ABSTRACT
As was argued in the introduction to this book, one of the problems in studying crime in the past is the temptation to do so from the perspective of the bodies and social groups responsible for framing and implementing the criminal law. Three main reasons might be adduced for this: firstly, the predominance of the legal-historical approach, which has laid undue emphasis on the decisions of the legislature and the judiciary; secondly, the still lingering tendency to regard social history as somehow below the ‘dignity of the historian’; and thirdly, the established view which sees English history in terms of a progressive evolution. The Whig interpretation, albeit in a diluted form, has died hard, and still informs many of the basic assumptions of history as it is taught to schoolchildren and undergraduates. Seen from such perspectives, crime, like so many aspects of the life of the poor, only becomes of interest when it constitutes a ‘problem’ for the country's rulers. In the 1970s, however, some historians attempted a rather different analysis of crime in the past, and claimed that at least some forms of offence are best interpreted as rational and coherent actions arising from or justified by a set of attitudes different from those of officialdom. Whereas emphasis has previously been placed on legislation, or the machinery used to enforce it, research and re-thinking has revealed the potentialities of what might be described as a ‘history from below’ approach to crime in the past. Once more, we are reminded of how court records provide unique insights into the mentalities, attitudes and aspirations of the lower orders of early modern England.
