ABSTRACT
Iam very well aware that the argument that historians have a social function-indeed a social obligation – is likely to be no more welcome among scholars today than it was when the first holder of this Chair was appointed over two and a half centuries ago. Professor Galbraith himself sounded from this very rostrum a trumpet blast against the conversion of the study of history to ‘mere propaganda, resting on a narrow basis of civic usefulness’, and we know what he meant. ‘Socially useful’ or ‘relevant’ history, whether consciously or unconsciously selected or tailored to meet contemporary social or political needs, has no place in a university or anywhere else. But there is a danger that this is the kind of history that almost automatically would get taught, or at least learned, if the historical profession did not exist to prevent it. For all societies have some view of the past; one that shapes and is shaped by their collective consciousness, that both reflects and reinforces the value-systems which guide their actions and judgements; and if professional historians do not provide this, others less scrupulous or less well qualified will. Far more than poets can historians claim to be the unacknowledged legislators of mankind; for all we believe about the present depends on what we believe about the past.
