The Experience of Time During William’s Invasion

Chapter one examines reactions to the fast-moving events of the autumn of 1688, when James II’s regime collapsed in the face of an invasion by William III. It demonstrates that some features of the reaction illustrate a ‘modern’ sense of time with an unstable present shaping a fluid future (especially the acceleration of time produced by fast-flowing events, and faster flowing news); but it also shows that interruptions in communication technology disrupted this modernity, leading to a fragmented sense of time’s passage, which encouraged the sort of simplistic scripting and produced the sort of bewilderment that may be characteristic of the postmodern condition.

Introduction

The introduction surveys theories about a change in the perception of time over the early modern centuries. These could be summed up as a shift from older static to ‘modern’ models which were far more dynamic and developmental. It also surveys the case for interpreting the revolution of 1688–9 in England as a deliberate step into ‘modernity’. It then relates these two historiographic trends, asking if there is evidence that a new chronological awareness helped witnesses to 1688–9 conceive it as a turning point, and step into a new modern era. It advertises the argument of the book: that there is only partial evidence for the suggested chronological shift, and that we may therefore have to reconceive what was happening after 1688–9

Time and the Constitutional Legitimacy of the Revolution

Chapter two examines the legal and constitutional arguments around the revolution. It argues that contemporaries who defended William’s coming to power—although using a variety of arguments, broadly divided into ‘Whig’ and ‘Tory’—were united in developing a ‘static chronology’ that effectively denied fundamentals of politics could change, and so were happy to cite precedents from long-distance periods as binding. The chapter considers the version of the ‘ancient constitution’ used after 1688–9, showing that it was more resistant to the possibilities of historical development than versions of the concept that had been used earlier in the seventeenth century.

Conclusion

The conclusion summarizes the qualifications that the book has made on the modernity of the 1688–9 revolution and of chronological perception in the late Stuart period. It also attempts to resolve the paradox that people with a largely static view of time supported and implemented a large number of profound changes during the revolution and its aftermath. It suggests that static chronology could, in some circumstances, demand radical action, and ends with the suggestion that we need a far more subtle account of changes in chronological awareness and their impact on human responses.

Progressive Williamite Time

Chapter five examines ways in which supporters of the revolution began to develop more dynamic perceptions of time after their initial defence of its constitutional legitimacy. Partly this was in reaction to the Jacobite and opposition rhetorics of the 1690s: William’s supporters were forced to consider developmental chronologies as they answered a case that was based on them. There was also, however, a specifically pro-revolution account of the Stuart age, which saw it as a developmental process of degeneration from the golden age of Elizabeth I. Despite these more ‘modern’ features of Williamite time however, it retained many static qualities: it continued to defend 1688–9 as a restoration of an ancient constitution and of godly religion, while its conception of Stuart history was cyclical rather than linear.

Time and History in Opposition Rhetoric

Chapter four first traces the chronological perceptions of the Jacobites who refused to accept the revolution and continued to support the claims of James II to be king. It demonstrates that whilst they used precedent, and so static chronology, to some extent, the core of their case was a theory of degeneration since 1688–9: an argument that created a dynamic and human-driven sense of time, quite unlike their Williamite opponents. The chapter then shows how these ideas were taken up by the country-Tory opposition of the late 1690s, particularly in the standing army debates, and the convocation controversy. It stresses the paradox of dynamic chronologies emerging most strongly among the most conservative forces in late Stuart England

The Revolution in Reformation Time

Chapter three considers the chronological effects of placing the 1688–9 revolution in ‘Reformation’ time: that is interpreting it as a salvation for a Protestant movement that had started in the early sixteenth century. The chapter shows that Protestant readings of time produced some chronological dynamism—seeing major turning points in history that divided the past into periods, reading spiritual truth as revealed through evolving narrative and perhaps promising an imminent apocalyptic denouement. However it also shows Protestant understanding of 1688–9 was affected by the inherently static nature of Christian time: the typological structure of scripture encouraging a view of time that was frozen, symmetrical (it could be read as easily backwards as forwards), and fractal (the content of time looked the same whatever period or length of period was examined).