Eric Nelson responded to me by email listing his credentials, and noting that he was a historian, including his degree in history from Cambridge. (I was surprised to discover that the response below, though technically from a student of his, was actually by him, since he then wrote me with the same words). My original point in stating he was "not a historian" was that because he teaches in a different field, and addresses those in a different field, his ideas were not being deliberately addressed by historians to the degree they should be. I have amended that sentence. Nelson also stated to me unequivocally that he is "not a monarchist." I understand his response. But by reading these historical sources in a one-sided way and then making an argument about how we should interpret the Constitution as a consequence, he is presenting a interpretation of that crucial history that can be used in the present by people who support not only monarchical but also authoritarian ideas of governance. If he is not a monarchist (or, as Barr and others have used his book, someone who thinks the president is on some level above the law, since he is really meant to be a king). Although such far right arguments are largely in abeyance for the moment, these arguments are powerful and more than a little scary. They can be used to justify authoritarianism or fascism. While, as Milton says in Aeropagitica, books have a life of their own after we have written the words, the author has the potential to challenge the way such arguments are being used. As for credentials: I too earned my undergraduate degree in history (and physics) from Harvard, have a doctorate in history (from UCLA), have an endowed chair (in history), and while I have written fewer books and articles--I'm a slow and steady kind of scholar who does careful research--I've won many national prizes for my work. But credentials are not and should not be the way to address criticisms of the issues. If he thinks I misrepresented his dismissal of the Declaration of Independence (and its rejection of monarchy), for example, shouldn't he address those claims?
The reader may wonder *who* exactly is a historian. Eric Nelson has three degrees in history (AB Harvard, MPhil and PhD Cambridge, and no degrees in any other field. He has a number of publications in what Prof Brewer would surely agree are history journals (Modern Intellectual History, New England Quarterly, Eighteenth Century Studies, The Historical Journal, Renaissance Quarterly); in fact the vast majority of his published articles are in these journals.
The first three of his four books are substantially works of historical scholarship. Nor is Prof Brewer the first historian to respond to The Royalist Revolution. Gordon Wood, Hannah Weiss Muller, Sascha Weber (in German) all reviewed it, and there are others.
Surely Prof Brewer isn't suggesting that only those scholars currently employed in history departments are historians. Plenty of historians work in other departments (African-American studies, area studies, gender, etc) or, for that matter, outside the academy. Historians of political thought sometimes find themselves in history departments, sometimes in political science, but it's best not to make too much of what is more, in this case, a bureaucratic distinction than a meaningful intellectual one. At Nelson's current employer, James Hankins and Peter Gordon (both of the History department) and Eric Nelson and Richard Tuck (both Government) could quite easily trade places. In practice, Nelson often co-teaches with Hankins in the History department (I was their student many years ago). Tuck, incidentally Nelson's undergraduate thesis supervisor, spent two decades as a member of Cambridge's History faculty before he joined Harvard in 1995. Presumably he did not cease to be a historian when he joined a Government department.
Trump's cult of radical right QAnon #MAGATerrorists despise America and democracy. Of course they prefer despotism to our democratic republic, that's why they support Tangerine Hitler.
Eric Nelson responded to me by email listing his credentials, and noting that he was a historian, including his degree in history from Cambridge. (I was surprised to discover that the response below, though technically from a student of his, was actually by him, since he then wrote me with the same words). My original point in stating he was "not a historian" was that because he teaches in a different field, and addresses those in a different field, his ideas were not being deliberately addressed by historians to the degree they should be. I have amended that sentence. Nelson also stated to me unequivocally that he is "not a monarchist." I understand his response. But by reading these historical sources in a one-sided way and then making an argument about how we should interpret the Constitution as a consequence, he is presenting a interpretation of that crucial history that can be used in the present by people who support not only monarchical but also authoritarian ideas of governance. If he is not a monarchist (or, as Barr and others have used his book, someone who thinks the president is on some level above the law, since he is really meant to be a king). Although such far right arguments are largely in abeyance for the moment, these arguments are powerful and more than a little scary. They can be used to justify authoritarianism or fascism. While, as Milton says in Aeropagitica, books have a life of their own after we have written the words, the author has the potential to challenge the way such arguments are being used. As for credentials: I too earned my undergraduate degree in history (and physics) from Harvard, have a doctorate in history (from UCLA), have an endowed chair (in history), and while I have written fewer books and articles--I'm a slow and steady kind of scholar who does careful research--I've won many national prizes for my work. But credentials are not and should not be the way to address criticisms of the issues. If he thinks I misrepresented his dismissal of the Declaration of Independence (and its rejection of monarchy), for example, shouldn't he address those claims?
"Nelson is also not an historian.."
The reader may wonder *who* exactly is a historian. Eric Nelson has three degrees in history (AB Harvard, MPhil and PhD Cambridge, and no degrees in any other field. He has a number of publications in what Prof Brewer would surely agree are history journals (Modern Intellectual History, New England Quarterly, Eighteenth Century Studies, The Historical Journal, Renaissance Quarterly); in fact the vast majority of his published articles are in these journals.
The first three of his four books are substantially works of historical scholarship. Nor is Prof Brewer the first historian to respond to The Royalist Revolution. Gordon Wood, Hannah Weiss Muller, Sascha Weber (in German) all reviewed it, and there are others.
Surely Prof Brewer isn't suggesting that only those scholars currently employed in history departments are historians. Plenty of historians work in other departments (African-American studies, area studies, gender, etc) or, for that matter, outside the academy. Historians of political thought sometimes find themselves in history departments, sometimes in political science, but it's best not to make too much of what is more, in this case, a bureaucratic distinction than a meaningful intellectual one. At Nelson's current employer, James Hankins and Peter Gordon (both of the History department) and Eric Nelson and Richard Tuck (both Government) could quite easily trade places. In practice, Nelson often co-teaches with Hankins in the History department (I was their student many years ago). Tuck, incidentally Nelson's undergraduate thesis supervisor, spent two decades as a member of Cambridge's History faculty before he joined Harvard in 1995. Presumably he did not cease to be a historian when he joined a Government department.
Trump's cult of radical right QAnon #MAGATerrorists despise America and democracy. Of course they prefer despotism to our democratic republic, that's why they support Tangerine Hitler.
Where's the evidence that Eric Nelson actually influenced the pro-monarchical takes?