Namier and Namierism

Abstract

The great historian, wrote Sir Lewis Namier in his essay on History, like great artist or doctor: after he has done his work, others should not be able practise within its sphere in terms of preceding era. No one who works within Namier's chosen sphere British parliamentary history in eighteenth century can do so in terms of pre-Namier era; and such has been his authority that for some time come historians of that period will be differentiated from each other on a pro and anti-Namier basis, with respect both methods and conclusions. In field of modem European history Namier's contribution was less substantial, nor has this aspect of his work aroused same degree of controversy over methods and outlook. Still, human history is a unit, however we may divide it up for convenience of or research; and a historian's purpose is likely be same whatever period he studies. To Namier the crowning attainment of historical study was historical sense an intuitive understanding of how things did not happen. (How they did happen was a matter of specific knowledge.) For Namier main purpose of history was help man to master past immanent both in his person and in his social setting and induce in him a fuller understanding of present. It is not object of this essay examine Namier's findings in detail nor test validity of his conclusions within his chosen sphere: that is a matter for research, not for an essay in historiography. Namier himself modified many of his earlier findings in light of his later work, and further research will no doubt bring more changes. There can be no such thing as definitive history, and historian's contribution understanding of humanity is not be measured by degree which his work is outdated by subsequent research. An undergraduate today has access a body of scientific knowledge which was beyond reach of Newton, but that does not make him a greater scientist than Newton. It is purpose of this essay consider Namier method and outlook, his conception of history and way it should be written; something which even in his lifetime was known as Namierism, and which has influenced historians of all periods. This involves an examination of implications behind Namier's work, of ideas taken for granted but