Johan Tollebeek

Group portraits with national heroes: the pantheon as an historical genre in nineteenth‐century Belgium

After the Revolution of 1830, the new Belgian nation‐state was in a patriotic mood. It celebrated its national glory in pantheons: imaginary temples in which the heroes from the national past were represented and accumulated. These pantheons were almost omnipresent in the public spaces of the kingdom. They familiarised the Belgians with their heroic ‘forefathers’ and with their legacy. The meaning and message of the pantheons were easily accessible. The sculpted, painted and written specimens of the genre could adopt various forms and composed according to different schemes. By the end of the nineteenth century, the pantheon had lost its prestige. Only within the framework of the debate on the ‘layered’ Belgian nationality, did a certain revival occur. As an expression of the historical culture, it had become marginal.

Historians in the archive An introduction

Historians in the 19th-century were not the first to discover the importance of source materials kept in archival depositories. More than their predecessors, however, scholars working in the historical discipline that the 19th century saw emerge tended to equate professional historical knowledge with knowledge based on primary source research, that is, practically speaking, on knowledge gained from source material that was usually kept in archives. While previous scholarship had paid ample attention to the methods that 19th-century historians employed for the study of such archival material, to the epistemologies they developed in tandem with these methods and to the institutions they created for the study of archival records, this special issue explores the influence that archives, in a classic, institutional sense, exerted on the practices of 19th-century historiography. How did the archival turn affect historians’ working manners? How contested was this archival research imperative, with its underlying autopsy principle? And how did it spread geographically, in and outside Europe?

At the crossroads of nationalism: Huizinga, Pirenne and the Low Countries in Europe1

Johan Huizinga and Henri Pirenne belong to the most prominent historians of the twentieth century. The fame of the former is most of all based on Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen (1919), a fascinating study of the Burgundian culture; the latter is widely considered as the innovator of the economic and urban history of the Middle Ages. But both historians were equally highly preoccupied by the question as to which position their countries – the Netherlands in the case of Huizinga, Belgium in the case of Pirenne – should take up in Europe and what were the responsibilities of these engagements in an international community. This preoccupation is the subject of this essay. It tells the story of diplomats from small countries, of disappointment through war and of national pride, a story also in which positions changed repeatedly.

The Use of History in Belgium and the Netherlands, 1945–65: Presentism and Historicism in the Work of Jan Romein, Pieter Geyl, and Leopold Flam

Abstract Central to this essay is the debate about the ultimate purpose of studying history and about the social role of the historian as it was conducted in the first two decades after the Second World War in Belgium and the Netherlands. Many historians took the view after the war that the study of the past must contribute directly to (political) reconstruction and the shaping of (democratic) public opinion. In the eyes of historians like the Amsterdam Professor Jan Romein and the powerful Belgian Inspector for History Teaching Leopold Flam, historiography should not be focused on knowledge of the past as such, and the same was certainly true of history teaching. On the contrary, the social capital that they represented was founded on their involvement with the present. Against this presentist position there grew the conception that the study of the past for its own sake remained of great importance in post-war society, and in fact that such an orientation towards the past itself and a critical attitude towards those who wished to use history to shape contemporary society could actually help prevent a new dictatorship or a new conflict. This historicist standpoint was regarded as anything but ‘aloof’ or ‘unethical’ by its advocates like the Utrecht Professor Pieter Geyl.