Prep阅读请教（2）

Essay #6.  145   (21972-!-item-!-188;#058&00145-00)

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.
            

文章脉络：Allen’s study--〉 his assertion--〉such
an assertion ignores differences, first, second, third, fourth--〉criticize
approach used by Allen

Question #17.  145-03    (22018-!-item-!-188;#058&000145-03)

According to the passage, which of
the following was true of most villages in seventeenth-century England?

(A) The resident squire had
significant authority.

(B) Church members were selected on
the basis of their social status within the community.

(C) Low population density
restricted agricultural and economic growth.

(D) There was little diversity in
local institutions from one region to another.

(E) National events had little
impact on local customs and administrative organization.

Key：
        A

原文可以定位到resident squire但是如何知道 resident squire ahd significant authority呢？ 谢谢