The Historical Journal's Avatar

The Historical Journal

@historicaljnl.bsky.social

The Historical Journal publishes papers on all aspects of British, European, and world history since the fifteenth century.

3,914 Followers  |  208 Following  |  221 Posts  |  Joined: 19.10.2023
Posts Following

Posts by The Historical Journal (@historicaljnl.bsky.social)

Thrilled to have been recognised in this lovely award by @historicaljnl.bsky.social!

Huge thanks to @marloavidon.bsky.social for being an excellent camerawoman on a cold and rainy day 💐

03.03.2026 10:38 — 👍 19    🔁 3    💬 3    📌 0

@zarakesterton’s incredible pie charts are officially award winning! If you haven’t read her article yet, you must go check it out 💐

03.03.2026 10:49 — 👍 8    🔁 1    💬 1    📌 0
Post image

My @historicaljnl.bsky.social article has been published open access alongside great articles by @adambforsyth.bsky.social, @davidandress.bsky.social, and others I couldn't locate here, in the most recent journal issue.

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

03.03.2026 14:17 — 👍 24    🔁 10    💬 2    📌 0
The intricacies of modern compensation procedures that value human life, injury, and property are often overlooked, despite growing demands for reparations and justice following state violence. This article historicizes the legal structures of modern compensation, arguing that the advent of imperial rule was characterized not only by the extraction of material resources and labour, but also by the discriminatory construction and implementation of imperial law, which sought to protect European life, wealth, and property. By focusing on one of the most notorious episodes of violence in British imperial and modern South Asian history – the atrocities committed by British officials in Punjab (1919), including the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre – this article underscores how British officials penalized protests and freedom struggles by legalizing indemnities, taxes, and fines to compensate European families. In contrast, colonial officials grossly undervalued the claims and payments of Indian subjects killed or maimed during state violence, if they did at all. Furthermore, this article reveals how imperial state compensation, managed in relative privacy and buried in legal proceduralism, was rooted in legal structures of intersectional racialized inequality, and political concerns that valued the longevity of imperialism, rather than a meaningful gesture of justice and redress.

The intricacies of modern compensation procedures that value human life, injury, and property are often overlooked, despite growing demands for reparations and justice following state violence. This article historicizes the legal structures of modern compensation, arguing that the advent of imperial rule was characterized not only by the extraction of material resources and labour, but also by the discriminatory construction and implementation of imperial law, which sought to protect European life, wealth, and property. By focusing on one of the most notorious episodes of violence in British imperial and modern South Asian history – the atrocities committed by British officials in Punjab (1919), including the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre – this article underscores how British officials penalized protests and freedom struggles by legalizing indemnities, taxes, and fines to compensate European families. In contrast, colonial officials grossly undervalued the claims and payments of Indian subjects killed or maimed during state violence, if they did at all. Furthermore, this article reveals how imperial state compensation, managed in relative privacy and buried in legal proceduralism, was rooted in legal structures of intersectional racialized inequality, and political concerns that valued the longevity of imperialism, rather than a meaningful gesture of justice and redress.

📢We are delighted to announce that Hardeep Dhillon
(@migrantherstory.bsky.social) has been Highly Commended in The Historical Journal ECR Prize for her article 'Imperial Violence, Law, and Compensation in the Age of Empire, 1919–1922'

👉Read the article open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

03.03.2026 10:36 — 👍 4    🔁 3    💬 0    📌 0
Suffrage and the Secret Ballot in Eighteenth-Century London Parishes | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Suffrage and the Secret Ballot in Eighteenth-Century London Parishes - Volume 67 Issue 1

Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

03.03.2026 10:33 — 👍 0    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0
Video thumbnail

📢We are delighted to announce that Jonah Miller (@wminhumanities.bsky.social) has been jointly awarded The Historical Journal ECR Prize for his article 'Suffrage and the Secret Ballot in Eighteenth-Century London Parishes'

✨Hear Jonah explain more in his HJ Highlight!

03.03.2026 10:32 — 👍 6    🔁 4    💬 1    📌 0
Artificial Flowers in the Credit Records of an Eighteenth-Century French Fashion Merchant | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Artificial Flowers in the Credit Records of an Eighteenth-Century French Fashion Merchant - Volume 67 Issue 5

Read it open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

03.03.2026 10:28 — 👍 1    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0
Video thumbnail

📢We are delighted to announce that Zara Kesterton (@zarakesterton.bsky.social) has been jointly awarded The Historical Journal ECR Prize for her article 'Artificial Flowers in the Credit Records of an Eighteenth-Century French Fashion Merchant'

✨Hear Zara explain more in her HJ Highlight!

03.03.2026 10:28 — 👍 14    🔁 4    💬 1    📌 2
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Henry Ansgar Kelly (@uofcalifornia.bsky.social) on 'Galileo’s Three Repudiations of Copernicanism – Two Coerced and One Volunteered'

#Science #Astronomy #Religion #Sun #Inquisition ☀️🔭

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

20.02.2026 17:12 — 👍 3    🔁 2    💬 0    📌 1
First published in 1614, John Selden’s Titles of honor has long been ignored by historians of political thought. A large and compendious description of the various titles of Europe and the Near East; by its structure and tone, it resembles nothing more than a work of dusty antiquarianism. It attracted none of the controversy that would plague Selden’s Historie of tithes (1618); and it did not state its polemical purpose in such explicit terms as his Mare clausum (1635). If historians of political thought have remembered it at all, they have done so because Thomas Hobbes recommended the work in chapter 10 of Leviathan (1651). This article will treat Titles of honor as a work of political intention. Following Selden’s engagement with Roman Civil Law, it will argue that he composed the treatise to criticize sixteenth-century theories of resistance, and the medieval theories of divided sovereignty upon which they were founded. In short, this article will seek to reframe Titles of honor as a defence of state sovereignty against theories of noble resistance – and so explain Hobbes’s affection for the work.

First published in 1614, John Selden’s Titles of honor has long been ignored by historians of political thought. A large and compendious description of the various titles of Europe and the Near East; by its structure and tone, it resembles nothing more than a work of dusty antiquarianism. It attracted none of the controversy that would plague Selden’s Historie of tithes (1618); and it did not state its polemical purpose in such explicit terms as his Mare clausum (1635). If historians of political thought have remembered it at all, they have done so because Thomas Hobbes recommended the work in chapter 10 of Leviathan (1651). This article will treat Titles of honor as a work of political intention. Following Selden’s engagement with Roman Civil Law, it will argue that he composed the treatise to criticize sixteenth-century theories of resistance, and the medieval theories of divided sovereignty upon which they were founded. In short, this article will seek to reframe Titles of honor as a defence of state sovereignty against theories of noble resistance – and so explain Hobbes’s affection for the work.

📣Out now on #firstview!

Felix Liber on 'Reading John Selden’s Titles of honor (1614) as a Work of Polemic'

#Politics #PoliticalThought #Hobbes #Law #EarlyModern 📜🗃️ 17thc

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

26.02.2026 08:08 — 👍 3    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0
First published in 1614, John Selden’s Titles of honor has long been ignored by historians of political thought. A large and compendious description of the various titles of Europe and the Near East; by its structure and tone, it resembles nothing more than a work of dusty antiquarianism. It attracted none of the controversy that would plague Selden’s Historie of tithes (1618); and it did not state its polemical purpose in such explicit terms as his Mare clausum (1635). If historians of political thought have remembered it at all, they have done so because Thomas Hobbes recommended the work in chapter 10 of Leviathan (1651). This article will treat Titles of honor as a work of political intention. Following Selden’s engagement with Roman Civil Law, it will argue that he composed the treatise to criticize sixteenth-century theories of resistance, and the medieval theories of divided sovereignty upon which they were founded. In short, this article will seek to reframe Titles of honor as a defence of state sovereignty against theories of noble resistance – and so explain Hobbes’s affection for the work.

First published in 1614, John Selden’s Titles of honor has long been ignored by historians of political thought. A large and compendious description of the various titles of Europe and the Near East; by its structure and tone, it resembles nothing more than a work of dusty antiquarianism. It attracted none of the controversy that would plague Selden’s Historie of tithes (1618); and it did not state its polemical purpose in such explicit terms as his Mare clausum (1635). If historians of political thought have remembered it at all, they have done so because Thomas Hobbes recommended the work in chapter 10 of Leviathan (1651). This article will treat Titles of honor as a work of political intention. Following Selden’s engagement with Roman Civil Law, it will argue that he composed the treatise to criticize sixteenth-century theories of resistance, and the medieval theories of divided sovereignty upon which they were founded. In short, this article will seek to reframe Titles of honor as a defence of state sovereignty against theories of noble resistance – and so explain Hobbes’s affection for the work.

📣Out now on #firstview!

Felix Liber on 'Reading John Selden’s Titles of honor (1614) as a Work of Polemic'

#Politics #PoliticalThought #Hobbes #Law #EarlyModern 📜🗃️ 17thc

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

26.02.2026 08:08 — 👍 3    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0
Republican Kinship in the Society of Princes: The Dutch States General as Corporate Godparent, 1578–1732 | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Republican Kinship in the Society of Princes: The Dutch States General as Corporate Godparent, 1578–1732 - Volume 68 Issue 5

I forgot to say, but at the turn of the year my #OA article on the Dutch Republic's godparenthoods has been published with @historicaljnl.bsky.social!

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

25.02.2026 13:19 — 👍 6    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Henry Ansgar Kelly (@uofcalifornia.bsky.social) on 'Galileo’s Three Repudiations of Copernicanism – Two Coerced and One Volunteered'

#Science #Astronomy #Religion #Sun #Inquisition ☀️🔭

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

20.02.2026 17:12 — 👍 3    🔁 2    💬 0    📌 1
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Molly Groarke (@mollygroarke.bsky.social) (@camhistory.bsky.social) on 'Imperial Family Biographies and New Approaches to the Family in Histories of the British Empire, c.1650–c.1950'

#Empire #Family #Personal #Review 📜🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

17.02.2026 11:09 — 👍 20    🔁 11    💬 0    📌 0
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Molly Groarke (@mollygroarke.bsky.social) (@camhistory.bsky.social) on 'Imperial Family Biographies and New Approaches to the Family in Histories of the British Empire, c.1650–c.1950'

#Empire #Family #Personal #Review 📜🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

17.02.2026 11:09 — 👍 20    🔁 11    💬 0    📌 0
Imperial Family Biographies and New Approaches to the Family in Histories of the British Empire, c.1650–c.1950 | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Imperial Family Biographies and New Approaches to the Family in Histories of the British Empire, c.1650–c.1950

Very happy to announce my article is now out with the @historicaljnl.bsky.social! It reviews the current literature on family networks in the British Empire and biographical approaches to writing imperial history

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

13.02.2026 13:38 — 👍 12    🔁 4    💬 1    📌 1
Post image

📣HJ blog!

Is political disinformation a product of the internet age? Gordon Pentland explores it in the context of Reform in 1830s Britain 📜

#Reform #Politics #Disinformation #Brexit #Newspapers #Wealth

📣Read online here: www.cambridge.org/core/blog/20...

12.02.2026 08:52 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

What a joy it's been to co-edit the HJ for the past few years. Sad to step down but very excited to see how the journal grows under its new editorial team!

10.02.2026 11:00 — 👍 29    🔁 2    💬 0    📌 0
“It’s been an honour to co-edit the Historical Journal for the past four years, and an extraordinary opportunity to read and champion the best new historical scholarship in a world-leading generalist journal. I feel lucky to have worked with an excellent and collegial team and with so many brilliant authors, and I’m looking forward to seeing what’s next for the HJ under its superb new and incoming editors.” Dr John Gallagher, outgoing Editor at The Historical Journal

“It’s been an honour to co-edit the Historical Journal for the past four years, and an extraordinary opportunity to read and champion the best new historical scholarship in a world-leading generalist journal. I feel lucky to have worked with an excellent and collegial team and with so many brilliant authors, and I’m looking forward to seeing what’s next for the HJ under its superb new and incoming editors.” Dr John Gallagher, outgoing Editor at The Historical Journal

📣We mark the departure of @earlymodernjohn.bsky.social as an Editor at the HJ, with huge thanks for his years of committed service.

An incredibly generous, meticulous and thoughtful editor, John has helped guide the journal for 4 fantastic years. We wish him the best on his next endeavours!✨

10.02.2026 10:34 — 👍 14    🔁 2    💬 1    📌 1
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Elad Carmel (@eladcarmel.bsky.social) (@uniofjyvaskyla.bsky.social) on 'George Wallace and Britain’s First Abolitionist Publication (1760)'

#Abolition #Slavery #Law #Scotland 18thc 🗃️

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

02.02.2026 13:56 — 👍 6    🔁 2    💬 0    📌 0
Post image

📣HJ BLOG!

David Andress (@davidandress.bsky.social) explores the role of trust in French revolutionary politics

#FrenchRevolution #Political #Monarchy #Government 📜

👉Read online here: www.cambridge.org/core/blog/20...

06.01.2026 08:21 — 👍 16    🔁 7    💬 0    📌 1
This article examines how three nineteenth- and twentieth-century philanthropic organizations – the British Aborigines’ Protection Society (APS), the American Indian Rights Association (IRA), and the Australian Association for the Protection of Native Races (APNR) – functioned simultaneously as opponents of colonial violence as well as instruments of colonial governance. These groups were vociferous advocates for Indigenous rights and welfare, yet they also directly contributed to building administrative structures of empire. The APS worked to generate metropolitan interest in Indigenous affairs, framing protectorates as both economically beneficial and a matter of national security. The IRA positioned itself as a fact-finding body, supplying the US government with on-the-ground surveillance that enabled more precise administrative control. The APNR acted as a public relations arm for Australian settler governments, deflecting criticism of state violence while promoting assimilationist policies. All three organizations reinforced colonial authority by outsourcing key governmental functions to private actors, and their reliance on voluntary labour and philanthropic donations underscores the contingency of imperial rule on non-state institutions. Bridging historiographies of humanitarian activism and colonial governance, this article argues that these groups were not merely critics or collaborators but infrastructural components of empire.

This article examines how three nineteenth- and twentieth-century philanthropic organizations – the British Aborigines’ Protection Society (APS), the American Indian Rights Association (IRA), and the Australian Association for the Protection of Native Races (APNR) – functioned simultaneously as opponents of colonial violence as well as instruments of colonial governance. These groups were vociferous advocates for Indigenous rights and welfare, yet they also directly contributed to building administrative structures of empire. The APS worked to generate metropolitan interest in Indigenous affairs, framing protectorates as both economically beneficial and a matter of national security. The IRA positioned itself as a fact-finding body, supplying the US government with on-the-ground surveillance that enabled more precise administrative control. The APNR acted as a public relations arm for Australian settler governments, deflecting criticism of state violence while promoting assimilationist policies. All three organizations reinforced colonial authority by outsourcing key governmental functions to private actors, and their reliance on voluntary labour and philanthropic donations underscores the contingency of imperial rule on non-state institutions. Bridging historiographies of humanitarian activism and colonial governance, this article argues that these groups were not merely critics or collaborators but infrastructural components of empire.

📣Out now on #firstview!

Darren Reid (McGill University) on 'Indigenous Rights, Philanthropy and Humanitarian Governance across the Anglo World, 1837–1951'

#Australia #CivilRights #Government #Imperial 19thc 20thc 🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

23.01.2026 16:36 — 👍 6    🔁 3    💬 0    📌 0
This article examines how three nineteenth- and twentieth-century philanthropic organizations – the British Aborigines’ Protection Society (APS), the American Indian Rights Association (IRA), and the Australian Association for the Protection of Native Races (APNR) – functioned simultaneously as opponents of colonial violence as well as instruments of colonial governance. These groups were vociferous advocates for Indigenous rights and welfare, yet they also directly contributed to building administrative structures of empire. The APS worked to generate metropolitan interest in Indigenous affairs, framing protectorates as both economically beneficial and a matter of national security. The IRA positioned itself as a fact-finding body, supplying the US government with on-the-ground surveillance that enabled more precise administrative control. The APNR acted as a public relations arm for Australian settler governments, deflecting criticism of state violence while promoting assimilationist policies. All three organizations reinforced colonial authority by outsourcing key governmental functions to private actors, and their reliance on voluntary labour and philanthropic donations underscores the contingency of imperial rule on non-state institutions. Bridging historiographies of humanitarian activism and colonial governance, this article argues that these groups were not merely critics or collaborators but infrastructural components of empire.

This article examines how three nineteenth- and twentieth-century philanthropic organizations – the British Aborigines’ Protection Society (APS), the American Indian Rights Association (IRA), and the Australian Association for the Protection of Native Races (APNR) – functioned simultaneously as opponents of colonial violence as well as instruments of colonial governance. These groups were vociferous advocates for Indigenous rights and welfare, yet they also directly contributed to building administrative structures of empire. The APS worked to generate metropolitan interest in Indigenous affairs, framing protectorates as both economically beneficial and a matter of national security. The IRA positioned itself as a fact-finding body, supplying the US government with on-the-ground surveillance that enabled more precise administrative control. The APNR acted as a public relations arm for Australian settler governments, deflecting criticism of state violence while promoting assimilationist policies. All three organizations reinforced colonial authority by outsourcing key governmental functions to private actors, and their reliance on voluntary labour and philanthropic donations underscores the contingency of imperial rule on non-state institutions. Bridging historiographies of humanitarian activism and colonial governance, this article argues that these groups were not merely critics or collaborators but infrastructural components of empire.

📣Out now on #firstview!

Darren Reid (McGill University) on 'Indigenous Rights, Philanthropy and Humanitarian Governance across the Anglo World, 1837–1951'

#Australia #CivilRights #Government #Imperial 19thc 20thc 🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

23.01.2026 16:36 — 👍 6    🔁 3    💬 0    📌 0

It does rather 😆 Sorry everyone - a little bit of account recovery and exchange going on, please bear with this slightly mysterious post! Normal posting to resume shortly!

23.01.2026 16:32 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

[477099-rustic-wooden-cabin].

22.01.2026 08:22 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 1
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Anton Runesson (@iies.su.se) on 'A Task-Oriented Approach to Human and Equine Health and Ability in Early Modern Sweden'

#Illness #Medicine #Physiology #Horses #Mechanistic 🐎

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

20.01.2026 08:58 — 👍 2    🔁 2    💬 0    📌 0

Pleased to see this out in the open at last 😀

12.01.2026 15:46 — 👍 17    🔁 4    💬 0    📌 1
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

James Fox (@jamesafox.bsky.social) (@glasgow.ac.uk) on 'Numeracy, Otherness, and the Invention of ‘Civilization’ in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Anglo-European Travel Writing'

#Science #China #Americas 17thc 18thc 🗃️

👉Open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

09.01.2026 15:22 — 👍 5    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 1
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

James Fox (@jamesafox.bsky.social) (@glasgow.ac.uk) on 'Numeracy, Otherness, and the Invention of ‘Civilization’ in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Anglo-European Travel Writing'

#Science #China #Americas 17thc 18thc 🗃️

👉Open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

09.01.2026 15:22 — 👍 5    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 1

And the whole article is also free to read:

06.01.2026 09:09 — 👍 10    🔁 5    💬 0    📌 0