Definición y significado de Eric_Hobsbawm

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Eric Hobsbawm

Eric John Ernest Hobsbawm, CH, FBA, FRSL (born 9 June 1917) is a British Marxist historian, public intellectual, and author. His best known works include the trilogy about the long 19th century: The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848, The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 and The Age of Empire: 1875-1914; and an edited volume which introduced the influential idea of 'invented traditions'.

  Life

Hobsbawm was born in 1917 in Alexandria, Egypt, to Leopold Percy Obstbaum and Nelly Grün, both Jewish, and he grew up in Vienna, Austria and Berlin, Germany. A clerical error at birth altered his surname from Obstbaum to Hobsbawm.^[1] Although the family lived in German-speaking countries, his parents spoke to him and his younger sister Nancy in English.

His father died in 1929, and he started working as an au pair and English tutor. He became an orphan at age 14 upon the death of his mother. Subsequently, he and Nancy were adopted by his maternal aunt, Gretl, and paternal uncle, Sidney, who married and had a son named Peter. Hobsbawm was a schoolboy in Berlin when Hitler came to power in 1933; that year the family moved to London where he attended St Marylebone Grammar School.^[1]

He was educated at Prinz-Heinrich-Gymnasium Berlin (today Friedrich-List-School), St Marylebone Grammar School (now defunct) and King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated with a Ph.D. in history on the Fabian Society. He was a member of the Cambridge Apostles. During World War II, he served in the Royal Engineers and the Royal Army Educational Corps.

Hobsbawm married twice. His first wife was Muriel Seaman, whom he married in 1943 and divorced in 1951. His second marriage was to Marlene Schwarz, with whom he has two children, Julia Hobsbawm and Andy Hobsbawm. Julia is chief executive of Hobsbawm Media and Marketing and a visiting professor of public relations at the College of Communication, University of the Arts London.^[2][3] He also has a son, Joshua, from a previous relationship.

He is a Marxist and was a long-standing member of the now defunct Communist Party of Great Britain and the associated Communist Party Historians Group. He is president of Birkbeck, University of London.^[4] He was appointed a Companion of Honour in 1998, a British honour unique in that it is the personal gift of the monarch for outstanding achievement in the arts, literature, music, science, politics, industry or religion^[5] (whose fellow recipients included in 2011 Norman Tebbit, former Secretary of State of Employment under Margaret Thatcher, and former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major). In 2003 he was awarded the Balzan Prize for European History since 1900, "For his brilliant analysis of the troubled history of twentieth-century Europe and for his ability to combine in-depth historical research with great literary talent."

  Politics

Hobsbawm joined the Sozialistischer Schülerbund (Association of Socialist Pupils), an offshoot of the Young Communist League of Germany, in Berlin in 1931,^[6] and the Communist Party in 1936. According to Oliver Kamm, Hobsbawm supported the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact;^[7] according to David Pryce-Jones, in 1940 he wrote a defence with Raymond Williams of the Soviet invasion of Finland the previous year.^[8] He was a member of the Communist Party Historians Group from 1946 to 1956. The Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 led most of its members to remove themselves from the British Communist Party. Hobsbawm, uniquely among his notable colleagues, remained in the Party. Yet he denounced the USSR's crimes and abuses as early as 1956, he characterised the Polish and the Hungarian uprisings as "revolts of workers and intellectuals against bureaucracies and pseudo-communist political systems",^{[citation needed]} and signed a historians' letter of protest against the Soviet invasion of Hungary and was strongly in favour of the Prague spring.^[1]

Hobsbawm was later a leading light of the Eurocommunist faction in the CPGB that began to gather strength after 1968, when the CPGB criticised the Soviet crushing of the Prague Spring and the French CP failed to support the May students in Paris.^[9] In "The Forward March of Labour Halted?" (originally a Marx Memorial Lecture, "The British Working Class One Hundred Years after Marx", that was delivered to a small audience of fellow Marxists in March 1978 before being published in Marxism Today in September 1978), he argued that the working class was inevitably losing its central role in society, and that left-wing parties could no longer appeal only to this class; a controversial viewpoint in a period of trade union militancy.^[9][10] Hobsbawm supported Neil Kinnock's transformation of the British Labour Party from 1983 (the party received just 28% of the vote in that year's elections, just 2% more than than the Social Democratic Party/Liberal Alliance), and, though not close to Kinnock, came to be referred to as "Neil Kinnock's Favourite Marxist".^[9] His interventions in Kinnock's remaking of the Labour Party helped prepare the ground for the Third Way, New Labour, and Tony Blair,^[9] whom Hobsbawm later derisively referred to as "Thatcher in trousers".^[11] Until the cessation of publication in 1991, he contributed to the magazine Marxism Today. A third of the 30 reprints of Marxism Today's feature articles that appeared in The Guardian during the 1980s were articles or interviews by or with Hobsbawm, making him by far the most popular of all contributors.^[9] Since the 1960s his politics have taken a more moderate turn, as Hobsbawm came to recognize that his hopes were unlikely to be realized, and no longer advocates "socialist systems of the Soviet type".^[12] Yet, he remains firmly entrenched on the Left, and thinks the long-term outlooks for humanity are 'bleak'.^{[13][14][15][16][17]}

  Miscellaneous views

Regarding the Queen, Hobsbawm has stated that constitutional monarchy in general has "proved a reliable framework for liberal-democratic regimes" and "is likely to remain useful".^[18] On the nuclear attacks on Japan in WWII, he adheres to the view that "there was even less sign of a crack in Japan's determination to fight to the end [compared with that of Nazi Germany], which is why nuclear arms were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ensure a rapid Japanese surrender",^[19] though believes there was an ancillary political, non-military reason for the bombings: "perhaps the thought that it would prevent America's ally the USSR from establishing a claim to a major part in Japan's defeat was not absent from the minds of the US government either."^[20]

  Academia

In 1947, he became a lecturer in history at Birkbeck. He became reader in 1959, professor between 1970–82 and an Emeritus professor of history 1982. He was a fellow between 1949–55 at King's College, Cambridge.^[1] Hobsbawm has spoken of the weaker version of McCarthyism that took hold in Britain and affected Marxist academics: "you didn't get promotion for 10 years, but nobody threw you out".^[6] Hobsbawm was also denied a lectureship at Cambridge by political enemies, and, given that he was also blocked for a time from a professorship at Birkbeck for the same reasons, has spoken of his good fortune at having got a post at Birkbeck in 1948 before the Cold War really started to take off.^[6] David Pryce-Jones has questioned the existence of such career obstacles.^[8]

Hobsbawm helped found the academic journal Past & Present in 1952.^[6] He was a visiting professor at Stanford in the 1960s. In 1970, he was appointed professor and in 1978 he became a Fellow of the British Academy. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1971.^[21]

He retired in 1982 but stayed as visiting professor at The New School for Social Research in Manhattan between 1984–97. He is currently President of Birkbeck and Professor Emeritus in The New School for Social Research in the Political Science department. He speaks German, English, French, Spanish and Italian fluently, and reads Portuguese and Catalan.^[1]

One of Hobsbawm's interests is the development of traditions. His work is a study of their social construction in the context of the nation state. He argues that many traditions are invented by national elites to justify the existence and importance of their respective nation states.^[22]

  Praise and Criticism

In 1994, Neal Ascherson said of Hobsbawm: "No historian now writing in English can match his overwhelming command of fact and source. But the key word is 'command'. Hobsbawm's capacity to store and retrieve detail has now reached a scale normally approached only by large archives with big staffs."^[6] In 2002, Hobsbawm was described by right-leaning magazine The Spectator as "arguably our greatest living historian—not only Britain's, but the world's",^[23] while Niall Ferguson wrote: "That Hobsbawm is one of the great historians of his generation is undeniable. . . . His quartet of books beginning with The Age of Revolution and ending with The Age of Extremes constitute the best starting point I know for anyone who wishes to begin studying modern history. Nothing else produced by the British Marxist historians will endure as these books will."^[24] In 2003, The New York Times described him as "one of the great British historians of his age, an unapologetic Communist and a polymath whose erudite, elegantly written histories are still widely read in schools here and abroad."^[25] James Joll wrote in The New York Review of Books that "Eric Hobsbawm's nineteenth century trilogy is one of the great achievements of historical writing in recent decades."^[26] Ian Kershaw said that Hobsbawm's take on the twentieth century, his 1994 book, The Age of Extremes, consisted of "masterly analysis";^[27] however, Tony Judt, while praising Hobsbawm's vast knowledge and graceful prose, cautioned that Hobsbawm's bias in favour of the USSR, communist states and communism in general, and his tendency to disparage any nationalist movement as passing and irrational, weakened his grasp of parts of the 20th century.^[28]

With regard to the impact of his Marxist outlook and sympathies on his scholarship, Ben Pimlott saw it as "a tool not a straitjacket; he's not dialectical or following a party line", although Judt argued that it has "prevented his achieving the analytical distance he does on the 19th century: he isn't as interesting on the Russian revolution because he can't free himself completely from the optimistic vision of earlier years. For the same reason he's not that good on fascism."^[1]

British historian David Pryce-Jones conceded that Hobsbawm is "no doubt intelligent and industrious, and he might well have made a notable contribution as a historian", but also charged that, as a professional historian who has "steadily corrupted knowledge into propaganda, and scorns the concept of objective truth", he is "neither a historian nor professional."^[8] Brad DeLong strongly criticised Age of Extremes: "The remains of Hobsbawm's commitment to the religion of World Communism get in the way of his judgment, and twist his vision. On planet Hobsbawm, for example, the fall of the Soviet Union was a disaster, and the Revolutions of 1989 a defeat for humanity. On planet Hobsbawm, Stalin planned multi-party democracies and mixed economies for Eastern Europe after World War II, and reconsidered only after the United States launched the Cold War."^[29] After reading Age of Extremes, the celebrated Kremlinologist Robert Conquest concluded that Hobsbawm suffers from a "massive reality denial" regarding the USSR,^[25] and John Gray, though praising his work on the nineteenth century, has described Hobsbawm's writings on the post-1914 period as "banal in the extreme. They are also highly evasive. A vast silence surrounds the realities of communism, a refusal to engage which led the late Tony Judt to conclude that Hobsbawm had 'provincialised himself'. It is a damning judgement".^[30]

Conquest has claimed that in 1994, in an interview with Canadian author and politician Michael Ignatieff on British television, Hobsbawm responded in the affirmative to the question of whether 20 million deaths may have been justified had the proposed communist utopia been created.^[7] The following year, when asked the same question on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, that is if "the sacrifice of millions of lives" would have been worth a communist utopia, he replied: "That's what we felt when we fought the Second World War".^[1] Hobsbawm has similarly argued that, "In a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing".^[31]

Tony Judt opined that Hobsbawm "clings to a pernicious illusion of the late Enlightenment: that if one can promise a benevolent outcome it would be worth the human cost. But one of the great lessons of the 20th century is that it's not true. For such a clear-headed writer, he appears blind to the sheer scale of the price paid. I find it tragic, rather than disgraceful."^[1] Neil Ascherson believes that, "Eric is not a man for apologising or feeling guilty. He does feel bad about the appalling waste of lives in Soviet communism. But he refuses to acknowledge that he regrets anything. He's not that kind of person."^[1] Hobsbawm himself, in his autobiography, wrote that he desires "historical understanding . . . not agreement, approval or sympathy".^[32]

Hobsbawm has stressed that since the utopia had not been created, the sacrifices were in fact not justified—a point he emphasised in Age of Extremes:

Still, whatever assumptions are made, the number of direct and indirect victims must be measured in eight rather than seven digits. In these circumstances it does not much matter whether we opt for a "conservative" estimate nearer to ten than to twenty million or a larger figure: none can be anything but shameful and beyond palliation, let alone justification. I add, without comment, that the total population of the USSR in 1937 was said to have been 164 millions, or 16.7 millions less than the demographic forecasts of the Second Five-Year Plan (1933–38).^[33]

Elsewhere he has insisted:

I have never tried to diminish the appalling things that happened in Russia, though the sheer extent of the massacres we didn't realise. . . . In the early days we knew a new world was being born amid blood and tears and horror: revolution, civil war, famine—we knew of the Volga famine of the early '20s, if not the early '30s. Thanks to the breakdown of the west, we had the illusion that even this brutal, experimental, system was going to work better than the west. It was that or nothing.^[1]

With regard to the 1930s, he has written that

It is impossible to understand the reluctance of men and women on the left to criticise, or even often to admit to themselves, what was happening in the USSR in those years, or the isolation of the USSR's critics on the left, without this sense that in the fight against fascism, communism and liberalism were, in a profound sense, fighting for the same cause. Not to mention the more obvious fact . . . that, in the conditions of the 1930s, what Stalin did was a Russian problem, however shocking, whereas what Hitler did was a threat everywhere.^[34]

"Of the many myths that Western Communists lived by, perhaps the most abiding is that of Communist anti-Fascism of the 1930s and 1940s—one that was consolidated in Spain's Civil War of 1936–1939", noted Gina Herrmann in her 2010 study of Spanish communists' memoirs,^[35] though the profound fascist/anti-fascist schism of the period described by Hobsbawm was real enough, as Yale historian Timothy Snyder notes:

For many Europeans and Americans, the show trials were simply trials, and confessions were reliable evidence of guilt. Some observers who were sympathetic to the Soviet Union saw them as a positive development: the British socialist Beatrice Webb, for example, was pleased that Stalin had "cut out the dead wood." Other Soviet sympathizers no doubt suppressed their suspicions, on the logic that the USSR was the enemy of Nazi Germany and thus the hope of civilization. European public opinion was so polarized by 1936 that it was indeed difficult to criticize the Soviet regime without seeming to endorse fascism and Hitler.^[36]

Nevertheless, unencumbered by Marxist sympathies, Snyder is able to come full circle: "The Spanish Civil War revealed that Stalin was determined, despite the Popular Front rhetoric of pluralism, to eliminate opposition to his version of socialism", and that his determination was knowable and known even contemporarily (Snyder cites George Orwell's clear-sighted understanding of, and dismay at, communist actions in Spain).^[37] On the communist role in Spain, Hobsbawm writes simply that "its pros and cons continue to be discussed in the political and historical literature",^[38] sneeringly refers to Orwell, not by his literary name, but as "an upper-class Englishman called Eric Blair".^[39][8] He also claims that the demise of the USSR was "traumatic not only for communists but for socialists everywhere",^[40] a statement that led journalist Francis Wheen to retort: "Speak for yourself, comrade. I, like many other socialists, greeted the fall of the Soviet model with unqualified rejoicing; and I don't doubt that Karl Marx would have been celebrating. His favourite motto, de omnibus disputandum ('everything should be questioned'), was not one that had any currency in the realm of 'actually existing socialism'—a hideous hybrid of mendacity, thuggery and incompetence."^[41]

The 1930s aside, he has been criticised for never relinquishing his Communist Party membership. Whereas people like Arthur Koestler received their final shove away from communism after seeing Moscow airport draped in swastikas for a visit from Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop,^[42] Hobsbawm stood firm even after the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, though he was against them both.^[1][25] In his review of Hobsbawm's 2002 memoirs, Interesting Times, Niall Ferguson wrote:

The essence of Communism is the abnegation of individual freedom, as Hobsbawm admits in a chilling passage: "The Party . . . had the first, or more precisely the only real claim on our lives. Its demands had absolute priority. We accepted its discipline and hierarchy. We accepted the absolute obligation to follow 'the lines' it proposed to us, even when we disagreed with it . . . We did what it ordered us to do . . . Whatever it had ordered, we would have obeyed . . . If the Party ordered you to abandon your lover or spouse, you did so."

Consider some of the "lines" our historian dutifully toed. He accepted the order to side with the Nazis against the Weimar-supporting Social Democrats in the great Berlin transport strike of 1932. He accepted the order to side with the Nazis against Britain and France following the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939. He accepted the excommunication of Tito. He condoned the show trials of men like Laszlo Rajk in Hungary.

In 1954, just after Stalin's death, he visited Moscow as one of the honoured members of the Historians' Group of the British Communist Party. He admits to having been dismayed when, two years later, Khrushchev denounced Stalin's crimes at the Twentieth Congress of the Soviet Communist Party. When Khrushchev himself ordered the tanks into Budapest, Hobsbawm finally spoke up, publishing a letter of protest. But he did not leave the Party.^[24]

He finally let his membership lapse not long before the party's dissolution in 1991.^[1] In his review of Hobsbawm's memoirs, David Pryce-Jones alleges that Hobsbawm in fact did support the invasion of Hungary:

[H]e carefully makes sure not to quote the letter he published on 9 November 1956 in the Communist Daily Worker defending the Soviet onslaught on Hungary: "While approving, with a heavy heart, of what is now happening in Hungary, we should therefore also say frankly that we think the USSR should withdraw its troops from the country as soon as this is possible." Which is more deceitful, the spirit of this letter, or the omission of any reference to it [in his memoirs]?^[8]

In those memoirs, Hobsbawn wrote: "The dream of the October Revolution is still there somewhere inside me  . . . I have abandoned, nay, rejected it, but it has not been obliterated. To this day, I notice myself treating the memory and tradition of the USSR with an indulgence and tenderness."^[43] Reviewing the book, David Caute wrote: "One keeps asking of Hobsbawm: didn't you know what Deutscher and Orwell knew? Didn't you know about the induced famine, the horrors of collectivisation, the false confessions, the terror within the Party, the massive forced labour of the gulag? As Orwell himself documented, a great deal of evidence was reliably knowable even before 1939, but Hobsbawm pleads that much of it was not reliably knowable until Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin in 1956."^[23]

Reviewing Hobsbawm's 2011 How to Change the World in The Wall Street Journal, Michael Moynihan observed:

When the bloody history of 20th-century communism intrudes upon Mr. Hobsbawm's disquisitions, it's quickly dismissed. Of the countries occupied by the Soviet Union after World War II—"the Second World War," he says with characteristic slipperiness, "led communist parties to power" in Eastern and Central Europe—he explains that a "possible critique of the new [postwar] socialist regimes does not concern us here." Why did communist regimes share the characteristics of state terror, oppression and murder? "To answer this question is not part of the present chapter." Regarding the execrable pact between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, which shocked many former communist sympathizers into lives of anticommunism, Mr. Hobsbawm dismisses the "zig-zags and turns of Comintern and Soviet policy," specifically the "about-turn of 1939–41," which "need not detain us here." In one sense, Mr. Hobsbawm's admirers are right about his erudition: He possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of Marxist thought, specifically Italian communism and pre-Soviet socialist movements. But that knowledge is wasted when used to write untrustworthy history.^[25]

Reviewing the same book, Francis Wheen likewise noted: "When writing about how the anti-fascist campaigns of the 1930s brought new recruits to the communist cause, he cannot even bring himself to mention the Hitler-Stalin pact, referring only to 'temporary episodes such as 1939-41'. The Soviet invasion of Hungary and the crushing of the Prague Spring are skipped over."^[41]

David Evanier, in an article published in the American conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, called Hobsbawm "Stalin's cheerleader," writing: "One can learn almost nothing about the history of communism from Hobsbawm's Interesting Times—nothing about the show trials, the torture and execution of millions, the Communist betrayal of Spain."^[44]

  Works

Hobsbawm has written extensively on many subjects as one of Britain's most prominent historians. As a Marxist historiographer he has focused on analysis of the "dual revolution" (the political French revolution and the industrial British revolution). He sees their effect as a driving force behind the predominant trend towards liberal capitalism today. Another recurring theme in his work has been social banditry, a phenomenon that Hobsbawm has tried to place within the confines of relevant societal and historical context thus countering the traditional view of it being a spontaneous and unpredictable form of primitive rebellion.^{[1][22][29][45][46][47][48]} He also coined the term "long nineteenth century", which began with the French Revolution in 1789 and ended with the start of World War I in 1914.

Outside of his academic historical writing, Hobsbawm has written a regular column (under the pseudonym 'Francis Newton', taken from the name of Billie Holiday's communist trumpet player, Frankie Newton) for the New Statesman as a jazz critic, and time to time over popular music such as with his "Beatles and before" article.^[49] He has published numerous essays in various intellectual journals, dealing with subjects like barbarity in the modern age to the troubles of labour movements and the conflict between anarchism and communism. His most recent publications are Globalisation, Democracy and Terrorism (2007), On Empire (2008), and the collection of essays How to Change the World: Marx and Marxism 1840-2011 (2011).

  Partial publication list

  Honours and awards

• 1973: Honorary Fellow, King's College, Cambridge
• 1978: Fellow of the British Academy
• 1995: Deutscher Memorial Prize; Lionel Gelber Prize
• 1996: Wolfson History Oeuvre Prize
• 1998: Companion of Honour, Order of the Companions of Honour
• 1999: Buchpreis zur Europäischen Verständigung Leipziger Buchpreis zur Europäischen Verständigung (Hauptpreis)
• 1999: Honorary degree from Universidad de la República Montevideo, Uruguay
• 2000: Ernst Bloch Prize
• 2003: Balzan Prize recipient
• 2006: Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature ^[54]
• 2008: Honorary citizenship from Vienna
• 2008: Honorary degree from University of Vienna
• 2008: Honorary degree from Charles University in Prague
• 2008: Bochum History Prize

  See also

• Independent Jewish Voices

  Notes

  References

• Campbell, J. "Towards the Great Decision: review of the The Age of Empire" from Times Literary Supplement, Volume 4428, February 12, 1988, p. 153.
• Carlin, Norah & Birchall, Ian, "Eric Hobsbawm and the working class", from International Socialism, No.2:21, Autumn 1983.
• Cronin, J. "Creating a Marxist Historiography: the contribution of Hobsbawm" from Radical History Review, Volume 19, 1979, pp. 87–109.
• Elliott, Gregory, Hobsbawm: History and Politics, London: Pluto Press, 2010.
• Genovese, Eugene "The Squandered Century: review of The Age of Extremes" from The New Republic, Volume 212, April 17, 1995, pp. 38–43
• Hampson, Norman. "All for the Better? review of Echoes of the Marseillaise" from Times Literary Supplement, Volume 4550, June 15, 1990, p. 637.
• Herrmann, Gina (2010). Written in Red: The Communist Memoir in Spain. Champaign, IL: Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0-252-03469-5. 
• Judt, Tony. "Downhill All the Way: review of The Age of Extremes" from New York Review of Books, May 25, 1995, Volume 49, Issue # 9, pp. 20–25.
• Kershaw, Ian (2001) [1998]. Hitler: 1889–1936: Hubris. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-013363-9. 
• Landes, David "The Ubiquitous Bourgeoisie: review of The Age of Capital" from Times Literary Supplement, Volume 3873, June 4, 1976, pp. 662–664.
• McKibblin, R. "Capitalism out of Control: review of The Age of Extremes"from Times Literary Supplement, Volume 4778, October 28, 1994, p. 406.
• Mingay, G. E. "Review of Captain Swing" from English Historical Review, Volume 85 (337), 1970, p. 810.
• Samuel, Raphael & Jones, Gareth Stedman (editors) Culture, Ideology and Politics: essays for Eric Hobsbawm, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982.
• Seton-Watson, H. "Manufactured Mythologies: review of The Invention of Tradition" from Times Literary Supplement, Volume 4207, November 18, 1983, p. 1270.
• Smith, P. "No Vulgar Marxist: review of On History"from Times Literary Supplement, Volume 4917, June 27, 1997, p. 31.
• Snowman, Daniel. "Eric Hobsbawm" from History Today, Volume 49, Issue 1, January 1999, page 16–18.
• Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. London: The Bodley Head. ISBN 978-0-224-08141-2. 
• Thane, P.; Crossick, G. & Floud, R. (editors) The Power of the Past: essays for Eric Hobsbawm, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
• Thane, P. & Lunbeck, E. "Interview with Eric Hobsbawm", in: Visions of History, edited by H. Abelove, et al., Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983; pp. 29–46.
• Weber, Eugen. "What Rough Beast?" from Critical Review, Volume 10, Issue # 2, 1996, pp. 285–298.
• Wrigley, Chris. "Eric Hobsbawm: an appreciation" from Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, Volume 38, Issue #1, 1984, p. 2.

  External links

• Profile in the London Review of Books
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/sep/14/biography.history
• http://www.ncsu.edu/acontracorriente/spring_04/Slatta.pdf
• http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7315
• Interview with Eric Hobsbawm and Donald Sassoon: European Identity and Diversity in Dialogue, Barcelona Metropolis, Spring 2008.
• Eric Hobsbawm interviewed by Alan Macfarlane 13th September 2009 (film)
• Where have the rebels gone? An interview with Eric Hobsbawm (video), Books & Ideas, January 21, 2010.
• World Distempers: interview with Eric Hobsbawm, New Left Review 61, January–February 2010.
• Brief bio and links to articles, Spartacus.SchoolNet.co.uk]

Birkbeck, University of London Subdivisions and publications London Consortium London Knowledge Lab The Mechanics' Institute Review University Campus Birkbeck Stratford Gordon Square Malet Street Woburn Square People Academics Alumni Master: Professor David Latchman President: Eric Hobsbawm Other History Student life Affiliates 1994 Group Association of Commonwealth Universities London Centre for Arts and Cultural Exchange University of London Category