I have always loved to study history and I believe
historical writing to be one of the glories of English literature. A knowledge
of the history of a person, a place or an idea quickly deepens one’s
intellectual hinterland and I easily find myself agreeing with Cicero: To be ignorant of what occurred before you
were born is to remain a child forever. I would like to touch upon the historians
I most enjoy and briefly analyse what it is about them which inspires me. I
also wish to pay heartfelt posthumous homage to two cherished schoolmasters,
one named Donald King and the other, A. J. Morrison-Cleator, always known as “Zeep”,
who instilled in me their love of history which has given me a lifetime of
pleasure.
 |
| Edward Gibbon |
I start with Edward
Gibbon, whose Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire was completed in 1788. The work itself is a masterly
achievement but it is Gibbon’s style and the rhythm of his language which
captivates. A famous early passage exemplifies the Gibbon manner: a three-fold
object: the sardonic punch-line and the illuminating general conclusion:
The various modes of
worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as
equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as
equally useful. And thus toleration produced nor merely mutual indulgence, but
even religious concord.
Gibbon wrote about 230 years ago and his historic
conclusions have not weathered well. His central tenet that the Roman Empire
declined gradually and in time fell after the golden age of the Antonines is no
longer supported. In fact the Roman Empire evolved into the Byzantine Empire, a
realm of blinding lustre, based in Constantinople from 330, remaining the
largest and richest world city for many centuries before decline and
capitulation to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The historian Steven Runciman brightly illuminated this period in the 20th
century with his histories of the Crusades, although his scholarship came under
attack, and was followed by the more popular John Julius Norwich, a writer of great brio, famous for thrilling volumes on exotic Byzantium and on
piratical Venice, La Serenissima.
The 19th century brings us the narrative sweep,
the partisan Whig interpretation and the sparkling drama of Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-59) who
valued British civilisation above all others; all good, in his insular view,
emanated from The Glorious Revolution of 1688. Self-confident to a fault,
Macaulay’s assessments of his political heroes like William III and even
literary villains, like James Boswell, will always be controversial, but none
can read his enthralling account of the relief of Londonderry without
acknowledging his literary genius. Macaulay’s Liberal views long persisted and
the 20th century historian, and his grand-nephew, G M Trevelyan carried the flame; once a
much- revered historian Trevelyan became unfashionable after his death in 1962
and Roy Jenkins was immoderate enough to describe him as “a pontificating old
windbag”.
The quintessential Victorian historian was Thomas Carlyle, The Sage of Chelsea, with
his wide-brimmed hat and strange mutterings, a kenspeckle figure proud of his
roots in Ecclefechan. Of wide interests and with a very characteristic prose
style, Carlyle brought the French Revolution to life, praised German literature
and set a fashion, of dubious subsequent value, of proclaiming the virtues of
Great Men.
 |
| Thomas Carlyle |
Yet Carlyle’s vivid writing style can be irresistible. Here
he is describing the execution of Robespierre:
A
woman springs on the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand, waving
the other Sybil -like; and exclaims:
"The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m'enivre
de joi"; Robespierre opened his eyes; "Scélérat, go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and
mothers!" -- At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground
till his turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe.
Samson wrenched the coat off him;
wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from
him a cry; — hideous to hear and see. “Samson, thou canst not be too quick”.
Britain maybe will never produce a historian of the calibre
of illustrious Leopold von Ranke but Lord
Acton’s lectures were deeply influential with his reflections on the United
States and on the Papacy. The first half of the 20th century saw
highly readable Winston Churchill
writing profusely, at his best when a military campaign or battlefield were
involved. One of my favourites is underrated Philip Guedalla, whose epigrammatic style enlivened his life of
Wellington, The Duke.
By the time I got to Oxford in 1961(I did not read History),
the best known historians, and feline rivals, were A J P Taylor and Hugh Trevor Roper. Trevor Roper was the
mainstay of the Establishment, but his academic works were sparse though he was
a doughty controversialist writing in the heavyweight periodicals. He
specialised in 16th century English history and in the 20th
century, particularly in Hitler, whose Last
Days he forensically investigated. His Historical
Essays are particularly acute.
Alan
Taylor was wildly left-wing and contrarian: his stream of
marvellous books on 19th and 20th century Europe, on Bismarck,
Italian unification, the Hapsburg Empire, European diplomacy, World War II and
on England itself were hugely popular. He was a matchless lecturer and became
one of the first telly-historians.
 |
| A J P Taylor |
A widely read and respected historian was Roy Jenkins, though he latterly became
over-fond of the Oxford in-joke and could sound rather arch. His
well-researched biographies of Dilke, Asquith, Gladstone and Churchill gave me
much pleasure.
So too have 3 generations of biographies on Queen Victoria, a
perennially fascinating subject: first the famously debunking volume of 1921 by
catty Lytton Strachey; then the
sympathetic and balanced prose of Elizabeth
Longford in 1964: finally the 2014 masterpiece of A N Wilson combining much new research with an acute understanding
of the political trends of 19th century Britain.
This is the history I like and it will be abundantly clear
that I am more interested in personalities rather than policies, in the surface
events rather than the profounder underlying currents. Reading history gives me
consistent pleasure and that is enough for me. The accepted cant is that
history broadens the mind and helps guide our steps in the paths of
righteousness. Hegel contradicted this comprehensively and sadly hit the nail
on the head:
What
experience and history teach us is this – that people and governments never
have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.
SMD
20.01.16
Text copyright Sidney Donald 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment