|
Colonialhistorian David Allen's intensive study of five communities inseventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on thedetailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point. Allen suggeststhat much more coherence and direct continuity existed between English andcolonial agricultural practices and administrative organization than otherhistorians have suggested. However, he overstates his case with the declarationthat he has proved "the remarkable extent to which diversity in NewEngland local institutions was directly imitative of regional differences inthe mother country.
Such an assertionignores critical differences between seventeenth—century England and New England. First,England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated andlabor-hungry. Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality;New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, wasvirtually free from infectious diseases. Third, England had an all-embracingstate church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to theelect. Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalisticresident squires; no such class existed in New England. By narrowing his focusto village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studiesby Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen hascreated a somewhat distorted picture of reality.
Allen's work is arather extreme example of the "country community" school ofseventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing allnational issues from the history of that period have been exposed by ProfessorClive Holmes. What conclusion can be drawn, for example, from Allen's discoverythat Puritan clergy who had come to the colonies from East Anglia wereone-third to one-half as likely to return to England by 1660 as were Puritanministers from western and northern England? We are not told in what way, if atall, this discovery illuminates historical understanding. Studies of localhistory have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for theirauthors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simplybecause their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal.
1. The passage suggests that Professor Clive Holmes would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
- AAn understanding of seventeenth-century English local institutions requires a consideration of national issues.
- BThe "country community" school of seventeenth- century English history distorts historical evidence in order to establish continuity between old and new institutions.
- CMost historians distort reality by focusing on national concerns to the exclusion of local concerns.
- DNational issues are best understood from the perspective of those at the local level.
- ELocal histories of seventeenth-century English villages have contributed little to the understanding of village life.
2. It can be inferred from the passage that the author of the passage considers Allen's "discovery" (see highlighted text) to be
- Aalready known to earlier historians
- Bbased on a logical fallacy
- Cimprobable but nevertheless convincing
- Dan unexplained, isolated fact
- Ea new, insightful observation
3. It can be inferred that the author of the passage considers Allen's research on seventeenth-century Massachusetts colonies to be
- Ainconsequential but interesting
- Blargely derivative
- Cdetailed but problematic
- Dhighly commendable
- Eoverly theoretical
4. According to the passage, which of the following was true of most villages in seventeenth-century England?
- AThe resident squire had significant authority.
- BChurch members were selected on the basis of their social status within the community.
- CLow population density restricted agricultural and economic growth.
- DThere was little diversity in local institutions from one region to another.
- ENational events had little impact on local customs and administrative organization.
5. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with
- Asubstantiating a claim about a historical event
- Breconciling two opposing ideas about a historical era
- Cdisputing evidence a scholar uses to substantiate a claim about a historical event
- Danalyzing two approaches to scholarly research and evaluating their methodologies
- Ecriticizing a particular study and the approach to historical scholarship it represents
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-10-8 22:45:46
收藏
收藏
