Did we read the same book?
This review could have used some serious fact-checking. For example, DWW charges Hyde with romanticizing the English agricultural commons, when Hyde in fact goes out of his way to show how that commons was embedded in an oppressive feudalism. The review is littered with similar mischaracterizations—so much so, that the only possible conclusions are (1) that DWW barely read the book, or (2) that he's not above BS-ing his readers to make his critical points. Either way, it's a disappointment. I'm sure there are good reasons to argue with Hyde's views, but it would be good to get those views right, first.