ИПИ Библиотека

A miscellany of essays on Shakespeare as a historian, French historians foe and against the Revolution, contemporary historians, and other historical subjects.

Historical knowledge, this noted Dutch historian declares, should be a result of free investigation and criticism. Since it deals with facts, not imagination, it cannot be cast into a predetermined mold to fit a unified pattern of arbitrary principles. “The most we can hope for,” he states, “is a partial rendering, an approximation, of the real truth about the past.” In this succinct analysis of the philosophy and method of history, Professor Geyl examines the prevailing concepts of history and the new “awareness of distance” from the past that was lacking in earlier historians. History, he points out, provides an elucidation of the present and its problems by showing them in perspective. – Yale University Press

Pieter Geyl

Pieter Catharinus Arie Geyl, (born Dec. 15, 1887, Dort, Neth.—died Dec. 31, 1966, Utrecht), Dutch historian whose works on the Netherlands are highly respected both for their wealth of information and for their scholarly, incisive critical analysis.

Geyl became interested in history after entering the University of Leiden, where, during his last year there (1911), he became involved with the Flemish movement. After receiving his doctorate in 1913, he worked as Londoncorrespondent for the Dutch daily Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant.

In 1919 he was appointed professor of Dutch history and institutions at theUniversity of London, where he remained until 1935, when he became professor of history at the University of Utrecht. In October 1940 he was arrested by the Nazis, placed in Buchenwald until 1941, and then transferred to the Netherlands for internment. He was released in 1944 and, after liberation (1945), began teaching again.

Geyl’s first published work (1913) was his dissertation on Christofforo Suriano, the Venetian resident in The Hague during the early 17th century. His next book, Willem IV en Engeland tot 1748 (1924), discussed the struggle between the party of Orange and the republican States Party and its effects on the Dutch Republic’s foreign policy, themes that were to become dominant in many of his later works. A collection of articles, De Groot-Nederlandsche gedachte, appeared in 1925 (a second volume was added in 1930), dealing with the concept of unity in the history of Holland and Flanders and generally sympathetic to the development of the nation-state. His greatest contribution, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse stam, 6 vol. (1930–37; “History of the Dutch People”), covered Dutch history from its beginning to 1798. Another volume on the schism between the House of Orange and the populace,Revolutiedagen te Amsterdam, Augustus-September 1748, appeared in 1936. Oranje en Stuart, 1641–1672 (1939), considered his best monograph, recounted, analyzed, and evaluated the conflict between Orange and national interests.

In 1947 Geyl initiated a long and often bitter debate with the English historian Arnold Toynbee, criticizing Toynbee’s work for what he called its artificiality, nonempirical basis, and theological assumptions. Throughout the 1950s he continued to produce essays, including (in English) Debates with Historians (1955), Use and Abuse of History (1955), and Encounters in History (1961).

Geyl’s work is noted for its emphasis on foreign policy in contrast to constitutional questions, careful analysis of the geographic and military factors behind the religious schism of the Netherlands, and scrupulous and conscientious standards of historical scholarship.