Peter Laslett interviewed by Keith Wrightson (IHR website)
For this improtant and interesting interview, follow the link here .
Posts
The IHR's interviews with historians
This website contains transcripts of interviews with senior early modern historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper, Geoffrey Elton, Peter Laslett, Christopher Hill, Lawrence Stone, D.C.Coleman and A.G.Dickens. The transcripts appear to have been machine-generated and are not always accurate but are worth reading all the same.
Anne Laurence on The Wars of the Three Kingdoms
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms reviewed Anne Laurence, The Wars of the Three Kingdoms (Open University, 2007) Anne Laurence is an historian with a long and distinguished career. Originally an undergraduate at York University, she undertook her doctoral research at the University of Oxford under the supervision of Christopher Hill. Her thesis on ‘Parliamentary Army Chaplains, 1642-1651’ was subsequently published. Since then, she has won recognition for her work on the lives of early modern women and, more recently, on women investors in the early eighteenth-century financial revolution. [1] Her long-term commitment to the Open University, where she now holds a chair, led to the composition of this work for its A200 course, Exploring History: Medieval to Modern, 1400-1900: it is primarily a teaching text carefully integrated with that course’s accompanying Anthology, Visual Sources Book, Course Guide and DVD. [2] ...
Forthcoming seminar on 17th November on 'Women waging law in Early Modern Ireland'
For details of this seminar paper to be given by Dr Patterson of Trinity College, Dublin, follow the link here .
Conrad Russell's review of Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution
Conrad Russell's review of Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution Conrad Russell’s review of Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642 (The English Historical Review. Volume 88, No.349 October, 1973. Pp.856-861) I recently re-read this review in the EHR and was struck by a number of its claims. One might have expected Russell to have been highly critical of this work which reflected many of the assumptions, whether Whig or Marxist, upon which early modern historians had been constructing their analyses of the origins and causes of the English Revolution since Tawney’s work in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, Russell proved to be surprisingly complimentary, describing Stone’s work as ‘brilliant’ and praising him for his contribution to the production of “a high proportion of our most interesting new ideas” on Tawney’s century (i.e. from 1540 to 1640). Indeed, he welcomed the synthesis of Stone’s ideas that he now offered and the careful qualificatio...