Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550 - 1750

On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550 - 1750 point, and they will not find that these fourteen dense pages take them very much farther. The kind of book historian who studies what McDonald calls “the scene of reading” might approach this essay by first observing that the large doublecolumn pages embody the authority of the dominant professional organization that publishes the journal and then by seeing the essay’s distracting locutions and preoccupation with theory as predictable in that context. The participants in this special issue of PMLA are in a position, by their own principles, to understand such a response. — G. Thomas Tanselle doi 10.1215/0961754X-2007-085 Steve Hindle, On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550 – 1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 521 pp. This huge book (over 450 pages of heavily annotated text) compels one to ponder the transitory nature of history making. The book is scholarly in the extreme. Illustration and example abound. Comment is judicious and not judgmental. It is without doubt the last word on its subject. As a final-year university student fifty years ago I read up on provision for the poor in Tudor and Stuart England. The books I read then were the last word on the subject. What has changed? More information has become available and historians appear to be more assiduous in pursuing it: this book has been ten years in the making and the footnotes tell their own story of industriousness. Do such developments mean we know more than we did? Certainly the language used to express what we know has changed. Here the writing is lucid; there is no linguistic posturing. Yet one detects a greater detachment from the subject than was the case in the days of Tawney and Power. Is detachment the price history has to pay for having been professionalized? for having become academic business? Might a consequence be the acceptance of the poor on capitalism’s terms — that they are a necessity? We no longer think (as we did fifty years ago) that poverty would be eliminated because it should be; now we know it cannot be: without the poor there is no profit, and without profit where would the wealthy be? What, one ponders, will be the last word in another fifty years when “globalization” has beggared the planet? — Colin Richmond doi 10.1215/0961754X-2007-086 Lit tle Rev iews http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Common Knowledge Duke University Press

On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550 - 1750

Richmond, Colin
Common Knowledge , Volume 14 (2) – Apr 1, 2008
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/on-the-parish-the-micro-politics-of-poor-relief-in-rural-england-c-a1V5pmdVGU
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
© 2008 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0961-754X
eISSN
0961-754X
DOI
10.1215/0961754X-2007-086
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

point, and they will not find that these fourteen dense pages take them very much farther. The kind of book historian who studies what McDonald calls “the scene of reading” might approach this essay by first observing that the large doublecolumn pages embody the authority of the dominant professional organization that publishes the journal and then by seeing the essay’s distracting locutions and preoccupation with theory as predictable in that context. The participants in this special issue of PMLA are in a position, by their own principles, to understand such a response. — G. Thomas Tanselle doi 10.1215/0961754X-2007-085 Steve Hindle, On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550 – 1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 521 pp. This huge book (over 450 pages of heavily annotated text) compels one to ponder the transitory nature of history making. The book is scholarly in the extreme. Illustration and example abound. Comment is judicious and not judgmental. It is without doubt the last word on its subject. As a final-year university student fifty years ago I read up on provision for the poor in Tudor and Stuart England. The books I read then were the last word on the subject. What has changed? More information has become available and historians appear to be more assiduous in pursuing it: this book has been ten years in the making and the footnotes tell their own story of industriousness. Do such developments mean we know more than we did? Certainly the language used to express what we know has changed. Here the writing is lucid; there is no linguistic posturing. Yet one detects a greater detachment from the subject than was the case in the days of Tawney and Power. Is detachment the price history has to pay for having been professionalized? for having become academic business? Might a consequence be the acceptance of the poor on capitalism’s terms — that they are a necessity? We no longer think (as we did fifty years ago) that poverty would be eliminated because it should be; now we know it cannot be: without the poor there is no profit, and without profit where would the wealthy be? What, one ponders, will be the last word in another fifty years when “globalization” has beggared the planet? — Colin Richmond doi 10.1215/0961754X-2007-086 Lit tle Rev iews

Journal

Common Knowledge – Duke University Press

Published: Apr 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.