Politicians versus Historians: Lord Avon's 'Appeasement Battle' against 'Lamentably, Appeasement-Minded' Historians

In retirement, Sir Anthony Eden, seeking to safeguard the anti-appeaserimage cultivated following his resignation as Neville Chamberlain'sForeign Secretary in 1938, proved extremely sensitive to theway in which his political career was presented in memoirs,biographies, and histories. Eden, who accepted the earldom ofAvon in 1961, saw himself as refighting old politcal battles,except that by the 1960s his attack was directed increasinglyagainst what he described as ‘lament-ably, appeasement-minded’history professors rather than former politicians. During 1966–7objections to Frederick Northedge's The Troubled Giant evenled him at one stage to consider legal action for defamationof character. The ensuing dispute, highlighting Lord Avon'spreoccupation with the verdict of history, illuminated alsothe varying, often conflicting, perspectives adopted towardsthe past by historians and politicians. ^*Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the BISA BritishInternational History Group Conference at the University ofExeter, September 1996, and the Millennium after 25 Years Conferenceat the LSE, October 1996. I am grateful to the Countess of Avon,the Marquess of Salisbury, the Borthwick Institute of HistoricalResearch at the University of York, the Master and Fellows ofChurchill College at Cambridge, and the Archivist of CarmarthenshireRecords Service at Carmarthen, for permission to quote fromthe papers of the first Earl of Avon, The Marquess of Salisbury,the Earls of Halifax, Lord Strang, and Viscount Cilcennin respectively.I am particularly indebted to Muriel Grieve, Professor Northedge'swidow, for assistance in my research and permission to quotefrom her husband's correspondence and publications, as wellas to Sir Bryan Cartledge, who helped Lord Avon with his memoirs.     

The Invention of History: The Pre‐History of a Concept from Homer to Herodotus

The following pages, which deal with the pre‐history of the concept of history from Homer to Herodotus, first propose to decenter and historicize the Greek experience. After briefly presenting earlier and different experiences, they focus on three figures: the soothsayer, the bard, and the historian. Starting from a series of Mesopotamian oracles (known as “historical oracles” because they make use in the apodosis of the perfect and not the future tense), they question the relations between divination and history, conceived as two, certainly different, sciences of the past, but which share the same intellectual space in the hands of the same specialists. The Greek choices were different. Their historiography presupposes the epic, which played the role of a generative matrix. Herodotus wished to rival Homer; what he ultimately became was Herodotus. Writing dominates; prose replaces verse; the Muse, who sees and knows everything, is no longer around. So I would suggest understanding the emblematic word “historia” as a subsititute, which operates as an analogue of the (previous) omnivision of the Muse. But before that, Herodotean “invention”— the meeting of Odysseus and the bard Demodocus, where for the first time the fall of Troy is told—can be seen as the beginning, poetically speaking at least, of the category of history.