欢迎来到51Due,请先 | 注册
关注我们: 51due论文代写二维码 51due论文代写平台微博
英国论文代写,英国essay代写知名品牌微信

Essay代写范文

为您解决留学中生活、学习、工作的困难、疑惑
释放自我

Essay代写:An open field village in England

2018-12-04 | 来源:51due教员组 | 类别:Essay代写范文

本篇essay代写- An open field village in England讨论了英国的敞田制村庄。19世纪以前,敞田制村庄在英格兰曾是一种普遍存在的乡村共同体形态。它的起源比庄园、教区更为古老,它的影响比封建制度还要深入。敞田村的标志是一套关于土地生产安排的敞田制度。敞田制村庄是实施敞田制的一个农牧混合经济共同体。而所谓的敞田制,就是这一共同体对于其辖下的自然资源进行生产的一系列制度安排。本篇essay代写51due代写平台整理,供大家参考阅读。

open field village,英国敞田制村庄,essay代写,代写,paper代写

Before the 19th century, open field villages were a common form of village community in England. Its origin is older than manors and parishes, and its influence is deeper than feudalism, ecclesiastical system and legal system. The symbol of open farmland village is an open farmland system about land production arrangement." Open field village is an agricultural and pastoral mixed economic community implementing open field system. The so-called open field system is a series of institutional arrangements for the production of natural resources under the jurisdiction of this community. In the 18th century, under the guidance of the act of parliament provided by the British parliament, the landowners took the initiative to carry out parliamentary enclosure and divided the open field village into independent enclosure farms. The enclosure movement in this period was the parliamentary enclosure movement. From the time of the occurrence of parliamentary enclosure to today, British academic circles have paid close attention to this historical issue. Not only that, Chinese historians have always been enthusiastic about and paid close attention to the "enclosure movement" in Britain. Too much attention was paid to the enclosure movement itself, and the direct object of enclosure -- open village was neglected. It is the open field village that gave birth to the enclosure movement, and the research orientation of emphasizing enclosure while ignoring open field is, logically speaking, a waste of time.

Only by tracing the source can we clear up the source. This paper summarizes the academic research results of open field village and parliamentary enclosure, sorts out the foreign and domestic related historical history, so as to clarify the research context, find out the key points of the problems, and explore new research paths.

Primary information on parliamentary enclosure studies is very rich. The journal of parliamentary activities concerning the enclosure of land by the parliament, the enclosure bills, reports and meeting documents submitted by various open farmland villages to the parliament during the enclosure, the final ACTS of the parliament and the archives formed after the enclosure were completed, as well as the works, records and private letters of some scholars and social observers at that time are all important first-hand historical materials.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, on the basis of sorting out the original materials and local archives, different research methods have been applied, and fruitful historical studies have been made. The following are selected representative works to be introduced as follows:

Tate was a landmark figure in the history of parliamentary enclosure. He changed the basic features of the history of open field village and parliamentary enclosure and promoted the status of this topic in the study of modern agricultural history in Britain. With his lifelong academic efforts, Tate sorted out the enclosure laws and records of British local councils, and it was his efforts that the number and enclosure area of enclosure laws and other basic historical situations in Britain were clarified. His research is published in the British village community and enclosure movement. Before his death in 1968, he had published a catalogue of data from 27 of Britain's 42 counties. He also chronologically breaks down the records of enclosure ACTS of various periods, each of which includes details of a town, village, Hamlet, manor, or settlement.

Munger is another leading scholar on the history of rural society and parliamentary enclosure in Britain. Since the 1960s, he has been committed to the study of the social history of modern agricultural economy in Britain. Among them, the representative works on the history of British countryside and agriculture in the 18th and 19th centuries are: agricultural revolution,1750-1880, co-authored with Chambers. The book takes the agricultural revolution as the main body of study and makes a detailed survey of the parliamentary enclosure from the perspective of agricultural economic development. The English parliament enclosure: an introduction to the causes, scope and influence,1750-1850 is the integration of munger's study of parliamentary enclosure. Munger also has many research results on the structure and social changes of rural society in modern England, among which land and society in England 1750-1980 is the most representative. In addition, yeling's general history of enclosure, the Commons and enclosure of England:1450-1850, narrates the history of open fields and enclosure at a basic level, including parliamentary enclosure, from a long period of time.

However, some scholars have put forward different views, Allen is the representative of them. He used raw archival data and probate lists to study agricultural productivity and concluded that there was no significant difference in productivity after enclosure compared with that in open fields. In his book enclosure and yeoman, he argued that although enclosure led to improvements in agricultural methods, these changes made little contribution to agricultural productivity and output growth. Alan also referred to parliamentary enclosure in the 18th and 19th centuries as the "Lord's agricultural revolution ", arguing that enclosure was simply a merger of farms, without which most britons would have been better off.

At present, there is no monograph on open village or parliamentary enclosure in China, but domestic scholars' understanding and understanding of open village and parliamentary enclosure can be found from relevant studies.

The English history cited by jiang meng is an earlier work on parliamentary enclosure, which describes parliamentary enclosure as a movement of the old and new aristocrats who forcibly occupied the common land and led to the disappearance of yeomen farmers. This view has been an unconscious stereotype in Chinese academic circles for quite a long time. However, the upsurge of enclosure in the 18th century wiped out the small landowners, and in the process of parliamentary enclosure, the large landowners played a dominant role, which damaged the small landowners in enclosure. Yan zhaoxiang believed that the enclosure movement in the 18th century caused a large number of owner-peasants to lose their land and aroused their resistance. Most of those who lost land moved to cities and industrial centers to become cheap labor.

All the above studies agree that parliamentary enclosure established a modern system of private property rights, which in fact has become a deep-rooted prejudice in the domestic and world historians today. The first book to clarify this prejudice was shen han's history of the British land system. The author tells us a common historical fact at the beginning: in England, a person cannot own the land itself, but can only own the property right of the land; In law, all land belongs directly or indirectly to the king. In fact, there are no absolute, sustainable and exclusive land ownership entities recognized by the continental law system of Europe, let alone the absolute modern private ownership established by parliamentary enclosure. The enclosure movement didn't have that much legal significance, it just reorganized the land. As the book says:" in the enclosure movement, there are two different types of enclosure intertwined. One is to reclaim and transform the remaining wasteland; The other is to centralize the scattered strips of open land for rational farming."

In recent years, the research of young scholars has enriched the historical achievements in this field. They are generally able to conduct professional research directly with foreign literature and timely absorb the latest research results and theoretical methods at home and abroad. Representative works are: research on the enclosure of British parliament in the 18th and 19th centuries by ni zhengchun, which is the highlight of this paper. After that, ni zhengchun wrote a comparative study on parliamentary enclosure and Tudor enclosure, which comprehensively compared the early enclosure movement and parliamentary enclosure, and pointed out that parliamentary enclosure with a larger influence scope was carried out smoothly due to its fairness and legitimacy in the process of land redistribution, unlike Tudor enclosure, which caused social unrest. As for parliamentary enclosure, the author thinks:" after the British revolution in the 17th century, parliament took over the power of the country, and initiated a large-scale mandatory institutional change on behalf of landowners. Finally, in the mid-19th century, the open-field system was abolished and the complete private property right of land was basically established." Obviously, this kind of understanding carries with it the academic stereotype of China in the past.

There have always been two fundamental differences in the study of open field village and parliamentary enclosure in the British historians. One view is that parliamentary enclosure is the class deprivation of the majority of villagers by the parliament and the land interest groups it represents, which leads to the proletarianization of smallholders and poor people. Therefore, parliamentary enclosure is predatory and unreasonable. Another view holds that parliamentary enclosure directly leads to new land use methods, establishes property rights relations conducive to the development of modern agriculture, and promotes the improvement of agricultural productivity. Therefore, it ADAPTS to the development pressure brought by the rapid population growth in Britain and has the historical significance of progress. The former view is represented by the Hammond couple, Thompson and nissen. The latter view is represented by Chambers, McLovsky, etc. These two different views are caused by different values and historical concepts.

Since the end of the 20th century, studies on the open field village and the parliamentary enclosure have gone beyond the above two views and focused on the more realistic level. There are three main trends:

The historical facts of the parliamentary enclosure itself were sorted out in a deeper and systematic way, especially the archives of various counties. The historical data of the parliamentary enclosure were collected and analyzed in detail by using modern computer technology.

Focusing on specific places, according to the new research data at the local level, and using multidisciplinary research methods, this paper examines the historical changes of rural society in the process of parliamentary enclosure from multiple perspectives.

From the perspective of cognition, this paper examines the ideology of various strata and groups in the period of parliamentary enclosure, reconstructs this history, looks at the reality with history, and ponders the value problem beyond the existence of society.

要想成绩好,英国论文得写好,51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯,专业辅导,还为你提供专业英国essay代写,paper代写report代写,需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ800020041或者wechatAbby0900吧。

我们的优势

  • 05年成立,已帮助上万人
  • 24小时专业客服
  • 团队成员都毕业于全球著名高校
  • 保证原创,支持检测

英国站