IHR 1968-1969

 Well, I first became acquainted with the Institute of Historical Research in the author of 1968. I had been fortunate enough to be appointed to one of the junior research fellowships of the IHR and came to London, I think, with considerable expectations about the contact I should hope to have with senior historians in the University of London and visiting scholars from United States, Australia, and elsewhere, and of course with postgraduates from other UK universities. However, I was considerably surprised when I got to the IHR to discover a feature of university life which I had not come across before. That was the deference which senior figures in the historical profession, people who held chairs, expected to be treated, people like, AG Dickens, who was the director of the institute, Stanley Bindoff, who worked on the Penguin History of Tudor England  that I had admired for many years, JJ Scarisbrick and , of course, Joel Hurstfield, who was J E Neale's successor as Astor professor of history at University College London. This deference, this degree of respect which these people anticipated to see, was something which I had not actually come across before in Oxford.

And there were some features of the, seminars which I had not come across before either. The Hurstfield seminar, for example, always began with a a session which those attending, whether post- graduates or junior colleagues, explained to everyone present what they had discovered in the preceding week or fortnight. Hurstfield then explained to them what its significance was. I at least found this  rather odd since the people in question had already appreciated what their significance was . There was one feature of the seminar which came as a very considerable, surprise to Hurstfield and that was the presence of David Starkey.

Starkey had, obviously done his undergraduate and postgraduate training in Cambridge, and he was perfectly prepared to take Hurstfield up on some of the observations he made. Was Hurstfield really maintaining x, y, or z? Did he not realize that some of these propositions had already been scouted in recent scholarship or were untenable? He was perfectly prepared to challenge him over a whole series of issues at the start of each of these meetings. Hurstfield, I think, was very considerably surprised to find himself challenged this way. I ought to say, in fairness to Hurstfield, that he improved greatly over the course of these three subsequent terms.

He was never quite, I think, as quick witted or sharp as Starkey. The other thing that I also struck me about the institute was the, conversations one was able to have in the tearoom with, senior scholars from London or from elsewhere in the UK or from the United States or on occasions from Australia. One of them stuck in my mind very, considerably, and that is the conversation I had with Conrad Russell late in 1968 or early in 1969. My own supervisor, Christopher Hill, had suggested to me that I undertake a study of the career of John Pym and the parliament for 1620. Now I did not want to do this and decided not to take it up but passed the  suggestion on to Russell who bit at both ideas.

Now we all know what the consequences of those suggestions being taken up came to be in the succeeding years, but I have felt extremely guilty about it, at least until the mid-nineteen eighties. And, confess to it now in the hope that I may at least partly be forgiven by the old Whigs and revisionists. Many thanks.