Christopher Hill and the Civil War
Paul Mitchell
Can anyone explain the contribution made by Christopher Hill to our
understanding of the Civil War period?-- -------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bober
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'.
David Bober
BT CSO SDTS Ipswich CC
bob...@boat.bt.com
"The views expressed are probably not those of my employer".
Peter Rushton
>In <248009...@suttongp.demon.co.uk>, Paul Mitchell <pa...@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
>bob...@boat.bt.com
>"The views expressed are probably not those of my employer".
--
Peter Rushton