Peasant Revolts Research Articles

John Gower, Mentor for Royalty: Richard II

In all of Gower's work we witness the poet "repeatedly going through the same cycle: a ruler is responsible for the welfare of England and for its morality in civic, religious, and political life as exemplified in the individual citizen" (964). Gower's "most significant role" (953) is therefore to act as mentor for royalty, in particular for Richard II. To illustrate this point, Coffman examines three aspects of Gower's work: the 1381 Peasants Revolt; Gower's views of Lollardy; and Gower's final assessment of Richard's reign. The first of these, the 1381 Revolt, is treated in the VC, where Gower demonstrates that the wise king is responsible for the welfare of his land. The subject of Lollardy further suggests that Gower looked to the king to quell heresy. In "Carmen super multiplici viciorum pestilencia" he admonishes Richard in the final couplet to be like the husbandman ("Cultor") who watches and acts "lest the weeds of heresy stifle the harvest" (957-58). The third and longest section of Coffman's essay is a close reading of "O Deus Immense." Its value, Coffman argues, consists in "its quality as a mirror reflecting the mind of a middle-class conservative and through it interpreting in a comprehensive manner Gower's class in society and the Lancastrian attitude as found in contemporary records" (959). Gower's revision of the heading of the poem reveals that Gower increasingly saw himself in the role of "a judge rendering a decision [on Richard's reign] rather than that of an advisor telling a young ruler what to do" (960). Coffman shows that in "O Deus Immense," "practically every maxim, precept, or injunction applies with direct clarity to King Richard's reign" (962). Also noted are Gower's use of the second person to address his reader and make note of important precepts, as well as the reference to the Coronation Oath which signals the obligation of kings to rule justly. Coffman points out that the Coronation Oath was used by the Lancastrians in the 1399 deposition charges to indict Richard for ruling badly, and the essay ends with a comparison between the language of the poem and the phrasing of these thirty-three charges. [CvD]

Peasant Revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain

Peasant Revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain Get access E. A. Thompson E. A. Thompson Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Past & Present, Volume 2, Issue 1, November 1952, Pages 11–23, https://doi.org/10.1093/past/2.1.11 Published: 01 November 1952

Agrarianism and Social Upheaval in China

An agrarian movement is an organized campaign of politically conscious peasants. In China such a goal is equitable land distribution and that "to the tiller belongs the field," as implied in the ching t'ien and chun t'ien systems. Petitions and demands for these objectives by the intellectuals have throughout history characterized agrarian movements in times of uneven distributions of landownership and peasant unreast. Since A.D. 780 private ownership has brought forth periodical crises of overpopulation, land concentration, and war (which usually marked the end of a dynasty) within every three hundred years. Among the several peasant revolts and intellectual movements of teh last century, the one which bears a true agrarian character is the present Communist-led national revolution. With a reform program of rent and interest-rate reduction and of land redistribution, the Communist in China has won the support of the people and set up a new pattern of social upheaval in the history of Asiatic lands.

The Russian "Enigma": Some Recent Studies by Western Writers

OBSCURED by the flood of ephemeral works on Russia which pour from the presses in an undiminished stream, there is a steady undercurrent of more serious studies, destined never to appear on best-seller lists but finding some compensation in a modest but secure haven on the shelves of university libraries. Writers who have some knowledge of ancient (i.e., preI9I7) Russia and an honest conviction that communism has no monopoly on either good or evil in the world today need encouragement more than ever during these troubled times. A large portion of the books here under review indicate that their authors somehow obtained this encouragement-at least to the extent of finding a publisher. history of Russia is to Western scholars almost virgin territory, compared to the history of England, France, and Germany. Even so simple a requirement as a readable and authoritative one-volume history of Russia, comparable, say, to what G. M. Trevelyan has been able to do for England or Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager for the United States, has yet to be filled. There has been no lack of attempts, and some of them have been of very high quality. B. H. Sumner's Short history, which has appeared recently in a revised edition, unquestionably belongs in this category.' That the revisions are of a minor nature, generally in the interest of greater accuracy and clarification, is indicated most noticeably by the continued use of the present tense to describe events which were taking place when the I943 edition was published. In many ways the best single volume in its field, the book nevertheless suffers from an unsurmountable handicap arbitrarily imposed upon it by the author in an ambitious attempt to break away from the conventional chronological method of writing history. substitution of a topical arrangement (The frontier, The state, The land, The church, The Slavs, The sea, and The West) is less than satisfactory and creates more problems than it solves. Mere unorthodoxy is converted'into organizational chaos, however, by the further device of a reverse chronology under the topical headings. Thus the chapter entitled The land begins with an account of the Soviet revolution in agriculture; reverts to the I905 revolution, the emancipation of the serfs, and their condition previous to emancipation; and concludes with a discussion of the origins of serfdom (along with the commune) and of the various peasant revolts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Such a book is virtually useless for the beginner, and the advanced student of Russian history may prefer to turn to V. 0. Klyuchevsky or more detailed monographic studies than to pursue the subject further at an elementary level. A third edition-one which will really revise and not simply perpetuate a major weakness-is needed before Sumner's undoubted talent will be properly harnessed. Of two other recent additions to the list of one-volume histories, only that of Joshua Kunitz was intended as a corrective to the older accepted versions.2 Paul Crowson's short study need not concern us, except to call attention to its existence as a possible textbook for high-school students.3 Its pretensions do not go beyond this-it was prepared for English students at this level-and, within the little more than two hundred pages allotted, the author has done a first-rate job of simplification and condensation. Kunitz, heretofore known primarily as an