Sir : I have read and enjoyed all three of
the books containing letters and diary extracts of Sir Harold Nicolson, and feel that Professor Trevor-Roper in his criticism of the last volume (6 September) shows a lack of appreciation of Sir Harold Nicolson's character. Much of the charm of his comments lies in his obvious awareness of his own weaknesses and indecisive- ness; therefore to berate him for revealing his political naivety is surely unfair.
Having left the Foreign Office so that he could spend more time with his wife and family, he still felt that he could play an active part in political life. He was honest enough, however, despite his conservative background, to be aware that he could not enter Parliament as a Conservative, but at the same time he found that he had not the brashness to be an out-and- out left-wing politician.
His social attitude to international affairs was basically liberal, and it does seem unfortunate that a man with his experience and knowledge of world affairs could not have found a suitable place within the political structure. It is now recognised that there is room in the House of Lords for individuals who do not identify posi- tively with one of the major parties.
Unlike the candid friend who said that his diary was 'too boring for words,' the reading public and other critics have shown that they have a high opinion of Nicolson's attitude to life, and the comments he made from his own experiences.
It seems to me that the occupant of an ivory tower has often a better opportunity of forming a long-term appreciation of political possibili- ties than polemical professors who appear to resent 'charmed and closed circles.'
G. C. Brander Cedar Cottage, Sutton Place, Abinger Hammer, Surrey
Previous page
