At the Congress for Cultural Freedom held in Berlin in 1950 Trevor-Roper had joined with the philosopher A. J. Ayer in resisting the prevailing spirit of anti-Communist hysteria. He disliked all forms of witch-hunt. He nonetheless objected to the subservience of members of the Communist Party, who, he felt, sacrificed their intellectual independence to party discipline. He recognized that some Marxist historians (such as his Oxford colleague Christopher Hill)1 had made contributions to historical understanding, but felt they had never done so as Marxists.
His position was tested by the case of Moses Finley (1912–86). Finley had been dismissed in December 1952 as an assistant professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey after pleading the fifth amendment against self-incrimination when interrogated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. He again invoked the fifth amendment when summoned before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security in 1954. Shortly after this experience, he left for England, where he was considered for a studentship (fellowship) in classical studies at Christ Church. When this letter was written he was staying in Oxford.
Savile Club, 69 Brook Street, London
My dear Isaiah,
I meant to ask you this morning, and forgot, whether you either know or can find out reliable information about Moses I. Finley, a Greek historian, Jewish by origin, American by nationality, and now resident at New College, whom we are seriously considering to succeed Dundas.2 Evidently he has fled from America, where he was until recently employed at Rutgers University, having pleaded the fifth amendment. He says that he was not a communist but kept open house and was not prepared to deny on oath that he had entertained communists, lest he run into a charge of perjury. I presume he is a fellow-traveller. He says that Rutgers University supported him in the affair and will tell us the facts.
My personal impression of Finley is favourable; his reputation as an intellectual is good; he seems to be a man who extends the frontiers of his subject, rather than sitting (like so many of our colleagues) in the well-cleared middle of it; and his book The World of Odysseus, which I am reading, seems to me lively and good.1 If we elect him there is a good chance that an apoplectic stroke will carry off McCord Wright, which will be excellent,2 and perhaps Lord Cherwell will be usefully mortified. For all these reasons I am in favour of Finley.
On the other hand I do think that the question of his politics is important. On this subject, my view is fixed: fellow-travellers, apolitical sillies,—yes, if they are good enough; party members,—no, however good. This is a view I am prepared to defend, and which I am not prepared to change.
So, for the making up of my own mind, the essential question is what exactly happened at Rutgers? Since Finley himself says that Rutgers will support his version, I have no great urge to write to that (to me) unknown university. I would like clear evidence from some source which cannot have fixed it with him. Have you any means of discovering the true facts? If you have, please do.3
yours ever,
Hugh