Europe: A History (6 page)

During the seventy-five years when Europe was divided by the longest of its civil wars, the concept of European unity could only be kept alive by people of the widest cultural and historical horizons. Especially during the forty years of the Cold War, it took the greatest intellectual courage and stamina to resist not only persistent nationalism but also the parochial view of a Europe based exclusively on the prosperous West. Fortunately, a few individuals of the necessary stature did exist, and have left their legacy in writings which will soon be sounding prophetic.

One such person was Hugh Seton-Watson (1916–84), elder son of the pioneer of East European studies in Britain, R. W. Seton-Watson (1879–1951). As a boy he played at the knee of Thomas Masaryk; he spoke Serbo-Croat, Hungarian, and Romanian as effortlessly as French, German, and Italian. Born in London, where he became Professor of Russian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, he usually described himself as a Scot. He never succumbed to the conventional wisdom of his day. He set out his testament on the concept of Europe in a paper published posthumously. His argument stressed three fundamental points—the need for a European ideal, the complementary role of the East and the West European nations, and the pluralism of Europe’s cultural tradition. Each deserves a quotation of some length.

Seton-Watson’s first thunderbolt was directed at the low horizons of those who expected European unity to be built on nothing more than the security interests of NATO or the economic interests of the EEC:

Let us not underrate the need for a positive common cause, for something more exciting than the price of butter, more constructive than the allocation of defence contracts—a need for an European
mystique.
⁴⁴

The second shaft was directed at those who sought to exclude the East Europeans in the name of Western civilization:

The European cultural community includes the peoples living beyond Germany and Italy… something in no way annulled by the fact that they cannot today belong to an all-European economic or political community … Nowhere in the world is there so widespread a belief in the reality, and the importance, of a European cultural community, as in the countries lying between the EEC and the Soviet Union… To these peoples, the idea of Europe is that of a community of cultures to which the specific culture or sub-culture of each belongs. None of them can survive without Europe, or Europe without them. This is of course a myth… a sort of chemical compound of truth and fantasy. The absurdities of the fantasy need not obscure the truth.
⁴⁵

The third shaft was aimed at those who harbour a simplistic or monolithic view of European culture:

The interweaving of the notions of Europe and of Christendom is a fact of History which even the most brilliant sophistry cannot undo… But it is no less true that there are strands in European culture that are not Christian: the Roman, the Hellenic, arguably the Persian, and (in modern centuries) the Jewish. Whether there is also a Muslim strand is more difficult to say.
⁴⁶

The conclusion defines the purpose and value of European culture:

[European culture] is not an instrument of capitalism or socialism; it is not a monopoly possession of EEC Eurocrats or of anyone else. To owe allegiance to it, is not to claim superiority over other cultures… The unity of European culture is simply the end-product of 3000 years of labour by our diverse ancestors. It is a heritage which we spurn at our peril, and of which it would be a crime to deprive younger and future generations. Rather it is our task to preserve and renew it.
⁴⁷

Seton-Watson was one of a select band of lonely runners who carried the torch of European unity through the long night of Europe’s eclipse. He was one of the minority of Western scholars who bestrode the barriers between East and West, and who saw Soviet communism for what it was. He died on the eve of the events which were to vindicate so many of his judgements. His intellectual legacy is the one which the present work is honoured to follow most closely.
⁴⁸

The writing of European history could not proceed until the concept of Europe had stabilized and the historian’s art had assumed an analytical turn. But it was certainly well under way in the early decades of the nineteenth century. The earliest effective attempt at synthesis was by the French writer and statesman Francois Guizot (1787–1874). His
Histoire de la cvilisation en Europe
(1828–30) was based on lectures presented at the Sorbonne.

Thanks to the problems of definition, most historians would agree that the subject-matter of European history must concentrate on the shared experiences which are to be found in each of the great epochs of Europe’s past. Most would also agree that it was in late antiquity that European history ceased to be an assortment of unrelated events within the given Peninsula and began to take on the characteristics of a more coherent civilizational process. Central to this process was the merging of the classical and the barbarian worlds, and the resultant assertion of a consciously Christian community—in other words, the founding of Christendom. Later on, all manner of schisms, rebellions, expansions, evolutions, and fissiparities took place, giving rise to the exceedingly diverse and pluralistic phenomenon which is Europe today. No two lists of the main constituents of European civilization would ever coincide. But many items have always featured prominently: from the roots of the Christian world in Greece, Rome, and Judaism to modern phenomena such as the Enlightenment, modernization, romanticism, nationalism, liberalism, imperialism, totalitarianism. Nor should one forget the sorry catalogue of wars, conflicts, and persecutions that have dogged every stage
of the tale. Perhaps the most apposite analogy is the musical one. European historians are not tracing the story of a simple libretto. They are out to recapture a complicated score, with all its cacophony of sounds and its own inimitable codes of communication: ‘Europe … has been likened to an orchestra. There are certain moments when certain of the instruments play a minor role, or even fall silent altogether. But the ensemble exists.’
⁴⁹
There is much to be said also for the contention that Europe’s musical language has provided one of the most universal strands of the European tradition,
[MOUSIKE]

None the less, since Europe has never been politically united, diversity has evidently provided one of its most enduring characteristics. Diversity can be observed in the great range of reactions to each of the shared experiences. There is lasting diversity in the national states and cultures which persist within European civilization as a whole. There is diversity in the varying rhythms of power and of decline. Guizot, the pioneer, was not alone in thinking of diversity as Europe’s
prime
characteristic.

Eurocentrism

European history-writing cannot be accused of Eurocentrism simply for focusing its attention on European affairs, that is, for keeping to the subject. Eurocentrism is a matter of attitude, not content. It refers to the traditional tendency of European authors to regard their civilization as superior and self-contained, and to neglect the need for taking non-European viewpoints into consideration. Nor is it surprising or regrettable to find that European history has mainly been written by Europeans and for Europeans. Everybody feels the urge to discover their roots. Unfortunately, European historians have frequently approached their subject as Narcissus approached the pool, looking only for a reflection of his own beauty. Guizot has had many imitators since he identified European civilization with the wishes of the Almighty. ‘European civilisation has entered … into the eternal truth, into the plan of Providence,’ he reflected. ‘It progresses according to the intentions of God.’
⁵⁰
For him, and for many like him, Europe was the promised land and Europeans the chosen people.

Many historians have continued in the same self-congratulatory vein, and have argued, often quite explicitly, that the European record provides a model for all other peoples to follow. Until recently, they paid scant regard to the interaction of European culture with that of its neighbours in Africa, India, or Islam. A prominent American scholar, writing in 1898, who traced European civilization primarily to the work of ‘Teutonic tribes’, took it as axiomatic that Europe was the universal model:

The heirs of the ancient world were the Teutonic tribes, who … gradually formed a new uniform civilisation on the foundation of the classic, and in recent times this has begun to be worldwide and to bring into close relationship and under common influences all the inhabitants of the earth.
⁵¹

When Oxford University Press last dared to publish a one-volume History of Europe, the authors opened their preface with a similar choice sentiment:

Although a number of grand civilisations have existed in various ages, it is the civilisation of Europe which has made the deepest and widest impression, and which now (as developed on both sides of the Atlantic) sets the standard for all the peoples of the earth.
⁵²

This line of thought and mode of presentation has steadily been losing its attractions, especially for non-Europeans.

Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936) is sometimes regarded as a central figure of the Eurocentric tradition, even as ‘an apologist for the civilizing mission of British colonial expansion’. His famous
Ballad of East and West was
composed with India in mind:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat.

But there is neither East nor West, Border, Breed nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the Earth.
⁵³

Kipling shared little of the arrogance which was usually associated with the European attitudes of his day. He did not shrink from the phraseology of his day concerning our ‘dominion over palm and pine’ or ‘the lesser breeds without the Law’. Yet he was strongly attracted to Indian culture—hence his wonderful
Jungle Books
—and he was a deeply religious and humble man:

The tumult and the shouting dies—

The captains and the kings depart—

Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,

An humble and a contrite heart.

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget, lest we forget.
⁵⁴

These words are a standing rebuke to anyone who would lump all ‘Western imperialists’ into the same gang of arrogants.

Opposition to Eurocentrism comes at present from four main sources. In North America it has emerged from that part of the Black community, and their political sympathizers, who are rebelling against an educational system allegedly dominated by ‘white supremacist values’, in other words by the glorification of European culture. It has found expression in the Black Muslim movement and, in scholarship, in a variety of Black studies (Afrology) directed against conventional American academia.
⁵⁵
In its most militant form, it aims to replace Eurocentrism with Afrocentricity—’the belief in the centrality of Africans in post-modern history’.
⁵⁶
This is based on the contention that European civilization has ‘stolen’ the birthright of mankind, and of Africans in particular.
⁵⁷
In the world of Islam, especially in Iran, similar opposition is mounted by religious fundamentalists, who see ‘the West’ as the domain of Satan. Elsewhere in the Third World, it is espoused by intellectuals, often of a Marxian complexion, who regard Eurocentric views as
part and parcel of capitalist ideology.
⁵⁸
In Europe it is widespread, though not always well articulated, in a generation which, when they paused to think, have been thoroughly ashamed of many of their elders’ attitudes.

Map 3-East-West Fault Lines in Europe

One way forward for historians will be to pay more attention to the interaction of European and non-European peoples,
[GONCALVEZ]
Another is to use non-European sources for the elucidation of European problems,
[RUS’]
A third is to insist on honest comparisons with Europe’s neighbours—comparisons which in many aspects and instances will not be in Europe’s favour. Above all, it is essential to modulate the tone. For the last hundred years the conduct of those ‘Teutonic tribes’, and of other Europeans, has not been much to boast of.

In the end, like all human activities, the European record must be judged on its own merits. It cannot be fairly represented in a list of‘Great Books’, which selects whatever is most genial and ignores the dross (see below). It can be viewed with admiration or with disgust, or with a mixture of both. The opinion of one Frenchman strikes an optimistic note: ‘After all, crime and western history are not the same thing. Whatever [the West] has given to the world by far exceeds that which it has done against various societies and individuals.’
⁵⁹
Not everyone would agree.