13
existence of nations to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
33
Yet even within the
perennialist camp there are two varying perspectives on the idea of nations. The first
strand is “continuous perennialism,”
34
which asserts that modern-day nations have their
basis in the distant past. In addition, although national identities may have waned at
times throughout the centuries, the versions expressed at present are acknowledged to be
derived from their earlier counterparts. “Recurrent perennialism” constitutes the second,
and most important, variant of the perennialist critique of the modernist view.
35
In the
recurrent model, a nation existed in the past only to wither and die. However, when a
nation re-emerges hundreds of years later it is as much a nation as the ancient
counterpart, although the people do not derive their identity from the earlier example.
36
For example, Smith argues that the Jews of post-Roman times are not inherently attached
to the national identity of the pre-Roman Jews. Nor should they be, as they constitute a
group of people with an expanded historical and psychological legacy, which would
never be taken into account by the ancient nation of the same name.
37
For the purposes
of this paper in general, and the English case specifically, the idea of “recurrent
perennialism” will receive extended attention.
“Recurrent perennialism,” I would argue, is the best way to view the historical
genesis of the English nation. While the idea of “continuous perennialism” may be
attractive to academics like Liah Greenfeld, it still does not account for the disappearance
of national identity in England for almost three centuries, in favor of a British patriotism.
Additionally, it appears that the English national identity of today is simply reacting
33
Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism (London: Routledge, 1998), 2-4.
34
Smith, The Nation in History, 35-40.
35
Ibid., 40-1.
36
Ibid., 34-5.
37
Ibid., 41.
Convention