BOOKS
Close Thy Wells
BY MICHAEL OAKESHOTT pROFESSOR BARRACLOUGH is a pugnacious writer. In each of the papers he has gathered together in this book* he enters the ring for another round in what he regards as a sustained encounter with the champ of a genera- tion or so ago—pathetic old dry-as-dust specialist, who can't see the wood for the trees, now brought out of retirement to defend his title. The challenger is a courageous, brisk, perti- nacious performer, not much of a stylist but the master of some characteristic strokes which he uses relentlessly, and determined upon a knock-out. Although there is a certain monotony about the whole performance, none of the spectators will be inclined to ask for his money back. But his supporters have some anxious moments : he gives chances in every round; his attention wanders; and having delivered a blow he is apt to turn his back upon his opponent (sometimes with an exuberant gesture) without waiting to observe its effect. Indeed, the battle is not without its Kafkaesque Moments; each of the contestants delivers himself some damaging blows; it sometimes seems that the title being fought for was not only never in fact held by the champ, but is such that the appropriate holder would have been, not a boxer at all, but a long-distance runner; and when the lights go dim (as they occasionally do) what is going on appears to be an auction- sale with only one bidder.
There is (we are told) a demand by intelligent people for a `view' of European history. They want to know what it is all about; they want to be told its 'meaning.' But when they turn to the historian he is found unable or indisposed to pro- vide what they want—and this is `another example of the notorious trahison des elem.,' because the demand is reason- able and one which an historian has a duty to answer. More- over, since historians give no `view' of what it is all about, the vacuum is filled by the writings of 'amateurs' who point to the 'lessons of history' while the historian is fiddling about with isolated facts.
But just when the reader is considering what all this is about, the scene changes. We are told what is wrong is not that the historian gives no 'view' of history (leaving it to H. G. Wells to fill the gap), but that he gives an erroneous 'view.' And when we ask, Why is it erroneous? we are told that it is a 'view' which `the war has torn to shreds,' and that `the Russian victory at Stalingrad in 1943 [has] made a total revision of [it] imperative,' or alternatively that ordinary, patient historical inquiry during the last ten years has made it untenable.
It seems. then, that after all historians (inadvertently, if not intentionally) do provide a `view' of what it is all about—but that it is not the sort of view to satisfy Professor Barraclough. It is an interpretation (we are told) based upon the notions of 'continuity' and 'development.' In it the history of Europe appears as the story of steady and unbroken 'development' from Greco-Roman times to the present, divided into fixed and arbitrary periods, and assumed to take place without any significant incursions from the outside. 'A myopic concen- tration upon Europe' has led to a false interpretation of European history.
But here, again. the indictment is carelessly drawn. The notion of 'continuity' is wantonly identified with that of `development': the need for a 'total revision' of this view of things is said to spring alternatively from what has happened in the world since 1945 or from the work of historians who have studied the impact of happenings in the East and in America upon the course of European events, and we are given to understand that this work is so recent that it has not yet modified our 'view' of European history. Moreover, Professor Barraclough often spoils his case by gross exaggera- tion : St. Augustine is represented as merely 'filled with antipathy to Roman traditions,' and Baghdad is said `to loom larger in the ninth century than Constantinople and far larger than Rome' in any true view of European history.
But Professor Barraclough is not merely a destroyer of what he regards as error; his criticism of what he takes to be the current 'view' of European history is followed by an exposi- tion of what he thinks to be a more satisfactory 'view.' And, here he acknowledges the inspiration of Spengler and Toynbee. History has a 'plan,' and those who can discern it are able to derive some useful lessons for the future. It is the story of the rise and fall of 'a number of civilisations, each inspired by a different spirit and each pursuing different aims, but each passing through specific phases.' Between these civilisations there is no 'continuity.' But since they enjoy similar fortunes and conform to a single general pattern, a study of those that have gone by permits us to identify the particular phase through which our own 'civilisation' is now passing : it corresponds to the phase of Greco-Roman civilisa- tion which began about the year AD 100. And the message Professor Barraclough has for the intelligent man who Is concerned about 'progress' and his own destiny is, not to worry: in the end all civilisations die; ours is on its last legs; but how fascinating is the rich variety of temporarY human achievement. The only thing wrong with it, so far as 1 can see, is the illusion that these historical speculations make it more convincing. In general the advice to 'close thy Wells and open thy Spengler' is sound enough : it would be better if it stopped short at the first precept. But if Professor Barraclough's attempt to reinterpret European history under the impact of the Battle of Stalingrad * HISTORY IN A CHANGING WORLD. By Geoffrey Barraclough' (Blackwell, 18s.) is more interesting than convincing, there is something else in this book which students of history will welcome without reserve. Some of these essays are concerned with the reinter- pretation of incidents (particularly in mediaeval history) in the light of what historical research during the last fifty years has revealed: and these essays are altogether admirable. The pieces on `Mediaeval Empire : idea and reality' and 'Frederick Barbarosso and the Twelfth Century' arc masterpieces, clear, judicious and without the exaggerations of the more polemical pieces. And the essay on 'Russia and Europe' is a brilliant review.
Previous page
