Three Good Books That Revised History

In a previous post I critiqued an author for wasting enormous talent trying to write something “new.” In this column I will discuss three books that ushered in new ways of thinking, but did it better. These books aren’t easy reading, but their density is proportional to their content. (I can cover three books because praise takes less space than criticism.) Two were readings assigned in class; the other was recommended.

The Stripping of the Altars

The Stripping of the Altars by Eamon Duffy[1] overturned decades, perhaps centuries, of stultifying complacency about the Protestant Reformation in England (including my own). Duffy challenged the widespread presumption that the Reformation brought a true and purified religion to a country gripped by ritual, magic and saint worship—in other words, the Catholic Church.

While the title refers to the destruction of the traditional church under Protestant kings Henry VIII and Edward VI, more than half the book is devoted to describing Christianity before the Reformation. Duffy shows how the Catholic Church was woven into the texture of people’s lives through holy days, celebrations, pageants, processions, veneration of saints, deathbed donations, prayers, and, above all, the miraculous Eucharist. Overseeing that world and everyone in it were the saints, from the Virgin Mary to little-known local martyrs, all of whom could help people in various kinds of trouble. Continue reading “Three Good Books That Revised History”

In the Belly of the Beast

In the mid-1970s, while browsing in the Chicago Public Library, I came across The Rise of the Western World by Douglass North and Robert Thomas. [1] This short book tells a fascinating story of how property rights, trade, and limited government led to prosperity in the West (prosperity that eventually spread around the world).

Since then I’ve read many books about the success of the West and specifically about the Industrial Revolution, which started in England around 1760 and is generally viewed as continuing till 1830. I personally rate the Industrial Revolution as equal in importance to the discovery of agriculture.

So it will come as no surprise that, as a graduate student in history, I am studying the Industrial Revolution. In fact, I am studying labor conditions in the Industrial Revolution. Yes, the labor conditions that Charles Dickens wrote about in his novels Hard Times and Oliver Twist.

On the one hand, the Industrial Revolution was an exciting time. As a British schoolboy supposedly said, “About 1760 a wave of gadgets swept over England.”[2] New inventions, especially in the textile industry, appeared one after another, enormously improving productivity, reducing costs, and launching an age of material success.

On the other hand, labor conditions were tough. The new factories needed workers and  brawn was not required. Women and children could work and monitor the machines—and they did.

Continue reading “In the Belly of the Beast”

January News about History and Historians

A short history of recycling. By Jane Shaw Stroup on the Environmental Blog.

The Hoover Institution at 100: George Nash discusses its significance.

Mark T. Mitchell reviews  Walk Away, which tells the stories of ten people who left Marxism.  On Law & Liberty.

Robert Paquette explains the views of Eugene Genovese, a historian with Marxist roots and possibly conservative branches. In Chronicles.

Howard Zinn was no historian. On Law & Liberty.

KC Johnson says the New York Times’ 1619 project fails the truth test.

More on the 1619 project from Sean Wilentz in the Atlantic.

Librarian and bookseller plead guilty to stealing $8 million worth of antique books from Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Library. In the Washington Post’s Retropolis.

Take a peek at the oldest still-operating business in each state in the U.S. From workandmoney.com.

We’ve had 30 years of misdirected Alzheimer’s research, says Sharon Begley on STAT.

Continue reading “January News about History and Historians”

December News about History and Historians

Politico asks historians for one-paragraph summaries of the significance of the 2010s. Hint: a diversity of opinion.

Phil Magness (AIER) analyzes the debate between the New York Times and historians over the 1619 project, with complex results.

Historians vs. the New York Times re: the 1619 Project. In the New York Times..

Second thoughts about historians’ political petitions. By Andrew Ferguson in the Atlantic.

Was Martin Luther a source of the Western turn toward liberalism? James R. Rogers contemplates the question on Law & Liberty.

Find more news in the sidebar at right

The Netherlands Should Get More Respect

While studying European guilds last year, I came across a debate over the “Golden Age” of the Netherlands (1580 to 1680). The issue was whether Dutch guilds were weak or strong.  I wanted to delve into this subject, but doing so would have been futile. I don’t know the Dutch language. The best writing about Dutch guilds in the seventeenth century would be in Dutch.

I suspect that many historians, including economic historians, have experienced this same problem and not given the Dutch the study they deserve.  Historians tend to praise the early muscularity of the Netherlands economy but then dismiss the country as being unimportant in the long run because it missed out on the Industrial Revolution.

This, despite the facts that the country increased its farmland by one-third (from 1300 to 1800) through reclamation from the sea, it had a prosperous economy before any other country,  and it had a sturdy middle class in the age of Rembrandt. But it didn’t have factories until late in the nineteenth century, so it was “backward.” It fell off the charts of history—its high point being 1688, when its stadtholder, William of Orange, became the king of England.

Oh, and it was barely even a country in its Golden Age. Continue reading “The Netherlands Should Get More Respect”