown of domestic authority made the daunting mission of reviving France to a status of national prominence a matter of urgency and desperation. Bailey's analysis is reinforced through his illustration that though a great portion of French society was preoccupied with the domestic remodeling of France, they also recognized the critical need for reformation in its transnational position. Noticeably, from early in the development of the new politics of the time, apprehension in regards to national power, damaging parallels between other states, and an evident oscillation of weakness and magnitude were engrained in the revolutionary fabric of France. In this environment, the devastating effort to safeguard the capital of the fiefdom taxpayers starts to evolve into something more than simply the bourgeois ideological obligation to private property. It is, paradoxically, at the exact instant in which a global historical angle should have the most sway-the onset of a war-that the weight put on external issues might be strained. Bailey Stone demonstrates the exercise of avid magnetism to glory and honor coupled with countless invocations of the dreadful scheme being devised beyond French boundaries in opposition to the Revolution. Bailey makes note of the significance of pleas for retribution on Austria for the ruinous melee that had forced France towards a posture of international debility. Intolerant vehemence and nationalistic egotism intermingled to create a volatile concoction. This was allied with a potent measure of revolutionary sanguinity in regards to the militaristic facility of the unregulated French. topped off with a healthy dose of revolutionary optimism about the military prowess of the unfettered French. Much of this is indubitable, but "the splendid raiment of Gallic diplomatic tradition" is definitely in question (Stone, Bailey RFR 166). In less than a year, France would fling itself into conflict with every distinguished state in western and central Europe, and many of the secondary ones, in a course of expansion that was arbitrarily voracious. Until the time of Napoleon, this fantasy that people were being freed from autocratic monarchs would be upheld. It is true that France as a state and a body of nationalistic allegiance was in essence the same France that existed prior to 1789. But, from a political perspective, France was indeed a different entity altogether. The splendor of France that had been tragically set-aside in the 1760s was a magnificence that mirrored the honor of the King and military elite even though French officials and intellectual scholars were apprehensive about the devastating effects it would pose on the economy. After 1792, France was struggling to achieve a separate set of ideological objectives. Bailey Stone argues that the totalitarian rhetoric reveals that the new administrators "were Frenchmen before they were revolutionaries" (Stone, Bailey RFR 174). The example Bailey makes not of here is the desire of Prieur de la Marne that the "new Carthage" (England) will be overcome by the weight of the Revolution and that the French military would reach London by Spring of 1794. One of the incongruities of this argument is that it appears to revive the conventional "thesis of circumstances" to rationalize the Terror. If transnational conflict was a superseding concern, then the successful war of 1793 and the oppressive penalties that preceded and followed the collapse of Robes Pierre were part of bigger agenda in which France was simply doing what nations do and the rest was simply tragic circumstance. It is doubtful that Bailey Stone would adopt this perspective, however it is marginally an exceptional outline of the operation of terror as a war-preventing mechanism. Though Stone's scrupulous examination of the revolutionary years has its limits, it is a perspective that warrants reflection even if it has a tendency to simplify the political designs of the French Revolution's middle years. Bailey's discourse drives home the point that France has always suffered from external forces and conquests and that those outside pressures have erected several aspects of French internal history. For some time, socio-political scholars have been preoccupied with "bringing the state back in," but the hazards of this exploit are clear (Stone, Bailey RFR 5). In Bailey's Reinterpreting the French Revolution, he demonstrates how keeping state affairs a marginal focus can help elucidate other aspects of French internal history. Many historical transcripts miss the mark by abandoning all of the internal political and social dynamics that make a country what it is. Though their works explore two entirely different revolutions that occurred at very different times in history, both Lawrence Stone and Bailey Stone manage to illuminate the roots of revolution by investigating the internal and external causes of revolution within their books. Lawrence Stone elucidates The Causes of the English Revolution by placing the internal affairs within the context of external pressures bearing down on England just as Bailey Stone unveils a new interpretation of the French Revolution by placing smaller events within a larger context. Lawrence Stone stated it best when he said, "It is perfectly true that any means by which society exercises pressure or control, whether it is administrative organization, constitutional law, economic interest or physical force, can be a fruitful field of study in its own right, so long as its students remain aware that they are looking at only one part of a larger whole" (Stone, Lawrence The Causes of the English Revolution CER 6). For the historian of revolution, "The concept of internal war is too broad in its comprehension of all types of violence from civil wars to strikes, too narrow in its restriction to normally non-violent societies, too limited in its concern with one of many means from the ends in view, and too little concerned with the complex roots of social unrest to be of much practical value to him" (Stone, Lawrence CER 6). A historian may well use an eschatological approach to explore an era, but a good historian of revolution will consider both the internal and external intricacies that lead to revolution. Works Cited Stone, Bailey. Reinterpreting the French Revolution: A Global Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 2002 Stone, Lawrence. The Causes of English Revolution. Routledge, New York, New York. 2002 Read More