Pieter Geyl

Historian and patriot, born in Dordrecht, W Netherlands. He studied Dutch language and literature at Leyden and in Italy, then served as London correspondent of the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (1913–19). He was appointed the first professor of Dutch studies at London University (1919–36) and professor of modern history at Utrecht (1936–58). During World War 2, he was imprisoned in Buchenwald (1940–1), then interned in The Netherlands until 1944. From 1946 he was, in addition to his post at Utrecht University, emeritus professor at the Economische Hoogeschool at Rotterdam. His works, of which the most important is Geschiedenis van der Nederlandse Stam (1930–7, trans History of the Dutch People, 1932) reflect his support for the Flemish Movement and a strong desire to see north and south reunited within a ‘Greater Netherlands’. He had firm views about the nature of the historian's task, arguing against the deterministic position of such writers as Toynbee and Romein. Other works include Oranje en Stuart (1939), Napoleon, voor en tegen (1946), and De Patriottenbeweging, 1748-1787 (1947).

Pieter Catharinus Arie Geyl (December 15, 1887-December 31, 1966) was a Dutch historian well known for his studies in early modern Dutch history and in historiography.

Geyl was born in Dordrecht and graduated from the University of Leiden in 1913.

In 1919, Geyl took up a professorship in Dutch history at the University of London, where he taught until 1935. In 1935, Geyl returned home to become a professor at the University of Utrecht. In 1940, Geyl wrote an article on how historians view Napoleon that was due to be published in June 1940. After the German occupation in May 1940, the publishers declined to publish Geyl's article out of the fear that comparisons could be made between Napoleon and Adolf Hitler. In September 1940, Geyl used his article for the basis of series of lectures at the Rotterdam School of Economics. In October 1940, the SD (Security Service) of the SS took Geyl hostage in retaliation for what the Germans alleged to be maltreatment of Germans interned in the Dutch East Indies. Even after his release from Buchenwald, Geyl continued to be held by the Germans at a Dutch prison until he was finally released for medical reasons in February 1944.

In 1945, Geyl became the chair of history at University of Utrecht. Geyl was a critic of the Sonderweg interpretation of German history that argued that Nazi Germany was the inevitable result of the way German history developed. In particular, Geyl defended the German historian Leopold von Ranke against the charge of being a proto-Nazi.

Geyl was best known as a critic of the British historian Arnold J. Geyl often debated Toynbee both on the radio and in print. In addition, Geyl considered Toynbee's theory to be simplistic, ignoring the full complexity of the past; Finally, Geyl was opposed to Toynbee's claim that Western civilization was in terminal decline.

Geyl was noted for challenging the then-popular theory that the Dutch and Flemings had little common history. Geyl made the claim that there was a "Great Netherlands" history and that the Dutch and Flemings only separated during the Eighty Years' War (better known as the Dutch Revolt in the English-speaking world) against Spain in the 16th century. Geyl argued that the revolt failed in the south not because of political, cultural or religious differences, but only because the geography in the north with its lakes, bogs and rivers favored the rebels and the geography in the south with its flat plains favored the Spanish Army.

Geyl was also was noted for arguing that the House of Orange and the Dutch people were often in conflict, especially during the 18th century. Geyl accused William IV of Orange of using the uprising of the Doelisten (a group of Amsterdam burgers) against the ruling elite to seize power for himself in 1748. Another revisionist claim made by Geyl was that the marriage of William of Orange (later William III of England) to Mary II was the main cause of the first Anglo-Dutch War in the 17th century.

Geyl's most famous book was Napoleon For and Against, an account of how French historians of different ages and views have regarded the French Emperor. Geyl used his book to advance his view that all historians are influenced by the present when writing history and thus all historical writing is transitory. In Geyl's view, there never can be a definitive account for all ages because every age has a different view of the past. For Geyl, the best that historians could do was to critically examine their beliefs and urge their readers to do likewise. Geyl felt that history was a progress of "argument without end", but did not feel that this meant that an "anything goes" interpretation of history was acceptable.