Historians From England

4814 citas
0 me gusta
0Verified
271Authors

Timeline

First Quote Added

April 10, 2026

Latest Quote Added

April 10, 2026

Notable Works in this Category

All Quotes

"It is impossible to maintain that these attributes [caution and progress] have been constant in the two great English parties. The Conservatives or Tories have often been progressive; the Liberals or Whigs stationary or retrogressive. Macaulay, in his famous reply to Lord Mahon, maintained that the Whigs had always kept in advance of the Tories, even though the whole nation might have moved onwards, just as the forelegs of the stag are always leading.But in fact both parties have passed and repassed one another, and have frequently exchanged places and influence; each by turn has had its phases of protection and free trade, imperialism and insularity, democracy and oligarchy, socialism and individualism. During the first three-quarters of the eighteenth century, and down to the accession to power of William Pitt, the Tories, with some justice, boasted that they were the representatives of popular rights and national interests as against the aristocratic Whig cliques; and until the outbreak of the great war with France, it was the Whigs who were usually the party of foreign adventure and expansion, while the Tories had rather a stronger leaning towards peace and retrenchment and economic progress. Political reform has never been a Liberal monopoly; and social reform has found its champions at least as often in the Conservative ranks as in those of their rivals. On the other hand, the Conservatives, until the Beaconsfield Ministry of 1874, were not specially identified with the maintenance of the Empire; and in the 'fifties and sixties, under Lord Derby and Disraeli himself, they were less ardent vindicators of English pretensions abroad than the dominant section of the Liberals under Palmerston.Thus it is a difficult, perhaps even an impossible, task to draw a dividing line from age to age between the two parties, on the basis of doctrine. But the fact is that Englishmen, in their public as in their private life, have no great regard for abstract generalisations. They are careless about measures and much more particular about men. Fidelity to persons, rather than to principles, is the spirit of our party life."

- Sidney Low

0 likeshistorians-from-englandessayists-from-englandpeople-from-londonjournalists-from-england
"Quippe de Saxonia quæ nunc uulgo Ealdsexe nuncupatur, id est 'Saxonia uetus', uenere tribus, quæ apud Anglos modo ita dicuntur, Eastsexan, et Suthsexan, et Westsexan...Anglia igitur de prouincia uenere iuxta Orientales Angli, Medii Angli, Mercii quoque, et tota gens Northanhymbrorum. Porro Anglia uetus sita est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale, quod sermone Saxonico Slesuuic nuncupatur, secundum uero Danos, Haithaby. Ideoque Brittannia nunc Anglia appellatur, assumens nomen uictorum. Præfati enim duces eorum inde uenerunt Brittanniam primi: hoc est Hengest et Horsa filii Vuyhtelsi, auus eorum Vuicta, et proauus eorum Vuithar, atauus quidem eorum Vuothen, qui et rex multitudinis barbarorum. In tanta etenim seductione oppressi aquilonales increduli ut deum colunt usque in hodiernam diem, viz. Dani, Northmanni quoque, et Sueui...In tanta ergo fuisse perhibetur supra dictarum illa aduec-tio crescens, et nimium, ut et incolarum paulatim et habitationis nomen aboleuisset, qui cum muneribus eos traxere quondam gentium repentinæ. Magis stipendia poscunt; renuunt Brittanni; mouent arma; fit discordia nimis, et, ut ante præfati sumus, a finibus eos pellunt in arcta promontoria quædam, et ipsi possessores a mare ad mare usque in præsentem diem existunt. In nono etiam anno post euersionem Romæ a Gothis, relicti qui erant in Brittannia Romana ex gente, multiplices non ferentes gentium minas, scrobibus occultant thesau-rum, aliquam sibi futuram existimantes fortunam, quod illis post non accidit. Partem sumunt, in unda gregan-tur, dant uentum carinis, exules Gallias tenent partes."

- Æthelweard (historian)

0 likeshistorians-from-englandchroniclers
"In the and the of the , grandiloquent homes were built for the nation's leaders and heroes with great avenues of approach and triumphal arches. Villages which were found to stand in the way of these grandiose undertakings were removed out of sight. Sweeping changes were made at the seat of the , the victor of , which necessitated the moving of the village of in ; was destroyed in the creating of 's dramatic for the ; disappeared in the lay-out for the magnificent seat of the in . The great Whig palaces and extensive gardens at , and overran ancient villages and hamlets that stood in the way of improvements. , who had envisaged an avenue of trees between London and his , began his improvements by removing the village of which lay in the shadow of his house. The village of in was resited to give breathing space to the family of . ... By the middle of the century great gardens were being made, not only to reflect their creator's importance or political beliefs, but to demonstrate the excellence of his taste. The new vogue was not for great avenues, canals, fountains and grand parterres but for naturalized landscape. Wealthy families in every county bought up vast tracts of land to make natural gardens, which would look like landscape paintings; some took the English countryside for these picture gardens and with the help of idealized and, 'improved' it; the with memories of their s revelled in the creation of Italian classical landscapes."

- Mavis Batey

0 likeshistorians-from-englandnon-fiction-authors-from-englandpeople-from-londoncryptographersuniversity-college-london-alumni
"Why was Astour’s work considered so...offensive? First, it offended at a formal level, because it challenged the academic hierarchy; this was a reflection of the relative power of the two disciplines. Although Classicists had previously discussed Eastern parallels to Hellenic mythology, it was entirely different and unacceptable for Orientalists to pronounce on Greece.There were also fundamental objections to the content of Astour’s work. Scholars like Fontenrose and Walcot had made broad sweeps of world mythology – including India, Iran and so on – and they gave preference, if possible, to the less offensive sources. By contrast, Astour’s derivation of Greek names from Semitic not only poached on the sacred ground of language, but also made the connections between West Semites and Greeks disturbingly close and specific. Furthermore, two of the myth cycles he treated – those of Kadmos and Danaos – were concerned with Near Eastern colonization in Greece, and he made a plausible case for their having a historical kernel of truth. The fourth section of Hellenosemitica was even more provocative in that it went into the sociology of knowledge, and its sketch of the history and ideology of Classics and Classical archaeology has been the basis of all later writings on this subject, this volume included. In doing this Astour injected relativism into subjects that had previously been impervious to the forces of probabilism and uncertainty that have transformed other disciplines since the 1890s."

- Martin Bernal

0 likeshistorians-from-englandjews-from-the-united-kingdomuniversity-of-cambridge-alumniuniversity-of-cambridge-facultycornell-university-faculty
"The upholders of conventional wisdom have been...disconcerted by Hellenosemitica, a major work by...Michael Astour, which first appeared in 1967. Hellenosemitica, a series of studies of striking parallels between West Semitic and Greek mythology, showed connections of structure and nomenclature that were far too close to be explained away as similar manifestations of the human psyche. Apart from the challenge posed by this basic theme, Astour made three other fundamental attacks. First, the fact of his writing the book at all upset the academic status quo. While it was permissible for a Classicist, coming from the dominant discipline, to discuss the Middle East in its relation to Greece and Rome, the converse did not hold true. A Semitist was felt to have no right to write about Greece. Secondly, Astour questioned the absolute primacy of archaeology over all other sources of evidence about prehistory—myth, legend, language and names—thus threatening the ‘scientific’ status of ancient history. Thirdly, he sketched out a sociology of knowledge for Classics, indicating links between developments in scholarship and those in society. He even implied a connection between anti-Semitism and hostility to the Phoenicians and cast doubt on the notion of steady accumulative progress of learning. But the worst threat came from his basic message that the legends of Danaos and Kadmos contained a factual kernel."

- Martin Bernal

0 likeshistorians-from-englandjews-from-the-united-kingdomuniversity-of-cambridge-alumniuniversity-of-cambridge-facultycornell-university-faculty