No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
MICHAEL TURNBULL, G. R. ELTON, AND THE MAKING OF THE PRACTICE OF HISTORY*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2015
Abstract
In 1964, the editor of Sydney University Press, Michael Turnbull, approached G. R. Elton to write the book that became The practice of history (1967). Remarkably, a famous University of Cambridge historian was persuaded to embark on what Turnbull correctly sensed would be an influential and profitable text, and this for an obscure and recently established publishing house located at the other end of the earth. Were it not for Turnbull, The practice of history would probably never have been written. But for Turnbull's editorial advice, a somewhat different book would have resulted. This article traces the close and fruitful working relationship between publisher and author, as well as the adversarial relationship between The practice of history and E. H. Carr's What is history? (1961). It also suggests that Turnbull intended The practice of history as part of a wider publishing purpose where big ideas could be expressed, given a mass audience, and thus contribute to debate and social change. Elton would have found such a socially engaged agenda abhorrent, had he known about it.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015
Footnotes
*
I am especially grateful to members of Michael Turnbull's family, namely John Hutton (cousin once removed), Hilary Friend (ex-wife), and Isabel Turnbull (daughter); and to Hugh Price, Beverley Randell (his widow), and Susan Price (daughter). Neither family attempted to dictate the content of this article. Thanks are also due to Liam McNulty for research assistance in London; to Richard J. Evans, John Morrill, and Francis West for their friendly interest; and to John Crawford, Susan McKean, and Danielle Ryan, who facilitated access to Turnbull's ex-serviceman's files. Many archivists responded helpfully to my enquiries, especially Sue Carr (Royal Historical Society, London), Sue Hirst (J. C. Beaglehole Room, Victoria University of Wellington Library), and Nyree Morrison (Sydney University Archives). Brad Patterson, Tim Stretton, James Urry, and John C. Weaver usefully commented on an earlier draft, which was presented as a seminar to the History Program, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 11 Apr. 2014. The two anonymous referees were constructive in advising improvements to the final version.
References
1 Obituary of Richard Ollard, Guardian, 7 Feb. 2007.
2 G. R. Elton, The practice of history (Sydney, 1967), p. viii.
3 R. J. Evans, ‘Afterword’ to G. R. Elton, The practice of history (2nd edn [sic], Oxford, 2002), pp. 165–203, 213–17. Gertrude Himmelfarb was originally approached to write the ‘Afterword’ but she was over-committed: Himmelfarb, e-mail to Al Bertrand (Blackwell Publishers Ltd), 26 Aug. 2000, Elton papers, box series 46517, box RHS 2012/2, Royal Historical Society, London. The 2002 edition, which was published by Blackwell, was actually the 3rd edition, not the second as they mistakenly claimed. The first edition was published by Sydney University Press in 1967 and the second edition by Fontana in 1969 (followed by the Flamingo imprint of Fontana in 1984). The North American rights were assigned to Thomas Y. Crowell in 1968. Subsequent page references to Practice pertain to the identically paginated Fontana and Flamingo editions.
4 G. R. Elton, Political history: principles and practice (London, 1970).
5 Geoff Eley, A crooked line: from cultural history to the history of society (Ann Arbor, MI, 2005), p. 164. A superb discussion of Elton's ideas and work is Harris, I., ‘Some origins of a Tudor revolution’, English Historical Review, 126 (2011), pp. 1355–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also J. Kenyon, The history men (2nd edn, London, 1993), pp. 219–24; W. Palmer, Engagement with the past: the lives and works of the World War II generation of historians (Lexington, KY, 2001), pp. 230–4; ‘The Eltonian legacy’, symposium in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser., 7 (1997), pp. 177–336Google Scholar.
6 Many of the details in this section are taken from Turnbull's Military Service File, New Zealand Defence Force Archives, Upper Hutt; his Returned Serviceman's Rehabilitation File, Archives New Zealand, AADK 20203 W3729 1504 446266; his university results record (copy in Victoria University of Wellington Archives); and information from the Turnbull family.
7 ‘An enquiry into the conduct of the East Coast War, 1865 to 1869’ (MA thesis, University of New Zealand, 1947).
8 ‘The colonization of New Zealand by the New Zealand Company (1839–1843): a study of the Wakefield System in operation including some comparison with emigration to other Australian colonies’ (B.Litt. thesis, Oxford, 1950).
9 G. O'Brien, A nest of singing birds: 100 years of the New Zealand School Journal (Wellington, 2007), p. 37.
10 The failure of the farmer (Wellington, 1955); From Kent to Wellington (2 vols., Wellington, 1956–7); ‘Writing in New Zealand: historical writing’, Post-Primary School Bulletin, 11 (1957), 1–31Google Scholar; The chief of Hawkes Bay (Wellington, 1960).
11 Sydney University Press (SUP) minutes book, 13 May 1964, University of Sydney Archives.
12 I intend to write a follow-up article on Michael Turnbull as an historian of New Zealand.
13 The New Zealand bubble: the Wakefield theory in practice (Wellington, 1959).
14 Turnbull to W. R. C. Lawrence, 4 Aug. 1965, MS-Papers-10532, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand.
15 J. Hutton, e-mail to author, 23 Apr. 2013.
16 Unfortunately, Kermode says nothing about Turnbull or the ‘Modern Masters’ series in his autobiography, Not entitled: a memoir (London, 1996).
17 Turnbull, M., ‘What is popularisation?’ Political Quarterly, 44 (1973), pp. 70–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 See correspondence in file G3/13 (42269), Sydney University Archives.
19 ‘University toasts “Diamond Lil”,’ Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 27 Sept. 1965; H. Price, interview with author (Wellington), 12 Mar. 2004, transcript in the papers of Hugh Price (presently in family possession but will be transferred to the J. C. Beaglehole Room, Victoria University Library).
20 B. Randell and R. Steele, eds., Hugh Price, publisher (Wellington, 2012), pp. 86–9, 101–4.
21 H. Price, follow-up interview with author (Wellington), 26 Mar. 2004, transcript in Price papers.
22 B. Mansfield, Summer is almost over: a memoir (Canberra, 2012), p. 75; Mansfield, Australian democrat: the career of Edward William O'Sullivan, 1846–1910 (Sydney, 1965).
23 B. E. Mansfield, telephone interview, 24 Jan. 2014.
24 Price interview, 12 Mar. 2004.
25 W. B. Sutch, Colony or nation? Economic crises in New Zealand from the 1860s to the 1960s, selected and edited by M. Turnbull (Sydney, 1966), p. xi. Similar acknowledgement appears in G. F. Trevallyn Jones, Saw-pit Wharton: the political career from 1640 to 1691 of Philip, fourth Lord Wharton (Sydney, 1967), p. vii.
26 Turnbull to Elton, 2 Mar. 1967, Elton papers. Unless otherwise stated, all subsequent references to the Elton papers pertain to the folder on The practice of history.
27 Price interview, 12 Mar. 2004.
28 [E. H. Hobsbawm], ‘What history is about’, Times Literary Supplement, 4 June 1964.
29 D. Bethell, M. Gilbert, and [E. H. Hobsbawm], TLS, 11 June 1964; I. Collins, TLS, 18 June 1964.
30 Elton, TLS, 18 June 1964. Elton had written two textbooks: England under the Tudors (London, 1955); Reformation Europe, 1517–1559 (London, 1963).
31 E. Hobsbawm, Interesting times: a twentieth-century life (London, 2002), pp. 221, 309.
32 Turnbull to Elton, 17 Aug. 1964, Elton papers (the letter is quoted in full in Evans, ‘Afterword’, p. 167); Elton to Turnbull, 25 Aug. 1964, Elton papers.
33 Turnbull to Elton, 9 Sept. 1964 (quotation), and 11 Nov. 1964, both in Elton papers.
34 Elton to Turnbull, 13 Mar. 1965, Elton papers. A later and fuller statement is Elton to Turnbull, 1 Sept. 1966, Elton papers.
35 Their responses are quoted in SUP minutes book, 7 Apr. 1965.
36 Turnbull to Elton, 12 Apr. 1965; Elton to Turnbull, 27 Oct. 1965, both in Elton papers.
37 Elton to Turnbull, 27 Oct. 1965; Elton to Turnbull, 14 Aug. 1966; Turnbull to Elton (telegram), 8 Sept. 1966, all in Elton papers.
38 Christine Linehan, e-mail to author, 28 Apr. 2014. Linehan edited Elton's later books at Cambridge University Press.
39 Elton to Turnbull, 20 Sept. 1966, Elton papers.
40 Turnbull to Elton, 16 Sept. 1996, Elton papers.
41 Turnbull to Elton, 19 Oct. 1966, Elton papers.
42 Practice, pp. 141 n. 10, 146 n. 12, 147 n. 13; Elton to Turnbull, 4 Nov. 1966, Elton papers. Elton added, ‘I acknowledge your attempt to make me write less wildly (metaphors, etc.) at times, but that's too ingrained.’
43 Turnbull to Elton, 18 Nov. 1966, Elton papers.
44 R. J. Evans, In defence of history (London, 1997).
45 Elton to Turnbull, Aug. 1966, Elton papers.
46 John Burrow, Memories migrating: an autobiography (Brighton, 2011), p. 101 www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=john-burrow---memories-migrating&site=68; Crawford, R. M., ‘The practice of history: thoughts on reading Elton, Hancock and Stretton’, Historical Studies, 14 (1970), p. 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 Elton denied that autonomy equated with exclusiveness or self-sufficiency (Practice, p. 36), but no one believed him. E.g. W. K. Hancock, Attempting history (Canberra, 1969), p. 54 (Hancock regarded Elton as ‘an able craftsman overcalling his hand’: David Cannadine, e-mail to author, 21 Apr. 2014); Ward, P. L., ‘Review article: the practice of history’, History & Theory, 8 (1969), pp. 112–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Behrens, Betty, review (of Practice), in Historical Journal, 12 (1969), pp. 190–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crawford, ‘Thoughts on reading Elton, Hancock and Stretton’, pp. 161–72. There was, however, a reconciliation of sorts with quantification: R. W. Fogel and G. R. Elton, Which road to the past? Two views of history (New Haven, CT, 1983).
48 Practice, p. vii. Elton is even more severe on philosophers and theorists of history in Political history, ch. 4; see also Donald, D. H., ‘Between art and science’, American Historical Review, 77 (1973), pp. 445–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skinner, Q., ‘Sir Geoffrey Elton and the practice of history’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser., 7, (1997), pp. 301–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 María Jesús González, Raymond Carr: the curiosity of the fox (Brighton, 2013), p. 251.
50 K. Thomas, ‘The tools and the job’, TLS, 7 Apr. 1966; Practice, pp. 17–18 and n. 5, 38–9, 42 and n. 15, 47–8, 51 n. 20. See also Thomas, Keith, ‘History and anthropology’, Past and Present, 24 (1963), pp. 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, ‘Afterword’, pp. 171–3.
51 P. Mandler, History and national life (London, 2002), p. 114.
52 B. L. Beer, ‘G. R. Elton: Tudor champion’, in W. L. Arnstein, ed., Recent historians of Great Britain: essays on the post-1945 generation (Ames, IA, 1990), p. 28.
53 Practice, p. 115.
54 Ibid., pp. 36–7.
55 Ibid., p. 77.
56 Ibid., p. 84.
57 Leff, G., in History, 57 (1972), p. 93Google Scholar. Another example of Elton's inconsistency is his disparagement of biography, on the grounds that ‘However influential [someone] may have been, no individual has ever dominated his age to the point where it becomes sensible to write its age purely around him’: Practice, pp. 169–70. Arguably, Elton wrote the 1530s around Thomas Cromwell, and he later wrote a biography, albeit an intellectual biography: F. W. Maitland (New Haven, CT, 1985). Another observer noted Elton's contradictory views as to whether history is elucidated through the study of historians: Salvin, A. J., ‘Telling the story: G. R. Elton and the Tudor age’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 21 (1990), pp. 151–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 E. H. Carr, What is history? (Longmans, 1961; Penguin 1964); 2nd edn (Penguin), ed. R. W. Davies (Penguin, 1987); 3rd edn, with a new ‘Introduction’ by R. J. Evans (Palgrave, 2001), pp. ix–xlvi.
59 Practice, pp. 76, 176.
60 Ibid., p. 59
61 Carr, What is history? (1964 edn), pp. 23, 35. I am grateful to Maurice French, emeritus professor at the University of Southern Queensland, for discussions on the convergences between Elton and Carr.
62 J. Haslam, The vices of integrity: E. H. Carr, 1892–1982 (London, 1999), p. 192; see also the moving obituary by Haslam, ‘“We need a faith”: E. H. Carr, 1892–1982’, History Today, Aug. 1983, pp. 336–9.
63 Following the publication of Practice, Elton remarked: ‘I had a letter from Plumb who'd read the book and (stiffening his upper lip) firmly congratulated me on it (he spoke of my courtesy – well, well – but he also claimed that he and I were not that far apart, which was the worst news I'd had in a while).’ Elton to Turnbull, 28 Jan. 1967, Elton papers.
64 Practice, pp. 31, 136. History by ‘inspired amateurs’, said Elton, ‘promotes the exercise of prejudice and dilettantism, and is liable to produce pointless ephemera’ (ibid., p. 85). Elton's disdain of those he considered amateurs was long-standing. As he said in England under the Tudors, p. 473n: ‘It may be well to remark that Lytton Stratchey's Elizabeth and Essex is perhaps best left unread.’
65 Evans, ‘Introduction’ to Carr, What is history?, p. xxxvii. Ironically, Elton referred to the ‘danger…exemplified by Mr Carr: to write off certain forms of historical study and to reserve approval for those to which one happens to incline oneself’. Practice, p. 27.
66 Practice, pp. 75–6. As Fernand Braudel reminded Peter Laslett, ‘Not all facts are important, only those that have consequences.’ Quoted in Christopher Hill, ‘Scepticism, values and the historian’, in L. Orchard and R. Dare, eds., Markets, morals and public policy (Sydney, 1989), p. 19.
67 On the latter, see Carr, What is history? (1964 edn), pp. 150–2; Haslam, Vices, p. 192, 209–10; Evans, ‘Introduction’, pp. xxxiv–xxxv.
68 Collinson, Patrick, ‘Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, 1921–1994’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 94 (1997), pp. 448–50Google Scholar.
69 Evans, ‘Afterword’, p. 171.
70 Elton to Turnbull, 14 Aug. 1966, Elton papers; Evans, ‘Afterword’, p. 171.
71 Turnbull to Elton, 8 May 1966; Elton to Turnbull, 18 May 1966, both in Elton papers.
72 Turnbull to Elton, 16 Sept. 1966; Elton to Turnbull, 20 Sept. 1966, both in Elton papers; SUP minutes book, 11 Nov. 1966.
73 Turnbull, ‘Publishing policy’ (draft version) [late Sept. 1964], and Price to Turnbull, 14 Oct. 1964, both in Price papers; SUP minutes book, 10 Dec. 1964.
74 Turnbull to Price [early Nov. 1964] (handwritten), Price papers.
75 Price Milburn's early publications include C. J. Adcock, Fundamentals of psychology (Wellington, 1959), which was reissued the following year by Methuen, who gained the world market that Price Milburn was unable to organize.
76 Price, interview, 12 Mar. 2004.
77 Price, interview, 12 Mar. 2004; see also Turnbull to Elton, 16 Feb. 1967, Elton papers.
78 SUP minutes book, 9 Dec. 1966.
79 Elton to Turnbull, 28 Mar. 1967, Elton papers.
80 Turnbull to R. Ollard (Collins), 4 Apr. 1967, Elton papers.
81 Turnbull to P. Wait (Methuen), 4 Apr. 1967 (quotation), and Turnbull to Elton, 4 Apr. 1967, both in Elton papers.
82 Turnbull to Elton, 11 Apr. 1967, and Price to S. J. Butlin (deputy chairman of the Press Board), 11 Apr. 1967, both in Price papers.
83 Butlin to Elton, 11 Apr. 1967, Price papers; Elton to Butlin, 15 Apr. 1967, Elton papers.
84 SUP minutes book, 9 June 1967. It is not possible to say whether the sales of The practice of history approached those of What is history?, which had reached almost a quarter of a million by the end of the 1990s (Haslam, Vices, p. 217). To summarize the known details, Sydney University Press printed 4,000 copies of Practice. Seven months after publication, only 103 copies remained in stock and the Press had made a profit of $A702 from an outlay of $A3927 (SUP minutes book, ‘Trading figures for April 1968’). The sales of the American edition are unknown; the Crowell papers are housed in the Special Collections Research Center at Syracuse University Library but contain no folder on Practice. The same applies to the papers of Wm Collins & Son at the University of Glasgow Archives. HarperCollins do not have the sales of the Fontana and Flamingo editions in their database, and the Elton papers only contain fragmentary details. The Fontana edition sold 10,000 copies in the first year (Turnbull to Elton, 24 Aug. 1970, Elton papers); and in the nine years between 1987 and 1995, the combined sales of the Fontana and Flamingo editions totalled 10,554 and realized £1,767.19 in royalties. By this time, sales were tapering off sharply. The print run of the Flamingo edition was 7,500. The Blackwell edition sold 690 copies in its first two years and realized royalties of £3,505.03 because of the far higher retail price (sales and royalty statements in Elton papers, box series 46517, box RHS 2012/2 and box series 46519, box 2012/4 RHS 2012/4; Helen Fraser to Elton, 22 May 1984, Elton papers). Although a sales profile for Practice cannot be constructed, it seems improbable that total sales of the British and American editions averaged 20,000 per year throughout the 1970s. On this assumption is it unlikely that the sales of Practice rivalled those of What is history?.
85 D. Starkey, ‘Floreat Eltona’, London Review of Books, 19 Jan. 1984.
86 J. Scott, Harry's absence: looking for my father on the mountain (Wellington, 1997), 146.
87 Evans, In defence of history, pp. 293–4. See also Evans, ‘Afterword’, 175; Patrick Collinson, The history of a history man – or, the twentieth century viewed from a safe distance (Woodbridge, 2011), pp. 185–6.
88 Colley, E.g. Linda, review (of The English common people, by J. F. C. Harrison), in International Labor and Working-class History, 32 (1987), p. 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
89 H. R. Trevor-Roper to D. Williams, 29 May 1963, in R. Davenport-Hines and A. Sisman, eds., One hundred letters from Hugh Trevor-Roper (Oxford, 2014), p. 386n.
90 R. J. Evans, ‘The practice of history’, History Today, Jan. 2002, pp. 5–6. One example of emulation concerns Elton's statement: ‘Imagination, controlled by learning and scholarship, learning and scholarship rendered meaningful by imagination – those are the tools of enquiry possessed by the historian’ (Practice, p. 112), which is echoed by Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘Fernand Braudel, the Annales, and the Mediterranean’, Journal of Modern History, 44 (1972), p. 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar. David Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan: a life in history (London, 1993), pp. 190–2, demonstrates that Trevelyan, whom Elton dismissed as an ‘amateur’, anticipated the latter's position on historical imagination. A full-throated endorsement of Elton and the ‘positivist Cambridge tradition’ is John C. G. Röhl, ‘Dreams and nightmares: writing the biography of Kaiser Wilhelm II’, in V. R. Berghahn and S. Lässig, eds., Biography between structure and agency: central European lives in international historiography (New York, NY, 2008), p. 41. An indirect and more euphonious endorsement is Trevor Wilson, The myriad faces of war: Britain and the Great War, 1914–1918 (Cambridge, 1986), p. 676.
91 Turnbull to Elton, 5 Aug. 1969, Elton papers; A. McIntyre, Marcuse (London, 1970); J. Miller, McLuhan (London, 1971); E. Leach, Lévi-Strauss (London, 1970).
92 This and the following paragraph draw on information provided by the Turnbull family; Turnbull to ‘Hodge and Mabbs’, 17 Feb. 1990, papers of Esther Hodge, GB 106 7EHO, The Women's Library, London School of Economics.
93 Hutton, e-mail, 23 Apr. 2013.