Tables of contents for recent issues of Past & Present are available at http://www3.oup.co.uk/past/contents/. Authorized users may be able to access the full text articles at this site.Founded in 1952, Past & Present is widely acknowledged to be the liveliest and most stimulating historical journal in the English-speaking world. The journal offers: A wide variety of scholarly and original articles on historical, social and cultural change in all parts of the world. Four issues a year, each containing five or six major articles plus occasional debates and review essays. Challenging work by young historians as well as seminal articles by internationally regarded scholars. A range of articles that appeal to specialists and non-specialists, and communicate the results of the most recent historical research in a readable and lively form. A forum for debate, encouraging productive controversy. The examination of particular problems and periods as well as wider issues of historical change.

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals.

This item is part of JSTOR collection
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Past & Present © 2000 The Past and Present Society
Request Permissions