Ch. 1. - What is Historiography and why does it matter?

Classical practitioners of ‘Whig’ historical tradition

• Francis Stoughton Sullivan

• Thomas Babington Macaulay

• J. R. Green

• G. M. Trevelyan

• Lewis Namier

• Herbert Butterfield

Francis Stoughton Sullivan - Lectures on the Constitution and Laws of England: With a Commentary on Magna Charta, and Illustrations of Many of the English Statutes

• foundational text for the Whig constitutional tradition in British historiography

• According to Sullivan, the English have had constant, continuous development, which is represented through their constitution that is not one document but the accumulated result of multiple laws, precedents and principles → this shows in Sullivan’s views that the English’s inclination towards liberty is ancient and almost innate rather than it being something that is granted by any one monarch (‘ancient constitution)

• this was only briefly halted by the Norman conquest and the Magna Charta is not an innovation but a reconfirmation that already existed in Saxon tradition

• Sullivan creates a teleological narrative, in which he interprets English history to be moving towards full constitutional liberty → all major statues are read to be another step towards this goal - this notion aligns perfectly with Whig historical understanding: the past is preparation for the present constitutional settlement

• Sullivan’s arguements are grounded in statuory and case-law evidence but his purpose was normative → he sought to legitimize contemporary consitutional arrangements by argueing that they are authentic to the English

• While Sullivan proved influential in making the ‘ancient constitution’ central to British political identity, his thesis pertaining to Saxon liberty is mythical at best. He also anachronistically reads back concepts from later times to medieval evidence and he is ultimately arguing for a specific agenda, trying to reinforce contemporary political legitimation.

Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay - The History of England from the Accession of James II 

• Like Sullivan, Macaulay takes a classic Whig approach

• His main argument was that English history is a story of continuous progress towards liberty, constitutional government and civilization

• According to Macaulay England's institutions gradually improved over time and political conflicts ultimately strengthened freedom rather than destroyed it

• The Glorious Revolution was the decisive event that secured the balance between monarchy and Parliament

• The rise of commerce, Protestantism, and representative government produced modern British prosperity

• Macaulay along with Sullivan is another classic representation of Whig interpretation of history: 

  • he views history as a road towards progress

  • thinks the present is the product of gradual improvement

  • for him constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy are the highest forms of political development

  • often divides historical actors into two categories: forces of progress or forces of reaction

• He also morally judges/evaluates historical figures

J. R. Green - A Short History of the English People

• Green was a Victorian historian

• Green argued that the real subject of history should be the people themselves

• He broadened the scope to include ordinary people, social life, religion, education, literature and economy

• History should NOT simply be the story of governments and wars according to him

• Still belongs to the Whig tradition

• Ultimately he helped move British historiography toward what would later become social history

• J. R. Green expanded the Whig interpretation by shifting attention from political elites to the social and cultural development of the English people

G. M. Trevelyan

• great-nephew of Thomas Babington Macaulay → inherited & modernized Whig historical tradition

• Trevelyan is often considered the last great Whig historian

• Works: England Under Queen Anne; History of England; English Social History

• According to him history should be literary, readable and scholarly

• Like Green he expanded his scope beyond kings and parliament but maintained that history is a gradual path towards progress

Lewis Namier - The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III

• one of the most influential British historians of the twentieth century

• His work marked a major break from the Whig tradition 

• Instead of trying to read a grand narrative into it, he sought to uncover how politics actually functioned in practice

• His book’s thesis is mainly that 18th century British politics were less driven by political parties and ideologies and were rather driven by personal and family connections, patronage and the pursuit of office

• He opposed the earlier practices (like Sullivan’s and Macaulay’s) of projecting later constructs onto the past; like projecting 19th century party system onto 18th century politics

• According to him Whigs and Tories were not disciplined, modern parties

• Political alignment and beliefs were a lot more fluid

• Most politicians were motivated more by personal gain rather than ideology

• Government largely depended on patronage and personal connections

• His approach is decidedly anti-whig, he believed that history should be reconstructed based on evidence and that it does not follow a clear line of progress as the whig historians believed

• His signature method was prosopography → study of large historical actors based on their family backgrounds, wealth, education, connections, business influence, political offices etc.

• Viewed history as more of a construct rather than a grand narrative

• According to him history should be reconstructed from empirical evidence without imposing grand narratives, revealing the practical workings of power through networks and interests

Herbert Butterfield - The Whig Interpretation of History

• He was one of the most influential twentieth-century British historians

• TWIoH fundamentally challenged the historical tradition represented by Macaulay and to a lesser extent Trevelyan 

• His main argument was that historians should not interpret the past as an inevitable progression toward the present nor should they judge historical figures according to whether they contributed to modern values and institutions

• Butterfield argued that many historians had written history backwards

  • starting from the present

  • identifying modern institutions as the goal

  • then selecting and praising those people and events that helped produce them

  • This is what he called a Whig Interpretation of history

• According to Butterfield the historian's task is not to praise or condemn, but to understand → historical actors to be treated according to their own time’s standards not modern ones → moral judgement is not completely left behind but explanation has to come before evaluation

• He rejected teleology (understanding events to be moving toward a predetermined goal)

• He stressed the importance of contingency

• He emphasized the importance of contextualizing history

• He heavily critiqued presentism (judging past events by modern standards)

• He opposed how Whig history created simplistic moral contrasts