An Honourable Englishman
Adam Sisman
2012, pp. 672
Adam Sisman’s biography of English historian Hugh
Trevor-Roper harkens us back to a time when the writing and teaching of history
mattered. From the 1930s through the
1980s the world was highly ideological, and the interpretation of even the
distant past was hotly contested as being intimately relevant to contemporary
events surrounding the rise of first fascism and then communism. As the gladiators in this particular coliseum,
certain historians became celebrities in a manner not seen before or since. Appearing on television and the radio, and
writing in newspapers and journals both academic and popular, they were much in
demand to provide perspective on events such as trials of Nazi war criminals,
the JFK assassination and the Warren Commission.
Country homes, fancy cars, and exotic foreign travels play
as large a role in the Trevor-Roper story as journal articles, conferences and
books. The reader is invited into the
arcane world of Oxbridge and the vicious politics that consumed its scholars. Flamboyant, brilliant, garrulous and out
spoken, Trevor-Roper is a particularly engaging protagonist. One author likened him to a “pop star” in
terms of his standing with the public. Although
his academic work focused mostly on the 16th and 17th
centuries, Trevor-Roper’s framework for understanding “his” period was in
competition with those offered by Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill
and Eric Hobsbawm. Which interpretation
prevailed was not seen as irrelevant at a time when a Marxist superpower was
claiming that “the West” was irrevocably doomed because of natural historical
forces.
Trevor-Roper with his wife: a passionate yet stormy relationship |
Sisman does a particularly fine job covering the historical
issues about which Trevor-Roper and his colleagues discussed and debated,
sometimes in vituperative terms. At the
same time, he avoids turning the book into historiography. The reader will understand just enough about
the historical controversies to understand Trevor-Roper, and the controversies
in which he engaged with relish, without getting too bogged down.
Sisman’s generally sympathetic portrayal does not lead him
astray when recognizing his subject’s shortcomings. For example, his summation of Trevor-Roper’s
involvement in the controversy surrounding the Warren Commission’s report is
particularly harsh (“rashness,” “poor judgment,” “ obstinacy,” “arrogance”). Trevor-Roper habitually separated the
personal from the professional in a manner many others could not and
consequently was frequently caught off guard at how personally colleagues took
what he intended to be purely professional criticisms. Sisman’s reliance on Trevor-Roper’s
voluminous correspondence reminds us of the daunting challenge that will be met
by anyone attempting to chronicle the life of the historians of today.
One final note: the American title of the book is a
curiosity (it was not used in England where readers would recognize
Trevor-Roper’s name more readily).
Trevor-Roper was not particularly
honorable (except that he was incapable of keeping his honest opinions to
himself, a sort of academic integrity perhaps) and he might wince at being
identified as being more “English” than any other historian of the period, as
he was very critical of those who failed to look beyond England’s borders when
chronicling events. Still anyone looking
for a biography of Trevor-Roper in particular or for exposure to the world of
Oxford dons and historians during their golden age will enjoy Sisman’s book
tremendously.
Nicely done, Alec. The gladiator simile worked perfectly here, and "a sort of academic integrity perhaps" made me laugh. Thanks to you, this bio just may make my reading list
ReplyDeleteThanks Karen - it's very well done and certainly piqued my interest in the world of 20th century academic historians. Henry Kissinger once famously remarked that academic politics was so vicious because so little was at stake. This was one period in time when there was more at stake (or at least perceived to be). I.e., If the Marxist historians were right about the 17th century, perhaps the Soviets were on the "right" side of history, and fence sitting nations better get with the program, etc.
ReplyDelete