Mark Harrington
History Department
Seagoville High School
Dallas, TX 75253
The Orange connection and the making of the modern world
NEH Seminar 2009: The Dutch Republic and Britain
In The Art of Teaching Jay Parini writes of the process by which one becomes
an effective teacher: “Becoming an effective teacher can be quite painful and
exhausting, taking years of trial and error.” (Parini) The classroom is “a form of
theater in which the teacher plays the role of wise man, fool, tempter, coach,
comforter and confessor.” (Parini) Parini goes on to state that knowledge of one’s
content area is essential to good teaching and good teachers develop their own voice
and have deep immersion in their material. As one finds one’s voice, one develops a
style of teaching that gains the students’ respect. Parini sums this up as the
development of a teaching face. “ Few outside the teaching profession understand the
courage it takes to step into a classroom, to wear a mask that you know is a
construction, hiding behind it, letting it give shape and substance to your
formulations, letting the mask become your face.” (Parini)
When I first considered applying for participation in the NEH Summer
Seminar, The Dutch Republic and Britain: The Making of Modern Society and a
European World Economy, I was excited by the content and having read the course
syllabus, I was eager to experience the site visits. In my application, I wrote of
having grown up in the Boston area where history was so much a part of daily life that
one took it for granted. As a youngster I thought that everyone lived in locations
where history was routinely experienced through buildings, burial grounds, famous
sites etc. My adult years took me away from the Boston area and my journeys have
impressed on me the lack of historical perspective that is prevalent in many
communities. After ten years in Dallas, Texas, I wanted to spend time absorbing
history the way I did when I was younger.
But my foremost goal in participation has been an increase in my content area
knowledge. I needed to walk away from these five weeks with a new understanding
2
of at least some of the people and events that populated the time we now call the
Industrial Revolution. I use the term Industrial Revolution to refer to the period that
includes what is sometimes referred to as the First and Second Industrial Revolutions.
For simplicity, I lump them into the same period. I’m a great believer in history as
story telling. To me there is no such thing as boring history. There is history that
hasn’t been properly presented and there is history that is told as the tale of ordinary
men and women living lives that change the course of “human events.”
This paper reflects on what I will bring back to the classroom. I have found a
new perspective for teaching the “Glorious Revolution” and my instruction will
contain new perspectives on the relationships between the British, Dutch, French and
Spanish. I have new insights regarding the process known as the Industrial
Revolution and the events we call the Glorious Revolution. Our seminar discussions
and site visits have helped me reevaluate my previous understandings. The whole
process began on my first visit to the Bank of England. As we entered the building,
we saw oil portraits of King William III and Queen Mary II. And it is with a Mary
that the story begins.
The Orange Legacy in Brief
Mary of Burgundy was heir to Charles the Bold the last male Burgundian to
rule the lands that are now known as The Netherlands. For my purposes, we will refer
to the area from Friesland to Brabant as The Netherlands. The Death of Charles the
Bold presented the Netherlanders with an opportunity to express deep grievances that
had accumulated against him. Shortly after inheriting rule from her father, Mary of
Burgundy was forced in the Grand Privilege of 1477 to grant concessions that gave
the States General of the Burgundian Netherlands “the right to gather on their own
initiative, whenever they saw fit and drastically reduced the power of the ruler to levy
taxes, or gather troops, without the consent of the provinces.” (Israel) Israel refers to
the terms of the Grand Privilege as “constitutional concessions” and states that Mary’s
marriage to Maximilian of Hapsburg resulted in attempts by him to “claw back the
constitutional concessions.” (Israel) Maximilian’s desire to roll back the terms of the
Grand Privilege was achieved in part by Maximilian’s son Philip I who succeeded
his father when Maximilian returned to Austria in August 1493 where he was crowned
Holy Roman Emperor.
3
Philip’s accession “was greeted with satisfaction by both nobles and
patricians. The magnates had supported Maximilian but had also been troubled by his
Imperial commitments, domineering personality, and relentless rivalry with France, as
well as his unabashed use of the resources of the Netherlands for purposes which had
little or nothing to do with the provinces’ interests. Philip, unlike his father was a
Netherlander. Philip’s regime and that of his successor were times of prosperity and
under the Hapsburgs; the Netherlands developed a professional bureaucracy. This
bureaucracy remained when the Spanish were driven out of much of the Low
Countries as a result of the 1572 revolt. It is worth noting that two of the elements
that precipitated the 1572 Dutch revolt were religious and financial; the repressive
policies of the Duke of Alva and resistance to the tenth penny tax.
Born in 1533 William of Nassau became Prince of Orange in 1544 when his
cousin Rene of Chalons died childless. Besides the Chalons property, William also
inherited lands in present day Netherlands and Belgium. As a young man William
was sent to Brussels to study under Mary of Hapsburg, the sister of Charles V. During
his minority, Charles V would act as regent for William. While in Brussels, William
received a decent education and became fluent in several languages. Most
importantly, he was thoroughly educated in diplomatic and military affairs.
It is not clear how William became known as William the Silent but according
to legend, William was hunting with the king of France and during the hunt the king
told William of the Duke of Alva’s plans to rid the Netherlands of the “vermin”
Protestants. The king assumed William’s knowledge of the plans and William
remained silent, thus implying knowledge. Thus he heard a thorough description of
the Duke of Alva’s military intentions and used this knowledge against Alva and the
Spanish.
William had a successful career under the Hapsburgs and Margaret of
Hapsburg elevated his political status. With the Duke of Alva’s entry into the
Netherlands in 1567, William returned to his home in Nassau. During the years of the
revolt, William served as military leader and was a unifying force among the
Netherlanders. In 1579 The Union of Utrecht unified the northern provinces of the
Netherlands and although he was initially opposed to the union because he wanted to
unify all the provinces, William eventually agreed to the treaty.
When William inherited the Orange title and lands, the conditions of his
inheritance stipulated the William must receive a Catholic education. Born a
4
Lutheran, having thrived professionally in the Hapsburg court, William was
religiously tolerant and attempted to bring this tolerance, with varied success, into his
political life. In 1573 he became a Lutheran. In fact, his third wife, he had four, was
a former nun. The roots of the fabled Dutch tolerance owe something to William’s
efforts, yet it must be kept in mind that while he was tolerant of religious differences,
others around him were not and William did agree to measures that negatively
impacted Catholics. When confronted with political realities, William was always
able to remember the lessons learned at the court of Margaret of Hapsburg.
Politically astute as he was, William knew that when they achieved
independence from Spain, the Netherlands would still be unable to provide defense
against their powerful enemies. Thus he was willing to look for protection to other
nations. William was a force behind the negotiations that led to the Duke of Anjou’s
brief and disastrous sojourn in the Netherlands. In the midst of discussions as to what
William’s role should be after Anjou, history again was made in a manner that put all
discussion to rest.
In 1581 a Catholic Frenchman named Balthasar Gerard learned of Phillip II’s
25,000 crown reward for the assassination of William of Orange. Believing that
William had betrayed the Spanish king and the Catholic faith, Gerard decided to
travel to the Netherlands in order to kill William. Gerard spent the years 1581-1584
attempting to get close enough to his victim. He even revealed his plans to the Duke
of Parma who seems to have concluded that Gerard was not mentally stable.
Nevertheless on July 10, 1584 Balthasar Gerard presented himself at the Prinsenhof in
Delft. He gained access having been there one month previous and having presented
himself as a French nobleman. William left dinner to see Gerard and as he descended
the stairs, he was assassinated. Lisa Jardine cites William’s death as the first
European assassination by handgun. This is debatable since at the time of his death
William was technically not head of state.
Easily captured, Gerard was quickly found guilty of William’s murder and
sentenced to a death that surely wasn’t an example of supposed Dutch tolerance. His
right hand was burned off with a red hot iron; his flesh was torn from his bones with
pincers. While still alive he was quartered and disemboweled, his heart torn out of his
bosom and thrown in his face and finally he was decapitated. The court had certainly
sent a message to any would be assassins.
5
While the Dutch were undergoing their revolt against Spain and the creation of
the Dutch Republic, across the Channel in England and Scotland events were taking
place that would lead to Dutch influence spreading around the world. Paradoxically
these events would also lead to the eventual decline of the Dutch commercial
enterprise and its replacement by Great Britain as the pivotal economic power.
The Stuart Legacy in Brief
On July 24, 1567 thirteen month old James VI became king of Scotland
replacing his mother Mary who had been forced to abdicate in his favor. While his
mother, former Queen Consort of France, was Catholic, James was raised as a
member of the National Church of Scotland. As the great-grandson of Margaret
Tudor (sister of Henry VIII) James had a claim to the English throne. The strength of
James’s claim as opposed to other descendants of Henry VII can be debated
elsewhere. What remains as fact is that on March 24, 1603 James was sent a
proclamation notifying him that upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, he had been
recognized as the right and lawful king of England and Ireland.
In 1625 James died and despite his many male love affairs, he left behind
three children. He had married Anne of Denmark in 1589 and together they had nine
children.
After James’s death, his son Charles I came to the throne and ruled England
until the dissolution of the monarchy and his eventual execution in 1649. Prior to his
execution, Charles’s daughter Mary married William II of Orange. Charles’s
execution dealt a severe blow to the theory of the divine right of kings. Yet the
experience of Cromwell and the Commonwealth led the English to recall Charles’s
son from exile in 1660. After the Commonwealth the English were ripe for Charles
II. His rule was considered by many as a return to the natural order of things and this
along with the hedonism of Charles II’s court gained for him the appellation Merrie
Monarch. In 1685 after many years of marriage to Catherine of Braganza, Charles II
died leaving no legitimate children.
Charles II was succeeded by his brother James II. It is here with James II that
our connection to the Dutch resumes. The events of James II’s life are so full of
tragedy and missed opportunity that despite his many flaws he somehow remains a
sympathetic character. When the Stuarts were thrown out of England, James landed
6
at the court of his sister Mary who by this time was mother to William III. At birth
William III had succeeded his father William II as stadholder. His father had died
form smallpox a mere seven days before the birth.
In the spring of 1656 any restoration of the English monarchy seemed
anything but imminent as Anne Hyde, daughter of Lord Chancellor Sir Edward Hyde
arrived as maid of honor to Princess Mary of Orange. In his memoirs James II wrote
that he fell in love with Anne Hyde due to her wit and excellent conversation. Similar
to Anne Boleyn’s refusal of Henry VIII, Anne Hyde refused to yield to James’s
advances without promise of marriage. Always a bit ahead of James, Anne obtained
these promises in writing and then yielded to James. They married without the
consent of Charles II and when the monarchy was restored and James could have his
pick of all the eligible princesses in Europe, he was unavailable and Anne had the
document that proved it. They were now the Duke and Duchess of York.
She also was pregnant and on April 30, 1662 she gave birth to a daughter
whom they named Mary. A few weeks later Mary was baptized in the Anglican faith.
In February 1665, Mary was joined by a sister Anne. There were two other children
born to James and Anne but neither survived infancy. Some time before her death in
1672 at the young age of 33, the Duchess of York converted to Catholicism. Shortly
thereafter the Duke of York converted causing a major scandal. His brother Charles
II, cognizant of the religious difficulties of the past insisted the James keep his
religious practice as private as possible. “Anti-Catholicism had become inherent in
the English psyche. In the eyes of the xenophobic Englishmen, Catholicism was
something alien and equated with a foreign power – the Pope – and potentially
subversive. The English were prepared to believe that Catholics would do anything,
no matter how heinous, to impose their beliefs on others. Had they not been
responsible for the gunpowder plot? Did a Catholic not start the Great Fire of
London? Catholic foreigners might expect to be attacked in the streets as dogs.”
(Waller) Additionally, Charles insisted that Mary and Anne were raised in the
Anglican faith. And here the problems began.
Both Mary and Anne spent their childhoods separated from their father. They
were raised together at Richmond Palace. Both girls were devout adherents of the
Church of England and shared a mistrust of and antipathy toward Catholics. Their
father’s conversion to Catholicism was something neither of the daughters could
understand nor tolerate. When in 1673 the Duke of York was married to Mary
7
Beatrice of Modena, Mary and Anne both developed warm relationships with their
step-mother.
In 1677 Mary married the Dutch Stadholder William III of Orange. William
and Mary were first cousins through the Stuarts. The marriage was popular in
England and became popular in the Netherlands where despite enormous initial
misgivings, Mary quickly adapted to life at the Binnenhof in The Hague. Mary found
that the Dutch lifestyle suited her temperament and unlike her Stuart predecessor, she
adopted Dutch customs and went out of her way to ingratiate herself with men and
women of all social classes. Both Mary and her sister were emotionally needy
women due in large part to their childhoods and the marriage of William and Mary
did not get off to a promising start. Mary needed William in a manner to which
William was unaccustomed. Gradually the marriage grew into a true partnership.
Mary was always willing to be the subservient partner yet William came to appreciate
her intelligence, kindness and tact.
For Mary, part of William’s appeal was his dedication to his country. William
III was a Dutch patriot first and foremost. Throughout his life, not unlike William the
Silent, he chose his actions with a detachment that was cool and calculated. Yet part
of every choice was what was best for the Dutch. Of Charles II Maureen Waller
wrote that “Only with great difficulty and over time did Charles come to realize that
William was a Dutch patriot. Far from wanting the crown that his uncle, with Louis
XIV’s help, was prepared to bully the Dutch into giving him, William wanted only to
serve his country. If the interests of his mother’s family and his country diverged,
then so be it. William would unhesitatingly choose his country.” (Waller) This part of
William’s character would play an important role in the event of 1687-1688.
After a series of conflicts with the English, William wanted an alliance with
the Englsh as a wedge against France. Dutch foreign policy dictated a need to
neutralize France. As we have seen, back in the time of William the Silent, attempts
were made to neutralize French power and thereby assist Dutch trade. Alliance with
England would secure the passage of trade between the English, Dutch, the New
World and Europe. If we follow the money, the money leads us to an Anglo-Dutch
pact.
Despite his Catholicism and despite attempts to prevent his succession such as
the 1679 Exclusion Bill, William’s father in law, became king in February, 1685. A
man with better political skills and a keener intelligence might have made a success
8
where James made mistake after mistake culminating in what was for him a personal
and political disaster. James II was the lawful king of England and most members of
the aristocracy, the episcopacy and the “middling sort” believed sincerely in the
succession. Memories of the troubles surrounding previous succession crises as well
as the years of the Commonwealth were strong. Altering the natural order of things
was seen as going against the will of a God who would exact some punishment for
such. James faced determined opponents when he came to the throne. These
opponents were convinced that papists should not rule England and that Catholicism
would not find a rebirth in Albion. James played right into their hands. Since Mary
Beatrice had not produced a living heir, in 1688 there seemed little chance that the
Catholic James would be much more than an interim. In due time his daughter Mary,
a devoted Protestant would come to the throne and the natural order would be
restored. It has been suggested that when William III visited Charles II in 1681 the
two men discussed the succession and that William returned home assured that Mary
would one day become queen. This makes it unlikely that prior to 1687 William gave
any serious thought to armed intervention in England.
On Christmas Eve, 1687 it was announced that Queen Mary Beatrice was
pregnant. Protestant reaction was quick and decisive. “Plans had to be made to meet
the eventuality of his (James II) having a son, a Catholic who would make sure all his
father’s Catholic reforms stuck. The prospect of regency under Mary Beatrice and the
Catholic set made Protestants wince. The consensus among Protestants was that if
Mary Beatrice did not succeed in producing a living child this time, the Jesuits would
have no hesitation in inventing one.” (Waller) What began as wild rumor among a
few soon became accepted knowledge. Mary Beatrice was not pregnant and she and
James were involved in a plot to disinherit Mary and Anne. Princess Anne would
play a significant role in the spread of this. With a meanness, cruelty and deliberate
distortion of facts, Anne maintained through letters and conversations that her
stepmother was never pregnant. In a series of letters to Mary, Anne lied, gave halftruths and obfuscated in such a manner that Mary came to believe the stories. It isn’t
clear whether or not William believed the hoax. On examination it seems likely that
he placed little truth in the rumors. What is known is that whether or not there was
truth in the rumors had become irrelevant for William. In his mind James II was
destroying Mary’s inheritance. William would not stand by while James did this and
he would not stand by while James destroyed the monarchy.
9
William began communications with those who opposed James. While
he had received such communications in the past, with Mary Beatrice’s pregnancy
they took on a new urgency. Leaders such as Lord Halifax, Shrewsbury, Russell and
other Protestants wrote and visited William in their attempts to convince him to take
military action against James. Members of the group visited William at Het Loo and it
became apparent that William was seriously considering armed intervention. A shift
in foreign affairs may have given William additional confidence when his uncle the
Elector of Brandenburg, a French ally died. His successor promised an alliance with
the Dutch and it is likely that William promised him the Orange inheritance if he did
not return from a military campaign against James. These interactions were well
known and the possibility of a Dutch invasion of England was certainly one of the
best known secrets. William was a man who did his duty and he believed himself to
be a man of destiny. “They (the British opposition) left him in no doubt that the
revolution would go ahead with or without him. Without him there would be no hope
of saving Mary’s inheritance. England might even swing to a republic, which might
not sanction the Anglo-Dutch alliance Europe so desperately needed to quell the
French and might also present a real threat to Dutch commercial interests.” (Waller)
Yes the monarchy and the Protestant faith needed William. But the bourgeoisie
needed him every bit as much. It seemed as if William would be able to serve both
god and mammon. William cast his lot with the “revolutionaries” and the race was
on.
On June 10, 1688 Mary Beatrice gave birth to a healthy male. There is not
doubt that the child was hers and James’s. There had been no deception and the
services of the Jesuits had not been needed. The child was christened James Francis
Edward and despite the indisputable evidence neither Mary nor Anne would ever
recognize him as a legitimate child of James and Mary Beatrice.
During the spring and summer of 1688 William marshaled his forces for an
invasion of England. The force would dwarf the Spanish Armada of 1588. It
included “15,000 soldiers, forty-nine men-of-war, ten fireships, 225 additional
vessels, a portable bridge, a mobile smithy, officers’ baggage, a huge sum in cash and
a mint, 4 tons of tobacco, 1,600 hogsheads of beer, 50 hogsheads of brandy, 10,000
pairs of boots, several thousand horses, a printing press, William’s personal carriage
and 7,000 sailors.” (Waller) Clearly William was heading to England with a definite
purpose in mind. Despite claims that he was only invading England to restore the
10
rights of its citizens that were usurped by his father in law the king, William was
coming to stay. But before he left his homeland, he first had to make certain that the
Dutch would be safe from France while their army was engaged in the invasion. To
achieve this William convinced his German neighbors that the success of the invasion
was to their advantage and “they agreed to protect the eastern Dutch frontier” with the
understanding that eventual success would lead to a weakening of France.
William’s motto, that of the House of Orange was “Je maintiendrai, I will
maintain,” and when he came ashore on November 5, 1688 he proclaimed “the
liberties of England and the Protestant religion I will maintain.” (Jardine) However,
at this point, even with his significant force, success was by no means guaranteed. It
has been suggested that had James marshaled public opinion in a more sophisticated
manner, he could have kept his crown. Instead he panicked and took actions that
offended nearly all his allies. After having been captured while attempting to flee the
country, and then escaping once more, he was allowed to flee undisturbed to France.
William knew that making a martyr out of James would not be in the best interest of
the success of his undertaking.
On February 13, 1688 William of Orange and his wife Mary, formerly Stuart
sat at the front of the Banqueting House in London. Mary had arrived from the
Netherlands the previous day. Both she and her sister Anne had taken the side of the
Dutch, opposing their father in what was for him the greatest sorrow of his life. Not
until his deathbed would James ever forgive his daughters and throughout his life he
charged them with what he considered to be their most severe crime, breaking the
commandment that one shall respect one’s parents. Yet this was in the past and the
future on this day. This day was choreographed as a day of triumph for the rights of
Englishmen and the Protestant religion. “Lord Halifax and Speaker Powle advanced
towards them and asked them if they would accept the crown as joint sovereigns.
William answered for both of them and England then had two new sovereigns.
William and Mary would rule England jointly until their deaths.
Continuing a pattern established early in their marriage, Mary would allow
William to rule England as he wished. She act as queen in William’s absence and
during her five years reign, she assumed this role more often than she desired. In fact
Mary never enjoyed ruling and genuinely missed her life in The Hague. The pace of
life, the time for personal reflection and the greater informality of her life among the
Dutch were given up by Mary with great regret. She never liked London and she and
11
William constructed Kensington Palace which came to be their principal residence,
though they also greatly enjoyed Hampton Court which they renovated and improved.
William III proved to be an effective king and according to Gerard Koot he
was a pivotal figure in the eventual success of British industrialization. In 1689
William encouraged passage of the Act of Toleration giving a greater degree of
religious toleration to dissenters though not to Catholics as William would have liked.
December 1689 witnessed passage of the English Bill of Rights. Among other rights
it prevented taxation by royal prerogative and freedom from a standing army during
time of peace. William’s reign also witnessed the Act of Settlement which closed the
door on the question of the succession. Thus, the fact that he came to the throne with
the consent of Parliament, coupled with the provisions of the English Bill of Rights,
and the settlement of the succession by Parliament, all added together equaled a
movement toward limited constitutional monarchy. It might even be said that William
had moved the British political system toward the Dutch model.
William’s impact was not only political. Under his guidance, with the input
and cooperation of the business community, the Bank of England was created along
the lines of the Bank of Amsterdam. The bank would become part of the economic
infrastructure that would allow the British by 1730-1740 to overtake the Dutch
Republic as the world’s leading economy.
The Dutch Republic had invested heavily in William’s invasion of England.
Ultimately this investment turned out to be a poor choice. It didn’t produce enough
profits for the Dutch and the flow of money moved from Amsterdam to London and
London became the commercial capital of Europe and the world. In a strange turn of
events, the Dutch who had created a non-dynastic environment that was controlled by
burghers ended up giving that model to the English who adapted it and made it even
more successful.
Everybody wants history to have winners and losers. Well then, who are the
winners and losers in the making of a modern society and a world economy? A
cursory evaluation would point toward the English. It was they who went on to create
a political and economic empire that reached into the far corners of the globe. Rule
Britannia became more than a jingoistic lyric. For many people it became every day
life. Our history books teach us that it was the British who did this, using thoroughly
British institutions and sensibilities. Accordingly the British Empire is seen as a
uniquely British construction with an aristocracy, monarchy, ruling class and middle
12
class whose special something gave them the abilities necessary to accomplish great
things. In the long run, the British are supposed to exemplify the triumph of the
dynastic system.
Yet, it is not the triumph of dynasty over republic. William was a pivotal
figure in the story. But so were the Hapsburgs and the Burgundians, the Stuarts and
even the Tudors and Bourbons. But it was not under any of these dynasties that the
Dutch Republic experienced its greatness – whether economic, political, or artistic.
The key to the success of the Dutch Republic lies in the development of large urban
areas and a deliberate choice by groups of burghers who proposed a model of
government that was not dynastic. The Dutch burghers saw the possibility for profit
in the creation of a trading system from the Mediterranean to the Baltic. They were
aware of the opportunities that their lowlands provided them. Eventually England
tied into the system and what resulted was a network that went from Russia to London
to Italy through Antwerp and this was key to the success of the republic.
When William of Orange packed up shop and headed to England in 1688 he
brought with him the lessons learned by the burghers. It was their knowledge and
experience that were taken by the British and used to their advantage. Learning from
the mistakes of the Dutch, the British created an economic model that expanded on
what the Dutch had and eventually replaced Antwerp and Amsterdam as the center of
economic activity. It is worth noting that before the British could surpass the Dutch,
they too needed to develop large urban areas. It is also worthy of notice that both the
Dutch and the English, more so the Dutch had confiscated church lands and put them
into private hands.
Following this to a conclusion, the so called “Glorious Revolution” may be
seen as a triumph not of the Stuarts or the House of Orange. By the time the
“Glorious Revolution” was done, what Britain had was an economy and government
that limited the power of the monarch while increasing the power of the bourgeoisie.
Britain after the “Glorious Revolution” was a nation ruled by burghers. To
paraphrase, Britain had become a nation of shopkeepers. The “Glorious Revolution”
was devolution of power from dynasty to “shopkeeper.” Like the Dutch economy
under the republic, the British economy after 1688 began its ascent to world
dominance.
Just a few more thoughts and I call it quits. I must come back to winners and
losers. And I do this because I must come back to those who made this story happen.
13
If we’ve learned anything from this seminar, it is that the Dutch and the British were
not, are not inherently superior beings. They are people who were in the right place at
the right time, saw this and took advantage of it. And they weren’t a species rare and
foreign to us. After all, they had the sense and the ego to leave behind a part of them.
They haven’t left us. They are still here and they still speak to us. These five weeks
have been a gift of introductions. We’ve been able to meet these men and women and
to begin an acquaintance. It is up to us to develop these relationships. It is up to us to
go the next step and learn more about the burghers, the bankers and the men who kept
watch at night. The women from the orphanage, the skaters on the canal, the students
in anatomy class, the girl with the pearl earring – they aren’t done with us yet. The
men who sailed to China and Japan, the proud people who displayed their calico and
silks, the slaves who cut the sugar cane and the women who spun the cloth while
tending the cradle – their experience is sill open to us. They triumphed in ways that
leave us speechless. When we look at a windmill, gaze up at frescoes or marvel at the
multitude of goods in the Victoria and Albert Museum, we are connecting with these
men and women. We connect with their triumph – their desire to improve their lot in
life and if they had to turn back the water and build canals, they’d do it. If they had to
give up all notions of monarchy and hereditary rule and divine right of kings, they’d
do it.
They weren’t special people. They were us. They made their world into what
they thought was a better place. And if we learn from them, we can make our world a
better place. This isn’t economic theory, this is reflection. This summer has given me
the opportunity to see connections. And it is in contemplating connections that we
come to understand history. Thus we come to a better understanding of us.
I will remain grateful for the rest of my life for these five weeks. I am
humbled to have spent time with such a wonderful group of men and women. I hope
we can keep our connections.
Bibliography
Berg, Maxine, “In Pursuit of Luxury: Global History and British Consumer Goods
In the Eighteenth Century.” Past and Present, no. 182 (February 2004): 85-142
Canny, Nicholas, ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. I, The Origins
14
of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Israel, Jonathan. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Jardine, Lisa Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory. London:
Harper Perennial, 2009.
Jardine, Lisa, The Awful End of Prince William the Silent: The First Assassination of
A Head of State with a Handgun. London: Harper Perennial, 2005.
Marshall, P.J., ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. II, The Eighteenth
Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Parini, Jay. The Art of Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Porter, Andrew, ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. III: The
Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Waller, Maureen. Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their
Father’s Crown. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2002.