|
Colonial historian David Allen's intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the detailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point. Allen suggests that much more coherence and direct continuity existed between English and colonial agricultural practices and administrative organization than other historians have suggested. However, he overstates his case with the declaration that he has proved "the remarkable extent to which diversity in New England local institutions was directly imitative of regional differences in the mother country."
Such an assertion ignores critical differences between seventeenth-century England and New England. First, England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated and labor-hungry. Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality; New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, was virtually free from infectious diseases. Third, England had an all-embracing state church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to the elect. Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires; no such class existed in New England. By narrowing his focus to village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studies by Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.
Allen's work is a rather extreme example of the "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes. What conclusion can be drawn, for example, from Allen's discovery that Puritan clergy who had come to the colonies from East Anglia were one-third to one-half as likely to return to England by 1660 as were Puritan ministers from western and northern England? We are not told in what way, if at all, this discovery illuminates historical understanding. Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for their authors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simply because their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal.
Question #18. 145-05 (22064-!-item-!-188;#058&000145-05)
The passage suggests that Professor Clive Holmes would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
(A) An understanding of seventeenth-century English local institutions requires a consideration of national issues. (B) The "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history distorts historical evidence in order to establish continuity between old and new institutions. (C) Most historians distort reality by focusing on national concerns to the exclusion of local concerns. (D) National issues are best understood from the perspective of those at the local level. (E) Local histories of seventeenth-century English villages have contributed little to the understanding of village life. Allen's work is a rather extreme example of the "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes 原文我的理解是 Allen 的观点是"country community"学派观点的一个极端例子， 这个学派提倡removing all national issues from the history of that period ， 这一观点是由Professor Clive Holmes表达和支持的。所以我答案选了D， 但是正确答案是A， 我是哪里理解错了呢？ 怎么正好和正确答案相反呢？ | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-5-10 22:41:00
