Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:38:15.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Sir Lewis Namier Considered” Considered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Robert Walcott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is not to reconsider Sir Lewis Namier either as a person or as a historian. Since his death in 1960 there has been a spate of critiques, ranging from sound discussions of his historical method appearing in this and in two sister journals to the treatment by a Hindu journalist of Namier and other contemporary British historians which appeared in the New Yorker magazine under a title provided by the epigraph to Sir Lewis's most famous work. Whether his work should properly be interpreted in terms of his “continental conservatism” as Sir Edward Carr suggests, or whether Namier's influence on British historiography on balance has been pernicious (as one L.S.E. don believes), are not questions with which this discussion will be concerned. Its function is much narrower; to examine a recent contribution to these pages, the article by Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., entitled “Sir Lewis Namier Considered.”

In this essay Mansfield purports to explain just how Namier interpreted the early years of George III and exactly what his line of argument was in reaching his conclusions. Inevitably the question is raised: “Was there actual danger of tyranny in the political philosophy of the youthful George III?” This is an important question to which a number of distinguished historians have turned their attention; but Mansfield does not use the methods of the historian — whether sympathetic to Namier like Richard Pares, or admittedly hostile like the Master of Peterhouse. Mansfield is not a historian but a political scientist, and he writes that he is not proposing to question Namier's investigations of political facts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , May 1964 , pp. 85 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Price, Jacob M., “Party, Purpose, and Pattern: Sir Lewis Namier and His Critics,” J.B.S., I (1961), 71–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winkler, Henry M., “Sir Lewis Namier,” J.M.H., XXXV (1963), 1–19Google Scholar; Fryer, W. R., “Namier and the King's Position in English Politics, 1744-84,” Burke Newsletter, V (1963), 246–58Google Scholar.

2. Mehta, Ved, “The Flight of the Crook-Taloned Birds,” New Yorker, Dec. 8, 1962, pp. 59–147Google Scholar; Dec. 15, 1962, pp. 47-129.

3. Carr, E. H., What Is History? (New York, 1962), pp. 45-48, 162-64, 204–08Google Scholar.

4. Letter from Watt, D. C., Commentary, XXXIV (1962), 167.Google Scholar

5. Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr., “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 28–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Pares, Richard, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953)Google Scholar.

7. Butterfield, Herbert, George III and the Historians (London, 1957), Bk. III, pp. 193–296Google Scholar: “George III and the Namier School.”

8. Mansfield speaks of Namier's “seeming care” in his researches, but the implications of the gratuitous phrase are not followed up. See Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Ibid., II (1962), 29. Of the two passages cited by Mansfield in support of this statement, the first reads: “The foremost task of honest history is to discredit and drive out its futile or dishonest varieties” (Namier, L. B., Avenues of History (London, 1952), p. 6Google Scholar), hardly the same thing as the “destruction of legends.” The second passage (Namier, L. B., England in the Age of the American Revolution (London, 1930), p. 149Google Scholar) is one in which Namier delights in some of the ironies of the 1760's, concluding: “For the purposes of historical comedy, and with a view of destroying some very beautiful and very rational legends, it will pay” to follow out the duel between Newcastle and Bute. Namier's alleged preoccupation with “destroying legends” hardly seems borne out by these two citations.

10. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 41Google Scholar.

11. Mansfield makes 128 separate references to Namier's writings. Eighteen are to Namier, L. B., The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (2nd ed.; London, 1957)Google Scholar; seventy-two are to Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution.

12. Forty-one of the seventy-two references to Namier's England in the Age of the American Revolution are to the two sections mentioned. Certain pages of the work (pp. 32-46, 61-73) are cited over and over again, there being nearly thirty references to these two relatively brief sections.

13. Mansfield makes sixteen references to Namier, L. B., Monarchy and the Party Sysyem (Oxford, 1952)Google Scholar, eighteen to The Structure of Politics.

14. Mansfield has one reference to Namier's pages on the constitutional background and significance of the role of the heir apparent (England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 55-60, cited in Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 28, note 2)Google Scholar, but this aspect of the “cycle” clearly does not interest him — if, in fact, he understands it. Instead, he turns rather to Sedgwick's emphasis — the principal objective of his attack in Parts I and II of the essay.

15. Sedgwick, Romney (ed.), Letters from George III to Lord Bute, 1756-1766 (London, 1939), p. xviGoogle Scholar.

16. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 28 and text of note 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “Namier left the elaboration of his heir-apparent argument to Romney Sedgwick.” See also ibid., II, 36, note 29.

17. ibid., II (1962), 29: “Instead of the influence of Bolingbroke, Namier and Sedgwick offer an alternative explanation of George Ill's state of mind upon his accession, centering on his experience as heir-apparent.”

18. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. lviGoogle Scholar, quoting Letters 231-32.

19. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 35Google Scholar.

20. ibid.

21. Watson, J. Steven, “Parliamentary Procedure as a Key to the Understanding of Eighteenth Century Politics,” Burke Newsletter, III (1962), 109Google Scholar.

22. Ibid.

23. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, pp. xviii, xliiiGoogle Scholar. This dictum is too sweeping for Pares. See Richard Pares, review of Romney Sedgwick (ed ) Letters from George III in E.H.R.. LV (1940), 476.Google Scholar

24. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 34Google Scholar. Two references are supplied for this assertion. The first cites again Sedgwick's denial of Bolingbroke's influence on George III so far as the letters to Bute are concerned. The second is to a passage in Namier's, England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 66Google Scholar, and note 1, which includes a sampling of the commonplaces of opposition “gathered from various opposition papers and pamphlets published between 1735 and 1761.” The sampling confirms one's judgment that Namier was certainly familiar with opposition theories. Since neither Sedgwick nor Namier cites Boling-broke, it necessarily follows (so Mansfield seems to argue) that neither of them has read him or at any rate made even “the most elementary inquiry.”

25. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 42, note 47Google Scholar. Three samples of such “scandalous” misreading of Burke are adduced, but a comparison of Namier's summaries with what Burke actually wrote in his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents discloses no such scandalous liberties — though Mansfield is of course free to hold such an opinion.

26. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 36Google Scholar.

27. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 94–105Google Scholar.

28. “Early phrases” implies that George was still a boy. The nine letters quoted were written between 1755 and 1758 when George was from eighteen to twenty years of age — in a period when maturity was supposed to come early.

29. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 36Google Scholar.

30. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xxiv.Google Scholar

31. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 36–37Google Scholar.

32. Mansfield's italics.

33. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 37Google Scholar.

34. ibid., II (1962), 39. Namier “identifies any danger of tyranny in the eighteenth century from the signs of tyranny well-known in the seventeenth century.” This assertion is not supported by the eight citations given by Mansfield.

35. ibid., II (1962), 39.

36. My italics.

37. Mansfield's italics.

38. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” II (1962), 39.Google Scholar

39. Ibid.

40. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 353Google Scholar.

41. Ibid.

42. ibid., pp. 424, 426, cited in Mansfield, “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 39, note 41Google Scholar.

43. ibid., II (1962), 40.

44. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. viiiGoogle Scholar, quoted in Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 39Google Scholar.

45. In his review of Sedgwick's Letters from George III to Lord Bute, reprinted in Avenues of History, p. 120; and again in Monarchy and the Party System, p. 9.

46. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 39Google Scholar. Which historians are supposed to be criticized in this passage, and any other examples of “spirited but cramped criticisms” are not specified.

47. ibid., II (1962), 39.

48. ibid., II (1962), 40.

49. ibid., II (1962), 41.

50. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. ixGoogle Scholar.

51. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 42Google Scholar.

52. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. xivGoogle Scholar.

53. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 42Google Scholar, and notes 46 and 47.

54. ibid., II (1962), 42-43. [Mansfield's italics.]

55. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. xGoogle Scholar.

56. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 45–46Google Scholar.

57. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 265Google Scholar.

58. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 47Google Scholar.

59. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 317Google Scholar.

60. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 47Google Scholar.

61. Ibid.

62. Ibid.

63. See above p. 95.

64. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 34, note 24Google Scholar.

65. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 3Google Scholar.

66. Iibid., p. 29.

67. ibid., p. 20.

68. Namier, L. B., Personalities and Powers (London, 1955), p. 1Google Scholar, cited in Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 34Google Scholar, note 24.

69. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 48–49Google Scholar.

70. ibid., II (1962), 49.

71. ibid.

72. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 149Google Scholar.

73. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 479Google Scholar.

74. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 52Google Scholar.

75. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 46Google Scholar, cited in Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), p. 52, note 74Google Scholar.

76. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 52, note 74Google Scholar.

77. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 213Google Scholar, cited in Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 52, note 75Google Scholar.

78. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 213Google Scholar.

79. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), p. 36Google Scholar, text of note 29.

80. ibid., II (1962), p. 52, text of note 75.

81. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 4Google Scholar: “The leading territorial families, and even gentry of lesser rank, now invaded the borough representation; and the Crown attempted to secure seats for its servants and dependants in the House of Commons — if a true equation of forces was to be attained in it, the executive centring in the King as yet extraneous to the House of Commons, had to receive its own representation in the House.”

82. Namier, , England in he Age of the American Revolution, p. 9Google Scholar.

83. ibid., p. 11, cited in Mansfield, “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 52, note 75.

84. As is well known, Sir Lewis devoted his life after his retirement from the University of Manchester to the History of Parliament, which was to make that exhaustive analysis of the Commons which he believed so important. So far not one of the biographical volumes has appeared, and it may well prove that even this task is “too vast and complex.” One hopes that this will not be the case, though there has been criticism that the effort has unprofitably engaged the efforts of too many young English historians.

85. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 52Google Scholar.

86. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 24Google Scholar.

87. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 51, note 71Google Scholar.

88. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 23Google Scholar.

89. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 53Google Scholar.

90. Namier, , Avenues of History, p. 5Google Scholar.

91. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 53Google Scholar.

92. Namier, , Aevenues of History, p. 9Google Scholar.

93. Mansfield does the same thing in a footnote, writing: “Namier's concern that his discoveries will not be embodied in history texts or art gallery catalogues is very prominent.” “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 53, note 80Google Scholar. The first of the two references for this statement — Personalities and Powers, p. 40 — has no mention of either texts or gallery catalogues. The second — to Namier's review of Sedgwick, in Avenues of History, p. 21Google Scholar — includes only a remark to the effect that Namier would not be surprised to find all the old legends about George III in a new “standard work” or book “revaluating” the 1760's, or a biography of George III. The two references hardly bear the weight of Mansfield's assertion.

94. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 51Google Scholar. [Mansfield's italics.]

95. ibid., II (1962), 28; and see above p. 85, note 8.

96. Mansfield, , “Sir Lewis Namier Considered,” J.B.S., II (1962), 55Google Scholar [concluding sentences of the article]. This final judgment is very much like that of A. J. P. Taylor, reviewing the new edition of Namier's Structure of Politics and England in the Age of the American Revolution.

97. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 485Google Scholar.