Editing History of the Netherlands (section)

==Historiography==
The American [[John Lothrop Motley]] was the first foreign historian to write a major history of the Dutch Republic. In 3500 pages he crafted a literary masterpiece that was translated into numerous languages; his dramatic story reached a wide audience in the 19th century. Motley relied heavily on Dutch scholarship and immersed himself in the sources. His style no longer attracts readers, and scholars have moved away from his simplistic dichotomies of good versus evil, Dutch versus Spanish, Catholic versus Protestant, freedom versus authoritarianism. His theory of causation overemphasized ethnicity as an unchanging characteristic, exaggerated the importance of William of Orange, and gave undue importance to the issue of religious tolerance.<ref>{{Citation |first=Robert |last=Wheaton |title=Motley and the Dutch Historians |journal=New England Quarterly |date=1962 |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=318–336 |doi=10.2307/363823 |jstor=363823}}</ref>

The pioneering Dutch cultural historian [[Johan Huizinga]], author of ''The Autumn of the Middle Ages'' (1919) (the English translation 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 influenced the historical anthropology of younger historians of the French [[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>{{Citation |first=Peter |last=Burke |title=Historians and Their Times: Huizinga, Prophet of 'Blood and Roses |journal=History Today |date=November 1986 |issue=36 |pages=23–28}};<br/>{{Citation |first=William U. |last=Bouwsma |title=The ''Waning of the Middle Ages'' by Johan Huizinga |journal=Daedalus |date=1974 |volume=103 |issue=1 |pages=35–43}};<br/>{{Citation |first=R. L. |last=Colie |title=Johan Huizinga and the Task of Cultural History |journal=American Historical Review |date=1964 |volume=69 |issue=3 |pages=607–630 |doi=10.2307/1845780 |jstor=1845780}};<br/>{{Citation |first=Robert |last=Anchor |title=History and Play: Johan Huizinga and His Critics |journal=History and Theory |date=1978|volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=63–93 |doi=10.2307/2504901 |jstor=2504901}}</ref>

The "polder model" continues to strongly influence historians as well as Dutch political discussion. The polder model stressed the need for finding consensus and discouraged furious debate and angry dissent in both academia and politics – in contrast to the highly developed, intense debates in Germany.<ref>{{Citation |first=Chris |last=Lorenz |title=Het 'Academisch Poldermodel' En De Westforschung in Nederland", [The Dutch Academic Polder Model and Westforschung in the Netherlands] |journal=Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis |date=2005 |volume=118 |issue=2 |pages=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 region and to the different national histories in particular, with an emphasis on the Netherlands. H-Low-Countries publishes 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 h-net.org home page, with discussion logs]</ref> After World War II both research-oriented and teaching-oriented historians have been rethinking their interpretive approaches to Dutch history, balancing traditional memories and modern scholarship.<ref>{{Citation |first=Alexander |last=Albicher |title=A forced but passionate marriage: The changing relationship between past and present in Dutch history education 1945–1979 |journal=Paedagogica Historica |date=2012 |volume=48 |issue=6 |pages=840–858|doi=10.1080/00309230.2012.709526 |s2cid=145489228 }}</ref> In terms of popular history, there has been an effort to ensure greater historical accuracy in museums and historic tourist sites.<ref>{{Citation |first1=Susan |last1=Broomhall |first2=Jennifer |last2=Spinks |title=A Interpreting place and past in narratives of Dutch heritage tourism |journal=Rethinking History |date=2010 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=267–285 |doi=10.1080/13642521003710854 |s2cid=145474831 |author-link=Susan Broomhall}}</ref>

Once heralded as the leading event of modern Dutch history, the [[Dutch Revolt]] lasted from 1568 to 1648, and historians have worked to interpret it for even longer. In 2007, Laura Cruz explained the major debates among scholars regarding the Dutch bid for independence from Spanish rule. While agreeing that the intellectual milieus of late 19th and 20th centuries affected historians' interpretations, Cruz argued that writings about the revolt trace changing perceptions of the role played by small countries in the history of Europe. In recent decades grand theory has fallen out of favor among most scholars, who emphasize the particular over the general. Dutch and Belgian historiography since 1945 no longer says the revolt was the culmination of an inevitable process leading to independence and freedom. Instead scholars have put the political and economic details of the towns and provinces under the microscope, while agreeing on the weaknesses of attempts at centralization by the Habsburg rulers. The most influential new studies have been rooted in demographic and economic history, though scholars continue to debate the relationship between economics and politics. The religious dimension has been viewed 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>{{Citation |first=Laura |last=Cruz |title=The 80 Years' Question: the Dutch Revolt in Historical Perspective |journal=History Compass |date=2007 |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=914–934|doi=10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00400.x }}</ref>

[[Pieter Geyl]] was the leading historian of the Dutch Revolt, and an influential professor at the University of London (1919–1935) and at the State University of Utrecht (1936–1958). He wrote a six-volume history of the Dutch-speaking peoples.<ref>Three volumes appeared in English translation, ''The Revolit of the Netherlands (1555–1609)'' (1932); and ''The Netherlands in the Seventeenth 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]] and [[Johan de Witt]]. 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 (field)|world history]] approach of [[Arnold J. Toynbee]].<ref>{{Citation |first=Herbert H. |last=Rowen |title=The Historical Work of Pieter Geyl |journal=Journal of Modern History |date=1965 |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=35–49 |doi=10.1086/239563 |issn=0022-2801 |jstor=1874563|s2cid=143576090 }}</ref>

[[Jan Romein]] 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 Romein thought that history had become too inward-looking and isolated from other disciplines. Romein, a Marxist, wanted history to contribute to social improvement. At the same time, influenced by the successes of theoretical physics and his study of [[Oswald Spengler]], [[Arnold J. Toynbee]], [[Frederick John 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>{{Citation |first=A. C. |last=Otto |title=Theorie En Praktijk in De Theoretische Geschiedenis Van Jan Romein [Theory and Practice in the "Theoretical History" of Jan Romein] |journal=Theoretische Geschiedenis |date=1994 |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=257–270 |issn=0167-8310}}; {{Citation |first=P. |last=Blaas |title=An Attempt at Integral History |journal=Acta Historiae Neerlandica |date=1971 |volume=5 |pages=271–315 |issn=0065-129X}}</ref>