Name
Dr. John Bew
College
Peterhouse
What is your field of history?
The political and intellectual history of the British Isles (including Ireland). My original focus was on the late eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, although I have also branched out to the modern period, looking at the issue of terrorism.
How did you come to specialise in this area?
The late eighteenth century first captured my imagination because of my interest in the political thought from that time. It was also a period in which Europe was racked by revolution, war and violence and in which people were trying to reshape the world around them. Those who failed to achieve this interest me as much as those who succeeded.
What sort of source material do you tend to use, and what are its strengths and weaknesses?
I have used a range of material including pamphlets, political tracts, sermons, newspapers, parliamentary debates and the letters of politicians. More recently, I have covered the annual release of state documents from thirty years ago, under the Freedom of Information Act – cabinet papers, official briefings, minutes from meetings etc.
Sometimes those involved in politics put a positive spin on their own actions and arguments, which you have to keep a look out for. It is normally possible to spot lies or half-truths. What is harder to identify is self-delusion on the part of whoever I am looking at, which occurs quite a lot.
Which individuals, events or forces are especially important in your area of history?
Much of my work is framed by the 1801 Act of Union between Britain and Ireland. This relates to the formation of the state and the nation in the British Isles over the last three hundred years. For that reason, I often focus on intellectuals and opinion formers, as well as politicians and statesmen. At the moment I am writing a biography of Lord Castlereagh, the foreign secretary at the time of the Napoleonic Wars.
How has your field developed over the course of your career?
For the study of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, historians basically use the same sources as they did one hundred years ago. However, it is becoming easier to find what you need because of internet search engines, scanners and CD-Roms.
In terms of modern (contemporary) history, people are starting to be more open-minded about the use of evidence – live interviews are increasingly important, and more people are prepared to refer to television or the internet in their footnotes. The writing of history will change much more dramatically over the next fifty years than it did in the last century.
Which areas of your field most urgently need further exploration?
I deal with periods about which there have been a lot of history books and one of the toughest challenges is to find new documents and fresh material. But even in the most studied areas, there is always need for a fresh perspective. To understand a period more effectively, historians need to keep on changing their horizons. One area that might be looked at further is how groups and networks of people influenced political language.
What characterises good history?
Good history should be like an effective case in a court of law, whether for the prosecution or the defence: forensically sound, clearly and logically argued, with a range of evidence that fits together and stands up to scrutiny. It can be emotive or impassioned but it is more important to be professional and imaginative.
How did your understanding of history change during your time as a university student?
The main thing that changed was working out how to balance primary material with secondary sources – making sure arguments were original but up to date.
Where should somebody interested in your area of history go for further information?
Not everyone would agree that it’s a good thing, but lots of people become interested in history because they want to see how current political issues began and developed over time. Have a look at http://www.historyandpolicy.org/
Home Page
