For the record
Sir: I suppose that the review of my Friends and Contemporaries by my earlier protege, Raymond Carr (Books, 22 April) was not unkindly meant. (To explain, for the re- cord: he would not have been elected a Fellow of All Souls, but for my advocacy.) But should the opinions I express be regarded as mere prejudices? When I say for example, that the poor folk in the earlY 19th century should have controlled their breeding. Well, wouldn't they have been better off if they had had fewer kids? I think that stands to reason. Of course I know that to mouth sentimental humbug about the under-privileged is the way to be popular. I prefer self-help, initiative, en- terprise as better for a society. Is it mere prejudice to say that 'we have had a bellyfull of trade unions today'? I expect that that is the opinion of a majority of the country. It is untrue that I 'hate the Germans ea bloc'. An historian should be more careful in his statements. What I deplore is the deplorable German record in this century — a reasoned historical view. I do not regard anti-Appeasement as `confined to aristocrats and peasants'. I, fear that the supercilious word 'peasants betrays Sir Raymond speaking not me. The bulk of the Labour movement, most Liber- als and an intelligent section of the Tories
Sir
were against appeasing Hitler.
LETTERS
Raymond should be more careful for a historian.
Yes, it is true that I am writing a John Aubrey type of Private Lives. I write my books to please myself, but I like the idea of leaving some fun for the next century to read.
A. L. Rowse
St Austell, Cornwall
Previous page
