The book is divided into three sections. In the first, ‘Traditional Ways of Life’, Isaac devotes six chapters to describing and analysing the structure of ‘class’ and values in mid-eighteenth-century Virginia. The two principles, money and patriarchy, which had always governed Virginian society, by 1725 had ‘come to be associated with a developed system of social differentiation’. Using the techniques of ethnography of ‘thick description’, Isaac takes the apparently mundane rituals associated with churchgoing, court-days, and cockfights, to show how the gentry used these events to emphasises and reinforce the concepts of deference and hierarchy. In what was essentially still an oral culture, the use of such ‘drama’ was the only effective means of conveying these concepts to the ordinary folk. The extent to which the ideas of deference and patriarchy were successfully inculcated in the population at large was nowhere better demonstrated than on election day. The gentry favoured the electors with their benevolence by distributing alcohol and holding ‘barbeques’, but no man could be elected to the House of Burgesses unless he first received the support of the great families. Continuity and harmony characterised Virginian ‘culture’ at mid-century, although Isaac also stresses that it was far from constituting a humanitarian society – as the existence of a slave labour force demonstrated clearly enough. Because Virginia was based on a ruthless exploitation of blacks, the potential for violence was always present, but these tendencies were diverted into ‘sports’ – dancing, horseracing, cockfighting, carousing, and fighting in taverns – thereby averting threats to the social fabric.

In section two, ‘Movements and Events’, Isaac details the challenge which came in large part from a most unlikely source. A protestant revival movement, known as the great awakening, had swept through New England in the 1740s but only began to influence Virginia after 1760. The evangelicals – Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists – threatened the old order because they preached values diametrically opposed to those of the ruling elite. The old order stood for worldliness, extravagance, and hierarchy: the evangelicals proposed austerity, simplicity (particularly in religious rituals), and equality – even the humble were qualified to expound Scripture. In effect they constituted a counterculture.

The evangelicals were prime movers in destroying the traditional order, although the process was aided by quarrelling within the ranks of the establishment, and the developing conflict between Virginia and Britain. The Anglican clergy became embroiled in an argument with the gentry as they sought to lessen the Church’s dependence on burgesses and vestry. At the same time, the Church of England clergy, notably Samuel Henley, began to preach rationalist at the expense of orthodox doctrines. Together, these developments weakened the established church as the bulwark of the old order. In the events leading up to the Revolution the old guard sought to reassert its authority by reaffirming the old values of communalism (great care was now taken to ensure consensus on election day), while at the same time stealing part of the evangelicals’ platform, contrasting the alleged virtue and equality of the colonists with the alleged selfishness and corruptness of Britain’s ruling class. But this campaign was in vain – the old order was gone forever.

In the final section, ‘Afterview’, Isaac describes the transformed society of late eighteenth century Virginia. The old communal values were gone: the gentry no longer demonstrated gentility through hospitality, the parish churches had been sold, court day had lost its ritualistic significance, bitter conflicts between parties marked election day. Individualism and privatisation had replaced communalism and patriarchy.

The book contains some terrific historiographical ironies. Historians have usually assigned the Revolution primary importance in explaining the political and cultural changes which took place in late eighteenth century America. However, for Isaac that great event is almost incidental. Virginia society was reshaped less by the values of republican democracy derived from the Enlightenment than by those of emotional revivalism springing from the great awakening. Jefferson’s bill for establishing religious freedom was certainly inspired by rational philosophy, but its acceptance by Virginia’s rulers was determined by the need to encompass the evangelicals. Overall, Isaac’s reinterpretation is indeed radical, and one that (American) American historians, who remain (as good Americans) committed to the propositions that the Revolution was both a good thing and the central event shaping the form of modern American institutions and values, may find hard to swallow. Indeed, it may be no accident that Isaac is not an American!

Historians are bound to question Isaac’s conclusions. In particular, they will probably ask whether Virginia really was quite so communally oriented in 1750, or so individualistically oriented in 1790, as he argues. Of course, this will lead them to question whether the evangelical impact was as dramatic as he suggests. At the same time, they may also challenge his contention that Revolutionary ideology played little part in reshaping Virginia’s cultural values. What is beyond question, however, is that this book marks a milestone in early American historiography, a milestone past which all fellow travelling colonialists must in future tread. The recent announcement that this book has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history received surprisingly little publicity in Australia which is particularly disappointing when it is considered that this honour has not previously been awarded to an historian working outside the United States. There is no doubt that the award was thoroughly deserved.