This thesis represents the first stage of a projected complete edition of Camden's Remains. I offer here Camden's text for three chapters (Britain, Inhabitants, and the Wise Speeches) along with a textual apparatus. The General and Textual Introductions are based on a study of the whole book. The General Introduction examines the relation of the Remains to Camden's major work, the Britannia. It also contains a discussion of Camden's sources and the manner in which he handles his material. Briefly, I indicate the extent of Camden's contact with other historians and antiquarians and state whose libraries he had access to. Discussion is purposely brief because these and related matters have already been: treated in works by Linda van Norden, F. T. Levy, and May McKisack. A separate study of how and where Camden saw the manuscripts and books he used lies outside the scope of the thesis. To conclude the General Introduction I offer brief comments on Camden's style, his intentions, and the place of the Remains in relation to his two historical works. The Textual Introduction studies the evidence of the manuscripts and of the three editions in Camden's lifetime. The text is based on the edition of 1605. It adopts the authoritative revisions and additions of 1614 and 1623. The apparatus at the bottom of each page records substantive variants of the manuscripts, 1614, and 1623. It also records all departures from the copy text. Commentary for the two sections Britain and Inhabitants is confined to identifying sources and explaining points in the text. For the Wise Speeches, I attempt to trace the origin and development of each story and, where possible, to identify Camden's source or the tradition leading to Camden's version. In a number of cases it is possible to identify the particular manuscript or edition which Camden used and these have been noted. I indicate any changes Camden has made in the substance of a story and, in most cases, I present for comparison the text of the speech or aphorism. The Commentary was designed for the convenience of the general reader, hence some entries are no doubt fuller than an historian would need. Appendix A presents a selection of manuscript apophthegms which, for one reason or another, Camden chose not to print. They are not part of his final intentions. For this and other reasons, I offer them here, unannotated, simply as a sample of the contents of the manuscript. I hope to deal with the unpublished apophthegms separately at another time. Appendix B provides a table identifying all the material Camden added to the editions of 1614 and 1623.

John Millar's historical works have not, since the era of their original publication, been viewed as such by their principal commentators. Though Millar's Discourse on the Origin of the Distinction of Ranks (1771) has received acclaim for its perceived sociological value, his intended masterwork, An Historical View of the English Constitution (1803) has been almost completely neglected by contemporary scholarship. The intent of this paper is threefold: first, by viewing Millar in the historiographical context of late Enlightenment Britain, Millar's texts become recognizable as they were when they were first read, that is, as works of history. Restoring Millar to this context, a time when sophisticated new modes of historical writing were being developed to explain the modern world, also reveals the origins and nature of Millar's characteristic "conjectural" or "philosophical" approach to the study of the past. Secondly, a methodological analysis of Millar's major works and his unpublished "Lectures on Government" will provide insight into how Millar's conjecturalism was reconfigured to fit different subjects, purposes, and generic norms. Third, a survey of Millar's reception in the early nineteenth century will illustrate how rapidly and how profoundly the perceptions of Millar's historiographical approach changed from laudatory to dismissive. Millar is thus revealed not only as a historical writer, but one who was dedicated to a sophisticated, systematic program of historical inquiry.

John Millar's historical works have not, since the era of their original publication, been viewed as such by their principal commentators. Though Millar's Discourse on the Origin of the Distinction of Ranks (1771) has received acclaim for its perceived sociological value, his intended masterwork, An Historical View of the English Constitution (1803) has been almost completely neglected by contemporary scholarship. The intent of this paper is threefold: first, by viewing Millar in the historiographical context of late Enlightenment Britain, Millar's texts become recognizable as they were when they were first read, that is, as works of history. Restoring Millar to this context, a time when sophisticated new modes of historical writing were being developed to explain the modern world, also reveals the origins and nature of Millar's characteristic "conjectural" or "philosophical" approach to the study of the past. Secondly, a methodological analysis of Millar's major works and his unpublished "Lectures on Government" will provide insight into how Millar's conjecturalism was reconfigured to fit different subjects, purposes, and generic norms. Third, a survey of Millar's reception in the early nineteenth century will illustrate how rapidly and how profoundly the perceptions of Millar's historiographical approach changed from laudatory to dismissive. Millar is thus revealed not only as a historical writer, but one who was dedicated to a sophisticated, systematic program of historical inquiry. / Arts, Faculty of / History, Department of / Graduate

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 360-368).

No description available.

This thesis aims to show, how periodization and race converged vigorously during the nineteenth century. The research focuses mainly on the question of how nineteenth century historians viewed the transformation from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. For many scholars, the year 476 A.D. became associated with the fall of Rome. During the nineteenth century, historians elaborated two main arguments: 1) 'The Roman' emphasized the decline that had occurred after the fall of Rome. 2) 'The Teutonic' signified the rejuvenation which the German tribes had brought about in the decaying Empire. Although I relate to the 'Roman' argument, the heart of the discussion is devoted to the 'Teutonic' school that was supported not only by German but also by British or more accurately English historians. The first part of the dissertation is devoted to the theme of 'Community and Race'. In this part, I engage with the thematic question of how the historians of the second half of the nineteenth century constructed past and present communities through the concept of race. A close community or Gemeinschaft of English and German historians emerged during the middle of the nineteenth century. Based on the concept of Teutonic kinship, this community emphasized the notions of race and historical time, which actually invented a new sense of belonging. The English and the Germans were one, an almost indivisible community founded on a purported notion of race. Despite several national or particularistic inclinations, these nations had a common Teutonic past, which always bonded them together. Therefore, the historians 'imagined' a new ultimate transnational (racial) community of belonging. In the second part I study the theme of 'Time'. The linkage between the two parts is embedded in the idea of the Community as a 'Time Maker'. Namely, in what manner does the construction of a community by the historians defines the division of time. The chapter that links the two themes of 'Community' and 'Time' examines the writings of scholars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who underlined the Germanic invasions of the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. as the events that symbolized the fall of Rome and the end of Antiquity. This governing observation is connected directly with the racial Teutonic feelings that were prevalent among English and German historians. The discussion of it set the framework for the following chapters, which delve into the distinct periodization's of Edward Augustus Freeman (1823-92) and John Bagnell Bury (1861-1927). These historians, who were in constant and close contact until the death of Freeman in 1892, reveal similarities as well as major differences in their historical writings. The main reason why they were chosen derives from the new periodization which they had adopted. Both of them devised a method that signified a departure from the accepted and almost 'sacred' division between Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

The Elizabethan poor laws stand as a great work from a dynamic period. How and why they were formulated have been questions which historians have asked for centuries. The discussions of these questions have varied, depending on the personal values and biases which each historian brought to this study. It is generally agreed that a very important function of the historian is interpretation. The study of history is not only a study of the events, but a study of the historians and their differing interpretations of those events. In the past one hundred years, numerous historians have devoted themselves to studying the Elizabethan poor laws. Their interpretations varied considerably in some areas and very little in others. This essay examines some of those interpretations and attempts to find methodological and/or ideological differences which may account for the differing opinions. The study focuses upon four broad schools of historical thought-Whigs, legal historiains, economic historians, and social historians. The historians selected represent a wide range of interpretations. James A . Froude, C. J. Ribton-Turner, and George Nicholls represent the Whig interpretation. William Holdsworth and G. R. Elton represent the legal interpretation. William J. Ashley, R. H. Tawney, and Peter Ramsey were selected as the economic historians. E. M.Leonard, B. Kirkman Gray, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, A. L. Rowse, and W. K . Jordan are the social historians. Whig historians saw the poor laws as part of a continuing constitutional development. They interpreted them as representing the inevitable forward progress of the English system of government. Legal historians were concerned with the formulation of the law and with the machinery provided for its administration. Their interpretations focused on the law itself and its position in the legal system as a whole. Economic historians examined the factors behind the law and the economic factors in particular which they believed led to its passage. Thus, their interpretations centered upon discussions of the significance of such topics as enclosure, inflation, urbanization, and vagrancy. Social historians offered interpretations of the Elizabethan poor laws designed to explore the structural relationship between social classes.

Much has been written about twelfth-century chroniclers in England, but satisfactory reasons for their approaches to historical explanation have not yet been advanced. This thesis investigates how and why historians in England retold accounts of England's eleventh-century invasions: the Danish Conquest of 1016 and the Norman Conquest of 1066. The object is to illuminate the consistent historical agendas of three historians: William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon and John of Worcester. I argue that they share a view of royal responsibility independent both of their sources (primarily the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) and of any political agenda that placed English and Norman allegiances in opposition. Although the accounts diverge widely in the interpretation of character, all three are concerned more with the effectiveness of England's kings than with their origins. Part One outlines trends in early insular narratives and examines each of the three historians' background, prose style and view of English history to provide the necessary context for understanding how and why they rewrote narratives of kings and conquest. Part Two analyzes narratives of defending kings Æthelred and Harold; Part Three conducts a parallel analysis of conquering kings Cnut and William. These sections argue that all three writers add a significant and new degree of causal and moral responsibility to English kings in their invasion narratives. Part Four discusses the implications and significance of the thesis's findings. It argues that the historians' invasion narratives follow consistent patterns in service of their projects of redeeming the English past. It contends that modern understanding of the eleventh-century conquests of England continues to be shaped by what historians wrote years later, in the twelfth. In departing from prior modes of explanation by collective sin, the three historians' invasion narratives reflect a renaissance of ancient ideas about rule.

Religion and history became closely related in new ways in the Victorian imagination. This thesis asks why this was so, by focusing on arguments within British Protestant culture over progress and development in the history of Christianity. In an intellectual movement approximately beginning with the 1845 publication of John Henry Newman's 'Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine', and powerfully spreading and developing until the earlier years of the twentieth century, British intellectuals came to treat the history of religion - both as a past and present process, and as a didactic genre - as a vital element of broader attempts to stabilise or reconstruct religious belief and social order. Religious revivalists, determined to use church history as a raw material for the inculcation of exclusive confessional identities and dogmatic theology, were highly successful in pressing it on the attention of early Victorian audiences. But they proved unable to control its meaning. Historians rose to prominence who instead interpreted the history of Christianity as a guide to how religious culture, which many treated as indistinguishable from society as a whole, might eventually supersede denominational and dogmatic divisions. Humanity's spiritual development in time, which numerous British critics assessed with the aid of German Idealist thought, also became an attractive apologetic resource as the epistemological basis of Christian belief came under unprecedented public challenge. A major part of that danger was perceived to come from rival, avowedly secularising interpretations of human social progress. Such accounts - the ancestors of twentieth-century secularisation theory - were vigorously opposed by historians who understood modernity as involving not the decline, but the purification of Christianity. By exploring the ways in which Victorian critics - clerical and lay, religious and secular - approached religious history as a resource for solving the problems of their own age, this thesis offers a new way of understanding the importance of history, claims to knowledge, and the nature and ends of 'liberalism' in the long nineteenth century.