A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England
Identifieur interne : 002796 ( Istex/Curation ); précédent : 002795; suivant : 002797A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England
Auteurs : RBID : ISTEX:19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18FDescripteurs français
- Wicri :
- topic : Identité nationale.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
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.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-0206.2007.00008.x
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :002796
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18FLe document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England</title><author><name sortKey="Cosgrove, Richard A" uniqKey="Cosgrove R">RICHARD A. COSGROVE</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Arizona</mods:affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">University of Arizona</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F</idno><date when="2008">2008</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1750-0206.2007.00008.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002796</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">002796</idno></publicationStmt><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0264-2824</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Anglo‐Saxonism</term><term>Archival history</term><term>Constitutional history</term><term>E.A. Freeman</term><term>J.A. Froude</term><term>J.H. Round</term><term>National identity</term><term>Norman conquest</term><term>Professional history</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Wicri" type="topic" xml:lang="fr"><term>Identité nationale</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="eng">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.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><copyrightdate>2008</copyrightdate><author><json:item><name>RICHARD A. COSGROVE</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Arizona</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>J.A. Froude</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>E.A. Freeman</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>J.H. Round</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>national identity</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>constitutional history</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>professional history</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>Norman conquest</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>Anglo‐Saxonism</value></json:item><json:item><lang>eng</lang><value>archival history</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>Serial article</json:string></genre><host><genre></genre><language></language><issn><json:string>0264-2824</json:string></issn><title>Parliamentary History</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1750-0206</json:string></doi></host><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><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.</abstract><title>A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England</title><pubdate>2008-02</pubdate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1750-0206.2007.00008.x</json:string></doi><id>19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader type="text"><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="alt" xml:lang="">A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</p></availability><date>2008-02-06</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="">A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England</title><author><persName><forename type="first">RICHARD A.</forename><surname>COSGROVE</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Arizona</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Parliamentary History</title><idno type="pISSN">0264-2824</idno><idno type="eISSN">1750-0206</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1750-0206</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008-02"></date><biblScope unit="vol">27</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="30">30</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="42">42</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1750-0206.2007.00008.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">PARH008</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2008-02-06</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>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.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>J.A. Froude</term></item><item><term>E.A. Freeman</term></item><item><term>J.H. Round</term></item><item><term>national identity</term></item><item><term>constitutional history</term></item><item><term>professional history</term></item><item><term>Norman conquest</term></item><item><term>Anglo‐Saxonism</term></item><item><term>archival history</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2008-02-06">Created</change><change when="2008-02">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1750-0206</doi><issn type="print">0264-2824</issn><issn type="electronic">1750-0206</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="PARH"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY">Parliamentary History</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="02001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/parh.2008.27.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="27">27</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2008-02">February 2008</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="9" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1750-0206.2007.00008.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="PARH008"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="13"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Public Life</title></titleGroup><copyright>© The Parliamentary History Yearbook Trust 2008</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2008-02-06"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2008-02-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.5 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-04-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="30">30</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="42">42</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:PARH.PARH008.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="7057"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England</title><title type="shortAuthors">Richard A. Cosgrove</title><title type="short">A Usable Past</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>RICHARD A.</givenNames><familyName>COSGROVE</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>University of Arizona</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">J.A. Froude</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">E.A. Freeman</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">J.H. Round</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">national identity</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">constitutional history</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">professional history</keyword><keyword xml:id="k7">Norman conquest</keyword><keyword xml:id="k8">Anglo‐Saxonism</keyword><keyword xml:id="k9">archival history</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>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.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.5"><titleInfo><title>A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>A Usable Past</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative"><title>A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">RICHARD A.</namePart><namePart type="family">COSGROVE</namePart><affiliation>University of Arizona</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre>Serial article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2008-02-06</dateCreated><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2008-02</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2008</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="eng">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.</abstract><subject lang="eng"><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>J.A. Froude</topic><topic>E.A. Freeman</topic><topic>J.H. Round</topic><topic>national identity</topic><topic>constitutional history</topic><topic>professional history</topic><topic>Norman conquest</topic><topic>Anglo‐Saxonism</topic><topic>archival history</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Parliamentary History</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0264-2824</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1750-0206</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1750-0206</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">PARH</identifier><part><date>2008</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>27</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1750-0206.2007.00008.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">PARH008</identifier><part><extent unit="pages"><start>30</start><end>42</end><total>13</total></extent><extent unit="words"><total>7057</total></extent></part><recordInfo><recordOrigin>WILEY</recordOrigin><recordContentSource>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Linguistique/explor/CharterV3/Data/Istex/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002796 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 002796 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Linguistique
|area= CharterV3
|flux= Istex
|étape= Curation
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:19CC58625550DD38A58161C5BEF52F43F8CCD18F
|texte= A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.07. |  |