It is rare to find a historian willing to explore, in any systematic way, the relationship between politics and language. After all, the popularity of political history owes much to the easy complicity with which we accept the conventional modes of human communication, leaving terminological issues to the philosophers, or to occasional scolds like George Orwell. But Orwell is long gone and the philosophers today seem rather disinterested. Individual words often carry a lot of dangerous freight. Mischievous hybrids (“Islamo-fascism” would surely be one current example) flourish provocatively in the media. And academic as well as public discourse is littered with emotion-laden images and truth-obscuring metaphors. All credit then to Patrick Wright for inquiring into the origins of the “iron curtain,” a ubiquitous metaphor of the Cold War era. The term is indelibly associated with Winston Churchill, who made it the central image of his famous speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, 1946, sounding the alarm about Soviet postwar expansionist ambitions in and around Europe. Churchill was perfectly happy to leave undisturbed the general impression that this was yet another of his imaginative coinages. Actually, Joseph Goebbels, similarly drawing attention to the Soviet threat, had used the phrase earlier in 1944. Now Wright takes us further back to the aptly named “iron curtain” devised in the nineteenth century to provide some metallic security against the many deadly infernos caused in London theaters by the use of candles, oil lamps, lighted chandeliers, and highly inflammable special effects, including fireworks. The iron curtain protected the audience, if not the less-enraptured actors and stage hands on the other side. The transition to political imagery was made, appropriately, by the playwright and pacifist/internationalist Vernon Lee. Shocked by the advent and experience of world war in 1914, she lamented “the moment when war's cruelties and recrimination, war's monstrous iron curtain, cut us off so utterly from one another” (p. 80).
Read full abstract