The Enlightenment and the History of Ideas: Progressivist Histories
I.
History not a new phenomenon
A. Ancient historians—Thucydides, Herodotus
1. Thucydides' (460-400 BCE) History of the Pelopponesian War was his
memory of events, but he claimed to be as "objective" as possible. He
would present conflicting accounts of the same event and try to interpret
the "truth" from them
2. Herodotus (484-425 BCE) was known as the father of history—in his
inquiry, he wrote a sweeping history of the Mediterranean people as
well as a history of the Persians versus the Greeks
B. Renaissance and the rebirth of history—During the period of the Renaissance,
ancient texts like these were "rediscovered" throughout Europe. These texts lent
themselves to a kind of classicism, of becoming more like the Greeks and
Romans
C. The Enlightenment—a new form of historical inquiry emerged. Many critical
inquirists, like Voltaire, for example, saw themselves as bringing light into society,
of helping society recover from bad times. We really see the emergence of
social thought at this time (taking care of the poor, etc.). After the Revolutions in
America and France, and after the initial shock of the industrial revolution, men
began to write history with an eye on the present. These men, such as Lord
Macauley wrote about the new great age of the world, long fought for. There
were also philosophers such as GWF Hegel who believed that history
progressed to an inevitable end—to the attainment of the perfect spirit. We will
talk a bit more about Hegel when we discuss Marx and materialism, but for now,
all you need to know is that by the end of the eighteenth century and into the
nineteenth century men were writing about history as a forward movement, as a
teleology (define—the doctrine or study of ends or final causes, esp. as related to
the evidences of design or purpose in nature. Example—early histories were
teleological, because they believed that there was an ultimate end to the course
of events, namely, Progress)
II.
Politics and Great Men
A. Macaulay, Lord—his history of England, a great example of the whiggism
discussed by Butterfield. Macaulay (1800-1859) was the son of a reformer and
philanthropist. He had deep-rooted "Whig" sympathies. Entered Parliament in
1830 and strongly supported the Reform Bill which would be known as the Great
Reform Act of 1832. He served for a time as an administrator in India, and
returned to again serve in Parliament. He retired in 1856
B. Looking at the world and its development—His History of England is a discussion
of the consolidation of the Revolution of 1688 as a mark of triumph for progress
and English development. Towards the end of the extant history, he writes (get
the overhead quote)
III.
Progress
A. The "Whig" Historians—Macaulay was unabashedly a whig. But what exactly is
a "whig"?
B. What is a whig?
1. historical definition—Whig was a political Party in England; the political
party that supported William III in the Glorious Revolution as opposed to
the Tories, who supported James. Whigs were traditionally in favor of
greater parliamentary control and were often on the side of legislation
designed to help society. Whigs were the authors and greatest
supporters of the Great Reform Bill, and After the 1840s whigs became
known as liberals and Tories became known as Conservatives (hence
the names of two of the political parties in England today).
2. historical euphemism ("whiggism")—But "whig" is used in another way
as well, in a way designed to critique the attitudes of men like Macaulay.
In your reading today, you have an excerpt from the short book "The
Whig Interpretation of History" written in 1931 by Herbert Butterfield.
a. Herbert Butterfield and 20th-century "professsionalized" history.
He wrote this work as a young historian. Against some of the
more famous historians of the time (GM Trevelyan, Lord Acton)
b. Is Whiggism really bad or does Butterfield just have an axe to
grind?
i.
it seems that he's right on one level. We shouldn't be
presentist, we should examine the past for meaning
and take it on its own terms.
ii.
But what we see in his work is also some element of
"archivalism." Of just looking at the sources and letting
them tell a story. Quote on overhead. What is the
problem with this? We must interpret, we must make
sense of the past.
IV.
Conclusions