| Abstract: | For the past two decades, issues of English national identity have provided a fertile field for historical investigation. In the late Victorian era, the development of professional standards of scholarship within the academy gave a new dimension to historical debates. The bitter quarrels about appropriate research techniques from the 1860s to the 1890s, among James Anthony Froude, Edward Freeman and John Horace Round, acted as a proxy for the vision of national identity that each historian espoused. After 1870, the development of a national narrative focused on constitutional history as its primary vehicle. The battle over historical reconstruction represented a surrogate for divergent views about political values and national identity. What sometimes seemed frivolous scholarly skirmishes, therefore, had a much greater political importance. As a result, the long feud had greater importance than the eccentric personalities of the participants appeared to indicate. For Froude, the Tudor age of discovery and religious reformation represented the best of English character. For Freeman, a strong Gladstonian Liberal, consensus and continuity over many centuries defined English history best. John Horace Round, a Conservative stalwart, thought that Freeman had slanted his historical conclusions to validate his Liberal politics and reinterpreted the Norman conquest to express his own political beliefs. Thus the quibbles about shield walls and other issues provided a terrain for the real cause of antagonism: different views of national identity that history furnished. Each historian constructed a usable past in order to justify contemporary discussions of national identity. |
