Whig history
When H. A. L. Fisher in 1928 gave a Raleigh lecture, he implied that the "whig historians" really were Whigs (i.e. associated with the Whig party or its Liberal successor) and had written centrist histories that were "good history despite their enthusiasm for Gladstonian or Liberal Unionist causes"; this introduction of the term was mostly praiseworthy, unlike Butterfield's later use, since Fisher applauded Macaulay's "instructive and illuminating" history. By the time Butterfield wrote his "Whig Interpretation", he may have been beating a dead horse: P. B. M. Blaas, in his 1978 book "Continuity and Anachronism", argued that whig history itself had lost all vitality by 1914. Subsequent generations of academic historians have rejected Whig history because of its presentist and teleological assumption that history is driving toward some sort of goal.