Pieter Geyl (1887—1966) was undoubtedly one of the most internationally renowned Dutch historians of the twentieth century, but also one of the most controversial. Having come to the UK as a journalist, he started his academic career at the University of London in the aftermath of World War I (1919) and played an important role in the early days of the Institute of Historical Research. Known in this time for his re-interpretation of the sixteenth-century Dutch Revolt against the Habsburgs, that challenged existing historiographies of both Belgium and the Netherlands but was also linked to his political activism in favour of the Flemish movement in Belgium, Geyl left his stamp on the British perception of Low Countries history before moving back to his country of origin in 1935. Having spent World War II in German hostage camps, he famously coined the adage of history being ‘a discussion without end’ and re-engaged in public debates with British historians after the war, partly conducted on the airwaves of the BBC. A prolific writer and an early example of a ‘public intellectual’, Geyl remains one of the most influential thinkers on history of his time. The present volume re-examines Geyl’s relationship with Britain (and the Anglophone world at large) and sheds new light on his multifaceted work as a historian, journalist, homme de lettres and political activist.

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.

Het Nationaal Bureau voor Documentatie over Nederland, opgericht in 1918 door invloedrijke figuren uit het bedrijfsleven en het departement van Buitenlandse Zaken, verzamelde informatie in het buitenland over Nederland. De neutraliteit van Nederland tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog had met name bij de Entente mogendheden negatieve gevoelens opgewekt. Dit gold zeker voor België, waar zelfs aan annexatie van delen van Nederland gedacht werd. Het Bureau wenste door eigen informatie de positie van Nederland te verbeteren.Twee vertegenwoordigers berichtten regelmatig over de politieke verhoudingen in België. In die berichtgeving was er ook grote aandacht voor de positie van Vlaanderen en de plaats van de Nederlandse taal in België. Er leefden in radicale Vlaams- nationalistische kringen gedachten over een verandering van de unitaire staatsstructuur en zelfs aansluiting van Vlaanderen bij Nederland (Groot-Nederland). Pieter Geyl, formeel vertegenwoordiger van het Bureau in Londen, had contacten met de radicale groepen in Vlaanderen en wilde ook wel een politiek Groot-Nederland. Uit de berichtgeving van beide correspondenten blijkt de betrekkelijke zwakte van de radicale stromingen in Vlaanderen

In de Utrechtse Universiteitsbibliotheek liggen honderden brieven die gewisseld zijn tussen de Utrechtse hoogleraar Pieter Geyl en zijn in Londen werkzame collega Gustaaf Renier. Het is een interessante correspondentie over politiek, het vak en over persoonlijke kwesties