Madam, - David Dickson (June 22nd) writes that I was "simply wrong" in my "criticisms of the current generation of Irish historians" (June 11th).
It would have been juster and more courteous of him to write that what I said was unfortunately true, but that there are signs that the situation may be improving.
My criticism of the current generation of Irish historians regarded their "histories of Ireland", currently on offer, with particular reference to their treatment of the 20th century. These books, I said, fail to show that, "the British Isles apart, the main international setting of Irish history between 1916 and 1965 was colonial and semi-colonial Africa and Asia".
I mentioned the three principal neglected themes: the impact of the Irish Revolution and missionary movement in those countries and the parallel between the innovative nature of Irish party politics, post-1922, and post-colonial politics generally.
I pointed out that, apart from Tom Garvin's work on the last of these themes, the basic research has not been done and published and that, amazingly, there is not even one book supplying a comprehensive account of the missionary movement - the largest organised foreign enterprise in Irish history.
Mr Dickson knows well that these statements about the histories on offer and the research done and published are true. His report of current academic activity on the neglected themes is heartening. But this activity has yet to repair the inadequacies of the current "histories of Ireland" in their treatment of the Irish 20th century. - Yours, etc.,
DESMOND FENNELL, Anguillara, Rome, Italy.