History, from "Whig" to Partial
Back in 1931, the historian Herbert Butterfield condemned the “Whig interpretation of history”. Huh? The term refers to the interpretation of the past in terms of modern knowledge. Butterfield minced no words: “The study of the past with one eye, so to speak, upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history.” Most of Butterfield’s criticism was about moral judgments on historical figures and events. Having read Jack Weatherford’s brilliant book titled Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World , I agreed with Butterfield. Sure, Genghis Khan wasn’t a saint, but was he really worse than the savagery of the Europeans of the day, asked Weatherford. No, Genghis was far better, concluded the book. While it does make sense to not be “whiggish” in some sorts of history, isn’t it OK in case of the history of science, asks physicist Steven Weinberg . After all: “It is clearly not possible to speak of right and wrong in the history of art or fashion, nor ...