Produced by gdurb
From Vol. III of Green’s Works, edited by R.L. Nettleship
Longman, Green & Co., London, 1888
From the Editor’s Preface:
The four lectures on ‘The English Revolution’ were delivered forthe Edinburgh Philosophical Institution in January 1867; he didnot intend them for publication, but they are printed on therecommendation of competent judges. … I am also indebted to Mr. C.H.Firth for revising the lectures on ‘The English Revolution.’
OXFORD, August, 1888.
Transcriber’s Note: Page numbers are the same as in the Works,so commence at {277}. All of the footnotes appear to have beenadded by the editor, and have been located under the paragraphs orquotations to which they relate, and renumbered accordingly, with afew transcriber’s notes, which are marked “Tr.”
The period of which I am to speak is one of the most trodden groundsof history. It has not indeed the same intense attraction for anEnglishman which the epoch of 1789 has for the Frenchman, for theinterest in one case is purely historical, in the other it is thatof a movement still in progress. Our revolution has long since runits round. The cycle was limited and belonged essentially to anotherworld than that in which we live. Doubtless it was not insulated; itsforce has been felt throughout the subsequent series of politicalaction and reaction, but the current along which European societyis being now carried has another and a wider sweep. In the one weare ourselves too thoroughly absorbed to contemplate its course fromwithout. From the other we have emerged far enough for our vision ofit to be complete and steady.
But though this is so, and though the period in question is perhapsmore familiar than any other to historical students, it may bedoubted whether its character has ever been quite fairly exhibited.By partisans it has been regarded without ‘dry light,’ by judicioushistorians with a light so dry as not at all to illustrate thereal temper and purpose of the actors. In reaction from the latterhas appeared a mode of treatment, worked with special force by Mr.Carlyle, which puts personal character in the boldest relief, butoverlooks the strength of circumstance, the organic life of customand institution, which acts on the individual from without and fromwithin, which at once informs his will and places it in limitsagainst which it breaks itself in vain. Such oversight leaves out anessential element in the tragedy of human story. In modern life, asNapoleon said to Goethe, political {278} necessity represents thedestiny of the ancient drama. The historic hero, strong to make theworld new, and exulting in his strength, has his inspiration from apast which he knows not, and is constructing a future which is notthat of his own will or imagination. The providence which he servesworks by longer and more ambiguous methods than suit his enthusiasmor impatience. Sooner or later the fatal web gathers round him toopainfully to be longer disregarded, when he must either waste himselfin ineffectual struggle with it, or adjust himself to it by a processwhich to his own conscience and in the judgment of men is one ofpersonal debasement.
It is as such a tragic conflict between the creative will of man andthe hidden wisdom of the world, which seems to thwart it, that the‘Great Rebellion’ has its interest. The party spirit of the presentd