Socialist History Society talk on Christopher Hill yesterday evening

 

I watched this on-line discussion of Hill's corpus of works from the late-1930s until the 1990s last night with some discomfort. In a personal sense I ought to say that I always got on perfectly well with Christopher Hill although I disagreed with his work, approach and methods.
      First of all, Hill's influence reached its apogee in 1972 with the publication of his book, The World Turned Upside Down. This was mainly true outside Oxford University but not within it where other figures - Hugh Trevor-Roper, J.P.Cooper, Keith Thomas and Donald Pennington - were significant. It was already clear from the work being done by John Morrill, Kevin Sharpe and Blair Worden in the university that an entirely new approach was being formulated to the events of the early to middle Stuart period. Hill (like Lawrence Stone) appeared to me to have been completely oblivious to this developing shift in focus let alone to the work of Conrad Russell in London. (Hill privately described Russell as "a fraud".) If one looks at Hill's subsequent publications it is clear that he never changed his basic view of the seventeenth century in England as one of 'revolution'. 
     Secondly, the rise of 'revisionism' clearly antedated by some years the rise to power of Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party to office in government. The two developments should not be conflated. Christopher Hill's influence had diminished well before 1979. James Holstun found when he attended a conference at Edge Hill in the early-1980s that Hill's influence and that of Marxism on the interpretation of the 'English Revolution' had largely dissipated and was confined to W.E.A. tutors by then.
      Richard Cobb's serious criticisms of Hill's methods of managing the affairs of Balliol College between 1965 and the late-1970s need to be discussed. 
      I find it difficult to understand how Hill was able to live and work in Oxford without ever using the magnificent collections of documents held in the Bodleian Library on the Civil War period in particular and the seventeenth century in general. As I discovered, he knew virtually nothing about the manuscript sources available in the British Museum, in the Public Record Office and in county record offices. He appeared to me then and appears to me now to have been highly insensitive to the economic and social history of the period. These were and are very serious weaknesses that need to be taken into account.
      

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lawrence Stone and the historiography of the 'gentry controversy'

  LAWRENCE STONE AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE GENTRY CONTROVERSY The controversy over the economic and social origins of the English Revolution was a topic that excited ferocious debate over sixty years ago. Historians of the calibre of R.H.Tawney and Hugh Trevor-Roper, J.P.Cooper, Christopher Hill and Lawrence Stone advanced radically different interpretations to explain the violent events of the 1640s and 1650s in the British Isles. American scholars, most famously of all, J.H.Hexter, like Willson Coates, Harold Hulme, Judith Shklar and Perez Zagorin also commented with varying degrees of sharpness on the issues at stake. But only one of the major participants, Lawrence Stone, offered an account of the historiography of the dispute, first of all in his introduction to the anthology of academic articles and documentary sources entitled Social Change and Revolution in England 1540-1640 which he edited in 1965 and then, in slightly revised form, in Chapter 2 of his work...
Read more

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more

Transcribing Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 1642 and 1645

  In the spring of 1967, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, then the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, wrote to me to ask if I would assist Dr Pearl in her work by transcribing Walter Yonge’s diaries held (in Additional Mss.18,777-18,780) in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum at that time. I agreed and it was settled that I would be paid £150 per volume by the History Faculty of the University. I duly transcribed the first of these volumes in 1967 and the remaining three by 1973. I was not her “assistant” in this task but undertook it myself. I did not, moreover, keep copies of the first three volumes. In mid-1975, I read in The Times Higher Education Supplement that she was preparing the Yonge volumes for publication. But nothing happened. By 1984, seventeen years after I had transcribed the first volume and eleven years after finishing the last one I was puzzled by this failure to proceed and, having asked several academic friends if they th...
Read more