The Whig Interpretation of History

Herbert Butterfield (1900-1979) was a British historian and philosopher of history, who also wrote  Christianity and History  and  The Origins of History . He wrote in the Preface to this 1931 book, "The following study deals with 'the whig interpretation of history' in what I conceive to be the accepted meaning of the phrase... What is discussed is the tendency in many historians to write on the side of Protestants and Whigs, to praise revolutions provided they have been successful, and to emphasize certain principles of progress in the past and to produce a story which is the ratification if not the glorification of the present... The subject is treated not as a problem in the philosophy of history, but rather as an aspect of the psychology of historians."He states, "It is part and parcel of the whig interpretation of history that it studies the past with reference to the present... [this] has often been an obstruction to historical understanding..." (Pg. 11) Later, he adds, "The theory behind the whig interpretation---the theory that we study the past for the sake of the present---is one that is really introduced for the purpose of facilitating the abridgement of history." (Pg. 24) He asserts, "the application of this principle must produce in history a bias in favour of the whigs and must fall unfavourably on Catholics and tories." (Pg. 25)He explains, "It is the thesis of this essay that the Protestant and whig interpretation of history is the result of something much more subtle than actual Protestant or party bias... The whig interpretation of history is not merely the property of whigs and it is much more subtle than mental bias; it lies in a trick or organization, an unexamined habit of mind that any historian may fall into... It is the direct result of the practice of abstracting things from their historical context and judging them apart from their context---estimating them and organising the historical story by a system of direct reference to the present." (Pg. 30-31)He argues, "Behind all the fallacies of the whig historian there lies the passionate desire to come to a judgment of values, to make history answer questions and decide issues and to give the historian the last word in a controversy." (Pg. 64-65) He contends, "Above all it is not the role of the historian to come to what might be called judgments of value." (Pg. 73)Butterfield's opinions will delight many, and frustrate others; but they are an important piece of the philosophy of history as it developed in the 20th century.

Those who believe in an “arc of history “ must read this salutary corrective, directed toward a “progressivism “ of a different age.

I expected this book to be much longer than the large print and 132 page small size paperback I received. I bought this book in the hopes that it would be an in-depth chronological narrative of British history that analyzed the Whig point of view and then gave the author's own interpretation of that history.I realize that I should be reviewing the book the author actually wrote and not the one I wished he had wrote. With that in mind I would say this book is a philosophical view of historical interpretation. As a result this book is very short, but since it only a commentary on a particular historical viewpoint, it could have been even shorter. The author frequently repeats himself and could have made the same points in half the length. To sum up I was disappointed with this book and recommend you go to Wikipedia to get the gist of it - that would be good enough.

Historian Herbert Butterfield wrote this wonderfully incisive essay in the 1930's. His thesis continues to be powerfully relevant today. He spoke for understanding the past on its own terms, and against selectively mining it to support the political arguments and moral judgements of the present.The past is always more complicated than it looks from here, and the author notes outcomes are often the unintended result of interactions between individuals, governments, and movements. Judging the past by the present may be misleading, and may be be unfair to both. Well recommended to the historian and the serious reader of history.

I bought this for a college course. I still don't know why it was written, much less assigned by the professor. Butterfield's main point seems to be that historians should examine history objectively and not impose their own beliefs or values onto other cultures. If that's the case, I don't know why he bothered writing a book to say it, or why it had to be so convoluted.

"The Whig Interpretation of History" is superb meditation on the craft of history and how it can be distorted by "whig history." This was how Herbert Butterfield described historians who project modern attitudes on to the past, pass moral judgments on historical figures, and regard history as significant only to the extent that it labored to create the modern world. Butterfield regarded "whig history" as the antithesis of real history, which glories in the sheer "differentness" of the past and attempts to understand past events and people in the context of their own time, not of ours. Butterfield's writing was eloquent, his thought profound, and his temperament humane. His book, although old, is a genuine classic, to be treasured by all historians and readers of history. Highly recommended.

Having "studied" nineteenth century history for 4 years, this was the first time I have had any grasp of who these "anti-Tories" actually were. This is a witty and suitably sceptical view of a social force who might have invented "noblesse oblige". Apparently, Roy Jenkins thought of himself as a bit of a Whig, perhaps a better description than "champagne socialist".

The English "Whig interpretation of history" inspired many political philosophers, such as Hayek, in the liberal tradition. It was mainly a political history which gave for generations a true sense of the value of the political liberty.Unfortunately the Whig interpretation has gone out of fashion with the decline of liberalism in economic history and the domination of the marxist ideology and the socialism. Those critics rest on the belief in the myth of the necessity to put an end to the capitalist system with its horrible conditions and contradictions. This system is an order merely a historical phase, predictable through the laws of historical development. The socialist power must preparea better system for the future (Cf. B. Russel...) Conversely for the liberals, a good economic and political history must not allow a distorsion of the facts and not forget the three questions: What are the facts? How the historians present them? and Why? and especially about capitalism. The matter is historical and political, it deals with knowledge and epistemology, culture and philosophy; on these bases the Whig interpretation of history is helpful.This book is a critical essay on the Whig interpretation of history according to the theory standing behind, i.e. the study of the past with reference to the present and built on political and moral whig principles. Their methodology consists in abstracting things from their context, overdramatisation of the story, over-simplification, abrigments and their implications, judments of value, research of a logic or an essence of history (progress and liberty). The result of this method and kind of reasoning is to impose a certain form of interpretation with an agenda resting on political and moral principles creating an optical illusion, introducing philosophy, politics, ideology and doctrine. That is the thesis of the book, for the author all that is a misuse of the art of the historian, facing complexity the historian must study the process of transition with all the mediations to analyse.

Thank you for book exactly as described