| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 109.2

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 178 words from this article are provided below; about 501 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 109.2 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Comparative/World

Ruth H. Bloch. Gender and Morality in Anglo-American Culture, 1650–1800. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 2003. Pp. x, 225. Cloth $55.00, paper $21.95.

This new book by Ruth H. Bloch includes four previously published essays, two essays written in the 1990s but not before published, and two new essays, along with an introduction that ties together what she describes as "much of my creative career as a women's historian" (p. ix). Historians may welcome having readily available copies of the author's early, often-cited articles from Signs and Feminist Studies, but, like all such collections spanning a lengthy period (here, 1978 to 2001), the volume reads unevenly. The unevenness is heightened by the fact that Bloch has structured the book topically, not chronologically by date of composition, so that essays written years apart sit uncomfortably next to each other. Nor did she revise or alter the earlier work in any way, including failing to update footnotes to reflect the subsequent publication of sources she cited originally in manuscript versions.

. . .

There are about 501 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.