This critique that focuses on the historical thinking of J.B. Bury and George Trevelyan intends to explore the historical narrative and the transition of modern British historiography between 1880 and 1930. Bury is influential in the analytical history and the history-as-science school, and Trevelyan, “the last Whig historian”, is the representative of the history-as-art school. Their debates on historical methods and writings appear to be a significant conflict between scientific history and literary history, and a combat between analytical history and narrative history. With my further study and research on this topic, however, I find this dichotomy confusing in understanding and interpreting Bury's and Trevelyan's ideas and their relationships. Therefore, by emphasizing on cognitive history and analytical history, this essay explores the transition of British history and explains how this traditional historical narrative declined in the academia.