TheConstructionofNationhood

The1996WilesLecturesGivenattheQueen'sUniversityofBelfast

Pagei

Thisisathoroughreanalysisofbothnationalismandnations.Itchallengesthecurrent'modernist'orthodoxiesofsuchwritersasEricHobsbawm,BenedictAnderson
andErnestGellner,anditoffersasystematiccritiqueofHobsbawm'sbestsellingNationsandnationalismsince1780.
Inoppositiontobookswhichlimitnationsandnationalismtotheeighteenthcenturyandafter,asanaspectof'modernisation',ProfessorHastingsarguesforamedieval
origintoboth,dependentuponbiblicalreligionandthedevelopmentofvernacularliteratures.Whiletheoristsofnationhoodhavepaidmostlyscantattentionto
England,thedevelopmentofthenationstateisseenhereascentraltothesubject,buttheanalysisiscarriedforwardtoembracemanyotherexamples,including
Ireland,theSouthSlavsandmodernAfrica,beforeconcludingwithanoverviewoftheimpactofreligion,contrastingIslamwithChristianity.

Pagev

TheConstructionofNationhood
Ethnicity,ReligionandNationalism
AdrianHastings
UniversityofLeeds

Pagevi

PUBLISHEDBYCAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITY(VIRTUALPUBLISHING)FORANDONBEHALFOFTHEPRESSSYNDICATEOFTHEUNIVERSITY
OFCAMBRIDGE
PUBLISHEDBYTHEPRESSSYNDICATEOFTHEUNIVERSITYOFCAMBRIDGE

ThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,CB2IRP,UnitedKingdom
CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITYPRESS

TheEdinburghBuilding,CambridgeCB22RUUnitedKingdom
40West20thStreet,NewYork,NY100114211,USA
CambridgeUniversityPress1997
ThiseditionCambridgeUniversityPress(VirtualPublishing)2001
ThisbookisincopyrightSubjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplace
withoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished1997
PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge
TypesetinBembo
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongresscataloguinginpublicationdata
Hastings,Adrian
Theconstructionofnationhood:ethnicity,religionandnationalism/AdrianHastings.
p.cm.(TheWileslecturesgivenattheQueen'sUniversityofBelfast)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0521593913(hardcover)
1.NationalismHistory.2.NationalismReligiousaspects.
3.Hobsbawm,E.J.(Eric.),1917.Nationsandnationalismsince1780.
I.Title.II.Series:Wileslectures.
JC311.H3461997
320.54dc21977039CIP
ISBN0521593913hardback
ISBN0521625440paperback
eISBN0511003765virtual(netLibraryEdition)

Pageix

Contents
Preface

pagexi

1
TheNationandNationalism

2
EnglandasPrototype

35

3
England'sWesternNeighbours

66

4
WesternEurope

96

5
TheSouthSlavs

124

6
SomeAfricanCaseStudies

148

7
EthnicityFurtherConsidered

167

8
ReligionFurtherConsidered

185

Notes

210

Index

228

Pagexi

Preface
ThisbookisbasedontheWilesLectureswhichIhadthehonourtogiveatTheQueen'sUniversityofBelfastinMay1996.IhavefirsttothanktheViceChancellor
andtheWilesTrustees,inparticularProfessorDavidHempton,headoftheQueen'sSchoolofHistory,ProfessorTerenceRanger,ProfessorIanKershawand
TrevorBoydfortheinvitationtodeliverthem.ItistheparticularattractionoftheWilesLecturesthatagroupofdistinguishedhistoriansfromotheruniversitiesare
invitedtoBelfastfortheweekinwhichtheyaregiven,todiscusseachlectureafterdinnerthateveningwiththeTrusteesandselectedmembersofQueen'sacademic
staff.Theguestsfor1996wereProfessorTomBartlett,DrKimKnott,ProfessorHughMcLeod,ProfessorJohnPeel,DrEamonDuffy,DrScottThomas,Professor
SeanConnollyandProfessorMarkNoll.DiscussingnationalisminBelfast,especiallyifoneisanEnglishman,mightbecompared,Iremarkedatthebeginningofmy
secondlecture,withthesituationofDanielinthedenoflions,but,asIadded,thepointoftheDanielstorywasthatthelionsprovedwonderfullyfriendlyandsodid
theacademicsofBelfast.Theirdiscussionwasnolessstimulatingforthat.
IammostgratefultoDrIanGreenandProfessorPeelforsubsequentlylettingmereadchaptersfromforthcomingworks.Imustalsoexpressmymostsincerethanks
forcomments,adviceandinformationprovidedbyBrankaMagas,NoelMalcolm,TudorGriffiths,BrigidAllen,LesleyJohnson,FrankFelsensteinandMartinButler.
IoweaverygreatdealtoAnn,mywife,forlisteningovertheprecedingmonths,suppertimeaftersuppertime,tomyrehearsingthedevelopingargumentofthe
lectures.IngridLawrie,onceagain,hastypedandretypedversionsofbothlecturesandbookwitha

Pagexii

precision,apromptitudeandaneyeforsmallmistakeswhichmakeitherbookaswellasmine.
JanetBoydestablishedtheWilesLecturesfortyyearsagoinmemoryofherfather,ThomasShiresWilesofAlbany,NewYork,aninventorofgenius,towhomwe
owethewashingmachine.TheyhaveeversinceprovedawonderfulenrichmentoftheculturebothofBelfastandoftheworld.Itisahugeprivilegetohavebeen
broughtintothetrulyecumenicalcirclecreatedbythisannualserieseversincethefirstweregivenbyHerbertButterfieldin1954onManandhisPast.Ifthefrontiers
ofthepresentbookmayseemabsurdlywidetotheeyeofthemodernspecialisthistorian,Icanonlypleadboththatthesubjectchosenrequiresthissortofrangeof
comparisonacrosscenturiesandcontinents,andthattheWilesLectureshaveasanessentialpurposethediscussionofbroadissuesrelatingtothegeneralhistoryof
civilisation.ButterfielddedicatedManandhisPasttoJanetBoyd.Sincethenshehasattendedeveryseriesandformeitaddedgreatlytotheoccasiontoseeher,at
eachlecture,nowinhernineties,listeningattentivelyinthefrontrow.Seldomcanapatronofmodernscholarshiphavefoundsocontinuouslycreativeamannerof
furtheringthecause,yettheWilesLecturesareonlyoneofmanywaysinwhichherQuakerconsciencehascontributedtothefurtheranceofunderstandingandpeace.
ItisaverygreatpleasureandhonourtobeabletodedicatethisbooktoJanetBoyd.
Mostofwhatishereprintedwaswrittenbeforethelecturesweregiven,thoughonlypartscouldbepresentedinthetime.Thewholehassincebeenthoroughly
revised.Chapter1representsthecoreofLecture1chapters2and3,Lecture2chapters6and7,Lecture3andchapter8,Lecture4.
OnlywhentherevisionwasfinallycompletedidLesleyJohnsondrawmyattentiontotherecentworkofThorlacTurvillePetre,EnglandtheNation:Language,
LiteratureandNationalIdentity,12901340(ClarendonPress,1996),whoseprofoundandsubtlelearningsupportsthemainthrustoftheargumentofchapters1
and2.WhileIhavealterednothinginmyowntext,Iamveryhappytosignalheretheappearanceofthisimportantbook.
LEEDS
DECEMBER1996

Page1

ChapterOne
TheNationandNationalism
I
Nation,ethnicity,nationalismandreligionarefourdistinctanddeterminativeelementswithinEuropeanandworldhistory.Notoneofthesecanbesafelymarginalised
byeitherthehistorianorthepoliticianconcernedtounderstandtheshapingofmodernsociety.Thesefourare,moreover,sointimatelylinkedthatitisimpossible,I
wouldmaintain,towritethehistoryofanyofthematalladequatelywithoutatleastafairamountofdiscussionoftheotherthree.Thatisacentralcontentionofthis
bookanditstandsinsomedisagreementwithmuchmodernwritingbothaboutnationalismandaboutreligion.Theaimofthisfirstchapterissixfold:tosetoutmyown
position,toprovideareviewofrecentliterature,toestablishthesenseofanemergingschisminthisfieldbetweenwhatwemaycall,forsimplicity'ssake,modernists
andrevisionists,toexplorethehistoryoftheword'nation'andtoleadonfromthere,throughananalysisoftherelationshipbetweenlanguageandsociety,toalarger
discussionofthenatureofboththenationandnationalism.
WhenIchosethissubjectIthoughtthatindevelopingmythemeIwouldbeabletobeginbylargelyadoptingtheviewpointofrecentstudiesofnationalismandgoon
fromtheretoinsertwithinitthesomewhatneglecteddimensionofreligion.Inparticular,InaturallyintendedtotakeasastartingpointEricHobsbawm'sWiles
Lecturesof1985onNationsandNationalismsince17801 asprobablythemostinfluentialexplicitlyhistoricaldiscussionofnationalisminrecentyears.HoweverI
quicklyrealisedthatmyownunderstandingofnationalismdifferedtooprofoundlyfromthatofHobsbawmtomakethispossibleinthewayIhadhoped.Moreoverthe
veryparameters

Page2

helaiddownforthesubjecteffectivelyruledouttwothirdsofwhatIwantedtodiscuss.FarfrommovingforwardfromHobsbawm,Irealisedthattheonlycourse
opentomewastoattempttodeconstructhiscentralthesisinfavourofaverydifferentone,andthisIhaveendeavouredtodo.Inconsequence,thecentraltopicof
thisbookhasbecomethehistoryofnationsandnationalisminthemselves.Mostmoderntheoristsofnationalismappearsomewhatweakonhardhistoryandthatis
why,inspeakingasanhistorian,itisHobsbawmthatIfindmyselffacingaboveall.Nevertheless,ashedrewquiteconsiderablyonseveralotherhardlylessinfluential
recentworkssuchasJohnBreuilly'sNationalismandtheState,ErnestGellner'sNationsandNationalismandBenedictAnderson'sImaginedCommunities,all
ofwhichfirstappearedjustashewaspreparinghislectures,2 Ihavefounditsensibletolinkthefour,whilerecognisingtheirdifferenceswherenecessary.Together
theyrepresentwhathascometobeknownasthe'modernist'view,theprincipalcurrentorthodoxyinnationaliststudies,butoneincreasinglychallengedby
medievalistsandothers.ThusKeithStringerrecentlysuggestednotonlythat'medievalistsandmodernistshavemoretolearnfromeachotherthanhasoftenbeen
thought',particularlyinregardto'thethornyproblemofnationalism',butthatthismayconstitutenolessthana'currentcrisisofhistoriography'.3 Mydiscussionofthe
relationshipofreligiontonationalismhasthenhadtobedonewithinthecourseofalargerhistoricalreconstruction,andintheconsciousnessofspeakingacrossthe
frontlineofanhistoriographicalschism.Thisis,Ihavecometobeconvinced,thebestwaytoapproachit,because,whiletheroleofreligionhasbeenfarfromsingle
facetedinitsrelationshiptoethnicityandtheconstructionofnations,ithasbeenintegraltothiswiderhistory,perhapsevendeterminative.Thehistoryofreligioncan
neverbebestunderstoodwithinaboxofitsownandthatisevidentlyparticularlytrueinafieldsuchasthiswherereligion,politicsandculturesoobviouslyinteract.
NeverthelessthishasmeantthatIhavedevotedlessspacethananticipatedtospeakspecificallyaboutreligion.
Letmebeginbybrieflysettingoutmycentraltheses,themestowhichwewillreturnfromoneangleoranotheragainandagain.
1.Forthedevelopmentofnationhoodfromoneormoreethnicities,byfarthemostimportantandwidelypresentfactoristhat

Page3

ofanextensivelyusedvernacularliterature.Alongstruggleagainstanexternalthreatmayalsohaveasignificanteffectas,insomecircumstances,doesstateformation,
thoughthelattermaywellhavenonationaleffectwhateverelsewhere.Anationmayprecedeorfollowastateofitsownbutitiscertainlyassistedbyittoagreater
selfconsciousness.Mostsuchdevelopmentsarestimulatedbytheidealofanationstateandoftheworldasasocietyofnationsoriginally'imagined',ifyoulikethe
word,throughthemirroroftheBible,Europe'sprimarytextbook,butturnedintoaformalpoliticalphilosophynoearlierthanthenineteenthcenturyandthennextto
canonisedbyPresidentWoodrowWilsonandtheVersaillespeacesettlementof1920.
2.Anethnicityisagroupofpeoplewithasharedculturalidentityandspokenlanguage.Itconstitutesthemajordistinguishingelementinallprenationalsocieties,but
maysurviveasastrongsubdivisionwithaloyaltyofitsownwithinestablishednations.
3.Anationisafarmoreselfconsciouscommunitythananethnicity.4 Formedfromoneormoreethnicities,andnormallyidentifiedbyaliteratureofitsown,it
possessesorclaimstherighttopoliticalidentityandautonomyasapeople,togetherwiththecontrolofspecificterritory,comparabletothatofbiblicalIsraelandof
otherindependententitiesinaworldthoughtofasoneofnationstates.
4.Anationstateisastatewhichidentifiesitselfintermsofonespecificnationwhosepeoplearenotseensimplyas'subjects'ofthesovereignbutasahorizontally
bondedsocietytowhomthestateinasensebelongs.Thereisthusanidentityofcharacterbetweenstateandpeople.Insomewaythestate'ssovereigntyisinherent
withinthepeople,expressiveofitshistoricidentity.Init,ideally,thereisabasicequivalencebetweenthebordersandcharacterofthepoliticalunitupontheonehand
andaselfconsciousculturalcommunityontheother.Inmostcasesthisisadreamasmuchasareality.Mostnationstatesinfactincludegroupsofpeoplewhodo
notbelongtoitscorecultureorfeelthemselvestobepartofanationsodefined.Neverthelessalmostallmodernstatesactontheblandassumptionthattheyare
nationstates.
5.'Nationalism'meanstwothings:atheoryandapractice.Asapoliticaltheorythateach'nation'shouldhaveitsown'state'

Page4

itderivesfromthenineteenthcentury.However,thatgeneralprinciplemotivatesfewnationalists.Inpracticenationalismisstrongonlyinparticularistterms,deriving
fromthebeliefthatone'sownethnicornationaltraditionisespeciallyvaluableandneedstobedefendedatalmostanycostthroughcreationorextensionofitsown
nationstate.Ifnationalismbecametheoreticallycentraltowesternpoliticalthinkinginthenineteenthcentury,itexistedasapowerfulrealityinsomeplaceslongbefore
that.Assomethingwhichcanempowerlargenumbersofordinarypeople,nationalismisamovementwhichseekstoprovideastateforagiven'nation'orfurtherto
advancethesupposedinterestsofitsown'nationstate'regardlessofotherconsiderations.Itariseschieflywhereandwhenaparticularethnicityornationfeelsitself
threatenedinregardtoitsownpropercharacter,extentorimportance,eitherbyexternalattackorbythestatesystemofwhichithashithertoformedpartbut
nationalismcanalsobestokeduptofueltheexpansionistimperialismofapowerfulnationstate,thoughthisisstilllikelytobedoneundertheguiseofanimagined
threatorgrievance.
6.Religionisanintegralelementofmanycultures,mostethnicitiesandsomestates.TheBibleprovided,fortheChristianworldatleast,theoriginalmodelofthe
nation.WithoutitanditsChristianinterpretationandimplementation,itisarguablethatnationsandnationalism,asweknowthem,couldneverhaveexisted.
Moreover,religionhasproducedthedominantcharacterofsomestateshapednationsandofsomenationalisms.BiblicalChristianitybothundergirdstheculturaland
politicalworldoutofwhichthephenomenaofnationhoodandnationalismasawholedevelopedandinanumberofimportantcasesprovidedacrucialingredientfor
theparticularhistoryofbothnationsandnationalisms.
IwillbesuggestingthatEnglandpresentstheprototypeofbothanationandanationstateinthefullestsense,thatitsnationaldevelopment,whilenotwholly
uncomparablewiththatofotherAtlanticcoastalsocieties,doesprecedeeveryotherbothinthedateatwhichitcanfairlybedetectedandintheroundnessthatit
achievedcenturiesbeforetheeighteenth.Itmostclearlymanifests,inthepreEnlightenmentera,almosteveryappropriate'national'

Page5

characteristic.Indeeditdoesmorethan'manifest'thenatureofanation,itestablishesit.Inthewordsofaveryrecentwriter,LiahGreenfeld,'ThebirthoftheEnglish
nationwasnotthebirthofanation,itwasthebirthofthenations,thebirthofnationalism.'5 Moreover,itsimportanceforusliestoobothinitsrelationshipwith
religionandinthepreciseimpactofEnglishnationalismonitsneighbours,andcolonies.Muchofthis,Iwillbeclaiming,wasdetectablealreadyinSaxontimesbythe
endofthetenthcentury.Despitethe,oftenexaggerated,counteractionoftheNormanConquest,anEnglishnationstatesurvived1066,grewfairlysteadilyinthe
strengthofitsnationalconsciousnessthroughthelatertwelfthandthirteenthcenturies,butemergedstillmorevociferouslywithitsvernacularliteraryrenaissanceand
thepressuresoftheHundredYearsWarbytheendofthefourteenth.Neverthelessthegreatestintensityofitsnationalistexperiencetogetherwithitsoverseasimpact
mustundoubtedlybelocatedinandafterthelatesixteenthcentury.
IwillarguethatthereappearstobenocomparablecaseinEuropeandthatitwasthisEnglishmodel,whollyprecedingthelateeighteenthcentury,inwhichthissortof
processisheldbymodernisttheorytofinditsroots,whichwasthenreemployed,remarkablylittlechanged,inAmericaandelsewhere.IwillnotsuggestthatEnglish
nationalismprecededanEnglishnationhood.Onthecontrary.HoweverEnglishnationalismofasortwaspresentalreadyinthefourteenthcenturyinthelongwarswith
Franceandstillmoreinthesixteenthandseventeenth.Indeed,withouttheimpactofEnglishnationalism,thehistoryofEngland'sneighboursseemsvirtually
unintelligible.
Theseclaimshave,ofcourse,tobejustifiedbytheevidence.Iftrue,theyrequireaconsiderablerewriteofthestandardmodernisthistoryofnationalism.Tomany
peopletheywillseemsurprisingclaims.PerhapsasIammyselfsoverymuchanEnglishman,theymayevenseemanexpressionlessofhistoricalenquirythanof
Englishnationalismitself.YetifthereissuchathingasEnglishnationalismitissurelyrightthatanEnglishmanshouldexploreit,especiallyasitisundoubtedlya
categorythatmanyEnglishpeoplehavedeniedtoexist.Foreignershavenationalism,whichisabadthingweEnglishhavepatriotism,whichisagoodthing!Idonot
agree.Englishnationalism,partiallytransformedfromtheeighteenth

Page6

centuryintoBritishnationalism,hasbeenaverypowerful,andfrequentlydamaging,historicalforce.Yethistorianshavemadeahabitofignoringit.Thusitisstrange
thatanhistoriansosearchinginotherfieldsasHobsbawmcansimplyremarkinpassingthat'thedevelopmentofnationsandnationalismwithinoldestablishedstates,
suchasBritainandFrance,hasnotbeenstudiedveryintensively...Theexistenceofthisgapisillustratedbytheneglect,inBritain,ofanyproblemsconnectedwith
Englishnationalism.'6 ThatmaybethemostremarkableunderstatementofanyWileslecture.Itisoddthathistoriansofnationalismhavemanagedforlongsoeasilyto
averttheireyesfromwhatinhardreality,Ibelieve,hasbeentheprototypeforthewholestory.
ItwouldsurelybesurprisingifEnglandwasnotinatthestartofaprocesswhichhasbeensocentraltothepoliticaldevelopmentofthemodernworld,surprising
becauseEnglanddidsoclearlyprovidetheleadinregardtomostotheraspectsofthatdevelopment,suchastheestablishmentofastronglycentralisedstate,the
growthofparliamentarygovernment,electiveandrepresentative,theearlydeclineofvilleinage,thelimitationofroyalpower,theemergenceofapowerfulcapitalcity,
theformationofpoliticalparties,theendingofslavery,theemergenceofindustrialsocietyandofaneffectivepress.Britainhasalsoledthewayinthewritingof
politicaltheoryfromtheseventeenthtothenineteenthcentury,fromHobbesandLocke,throughBurke,HumeandAdamSmith,toBentham,Mill,Bagehotand
Bosanquet.BenedictAnderson'sastonishingclaimthattheEnglishnationwasonlyemergingattheheartofitsempireinthelateryearsofthenineteenthcentury7 not
onlygoesintheteethoftheevidencebutistotallyimplausible.Onlyifnationalidentityandnationalismwerereallymarginalphenomenawithinthemodernisationofthe
worldoverthelastthreecenturieswoulditbeeasilyimaginablethattheydidnotaffectthecountry,whichhadthroughoutprovidedtheleadformodernisation,untilthe
veryeveofitsdecline.Infacttheyarecentralandindispensableelementswithinthatmovementanditwouldbehardtoimaginethedevelopmentofthemodernworld
withoutthem.
Thisdoesnotmeanthatthenationstateistheonlypoliticalformavailableforthemodernworld.Farfromit.Thenationstatedoesnotinherentlybelongtomodernity
andifBritain,forlongtheprototypeofmodernity,pioneeredthenationstate,italsopioneered

Page7

thenonnationalworldempire.WhileFrance'sempirewasconceived,ifunrealistically,asanextensionofitsnationstate,Britain'swasnot.Thatdoesnotmakeitless
modern.IndeeditmaybethepoliticalrealityofBritain'sglobalempirewhichlooksinanotherfiftyyears'timemoreliketherealprototypeforthepoliticalstructuring
ofmodernity.Thenationstatehasalwaysbeenitselftoaverylargeextentanunrealisedmythitonlytoomanifestlydoesnotfitthecomplexrealityofhumansociety
veryhelpfullyinmanyplacesitsvalueshaveoftenbeenoverplayedinthepasthundredyears,itsdangers,untilrecently,foolishlybelittled.Nationalismhasbeen
enormouslydamagingtopeace,toleranceandcommonsenseandthemodelofanationstate,whichcouldseldomfitsocialrealitywithoutgraveinjusticetonumerous
minorities,maywellbewiselysupersededbyarrangementswhichstressbothsmallerandlargerunitsofpowerandadministration.Whilenationalism'sterritorialform
seemsvastlypreferabletoitsmoreethnicorlinguisticform,itsidealhasreliedfartooheavilyonsimplisticconceptsoftheindivisibilityofsovereigntyconcepts
whichhaveinourtimebeeninpracticeincreasinglysupersededbytheworkingoftheUNO,internationallawandtheEuropeanCommunity.Formanypeoplethe
structuresofaprenationalistHabsburgEmpire,oranextranationalistBritishEmpire,orapostnationalistEuropeanCommunitylookbasicallymoresanethanthose
ofthenationstate.NeverthelessithastoberecognisedthattheHabsburgorBritishEmpireswereonlytolerable,formostoftheirparts,becauseofrelative
underdevelopment.OncethedominanceofLatinastheonelanguageofcivilisationintheWestfellbeforetheliteraryadvanceofFrench,English,Germanand
Spanish,itcametoseeminevitablethatanykindofHolyRomanEmpiremodel,whoselegacysurvivedintheHabsburgEmpire,wouldneedtobereplacedbyoneof
'national'statesreflectingthemoreadvancedandstableofethnic/linguisticidentities.Oneofthefunctionsofthisbookwillbetoexplorewhereinlaythatinevitability
butitisquietlysymbolicofwhatmadetheHabsburgEmpirepossibleforsolongthatLatinwasstillusedasanofficiallanguageinHungaryinthenineteenthcentury.
Moreover,asEnglishbecomesincreasinglyanewworldlanguagesodonewuniversalist,supranational,statesedgethemselvesintoexistence.
WhatneedsexplainingmaybelesswhyEngland,followedby

Page8

Spain,France,theNetherlands,Denmark,SwedenandPortugal,movedsteadilytowardsthecreationofnationstates,thanwhyGermanyandItaly,caughtmore
deeplyinmedievalstructure,imperial,commercialandecclesiastical,failedforsolongtodothesame.Tothiscruciallyimportantquestionwewillreturn.Forthe
momentitissufficienttorecognisethattheattractivenessandapparentpowerofthenationstate,manifestaboveallinEnglandandtheninBritainbytheeighteenth
century,guaranteedthatsoonerorlateritspursuitwouldbetakenupacrosstherestofEurope.TheheadyshockwavesoftheFrenchRevolutionandNapoleonic
Wars,followedbyahugeincreaseinprintinginmanylanguages,ensuredthatcentral,southernandeasternEuropeinthenineteenthcentury,andmuchoftherestof
theworldinthetwentieth,wouldendeavourtoimitatethepoliticalmodelprovidedbytheapparentlymostadvancedandsuccessfulcountriesoftheworld.
Atthispointitisappropriatetosetoutasclearlyaspossibletheprincipallinesofdisagreementwiththe'modernist'viewofnationsandnationalismasrepresentedby
Hobsbawm,Gellner,BreuillyandAnderson.Imayrepeat,beforeIdothis,thatIamnotaloneindisagreeing.Ontheonehandonesensesarenewedconviction
amongmedievalhistoriansthatthesearecategoriesfullyappropriatefortheunderstandingofpresixteenth,letalonemuchprelateeighteenthcentury,history.8 On
theotherhandistheschoolofnationaliststudiesofamoresociologicalkind,ledbyAnthonySmithandJohnHutchinsonwho,howevermuchtheyacknowledgethe
inspirationofthemastersof'modernism',appeardecidedlyunconvincedbyitscentraltheses.Smith'smostimportantwork,TheEthnicOriginsofNations,9
representsthestrongestcritiqueofmodernismhithertopresentedthoughitstillacceptsfartoomanymodernistpresuppositions.Equallyencouraging,sofarasIam
concerned,isLiahGreenfeld's1992Nationalism:FiveRoadstoModernity,alreadyquoted,withitsexplicitrecognitionthatEnglandwas'thefirstnationinthe
world,andtheonlyone,withthepossibleexceptionofHolland,forabouttwohundredyears'.10
Greenfeld'sworkisatrulymajor,andoriginallyconstructed,contributiontoasubjectnowbeingheavilyoverloadedwithoftenrepetitiousstudies.Neverthelessher
thesisremains,inmyopinion,seriouslymisleadingonseveralcounts.First,itisstillinprinciple

Page9

withintheenterpriseofthemodernists.Nationalismremainsthe'roadtomodernity',aroadwhichstillopensinthelateeighteenthcenturyapartfromtheoneprivileged
exceptionofEngland.IamnotconvincedbythegreatdividebetweenthepremodernandthemodernandIcertainlydonotthinkthatnationalismis,assuch,adoor,
letalonethemaindoor,fromtheformertothelatter.Itcanoftenbearoadinquitetheoppositedirection,buttherecognisablenationalismof,say,earlyfourteenth
centuryScotlandcannotusefullybedescribedaseithermodernisingorantimodernising.Understandingnationsandnationalismwillonlybeadvancedwhenany
inseparablebondingofthemtothemodernisationofsocietyisabandoned.
Secondly,shestilldoesnotgetEnglandright.ForGreenfeld,'theemergenceofnationalsentimentinEngland'istobelocatedin'thefirstthirdofthesixteenthcentury'.
11Ifindthisdecidedlyunlikely.Foronethingthereisreallynoobviousreasonwhyitshouldemergeatthatpoint,priortotheReformationandinaperiodofpeace.
Foranothershe,likeallothermodernists,totallyavoidsconsiderationofthemedievalevidence.ForthatverydistinguishedAmericanmedievalist,JosephR.Strayer,
'Englandwasclearlyanationstateinthefifteenthcentury.'12Yetitwouldbehighlyimplausibletoclaimthatitwasthefifteenthcenturywhenthiscametobe.What
happenedtoEnglishnationalisminthesixteenthcenturycanonlybeunderstood,Iamconvinced,ifthepreReformationhistoryoftheEnglishnationisfully
recognised.IfGreenfeldisrighttoclaimthatEnglandwas'thefirstnationintheworld',itrequiresdemonstrationinmedievalterms.
Thekeyissueattheheartofourschismliesinthedateofcommencement.Forthemodernists,followinginthisElieKedourie'shighlyinfluentialNationalismof
1960,13nationalismisaverymodernphenomenonaboutwhichyoucannotreasonablyspeakbeforethelateeighteenthcenturynationalism,moreover,precedesthe
nation.'Itisnationalismwhichengendersnations',declaredGellner.14Again,'Nationalismisnottheawakeningofnationstoselfconsciousness:itinventsnations
wheretheydonotexist.'15Hobsbawmagrees.'Nationsdonotmakestatesandnationalisms,buttheotherwayround.'16'Thenation',headds,is'averyrecent
newcomerinhumanhistory...itbelongsexclusivelytoaparticular,andhistoricallyrecent,period.Itisasocialentityonlyinso

Page10

farasitrelatestoacertainkindofmodernterritorialstate,the''nationstate"anditispointlesstodiscussnationandnationalityexceptinsofarasbothrelatetoit.'17
'Thebasiccharacteristicofthemodernnationandeverythingconnectedwithitisitsmodernity.'18Thatiswhy,ofcourse,Hobsbawmputs'since1780'intohistitle.
Forhimitis'pointless'todiscussthesubjectinpre1780terms.'Nations',Gellneragrees,'canbedefinedonlyintermsoftheageofnationalism.'19ForBreuillytoo
nationstatesappearinprincipleinadmissiblebeforethenineteenthcentury,anythingpriortothatbeingdismissedwithremarkablylittleinvestigation,as'prelude'only
inaperiodwhenanything'nationalist'isconsideredbyhimtobenecessarilyinoppositiontothestate.20Andersonwhollyagreesandhisconclusion,facedwiththe
nationalrealityoftheAmericanWarofIndependence,isthatitmustallhavebegunthere:'Thelargeclusterofnewpoliticalentitiesthatsprangupinthewestern
hemispherebetween1778and1838,allofwhichselfconsciouslydefinedthemselvesasnations...werehistoricallythefirstsuchstatestoemergeontheworld
stage,andthereforeinevitablyprovidedthefirstrealmodelofwhatsuchstatesshould"looklike".'21TheFrenchRevolutionquicklyfollowedintheAmericanwake
andinconsequencethisnewentity,thenation,Andersoncontinues,was'acomplexcompositeofFrenchandAmericanelements'22whichbecame'availablefor
pirating'bytheseconddecadeofthenineteenthcentury.AllourauthorsfollowKedourieininsistingonthislateeighteenthcenturydateforthestartofthewhole
process(eventhoughGellnerdoesatonepoint,selfcontradictorily,admitthatEnglandsomehowbecameanationinamuchearlierage).Onwhyorwhereitall
begantheyarenotsounited.AndersonclaimsthatitwasreallyallagreatAmericaninvention'NationalismemergedfirstintheNewWorldnottheOld...itisan
astonishingsignofthedepthofEurocentrismthatsomanyEuropeanscholarspersist,inthefaceofalltheevidence,inregardingnationalismasaEuropean
invention.'23ForKedourie,itwasKantandtheEnlightenmentthatmustacceptresponsibilityforothers,thepolitical,militaryandintellectualimpactoftheFrench
Revolutionwastheprecipitatingfactor.ForGellnerandHobsbawmitappearstobemoreaninevitableconsequenceofcapitalismandindustrialisation.Theproblem
withthatistwofold.First,muchofthenationalistexplosionincentralandeasternEuropehasnotbeeninareasnotedfor

Page11

industrialisationsecond,itdoesnotwellexplainwhytheprocessshouldbegininAmerica.Andersonhasapointinclaimingthatthefirstexampleofthisnewwaveof
nationmakingwastheAmericanwhathedoesnotatallexplainiswhythatshouldbeso.24ThegeneralexplanationgivenbybothAndersonandBreuillyoftherise
ofnationalismintermsofthedeclineofdynastiesandofreligionandthegrowthinprintedliteratureimpliesanextraordinarilyoversimplepictureofboththestateand
religioninEuropebeforethelateeighteenthcentury,whileAndersonoffersnoexplanationastowhythegrowthinbooksdidnothaveinthesixteenthcenturythe
effecthepostulatesforthelateeighteenth.
Idonotwishtodisputetherapidspreadofnationalistideologyandnationcreatingmovementsfromthattime,nordoIquestionthesortofHobsbawmiananalysisof
whyinthenineteenthcenturythistookholdofcentralandeasternEuropeinthewaythatitdid.GellnerandHobsbawmareintheirrootscentralEuropeansandthe
viewfromViennaorPragueisnaturallysomewhatdifferentfromthatfromLondonorEdinburgh.Butabalancedhistoryofnationalisminitsentiretymustnotbe
allowedtobelittletheprimacyofexperienceoftheAtlanticcoastalstates.Thebasicquestionremainswhether1789orthereaboutsisareasonablestartingdatefora
studyofthissubject.Hobsbawmwroteahistoryofnineteenthandtwentiethcenturynationalism,butnotahistoryofnationalism,anddenialofthefirsthalfofthe
storyhasinevitablyskewedthewhole.Inparticularitimpairsanunderstandingofthenationnationalismrelationshipbecausewhileinthelaterperiodnationalismsmay
oftenhaveprecedednationsratherthanthereverse,intheearlierperioditisfartruertosaythatnationsastheygrewmoreselfconscious,orcameunderthreat,
producednationalisms.
Where,then,didthesenationscomefrom?Theanswercanonlybe,Iargue,outofcertainethnicities,affectedbytheliterarydevelopmentofavernacularandthe
pressuresofthestate.ThesecondareainwhichHobsbawmandGellnerarequiteunconvincinglynegativeisthatoftherelationshipbetweenethnicityandnationhood.
Clearlyenough,astheysostronglyinsist,everyethnicitydidnotbecomeanation,butmanyhavedoneso.Whathastobeassertedcountertomodernismisnotany
kindofprimordialismaclaimthateverynationexistenttoday,andjust

Page12

thosenations,allexistedinembryoathousandorfifteenhundredyearsagobut,rather,afinelyconstructedanalysisofwhysomeethnicitiesdobecomenations
whileothersdonot.Thedefiningoriginofthenation,likethatofeveryothergreatrealityofmodernwesternexperience,whetheritbetheuniversity,thebureaucratic
stateorindividualism,needstobelocatedinanageagooddealfurtherbackthanmostmodernisthistoriansfeelsafetohandle,thatoftheshapingofmedievalsociety.
Iwillarguethatethnicitiesnaturallyturnintonationsorintegralelementswithinnationsatthepointwhentheirspecificvernacularmovesfromanoraltowrittenusage
totheextentthatitisbeingregularlyemployedfortheproductionofaliterature,andparticularlyforthetranslationoftheBible.Onceanethnicity'svernacular
becomesalanguagewithanextensivelivingliteratureofitsown,theRubiconontheroadtonationhoodappearstohavebeencrossed.Ifitfailstopassthatpoint
andmostspokenvernacularsdofailthathurdlethentransformationtonationhoodisalmostcertainnevertotakeplace.
IconfesstofindinginHobsbawmasinKedourieanaltogethertoonegativeandderogatoryapproachtobothnationsandnationalism.Ofcourse,iftheyareallonlya
latearrivalinthecourseofhistoryand,asHobsbawmalsoargues,somethingalreadyoutofdateinviewoftheinternationalisationofthemodernworld,thentheymay
perhapsberathereasilydismissed.YettolookatEuropeanandworldhistoryinthiswayistoleaveoutacentrallineofmeaningandeventomisunderstandor
denigratemuchofwhatismostvaluableintheEuropeanculturalandpoliticalachievement.Forourownislandsitistodismiss,andquiteunjustifiably,thecreative
specificityofEnglishness,Irishness,WelshnessandScottishness.Evilanddisastrousasnationalismhasoftenbeen,itrelatestovaluesofthegreatestimportance.Even
whenwecondemn,weneedtheabilitytosympathise.
Finally,therearemajoromissionsinthemodernistview.IfdueconsiderationofEnglandandrelatednations,includingthemakingofAmerica,isoneofthem,the
impactofreligioningeneralandoftheBibleinparticularisanother.IbelieveittobequiteimpossibletodiscussthesubjectwithoutcarefulconsiderationoftheBible
asprimelensthroughwhichthenationisimaginedbybiblicallyliteratepeople,butIfindnoreferencetothiseveninAnderson,whereit

Page13

wouldbemostappropriate.25Hence,tosummariseourschism,incontrasttoHobsbawm'sWilesLecturesonnationalism,minewereatleastasmuchaboutthe
periodbefore1780astheperiodafterit,andaboutthewayethnicityturnsnaturallyincertaincircumstancesintonationhood.Theyfocusedupontheimpactof
vernacularliteraturepaidlargeattentiontoAtlanticcountries,aboveallEnglandandtheywereabouttheinfluenceoftheBibleandofreligionmoregenerally.On
thosefivepointsIhaveput,Ithink,sufficientclearwaterbetweenmeandHobsbawm,butIcouldnothavebeguntoestablishacounterviewwiththeclarityIhopeto
havereachedifIhadnothadbeforeme,toreadandreread,theoftenenlighteningaswellasprovocativebooksofthesedistinguishedauthors.
Iwantatthispointtorefertooneotherrecentbook,RogersBrubaker'sCitizenshipandNationhoodinFranceandGermany,26notonlybecauseIhavefoundit
exceptionallyconvincingbutbecausethecontrasthesetsoutbetweenFranceandGermanyappearstolieattheheartofanywiderunderstandingofthecentral
tensionwithinnationhood.ThebasiccontrasthefindstobeonebetweenaFrenchjussoliandaGermanjussanguinis.TheFrenchhavedefinedthemselves
territoriallyintermsofacountrycreatedbyastateandthenproductiveofanationtheGermanshavedefinedthemselvesethnocentricallyintermsofacommunityof
descent(intheory),oflanguage(inpractice),whichisthenproductiveofastate.Eacharrivedatanationstatebutcameatitfromoppositeends.Theoneisinclusivist
ofeverybodyinaplace,theotherisinclusivistonlyofpeoplewhosharecertainethnicorculturalcharacteristics.Brubakerestablishesthisthesisveryconvincinglybut
historiansneedtoexplain,sofarasispossibleandmorethanhedoes,justwhythesetwocentralpeoplesofEuropehavehadsuchastrikinglydifferentapproachto
nationhoodandwhataretheimplicationsoftheirdiversityforotherEuropeans.AllinallFrancerepresentsinthistheearlier'western'Europeanexperiencewhile
Germanyistheprototypeforthelater'eastern'experience.Nevertheless,asweshallsee,otherwestEuropeanstatesbynomeansfollowedexactlytheFrenchroute,
nordideastEuropeansalwaysfollowtheGermanroute.AllthesamethisFrenchGermanantithesis,asanalysedbyBrubaker,is,Ibelieve,oneoftheprincipal
buildingblocksforasoundanalysisofnationalismasawhole.

Page14

II
Ifwearetoconstructasummaryhistoryofthenationandwhatrelatestoit,wecanwellbeginbyconsideringthehistoryoftheword'nation'itself.Thatindeediswhat
Hobsbawmdidinhisownopeningchapter,usingprincipallySpanishexamplestoconcludethatthewordhasuntilquiterecentlynotpossessedanythinglike'its
modernmeaning'.27Now,undoubtedly,theexperienceofnationhoodhasbeenhistoricallysodiversethatitmaybeexpectedthattheworditselfshouldindifferent
languageshavedevelopedwithavarietyofstresses.Neverthelessifweareseekingtoassesstheageofamodernword/concept,thenitseemsmostsensibletoseek
foritwhereitislikelytohavebeenmostlonglived,notwhereitcouldbeexpectedtohavehadashorterhistory.TheSpanishlinguisticcommunitywasfortoolong
subordinatetoaninterterritorialimperialpolitytobeaplaceinwhichtheconceptofnationhoodwouldfullyflower.TheEnglishlinguisticcommunity'spolitical
experienceofferedafarmorelikelymilieuinwhichtofindearlyverbalexpressionofthemodernconcept.
AgoodplacetostartisJohnson'sDictionaryof1755whichdefines'nation'as'Apeopledistinguishedfromanotherpeoplegenerallybytheirlanguage,origin,or
government'andquotesapassageofRaleigh:'IfEdwardIIIhadprosperedinhisFrenchwars,andpeopledwithEnglishthetownswhichhehadwonashebeganat
CalaisdrivingouttheFrench,hissuccessorsholdingthesamecourse,wouldhavefilledallFrancewithournation.'Iseenosignificantdifferencebetweenthis
Johnsonianusageofthewordandourswearestillnotsosurewhetherlanguage,originorgovernmentshouldbetheprincipalcriterionbutthesenseofalargehuman
community,atonceculturalandpolitical,isclearlyhere.Johnsonisnoisolatedexample.HesimplyrepresentsastandardEnglishunderstandingoftheword,notonly
intheeighteenthcentury,butintheseventeenthandsixteenth.WhenPitttheYoungerappealedto'ourexistenceasanation...ourverynameasEnglishmen'to
definewhatwasbeingfoughtforinthewarwithNapoleon,whenAdamSmithspokeofa'nationofshopkeepers',whenEdmundBurkeappliedthewordtothe
Americansarguingthat'anationisnotgovernedwhichisperpetuallytobeconquered',28whentheAnglicisedAfricanOlaudahEquianodescribedhisownIgbo
people

Page15

as'anationofdancers,musiciansandpoets,'29totakeascatteringofexamplesfromthehalfcenturyfollowingJohnson'sDictionarytheywereallusingthe
wordwithessentiallythesamemeaning,whichisourmeaning.Buttheyweredoingnothingnew.Fortheseventeenthcentury,takeJohnMilton's1640sappealto
parliament:'LordsandCommonsofEngland,considerwhatnationitiswhereoffyeare...'orhis'MethinksIseeinmymindanobleandpuissantnationraising
herselflikeastrongmanaftersleep',30oragainFrancisBacon'sadvicetoPrinceCharlesongoingtowarwithSpaintwentyyearsearlier,'Asforthatgreatbodyof
Germany,IseetheyhavegreaterreasontoconfederatethemselveswiththekingsofFranceandGreatBritain,orDenmark,forthelibertyoftheGermannation,and
fortheexpulsionofSpanishandforeignprincesthantheyhadintheyears1552and1553.'31Boththesequotationshaveaclearpoliticaldimension,suggestingthata
nationisagooddealmorethanitsgovernment,thatithasrightsofitsownandaclaimfor'liberty'fromtyrannicalruleorforeigndomination.Forthesixteenthcentury
wecanrememberShakespeare'sFalstaffremarking'ItwasalwayyetthetrickofourEnglishnation...'32orSamuelDaniel,writinglateinElizabeth'sreign,
Andwho,intime,knoweswhitherwemayvent
Thetreasureofourtongue,towhatstrangeshores
Thisgaineofourbestgloryshallbesent
T'enrichunknowingNationswithourstores?33

GobacktothefifteenthcenturyandonecanciteFortescue's'thesaidkyngeiscompellidtomakehisarmeys...ofstraungers,asScottes,Spaynardes...andof
othernacions',orFabyan's'agreathoostofDanes,andotherstrangenacyons'.GofurtherstilltothefourteenthandyouhaveWyclif's'ThegospelsofCristwrittenin
Englische,tomoostlernyngofournacioun',and,even,acoupleofgenerationsbeforeWyclif,totheauthoroftheCursorMundi,'OfInglandthenacion'.34The
frequencyandconsistencyinusageofthewordfromtheearlyfourteenthcenturyonwardstronglysuggestabasisinexperience:Englishmenfeltthemselvestobea
nation.
OneveryobviousliteraryinstrumentforsuchconsistentusagewassurelytobefoundintheEnglishBible,and,fromtheReformationonward,itsweeklyvehiclefor
publicaudition,theBookofCommonPrayer.WhilethestableEnglishusageoftheword

Page16

'nation'goesfarfurtherback,itis,fromthemidsixteenthcentury,securelyanchoredforEnglishpeopleinthefrequentandemphaticbiblicalreferencetonationsand
theworldasaworldofnations.Isaiah's'nationshallnotliftupswordagainstnation'(Isaiah2.4),orMatthew's'nationshallriseagainstnation,andkingdomagainst
kingdom'(Mt.24.7)arebuttwoofavastmultitudeoftextswhichitwouldbetedioustorehearsefromboththeOldandtheNewTestamentasreadintheKing
JamesVersionof1611.TheKingJamesversionis,however,inthisnodifferentfromtheGenevanEnglishtranslationof1560,whichhadoverseventyeditions
betweenthatdateand1611.Butagain,thisusageoftheword'nation'goesbackstillfurthertobefoundinfourteenthcenturyEnglishtranslationsoftheBible.Thus
thetranslationofaverseintheBookofRevelation(5.9)circa1350alreadyhastherendering'allkyndes&tunges&folkes&nacions',35andtheWyclifiteBiblea
littlelater'eachlynageandtungeandpupleandnacioun',correspondingverycloselytotheKingJamesversiontwoandhalfcenturieslater'ofeverykindred,and
tongue,andpeople,andnation'.Thesecanbecomparedwiththe1960sJerusalemBible's'ofeveryrace,language,peopleandnation'.Ofthefourtermsneededfor
thetranslationofthisverse,only'nation'hasnotchangedbetween1350and1960!TheEnglishBible,itisnotexaggeratedtoclaim,hasensuredastandarduseofthe
word'nation'fromthefourteenthtothetwentiethcentury.
WhydidtheWyclifitetranslatorsusetheword'nacioun'?TheshortansweristhattheyweretranslatingtheVulgatetextwhichusedtheLatin'natio'.Wherethe
VulgatehadtranslatedtheGreek'ethnos'as'natio',itwasrendered'nacioun'inEnglish.Thatthiswasnotsimplyamatterofatranslator'ssubserviencetotheLatinis
demonstratedbyWyclif'sownwideruseofitinthepassagealreadyquoted,asagainbytheprologuetoLukeinonemanuscriptbythe'caityf'whodescribedhimself
asonewho'writiththegospelofLukinEnglysh...totheporemenofhisnaciounwhichkunnenlitilLatyn'.36NorweretheWyclifitesinfactthefirstsototranslate
forwecangetbackyetanotherfiftyyearstoRichardRolleofHampolewhodiedin1349.InhiseditionofthePsalmsheused'nacioun'inallnineplaceswherethe
Vulgatedoesso.ThusPsalm107.4,'Psallamtibiinnationibus',becomesforRolle'Isallsyngetiltheinnacyuns.'37Ifthisis,veryprobably,asfaraswecangoonthis

Page17

particulartrackthenthepursuitoftheoriginofavernacular'nation'endswiththewordsofaYorkshireholyman.
Theintellectualimpactofthevernacular'nacioun'wassurely,then,inoriginthesameasthatoftheVulgate's'natio'.TheVulgatedoesnotinpointoffactusetheword
agreatmanytimesonlysixinthewholeoftheNewTestament.Itprefers'gens'and'populus'.ThereisnoclearVulgatedistinctionbetween'gens'and'natio'.
Neverthelessitsusesof'natio'areofteninparticularlyimportanttexts,includingtheaccountofthemiracleoflanguagesatPentecostinActs2followedbythelistof
nationsinvolvedParthians,Medes,Elamitesandtherest'menofechnaciounthatisvndirheuene'astheWychfite,Purvey,putit.38Nootherbookhadhalfso
wideorpervasiveaninfluenceinmedievalEuropeastheVulgateBibleanditissimplyperversetoseekoddmeaningsfortheword'natio'elsewherewhileignoringits
useinthisabsolutelycentraltext.Thepsalmswererepeatedeveryweekbythousandsofmonksandclericsand,everytimetheydidso,theyusedtheword'nation'.
WhiletheVulgatecertainlydoesnotemployitwithanytechnicalprecision,theregularimplicationthattheworldconsistsofanumberofnameablepeoplesisclear
enoughitisabsurdtodisregardsuchusageandreferinsteadforitsLatinmedievalmeaningtothedivisionofstudentsinvariousuniversitiesintofour'nations'.39
Universitiesneededtoorganisetheirstudentsintogroups,theylikedtoseetheuniversityassomesortofmirroroftheworldandlikedalsointhewayofacademic
societiesalmosteverywheretouselanguagetodescribetheircommunityalittleidiosyncratically.WhenearlysixteenthcenturyhumanistsinAberdeendividedtheir
studentsintothefournationsofMar,Buchan,MorayandAngus,itreallytellsusnexttonothingaboutthepreciseway,outsideuniversityorganisation,a'nation'was
conceived,exceptthatfortheAberdonianhisuniversity,asaworldofitsown,couldamusinglybedividedintonationstomirroraChristendomdividedbetween
Germans,Frenchmen,Italians,Scotsandothers.
Thereisinfactoverwhelmingevidencethat'natio'wasregularlyusedintheMiddleAgesintheVulgatesenseofapeopledistinctby'language,laws,habits,modesof
judgementandcustoms'touseanalmostdefiningphraseofBernard,firstNormanBishopofStDavid's,whendescribingtheWelshasa'natio'tothePopeabout
1140.40

Page18

Mostly,however,theVulgateuses'gens'fortheGreek'ethnos'and'populus'for'laos'.BothhadtheirequivalentsinFrenchandItalianbutinEnglish'gens'produced
noderivative.RollerenderedPsalm117's'Laudatedominumomnesgentes,laudateeumomnespopuli'as'LouystheLordallgenge:louyshimallfolke'41but'genge',
arecognisedMiddleEnglishwordforabandorgatheringofpeople,fadedfromthelanguageandeven'folk'tendedtoloseits'Volk'meaningandtosurviveonlywith
amorelocalorindeterminatesense.Perhapsthismoreorlessforcedagreateruseof'nation'inEnglish.ItisnotsurprisingthattheKingJamesversionofPsalm117
reads'PraisetheLord,allyenations:praisehim,allyepeople.'42
Theintentionofthisexcursusintothehistoryofawordisnottodemonstratethatinthefourteenthcenturytheword'nation'hadforEnglishpeopleexactlythesense
thatitmayhaveforapostnineteenthcenturynationalist,thoughitiswellworthrecallingwhatProfessorGalbraith,recentlydescribedas'amagisterialviewerofthe
woodonthebasisofcarefulinspectionofthefewsurvivingtrees',43hadtosayaboutthisoverfiftyyearsago:'theword"nation"isfoundinthefourteenthcenturywith
somethingofamodernsense'.44Whatisclearisthattherehasbeenasurprisinglyfirmcontinuityinusageacrossmorethansixhundredyearsinourlanguage,thatthe
senseof'nation'wasalreadyinthefourteenthcenturyrelatedexplicitlytoadistinctlanguagegroup,andthatitdrewinlargepartonbiblicalandVulgateroots.
TheBible,moreover,presentedinIsraelitselfadevelopedmodelofwhatitmeanstobeanationaunityofpeople,language,religion,territoryandgovernment.
Perhapsitwasanalmostterrifyinglymonolithicideal,productiveeverafterofallsortsofdangerousfantasies,butitwasthere,analltooobviousexemplarforBible
readersofwhateveryothernationtoomightbe,amirrorfornationalselfimagining.Thepointtobemadehereisthatbothwordandconceptwerealreadytherefrom
thelaterMiddleAgesattheheartoftheEnglishlinguistic,religiousandculturaltradition,thoughtheirinfluencewouldcertainlybecomemoreintenseafterthe
ReformationandthevastlyincreaseddiffusionofBibleknowledgeachievedbyProtestantism.InCatholicsocietieslessbiblicallyeducatedthanProtestantonesan
explicitverbalsenseofnationhoodislikelytohavedevelopedmorerecentlyamongordinarypeople,butatleastforEnglandthepresenceofthewordandtheidea
behind

Page19

itinfullpublicconsciousnessisunquestionable,atleastfromthelatterpartofthesixteenthcentury,butmostprobablyfromthefourteenth.Thisdoesnot,ofcourse,
proveofitselfthattheEnglishwerethemselvesatthattimeanation,asweunderstandtheterm,thoughtheirfrequentuseofthetermshowsclearlyenoughthatthey
thoughttheywere.However,itisonethingtodiscusswhethertheChinese,say,undertheMingdynastywerea'nation'whenoneistakingawordentirelyforeignto
theirsocietyandseeingwhetheritcansuitablybeappliedtothem,andquiteanothertomaintainthatawordwhichwehaveinheritedfromourancestorsincontinual
verbalcontinuityisnotrelevanttotheirsocietyinawaytheythoughtitwas,butisonewhichintermsofhistoricalunderstandingitis'pointless'toapplytothem.Can
thehistorianvalidlysoredefinepeopleagainsttheirownselfunderstanding?
Ifahistoryofnationhoodcanwellstartbysuch,inevitablyselective,reflectionuponthehistoryoftheworditself,thateasilyleadsusintoawiderdiscussionofthe
socialroleoflanguage,oralandwritten,thoughthisinitsturnwillbringusbackoncemorefromaratherdifferentangletorecogniseacertaindecisivenessofbiblical
influencewithintheEuropeancontext.Thereare,forourpurposes,threesortsoflanguage.First,thepurelyoralmostpurelyoralsecondly,writtenvernaculars
thirdly,universallanguages.Languageisthefirstgreatmediainventionofhumankindbutforthousandsofyearsitwasunwrittenandunwrittenlanguagealtersfast
acrossdistancesofbothtimeandplace.Theconsequenceisahugediversityoflanguages,eachexpressiveofadistinctethnicity,ofsocalleddialectswithin
languages,andabasicarbitrarinessindecidingwhenadialectbecomesalanguage.Mutualintelligibilityisnotmuchofacriterion,fororallanguagechangesona
territorialcontinuumsothatwhiledialectAcanbeunderstoodbyaspeakerofB,BbyspeakersofC,andCbyspeakersofD,Acannotbeunderstoodbyspeakers
ofD.AreAandDonelanguage?Aretheirspeakersofthesameethnicity?Noexternalcategoriescaninrealitydojusticetothecomplexityofsocialandlinguistic
experiencebutthemutabilityofapurelyorallanguagecertainlymilitatesagainstthedevelopmentofaclearsocialidentityderivedfromitsuseotherthanahighlylocal
one.Butoncealanguageiswrittendown,theprocessofchangebecomesfarmorelimitedandadegreeoflinguisticuniformitycomestoprevailacrossfarlonger
distancesofspaceand

Page20

time.Fromthiscanderiveanexplicitconsciousnessofcommunitydrawnfromtheunityofwhatmaystillbeessentiallyavernacularlanguage.Themerewritingofa
vernacularbyahandfulofpeopledoesnotestablishtheenhancedstatusofawrittenvernacularofthissort.Itssocialeffectwilldependupontheextenttowhichthe
writtenlanguageimpingesuponpopularusageandbecomessomethingofarecognisedstandard,amediumthatordinarypeoplecanrespondto.Themorea
vernaculardevelopsaliteraturewithapopularimpact,particularlyareligiousandlegalliterature,themoreitseemstopushitsspeakersfromthecategoryofan
ethnicitytowardsthatofanation.
EvenintheancientworldoftheRomanEmpiresomethingofthesortwashappening.Theusageoftwowrittenlanguages,LatinandGreek,eachwithavastliterature
ofitsown,infactcreatedtwosocialidentities,quiteunrelatedtoanyunderlyingethnicity,almosttwonations,althoughthatwasheldbackbytheunderlyingpolitical
idealofasingle'universal'empire.Somemaybedisturbedbytheideathat,inasense,textscanproducepeoples.Butthereisreallynoalternative.Acommunity,
political,religious,orwhatever,isessentiallyacreationofhumancommunicationanditisonlytobeexpectedthattheformofthecommunicationwilldeterminethe
characterofthecommunity.
Inearlypremodernsocietiestheusesofwritingwererelativelylimitedandtheadvantagesofrestrictingwritingtooneoranother'universal'languagewere
considerable.InthecaseofwesternEurope,LatinwasforlongbothusefulandflexiblemedievalLatinansweredtheneedsofthechurch,oflearning,ofavague
politicalcontinuitywiththeRomanEmpire.Itwasfarlessits'sacredness'(assometimessuggested)thanitsutilitytochurchandsocietywhichforlongensureditsliving
survival.Whatalternativewasthere?Werepeoplereallytobuildupcentresofscholarshipbaseduponlanguagesinwhichhithertoverylittlehadbeenwritten?The
ideaisabsurd.InmanyothercircumstancestoosuchasmodernAfricatheredevelopsadualsystem:asingle'high'languageusedforliterature,governmentand
longdistancetradeandamultitudeofalmostunwrittenvernaculars.Peoplenormallyexperiencenodifficultywithlivinginsideastabledualsystemofthissortand
therearemanyadvantages.Neverthelessthereisalsoanaturaltendencyforthevernacularsoflargeandprosperousgroupstopushaheadwiththeir

Page21

writtenform.Mostpeople,afterall,willhaveafairlylimitedgripoftheuniversallanguage,ifanyatall,whichwillinconsequencelackforthemtherichnessof
vocabularyandmeaningofatrulyhomelanguage.Someeducationinthevernacularseemssensibleinalmostanysocietyandbooksseemneededforthis,particularly
inasocietylikeearlyChristianIreland,onequicklygrippedbytheexcitementofliteraturebutinwhichknowledgeoftheuniversallanguagewasexceptionally
restrictedforEuropeatthattime.ItishardlysurprisingthatthevernacularliteratureofEuropebeginshereandinWalesevenbeforetheendofthesixthcentury.
TheywerefollowedbymostofthelargerlanguagegroupsofwesternEuropebeforetheyear1000.Arestrictedwrittenuseofthevernacularmaynotgreatlyalterits
socialroleorleadittochallengethedominationoftheuniversallanguagebutoncealivelyvernacularliteraturestartstoroll,thepatterneasilyshifts.Themorethe
vernaculariswritten,themorestableitbecomes,thewideritsabilitytoexpresscurrentideas,thelargerthenumberofpeoplewhowillunderstandoneanotherbetter
byusingitandnotsomethingelse.Thisalmostofnecessitybeginstocreatewhatonemaycallatleasta'protonation'anditsusersstarttoseeallsortsofbenefitsin
furtherretrenchingtheuseoftheuniversallanguageinreligion,governmentandeducation.Atthesametimeaschallengingtheuniversallanguage'shegemony,the
writtenvernacularrestrictsthediversityanddivisivenessofpurelyoralvernacularsordialects,thoughitmayalsoleavetheminplaceinthepurelydomesticarenaby
simplytakingoverandexpandingsomeofthedutieshithertoperformedbyauniversallanguage.ItbecomesinfactasHighGermanhasbeenforcenturiesin
relationtoGermandialectsofgreatdiversity,someofwhichstillflourishasortofnew,morelocalised,butmorevibrant,universallanguage.
Orallanguagesarepropertoethnicitieswidelywrittenvernacularstonations.Thatisasimplificationrequiringallsortsofqualifications,butitissufficientlytrueto
provideabasefromwhichtoworkontherefinements.Thequestionweneedfirsttofaceiswhatpressuresmakepossibleasuccessfultakeofffromoralityto
literacy.Theadvantagesforthestate,commerceandreligiousinstitutionsinauniversallanguageGreek,Latin,Arabicor,inmanypartsofthemodernnonwestern
world,English,FrenchorSpanishareobviousenoughtomakethelargewrittendevelopmentofavernacular,letaloneamultitudeofvernaculars,require
explanation

Page22

whereithasactuallyhappened.Fromourendofthetelescopeitmayseemanobviousenoughdevelopment,onlyheldupbytheintransigenceofsomebackward
lookingchurch,clingingontoa'sacred'language.YetthefactisthattheimmenseeducationaladvanceofthehighMiddleAgesthroughthegrowthofuniversities
wouldbeunimaginableintheformittookorthespeedofitsdevelopmentifParis,Bologna,Oxford,CambridgeandColognecouldnotallhaveusedthesame
language,thesametexts.Itwasthesecularefficiency,notthesacrality,ofLatinwhichensureditslongsurvival.ExactlythesameistrueinregardtoEnglishinthe
universitiesofmodernAfrica:Ibadan,Legon,MakerereorNairobi.TheadvantagesweresoconsiderablethatFrancisBaconandothersavantsoftheseventeenth
centurywerestillwritingsomeoftheirmostimportantworksinLatin.
WhatthenmadetheantiuniversalistbreakthroughinearlymodernEuropepossible?Doubtlesstherewereanumberoffactorsinvolvedbutaverystrongcasecanbe
madefortheclaimthatthesinglemosteffectivefactorwasthedesireofmanyChristians,clericalandlay,totranslatetheBibleorproduceotherworksconduciveto
popularpiety.Iwillreturninchapter8tothereasonsforthedeepChristianthrusttovernacularise,athrustwhichhadbeenbehindtheswitchfromGreektoLatinin
thewesternchurchmanycenturiesearlier.ThereappearsinthisanintrinsicdifferencebetweentheChristianandtheMuslimapproachtolanguageuse.Butoncethe
ballofavernacularliteraturehadbeguntoroll,withtranslationsofthepsalms,summariesofthegospels,livesofthesaintsandmanualsofmorality,itmovednaturally
enoughfromfulfillingreligioustosecularneedsandtheimpactofcodesoflawinthevernacularWelsh,IrishorEnglishcouldbeasnationformingasanything
religious.
OneofBenedictAnderson'smoreinterestingargumentsconcernstheeffectofthemultiplicationofbooksupontheabilityofpeopletoimaginethemselvesmembersof
acommunityaslargeasanation.Yetitcouldneverbeamatterofgroundlessimaginingratheragrowthinrealisationof,andpreoccupationwith,certainimportant
sharedcharacteristics.Printcapitalism,heclaims,alonemadeitpossible.Insofarasthisistrueitis,nevertheless,hardtosee,onhisownadmissionaboutthe
numericalgrowthofbooksalreadyinthesixteenthcentury,whythiseffectofprintcapitalismshouldbe

Page23

postponedtotheendoftheeighteenth.Furthermore,oneshouldnotignorethegenuinelycapitalisticdevelopmentofamassbooktradewellbeforethearrivalof
printing.Theeffectofarelativelysmallincreaseinthenumberofbooksinacommunitywhichhas,hitherto,hadnoneorveryfewisfargreaterthanpeopleinaworld
usedtoasurfeitofbookscaneasilyrealise,anditextendsfarbeyondtheliterate.Thustheimpactofavernacularliteratureinshapingtheconsciousnessof
communitieshithertountouchedbyprintingin,say,latenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturyAfricacouldbeenormous.Itisnotthateveryone,ormostpeople,
couldread.Thesocialimpactofwrittenliteraturemayevenbegreaterwhenthatisnotthecase.Whatcanbesodecisiveinsuchcircumstancesisthemediationofthe
authorityofthewrittentextacrosscertainprivilegedformsoforality.Againtheextenttowhichanoralliteraturetoocanbethemediumforapeople'sselfimaginingis
notsomething,unfortunately,Andersonseemstohaveconsidered.Yetthefaithfulhandingonofanextensiveoralliteraturebymanypeoplesissomethingwhichoflate
anthropologistshavetakenveryseriously.45
Giventheseconsiderablereservations,thereisstillsufficientforceinthemainpointofAnderson'sargumenttoaskwhetherthecrucialissuearisingfromitmaybejust
whenandwheretheBibleoritsequivalentappearedinthevernacularandcirculatedinconsiderablequantities.Evidenceoftranslationaloneisnotenoughoronlyhalf
enoughforourargument.HalfenoughbecauseBibletranslationalreadyindicatesasocietyandavernacularjudgedcapableofmakinguseofit.Notenough,because
itremainslessimportantforuswhetheratranslationwasmadethanwhetherandhowitwasused.Onlyextensiveusecanbringwithitanationalisingeffect,andthat
meansuseatapopular,andnotmerelyacademic,level.Inregardtosucheffectivediffusion,thepresenceorabsenceofavernacularliturgywasalsoofthegreatest
importance.EvenifthenumberofavailablecopiesofthevernacularBiblewassmallandalmostonlyinthehandsoftheclergy,iftheliturgywascelebratedinthe
vernacular,itsinfluencewasextremelywide.Whereitwasnotcelebratedinthevernacular,asinalmostallRomanCatholicsocieties,itmightbemuchsmaller.
ItisfascinatingtoknowthatacompleteBibleinCatalanwasprintedin1478,precededinthefieldofwesternEuropeanverna

Page24

cularBiblesonlybyGermanin1466andItalianin1471.ThatsaysalotaboutmedievalCatalonia.NeverthelesstheCatalanBiblewassoonruthlesslysuppressedso
thatnotasinglecompletecopysurvives.Again,whileseveralSpanishtranslationsoftheBiblewereprintedinthesixteenthcentury,nonewasprintedinSpain.The
existenceofaSpanishBibleprintedinAmsterdamcannotbetakenaslikelyevidenceofitsnationbuildingeffectathome.Ontheotherhand,althoughtherewasno
printedEnglishBiblebefore1535,thecompleteBibledidexistinEnglish,translatedbyJohnWyclif'sdisciples,fromthelatefourteenthcenturyand,despite
ecclesiasticalprohibitions,itswidespreaduseisdemonstratedbythesurvivalofover200manuscripts.Vastlymorestriking,allthesame,isthediffusionofEnglish
printedBiblesintheElizabethanperiod.Inthefortyyearsfrom1570tothearrivaloftheKingJamesversionin1611,thereweresixteendifferenteditionsofthe
BishopsBibleandseventyfiveoftheGenevanBible,anaverageofmorethantwoayear,afantasticrecord.Linkedtoavernacularbiblicallybasedliturgywhichall
Englishpeoplewerelegallyboundtoattend,andtoamultitudeofcatechismsTheABCwiththeCatechismewasalready'ahugebestseller'46bythe1580s
themassimpactofthisEnglishBibleinstrengtheningacommonlanguage,installinginallitshearersandreaderstheideaofnationhoodandactuallyshapingthe
Englishofallclassesintoanawarenessoftheirownnationhoodcannotbeoverstated.SomethingsimilarwashappeninginHolland,Sweden,Denmark,Germanyand
elsewhere,thoughitlooksasif,withtheexceptionofHolland,thesecountrieswerewellbehindEnglandinthequantitativedisseminationofBiblesuntiltheeighteenth
centuryandtheimpactofPietism.47
WhileitwouldbeagreatoversimplificationtoregardthevernacularBibleasthesolecatalystforlanguageunificationortoclaimthatthedevelopmentofanational
consciousnesscouldnotbeachievedthroughothermeans,neverthelessasamatteroffactthecorrelationbetweenbiblicaltranslationandwhatonemaycallanational
awakeningisremarkablycloseacrossmostofEuropeand,quiteoften,forotherpartsoftheworldaswell.Thefactthatastringofhighlydiversedialectscontinuedto
bespokeninGermanylongafterthehugepublicationsuccessofLuther'sBibledetractsratherlittlefromthenationmakingfunctionofthewrittenformofthelanguage,
especiallywhenusedpubliclyinaregularwayasinthe

Page25

servicesofastatechurch.ThetwocouldcontinueintandemjustasLatinandthevernacularslivedtogetherinanearlierage.What,however,significantly
differentiatedtheonecasefromtheotherwasthatinthelateroneeveryonecouldrecognisethebondandunderlyingunitybetweentheirparticularoraldialectandthe
singlewrittenformofalanguageemployedbybothchurchandstate.Longbeforetheadventofmassprimaryeducationvernacularcultureandestablishedauthority
hadthuscometogetheragainasseedbedofthenationstate.Butthiswas,aswehaveseen,principallyaProtestantreality.
Whatisanation?Andersonmakesanothervaluablepointwhenhesuggeststhatwhatismostcharacteristicofanationisafelthorizontalityinitsmembership'the
nationisalwaysconceivedasadeephorizontalcomradeship'.48Horizontalimagesaresomethingwewillcomebacktofromtimetotimeasoneyardstickofthe
presenceofthissortofsociety.Whatwehavetolookforinnationspottingisahistoricoculturalcommunitywithaterritoryitregardsasitsownandoverwhichit
claimssomesortofsovereigntysothattheculturalcommunityseesitselfwithameasureofselfawarenessasalsoaterritorialandpoliticalcommunity,heldtogether
horizontallybyitssharedcharacterratherthanverticallybyreasonoftheauthorityofthestate.
Evenwhenitisthestatewhichhascreatedthenation,itisnotanationuntilitsensesitsprimacyoverandagainstthestate.Whatitssharedcharacterisfeltchieflyto
consistinisquiteanothermatterandopentovastdiversity:theterritoryitselfmayprovidethebasiccriterioninonecase,languageinanotherreflectingthemythof
pureethnicorigin,religionmaybeeffectivelydecisiveinathird.Thesedifferentcriteriadoproduceverydifferenttypesofnationanddifferenttypesofnationalismas
well.WehavealreadyreferredtothecontrastasdefinedbyBrubakerbetweenFrenchandGermanforms.Butitwouldbeamistaketotrytocategorisenationsand
nationalisminjusttwotypes'western'and'eastern'orwhatever.Inrealityeverynationisauniquesociohistoricalconstruct.TheshapingofDutchness,of
Spanishness,ofIrishnesshasineachcasetobeexaminedinitsownhistoricalevolution,quiteasmuchasFrenchness,GermannessorEnglishness.
Norisitasimplematterofanationexistingornotexisting.Nationsgrowoutofethnicities,outofwarsandreligiousdivisions,

Page26

outoftheemergenceofliteraturesandnationalistpropagandaandadministrativepressures,buttheydosobitbybit,sothatatagivenpointoftimeoneoftencannot
simplysay'thisisanation'or'thisisnot'.EugenWeberspeakshelpfullyinregardtoFranceof'thenationnotasagivenrealitybutasaworkinprogress'.49Evena
processinreverseispossible.Scottishnationhoodmayhaveexisted,thendeclinedinthedegreeofitsreality,butnowbeadvancingoncemore.Again,onecannot
saythatforanationtoexistitisnecessarythateveryonewithinitshouldwantittoexistorhavefullconsciousnessthatitdoesexistonlythatmanypeoplebeyond
governmentcirclesorasmallrulingclassshouldconsistentlybelieveinit.Anationexistswhenarangeofitsrepresentativesholdittoexistclergy,farmers,lawyers,
merchants,writers,aswellasmembersofacourtorcabinet.Themorepeopleofavarietyofclassandoccupationshareinsuchconsciousness,themoreitexists,but
itwouldbequiteunreasonabletoestablishnormsforitsexistencereallyonlyappropriatetoatwentiethcentury,massmediasociety.Itappears,rightlyorwrongly,to
beaxiomatictooursubjectthatanAmericannationhadcometoexistin1776thoughtheconsciousnessofbeingpartofitwashardlyofferedto,orincluded,black
slaves.EquallyitdoesnotinvalidatetheexistenceofanationinearlymodernEuropethatmanyofthepeasantryhadlittlesenseofbeingpartofit.But,ofcourse,ifa
specificsocietywasoverwhelminglyoneofpeasantsandnoblesonly,thenthatmightindeedbeadecisivedifficulty.
Thefrontiersofanationarenotunalterable.Itdoesnotinvalidatetheexistenceofanationin,say,1700,thatitdidnotthenincludeterritoryandethnicitiestodayfully
incorporatedwithinit.Anationcangrowinsizewhileremainingsubstantiallythesamereality.ThefactthatitwasonlyinthenineteenthcenturythatSwitzerlandwas
extendedtoincludetheItalianspeakingTicinoandsomeFrenchspeakingareas,includingGeneva,doesnotmeanthattheSwisscouldnothavebeenanationbefore
thatdate.ItwasperfectlypossiblefortheGermanspeakingcoreofthecountry,existinginafederalandthoroughlyhorizontalistwayfarearlier,alreadytohavethe
characteristicsofanation.Again,trueasitisthatwellintothenineteenthcenturyinlargepartsofFrancethemajorityofthepopulationdidnotspeakFrenchandhad
littlesenseofbeingFrench,asWeberhasdemonstratedsoconvincinglyinPeasantsintoFrenchmen,thisdoesnotprovethattherewasnot,fromamuchearlier

Page27

date,aFrenchnationinexistence,centreduponParis.ItwouldreallybeverydifficulttogiveaconvincingaccountoftheRevolution,ifitwasnotthatofanation,ofall
classes,sharingalanguage,cultureandsenseofterritorialandpoliticalidentity.ThatnationhoodwasnotcreatedbytheRevolutionbutexistedpriorto1789,evenifit
neededtheRevolutionfullytoactualiseitself.
Nations,then,growingeographicalspreadandintensityofselfawareness.Itbecomesamarkoftheirselfconfidencethatsomecanincorporatepeople,evenentire
ethnicities,verydifferentfromtheethnicityoutofwhichthenationoriginallydeveloped.Theycanalsodeclineorevendisappear,survivingonlyasamatterofethnicor
provincialloyalty,thoughitcanalsobethecasethatsuchdisappearancesaretemporaryonlyandmoreapparentthanreal.Whileethnicitiescanfadeintonations,
nationscannotsoeasilymergewithoneanother.Andevenethnicitiesdonotlightlyfadeaway.Saxon,DaneandNormancouldfinallymergeinEnglandbythe
thirteenthcenturywithmereminorfamily,classandprovincialdivergences,buttheyhadtakentheirtime.ThefusionofWalloonandFlemishethnicitiesintoasingle
Belgiannation,totakeanotherexample,whileitmayhaveappearedtobeworkingsuccessfullyaslongasBelgiumhadanoverseasempireforbothtoshare,cannow
beseentohavebeeninpartimaginarywithanimaginationthathaslostitsmagic.Inthemid1970smanyaYugoslavwouldhaveasserteduncompromisinglythatthere
wasnowaYugoslavnationandCroat,SerborSloveneidentitiesweremereprovincialethnicities.Todaythestressisentirelyupontheunbrokennationalexistenceof
thesedifferentpeoples.
Nationhoodcansurviveonlythroughanexerciseinimagination,bothcollectiveandpersonal,andimaginedthingscanproveveryimpermanent.Yetsomeofthemcan
betoughlyenduringaswell.Thehistoryofthewayweseeourselves,theinteractionofsocialunderstandingandtheworldaroundus,isneverpredictableandinthe
experienceofnationhood,asofethnicitytoo,thelevelofunpredictabilityseemsparticularlyhigh.
III
Letusturnnowfromareviewoftheconceptofnationhoodtooneofnationalism.Earlyformsofnationalismrelatedtostatesalreadyin

Page28

existence,theirdefence,glorificationorexpansion.England,asweshallsee,wasthequintessentialexampleofthis,butScotlandalreadyinthefourteenthcentury
providesanotherexample:thewarsofliberationtorescuetheScottishstatefromEnglishdominanceproducedarecognisablenationalism.Inthiscase,astate
precededthenationalismbutthenationmayratherhavefollowedit.
SeventeenthcenturyHollandandRevolutionaryFrancearebasicallysimilar.Hollandwascreatedinitsseparatednessbyareligiousstruggle,but,onceestablished,
nationalismlargelytookoverfromreligion.FrenchnationalismintheeraoftheRevolutionpresupposedaFrenchstateandinvolvedacrusadetocarryFrenchvalues
abroad,ensuringtheirexport,aslikelyasnot,byFrenchforceofarms.Suchstateengenderednationalismturnedimperialisttriggeredavastwaveofnewones,
relatingtotheconstructionofnationstateswhichdidnotthenexist.Thisnewwaveissaidtoconstitutethe'AgeofNationalism'aboutwhichmosttheoristsof
nationalismarechieflyconcerned.Itisthisphenomenon,asortofMarkIInationalism,thatweneednowtoreviewasawhole.First,weshouldnotetheimportance
ofwhatAndersoncalls'pirating'50thetakingoverofanattractivemodelfromonesocietytoanother,essentiallyinrealitythepassingacrossofanEnglishmodel,
firsttoScotland,nexttoAmerica,andthen,withaneverincreasingrangeofsubmodels,toFranceandelsewhere.Itwaspiratedbecauseitwasseentowork,
linkingtogetherpeopleandstateinamannerthatproducedagreatdealofpowerandsomeprogress.ThusGreenfeldarguesthat'thedominanceofEnglandin
eighteenthcenturyEurope,andthenthedominanceoftheWestintheworld,madenationalitythecanon'.51'Thecanon'may,again,bequiteausefulconcepttokeep
inmind.IfeighteenthcenturyEnglandpresentedtheworldwithanew'canon',consistingatonceofnationstate,anindustrialisingsocialeconomyandparliamentary
government,andthethreetogetherappearedtogowithsocialstability,militarysuccessandconsiderableprosperity,thenonecanexpectthatothersocietieswill
endeavourtopiratethismodelandreconstructthemselvesasparliamentarynationstates.Butsocietiesstillneededappropriateinternalpressuresiftheywereto
respondtosuchaprogrammeinawaycapableofarousingthemassesorshakingthestatusquo.
Themultiplicationofnationalismsfromthenineteenthcenturyonderivedchieflyfromtwokindsofpressure.Thefirstlayinthe

Page29

relationshipbetweenethnicityandnonnationstatesoncetheybegantomodernise.Themodernstatecanbecontrastedwiththetraditionalstatebythequantityofits
interferenceinlocallifeandculturethroughadministrativedevelopmentsofallsorts,theenforcementofuniformstandards,thecontrolandextensionofformal
education,thescaleoftaxation.Thetraditionalstateimpingedsoslightlyonthelivesofmostordinarypeople,exceptinmomentsofcrisis,thatitdidnotdisruptor
inflamelocalethnicpatternsunduly.Astatecouldexistveryeasilywithamultiplicityofethnicitieswithinit,employingdifferentlanguagesandevensystemsoflocal
governmentandcustomarylaw.Asastatemodernisesthisbecomesimpossiblewithoutathoroughpolicyoffederalismorpluriformitysomethingexceptionally
difficulttoachievetothesatisfactionofallsides.Thetraditionalstatedidnotneedtoturnitspeopleintoanation,ithardlywantedtodoso.ThepreRevolutionary
Frenchmonarchyisacaseinpoint.VerylittleeffortwasmadetotrytoensurethattheinhabitantsofFrancecouldevenspeakFrench.Whybothertoriskdisturbing
thetranquillityofBrittany?Themodernstatehasnecessarilytodoso,toattempttoturnitspeopleintoanation,thatistosayastateinwhichthesenseofitshistory,
itslaw,educationalsystemandpatriotismareconsciouslyshared.Thelanguageofgovernmentinevitablycomestoimpingeuponcountlesspeoplewhohavenot
hithertohadanyneedtounderstandit.EveninsoclearlyanonnationstateastheHabsburgEmpire,governmentpolicieswereinevitablytakingonthenoteofthose
ofanationstate.Asthepressureofastate'smodernisationmounts,ethnicitieswhichhaveexistedhithertowithinitsbordersinaconditionofsuspendedanimationare
inevitablydrawnintoitswiderconsciousness.Theycancometodosowillinglyenoughsolongasthereissufficientcontinuityofculturebetweenoneandtheother.A
multitudeofethnicitiesmaybefusedintoasinglenation.Asthishappenstheirdifferentiatingtraitsnecessarilydiminishandmayeitherdisappearalmostcompletelyor
becomesimplyamatterofregionalsurvivalsorlocalfolklore.Theymayalsosurvivewithclearbutlimitedborderswithinthenationwhereaminoritylanguageis
explicitlyrecognised.
Switzerlandprovidesanexcellentexampleofthesurvivalofsignificantethnicdiversitywithinasinglenation.Itcouldhardlyhavehappenedwithoutastrongfederalist
constitution.Anethnicityisofitsnatureasinglelanguagecommunitybutanation,becauseof

Page30

itsfarmoreselfconsciousdefinitionofitself,doesnotneedtobe.ThereisnodoubtthattheSwisscontinuetocontainwithinthemacleardiversityofethnicities
markedbyfourdifferentlanguages,eachwithitsownareatherecanequallybenoquestionthattheyhavemadeofthisasinglenation.Suchdiversitywithinanationis
evidencenotofadiminished,butofamature,nationhood.
IntheSwisscasethenationstatecouldnothavefusedtheethnicitieswithimpunity.Inmanyothercasesithastriedtodoso,sometimessuccessfully,butoftenquite
unsuccessfully.Fusionmaynaturallyandsuccessfullytakeplaceincaseswhereagroupofethnicitieswerealreadyfairlyclosetogetherinlanguage,custom,religion
andhistory,andwherethestatedoesnotappeartofavouroneethnicityanditscharacteristicsagainstanother.Butthemoreamodernstatedefinesitselfintermsofa
singlecentralauthorityorintermswhichatleastappeartoexcludeorquestiontheidentityofoneofitsconstituentethnicities,themoreitblocksthelatterfroma
progressivetransitionintoonenationallife,andforcesitinsteadtodevelopaselfprotectivemovement,whichwecallnationalism,demandingtherightofseparateself
determination,tobeanationapart.
Toputitlikethatistodefinethecausativeprocessofnationalismintermsexternaltoanethnicity,butitneedsalsoasecondpressure,anadequateinternaldynamism.
Smallethnicitieseasilysuccumbtothepressuresofstateconstruction,howeverunimaginativelythelatteraremediated,ifanethnicity'sresources,economic,linguistic,
ideologicalorgeographical,aretoolimited.Itssettlementpatternmaybetoodiffusetoprovideaviableareaofresistancegeographicallyitsmembersmaybesopoor
astobeswallowedupintheeconomyofthedominantethnicityitslanguagemaybemerelyanoralvernacular,solittleusedinaliterarywaythatitappearsincapable
ofchallengingtheclaimsofthatofthestateforadministrativeandeducationalpurposesitmayhavenoreligion,ideologyorhistoricaltraditionofitsownsharpenough
tosetitapartfromthatofthestateandsoprovidetheimaginativebaseforresistance.SuchisthecaseformanyhundredsofsmallAfrican,AmazonianandAsian
ethnicities,someofwhichsimplydisappearwithinafewyearsunderexternalpressures.
Thesortofethnicitywhichislikelytodevelopnationalisminselfdefenceisonewithcontrolofaclearterritorialcore,one

Page31

sufficientinsizeofpopulationandlocaleconomytobeabletoavoideconomicstrangulationonewithsomethingofaliteraryvernacularofitsownandonewhich
possessesareligionorhistoricaltraditionmarkedlydifferentfromthatofthemajorityinthestateofwhichithasbeenpart.Theriseofnationalisminanyparticular
groupofpeopleissomethingfarlessarbitrarythanissometimessuggested.Itisratheranalmostinevitableconsequenceoftheinteractionofarangeofexternaland
internalfactorsofthissort.Thelessintrusivestateformationthereis,thelessethnicitieswillturnnationalistbut,equally,themoretheyhaveadvancedtowardsaself
consciousseparateidentity,anidentityoflanguageorreligion,themorelikelytheyaretorespondtointrusionbyadoptingtheoptionofnationalism.
Themostinfluentialandwidespreadsingleinternalfactorinthisisalmostcertainly,asIhavealreadysuggested,theliterarydevelopmentofaspokenvernacular.
Argumentsforandagainstthelinguisticbasefornationformationalmostinvariablyconcentrateuponoralitywhereasthedecisivefactorisinrealitytheliteraryone.52
Itiswhenitsvernacularpossessesaliteraturethatasocietyseemstofeelconfidentenoughtochallengethedominanceofoutsiders.Moreoverthebondbetweenthe
writtenlanguage,perhapsusedonlybythefew,withtheorallanguageformsusedbyeveryone,canensurethatalinguisticallybasednationalismquicklygainssupport
eveninlargelynonliteratecommunities.
Alanguage,moreover,doesnotstandonitsown.Onceasignificantvernacularliteratureexists,itcreatesamoreconsciouscommunityofthosewhoreadit,ofthose
inwhosehousesitistobefoundanditquicklybuildsupanenhancedsenseofhistoricalculturalparticularity.Everyethnicity,Iwouldconclude,hasanationstate
potentiallywithinitbutinthemajorityofcasesthatpotentialitywillneverbeactivatedbecauseitsresourcesaretoosmall,theallurementofincorporationwithinan
alternativecultureandpoliticalsystemtoopowerful.Buttheintrinsicconnectionbetweenethnicity,nationandnationalismisnottobegainsaid.Itprovidesthesole
intelligiblestartingpointforatheoryofnationalism.
Finallywedo,Ithink,needtoremindourselvesthatnationalismdoesnotnecessarilyoralwaysimplythatnationalvaluesareplacedaboveallothervalues,orthatthey
alonearerecognisedasreal,importantandworthdefending.Mostmembersofanationand

Page32

manynationalistshaveothercommunitiesofloyaltytowhichtheyalsobelongandtowhichtheymay,onoccasion,givesuperiorrecognitioncommunitiesof
religion,familyorclass.Theextremenationalistwillindeedregardallothervaluesasinsignificantcomparedwiththeimaginedrequirementsofthenationbutmany
nationalistswouldseethoserequirementsaslimitedtosomeextentbyotherrequirementsofmorality,religionoreventherightsofothercommunities.Certainly,most
membersofanationorpotentialnationstateare,mostofthetime,farfrombeingextremenationalists,orevennationalistsofanysort.Nationalismoftenexistsasa
latentpresence,somethingwhichflaresupextremelyquicklyintimesofwarorsomerealorimaginedthreatandcanthenbecomeoverwhelminglyandirrationally
strong,tosubsideinalteredcircumstancesalmostasquicklyasithasbeeninflamed.Onemaywellsaythatitsabilitytodothisiscloselylinkedtothesheerirrationality
ofitsclaimsforthesupremesacrednessofitsownparticularistvalues.Farlessthananyreligionorideologycananationalismjustifyextremeclaimsinrationalterms
becauseofitsinherentparticularism.
Igavemyfirstpubliclecturein1955.ItwasinRome,inItalian,giventohundredsofmyfellowstudentsintheecclesiasticaluniversitiesofthecityofalmostevery
nationality,andinterestinglyenough,itwasonnationalism.InitIquotedPierredeMenascetosuggestthatthetheoryofnationalismwas'alwaysbasedonautarchy
onlythatwhichisindigenousisofvalue,allthatisindigenousisipsofactoofvalue'53and,Icontinued,'Theynourishhistoricalgrievances,aboutwhichotherpeople
havelongceasedtothinktheyareintolerantofeverythingandeveryonecomingfromoutsidetheirownnationalgroup'andyetinfact,whilecommittedtoanextreme
particularism,they'allspeakthesamelanguage'.Neverthelessthen,asnow,Iwantedtoappealforrecognitionofthegood,aswellasthebad,innationalist
movements.Thehistorian,inparticular,needstobefortifiednotonlyagainstdefendingtheclaimsofanextremenationalismofanysort,butalsoagainstamistaken
distastefornationalismofanysort.
Rationalityisuniversalistofitsnature.Theclaimsoftheparticular,nevertheless,arenotnecessarilyirrational.Onthecontrary.Thecharacterofhumanlifeas
experiencedinthehistoricalrealityofavastdiversityofcultures,languagesandbeliefsisinherentlyparticularist.Thevalueswhichmostpeoplecherisharelargelythe

Page33

valuesoftheirowncultureandpeople.Wecancherishtheculturaltraditionofourownupbringing,andevenpreferittoanyother,whilerecognisingthatthetotalityof
humancultureisitselfofsupremehumanbenefit.Theimpositionofuniformity,wherenotgenuinelyrequired,istheimpositionofaculturalimpoverishmentoften
demandedthesedayswithparticulararroganceongroundsofeconomicorpoliticaladvantage.Suchpoliciesgoonadvancingruthlessly,inthewordsofthepoet
DavidJones,
Tilleverythingpresumingdifference
andallthesweetremembereddemarcationswither
tothetouchofus.

Thepositivesideofnationalism,undergirdedbyaprofoundrationality,isapassiontodefendtheparticulartreasuresofagivenhumantraditionlyinginside'thesweet
remembereddemarcations'nowapparentlythreatenedbysomealienforce.Itisquiteoftenalostcauseyetitisperfectlypossibletomountanessentiallyphilosophical
justificationofamoderatenationalismasDavidMillerdoesveryeffectivelyinhisrecentwork,OnNationality(1995).OnceagainIcannot,therefore,agreewithEric
HobsbawmwheninthefinalparagraphofhisIntroductionhedeclaresthat'noserioushistorianofnationsandnationalismcanbeacommittedpoliticalnationalist'.54
Thetwoarenotcompatible,heurges,'anymorethanbeingaZionistiscompatiblewithwritingagenuinelyserioushistoryoftheJews'55unless,headds,'thehistorian
leaveshisorherconvictionsbehindwhenenteringthelibraryorthestudy'.That,ofcourse,isnotsomethinginone'spowertodo.Hobsbawmcannomoreleavehis
'nonhistorical'MarxistconvictionsbehindthanImyChristianandLiberalones.Andnohistorianexistswithout'nonhistorical'convictions,whetherornotsheorheis
awareofthem.Itissurelybettertobeawareofthemandhistoricisewiththem,recognisingthattheyaffectourvaluejudgementsandthatthereisnovaluefree,purely
objective,history.ThepointisthatacommitmenttoChristianity,forexample,providesinsightswhichcanenrichhistoricalunderstandingthoughitmayalsoleadto
prejudicesandblindness.Soitiswithnationalism.Itsworstfailingissotohighlighttherightsofoneparticularityastobecomeblindtothoseofallothers.Nationalism
istobejustifiedasanappropriateprotestagainstauniversalisinguniformity,dominancebytheother,butitsconse

Page34

quenceistoooftenpreciselytheimpositionofuniformity,adeepintoleranceofallparticularitiesexceptone'sown.Butonemayactuallybebestplacedtopinpointits
irrational,destructiveandtrulyevildimensions,ifonehassharedfromtheinsideandalmostnationalisticallyaspecificculturaltraditioninallitsrichparticularity.Nor
hasone'snationalismnecessarilytobeonlyculturalindeeditcannotbe.Publiccultureimpliesthepoliticalandonecanjustifybeingacommittedpoliticalnationalistin
somecircumstancesjustasonecanjustifybeingacommittedMarxistorChristian.Wemustnotaprioriplacenationalisminaquitedifferentcategory,butwecan
andmustrecognisethatjustasbothChristianityandMarxismhaveinspiredvasthumanabuses,sohasnationalism,particularlyformsofnationalismbasedoncriteria
inherentlyproductiveofintolerance.
Anationalismgroundedonjussolicaninprincipleassistneighboursofdifferentlanguagesandculturesinclusivelytolivetogetherandacceptoneanotherasmembers
ofasinglenationalsociety,whileanationalismgroundedonjussanguinisisinprincipleexclusivistandintolerant.Giventhefactthatinmostpartsoftheworldpeople
ofquitedifferentbackgrounds,races,languagesandreligionsdolivecheekbyjowlandhavenearlyalwaysdoneso,jussanguinisleadslogicallytoethniccleansing,
jussolitoethnicintegration.Nationalismshavetobestringentlycategorisediftheyaretobetamed.Remodellingislessimpossiblethanabolitionandhistoriansof
nationalismhavesurelysomeresponsibilitytoexamineandhelpmodifyitsundoubteddestructiveness.

Page167

ChapterSeven
EthnicityFurtherConsidered
Ourpursuitoftheriseofnations,nationalconsciousnessandnationalisminmedievalandearlymodernEurope,aswellasinAfrica,hasledbacktimeandagainto
preexistentethnicitiesoutofwhichnationshavebeenwhollyorpartiallyconstructed.Butwhatreallydowemeanbyethnicities,inwhatdidtheyconsist,whydidthey
exist,andhowdurablewerethey?Itiscurrentlyfashionabletobescepticalabouttheirveryexistence,but,inpointoffact,asJohnLonsdaleinsists,'ethnicityisa
worldwidesocialfact'.1 Thepointatwhichtostartisthatofobservablecharacter,notthatoforigin,whetherclaimedorhypothesised.
Byethnicity,Imeanthecommonculturewherebyagroupofpeoplesharethebasicsoflifetheirclothandclothes,thestyleofhouses,thewaytheyrelateto
domesticanimalsandtoagriculturalland,theessentialworkwhichshapesthefunctioningofasocietyandhowrolesaredividedbetweenmenandwomen,theway
huntingisorganised,howmurderandrobberyarehandled,thewaydefenceisorganisedagainstthreateningintruders,thewaypropertyandauthorityarehandedon,
theritualsofbirth,marriageanddeath,thecustomsofcourtship,theproverbs,songs,lullabies,sharedhistoryandmyths,thebeliefsinwhatfollowsdeathandinGod,
godsorotherspirits.Allthisassharedthroughaspokenlanguage.Ethnicityandthespokenwordgomostcloselytogether.Butwithineveryethnicityaresub
ethnicitiesrecognisablesmalldiversitiesineverythingwehavelistedjustasaspokenlanguagevariesacrossquiteshortdistancesofplace,classandprofession.
Thedistinctionbetweenthesetwotypesofdifferencewasclearenoughalthoughinordinarydailylifetheinnerdifferencesmightoftenseemtomattermorethanthe
outerones.Neverthelessthelargersharedcommunity

Page168

ofidentity,thatonwhichoneprimarilyreliesformarriagepartners,defenceandthesecurityofacommonlaw,remainsfarmoresignificantthanitsinnersubdivisions,
oftentalkedupalmostplayfully.
Ethnicitydefinesthegroupwithinwhichoneisnormallyexpectedtomarry.Eventhataffirmationmay,nevertheless,appeartoraiseaproblem:rulesofexogamymay
forbidonetomarrywithinone'sownquiteextendedclan.Coulditnotbearguedthattheclanistheethnicunitand,therefore,thetruthispreciselytheopposite
totheoneIhaveproposed?AtleastinmostAfricancasestheanswerisno.Amanmaynotmarryhissister,butthatdoesnotbringintoquestiontheirsingleethnicity.
Clanexogamyrulesshouldbetakenasanextensionofthatprohibition.'Clans'ofthissortareessentiallysubgroupswithinapeoplewithouttheirownseparate
territory.Suchdivisionsdonotseparateoneethnicityfromanother:theyconstituteonthecontraryaninternalcharacteristicofaspecificethnicityjustasadivision
betweeneldersandothersisonewithinethnicity.Thedistinctionbetweenthoselastinghumancategorisationswhichtendtoseparateethnicitiesandthosewhich
instead,likefunctionsandclasses,existwithinanethnicityisacrucialone.Botharesociallyimportantbutinquitedifferentways.Therecan,indeed,besocalledclan
divisionswhichderivefromdistinctethnicitiesofthepast,justasregionaldivisionswithinanethnicitymaybeinpartthesurvivalofpastethnicdivisions.Butthe
essentialpointbeingmadehereisthataruleofexogamymaybeneededpreciselybecauseintermarriagecanbesobasictothepreservationofsomeethnicities.
Everyfamilyneedstoexistwithinasafeintermarryingsocietyconsiderablywiderthanitself,asocietysharingacommonconceptofmarriage,itspreparation,
obligationsandcelebration.Allthisrelatesprimarilytoone'sethnicitynottothestate.Controlbythelattercomesinatamuchlaterstageofpoliticaldevelopment,
actuallyaverylatestageinBritain,forinstance,thatofHardwick'sMarriageActof1753.
Ifanethnicityisanintermarryingsocietythenitwillhavecommonancestorsand,undoubtedly,tendstodefineitselfintermsofitscommonancestorsandveryoften
somespecific'myth'oforiginorofthisparticularland.Ofcourse,thereissomecentraltruthinthattypeofdefinition,inregardtothetracingofacentrallineofhistoric
consciousness,fromthepresenttothefarpast.Suchatracing

Page169

iscertainlynottobedespisedorrejectedasbogus.Itrepresentstheprincipalpublicmemoryofanethnicityandasmarriageoverthegenerationsgivesusallan
incrediblylargenumberofpotentialancestorssome40,000foreachofuswithinasinglegenerationfor,say,themidsixteenthcentury,andwelloveramillionfora
coupleofcenturiesearlieritisobviousthatanygroupofpeoplethathaslivedtogetherforcenturiesmustsharetoaverylargeextentacollectiveethnicorigin.
Beyondthisratherobviousfactoftheconsequenceofmarriageacrossthegenerationsinarelativelystablesociety,howfarcanweregardanethnicityasinorigina
geneticunityconstitutedbyasharedgeneticorigin?Hobsbawmspeaksof'influentialtheoriesorpseudotheoriesidentifyingnationswithgeneticdescent'2 withsome
disdain.Ofcoursesuchtheoriesareoftenoversimplified,verymuchsoinregardtonations,butalsoeveninregardtoethnicities.Neverthelesstheyrepresenta
necessarycoreoforiginaltruth.Anethnicityisinoriginconstitutedby,morethananythingelse,ageneticunity,partlyreal,partlymythical.IfwetaketheGypsies,or
indeedtheJews,itisquiteimplausibletothinkthatanythingelsecouldexplaintheirsurvivalasaculturalcommunityindiasporaovermanycenturiesexceptashared
geneticorigin,reinforcedbyinsistenceuponendogamousmarriage.Anethnicitywithoutasureterritorialbase,politicalprotectionorlanguageareacanpreserveitself
onlybytheclosestadherencetoanoriginalcharterprovidingadistinctgeneticidentity.Butofcoursesuchgeneticunityisprotectedbyaculturalunityofspecific
customsincludingawayoflife,work,belief,language.Yetwehavetobecarefulhere.TheGypsiesdoindeedhavealanguageoftheirownbutmanyofthemhave
largelyabandonedit,infavourofthelanguageofthepeopletheyliveamong,justastheyacceptedrathereasilythelatter'sreligiouspractices.Neverthelesstheirclear
identityasanethnicitysurvives,rootedinageneticbaseandprotectedbyacustomarylifestyleveryhardtodefine.ThesurvivalofJewishdiaspora.identityis
relativelyeasiertoexplain,linkedasithasbeenwithaveryrigidsystemofreligiousbeliefandpractice.
Theseexamplesareimportantbecausetheydo,Ibelieve,enableustopeerratherdeepdownintotheconstitutionofethnicityanditslongtermsurvival,withaview
unaffectedbytheprotectionandblurringinevitablyprovidedbyterritorialorpoliticalcontrol.In

Page170

mostcases,however,ethnicitiesarenotcutofffromcontrolofaspecificterritorialareaorevenfromlocalcontroloftheleversofpower.Aterritoriallybasedethnicity
politicallycontrollingitsown,atleastlocal,governmentmayretainamythicsenseofgeneticunity,butislikelytobotherfarlessabouttherealityofgeneticunity.
Abasicreasonliesinthestaticnatureofterritorybutthemobilenatureofpopulations.Manypeopledomarrysomeoneofanotherethnicitybecauseofwar,trade
orjusttheproximityofsmallgroupsofpeopleethnicallydifferent.Moreovergroupsofpeopleoftendonotstayinthesameplace.Largescalemigrationsarenota
merelymodernphenomenonamigratorypeoplemaytakeoverpoliticalcontrolofanareaormerelyenteritinamannersubservienttoitsexistingorder.Butinevery
casemigrationtendsnottoproduceawhollynewpeopleforaspecificterritory,butamixofnewandold,amixinwhich,however,themythicoriginsmaywell
becomefusedintoone.Incoldhistoricalfactitisseldomthatanydevelopedandterritoriallystableethnicityhasasinglegeneticorigin,butitoftenhasasoledominant
mythologicalgeneticorigin.ThroughoutAfricatherearenumerousexamplesofpeoples,nowseenasonebutinfactwithacompositeethnicity,whohaveadoptedan
'official'mythologicalorigin,ajourneyfromsomewhereelse,whenthisonecanbeprettysureishistoricallybasedontherelativelyrecentarrivalofasmall
minoritywhichthencametodominatetheexistinginhabitants.Yetsuchmythsareoftenbalancedbyamysteriousroleinthevalidationoftherulerleftinthehandsof
religiousrepresentativesofasubmergedpeople.ThuskingsofScotlandwerecrownedinthePictishshrineofScone,kingsoftheKongorequiredfortheirelectionthe
endorsementofthemaniVunda.Intheseandothercases,ritualsandmyths,religionandpoliticalrolesareinterwoveninsuchawayastointegratepreviouslydistinct
ethnicitiesandtonedownthemorebrazenimplicationsofconquest.3
InRwandaandBurundi,thecasewasratherdifferent,withhindsightcalamitouslyso.HeretheTutsiimmigrantpastoralconquerorswereunusualinthat,while
adoptingthelanguageofthepreviousHutuoccupantsandtosomeextentevenintermarryingwiththem,theyfailedtoachieveaneffectiveethnicfusioneitherbecause
thetimescalewastooshort,thephysicalandoccupationaldifferencesbetweenthetwogroupstoolargeor,even,becausethe

Page171

relativenumberoftheTutsimayhavebeenmoreconsiderablethaninmostsuchcases.Whateverthereason,thedistinctionbetweenthemremainedandwasactually
hardenedbycolonialism,inbothsocialandpoliticalterms.Inpostcolonialcircumstancesithasledtofearfuldisasterforbothgroups.Butmoreoftenthisdoesnot
happen.Thereisintimefusionofthetwo,sothatthesocialdivisiondisappearsand,veryoften,awarenessofdualorigin.Slavonictribessettlinginwhatusedtobe
YugoslaviaareasnowdescribedasSerbia,Bosnia,CroatiaandMontenegroundoubtedlyswallowedupalargepreSlavpopulation,buttheirlanguages,
historicaloriginsandanysenseofpreSlavexistencesimplydisappearedasitdidfortheBritishpopulationofmostofEngland.InlaterinvasionsofEnglandthe
oppositehappened.QuitequicklytheNormanconquerors,whiletheirownmythsoforiginandoftriumphantconquestin1066werenotforgotten,cametobe
swallowedupintheidentity,historyandlanguageoftheconquered.
Itmaywellbethatitisamatteroftherelativenumbersinvolved,thoughinmostcaseswecanonlysurmisewhattheywere.TheNormanconquerorsofEnglandwere
reallyveryfewindeedincomparisonwiththeEnglishconquered.InFranceonemaywellcomparethesouth,wheretheinstitutions,languageandreligionofthe
conqueredGaulsremainedsomuchmorefirmlyinplace,andthenorth,wheretheimmigrantGermanicconquerorsdominated.Theidentityofthesouthremained
Gallic,wemaysay,thatofthenorthFrank.FrancehasneverquiteknownwhetheritsprimarymythologicalancestorsweretheFrankswhoenteredGaulinthefifth
centuryortheGaulswhohadalreadybeenthereformanycenturies.MonarchicalFrancetendedtoidentifywiththeformer,RepublicanFrancewiththelattereven
thoughRepublicanFrancewasatleastasanxiousasitsdynasticpredecessortoimposeupontheGallicsouththelanguageandcultureoftheFrankishnorth.
Inaninitiallynotsodifferentcase,thatofEgypt,theArabconquestofaCopticcountrywasalsothatofoneworldreligion,Christianity,bythatofanother,Islam.
HereformanyyearstheconqueredChristianCoptsremainedamajoritylittlebylittlebypressuresofonesortandanotherthemajoritybecameaminority,
abandoningthedomesticthoughnotliturgicaluseofitsownlanguage.ItbecameasingleArabsocietythough,intermsofanarrowethnicity,itsancestorswere
overwhelminglynotArabsbut

Page172

itremaineddividedsharplybetweenthetwocommunitiesofMuslimandChristian,andthiswasfarmorethanareligiousdivide.Itwas,inalargersense,oneof
ethnicity,althoughthemajorityofmodernEgyptianMuslimsareingeneticallyethnictermsCopts,andculturallymanyCopticcustoms,suchasfemalecircumcision,
havepassedacrosstoMuslimswhilemuchMusliminfluenceoverandabovetheadoptionoftheArablanguagehasaffectedChristians.Butthemorecomplexa
nation,thesureritisthat,howevermonochromeitsgeneticethnicitymaybeclaimedsymbolicallytobe,inrealityitiscomplexandhighlymixed.Intermarriageacross
manygenerationsmay,nevertheless,ensureaneffectivelysharedgeneticroot.
Eveninquitesimplesocietiesthedifferencebetweenrealgeneticoriginsandmythicalgeneticoriginscouldberecognisedwithoutdifficulty.Strangerscouldbe
prisonersofwarorindividualwanderers,adoptedandabsorbedintolineageorclan.Thereisnothingstrangeormoderninoverlookingagapbetweentherealandthe
mythical.Thelatterestablishesthenecessarymoralunityofagroup.Inadoptingtheancestorsandgodsofone'shosts,one'sconquerorsoreventhoseonehas
conquered,oneisadoptingtheirmoresandasharedmoralcommunitywhichleapsbeyondanygeneticbond,without,however,disallowingthelatter'ssymbolic
meaning.Therecognitionofancestrypretends,'imagines'ifyoulike,ageneticoriginwhichmaynotbebiologicallycorrect.Itremainssociallycorrect,however,and
evenmorallynecessarytodefinethesocialmythicallyintermsofthegenetic.Itisperhapsonlywhenanethnicitydevelopsinto,orbecomespartof,aterritorialnation
thatitbecomespossibletothrowasidetheclaimtogeneticunityandgloryinsteadinamultiplicityoforigins.ThusitisevidenceofthenationalmaturityoftheEnglish
bythetwelfthcenturythattheycouldwillinglyadmittoadiversityofrealormythicalorigins,TrojanandRoman,British,English,DanishandNorman.Ithelps
demonstratethattheircountry,inthewordsoftheconstitutionalhistorianJ.E.A.Jolliffe,'hadalreadymadethetransitionfromthetribaltotheterritorialstate'.4 The
tolerantethnicpluralismofamaturenationpresupposesaconfidentterritoriality.
Thereare,however,limitstothecredibilityofadoptingtheancestorsofsomeoneelse.Francecarrieditspolicyofassimilationfromitsownprovincestoitsempire.It
becamepartoftheprocessof

Page173

assimilatingFrenchWestAfricathatitschildrentooweretaughttosay'ourancestorstheGauls'.Thiswastocrossthefrontieroftheabsurd.InnowaycouldIvory
CoastorTogoreallybecomeaprovinceofFranceyetitwasanextensionofwhathadhappenedagainandagaininhuman,andparticularlyFrench,history.Ifthe
BretonscouldlearntobeFrench,whynottheTogolese?Itwasatleastastrategywhichdeclinedtoacceptanyabsolutecharacterof'theother'andwhichalso
declinedtodefineethnicityintermsofblood.
EthnicityisasharedcommunityofcultureofthesortIhavedescribed,butindifferentethnicitiesdifferentelementsaretakentoprovidethedecisivecriteriaof
belonging.Therecanbe,asIhavealreadysuggested,enduringsubethnicitieswhichmaybebasedonarea,linguisticdifferentiations,religionorahistorybasedon
partialassimilationofsomeadditionalgroup.Itishardtodefinewhatconstitutesaninternaldifferentiationwhichissignificantinitselfbutnotdivisiveofasingle
ethnicity,forexamplereligionCatholicorMuslimamongAlbanians.Neverthelessthepersistentsurvivalofadiversityassignificantasthiswithinagroupwhich
stillseesitselfassociallyonewouldseemtobeamajorfactorintheconstructionofthelatteras'nation'ratherthanas'ethnicity'.Thedegreeofsocialself
consciousnessrequiredfortheacceptanceofsuchdiversitywithinone'sgroupisproperlyacharacteristicofnationhood.
Thepointisthattwoormoreethnicitiescangrowintoonebutittakesalotoftimeequallyoneethnicitycangrowintotwounderpolitical,economicorgeographical
pressure.TheLowCountriessplitintoapredominantlyProtestantandindependentNetherlandsandapredominantlyCatholicandforlongnotindependent
Belgium,butinthemidsixteenthcenturyAntwerpandGhentcouldjustaswellhavegonethewayofAmsterdamandUtrecht.Ethnicitiesdonothavehardedges.
Theyaresocioculturalrealities,notlegalones.Whatnormallyconstitutesthecoreoftheircommunityasexperiencedfromwithinisthesharingofasinglespoken
language,thoughitmaywellincludeawiderangeofdialecticalvariety.Inprincipleitisprobablytruethatthetwoareindeedinterchangeable.Whendialectical
differencebecomessoconsiderableastoconstituteaseparatelanguage,ethnicitytoomaybesaidtobedifferent.Anethnicityproducesandisreflectedinits
particularlanguage:theminutiaeofculturearenecessarilyreflectedinoral

Page174

speechandvocabularysocloselythatitishardtoimagineseparationbetweenthetwo.Neverthelessthatjudgementdoesnotentirelycoherewiththeupsanddowns
ofhistory.Fortworeasons.Thefirstisthatanethnicitycanbedividedfairlysharplybypoliticalactionfromoutside.Onceitstwopartsaresubjecttodifferentpolitical
regimestheymaybecomeethnicallydistinctquitefast,whiletheirlanguagedoesnotalterwiththesamespeed.FlemishremainsonbothsidesoftheDutchBelgian
frontier.Thisisparticularlythecaseonceavernacularistoanygreatextentwrittendown.Writingimpedesdiversification.Languageandethnicity,then,canmove
apart.Awrittenlanguagecannotcharacteriseethnicitytotheextentthatorallanguagedoes.EvenAmericanscanstillspeakEnglish!Iftheyhadtakenamerelyoral
languagewiththemacrosstheAtlantic,itwouldsoonhavebeenvastlydifferentfromtheEnglishofEngland.Theprintedwordpreventedthisfromhappening.
Thereis,moreover,noprecisewayto'decide'whenonelanguageisdifferentfromanotherorwhenthetwoaredialectalformsofasinglelanguage.Thisismanifestly
trueofhundredsofBantulanguagesincentralandsouthernAfrica.Onlytheir(mostlymissionary)encapsulationinwritinghasresultedineithermergingorseparation,
oftentomuchlocaldissatisfaction.TodayithasbecomethefashionableorthodoxyofexYugoslaviathattherearethreelanguages,Bosnian,SerbandCroat.Thatis
official.TwentyyearsagonoonespokeBosnianandthelanguageofthethreeareaswasofficiallydescribedas'Croatoserbian/Serbocroatian'or,atthenextmention,
'Serbocroatian/Croatoserbian'.5 Anythingwithinthatwasadialect.Atonetimeonespokeevenof'SerboBulgar'wishingtoincorporateanevenfurtherrangeof
'dialects'.Thatdidnotwork.But'Croatoserbian/Serbocroatian'didforawhile.Todaythestressisinsteaduponthediversitieswithinthedialectswhichrequire
theirrecognitionasdistinctlanguages.Itwasamoralandpolitical,asmuchasascientificandlinguistic,JudgementthatScotsandEnglishwereonelanguagein1603.
Ifithadbeenpoliticallyopportunetheoppositecouldstillhavebeenthecase.
Themainpointtobemadefromallthisisthatoflanguagefluidity,particularlyinsocietieswhereliteratureisabsentorlimited.Inthisitsimplyreflectsthefluidityof
ethnicityingeneral.Theuniversalityofethnicityasourpointofdepartureisneverthesamethingasthestabilityofanyparticularethnicity.Onceliteracyarrives,

Page175

notonlydoesthefluiditydiminish,butsodoesthebondbetweenethnicityandlanguage.
Therelationshipofethnicitytoreligionisverysimilartothatwithlanguage.Inasituationpriortothearrivalofauniversalistreligionwithextensivesacredtexts,
religiousexperienceandformalisationwasessentiallyethnicorlocal.Anthropologistsarenotwronginfindingthatanaccountofthecoreideas,practices,rolesand
moralsinasocietyhastoaveryconsiderableextenttobeanaccountofareligion,andthateachreligiondiffersfairlysignificantlyfromthatofitsneighbours.Dinka
andNuerareneighbours,sharingacommonpastoraleconomy,closelyrelatedinlanguageandinmostoftheircustoms.Thereisobvioussimilaritybetweentheir
religioussystemsbut,equally,theyareclearlydistinctdistinctenoughforbothDinkaandNuertorecogniseandpointoutdifferencestooutsiders,whilealso
recognisingunderlyingcommonalities.6
Suchformsofethnicreligionwerecertainlyneverringfenced.Therewasalwaysintermarriagebetweentribalgroupsifproducedsimplybyraidingwomenfrom
one'sneighbours.Suchwomenbroughttheirspiritswiththem.AnestablishedterritorialshrinelikethatofMbonainsouthernMalawicouldserveandbeveneratedby
membersofarangeofrelatedpeoples.AsIhavesuggestedalready,suchpeopleswerenotringfencedeitherinanyotheraspectoftheirethnicity.Therewerealways
movementsofuniversalisationderivedfromlongdistancetrade,thesharingofwordsandartefacts,movementswhichdidnotpreventanalternativetendencytonew
particularisations,newinsistencesonwhatdifferentiatedsomeparticularterritorialarea.ButjustasMwariintheMatoposcouldbringVenda,ShonaandNdebele
togetherinthelatenineteenthcenturyinacultandbeliefswhichweredefinitelyintertribalanduniversalistic,somorewidelytherewasatendencytosharingasingle
nameofGod.ThespreadofMulungu/MunguineasternAfrica,Lezainthecentre,NzambimoretothewestsignifiesacertaindeethnicisationofGod.But,ofcourse,
thesamepeoplessharedmanyothercommonwordsofimportancetoo.
Religionprovidedboththemythiccoreintheparticularisationofeachlocalethnicity,andauniversalisingbridgeinitsnetworkingwithwiderethniccircles.Inunwritten
religionstheformerroleseemsprimary,thelatteralmosthidden.Thisbalancewasentirelyreversedwhenauniversalist,worldreligionburstuponthescene.

Page176

OnceapeoplehadbecomeMuslimorChristian,itsreligionceasedinprincipletobepartofitsethnicmix,justaslaterwhenitstartedtobuyCocaColaorEuropean
beeritsdrinkceasedtobeethnicallyspecificand,whenitboughtcheapcrockerymadeonwholesalewesternlines,itstablewareceasedtobeethnictoo.Ethnicityin
eachcasewaspushedbackintoamorerestrictedareabytheadvanceofforcesshapedonnonethniclines.
Asregardsreligion,thiswasoften,inpractice,onlypartiallythecasebecausespecificpeoplesorareascametobecharacterisedbydifferentworldreligionsor
churcheswithinthem.TheSwahili,theYaoortheHausamightbecomeidentifiedasMuslim,theIgbo,theChagga,theBembaasChristian.Thenewreligionthus
becametosomeextentanotherformofethnicidentity.ThishadlongbeenoutstandinglythecasefortheAmhara,thecoregroupoftheEthiopianOrthodoxstate.
NeverthelessthediversityofreligiousadherenceswithinmodernAfricansocietieshaslargelyremovedreligionfromtheareaofethnicspecificity.BagandaCatholics
mightstrugglebitterlywithBagandaProtestants,butbothwereBagandaevenBagandaMuslimswereBaganda,thoughIrememberanelderly,highlyintelligent
Mugandapriest,thirtyyearsago,emphaticallydenyingtomethataMuslimwasstillaMuganda.Forhim,GandaethnicitywasnowaChristianone,andaMuslimwas
simplyexcluded,ipsofacto,fromthepeople.Butthat,Ithink,wasanidiosyncraticviewandIsuspectIcanstillseethetwinkleofhumourinYohaneSsewajje'seyes
ashevigorouslyaffirmedit.7
WhenSaxonsandAnglesbecameChristianstheywerenonetoohappytohavetoadmitthattheirBritishenemieswereChristianalready.Bedetakescareto
underminethesignificanceofthisbystressingthecorruptionofWelshChristianity.NeverthelessthefactwasthatSaxon,BritonandDanehadethnicities
distinguishableinpartbytheirreligiousbeliefs,thegodstheyappealedto,beforeChristianconversion,butlostabasicreligiousspecificityforethnicdifferencethrough
Christianisation.Christianitycertainlydidnotmakethemonepeople,butitunderminedpartofthereasonfortheirnotbeingso,itcreatedsomethingofalarger
communityandinthecaseofanycloselysimilarseparateTeutonicgroupsitsetthemonthefastrouteforethnicfusion.
Toturntopolitics.ErnestGellnermaintainedthat'Perhapsthecentral,mostimportantfactaboutagroliteratesocietyisthis:almost

Page177

everythinginitmilitatesagainstthedefinitionofpoliticalunitsintermsofculturalboundaries.'8 Thisis,Ithink,likelytobemisleading.Ifwewanttounderstandinits
originstherelationshipbetweenethnicityandthepolitical,weneedtorecognisethatthelatterisaninherentlynaturalpartoftheformer.Bythepoliticalwemean
basicallytheresponsetocrimewithinasociety,theenforcementofcustominrelationtoproperty,anddefencefromexternalattack,togetherwiththeexpansionand
institutionalisationofthoseoriginatingneeds.ItwouldbequiteimpossibletodescribetheculturalinstitutionsofanAfricansocietyasawholewhileleavingouttheir
politicaldimension,andasculturechanges,sodoesthelatter.Itisasintegralanelementincultureasreligion.Evenwhereasocietyisstateless,itstillremains
intrinsicallyapoliticalsocietyandhasaspecificwayofcopingwithapoliticalagenda,asEvansPritchardshowedsowellinhisbrilliantstudyofthe'political
institutions'oftheNuer.Thisdoesnotmeanthatculturalboundariesdefinepoliticalboundariesinanyeasilyrecognisablemodernway,andthelikelihoodwasthata
largerculturalareawasforlongbrokenuppoliticallyintofarsmallerunits.Politicalneedscouldbecateredformicrocosmicallyratherthanmacrocosmically.Allthat
needstobeassertedatthislevelisthatpoliticalconstructionisintrinsicnotextrinsictonormativeethnicity.
Howeverhumanhistoryisnotoneofethnicitiesexistingontheirown,butoftheirceaselessinteractionandinterpenetration,inwhichpoliticallystrongerunitsimpose
themselvesuponweakerones.Onceamonarchywasestablished,inconsequentcontrolofalargerpoolofhuman,economicandtechnicalresources,ittendedto
enforceitssuzeraintyoversmaller,weaker,moreorlessstatelessneighbours.Somestatelesspeoplessuccessfullydefendedtheirindependencebutinmanycasesa
recognitionofsuzeraintymeantatfirstlittlemorethananannualtributetosecureoneagainstraiding.Ascentralisedstatesgrewinsize,inbureaucraticeffectiveness
andtheimpactofaliteraryclass,thismeantthatwhilethestateinitscentralinstitutionsreflectedthecultureofitsowncoreethnicity,itwasdivorcedfromtheethnic
identityofitssubjectprovinces.Culturalboundarieshadceasedtoappearreflectedinthepoliticalfieldinstead,asempiresgrewlargerandlarger,basedessentially
ontheabilityofafewtomonopolisethemachineryofwar,ethnicityandthepoliticalmovedsomewhatapart.Neverthelessthesubstructuresofpowerinany

Page178

particulararearemainedforalargepartculturallyandreligiouslyspecifictothatarea,enforcingitsownparticularlawandcustom.Theymediatedbetweenhighpower
andthelocalcommunity,ensuringthatthecultureofthelatterwasseldomupsettoopainfullybythedecreesoftheformer.Whensuchupsetdidoccur,ashappened
fromtimetotime,popularrebellionwasthenaturalresultandwhenthedecreeswerenotwithdrawnsuchrebellioncouldinsomecircumstancesleadtothepursuitof
independence,toapopularcommitmenttodrawbackpoliticalpowerwithinthecircleoflocalethnicity.OnemayseeitinWilliamTellorWilliamWallace,manyIrish
rebellionsagainstEngland,eventheDutchrebellionagainstPhilipofSpain.Suchmovementswereseldomsuccessfulforlong,iftheywerenotreinforcedbyan
intellectualandliteraryproclamationofaculturalidentitywhichcalledforpoliticalidentitythisinevitablyappealednotonlytoimmediategrievancesbuttomythsof
originandadistincthistory,yetitwasbasicallyrootedinthehumanrequirementforrelatednessbetweenculturalethnicityandpoliticalpower,arequirementgrounded
inthetruththatthelatterisinprincipleintrinsictotheformer.
Itseems,nevertheless,inevitablethatassocialdevelopmentoccursliterarylanguage,politicalpower,economiccontrolandreligiousbeliefalltendtomoveawayfrom
localmodels,ifatdifferentspeeds,whileleavingbehindaresidueofkinshipsystems,vernacularspeech,agriculturalpractice,folkloreandritesofonesortandanother
whichtheninalargerfeudal,imperialorfederalstatecometobeidentifiedastheconstituentsofanew,morenarrowlydefined,ethnicity.Inourearliermodel
religionwasintrinsicallyethnicthereligionoftheNuerdistinguishablyNueranddifferentfrom,howeversimilarto,thatoftheDinka.WhenChristianityorIslam
replacessuchlocalisedritualsandbeliefs,theworldreligionwillundoubtedlybeforlonghometoimportantsurvivingelementswithinitneverthelesstherelationship
betweenethnicityandreligionwilllosethecentralsignificanceithasheldhitherto,justastherelationshipbetweenethnicityandpoliticswillbeloosenedinthesame
way.Butjustasthelargerpoliticalpowerwillneednottooffendlocalethnicsensitivitiestoopainfully,sowillthereligiousauthorities.CatalanorBasqueCatholicism
willnotbequitethesameasPortuguese,AustrianorBavarianCatholicism.Whilethedifferencesmaybemuchsmallerthanheretofore,

Page179

popularadherencetothosedifferentiamayremain,somewhatirrationally,strong.
Itakeitasagivenofhumanhistorythatinallfieldsthereisatendencytomovefromsmallertolargerunits,that,inmoderntimes,thishasgreatlyacceleratedandthat
nationalismisveryofteninlargepartareactionagainstthisofgroupsofpeoplethreatenedwiththehastyerosionoftraditionalidentity.Themovementfromsmallerto
largercultural,economic,religiousandpoliticalcommunitiesisbasedverylargelyonadevelopmentinmeansofcommunication.Ifwalkingistheonlywayoftravel
thenunitswillbesmallerthanifthehorseismuchused.Canalsandrailwaysmakeabigdifference,themotorcarandtheaeroplaneeachestablishafurtherstage
towardsglobalvillagisation.Thesameistrueofwriting,printing,radio,telephone,television,theInternet.Writingwithoutprintingwasabettertoolfortheworld
religionthanfortheworldempire,andreligionwasinfactlargelydetachedfromethnicityatanearlierdatethanpolitics.Butaworldreligioneitherinsistedupona
singlesacredlanguageorencouragedthestandardisationofmeaningacrossauthoritativetranslationsinawaythatalsoaffectedtherelationshipoflanguagetosociety
ingeneralandtopoliticalauthorityinparticular.
TheArabicQur'anandauthoritativeChristiantranslationsoftheBibleintoalimitednumberoflanguagescontributedprofoundlytotheuniversalisationofasingle
ethnicreligiouslinguisticcommunityintheMuslimcaseandtothedistinctionbetweenmajorwrittenlanguagesanddialecticvernacularsintheChristiancase.While
theIslamicsociopoliticalimpactwasthusinprinciplealmostentirelyantiethnicandantinational,theChristianimpactwasmorecomplex.Itswillingnesstotranslate
broughtwithit,undoubtedly,areductioninthenumberofethnicitiesandvernaculars,butthenaconfirmationoftheindividualidentityofthosethatremained:
Christianityinfacthelpedturnethnicitiesintonations.
Letusconsiderthenatureofsuchatransition.Numerousethnicidentitiesexistedinthepastandmanystillexistbutwhilewemightdescribepremodernsocietyas
characterisedbyamultitudeofethnicities,wemightwelldescribemodernsocietychieflyintermsofafarsmallernumberofnations.NineteenthcenturyAfricacould
standfortheonemodel,twentiethcenturywesternEuropefortheother.Howonegetsfromonetotheother,the'transition',iswhat

Page180

hasfrequentlyconcernedusinearlierchapters,butitisadangerousconcernifitimpliesthatthemodernworldmustbecomposedofnationsandthateachethnicity
musteitherturnitselfintoanation,indeedanationstate,orperish.ThecentralculturalchallengefacingsocietyinEurope,inAfricaorelsewhereis,onthecontrary,
howtofindawayofsafeguardingethnicityinanonnationalway.
Itissoobviousthatallethnicitiesdonotturnintonationsthatitdoesnotneedstressing.Groupsofsmallerrelatedethnicitiescangrowtogethernaturallyunlessthereis
somespecificfactortodividethemyetonceaparticularethnicityhashardenedwithitsowncharacteristicsandwrittenliterature,itmaybealmostimpossibleforitto
fuseethnicallywithaneighbour.Afterthatsomesortoffederalgovernmentbecomesnecessary,ifsoonerorlateranethnicityisnottoseeitselfasafullpoliticalnation,
requiringtheindependenceofsovereignty.IfoneconsidersthenumerousethnicitiesoftheoldAustroHungarianEmpire,itisnotoverhelpfultoinsistthattheEmpire
hadnotaGermanidentity.WithitscapitalinViennaanditsrulingdynastyGermanspeaking,therelationshipGermanEmpireand,say,CroatEmpirewasaquite
unequalone.TheHabsburgEmpirewasimplicitlyconstructedoffirstclassethnicitiesandsecondclassethnicities,anditbecomesalmostinevitablethatpeopleinthe
lattergroupshouldsoonerorlaterbecomedissatisfiedandpursueapoliticalstatuswhichcouldnotbejudgedinferior.Eventheoreticallydemocraticstatescandothe
same,privilegingcertainethnicitiesoverotherones.NorthernIrelandhasbeenpermanentlyrunonsuchabasis.Itseemsalmostimpossibleinthemodernworldthat
anyethnicity,onceithasdevelopedamoderneducatedleadership,willbecontentwithastatusexperiencedaspoliticallyinferiortothatofitsneighbours.Thereisan
inherenttendencywithinaworldceaselesslydescribedasoneofnationstatesforanethnicallyidentifiablecommunitytoattaintheconsciousnessandtheaspirationsof
apoliticalnation.Neverthelessthefactremainsthatmostethnicitiesdonotandcannotbecomenations.Manymaybecalledbutfewarechosen.Yettheydonot
easilydisappear.Themultiplyingof'nations'toreflectthemultiplicityofethnicitiesinmodernAfricacouldwellbeahugepoliticaldisaster.Nigeriaalonecontainsmore
thantwohundreddistinctethnolinguisticgroups.Whatisneededthereaseverywhereisrathertofocusuponadiversityofwaysinwhich

Page181

ethnicitycansurviveandthrivequiteapartfromanytransformationintonationstate.
WehavenowsurveyedawiderangeofexamplesoftherelationshipbetweenethnicityandnationhoodinBritain,EuropeandAfrica.Intheirvarietytheymustsurely
denyusanyeasygeneralisation.Ontheonehand,overwhelmingevidencemakesitabsurdtodenythattheshapingofamodernnationmaybetracedinsomecasesa
verylongwaybackindeed.Yetitisobvioustoothatmanyethnicitieswhichonceexistedhavemergedintosomethingsodifferentthatnocontinuityistraceable,and
thatthosewhichdogoforwardtonationhoodandeventonationstatehooddosoalongawidevarietyofpaths.IfthePictsdisappearedsolongagoandNorthumbria
andevenBritishCumbriaweremergedinextricablyintotheEnglishnation,wearestillaftermorethanathousandyearsnotquitesurewheretheWelshstandan
ethnicitywithinBritainoreven,asatonetimeseemedthecase,withinEngland,anationinamultinationstate,even(stilltocome)anationstateoftheirown?
IfwehadlookedatYugoslaviafifteenyearsago,howmanyofuswouldconfidentlyhavearguedthattherewasnoYugoslavnationandnoalternativetoamultitudeof
littlestates,narrowlyrestrictingtheirselfdefinitioninethnicallypuretermsorhoveringonthebrinkofyetfurtherdisintegration?WhocanbesureifZuluandXhosa
willreallycreatewithwhites,Asiansandcoloureds,asinglemultiethnicSouthAfricannation,whethertheNdebelewillreallyliedowninaShonaledZimbabweor
goonseeingtheircountryasnationalistsseeScotland?WhocansaywhetherNigeriawillcontinuetobeamultiethnicgiant,abitliketheSovietUnion,orwillfall
apartintothreeorfourgreatsectionswhichwouldstill,ofcourse,befarfromethnicallymonochrome?Whocansayhowmanyofthehundredsoflanguagesspoken
todayinAfricawillbespokenbyanyoneinfiftyyears'timeand,iftheyare,howtheirspeakerswillunderstandthesocialsignificanceofthat?Whocansaywhetherin
fiftyyears'timethewholeofwesternEuropewillbesomuchofanECthatournationstates,constructedsopainfullyacrossthecenturies,willseemnomoredistinct
thanWalesorScotlandseemedinsideBritaintoourVictorianancestors?
Whatdoesseemtobegenerallytrueforpast,presentandfutureisthatoveremphasisuponasinglelevelofsocialpoliticalcommunityisuniformlydisastrous.Itis
ratherthroughrecognitionofthe

Page182

possibilityofashiftingdiversityoflevelsethnic,provincial,national,international,religiousforbothindividualsandcommunitiesthatroomisleftforpeopleto
breathefreely,forculturaldiversity,fortheacceptanceofanecessaryambiguityinsocialandpoliticalidentity.OurpoliticianslikefrequentlytodescribeBritainasa
'nationstate'andtoharponthethemeofsovereignty.Weareonlyveryambiguouslyanationstateandmostothersocalled'nationstates'aremuchthesame,while
sovereigntyisnolessadangerousmythifitisthoughttobenecessarilyindivisible.Itispreciselytheevilofnationalism,whenitisfullyblown,todenyboththe
divisibilityofsovereigntyandtherealityofapluralityofloyaltiesandidentitieswithinahealthyworld.Whatweshouldratherlookforarewaysofensuringthat
movements,atpresentsoclamant,towardsbotheverlargerandeversmallerunitsofpower(forinstance,theECononehand,anindependentScotlandontheother)
donotundermineeitherthediversityoflocalethnicitiesorthesenseoffarwidercommunions.
Thepressuresofmoderngovernment,imposinguniformityinareaafterareaoflife,areinherentlydestructiveofmanyoftheparticularitieswhichconstitutea
recognisableethnicculture.Unlessthatprocesscanberestrained,itmustproduceeithertheerosionofculturaldiversityorthestimulationofnewethnicbased
nationalisms.Eitherway,societyisthepoorer.Ifethnicitiescanrelatebothtonationsandtostatesinadiversityofways,weneedtofocusnotonlyonthewaythey
growintonationsoraredissolvedbytheimpactofnationhoodbutalsoonthewaytheycancontinuetofunction,andthesupporttheyprovide,insidelargerpolitical
unities.Ethnicitiesnotonlycontributetotheformationofnationstates,theyalsosurvive,grow,evenstarttoexistwithinsuchstatesinwaysthatappearlargely
apoliticalbutwhichmaystilliftheyareattackedorsuppressedturnpoliticaloncemoreandbecomethesourceofnewnationalisms.Themultiethnicstatemay
beahealthierrealitythanthemultinationstate.Itdeservesencouragement,notsuppression,butitmaywellbethatwewholiveinwesternEuropearenow
irreversiblyenteringanewkindofmultinationstatewhichwillengenderasbitterawaveofnationalistreactionasanyoftheempiresofthepast,unlesswecanthink
farmorepositivelythananyonehasmanagedhithertoabouttheroleofethnicandnationalsubcommunitieswithinalargerstate.

Page183

ThespeakingofCornishhasbarelysurvivedinEngland,buttherearenumerousHindi,PunjabiandGujeratispeakers.Thesurvivalofethnicitiesderivedfromlarge
scalemigrationwithinexistingstatesdependsverylargelyonfactorsoflanguage,religion,educationandacommunityofdistinctcustomarybehaviour,orthefreedom
insignificantareasoflifetobenonconformistasagroup.BritishJewsdonotformaseparatenationfromtheBritishortheEnglishbuttheydopossessanethnicityof
theirown.SimilarlyBosnian'Serbs'andBosnian'Croats',iftheyareBosniansatall,areBosnianbynationality,theirSerborCroatcharacterbecomingamatterof
ethnicity.Weinevitablyloseournationhood,butnotourethnicity,oncewebecomefullcitizensofanationstatedistinctfromthattowhichourpreviousnationhood
wasrelated.Whilenewethnicitiesincircumstancesofmigrationarelikelytostressverystronglytheirnonpoliticalcharacter,theycannomoreremainwholly
unpoliticalthananyotherlargeinterestgroup.Astheygrowmoreconfident,theirpoliticisationgrowsaswellamixbetweenadefenceoftheculturalrightsoftheir
distinctethnicityandloyaltytothestateofwhichtheynowformpart.NormanTebbit'scrickettestofBritishloyaltyis,ofcourse,aninappropriateone.Itisas
unacceptabletorequireaBritishcitizentosupporttheEnglishteamastorequirehertobeamemberoftheChurchofEngland.Why,anyway,shouldtheWelshnot
prefertheAustralianstowin?Thereisacrisscrossofloyaltiesineverymaturenationalcommunity.Itisonlywhenoneisfrightenedthatoneimposestestsoverthisor
that.Thatisitselfasignofnationalism,theaggressivenessderivedfromanuncomfortablesenseofthreat.AstrengthofBritaininthepastlayintheacceptanceofa
largemeasureofcollectiveambiguityastotherealrelationshipbetweenitsmembers.TheEnglishnessoftheDanelaworCornishmenor,aftertheywereallowedto
return,theJews,orindeedofaCatholicinacountrysomehowcommittedtoProtestantism,wasseldomquestionedbutitwasalsonotdefined,anymorethanwasthe
relationshipofWelshnesstoEnglishnesswithinBritain.Again,onedidnotdoubtthatimmigrantscouldbecomeveryBritishindeed,andyetnosensibleperson
imaginedthattheydidnotretainotherstrongloyaltiesaswellinmanycasesandthat,attimes,suchloyaltiesmightseemtoconflictwithoneanother.
Preoccupationwiththenationalnarrowsthemindandtheheart.ItisexhilaratingtosingRuleBritanniaattherightmoment,but

Page184

depressingtosingittoooftenortotakeittooseriously.Nationalanthems,flagsandhistoriescangriponewithinaviceofirrationalityunlesstheyarebalancedby
otherloyalties,boththoseclosertothegroundofordinarylivingandthosemoreuniversal.Chapter8willconsiderthefunctionofreligionbothasaconstructorof
ethnicitiesandnationsandwehaveseenalreadymanyexamplesofbothandastheirrestrainer,evenachallengerthroughthecreationofalternativehuman
communitiesabletoclaimincertaincircumstancesamoreabsolutecommitment.

Page210

Notes
1
TheNationandNationalism
1.E.J.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780(CambridgeUniversityPress,1990)
2.JohnBreuilly,NationalismandtheState,2ndedn(ManchesterUniversityPress,1993)ErnestGellner,NationsandNationalism(Oxford:Blackwell,1983)
BenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities,ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1983).
3.KeithStringer,'SocialandPoliticalCommunitiesinEuropeanHistory:SomeReflectionsonRecentStudies',inClausBjrn,AlexanderGrantandKeithJ.Stringer
(eds.),Nations,NationalismandPatriotismintheEuropeanPast(Copenhagen:AcademicPress,1994),pp.23and33.
4.Atthebeginningoftheeighteenthcentury,AnthonyAshleyCooper,theThirdEarlofShaftesbury,defineda'People'or'Nation'inhisCharacteristicsofMen,
Manners,Opinions,Times(London,1714,III143n)asfollows:'Amultitudeheldtogetherbyforce,thoughunderoneandthesamehead,isnotproperlyunited:nor
doessuchabodymakeapeople.Itisthesocialleague,confederacy,andmutualconsent,foundedinsomecommongoodorinterest,whichjoinsthemembersofa
communityandmakesaPeopleone.AbsolutePowerannulsthepublickandwherethereisnopublick,orconstitution,thereisinrealitynomothercountryor
Nation.'
5.LiahGreenfeld,Nationalism:FiveRoadstoModernity(HarvardUniversityPress,1992),p.23.Thisconstitutes,ofcourse,aprecisedenialofRenan'sclaimfor
France:'Leprincipedesnationsestlentre',Qu'estcequ'unenation?(Paris,1882),p.10.
6.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780,p.11.
7.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,p.111.
8.R.R.Davies'spresidentialaddressestotheRoyalHistoricalSocietyfor1993and1994:'ThePeoplesofBritainandIreland11001400:I

Page211

Identities',TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety,6thseries,vol.4(1994),pp.120,and'ThePeoplesofBritainandIreland11001400:IINames,
BoundariesandRegnalSolidarities',TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety,vol.5(1995),pp.120SusanReynolds,KingdomsandCommunitiesin
WesternEurope9001300(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1984)Bjrn,GrantandStringer(eds.),Nations,NationalismandPatriotismintheEuropeanPast
SimonForde,LesleyJohnsonandAlanV.Murray(eds.),ConceptsofNationalIdentityintheMiddleAges(LeedsTextsandMonographs,1995)Thorlac
TurvillePetre,EnglandtheNation:Language,LiteratureandNationalIdentity12901340(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1996).
9.AnthonyD.Smith,TheEthnicOriginsofNations(Oxford:Blackwell,1986)seealsoNationalIdentity(Penguin,1991),andJohnHutchinson,Modern
Nationalism(London:Fontana,1994).
10.Greenfeld,Nationalism:FiveRoadstoModernity,p.14.AnotherwiderangingAmericanstudywhichsignificantlydeviatesfromfullmodernistorthodoxyis
JohnA.Armstrong,NationsbeforeNationalism(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1982).Despiteitstitleithasneverthelesslittletosayabout
nations,beingratheradiscussionoftheconstructionofethnicity.Verballyatleasttheauthorappearstoacceptthemodernistthesisthattherearenonationsbefore
nationalismandnonationalismbeforetheeighteenthcentury.HealsostrangelyavoidsseriousconsiderationofalmostanyoftheoldernationsofwesternEurope.
Furthermorewhileclaimingto'provideanoverviewofEasternandWesternChristendomandIslamiccivilisation'(p.3)hedoesnotappeartorealisehowprofoundis
thedifferencebetweenChristianityandIslaminrelationtonationhood.Despiteitsrichnessofmaterial,itisinconsequenceaconfusedandconfusingbook.
11.Greenfeld,Nationalism:FiveRoadstoModernity,p.42.
12.JosephR.Strayer,MedievalStatecraftandthePerspectivesofHistory(PrincetonUniversityPress,1971),p.347(theessayinquestionfirstappearedin
1963).
13.ElieKedourie,Nationalism(London:Hutchinson,1960).
14.Gellner,NationsandNationalism,p.55.
15.ErnestGellner,ThoughtandChange(London:Weidenfeldand1964),p.168.
16.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780,p.10.
17.Ibid.,pp.5and910.
18.Ibid.,p.14.
19.Gellner,NationsandNationalism,p.55.
20.YethehastoadmitinhisfartoobriefanalysisoftheEnglishexperienceofthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturiesthat'theideaofthenation

Page212

wasnotradicallydistinctfromtheideaofthestate'.Breuilly,NationalismandtheState,p.85.
21.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,p.46.
22.Ibid.,p.81,n.34.
23.Ibid.,p.191andn.9.
24.LiahGreenfeldprovidestheexplanation:inessenceitwasnotnewatall'thestoryoftheemergenceoftheAmericannation'representsarealisationof'the
promiseoforiginalEnglishnationalism',Nationalism:FiveRoadstoModernity,p.401.
25.AlmosttheonlyrecentstudyofnationalismtotakeitsbiblicalbasisseriouslyisthatofConorCruiseO'Brien,GodLand:ReflectionsonReligionand
Nationalism(HarvardUniversityPress,1988),abookwhichappearstohavebeenlargelyignored.
26.RogersBrubaker,CitizenshipandNationhoodinFranceandGermany(HarvardUniversityPress,1992).
27.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780,p.17.
28.EdmundBurke,'OnConciliationwiththeColonies'(1775),SpeechesandLettersonAmericanAffairs(London:Everyman,1908),p.89.
29.PaulWilliams(ed.),TheLifeofOlaudahEquiano,orGustavusVassatheAfrican(London:Longman,1988),p.4.
30.Areopagitica(1644),CompleteProseWorksofJohnMilton(YaleUniversityPress,1959),II,p.551.
31.'ConsiderationstouchingawarwithSpaininscribedtoPrinceCharles(1624)',TheWorksofFrancisBacon(1778),II,p.318.
32.WilliamShakespeare,HenryIV,PartII,Act1,Scene2.
33.SamuelDaniel,Musophilus(1599),line957.
34.OxfordEnglishDictionary,2ndedn,1989,'nation'.
35.ShermanM.KuhnandJohnReidy,MiddleEnglishDictionary(UniversityofMichiganPress,1975),'nacioun'.
36.J.ForshallandF.Madden(eds.),TheHolyBible...intheEarliestEnglishVersionsmadefromtheLatinVulgatebyJohnWycliffeandhisFollowers
(Oxford,1850),I,p.ix.
37.H.R.Bramley(ed.),ThePsalterorPsalmsofDavidandCertainCanticleswithaTranslationandExpositioninEnglishbyRichardRolleofHampole
(Oxford,1884),p.387.
38.ForshallandMadden,TheHolyBible..intheEarliestEnglishVersions,IV,p.511.
39.As,e.g.,Kedourie,Nationalism,pp.1314,Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780,p.16,Greenfeld,p.4,etc.Probablytherestdependon
Kedourie.
40.Davies,'ThePeoplesofBritainandIreland11001400:IIdentifies',p.10.

Page213

41.Bramley,ThePsalterorPsalmsofDavid,p.406.
42.Thetranslationof'gens/gentes'isfurthercomplicated(andconfused)bythefactthatawordinEnglishwasdevelopedtofillthisgapinaspecifictheological
context'gentiles',withaconnotation'heathen/nonJew'.So,ifwecomparethetranslationsofActs2.5and22.21theeverynationunderheavenofPentecost
andPaul'smissiontogoafaruntothenationswehave'ethnos'forbothinGreek,'natio'forbothintheVulgateand'nacioun'forbothinWyclif,butTyndale
switchesto'theGentyls'forthesecondwhichisretainedintheAuthorisedVersion.However,wheretheearlysixteenthcenturyversionsswitchedwidelyfrom
'nations'to'Gentiles',theKingJamesmovedbackinsomecasessuchasPsalm117,quotedabove.Intheearliersixteenthcenturytranslations,issuinginthe'Great
Bible'of1539(thefirsttobeprintedinEngland),wehave'PraisetheLord,allyeheathen:praisehim,allyenations'.UndoubtedlyinthistheVulgatewasabetter
translationtowhich,essentially,theAuthorisedreturns.Butthepointremainsthatthetwosixteenthseventeenthcenturytranslationsbothmanagetousetheword
'nation'inthisversethoughoneusesitinthefirstphrase,theotherinthesecond!
43.GeorgeGamett,TheJournalofEcclesiasticalHistory,vol.47.1(January1996),p.140.
44.V.H.Galbraith,'NationalityandLanguageinMedievalEngland',TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety,vol.23(1941),p.117.
45.RuthFinnegan,OralLiteratureinAfrica(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1970)JackGoody,TheMythoftheBagre(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1972)Toms
Crohan,TheIslandman,translatedfromtheIrishwithaforewordbyRobinFlower(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1937).
46.IanGreen,TheChristian'sABC(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1996),p.175.
47.IanGreen,PrintandProtestantisminEarlyModernEngland(Oxford:ClarendonPress,forthcoming).
48.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,p.7.
49.EugenWeber,PeasantsintoFrenchmen(London:ChattoandWindus,1977),p.493.
50.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,p.81.
51.Greenfeld,Nationalism:FiveRoadstoModernity,p.14.
52.TheargumentoverthefunctionoflanguageinthebasicformationofnationscanbewellillustratedwithreferencetotheparticularlystrongcaseofWalesbythe
followingtwoquotations.Hobsbawm,whosegeneralscepticismonthesubjectgoessofarastoconcludethat'languagesmultiplywithstatesnottheotherway
round'(NationsandNationalismsince1780,p.63),dismissestheunityofWelshwitha

Page214

referenceto'jokesaboutthedifficultiesofNorthWaliansunderstandingtheWelshofthosefromSouthWales'(p.52).IncontrastR.R.Daviesstressesthat
'dialecticaldifferencessuchasthosewhichcharacterisedthemenofGwentwererecognisedbuttheywereofsmallsignificancecomparedwiththebroad
linguisticunityofWales'alreadyinthetwelfthcentury(Conquest,CoexistenceandChange,Wales10631415[Oxford:ClarendonPress,1987],p.17).
Hobsbawm'sargumenthereaselsewheredependsonfocusingupondifferencesintheoralmodewhereasthekeytostablenationformationliesnotherebutinthe
powerofthewrittenform.
53.A.Hastings,'Africa'sManyNationalisms',Worldmission(Fall1955),p.351PierredeMenasce'sarticle,'NationalisminMissionaryCountries'firstappearedin
theNeueZeitschriftfrMissionswissenschaftin1947.
54.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780,p12.
55.Ibid.,p13.
2
EnglandasPrototype
1.PatrickWormald,'TheVenerableBedeandthe''ChurchoftheEnglish"',inGeoffreyRowell(ed.),TheEnglishReligiousTraditionandtheGeniusof
Anglicanism(Wantage:IkonPublications,1992),p.26.
2.JamesCampbell,'TheUnitedKingdomofEngland:TheAngloSaxonAchievement',inAlexanderGrantandKeithJ.Stringer(eds.),UnitingtheKingdom?The
MakingofBritishHistory(London:Routledge,1995),p.31.
3.WilliamStubbs,SelectCharters,9thedn,revisedbyH.W.C.Davis(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1946),p.70.
4.DorothyWhitelock,'TheAngloSaxonAchievement',inC.T.Chevallier(ed.),TheNormanConquest:ItsSettingandImpact(London,1966),p.38.
5.CharlesPlummer(ed.),TwooftheSaxonChronicles(Oxford,1892),p.140.
6.GavinBone,AngloSaxonPoetry(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1943),pp.2736.
7.MaryClayton,'Aelfric'sJudith:ManipulativeorManipulated?',AngloSaxonEngland,vol.23(1994),p.215.
8.Cf.AnthonySmith,'NationalIdentities:ModernandMedieval',inSimonForde,LewsleyJohnsonandAlanV.Murray(eds.),ConceptsofNationalIdentityin
theMiddleAges(UniversityofLeeds,1995),p.27,andelsewhereinhisnumerouswritings.
9.JohnGillingham,'TheBeginningsofEnglishImperialism',JournalofHistoricalSociology,vol.5(1992),pp.392409'HenryofHuntingdon

Page225

8.Harries,'TheRootsofEthnicity',p.41.
9.Ibid.,pp.512.
10.Ibid.,p.52.
11.Ibid.,p.52.
12.MichaelWright,BugandaintheHeroicAge(Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress,1971),p.204.
13.J.Rowe,'Myth,MemoirandMoralAdmonition:LugandaHistoricalWriting18931969',UgandaJournal,vol.33(1969),pp.1740.
14.TudorGriffiths,'BishopTuckerofUganda',unpublishedmanuscript.
15.P.F.deMoraesFariasandK.Barber(eds.),SelfAssertionandBrokerage:EarlyCulturalNationalisminWestAfrica(Birmingham,1980)J.D.Y.Peel,
'TheCulturalWorkofYorubaEthnogenesis',inE.Tonkin(ed.),HistoryandEthnicity(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1988),pp.198215ToyinFalola
(ed.),Pioneer,PatriotandPatriarch:SamuelJohnsonandtheYorubaPeople(Madison,1993).
16.RichardSklar,NigerianPoliticalParties(PrincetonUniversityPress,1963),p.233.
17.D.AnthonyLowandR.CranfordPratt,BugandaandBritishOverrule19001955(OxfordUniversityPress,1960),p.253.
18.Ibid.,p.349.
7
EthnicityFurtherConsidered
1.JohnLonsdale,'MoralEthnicityandPoliticalTribalism',inPrebenKaarsholmandJanHultin(eds.),InventionsandBoundaries:HistoricalandAnthropological
ApproachestotheStudyofEthnicityandNationalism(RoskildeUniversityPress,Denmark,1994),p.131.Myunderstandingofethnicityisverymuchthatof
JohnLonsdaleandofRichardJenkins,'Ethnicity,etceteraSocialAnthropologicalPointsofView',EthnicandRacialStudies,vol.19(1996),pp.80722.
2.E.J.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780(CambridgeUniversityPress,1990),p.104.
3.SeeAnneHilton,TheKingdomofKongo(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1985),pp.367,467,21921VictorTurner,TheRitualProcess(London:Routledge
andKeganPaul,1969),pp.97102MonicaWilson,CommunalRitualsoftheNyakyusa(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1959),pp.245.
4.J.E.A.Jolliffe,TheConstitutionalHistoryofMedievalEngland(London:Black,1937),p.100.
5.PrefacetothesecondeditionoftheEnciklopedijaJugoslavije,1983,pp.ixx.

Page226

6.E.E.EvansPritchard,NuerReligion(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1956),pp.2879GodfreyLienhardt,DivinityandExperience:TheReligionoftheDinka
(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1961),p.219.
7.TheunderlyingreasoninhisdeeplytraditionalGandathinkingwasprobablythataMugandacannotbecircumcised.
8.ErnestGellner,NationsandNationalism(Oxford:Blackwell,1983),p.11.
8
ReligionFurtherConsidered
1.ForafascinatingdiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenEnglishnessandJewishness,seeJamesShapiro,ShakespeareandtheJews(ColumbiaUniversityPress,
1996).
2.NelsonMandela,LongWalktoFreedom(London:Little,BrownandCompany,1994),p.188.
3.SeeRosalindRansford,'AKindofNoah'sArk:AelredofRievaulxandNationalIdentity',inStuartMews(ed.),ReligionandNationalIdentity,Studiesin
ChurchHistory18(Oxford:Blackwell,1982),pp.13746.
4.E.J.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalismsince1780(CambridgeUniversityPress,1990),p.48.
5.Ibid.,p.76.
6.Ibid.,p.74.
7.E.Duffy,TheStrippingoftheAltars:TraditionalReligioninEngland14001580(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1992),pp.77and79.
8.ReginoofPrm,Chronicon,MonumentaGermaniaeHistorica:ScriptoresRerumGermanicorum(65),p.xx,quotedinSusanReynolds,Kingdomsand
CommunitiesinWesternEurope9001300(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1984),p.257.
9.MichaelChemiavsky,TsarandPeople:StudiesinRussianMyths(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1961).
10.Hobsbawm,NationsandNationalism,p.49.
11.AnthonySmith,NationalismintheTwentiethCentury(Oxford:MartinRobertson,1979),especiallypp.7880.
12.LaminSanneb,TranslatingtheMessage:TheMissionaryImpactonCulture(NewYork:Orbis,1990).
13.E.J.vanDonzel(ed.),Enbaqom,AngasaAmin(LaPortedelaFoi):ApologiethiopienneduchristianismecontreL'IslampartirduCoran(Leiden:E.J.
Brill,1969).
14.M.Ghayasuddin(ed.),TheImpactofNationalismontheMuslimWorld,(London:TheOpenPress,1986),pp.1and4.
15.WilliamTemple,ChurchandNation(London:Macmillan,1915),p.45.

Page227

16.WorldMissionaryConference,Edinburgh,1910,ReportofCommission1,CarryingtheGospeltotheNonChristianWorld.
17.TheChurchesSurveytheirTask,theReportoftheConferenceatOxford,July1937,onChurch,CommunityandState(London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,
1937),especiallythe'LongerReportonChurchandCommunity',pp.188240,significanfiyowedinitsfinalformtoSirWalterMoberly,chairmanofthatsectionof
theConference.ThemostacuteChristiananalysisofthenationandnationalismdatingfromtheSecondWorldWarperiodisprobablyChristopherDawson'sThe
JudgementoftheNations(London:SheedandWard,1943).
18.ThecaseofmodemFijiisalsointeresting.ItisperhapsthemostMethodistsocietyintheworld,andMethodismhasbecomethecoreofitsnationalism.When
moreecumenicallymindedMethodistscametocontroltheleadershipofthechurch,theywereforciblyoustedbynationalists.
19.BeyondTolerance:TheChallengeofMixedMarriage,ARecordoftheInternationalConsultationheldinDublin,1974,ed.MichaelHurley(London:
GeoffreyChapman,1975),AppendixII,pp.18893.
20.AdrianHastings,'IntermarriageandtheWiderSociety',BeyondTolerance,pp.18,reprintedinA.Hastings,TheFacesofGod(London:GeoffreyChapman,
1975),pp.11725.
21.RobinFlower,TheIrishTradition(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1947),p.22cf.DibhCrinn,EarlyMedievalIreland4001200(London:Longman,
1995),p.54.
22.Cymbeline,5.5.