Study Questions for Christopher Hill, "A Bourgeois Revolution?"
- Why do you think Hill begins with three quotes, and what do you think is
the relationship between them?
- What are stereotypes that people hold of Marxist scholars? (51)
- Why does Hill find it necessary to define the notion of a "bourgeois
revolution" along with "consciousness"? (51)
- What caused the English Revolution of 1640, and was it
"willed" (i.e. consciously put in motion by the English
bourgeoisie)?
- On page 52, Hill says, "by 1640 the social forces let loose by or
accompanying capitalism...could no longer be contained within the old
political framework except by means of a violent repression."
Explain this statement and the effects on Charles I's ability to govern.
- What's the difference between the French Revolution and the English
Revolution, according to the reading?
- How united was the landed ruling class in the sixteenth century (1500s)
and into the seventeenth? How did the divide between those who were
unwilling to think of looking for "popular" help and those who
felt they could "use" it spread to a chasm? What were some results
of that divide?
- What was the "Self-Denying Ordinance? (53)
- On page 53 (his page 115), Hill says, "Whatever the original
intentions of Parliament, other wills took over from 1642-43."
What were those wills? Gentry or commoner?
- What "transformations in the English political and social scene"
had occurred by 1660 to help stimulate the development of capitalism? (53-4)
- What set the stage for the development of capitalist agriculture? Put
another way, how did the agrarian revolution contribute to the accumulation
of capital? What were the affects of the Navigation Acts?
- On page 55, Hill claims that while after 1660 the gentry continued to
dominate the society and state there was a different social context.
Explain.
- Why did enclosure become a "patriotic duty"?
- Why could neither Charles II (1660-85) nor James II (1685-88) hope to
succeed in creating the strong monarchy of their father Charles I? Why could
society "not be put back into the hierarchical straitjacket of the
1630s"? (55)
- What forms of radicalism transformed and unsettled society from the 1640s
on? What were the "regrettable social and political consequences"
of the repression of radicalism?
- Hill asserts that the Long Parliament of the Civil War cannot be seen as
refuting Marx's conception of the bourgeois revolution. What does this
mean? (57)
- What really mattered at the time of the English Revolution?
- If the Long Parliament did not make the Revolution, what did it do?
- In what ways does Hill try to systematically salvage Marxist theories of
bourgeois revolution? (57-60)
- Can bourgeois revolutions be different from each other? How?
- What is the test of revolution?
- What is the significance of the following statement? "Nobody, then,
willed the English Revolution: it happened." (62). How does this
statement reflect a Marxist interpretation of revolution? How can a lack of
willing something be fueled by social forces?
- Despite his adherence to a Marxist framework, does Hill move beyond
Marxist conceptions of property, capitalist development or even
"bourgeois revolution"?
EP Thompson, "Patricians and Plebians"
- What, according to EPT, is the traditional story of paternalist England?
What does paternalism mean, anyway? Patrician? Plebian?
- What was the "characteristic complaint"
throughout the eighteenth century? (65)
- In what ways was the "mobility of
labor...manifest"?
- Define "transitory" and list the three
prominent features of this phase. (66-7)
- Explain EPT's argument that the insubordination of the
poor was an inconvenience rather than a menace.
- EPT seems to suggest that there were two levels of
cultural hegemony in the relationship between the patricians and plebs: one
which was overwhelmingly successful and one which was less so. Can you
explain this position?
- What does EPT mean when he compares the gentry's
position to "public theatre"? How does he connect this to ways in
which the gentry withdrew from society?
- Go to an online dictionary and define "Erastian."
This knowledge will make EPT's discussion very clear (69-71)
- In what ways did the Church (meaning the Church of
England--Anglican Church) lose "command over the 'leisure' of the
poor..."
- When EPT says on page 70 (his page 393) that the
Reformation and decline of Puritan presence left a separation between polite
and plebian culture, how does he "fit in" with Marxist theory?
- Explain this statement: "the materialism of the
eighteenth-century rich and the Erastianism of their Church were met by the
materialism of the poor."
- If a plebs is not a working class, what is it? (71-2)
- Why does EPT guard against reading back from a mature
nineteenth-century working class into the eighteenth century? What problems
would arise?
- Earlier, EPT said the gentry's actions could be
considered public theatre, and later (p. 74) he describes the crowds actions
as countertheater.
- Examine the three characteristics of popular action.
- EPT seems to suggest at his conclusion that the theater
of law was not enough to maintain cultural hegemony--in fact that cultural
hegemony was imposed, in the end, by violence. What does this do to
Marxist ideas about hegemony? Class relations?