BY CHARLES TILLY

How did Europeans live the big changes? In different European re-
gions and eras, what were the connections--cause, effect, or correla-
tion--between very large structural changes such as the growth of
national states and the development of capitalism, on the one hand,
and the changing experiences of ordinary people, on the other? The
complex second question merely amplifies the first. In its muted or
its amplified form, this question defines the central mission of Euro-
pean social history.

Many experts think otherwise. Despite appearances, in the first
place, my definition is rather modest. For social historians incline to
imperial definitions of their field. In the preface to his enormously
popular English Social History, G. M. Trevelyan offered one of the best-
remembered definitions. "Social history," he declared, "might be de-
fined negatively as the history of a people with the politics left out."
Trevelyan argued for a three-layered analysis: Economic conditions
underlie the social scene, which in turn provides the foundation for
political events. "Without social history," he continued, "economic
history is barren and political history is unintelligible." ¹

Perhaps because Trevelyan defined his social history negatively,
latter-day practitioners of the art have commonly announced more

-11-