This is one of those rare books that can actually change your whole view of the world. Despite being written in a somewhat dry manner, with exhaustively researched data listed and explained, piece by piece, a glimpse of pre-industrial society emerges that does not necessarily conform to our stereotyped view of "traditional" society and family. In some respects, this book offers hope for our own times by putting our problems in perspective. For example, we often decry the high rate of divorce and remarriage seen in today's Western societies and compare today's fractured families to the "stable" families of long ago. The information in this book reveals that in pre-industrial England, at least, families were splintered by death and desertion at a rate that approaches our contemporary rate of divorce. Rather than being a modern source of stress, remarriage and stepparents are a long-standing tradition in our culture.

Many books rated 5 stars do not deserve them, but this does. I first read it as an undergraduate, and have continued to draw on it in grad school. Summarizing much of the early research by the Cambridge Group on Population and Social Structure, it helped inspire two generations of work on such topics as family history, demography and famine. Quantitative social history is now so well-established as part of the mainstream that it is hard to grasp how innovative Laslett's book was when it first appeared in 1965. Though some of its conclusions have been challenged, its status as a readable classic remains secure. Its generational peers include E. Le Roy Ladurie, "Peasants of Languedoc;" E.P. Thompson, "Making of the English Working Class;" various works by Fernand Braudel; and more recently, J. Thornton, "Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World" & A. Reid, "Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce." For an interesting current exploration of several of Laslett's themes in England and Japan, see A. MacFarlane, "The Savage Wars of Peace."

I think this book is good but it lacks being able to keep my attention and I have read huge books. If it kept my attention for a little bit longer than the first page I would keep reading it.

As a mystery author with my first book in initial release, I have found that reading a wide variety of works helps my writing. Locke's TWO TREASTISES is one of my favorite books of all time. Here is the book that subverted absolutism following a glorious revolution. I read it first as an undergraduate at Claremont McKenna College, and I teach it annually. Great book.

Those of us living in liberal democracies owe tremendous intellectual debt to John Locke. His "Second Treatise" in particular helped lay the foundation for a political system that emphasized "life, liberty, and property." The First Treatise is interesting to skim through, though it is in the second where the Locke is most substantive. His Theory of Private Property, which could also be construed as a theory of value, is an unmistakable revolution in political thought. It is, as Locke contends, when man applies his labor to nature that he is entitled to it. Questions about environmental ethics or indegenous rights aside, this observation, made in a still heavily ecclesiastical society, is a brilliant one. Furthermore, Locke's understanding of the formation of government is based on a hypothetical "state of nature" account. Locke's arguments are intellectually pleasing, and his social-scientific models make intuitive sense. Given that, perhaps the only weakness of the work is its failure to adequately analyze such concepts as the social contract or his theory of labor-property relations. For example, Locke fails to seriously consider what we should do with states that are clearly formed by mere force. Indeed, he doesn't adequately address the possibility that such a state could justify its existence on the grounds that "better tyranny than nothing." While Locke believes that a state that doesn't respect private property cannot last for very long, history says otherwise. Of course, in retrospect it is easier to criticize Locke in these regards, but with Machiavelli before him it was not as though these ideas were not known. There are admittedly other inconsistencies, such as his view on taxation later in the book and on who "owns" the grass his serf cuts. Interestingly enough, Locke is unwilling to expound on the distinction between property garnered for the sake of personal enjoyment (possessions) and property garnered for the sake of profit. Nevertheless, the work is a passionate defense of a liberal government, and the points are persuasively argued. As long as the reader, as Locke himself urges, keeps a skeptical attitude, this work has much to offer.