Letter: A.J.P. Taylor - still making history
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Gareth Stedman Jones ("An imp, but not a great historian", 4 April) berates A. J. P. Taylor for failing to found a distinct historical school. This is to misunderstand Taylor's contribution to history which was that of an exemplar of an existing tradition of historical thought.
The Taylor tradition sees the past as a field of human action constructed out of individual and collective choices in particular circumstances. It emphasises the freedom of individuals to act, the importance of reconstructing the past from the point of view of historical actors themselves, and the role of accident and miscalculation in shaping historical outcomes. Taylor's Origins of the Second World War is a brilliant example of this kind of narrative history - one which has met the research agenda in its field for more than 30 years.
This human action approach to the study of history may not be to Stedman Jones's political or philosophical taste but its continuing relevance and importance is undeniable. Most historians most of the time practise this kind of history. It even figures in Stedman Jones's own work. In this respect, Taylor has plenty of "followers".
Stedman Jones sneers at the fact that there was no great difference between Taylor's academic and popular writing on history, but this is not a weakness but an illustration of the strength of the Taylor tradition in history. The narrative history of individual action and the reasons for action is a commonsense discourse of knowledge - one which is accessible to all and open to popular discussion of the arguments and the evidence.
Perhaps what Stedman Jones really dislikes about Taylor is that he, more than anyone, showed that good history is clear, simple and well-written, and can be read and appreciated by anyone.
Yours sincerely,
GEOFFREY ROBERTS
Lecturer in Modern History
University College Cork
Ireland
4 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments