In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter Seven Four Nations History in Perspective () I begin with a quotation which helps, I believe, to set the tone for a discussion of “Four Nations” history. Bernard Crick in a well-known essay, “An Englishman Considers His Passport,” wrote I am a citizen of a state with no agreed colloquial name. Our passports call us citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But what does one reply when faced by that common existential question of civilised life, which is neither precisely legal nor precisely philosophical, found in foreign hotel registers, “Nationality ”? (Crick, Political Thoughts and Polemics, p. ) Crick’s comment may serve as a reminder that the U.K. is a union of peoples. The nature of that union has changed over time, however, and while “Four Nations” may have been an accurate enough label for the period –, the century or more from the Act of Union from the recognition of the Irish Free State, it is less satisfactory as a description of the situation from  until now. The United Kingdom continues to exist, however, albeit subject to change, often radical in character. Histories organized on “Four Nations” lines involve taking as their starting point “The British Isles” (a term always to be used with quotation marks) rather than “Britain” if we are to do justice to the United Kingdom. British history of course would be easier for the historian if the history of the larger island of Great Britain had been self-contained. In that event, Ireland could be ignored. But in  the Normans did invade Ireland, with fateful consequences. As I write this, however, I realize that I am 153 looking at history from an anglocentric point of view. Ireland was already involved in the history of the larger island and had been since the fourth or fifth centuries A.D. when Gaelic invaders began to make their mark upon the west and north of Scotland. No doubt the history of the larger island would have been even simpler had Hengist and Horsa remained at home. These are large questions. The fact remains that these islands are home to several peoples, whose histories are inextricably intertwined. If it makes sense to conceptualize our common history in terms of four nations, another factor intervenes to complicate the picture. All nations are no doubt equal but some are more equal than others. And for the past millenium at least, it also makes sense for us to think in terms of “core and periphery,” or “peripheries” (that is, the various societies over which the core attempted to establish a political, religious, cultural, and economic hegemony). Like all models this is open to criticism. The peripheries sometimes interacted between themselves to counter the tactics of the hegemonic power. On other occasions they were rivals. Nevertheless a model of core-peripheries remains a useful tool for the historian of “Four Nations.” As we are well aware, however, Four Nations History is a flower (or is it a weed?) of recent growth. David Cannadine in his introduction to Uniting the Kingdom: The Making of British History quoted Rees Davies’s comment in  that British history “had not really arrived.” This conference ten years or so later is a sign that the situation has changed. I myself, however , would point to the existence of “four-nation history” or something very much like it in the nineteenth century in the work of such historians as Carlyle in his Letters of Oliver Cromwell; Macoulay in his History of England , Lecky in his History of England, and even Froude in his The English in Ireland. Above all there is Halevy’s History of the English People in . A four Nations historian looking for precursors could well turn to these masters with profit. A historian such as Halevy writing c.  was well aware of this multinational dimension to what he called “English history.” In the aftermath of World War I, however, the situation changed. Ireland and the Irish question were no longer center stage. There was no longer a substantial Irish presence in the House of Commons. The Irish Problem itself seemed to have been solved and it was almost possible to forget that Ireland had ever been part of British history. Even Northern Ireland, a statelet which had been granted Home Rule, albeit against its will, could be ignored. It was in this world, the world of Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, that anglocentric 154 Four Nations History in Perspective [18.117.107.90...

Share