Sir Lewis Namier Considered
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10064952 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Harvey C Mansfield (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1962 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 28-55 |
| Publication date | 1962-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of British Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0021-9371 • E-ISSN: 1545-6986 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1086/385453 |
| OpenAlex | W1988161284 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 5 |
The late Sir Lewis Namier seems to have the highest, or nearly the highest authority of historians, chiefly for his work on English politics in the 1760's. This article attempts to make a judgment of his authority by examining the truth of his findings about English politics in the 1760's. Namier's authority is in great part based upon his seeming care in his researches, since people suppose that those who are occupied with details are careful with details. The results of his researches must therefore be considered in their presentation. But these researches need not be redone, at least for the purpose of understanding Namier's findings; for his findings rest upon an argument — an argument constructed not only from the results of researches but from general statements that are not results of his researches. Indeed, it happens that Namier's general statements fall within political science, as that subject has been understood since Aristotle. The present writer is a political scientist, and proposes to concentrate on Namier's argument. Namier's principal conclusion is that there was no danger of tyranny in Britain in the 1760's. His argument has two parts, or he has two arguments: the apparent danger of tyranny is explained and deflated, first by the heir-apparent cycle, and second by the superiority of modern party government. He reaches his conclusion by denying effect to the source of danger usually identified by historians and thoughtful contemporaries, the influence of Bolingbroke — so that he seems, to one critic, to ignore the importance of “ideas.”
Argument (complex analysis · Epistemology · Political science · Politics · Presentation (obstetrics · Principal (computer security · Sociology · Subject (documents · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Computer Science · History · Law · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,05 |
| Citation span | 1964 - 1982 (19) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |