Sir Lewis Namier Again Considered
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10067071 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Harvey C Mansfield (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1964 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-119 |
| Publication date | 1964-05-01 |
| 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 | 10.1086/385483 |
| OpenAlex | W2066643250 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 1 |
Walcott's critique raises three general issues: whether Sir Lewis Namier thought that the foremost task of an historian is the destruction of legends; whether he tried to write the whole truth about the eighteenth century; and whether anyone can properly be designated a professional historian or professional political scientist. Some of Walcott's particular criticisms can be answered in the discussion of these three issues. The first issue is whether Namier thought that the foremost task of an historian is the destruction of legends. At the beginning of his critique, Walcott doubts it, but does not deny it. Yet at the end of his critique, he summarizes “what Namier did do” as the removal of certain misconceptions about eighteenth-century politics; these misconceptions Namier called “legends,” according to Walcott. The misconceptions consist in analyzing eighteenth century politics in nineteenth-century terms, but they are not confined to nineteenth-century historians. They are held by twentieth-century historians as well, in fact, by all historians of the ante-Namier period, as Walcott calls it. Namier shows how much contempt he has for these historians and their legends in a sentence which cannot be considered innocuous. Namier says: “... I hardly remember having come across any contemporary materials, or any book reproducing such materials, which did not contribute something to my information.” Since “contemporary” means “eighteenth-century” here, Namier says by implication that no later ante-Namier historian has contributed to his information, unless he has reproduced eighteenth-century materials
Aesthetics · Art · Contempt · Literature · Period (music · Political science · Politics · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Classics · History · Law · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,02 |
| Citation span | 1977 - 1977 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |