Abstract
The academic study of European history has not been the exclusive domain of the continent’s own scholars. American historians by the nineteenth century believed that understanding their own political and social heritage required a wider consideration of Europe as a single historical identity. With the emergence of the modern university system and professional academic history, Americans were challenged to fashion an integrated European consciousness that derived coherent cultural traditions for an increasingly diverse population in North America.1 By the early twentieth century, scholars confronted the need to consider a more standard conception of European history in the curricula of higher education across the country, both for contemporary affairs and the pre-modern era, in terms that could identify with American civic attitudes.2 This interpretation of Europe, however, could not mirror only domestic conceptions. By necessity scholarship would rely on foreign research that comprised fragmented national narratives and conceptions of cultural uniqueness across ethno-linguistic groupings. At the same time, European specialists were increasingly pressed to relate their research to the ‘New History’, as practised by Americanist colleagues who called for a more inclusive, interdisciplinary and present-minded examination of the country’s entire social past.3 The apocalypse of the First World War only intensified an interest among American academics to understand their country’s relation to the world through a transatlantic historical identity.4
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
4 G. A. Eakin-Thimme, ‘Deutsche Nationalgeschichte und Aufbau Europas: Deutschspra-chige jüdische Historiker im amerikanischen Exil’, Exilforschung 19 (2001), 71; and the author’s ‘An American Annales? The Revue internationale d‘histoire économique of Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre’, Journal of Modern History 76 (2004), 528–621. (Hereafter JMH)
6 Claims of American objectivity regarding Europe include C. Haskins, ‘European History and American Scholarship’, AHR 28 (1923), 226; E. Préclin, ‘Bulletin critique: Histoire des États-Unis’, Revue Historique 59 (1934), 302–3; and V. Valentin, ‘Postscript’, in The German People (New York, 1946), p. 727.
9 For the influence of the First World War on ‘Western civilization’ as a pedagogical concept, see Gilbert Allardyce, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course’, AHR 87 (1982), 695–743; and L. Hunt, ‘Reports of Its Death Were Premature: Why ‘Western Civ’ Endures’, in L. Kramer, D. Reid and W. Barney (eds), Learning History in America: Schools, Cultures, and Politics (Minneapolis, 1994), pp. 34–43.
20 On the Encyclopedia and the narrow Eurocentrism that Langer brought to its direction, see P. Stearns, ‘History’s Advances: Recasting a Historical Reference Classic’, The Historian 57 (1994), 113–20.
28 G. Bruun, ‘Clio in the Pulpit’, The Nation 140 (1935), 552–3; C. Hayes, ‘History and the Present’, The Social Studies 27 (1936), 75–81; and J. Hexter’s review of Myron Gilmore, The World of Humanism, 1453–1517, JMH 26 (1954), 372.
33 Louis Gottschalk’s review of G. Bruun, Europe and the French Imperium, 1799–1814, AHR 44 (1939), 619.
34 James King’s review of F. Nussbaum, The Triumph of Science and Reason, 1660–1685, AHR 59 (1953), 94–6.
35 Mitchell Garrett’s review of L. Gershoy, From Despotism to Revolution, 1763–1789, AHR 50 (1945), 322–3.
36 Jonathan Scott’s review of R. Binkley, Realism and Nationalism, 1852–1871, JMH 8 (1936), 504; W. A Frayer’s review of Artz, Reaction and Revolution, 1815–1830, JHM 7 (1936), 220.
37 John Murray’s review of P. Roberts, The Quest for Security, 1715–1740, JMH 20 (1948), 165–7.
38 See the separate reviews by Thomas Moodie and Robert S. Brown on B. Schmitt and H. Vedeler, The World in the Crucible, 1914–1919, The History Teacher 20 (1986), 133–4, 143–5.
40 Frank J. Manheim‘s devastating review of Artz in Political Science Quarterly 50 (1935), 294–7; and Solomon Bloom, ‘Two Stages of Capitalism’, The New Republic 87 (1936), 358.
52 R. Richgels, The Sixteenth Century Journal 7 (1976), 125; E. Cochrane, AHR 82 (1977), 86–8; R. Po-chia Hsia, Renaissance Quarterly 39 (1986), 99–100; A. Fix, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 54 (1986), 613–5; and T. A. Brady Jr., The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985), 410–12.
53 The development of ‘New History’ exacerbated this tendency even more for the legitimacy of Europe or American societies over other world cultures. See D. E. Segal, ‘‘Western Civ’ and the Staging of History in Higher American Education’, AHR 105 (2000), 770–805.
59 W. Dorn, ‘Some Problems of Contemporary Historiography’, Ohio Archaeological and Historical Journal 47 (1938), 219–22. Dorn was heavily influenced by his contact with Friedrich Meinecke and especially Otto Hintze, to whom he dedicated his Harper volume. See P. T. Walther, ‘Die Zerstörung eines Projektes: Hedwig Hintze, Otto Hintze und Friedrich Meinecke’, in G. Bock and D. Schönpflug (eds), Friedrich Meinecke in seiner Zeit. Studien zu Leben und Werk (Stuttgart, 2006), pp. 137, 144.
60 Chester Higby’s review of Walter Dorn, Competition for Empire, 1740–1763 (New York, 1940), AHR 46 (1940), 128; Hoffman Nickerson in Military Affairs 5 (1941), 123; T. Pease, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 27 (1940), 283–4; and Hans Rosenberg, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience 1660–1815 (Cambridge, MA, 1966), p. 21.
75 Historians expressed concern over the pedagogical implications of the books main political theses. See Hale, ‘The Rise of Modern Europe’, p. 5; F. Palm, AHR 47 (1942), 852–4; and A. Adey, Current History 2 (1942), 61–2.
77 C. Brinton, ‘The “Harvest” Years’, Saturday Review of Literature 24 (1941), 12; H. Rothfels, JMH 14 (1942), 385–7; and, more ambiguously, W. Gurian in The Review of Politics 4 (1942), 91–3. The pro-fascist Ross Hoffman of NYU shared this thesis in his review of Binkley’s book, ‘The Watershed of the Nineteenth Century’, The American Review 6 (1936), 503–6.
82 On the war guilt revisionism, see E. L. Evans and J. O. Baylen, ‘History as Propaganda: The German Foreign Office and the “Enlightenment” of American Historians on the War Guilt Question, 1930–1933’, Canadian Journal of History 10 (1975), 186.
84 G. Lefebvre, ‘Histoire de la Révolution et de l’Empire’, Revue Historique 176 (1935), 78–9. On Brinton as an ‘enlighten conservative’ who admired Burke and sympathized with Cochin, see Eugene Curtis’s review in JMH 7 (1936), 211–12.
85 For Brinton’s subsequent comparative studies on world revolutions, see J. Friguglietti, ‘Dissecting a Classic: Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution after Fifty Years’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History 16 (1989), 428–35.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 John L. Harvey
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harvey, J.L. (2010). The Nation, Progress and European Identity in The Rise of Modern Europe. In: Berger, S., Lorenz, C. (eds) Nationalizing the Past. Writing the Nation: National Historiographies and the Making of Nation States in 19th and 20th Century Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292505_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292505_23
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31526-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29250-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)