|
Source
From:
Peter Rushton (peter@glaucon.demon.co.uk)
Subject:
Re: Christopher Hill and the Civil War
View:
Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original
Format
Newsgroups:
soc.history
Date:
1996/01/24
CEREBUS@
(David Bober) wrote:
>In
<248009169wnr@suttongp.demon.co.uk>,
Paul
Mitchell <paul@suttongp.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>Can
anyone explain the contribution made by Christopher Hill to our
>>understanding
of the Civil War period?-- -------
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>His
contribution has been to make us look at the the causes of the ECW,
the wars
>themesleves,
and their aftermath in terms of political and religious (Biblical)
>analysis,
albeit in as a marxist critique. But
even rightwing historians such >as Laurence Stone now look at the
period in terms of the 'English Revolution',
>so
in this way I think we can deem the contribution 'useful'.
Laurence
Stone isn't a 'right-wing' historian.
Although not himself a Marxist, he has been closely associated
for many years with the journal 'Past and Present', which was founded
by the Communist Party Historians' Group (Hill, Hobsbawm, Thompson,
Saville, etc.), most of whose members left the Party after the 1956
invasion of
Hungary
.
Either
you are confusing Laurence Stone with the indisputably right-wing
Norman Stone, or you have a very unusual political perspective
:)
I
agree, however, that Hill's primary importance, apart from his
significance as a leading Marxist academic, is in documenting the
ideological and social roots of the conflict that became the Civil
War, or 'English Revolution'. Non-Marxist
accounts have tended to place undue emphasis on the role of factional
intrigue, as though
England
stumbled into civil war and regicide.
>David
Bober
>BT
CSO SDTS
Ipswich
CC
>boberd@boat.bt.com
>"The
views expressed are probably not those of my employer".
--
Peter
Rushton |
