Namier is best known for his work on the
Parliament of Great Britain, in particular English politics in the 1760s. His principal conclusion of that decade was that there was no risk of an authoritarian disposal of British parliamentarism. By way of its very detailed study of individuals, this course of study caused substantial revision to accounts based on a party system. Namier's best-known works were
The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III,
England in the Age of the American Revolution and the
History of Parliament series he edited later in his life with
John Brooke. Namier used
prosopography or collective biography of every Member of Parliament (MP) and peer who sat in the British Parliament in the latter 18th century to reveal that local interests, not national ones, often determined how parliamentarians voted. Namier argued very strongly that far from being tightly organised groups, both the
Tories and
Whigs were collections of ever-shifting and fluid small groups whose stances altered on an issue-by-issue basis. Namier felt that prosopographical methods were the best for analysing small groups like the
House of Commons, but he was opposed to the application of prosopography to larger groups. At the time of its publication in 1929,
The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III caused a historiographical revolution in understanding the 18th century. "What Namier's minutely detailed studies revealed was the fact that politics in 1760 consisted mainly in the jockeying for position and influence by individuals within the political elite" rather than ideas such as liberty or democracy, or rivalry with foreign kings, or social effects of industrial and technological change. "Spending many years himself, off and on, in psychoanalysis, [Namier] believed that the "deep-seated drives and emotions" of the individual were what explained politics", wrote
Richard J. Evans on 29 November 2019, reviewing
Conservative Revolutionary: the lives of Lewis Namier (Manchester University Press, 2019), a new biography by D. W. Hayton (a participant in the
History of Parliament project).
Controversies Namier used sources such as wills and tax records to reveal the interests of the MPs. In his time, his methods were new and quite controversial. His obsession with collecting facts such as club membership of various MPs and then attempting to correlate them with voting patterns led his critics to accuse him of "taking ideas out of history". Namier has been described by the historian
Lawrence Stone as a member of an 'elitist school' with a 'deeply pessimistic attitude toward human affairs'. His biographer John Cannon concludes: :Namier's achievements were greatly praised during his lifetime and unduly disparaged subsequently. On his chosen ground, the accession of George III, he made important and probably irreversible corrections to the traditional whiggish account....Later on Namier was not so much repudiated as outflanked, by critics who pointed to the narrowness of his concerns, and his lack of interest in anything but political history. The technique of structural analysis, with which his name was inextricably linked as 'Namierism', offered, in his view, an escape from voluminous narrative....[but] its limitations are very evident. There are great swathes of history where, for lack of evidence, structural analysis can hardly be applied. Even where it can, there is no guarantee that it will, in itself, generate interesting and important questions.
Diplomatic history controversies As a former patient of
Sigmund Freud, Namier was a believer in
psychohistory. He also wrote on modern European history, especially
diplomatic history and his later books
Europe in Decay,
In the Nazi Era and
Diplomatic Prelude unsparingly condemned the
Third Reich and
appeasement. In the 1930s, Namier had been active in the anti-appeasement movement and together with his protégé
A. J. P. Taylor spoke out against the
Munich Agreement at several rallies in 1938. In the early 1950s, Namier had a celebrated debate on the pages of the
Times Literary Supplement with the former French foreign minister
Georges Bonnet. At issue was the question whether Bonnet had, as Namier charged, snubbed an offer by the Polish foreign minister Colonel
Józef Beck in May 1938 to have Poland come to the aid of
Czechoslovakia in the event of a German attack. Bonnet denied that such an offer had been made, which led Namier to accuse Bonnet of seeking to falsify the record. Namier's writings on German history have been criticised for being influenced by
Germanophobia. His hatred of Germany was legendary; Namier himself wrote in 1942 as the war raged on: "it did not require either 1914, or 1933, or 1939 to teach me the truth about the Germans. Long before the last war I considered them a deadly menace to Europe and the civilisation." Like the work of his friend Sir
John Wheeler-Bennett, Namier's
diplomatic histories are generally poorly regarded by modern historians because he was content to condemn appeasement without seeking to explain the reasons for it; and eager to dismiss political principles as rhetorical posturing. == Works ==