----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I wish to make six comments regarding the discussion of Whig history. 
 
a) I agree with those who have said that no one can escape the concerns of 
the present, especially the concerns of the historian herself.  
 
b) I disagree that this makes all history whig history, although I can 
concur with Herbert Butterfield when he said: "The truth is that there is a 
tendency for all history to veer over into whig history," unless we find 
means to counteract it. 
 
c) I think there are many things (ideas, practices, etc.) that I share with 
those in the past. Without some human commonality there would be no basis 
for historical work of any kind. 
 
d) I think there are legitimate interpretative techniques which engage the 
work of past thinkers from the perspective of the present. The most common 
of these has come to be called "rational reconstruction." Good rational 
reconstructions can bring the work of past thinkers into dialogue with 
current work in a way which may contribute to current disciplinary 
discussion. 
 
[addendum to d): I also think that one cannot adjudicate between rational 
reconstructions on the basis of their allegiance to the original author's 
own position. Rational reconstructions necessarily remove or alter portions 
of the original author's work in the process of reconstruction. The 
standard for judging a rational reconstruction is not the original author's 
position, but the contribution the reconstruction makes to contemporary 
discussion. Much rancour among those who have followed Keynes (or Ricardo, 
or Marx, etc.) could have been spared if this simple truth had been 
recognized.] 
 
e) I maintain my disapprobation for whig history; i.e., that history which 
makes the historian's own theory, ideology, etc. the judge or avenger of 
the past. While the notion of whig history was originally used in 
connection with the glorification of the path that lead to the "winners," 
the notion of using history to avenge the past leads me to think that there 
can be a whig history of the losers also. 
 
f) My own predelection is to undertake "historical reconstruction" where I 
try as best possible to make the past my present. Naturally, I cannot give 
up all my present concerns, but I can try to identify them as I go along 
and see where they may cause me to miss some aspect of the past that is 
important to the work I am considering. 
 
g) The primary achievement of historical work is the humility it teaches us 
about our own ideas. We learn that others could think, and think well. 
Where we recognize that their work was conditioned by the intellectual, 
social, technological, and political world they lived in, we also recognize 
that our own ideas are similarly conditioned. 
 
Ross Emmett 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]