Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:52:10.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

WRITING EARLY MODERN HISTORY: IRELAND, BRITAIN, AND THE WIDER WORLD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2003

NICHOLAS CANNY
Affiliation:
National University of Ireland, Galway

Abstract

The professionalization of history in Ireland resulted from the 1930s effort of T. W. Moody and R. Dudley Edwards to fuse writing on Irish history with a received version of the history of early modern England. This enterprise enhanced the academic standing of work on early modern Ireland, but it also insulated professional history in Ireland from the debates that enlivened historical discourse in England and continental Europe. Those who broke from this restriction, notably D. B. Quinn, Hugh Kearney, and Aidan Clarke, made significant contributions to the conceptualization of the histories of colonial British America, early modern England, and Scotland. These achievements were challenged by the New British History turn which, for the early modern period, has transpired to be no more than traditional English political history in mufti. None the less, writing on the histories of Ireland, Scotland, and colonial British America has endured and even flourished. Such endeavour has succeeded where the focus has been on people rather than places, where authors have been alert to cross-cultural encounters, where they have identified their subject as part of European or global history, and where they have rejected the compartmentalization of political from social and economic history. The success of such authors should encourage practitioners of both English history and the New British History to follow their examples for the benefit of endeavours which will always be complementary.

Type
Historiographical reviews
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The first version of this review was delivered as the Commonwealth Fund lecture for 2002 at University College, London. It has been much improved thanks to the critical comments made first by the respondents David Armitage, Stephen Conway, and Alan Karras, and then by Paul Bew and Lynn Hollen Lees who were commentators at the conclusion of the associated conference. More recently, the review has benefited from a critical appraisal by my colleague William O'Reilly and by two anonymous readers for the Journal.