Advertisement

Expository Historiography

  • Keith C. Sewell
Part of the Studies in Modern History book series (SMH)

Abstract

In 1931 the whig interpretation of history was strongly rejected; in 1944 the whig political method was being fervently applauded. The determination of the relationship between these two standpoints is one of the central issues confronting the interpreter of Butterfield. In what respects was he a friend or a foe of whigs and whiggism? J. G. A. Pocock has described the reconciliation of the anti-progressivism of The Whig Interpretation with the celebration of the whig form of progressivism in The Englishman as ‘das Herbert Butterfieldproblem’.1 Attention will now be given to its resolution. Reviewers were understandably inclined to read The Englishman with The Whig Interpretation in mind. They were divided in their responses. G. Kitson Clark questioned Butterfield’s view of imperial history, and his use of the term ‘whig’, finding it at one stage too restricted to the Rockingham Whigs and at other times applying to ‘English common sense’ generally — a view with which others concurred, even though Butterfield had made clear that what he called the whig method in politics had been adopted by all parties in England.2 Others were either descriptive or focused on the implications of the book for the future. However, in expressing the opinion that Butterfield was now praising what he had previously denounced, G. H. Guttridge broached ‘das Herbert Butterfieldproblem’,3 which was soon discussed at length by A. J. Woolford in his essay ‘The Interpretation of History’.4 Woolford was convinced that:

Butterfield has changed his mind about the interpretation of history. He has not merely written a new book and in it presented a new point of view: he has deliberately and scornfully rejected his earlier thesis.5

Keywords

Moral Judgement History Interpretation Past Situation Historical Thinking Moral Absolutism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    J. G. A. Pocock, Virtue, Commerce, and History (1985), p. 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Kitson Clark, review of EH, CR 66 (4 November 1944), 60–1Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. H. Guttridge, review of EH, JMH 17 (1945), 47–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. J. Woolford, ‘The Interpretation of History’, Scrutiny 13 (1945–46), 2–11.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    A. J. Woolford, ‘The Interpretation of History’, Scrutiny 13 (1945–46), 8–9.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    E. H. Carr, What is History? (1961), pp. 35–6.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    Joseph Hamburger, Macaulay and the Whig Tradition (1976), p. 229.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    John W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent (1981), p. 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 13.
    John Kenyon, The History Men (1983), p. 273.Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    A. Rupert Hall, ‘On Whiggism’, History of Science 21 (1983), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 15.
    George Watson, ‘The War against the Whigs’, Encounter New Series 1 (1986), 23.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    Christopher Parker, The English Historical Tradition Since 1850 (1990), p. 147.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    David Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan, A Life in History (1992), p. 210.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    Michael Bentley, ‘Butterfield at the Millennium,’ Storia Stella storiografia 38 (2000), 19.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Paul Christianson, ‘The Causes of the English Revolution’, JBS 15 (1956), 41.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    Reba N. Soffer, ‘British Conservative Historiography’, in British and German Historiography, 1750–1950 (2000), p. 391.Google Scholar
  17. C. Thomas Mclntire, ‘Introduction: Herbert Butterfield on Christianity and History’, in Writings on Christianity and History (1979), p. xxxi.Google Scholar
  18. C. H. Smyth, the author of the suggestion, was of course alluding to Burke’s ‘An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs’ (1791).Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    Robert Walcott, review of EH, AHR 50 (1945), 600.Google Scholar
  20. 29.
    Joseph Hamburger misrepresented The Whig Interpretation as an incorrectly applied critique of Macaulay. Macaulay and the Whig Tradition (1976), pp. 110–13.Google Scholar
  21. 30.
    William A. Speck, ‘Thomas Babington Macaulay’, in The Historian at Work, ed. John Cannon (1980), pp. 64–5.Google Scholar
  22. 34.
    William G. Carleton, ‘Macaulay and the Trimmers’, The American Scholar 19 (1949–50), 74–5.Google Scholar
  23. Joseph Hamburger, Macaulay and the Whig Tradition (1976), p. 137.Google Scholar
  24. 36.
    cf. T. B. Macaulay, History of England (1913 edition, ed. Charles H. Firth), I, pp. 21–2, 89.Google Scholar
  25. 47.
    Louis Gottschalk, review of SMH, JMH 17 (1945), 273–4.Google Scholar
  26. 49.
    ‘Introduction to the Second Edition’, in H. W. V. Temperley, Frederic the Great and Kaiser Joseph (1968), pp. xvi-xix.Google Scholar
  27. cf. H. W. V. Temperley, ‘Introductory Essay’ to Henry Marczali, Hungary in the Eighteenth Century (1910), pp. xvii-lxiv.Google Scholar
  28. 58.
    Louis Gottschalk, ‘The Scope and Subject Matter of History’, University Review 8 (1941–42), 75–83.Google Scholar
  29. 61.
    Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930).Google Scholar
  30. Ephraim Fischoff, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: The History of a Controversy’, Social Research 11 (1944), 53–77.Google Scholar
  31. 65.
    Cf. Hugh Tulloch, Acton (1988), pp. 11–13, 108–9.Google Scholar
  32. George Watson, Lord Acton’s ‘History of Liberty’ (1994), pp. 48–50.Google Scholar
  33. 68.
    cf. G. E. Fasnacht, Acton’s Political Philosophy (1952), esp. pp. 135, 140–8, 205–6.Google Scholar
  34. 71.
    Geoffrey R. Elton, ‘Herbert Butterfield and the Study of History’, HJ 27 (1984), 733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 72.
    Geoffrey R. Elton, The Practice of History (1969), p. 30.Google Scholar
  36. 75.
    Cf. A. Rupert Hall, ‘On Whiggism’, History of Science 21 (1983), 58.Google Scholar
  37. See A. Cunningham and P. Williams, ‘Decentering the “Big Picture”: The Origins of Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science’, in the British Journal for the History of Science 26 (1993), 407–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Regis Cabral, ‘Herbert Butterfield as a Christian Historian of Science’, in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 27 (1996), 547–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. See also H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: a Historiographical Inquiry (1994), pp. 112–15, 227–9, 494–501.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Keith C. Sewell 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith C. Sewell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HistoryDordt CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations