Herbert Butterfield's Analysis Of The Whig Interpretation Of History

One of the most prominent arguments in history is the role that morality should play in it. In the “Whig Interpretation of History,” Herbert Butterfield believes that moral judgments should not play a role in how historians narrate. Historian should refrain from passing judgements on the past actions and deeds of individuals. He criticizes the Whig’s interpretation of history because the judgments they make on events may be inaccurate due to their bias. He primarily disagrees with Lord Acton’s analysis of history because he judges through his own modern morality. Modern being from a relatively recent point in time where the historian can look back and see the events that unfolded in the remote past. Therefore, Butterfield believes that historians should try to understand history simply by facts and not included their own preconceptions.
To support his argument Butterfield uses two examples of how the Whig interpretation of history is biased. The first example is the modern view of Mary Tudor. The image conjured up when someone hears the name of Mary Tudor has prevailed as her being a monstrous tyrant. …show more content…
He claimed to be above morality and has therefore been seen as an a-moral man. Butterfield asks the question how can a man that claimed to be outside moral order be judged. According to Butterfield, Whig historians are judging based on presentism. They are concerned with making moral judgment for a time in which these judgments cannot be applied. His main thesis is that “historians whose art is descriptive one, does not move in this world of moral ideas. His materials and his process and all his apparatus exist to enable him to show how a given event came to take place.” In other words, Butterfield writes with the purpose that historians should explain with historical facts rather than to prove who is right and try to push their own personal agenda to interpreting historical