Whig Interpretation of History - Herbert Butterfield - Hardcover - REPRINT Book

An interesting read, Butterfield eloquently sets out an evaluation of the Whig school of thought, and deals successfully with the major faults of the tradition (its failure to appreciate the past for the past's sake, rather than as a means to an end, and its proclivity to view the past as an all-encompassing noun, rather than in specific detail).

Beyond this, Butterfield highlights some of the more nuanced habits of the Whig historian: the tendency to drag morality into history (where it doesn't belong) and to divide a line between right and wrong, always with the intention of reaffirming the Whig position, thus bestowing upon themselves the almost-divine power of judgement; the habit of simplifying the past as a single, determined route towards the ideal democratic state, with figures such as Luther simply fulfilling their roles in bringing about such an ideal society.

Butterfield therefore raises some crucial issues with regard to historiography and the study of history. The ideas discussed within this essay are at times very similar (perhaps not as a coincidence) to those discussed in Evans' 'In Defence of History', although the two essays were written roughly 60 years apart. Both historians raise the issue of historical bias, and the inevitable fact that a historian's personal views and opinions will impact both the subject of their work, and the style. The Whig approach therefore acts perhaps as an extreme symbol of this bias, and a warning of how history can be distorted when we fail to remain aware of our personal inclinations which may affect our work.

In addition, Butterfield considers how the historian should view the past from the perspective of the present, and the utility of the past for modern citizens. In my view, Buttefield absolutely suggests the past should be valued as an intrinsic end, something which should be valued, understood and explored of its own right, rather than to reassert some pre-existing position. However, Butterfield does not seem to contradict the idea that the past may offer some use, perhaps through exposing human nature or the power of chance? These questions remind me personally of a remark from Mary Beard during a lecture on her latest novel SPQR, as she commented that 'We have nothing to learn from the past'. From my perspective, whilst the past should not be viewed as a guidebook to 'learn from', and historians should not delve into the past in search of solutions to contemporary problems, the past undoubtedly does teach (but not in the didactic sense of the word)- whether on a personal level, with regard to family history, or on a universal level as a human being.

Butterfield also captures a very intriguing aspect of historical study in his comment that: "every age will have to write its history over again". This comment follows Butterfield's discussion of how a historian shapes the past from their present perspective, not necessarily in the extreme distortion of the Whigs, but with regard to phrasing and presentation, so that the past becomes familiar and understandable to their contemporary audience. As a result, Buttefield implies that as ages and social values change, so will our view of the past and consequently it will need to be reformulated. The Victorian era springs to my mind: their re-evaluation of the Classical age in light of the Victorian condemnation and taboo of sex; the creation of terms such as 'humanist'. It suggests that the work of a historian is perennial - reborn with each new spring of human society.

Whilst Butterfield's work clearly has laudable strengths, his style is dated (the frequent reference to a historian as male didn't fit with my inner feminist) and on a few occasions he begins to make broad statements of the past, which I suppose is inevitable but seems slightly hypocritical regarding his condemnation of the Whigs.