A short essay on the faults of historians – how their interpretation of past events is coloured by their knowledge of events after the fact, and contemporary states of affairs. The main accusation he levels at the so-called Whig historians, is that they interpret past events as if they were building up, in a deliberate, causative chain, toward the development of a liberal progressive society with modern morals. In other words, that they inaccurately read the flow of progress into events which have nothing to do with it. And, that they overstep their role of historians in taking a blinded moralising approach to the readers of the present.

What he proposes instead is that many of the major historical events were carried out for very different purposes, personal and/or political, that have nothing to do with the goals that we retrospectively assign to the main actors. One of the main examples he uses is the Reformation, which he discusses convincingly.

He suggests that the role of historians should be, before describing events, to try to understand the actions of historical figures in the context of their real lives, motivating factors, worldviews, and past societies, including the politics and religions of the time - instead of trying to explain their actions from the perspective of here and now.

A convincing and concise attack on the faults of major historians past, and a lesson to be learnt for the historians of the future. ( )

2/10/23

Read today comes across as tamer (and more obvious in hindsight) that its reputation suggests. Like much of Butterfield's work elegant and teasing - you think its saying something important but you're not quite sure what it actually is. ( )

History, Historiography, Philosophy of History