Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Glorious Revolution”

The role of women in revolutions has recently excited a good deal of scholarly interest. Innovative studies have appeared on women in the English Civil War, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution that have not only rescued women from oblivion but also modified and enlarged understanding of the revolutions themselves. But for the English Revolution of 1688-89 there has been, aside from biographical studies of the two future queens, Mary and Anne, very little published work on the role of women. My purpose is to remedy that situation, and to broaden the inquiry by addressing four major questions: (1) what role did women from all social groups, lower, middle, aristocratic and royal, play in the Revolution: (2) why, in view of customary restraints, did they enter the public arena; (3) what influence did they have on the Glorious Revolution; and (4) what influence did the Revolution have on women? Underlying these queries is the basic question of what are the contextual conditions that encourage or even make possible women's participation in revolutions?Such a topic requires changes in the questions customarily used in studying political history. If politics is defined in traditional terms simply as the competition for and exercise of power by individuals through their office, voting, and decision making, then there is nothing to say about women in the Glorious Revolution. Women, whatever their social status, had no direct access to the levers of conventionally-defined politics. They did not vote, sit in either house of Parliament, or hold office on any level of government, unless they were queens. In a predominantly patriarchal society, females, except for widows, were customarily subordinate to their fathers or husbands and confined to the sphere of the family and household.

It was not very glorious at first, at least to many English people of the late seventeenth century. With a king of undoubted legitimacy squeezed out and a new, albeit related monarch installed and recognized by Parliament, the transaction shook government, nation and church alike. It left Jacobite and non-juring splinters all round. The Revolution, happening in fulfillment of ideals of exclusionist Whigs, did not entirely satisfy those partisans, who soon learned that they could not control their masterful king, William III. As for the Tories, their consciences ached due to their resistance to a divinely-appointed sovereign. Few highly-placed Englishmen were comfortable with their need to call in a foreigner to help them solve their domestic squabbles. Indeed, one writer, reflecting on the letter inviting the Prince of Orange to invade England, thought it would have been “more glorious … to assist our undoubted Soveraign [sic], then to suffer him to be dethroned, solely because he is a Roman Catholic.”Twentieth-century historians called the Revolution other names than “glorious.” It has been dubbed a “sensible,” a “model,” a “moral,” a “respectable,” a “palace,” and simply the English Revolution. All agreed that it was indeed a Revolution, and they themselves were in agreement with some early writers who were contemporary with the event. The Orange Gazette, at the very end of the year 1688, reported on “the Revolutions that had occurred.” The historian Nicholas Tindal wrote that William of Orange himself, in a speech before the House of Lords, spoke of “this late Revolution.” Considerable discussion ensued in Parliament and in pamphlets as to whether William conquered James, or whether the king had abdicated, or had deserted his kingdom. But little question with contemporaries: there was a Revolution.

This study aims to compare and analyze the changes in Whig's political thoughts by the Glorious Revolution and how these changes Shape their political ideology to gain valuable insights into the formation of modern British political ideology in the specific period of 1679-1760. By using the research method of document analysis, we deeply analyzed 20 research results of different scholars from home and abroad on the Whig Party and the Glorious Revolution and summarized the main changes in the Whig Party's political thought. Our findings indicate that under the influence of the Glorious Revolution, the political thought of the Whig party took place mainly in four aspects: The role of Parliament, Contractual theory, Attitudes towards the monarchical power, and religious toleration. This study provides a new insight into the development of Whig political thought from the perspective of the Glorious Revolution.

1988 and 1989 have been vintage years all over the world for centenary celebrations. People have celebrated the centenary of the Eiffel Tower, the bicentenary of the French Revolution, the bicentenary of Australia, the bicentenary of the American Bill of Rights, the quatercentenary of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the sexcentenary of the battle of Kosovo (this one may have escaped your notice, but it brought over a million people to a gathering in the city of Pristina in Yugoslavia in June 1989), and, of course, the tercentenary of the English Revolution of 1688–89, with which I am concerned tonight. You will have no trouble believing that I have been “concerned with” and “celebrating” the Glorious Revolution for two years now, but I want to confess to you in the intimacy of this festive occasion that it has really been at least ten years, and that sometimes it feels more like three hundred!How did centennial observances start? Why do people go to trouble, take time, and spend money to call to mind an event that happened one, two, or three hundred years ago? What is it about centennial moments that turns serious-minded, scholarly-inclined historians like ourselves into “party people”? What do celebrations tell us about the uses of the past in successive “presents”? The fact is that celebrations, each varying in character, have attended the Glorious Revolution from its beginnings on through each centennial anniversary thereafter — in 1788–89, 1888–89, and 1988–89. The observances at these centennial moments not only celebrated the Revolution itself, but also served, even as they reflected, current political, cultural, and/or economic ideas and goals. In a long perspective, the celebrations are an important part of the political and cultural history of the Revolution of 1688–89 itself. They illustrate how high and low politics may intersect, show how political ideas circulate through society and undergo transformation, and offer an index of changing ideological and cultural assumptions and aspirations over three hundred years.

The role religion played in causing the English Revolution of 1688 has been examined. The Catholicism of the heir apparent to the English throne, James, Duke of York, later James II, had a direct impact on the social, political, and religious life of a predominately Protestant, anti-Catholic England in the latter decades of the seventeenth century. James's religion and the prospect of his accession to the throne led to the development of two unsuccessful attempts in the 1670s and 1680s, the Exclusion Crisis and the Rye House Plot, to keep him from ever taking the throne. Upon becoming king, James II's attempts to reestablish Catholicism as the dominant religion of the country alienated all the important institutions and segments of English society-—Parliament, the Anglican Church, the universities, the judiciary, local government, the aristocracy, and the gentry. James II's actions, which were a consequence of his adherence to the Catholic religion and were directly responsible for his downfall in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, are explored in detail.
Master of Arts

This thesis starts from the assumption that historians of political thought have not provided an adequate account of William III's propaganda in England. It argues that the case put by the English regime in the 1690s was not based upon constitutional discourse (a field which has received much attention), but upon a neglected rhetoric of "courtly reformation". This was a Protestant, near-millennial, and biblically-based language, which was promoted by a group of propagandists around Gilbert Burnet, and which presented the new King as the divine instrument of spiritual renewal. Its main tenets were that a debauching popery had been eroding God's true Church in England since 1660; that 1688 had been a providential deliverance from this threat; and that William must be supported as the godly magistrate who would lead the English in purging their sins. In its first section, the thesis demonstrates that Orange propagandists abandoned constitutional arguments in the winter of 1688/9 [chapter 1]. Realising that such arguments would limit monarchical power, government spokesmen dropped them in favour of the rhetoric of reformation, which was more favourable to the court [chapter 2]. Over the next years, they promoted this language through a variety of initiatives, including hitherto unstudied programmes of public fasting and publication of court sermons [chapter 3]. In its second section, the thesis demonstrates how courtly reformation addressed three problems facing the 1690s regime. First, the rhetoric countered criticism that William governed in Holland's interests by reminding his subjects that spiritual renewal must include support for godly Protestants abroad [chapter 4]. Next, the language helped to contain damaging party disputes. It avoided constitutional issues which divided Whigs and Tories, and calmed religious tensions by reassuring both non-conformists and Anglicans that they were vital to William's purging mission [chapter 5]. Finally, the propaganda defused "country" suspicions of the regime by insisting that a reforming King would work for administrative honesty and efficiency [chapter 6].

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgia State University, 2005.
Ttitle from title screen. Tanya Caldwell, committee chair; Malinda G. Snow, Stephen B. Dobranski, committee members. 333 p. [numbered vi, 325]. Description based on contents viewed Feb. 26, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 318-325).

This study examines ways in which supporters of William III and his opponents used literature to buttress their respective views of government in the wake of the Glorious Revolution. Understanding the polemical character of this art provides more insight both into the literature of the 1690s and into the modes of political debate in the period. As the English people moved from a primarily hereditary view of monarchy at the beginning of the seventeenth century to a more elective view of government in the eighteenth century, the Glorious Revolution proved to be a watershed event. Those favoring James II relied on patriarchal ideas to characterize the new regime as illegitimate, and supporters of the coregent asserted the priority of English and Biblical law to assert that the former king forfeited his right to rule. Chapter one examines three thinkers – Robert Filmer, John Milton, and John Locke – whose thought provides a context for opinions expressed in the years surrounding William of Orange’s ascension to the English throne. In chapter two, John Dryden’s response to James II’s abdication is explored. As the deposed Poet Laureate and a prominent voice supporting of the Stuart line, Dryden sheds light on ways in which Jacobites resisted the authority of the new regime through his response to the Glorious Revolution. Chapter three addresses the work of Thomas Shadwell, who succeeded Dryden as Laureate, and Matthew Prior, whose poetry Frances Mayhew Rippy characterizes as “unofficial laureate verse.” These poets rely on ideas similar to those expressed by Milton and Locke as they seek to validate the events of 1688-1689. The final chapter explores the appropriation of varied conceptions of government in pamphlets and manuscripts written in favor of James II and William III. Focusing on the polemical character of these works from the late 1680s and the 1690s enhances our understanding of the period’s literature and the prominent interaction of politics and writing.

There is a consensus of academic opinion that for approximately 100 years stretching from 1688, the date of the 'Glorious Revolution', to the onset of industrialisation England enjoyed relative stability, the condition being attributed to political pragmatism. The purpose of this thesis is twofold; to document the educational developments that characterized the period and to examine their effect, nature and scope, about which historians sharply disagree. The principle that in any age education is a social tool whose practical possibilities rest on people's assumptions determined the strategy of pursuing four main lines of enquiry. These form thematic chapters, the contents of which are briefly summarized as follows: 1. Provision; the Church of England's supervisory role; incidental management of schools. 2. The curriculum and teaching methodology employed in the various scholastic institutions. 3. A survey of scholars in attendance at elementary schools, grammar schools and academies. 4. A consideration of the teaching force with sections on religious attitudes, financial standing and professionalism. Although the study has a national dimension its distinct regional focus is intentional because the bulk of surviving records relate to a locality, enabling its educational system to be largely reconstructed. The Peterborough diocese proved to be an eminently suitable choice being both the setting for educational diversity and extremely rich in source material. The evidence which accrued was not used merely to illustrate what is already known; rather, it made possible more realistic interpretations of the macro situation than hitherto. It is argued in the conclusion that education neither stagnated nor regressed. The principal finding is that the classical tradition of the grammar schools and the universities gradually lost ground to Dissent with its insistence on science and 'the relief of man's estate'. Consequently, new ideas were enterprisingly translated into commendable practice.

This study examines the ways in which drama in the reign of William III interacted with the rhetorical and cultural conditions and contentions of the Glorious Revolution in England. By viewing the Revolution more as a cultural instead of a political event, I argue that the vocabulary, theory, and ideology formulated by the polemics of the Revolution in forms such as speeches, pamphlets, broadsides, glassware, and paintings provided a rhetorical repertoire for post-revolutionary drama and enabled multiple opportunities for interpretation in texts. Furthermore, the rhetoric and discourse formed by those polemics testified to the socio-economic changes that were not only identified but also debated and shaped by plays. In this light, I suggest that while we can read drama in relation to its historical and cultural contexts, we should not assign it a secondary and passive role. Instead, drama actively shaped and commented on the literary and social cultures in post-Revolution times by participating in the Revolution’s debates relevant to the everyday life of the 1690s. The thesis is divided into three parts. Part I examines the transmission of Revolution rhetoric from the above-named polemics to the literary arena and their levels of usage. Part II focuses on two interrelated linguistic cultures created by the supporters of William III and James II: the languages of triumphalism and deliverance in Chapter II, and the languages of lamentation and hope in Chapter III. Part III examines gender and economy in a socio-economic perspective. Chapter IV examines the questions of gender and domestic authority in drama and post-revolutionary society raised by the Revolution’s invention, Dual Monarchism, in which William III (husband) and Mary II (wife) shared regal authority. Chapter V shows how drama reacted to the social and economic changes engendered by the Nine Years’ War, a major consequence of the Revolution.

This thesis analyses civil-military relations in North-East England during an extended eighteenth century that begins with the Glorious Revolution and ends with the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars. The study will focus on the relationship that developed between soldiers and civilians by analysing a number of themes including recruiting, billeting and garrisoning, the maintenance of public order and the role of soldiers in local crime. By looking at this type of daily interaction it is possible to gain an understanding of how the actions of the army, and the reactions of society, affected civil-military relations. Through this process the study attempts to discover whether the army was prone to lewd and violent behaviour that terrorised local communities and consequently resulted in poor relations with the civilian population. This thesis argues that despite the relative unpopularity of the army, and its occasional involvement in criminal activity and violence against civilian society, civil-military relations in the region were never overwhelmingly frictional or confrontational. The main sources of tension actually arose out of the burden placed on the civilian population by their financial, logistical and constitutional commitments to the army. At the same time the army's role in opposing civil unrest, and enforcing local and central government policy, undermined its relationship with local communities.

Josef Redlich is a representative of the new generation of Austrian liberals that came of age around 1900. Through his legal-historical publications, diaries, and the surviving voluminous correspondence, he offers a glimpse into the highly changeable times of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and expresses his frustration with political developments. Redlich, who was a university professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law, was the first to see the lack of the Rule of Law as the reason for the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the first place, and he named two different conceptions of the state in Western Europe and Central Europe. He thus came into confrontation with the state doctrine of the Prussian university professor Rudolf von Gneist, which was taught in all German-speaking law schools. The difference between the authoritarian state in Central Europe and the British people’s state is still apparent today.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688/1689 set in train changes in English political and economic culture that acted as a significant catalyst for the development of deep copper mining in Cornwall. The adoption of improved water engines and, latterly, atmospheric engines was fundamental in meeting the drainage challenges faced as miners delved ever deeper in their search for copper ore. The increasing application of pumping technology required significant capital investment which was not available from inside Cornwall. Much of the capital to develop copper mining was supplied by Bristol merchants and industrialists who were benefiting from an economic boom occasion by the aforementioned economic and political changes. Most notable was the deregulation of the slave trade which allowed Bristol to eclipse London as England's primary slaving port turning Bristol into an economic powerhouse. A less quantifiable but nonetheless important factor was a growth in confidence in the stability of the post-revolution economy and amongst the entrepreneurial classes giving them the confidence to invest in Cornish deep mining.

После «Славной революции» 1688–1689 гг. под управлением статхаудера Вильгельма III Оранского оказались не только северонидерландские области, но и территории композитарной Британской монархии; политическим влиянием по обе стороны Северного моря обладал фаворит Вильгельма – дипломат, военный и государственный деятель Ханс-Виллем Бентинк. Бентинк оставался в числе ближайших сподвижников Вильгельма: он внес вклад в организацию переворота 1688–1689 гг. и был щедро награжден – став в 1689 г. королем, Вильгельм пожаловал ему титул графа Портленда. Фаворит был нужен для особо сложных и деликатных поручений, а значит, навлекал на себя особое недовольство оппозиции. В статье проанализировано формирование образа Бентинка в сочинениях современников, главным образом в английских памфлетах конца XVII в. Показано, как образ «влиятельной фигуры» использовался в противостоянии властей и оппозиции на рубеже XVII–XVIII вв. Распространенное в публицистике осуждение фаворита за то, что он, действуя в интересах Вильгельма, оказывает услугу иностранной державе, – ключевая тема, которая позволяла аморфной «партии страны» укрепить своё единство. Казус Х. -В. Бентинка показывает, сколь непростым было положение в Англии рубежа XVII–XVIII вв. фаворита-иностранца. В то же время опыт нахождения Бентинка на высоких государственных постах был учтен англичанами еще при жизни фаворита: часть статей принятого в 1701 г. «Акта об устроении» могут рассматриваться в качестве одного из следствий этого опыта. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689, led by the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange, not only the Dutch republic, but the whole British composite Monarchy was under the control of the stadholder-king. Political influence on both sides of the North Sea was provided by William’s favorite and diplomat, military commander and statesman Hans-Willem Bentinck. Bentinck was consistently included into the circle of Wilhelm's associates: he contributed to the organization of the coup of 1688–1689 and was generously rewarded – after becoming King in 1689, William granted him the title of Earl of Portland. The favorite was given complex and delicate assignments, therefore he was confronted by the opposition. The article analyzes the images of Bentinck in the writings of his contemporaries, mainly in English pamphlets of the late 17th century. It is shown how the image of an "influential figure" was used in the confrontation between the authorities and the opposition at the turn of the XVIIth – XVIIIth centuries. The widespread condemnation of the favorite in pamphlets for the fact that, acting in the name of William III, he provided services to a foreign power, is a key theme that helped the amorphous “country party” to strengthen its unity. The case of Bentinck shows how complicated was the situation in England at the turn of the XVIIth – XVIIIth centuries. At the same time, the experience of Bentinck’s tenure of the highest government positions was taken into account by the English statesmen during the life of the favorite: part of the articles of 1701 Act of Settlement can be regarded as one of the consequences of this experience.

If killing a single person is considered as a major crime that forbidden by Sharia and law at the international level and at the level of all religions and divine legislation, so what about the concept of genocide!! Here, not just an individual with a weak influence on society is killed, but thousands of individuals, that means an entire nation, a future, energy and human and intellectual capabilities that can tip the scales, and on the other hand, broken and half-dead hearts are left behind from the horrific scenes of killing they witnessed before their eyes, moreover, the massacres of genocide continues to excrete its remnants and consequences for long years and for successive generations, and it may generate grudges of revenge among generations that did not receive the adequate awareness and psychological support which are necessary to rehabilitate these generations to benefit from the tragedies and bitter experiences of life to turn them into lessons and incentives to achieve progress and advancement. Genocide is a deadly poison whose toxic effect extends from generations to others unless it is wisely controlled. Here the role of the international community and its legal, legislative and humanitarian stance from these crimes is so important and supportive. Genocide can be occurred on two levels: external and internal. As for genocide on the external level: this is what happened at the hands of foreign powers against a certain people for colonial and expansionist goals in favor of the occupier or usurper. There are many examples throughout history, such as the Ottoman and British occupations...etc Whereas genocide at the internal level, can be defined as the repressive actions that governments practice against their own people for goals that could be extremist, racist or dictatorial, such as t ""Al-Anfal"" massacre in 1988 carried out by the previous regime against the Kurds in the Kurdistan region. The number of victims amounted at one hundred thousand martyrs, most of them were innocent and unarmed people from children, women and the elderly, and also the genocide which was practiced against of the organizers of Al-Shaibania Revolution in 1991 was another example of genocide in the internal level. It is possible to deduce a third level between the external and internal levels, which is the genocide that is done at the hands of internal elements from the people of the country, but in implementation of external agendas, for example, the scenes of organized and systematic sectarian killing that we witnessed daily during (2007) and (2008), followed by dozens of bloody explosions in various regions throughout the capital, which unfortunately was practiced by the people of the country who were misguided elements in order to destabilize the security of the country and we did not know until this moment in favor of which external party!! In the three aforementioned cases, nothing can justify the act of killing or genocide, but in my personal opinion, I see that genocide at the hands of foreign forces is less drastic effects than the genocides that done at the hands of internal forces that kill their own people to impose their control and to defense their survival, from the perspective of ""the survival for the strongest, the most criminal and the most dictatorial. The matter which actually dragged the country into the abyss and the ages of darkness and ignorance. As for the foreign occupier, he remains an occupier, and it is so natural for him to be resentful and spiteful and to keep moving with the bragging theory of that (the end justifies the means) and usurping lands illegally, but perhaps recently the occupier has begun to exploit loopholes in international laws and try to gain the support of the international community and international organizations to prove the legitimacy of what has no legitimacy, in the end to achieve goals which pour into the interest of the occupiers' country and from the principle of building the happiness and well-being of the occupiers' people at the expense of the misery and injustice of other peoples!! This remains absolutely dehumanizing societal crime, but at least it has a positive side, which is maximizing economic resources and thus achieving the welfare of a people at the expense of seizing the wealth of the occupied country. This remains the goal of the occupier since the beginning of creation to this day, but today the occupation associated with the horrific and systematic killing has begun to take a new template by framing the ugliness of the crime with humanitarian goals and the worst, to exploit religion to cover their criminal acts. A good example of this is the genocide that took place at the hands of the terrorist organization ISIS, that contradictory organization who adopted the religion which forbids killing and considers it as one of the greatest sins as a means to practice the most heinous types of killing that contemporary history has witnessed!! The ""Spiker"" and ""Sinjar"" massacres in 2014 are the best evidence of this duality in the ideology of this terrorist organization. We may note that the more we advance in time, the more justification for the crimes of murder and genocide increases. For example, we all know the first crimes of genocide represented by the fall of Baghdad at the hands of the Mongol leader ""Hulagu"" in 1258. At that time, the crimes of genocide did not need justification, as they were practiced openly and insolently for subversive, barbaric and criminal goals!! The question here imposes itself: why were the crimes of genocide in the past practiced openly and publicly without need to justify the ugliness of the act? And over time, the crimes of genocide began to be framed by pretexts to legitimize what is prohibited, and to permit what is forbidden!! Or to clothe brutality and barbarism in the patchwork quilt of humanity?? And with this question, crossed my mind the following ""Aya"" from the Glorious Quran (and do not kill the soul that God has forbidden except in the right) , this an explicit ""Aya"" that prohibits killing and permits it only in the right, through the use of the exception tool (except) that permits what coming after it . But the"" right"" that God describes in the glorious Quran has been translated by the human tongues into many forms and faces of falsehood!! Anyway, expect the answer of this controversial question within the results of this study. This study will discuss the axis of (ideologies of various types and genocide), as we will analyze excerpts from the speeches of the former regime that were announced on the local media after each act of genocide or purification, as the former regime described at that time, but the difference in this study is that the analysis will be according to a scientific and thoughtful approach which is far from the personal ideology of the researcher. The analysis will be based on a model proposed by the contemporary Dutch scientist ""Teun A. Van Dijk"". Born in 1943, ""Van Dijk"" is a distinguished scholar and teaching in major international universities. He has authored many approved books as curricula for teaching in the field of linguistics and political discourse analysis. In this study, Van Dijk's Model will be adopted to analyze political discourse ideologies according to forty-one criteria. The analysis process will be conducted in full transparency and credibility in accordance with these criteria without imposing the researcher's personal views. This study aims to shed light on the way of thinking that the dictatorial regimes adopt to impose their existence by force against the will of the people, which can be used to develop peoples' awareness to understand and analyze political statements in a scientific way away from the inherited ideologies imposed by customs, clan traditions, religion, doctrine and nationalism. With accurate scientific diagnosis, we put our hand on the wounds. So we can cure them and also remove the scars of these wounds. This is what we seek in this study, diagnosis and therefore suggesting the suitable treatment "