Butterfield’s Critique of Namier

  • Keith C. Sewell
Part of the Studies in Modern History book series (SMH)

Abstract

Lewis B. Namier was a powerful force in English historiography for much of Butterfield’s most productive years. He came to England in 1907 and established himself as an authority on eastern European affairs. After 1919 he turned to thé analysis of mid-eighteenth-century British politicians. He crowned his achievement in this field with major works on The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (1929) and England in the Age of the American Revolution (1930).1 Namier and Romney Sedgwick, his long-term associate, established a formidable reputation for detailed research on a vast scale, with their meticulous work on the correspondence of George III, especially in relation to the Newcastle papers in the British Museum.2 Namier’s purpose was to reconstruct the politics of the reign of George III by a systematic prosopographic analysis of the mechanics of late eighteenth-century administrations, and the economic and social connections of the men concerned with the business of government. His rising reputation attracted some and repelled others. Nevertheless, his vast researches and rejection of the whig interpretation appeared to make him a model technical historian. Butterfield acknowledged this, at least in his references to the ‘massiveness’ of the ‘detailed researches’ of Namier and Sedgwick, as the ‘type of achievement hardly paralleled in the historiography of our time’.3

Keywords

Coherence Expense Stake Blindness Undercut 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Romney Sedgwick, The Letters of George III to Lord Bute, 1756–1766 (1939).Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Lewis B. Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution (1930), p. 147 incl. n. 1.Google Scholar
  3. 8.
    Arnaldo D. Momigliano, ‘National Versions of an International Phenomenon’, TLS 71 (24 November 1972), 1417.Google Scholar
  4. 13.
    Lewis B. Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution (1930), p. 485.Google Scholar
  5. 14.
    A. J. P. Taylor, review of Watson, The Reign of George III, The Observer (2 October 1960), 28. Cf. A. J. P. Taylor, The Trouble Makers (1957), pp. 16–17, 22–3.Google Scholar
  6. 17.
    SM, pp. 164–5; cf. Lewis B. Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution (1930), p. 416.Google Scholar
  7. 23.
    R. R. Sedgwick, review of GNP, CR 71 (22 April 1950), 449–50; cf. Ninetta S. Jucker, The Jenkinson Papers 1760–1766 (1949).Google Scholar
  8. 26.
    Lewis B. Namier, review of Pares, King George III and the Politicians, The Sunday Times (8 February 1953).Google Scholar
  9. 27.
    Richard Pares, King George III and the Politicians (1953), pp. 29, 30.Google Scholar
  10. 28.
    Lewis B. Namier, ‘History-its Subject-Matter and Tasks’, History Today 2 (1952), 157–621 and Monarchy and the Party System (1952).Google Scholar
  11. 29.
    Richard Pares, ‘Human Nature in Politics’, L 50 (17 December 1953), 1037–8.Google Scholar
  12. 31.
    Lewis B. Namier, ‘Foreword’ to John Brooke, The Chatham Administration (1956), pp. iv-vi.Google Scholar
  13. 32.
    John E. Neale, ‘The Biographical Approach to History’, H 36 (1951), 193–203; cf. GH, p. 201.Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    Robert Walcott, ‘English Party Politics’, in Essays in Modem English History in Honor of Wilbur Cortez Abbott (1941), pp. 81–131; and esp. English Politics in the Early Eighteenth Century (1956).Google Scholar
  15. 49.
    H. W. V. Temperley, ‘The Age of Walpole and the Pelhams’, in The Cambridge Modem History VI (1909), pp. 40–89.Google Scholar
  16. D. A. Winstanley, Lord Chatham and the Whig Opposition (1912), esp. pp. 1, 15–18.Google Scholar
  17. 51.
    GH, p. 199; cf. p. 238. Cf. W. T. Laprade, The Present State of the History of England in the Eighteenth Century’, JMH 4 (1932), 581–603.Google Scholar
  18. 57.
    Lewis B. Namier, The Structure of Politics (1957 ed.), pp. x-xi.Google Scholar
  19. 95.
    Lewis B. Namier, Letter to the Editor, TLS 56 (6 December 1957), 739Google Scholar
  20. Romney R. Sedgwick, ‘The Namier School’, L 58 (5 December 1957), 941, 943.Google Scholar
  21. 97.
    Richard Pares, review of GH, New Statesman (23 November 1957), 698.Google Scholar
  22. 98.
    Letter to the Editor in reply to Richard Pares, New Statesman 54 (30 November 1957), 731.Google Scholar
  23. 100.
    W. R. Fryer, ‘English Politics in the Age of Burke: Herbert Butterfield’s Achievement’, Studies in Burke and His Time 11 (1970), 1519–42.Google Scholar
  24. 102.
    J. H. Plumb, ‘The Grand Inquisitor’, The Spectator 199 (11 October 1957), 484.Google Scholar
  25. 104.
    Lewis B. Namier, review of The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, Volume I, The Spectator 201 (19 December 1958), 895–6.Google Scholar
  26. 105.
    John B. Owen, ‘Professor Butterfield and the Namier School’, CR 79 (10 May 1958), 528–31; cf. Butterfield’s Letter to the Editor in Reply to John B. Owen, CR 79 (17 May 1958), 555.Google Scholar
  27. 106.
    Romney R. Sedgwick, ‘Namier’s Impact on Historiography’, CR 82 (25 February 1961), 348–9.Google Scholar
  28. 107.
    John Brooke, ‘Namier and Namierism’, HT 3 (1964), 331–47; and ‘Namier and his Critics’, Encounter 24 (1965), 47–9.Google Scholar
  29. 108.
    Norman C. Phillips, ‘Namier and His Method’, Political Science 14 (1962), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 110.
    John Cannon, ‘Lewis Bernstein Namier’, in The Historian at Work, ed. John Cannon, (1980), pp. 136–53.Google Scholar
  31. John Kenyon, The History Men (1983), pp. 261–9Google Scholar
  32. John Vincent, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History (1996), pp. 57–68.Google Scholar
  33. 111.
    See, John Cannon, The Fox-North Coalition: Crisis of the Constitution, 1782–84 (1969); Parliamentary Reform, 1640–1832 (1973); and Aristocratic Century: the Peerage of Eighteenth-century England (1984); cf. The Whig Ascendancy, ed. John Cannon (1981), esp. pp. 177–95. The relevant article by W. R. Fryer is ‘King George III: His Political Character and Conduct, 1760–1784. A New Whig Interpretation’, Renaissance and Modem Studies 6 (1962), 68–101.Google Scholar
  34. 112.
    See esp. J. C. D. Clark, English Society 1688–1832 (1985); and Revolution and Rebellion (1986).Google Scholar
  35. 114.
    J. Steven Watson. The Reign of George III, 1760–1815 (1960), see esp. pp. 588–9; cf. review of Watson, HJ 4: 218–21.Google Scholar
  36. 115.
    Leslie G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox and the Disintegration of the Whig Party, 1782–1794 (1971); and Charles James Fox (1992).Google Scholar
  37. 116.
    J. M. Price, ‘Party, Purpose, and Pattern: Sir Lewis Namier and his Critics’, JBS 1 (1961), 92.Google Scholar
  38. 117.
    Robert Walcott, ‘The Idea of Party in the Writing of Later Stuart History’, JBS 1 (1962), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 118.
    Harvey C. Mansfield, ‘Sir Lewis Namier Considered’, JBS 2 (1962) 28–55, esp. 52–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 119.
    Robert Walcott, “‘Sir Lewis Namier Considered” Considered’, JBS 3 (1964) 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 120.
    Harvey C. Mansfield, ‘Sir Lewis Namier Again Considered’, JBS (1964), 109–19.Google Scholar
  42. 122.
    P. J. Stanlis and C. P. Ives (eds.), ‘Conference on British Studies’, Burke Newsletter 4 (1963), 197–202.Google Scholar
  43. 128.
    P. J. Stanlis and C. P. Ives (eds.), ‘Conference on British Studies’, Burke Newsletter 4 (1963), 199–200. Robbins took seriously ideas that Namier found distasteful. See her ‘Discordant Parties: A Study of the Acceptance of Party by Englishmen’, Political Science Quarterly 73 (1958), 505–29.Google Scholar
  44. 129.
    P. J. Stanlis and C. P. Ives (eds.), ‘Conference on British Studies’, Burke Newsletter 4 (1963), 200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Keith C. Sewell 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith C. Sewell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HistoryDordt CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations