Pieter Geyl

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Pieter Geyl spent thirteen months inside Buchenwald concentration camp with a half-finished argument in his pocket. The Dutch historian had written an article about Napoleon just before the German occupation of the Netherlands in May 1940. His publishers refused to print it, fearing that readers would compare Napoleon to Adolf Hitler. So Geyl turned it into lectures, delivered at the Rotterdam School of Economics in September 1940, while the SS was already watching. Within weeks he was taken hostage. What kind of scholar provokes an occupying army with a history lecture? The answer reaches back to Dordrecht, where Geyl was born on the 15th of December 1887, and forward to a career that would overturn the accepted story of what it meant to be Dutch, challenge the most celebrated historian in the English-speaking world, and insist that history itself could never be finished.

• 2. From Dordrecht to London

  ›

  Geyl graduated from the University of Leiden in 1913, and his doctoral thesis was on Christofforo Suriano, the Venetian ambassador in the Netherlands from 1616 to 1623. It was a careful, archival piece of work. His first job, at Stedelijk Gymnasium Schiedam, lasted only a year before he moved to London as the correspondent for the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant newspaper. That posting proved transformative. Geyl built friendships with influential figures across Britain during those years, connections that eventually opened an academic door. In 1919 he was appointed professor of Dutch history at the University of London, a post he held until 1935. He was, for most of his professional life, an outsider looking in on the Netherlands from across the North Sea. That distance may have sharpened the revisionist instincts he would soon turn on Dutch history itself. He returned to the Netherlands in 1935 to join the University of Utrecht, and his relationship with the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences followed a similarly restless arc: correspondent from 1928, resignation in 1936, then full membership in 1946.

• 3. The Greater Netherlands Idea

  ›

  Geyl's most controversial historical argument was deceptively simple. The split between the Dutch and the Flemish was not, he insisted, the product of deep cultural, religious, or political differences. It was an accident of terrain. During the Eighty Years' War against Spain in the sixteenth century, the rebels held on in the north because lakes, bogs, and rivers made the Spanish advance difficult. In the south, flat plains gave the Spanish Army the advantage it needed. Geography, not destiny, drew the border. Geyl called the shared story of these peoples the "Greater Netherlands" history and developed it across a series of articles and in his major work, De Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Stam, which he began publishing in 1930 and left unfinished at his death, the final volume having appeared in 1959. His argument ran directly against the nationally oriented, almost deterministic view held by historians such as P.J. Blok and Henri Pirenne, who treated Dutch and Belgian history as separate tracks that were always going to diverge. Geyl's critics pointed out that he paid too little attention to administrative and economic forces that had worked to bind each region together after the separation, and that he sometimes drew boundaries based on language alone. But his refreshing reinterpretation of the Dutch Revolt earned genuine respect. Consistent with his own conclusions, he actively supported the Flemish movement, though he stopped short of endorsing Dutch-Flemish irredentism. He also pushed a revisionist reading of the House of Orange, accusing William IV of exploiting the 1748 Doelisten uprising in Amsterdam to seize power for himself.

• 4. Hostage at Buchenwald

  ›

  The article that got Geyl into trouble had been written in 1940. After the German occupation of May 1940, his publishers decided they could not risk comparisons between Napoleon and Adolf Hitler, and the piece stayed in a drawer. Geyl gave his Napoleon lectures at the Rotterdam School of Economics in September 1940. The following month, in October 1940, the SD, the Security Service of the SS, took him hostage. The stated justification was retaliation for what the Germans alleged to be mistreatment of Germans interned in the Dutch East Indies. Geyl spent thirteen months at Buchenwald. After his release from the camp he was still not free. The Germans held him at Kamp Sint-Michielsgestel until February 1944, when he was finally let go on medical grounds. He returned to Utrecht, and in 1945 he was appointed chair of history there. His opening address to students called on them to disprove the political and cultural myths that had made National Socialism possible. He also used that moment to defend Leopold von Ranke, the German historian, against accusations that Ranke's ideas had paved the way for Nazi ideology. For Geyl, intellectual honesty required defending a scholar against a false charge, even a German scholar in 1945.

• 5. Arguing with Toynbee

  ›

  Arnold J. Toynbee was one of the most celebrated historians in the English-speaking world, and Geyl thought he was wrong about almost everything. Toynbee claimed to have found laws governing how civilisations rise and fall. Geyl objected on three grounds. First, Toynbee selected evidence that supported his thesis and ignored what did not. Second, his theory of "challenge and response" as the engine of historical change was too loose, a catch-all that explained nothing in particular. Third, his claim that Western civilisation was in terminal decline struck Geyl as an ideological position dressed up as analysis. The two men debated repeatedly, both on radio and in print. They even co-wrote a discussion, published in 1948 under the title Can We Know the Pattern of the Past?, and a further collaboration with Pitirim Sorokin appeared the following year as The Pattern of the Past: Can we Determine it? Geyl's challenge was not simply that Toynbee was factually wrong here and there. It was deeper: Toynbee believed he could stand outside history and describe its laws. Geyl believed no historian could do that. Every historian, Geyl argued, is shaped by the concerns of their own present, which means every historical account is eventually superseded. His Napoleon book, Napoleon: voor en tegen in de Franse geschiedschrijving, published in 1946 and translated into English by 1948, made exactly that case by tracing how French historians across different eras had painted Napoleon as either a destroyer or a patriot, depending on the anxieties of their moment. His phrase for this condition was that history is a "progress of argument without end." He did not take this to mean that any interpretation was as good as another. The work of the historian, in his view, was to examine beliefs critically and to invite readers to do the same.

• 6. A Career in Print

  ›

  Geyl's published record stretches from his 1913 Leiden thesis on Suriano to History of the Low Countries: Episodes and Problems, published by Macmillan in 1964 and based on the Trevelyan Lectures he gave in 1963. The translated volumes of De Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Stam appeared in English as The Revolt of the Netherlands, 1555-1609 and The Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century; both were reissued in 1966 by Barnes and Noble. Oranje en Stuart, 1641-72, first published in 1939, was translated by A. Pomerans and appeared in English as Orange and Stuart, 1641-72, from Scribner in 1970. Napoleon, For and Against came out from Yale University Press in 1948, with a revised edition in 1964. Geyl died on the 31st of December 1966 in Utrecht, the city where he had taught since 1935, with the Trevelyan Lectures edition of his Low Countries essays barely two years old.