17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 76:
Line 76: − ==Historiography== − The pioneering cultural historian Johan Huizinga (1872-1945), author of ''The Autumn of the Middle Ages'' (1919) (an earlier translation in English was called ''The Waning of the Middle Ages'') and ''Homo Ludens" A Study of the Play Element in Culture'' (1935), which expanded the field of cultural history and foreshadowed the historical anthropology of younger historians of the [[Annales School]]. He was influenced by art history and advised historians to trace "patterns of culture" by studying "themes, figures, motifs, symbols, styles and sentiments."<ref> Peter Burke, "Historians and Their Times: Huizinga, Prophet of 'Blood and Roses.'" ''History Today'' 1986 36(Nov): 23-28. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext: [[EBSCO]]; William U. Bouwsma, "The ''Waning of the Middle Ages'' by Johan Huizinga." ''Daedalus'' 1974 103(1): 35-43. Issn: 0011-5266; R. L. Colie, "Johan Huizinga and the Task of Cultural History." ''American Historical Review'' 1964 69(3): 607-630 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1845780 in JSTOR]; Robert Anchor, "History and Play: Johan Huizinga and His Critics," ''History and Theory, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 63-93 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2504901 in JSTOR] </ref> − The "polder model" continues to dominate both Dutch politics and historiography. The polder model strongly emphasizes the need for consensus and discourages debate and dissent in both academia and politics - in contrast to the highly developed, intense debates in Germany.<ref> Chris Lorenz, "Het 'Academisch Poldermodel' En De Westforschung in Nederland," [The Dutch Academic Polder Model and Westforschung in the Netherlands]. ''Tijdschrift Voor Geschiedenis'' 2005 118(2): 252-270. Issn: 0040-7518 </ref> − − The H-Net list '''H-Low-Countries''' is published free by email and is edited by scholars. Its occasional messages serve an international community with diverse methodological approaches, archival experiences, teaching styles, and intellectual traditions, promotes discussion relevant to the Low Countries as a whole and to the different national histories in particular, with an emphasis on the Netherlands. H-Low-Countries offers conference announcements, questions and discussions; reviews of books, journals, and articles; and tables of contents of journals on the history of the Low Countries (in both Dutch and English).<ref> See [http://www.h-net.org/~lowc/ home page, with discussion logs]</ref> − − Once heralded as the leading event of modern Dutch history, the Dutch revolt lasted 1568-1648, and historians have worked to interpret it for even longer. Cruz (2007) explains the major points of contention and schools of thought surrounding interpretations of the deeper meaning of the Dutch bid for independence from Spanish rule. While the intellectual milieus of late-19th- and 20th-century certainly left their mark on historical interpretations of this event, Cruz argues that writings about the revolt distinctively trace changing perceptions of the role played by small countries in the history of Western civilization. As is true in most contemporary historical scholarship, there are no more grand narratives for encompassing the Dutch revolt in its entirety, but Cruz points to future directions for understanding the revolt in its wider contexts, whether European or global. Dutch and Belgian historiography since 1945 has moved away from seeing the revolt as the culmination of a long and inevitable process leading to independence. Instead historians examine the varied political and economic characters of the towns and provinces and on the weaknesses of attempts at centralization by the Habsburg rulers. The most important innovations have been in demographic and economic history, though the relationship between economics and political events remains controversial. The religious aspects of the revolt have been studied in terms of mentalities, exposing the minority position of Calvinism, while the international aspects have been studied more seriously by foreign historians than by the Dutch themselves.<ref> Laura Cruz, "The 80 Years' Question: the Dutch Revolt in Historical Perspective." ''History Compass'' 2007 5(3): 914-934. </ref> − − [[Pieter Geyl]] ((1887-1966)) was the leading historian of the Dutch Revolt, and a highly influential professor at the University of London (1919-1935) and at the State University of Utrecht (1935-57). He wrote a six-volume history of the Dutch-speaking peoples.<ref> Three volumes appeared in English translation, ''TheRevolit of the Netherlands (1555-1609)'' (1932); and ''The Netherlands in the Seventeeth Century'' (2 vol 1936, 1964).</ref>The Nazis imprisoned him in World War II. In his political views, Geyl adopted the views of the 17th-century Dutch Louvestein faction, led by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt (1547-1619) and Johan de Witt (1625-72). It stood for liberty, toleration, and national interests in contrast to the Orange stadholders who sought to promote their own self-interest. According to Geyl, the Dutch Republic reached the peak of its powers during the 17th century. He was also a staunch nationalist and suggested that Flanders could split off from Belgium and join the Netherlands. Later he decried what he called radical nationalism and stressed more the vitality of Western Civilization. Geyl was highly critical of the [[world history]] approach of [[Arnold J. Toynbee]].<ref> Herbert H. Rowen, "The Historical Work of Pieter Geyl." ''Journal of Modern History'' 1965 37(1): 35-49. Issn: 0022-2801 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1874563 − in Jstor] </ref> − − Jan Romein (1893-1962) created a "theoretical history" in an attempt to reestablish the relevance of history to public life in the 1930s at a time of immense political uncertainty and cultural crisis, when, in Romein's view, history had become too inward-looking and isolated from other disciplines. Romein, a Marxist, felt that history must contribute to social improvement. At the same time, influenced by the successes of theoretical physics and his study of [[Oswald Spengler]], [[Arnold J. Toynbee]], F. J. Teggart, and others, he spurred on the development of theoretical history in the Netherlands, to the point where it became a subject in its own right at the university level after the war. Romein used the term integral history as a substitute for cultural history and focused his attention on the period around the turn of the century. He concluded that a serious crisis occurred in European civilization in 1900 because of the rise of anti-Semitism, extreme nationalism, discontent with the parliamentary system, depersonalization of the state, and the rejection of positivism. European civilization waned as the result of this crisis which was accompanied by the rise of the United States, the Americanization of the world, and the emergence of Asia. His interpretation is reminiscent of that of his mentor Johan Huizinga and was criticized by his colleague Pieter Geyl.<ref> A. C. Otto, "Theorie En Praktijk in De Theoretische Geschiedenis Van Jan Romein" [Theory and Practice in the "Theoretical History" of Jan Romein]. ''Theoretische Geschiedenis'' 1994 21(3): 257-270. Issn: 0167-8310; P. Blaas, "An Attempt at Integral History." ''Acta Historiae Neerlandica'' 1971 (5): 271-315. Issn: 0065-129x </ref>
→Historiography: moved
==Bibliography==
==Bibliography==