Tory historians: From Hague on Pitt the Younger to Rees-Mogg on the Victorians
Jacob Rees Mogg has a book out on May 23rd on the Victorians (in fact chapters on Victorian men). Obviously I haven’t read it but when it appears I will (so you don’t have to). This post aims to make a wider point about leading Tories
There is a useful Guardian review here:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/15/the-victorians-jacob-rees-mogg-review
If you prefer the Murdoch Times AN Wilson’s review calls it a ‘staggeringly silly book’
Rees Mogg studied history at Oxford and should know something of what he is on about even though it has proved remarkably difficult to find out which bits of history he actually studied.
https://kmflett.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/jacob-rees-mogg-history-man-the-german-afd/
Rees Mogg is certainly not the first leading Tory in recent times to write a volume of British history (Im passing over Boris Johnson here as this is meant to be a reasonably serious post).
Former leader William Hague has written on Pitt and Wilberforce. Hague studied PPE at Oxford.
Neither Rees Mogg or Hague are research historians. They are after all politicians and businessmen and digging into archives is time consuming. Their work relies on the reading and interpretation of secondary studies.
That said Hague’s volumes are well researched and serious even if there is, perhaps inevitably, an element of trying to establish a political and historical tradition in which he claims to stand.
By contrast- here I am going on the reviews only at this stage, while Rees Mogg on the Victorians also aims to establish an historical tradition in which he places himself, it is very poorly researched indeed.
Perhaps this tells us something about the intellectual decline of the leadership of the Tory Party from serious figures, even if to the left unattractive figures like Hague, to self promoters like Rees Mogg with little real substance to their outlook
I do wish Tories wouldn’t write books. It’s such a waste of paper.