The Creation of the Modern World: The Untold Story of the British Enlightenment

by Roy Porter

Book Overview

From the author of The Greatest Benefit to Mankind (winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Award) comes a sumptuous and spicy volume (Washington Post Book World) that highlights Britain's... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0393048721
• ISBN13: 9780393048728
• Release Date: December 2000
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company
• Length: 728 Pages
• Weight: 0.20 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.6" x 6.4" x 9.6"

Customer Reviews

The definitive case for the British Enlightenment

The late historian Roy Porter has provided an invaluable addition to studies in the history of the Enlightenment with his book, The Creation of the Modern World: The Untold Story of the British Enlightenment (hereafter CMW). Livelier than any work of intellectual history has a right to be, Porter proves himself a master historian with a sharp pen. Polished in style and scholarship, wit and weightiness, CMW should stand as a watershed in Enlightenment studies. Porter's aim is to change how the importance of the Enlightenment in Britain is viewed, and on that account he succeeds wildly. It might be better said that Porter's aim is not to change how the British Enlightenment is viewed, but to show that there was such a thing in the first place. The "Enlightenment" can be a somewhat ambiguous term. To cut it down to a crude and insufficient summary, it is often viewed as the movement in western Europe in the late 17th and 18th centuries away from religion and monarchy and toward secularism and democracy. Like all intellectual movements it took place primarily in the upper tiers of society. Porter's argument is simple: what happened in Britain during this time has an equal if not greater claim to the title of "Enlightenment" as what happened on the continent. Known primarily for his work in the history of medicine, Porter's work is never accused of being boring. CMW is no different. Porter's characteristic buoyancy is evident from the moment he attacks his thesis; it is almost as if he is personally insulted as an Englishman that the British Enlightenment has never been seen as a movement of greater repute. Thus it might be argued that his presupposition is more of a bias. If one is going to go about proving something about which one is biased, it would not hurt to take a lesson from Porter in how it is done. Porter's approach to history might be called the "over-enthused scholar's" approach. The density with which he fills the pages of CMW with the names of people, places, movements, societies, ideas, relationships, etc. is truly staggering. It is as if he has the ability to draw at will from a lifetime of memorizing arcane facts and data about British history. It is in this sense that it is difficult to argue with the conclusion that Porter has accomplished his aim on an awe-inspiring scale. But there is a difficulty in appropriating this volume of information, especially for the casual reader. There are moments when it seems as if Porter could have backed off a bit, as it were, and given the reader a breather from new facts and information. Here analysis and commentary are so tightly intertwined with the introduction of new data that it can become confusing. But this weakness of CMW is also its strength. Porter may be unmatched for his sheer ability to amass quantities of data in support of his argument. Although any history of the Enlightenment will in some sense be an intellectual history, Porter manages to turn it into a

Comprehensive and well-documented

I'm pretty impressed by the extensive documentation, not just in the bibliography but also in the endnotes. Porter hardly mentioned Ben Franklin, who was after all American. But as a Briton before 1776 Franklin too was part of the British Enlightenment.Porter placed particular emphasis on the role of Priestley, whom he said is often neglected. I think Porter was exactly right about Priestley, who was probably as important as Hume, Locke or anyone else to the British Enlightenmnt for advocating free inquiry and truth; let inquiry be free and truth be told though Christianity itself may fall, said Priestley, who was a Christian theologian. Those were pretty strong words to come out of a preacher in those days when atheism was a crime.The British played as big a role in the Enlightenment as the French. Of that there can be no doubt after this book. Americans too made their contribution, as Henry Steele Commager said in his book The Empire of Reason," but until 1776 this was part of British Enlightenment.

A grandiose title, but a great book

Roy Porter's discussion of the British enlightenment may not be an "untold story," but it is an important story that is often underemphasized in the history of the enlightenment. The essence of Porter's argument is that Britain did, in fact, have an enlightenment as vibrant and relevant as those more studied enlightenments in France and Germany.In the first half of the book, Porter demonstrates the existence of a British enlightenment through a dense, narrative argument that tracks contemporary discussions in various realms of study, such as religion, science, human nature, and politics. The result is an impressive vision of a new environment of intellectual activity in eighteenth century Britain, as thinkers sought to express "new mental and moral values, new canons of taste, styles of sociability and views of human nature." Meanwhile, across the Channel the French philosophes reacted against religious intolerance with atheism and against the abuses of absolutism with republicanism. English thinkers of the eighteenth century lacked such divisive issues: religious toleration, at least of a rudimentary sort, was established by 1689, and absolutism had died with Charles I in 1649. As a result, the enlightenment in Britain stressed "the drive not to subvert the system, but to secure it so as to achieve individual satisfaction and collective stability." Thus in Britain the eighteenth century, like so many other centuries, was characterized by a reforming gradualism rather than an oppositional radicalism.In the second half of the book, Porter examines the results of enlightenment. He argues that the overall condition of women did not worsen during the century and tentatively suggests that it improved, citing observations of foreign visitors who noted the relative freedom of women in Britain. Also, he emphasizes the importance British intellectuals placed on education as a means for improvement, foreshadowing the arguments of such nineteenth century liberals as Mill.Finally, Porter investigates the effects of the revolutions in America and France on the British enlightenment. The revolt of the American colonies served to radicalize the enlightenment in Britain, as intellectuals suddenly saw their enlightened Britain acting an oppressive role across the Atlantic. The initial stages of the French Revolution furthered this effect, as sympathetic organizations sprouted across Britain. However, the Terror divided British intellectuals: most, including Burke, Coleridge and Malthus turned reactionary, while others such as Byron and Hazlitt remained true to their enlightened principles and mourned current events. However, even the Terror did not terminate the British enlightenment, as many of its ideals quickly reemerged in the form Victorian liberalism.Highly recommended as a foundational text in British history and/or as comparative book for the study of continental enlightenments. Well written with extensive endnotes and bibliography.

Good book and good review

Usually it's a case of extracting Scottish history from Anglocentric history books, but in the case of the Enlightenment we have the opposite scenario. This book fills a needed void then. This is also a useful book since many of the people mentioned are underrated or their influence misunderstood. Not only that but some of these people were to influence others who came later in their family - Erasmus Darwin, Wollstonecroft (on the Shelleys- her daughter's Frankenstein being a seminal SF work)... Despite the protestations of the Little Englander from Hong Kong (Michael Wheatley) below, Britain and England are the same thing (3/4 of the time minimum). He should know, after all he reviewed a Cantonese Chinese dictionary as well and there is no separate word for "Britain" in that language, only England and Scotland. In fact the English have been referring to their country alone as "Britain" since at least the 1300s (William Langland) and the first reference to the "British Empire" is in the 1400s.