houses, social clubs, night schools etc. – and the results tested against the Mills thesis in a conclusion to each chapter. The author’s research is meticulous. Particularly interesting is her account of the Anglican clergy’s attempts to control ‘immoral’ activities at ‘the Statties’ (the Doncaster hiring fair) and replace them with registries. These were only partially successful as the labourers themselves – an underestimated factor in village development according to Hollandresisted what they saw as an attempt to control their agency in wage negotiation. The study reveals an unexpected rural industry in the Doncaster area sail making and boat building pursued along the banks of the Keadby canal near Stainforth: the canal was used to transport stone from the quarries near Warmsworth to the industrial West Riding. Quarrying employed more people in the six villages than any other rural industry, a sign of things to come. One omission from the book is any mention of the Friendly Societies. Working-class-run, self-help organisations, Friendly Societies were active in most Yorkshire villages during the nineteenth century and it is surprising that the author does not mention them here. Although the narrative of Communities in Contrast is well researched and interesting, its conclusions – inevitably – are unsurprising. The Mills model is useful as a tool but cannot explain the nuances of village development. These are dependent on factors other than types of landownership, for instance soil fertility, the attitudes of local clergy or the village’s proximity to the local town, in this case Doncaster. This is surely obvious. All villages lie on a continuum between the totally closed and the totally open so it is impossible to reach black-and-white conclusions – as Mills himself acknowledged. The book would be more engaging if it concentrated less on discussions about ‘spatial determinants’ and ‘multi-dimensional interactions’ (which become tedious) and more on some of the interesting questions raised: for instance the reasons behind Doncaster Corporation’s sale of Rossington to a Leeds industrialist in 1838 or the part played by Methodist chapels in the open villages – a topic hardly touched on. That said, this interesting piece of research would probably never have seen the light of day had it not been hung on a historiographical peg – and so it is to be recommended as an excellent village study based in the under-researched north of England rather than the over-researched south.

中文翻译：

---

Upholland College：一百五十年的牧师培训

房屋、社交俱乐部、夜校等——并且在每一章的结论中对米尔斯的论文进行了测试。作者的研究很细致。特别有趣的是她对英国圣公会神职人员试图控制“The Statties”（唐卡斯特招聘会）的“不道德”活动并用登记处取而代之的描述。这些只是部分成功，因为劳工本身 - 根据 Holland 的说法，村庄发展中的一个被低估的因素抵制了他们认为在工资谈判中控制其代理机构的企图。该研究揭示了唐卡斯特地区一个意想不到的农村工业，在斯坦福斯附近的 Keadby 运河岸边进行了造帆和造船：这条运河被用来将石头从 Warmsworth 附近的采石场运输到工业区 West Riding。采石业在六个村庄雇用的人数超过任何其他农村行业，这是未来发展的迹象。书中的一个遗漏是对友好社会的任何提及。工人阶级经营的自助组织、友好协会在 19 世纪的大部分约克郡村庄都很活跃，令人惊讶的是，作者在这里没有提到它们。尽管对比社区的叙述经过充分研究且有趣，但其结论——不可避免地——并不令人惊讶。Mills 模型作为一种有用的工具，但无法解释村庄发展的细微差别。这些取决于土地所有权类型以外的因素，例如土壤肥力、当地神职人员的态度或村庄与当地城镇的接近程度，在这种情况下是唐卡斯特。这肯定是显而易见的。所有村庄都处于完全封闭和完全开放之间的连续体上，因此不可能得出非黑即白的结论——正如米尔斯本人所承认的那样。如果这本书少关注关于“空间决定因素”和“多维交互”（变得乏味）的讨论，而更多关注提出的一些有趣问题：例如唐卡斯特公司将罗辛顿出售给1838 年的利兹实业家或开放村庄中卫理公会教堂的角色——这个话题几乎没有涉及。那说，