*1. 法文bourgeois 中产阶级，中国人（马克思主义者）把它翻译成“资产阶级”，英文（dictionary.com）解释如下：
1） the middle classes
2） (in Marxist thought) the ruling class of the two basic classes of capitalist society, consisting of capitalists, manufacturers, bankers, and other employers. The bourgeoisie owns the most important of the means of production, through which it exploits the working class.
Websters 韦伯大词典第三版的解释更为准确：Bourgeois指一个中产阶级社会阶层，他们的财富来自于商业和工业赚的钱（利润）。特别要和（不务农的）地主，（有自己的土地的）农民，挣工资的，知识分子相区别。 one of the social class whose income derives from the profits of commercial and industrial enterprise esp. as distinguished from the landed gentry, the wage earners, and farmers, and sometimes the professions.
*2. 从下面维基对英国革命的（中文）描述，我们可以学习到，英国革命的过程1.非天主教徒争取信仰自由；2. 代表民意之英国国会与代表君主之英国国王争权，并获得胜利。Bourgeois在这段历史时期的斗争是“靠自己的劳动”（不仅指体力劳动）获得财产的人，与不靠自己的劳动，靠家族遗产获得财产的人之间的斗争。这个斗争一直延续到今天，比如，每个国家征收巨额遗产税就是打击后者。
*3. 西方人不喜欢马克思主义历史观的词，把英国的这段历史时期说成是“革命”。 请详读英文维基。
在英文维基中，我们读到Woolrych的评论，他说，把1640-1660年英国这段历史时期说成是“革命”的错误在于，1. 这段时期太短，没有产生明显的社会变化，2. 不能合理地衔接之后的早期现代化时代。（意指这段时期和之后的早期现代化时代是不能割裂的。）Woolrych argues that the notion that the period constitutes an "English Revolution" not only ignores the lack of significant social change contained within the period, but also ignores the long-term trends of the early modern period which extend beyond this narrow time-frame.
1687年4月和1688年4月先后发布两个“信仰自由宣言”（Declaration of Indulgence 或 Declaration of Liberty of Conscience），给予包括天主教徒在内的所有非国教徒以信仰自由，并命令英国国教会的主教在各主教区教坛宣读，引起英国国教会主教们普遍反对。同时詹姆斯二世残酷迫害清教徒，还向英国工商业主要竞争者---法国靠拢，危害bourgeois利益。
"English Revolution" has been used to describe two different events in English history. The first to be so called—by Whig historians—was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, whereby James II was replaced by William III and Mary II as monarch and a constitutional monarchy was established.
In the twentieth-century, however, Marxist historians introduced the use of the term "English Revolution" to describe the period of the English Civil Wars and Commonwealth period (1640–1660), in which Parliament challenged King Charles I's authority, engaged in civil conflict against his forces, and executed him in 1649. This was followed by a ten-year period of bourgeois republican government, the "Commonwealth", before monarchy was restored in the shape of Charles' son, Charles II in 1660.
1 Whig theory
2 Marxist theory
3 See also
The Glorious Revolution of 1688, whereby James II was replaced by William III and Mary II as monarch and a constitutional monarchy established, was described by Whig historians as the English Revolution. This interpretation suggests that the "English Revolution" was the final act in the long process of reform and consolidation by Parliament to achieve a balanced constitutional monarchy in Britain, and laws were made that pointed towards freedom.
Marxist theoryThe Marxist view of the English Revolution suggests that the events of 1640 to 1660 in Britain was a bourgeois revolution in which the final section of English feudalism (the state) was destroyed by a bourgeois class (and its supporters) and replaced with a state (and society) which reflected the wider establishment of agrarian (and later industrial) capitalism. Such an analysis sees the English Revolution as pivotal in the transition from feudalism to capitalism and from a feudal state to a capitalist state in Britain.
According to Marxist historian Christopher Hill:
The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords, and on the other side stood the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside . . . the yeomen and progressive gentry, and . . . wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about.
Later developments of the Marxist view moved on from the theory of bourgeois revolution to suggest that the English Revolution anticipated the French and later revolutions in the field of popular administrative and economic gains. Along with the expansion of Parliamentary power the Revolution broke down many of the old power relations in both rural and urban English society. The guild democracy movement of the period won its greatest successes among London's transport workers, most notably the Thames Watermen, who democratized their company in 1641-43. And with the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642, rural communities began to seize timber and other resources on the estates of royalists, Catholics, the royal family and the church hierarchy. Some communities improved their conditions of tenure on such estates.
The old status quo began a retrenchment after the end of the main civil war in 1646, and more especially after the restoration of monarchy in 1660. But some gains were long-term. The democratic element introduced in the watermen's company in 1642, for example, survived, with vicissitudes, until 1827.
The Marxist view also developed a concept of a “Revolution within the Revolution” (pursued by Hill, Brian Manning and others) which placed a greater deal of emphasis on the radical movements of the period (such as the Agitator "Levellers", Mutineers in the New Model Army and the Communistic "Diggers") who attempted to go further than Parliament in the aftermath of the Civil War.
There were, we may oversimplify, two revolutions in mid-seventeenth century England. The one which succeeded established the sacred rights of property (abolition of feudal tenures, no arbitrary taxation), gave political power to the propertied (sovereignty of Parliament and common law, abolition of prerogative courts), and removed all impediments to the triumph of the ideology of the men of property - the protestant ethic. There was, however, another revolution which never happened, though from time to time it threatened. This might have established communal property, a far wider democracy in political and legal institutions, might have disestablished the state church and rejected the Protestant ethic.
Brian Manning has claimed that:
The old ruling class came back with new ideas and new outlooks which were attuned to economic growth and expansion and facilitated in the long run the development of a fully capitalist economy. It would all have been very different if Charles I had not been obliged to summon that Parliament to meet at Westminster on November 3rd, 1640.
The notion that the events of 1640 to 1660 constitute an "English Revolution" has been criticised by historians such as Austin Woolrych, who has pointed out that painstaking research in county after county, in local record offices and family archives, has revealed that the changes in the ownership of real estate, and hence in the composition of the governing class, were nothing like as great as used to be thought.
Woolrych argues that the notion that the period constitutes an "English Revolution" not only ignores the lack of significant social change contained within the period, but also ignores the long-term trends of the early modern period which extend beyond this narrow time-frame.
[博讯来稿] (博讯 boxun.com)(本文只代表作者或者发稿团体的观点、立场) 1812249