Annales Before Annales_huppert

Research Foundation of SUNY

The Annales School before the Annales [with Discussion]Author(s): George HuppertSource: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 1, No. 3/4, The Impact of the "Annales" Schoolon the Social Sciences (Winter - Spring, 1978), pp. 215-224Published by: Research Foundation of SUNY for and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240782 .Accessed: 03/09/2014 09:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Research Foundation of SUNY and Fernand Braudel Center are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 116.203.220.24 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:21:39 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Review, I, 3/4, Winter/Spring 1978, 215-219.

The Annales School Before the Annales

George Huppert

We have been gathered here to celebrate the achievements of the Annales school. Naturally enough, most of the participants in this celebration are loyal admirers of this tradition, themselves veteran practitioners of the Annales method. Even so, there has hardly, been unanimity here on the question of defining just what the Annales school stands for; or on the question: just what is the method of the Annales exactly? Or the question: what has been the influence of the Annales? Or even on the question: is there an Annales school?

I see no reason to be ashamed of this confusion. As a historian of historiography, I find it entirely natural that we (as historians) should be making such a hopeless mess of understanding our aims and the direction of our discipline. Besides, our confusion is quite on a par with the confusion spelled out in the most recent authorized philosophical musings coming out of the Annales, namely, the three-volume collection of articles entitled Faire de l'histori, which was assembled by LeGoff and Nora and bears the imprimatur of the Vie Section. The preface of this new summa is instructive: you will find in it the ritual denial of the school's existence; you will find, also, the ritual claim that here is a team (animated by the spirit of Febvre, Bloch, and Braudel) which is seeking a new type of history; you will find the claim to being an international movement in no way culture-bound; and finally you will find a collection of articles meant to describe the global successes of this new history - and written entirely by Frenchmen.

Mind you, the editors are aware of this last anomaly which strikes them as


ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

216 George Huppert

paradoxical. Now it doesn't seem odd to me. It seems entirely natural. And I don't for a minute believe that the editors should feel bad about being as culture-bound as they really are. This quality which was castigated at the opening of our conference as the academic sin par excellence \ seems to me, in this case, to be quite possibly a virtue. Historical scholarship, we are told, has always been culture-bound, narrowly defined by a national context. True. Quite so. We are advised to get rid of this shameful provincialism: history must not only break through the barriers separating it from sociology, economics, anthropology, or geography, but it must also stop being French, German, or British. Well this sounds reasonable enough. But ask yourself whether the history of historiography does not have a splendid record of discovery, creation, and renewal - all of it accomplished within narrow national limits. One could make a solid case for the argument that the history of modern historical writing is intimately tied to the history of the modern nation-state, and that this has not necessarily been a bad thing.

Now the Annales tradition has always been very much a French tradition, despite all the imagined internationalism of its manifestos since 1900. It wished to be international in its scope, it wished to inspire a worldwide confraternity of like-minded creators of a new kind of history which would supersede, replace, and drive out the oppressive and detested kind of history which reigned supreme in the Sorbonne and in the Revue historique since 1876; in a word to drive out the German kind of history, introduced by Gabriel Monod and others after the defeat at Sedan. This was the avowed dream of Febvre and his followers from the start. Febvre 's kind of history won a proud place in France after two generations of combat; but not in the English-speaking world, not until very recently, and even then, not what I would call a serious bridgehead. This combative legion (legion rather than school, I think Febvre would approve the choice of the word) has been no more serious about permanent conquests abroad than the Swiss of the fifteenth century. In America after three-quarters of a century, it has achieved an enviable reputation among the happy few; a special issue of the Journal of Modern History ; two or three translated masterpieces out of 50; half a dozen fanatical adherents introduced as a fifth column; a conference in Bing- hamton. Is this more than a token bridgehead? A symbolic outpost, a Macao in our midst? We are worth conquering, that much is clear. We present by far the most tempting target for cultural imperialism. A handful of skirmishes won in Poland or Hungary can hardly make up for the deadlock on the Western Front. Are not one-half of all living historians citizens of the U.S.? Why then so little success here?

One might propose the explanation that our defenses are superb, unequalled: our main line of defense is our ignorance of the French language. Very few of our historians can read French fluently enough to be at all vulnerable to the charms of Braudel or Febvre. After all, we are talking about gigantic books, running habitually to 1000 pages. More to the point is the difficulty of the style. It is quite different from the more prosaic and and predictable language of ordinary French academic books. The followers of Febvre go out of their way to avoid sounding like ordinary academics. Their aim is to be different, to surprise the reader. It is a language full of allusions, of references mysterious to foreigners. For instance, when LeRoy Ladurie writes about the hard times of debt-


ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

Annales School Before Annales 217

ridden share-croppers, he speaks of the coming of Monsieur Dimanche. Now who would know that this is a pretty allusion to an entirely minor character in a seventeenth-century play? Who indeed, except someone who had the misfortune once of having spent six or seven years on the benches of a French lyce? It is a difficult language, dense and rhapsodic, a diction inherited from Febvre and perhaps from Michelet. Romantic in its effects, baroque in its means, precious and voracious in its search for surprising resonances, it moves very quickly from the most abstruse technical vocabulary to the most idiomatic expression. One is expected to know the names of 400-year-old agricultural implements, and to be attuned, at the same time, to the latest structuralist debate in St.-Germain-des- Prs. And at the turn of the same paragraph, one comes face-to- face - suddenly - with the juicy, earthy language of sixteenth-century peasants and publicists. I admire these tricks. I use them. But I have to admit that such a style simply is not for export. It cannot be understood readily by English or American historians if they are not native French speakers. It cannot be translated successfully. None of these books, not even Braudel's Mediterranean , has much of a chance of influencing historians across the Atlantic. The Mediterranean did receive a short notice in the American Historical Review after its original publication in 1949, but the review by the late Prof. Mattingly could not possibly tip anyone off to the importance of the book. The reputation of BraudePs work or Febvre's was an almost clandestine rumor here in the 1950's. As a student, I admit I heard the rumor. But it was impossible, almost impossible, to get your hands on these books. They were out of print.

Ten years later I inquired into the possibility of having at least The Mediter- ranean translated. I discovered that someone had been working on a translation for several years. I looked at the result. It bore little relationship to the original; it made little sense; it was not publishable. It was then I persuaded Harper and Row to take over the task. I spent at least a year trying to find a translator. Eight capable and experienced translators had to be rejected. Among them were specialists in French history and experienced professional translators. None could produce a reasonable English version of even ten consecutive pages of the book. At last we found that rare person who did the job. And then I went through the same difficulties with LeRoy Ladurie's Peasants of Languedoc. Someday I hope to tackle Febvre's Franche-Comt which to my mind is the unsurpassed masterpiece of the Annales tradition.

Which brings me to the question: why are these books so different from the mass of French academic productions? In answering this question today, I hope to get away from some conventional views of what the Annales school is all about. The view, to begin with, which holds that the Annalistes are a new breed, a new and dangerous breed, of barbaric, scientificating, anti-humanist quanti- fiers. These historians in white coats, if one is to believe Richard Cobb, come streaming out of the laboratories of the Vie Section - and worse, lately, out of those well-known dens of iniquity, the American universities. Those "dark mechanized forces of the social sciences, those armies of the night", are depicted as a fearful menace of the future of genuine, gentlemanly scholarship, perhaps even a menace to the future of civilization.

There is no denying it: the Annales people, quite willfully, have indeed managed to give this kind of impression. There is much talk about quantifica-


ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

218 George Huppert

tion, much talk about teamwork, and even about sophisticated equipment in- cluding computers. It is not entirely talk. There is a fashion in Paris for gadgets, for new techniques, for rather outlandish new subjects. One could easily be persuaded that what the Annales is all about is new techniques.

Well, I defy anyone to show me the important book which was produced by teamwork and those ingenious, expensive new techniques, which, according to Mr. Cobb, take all the vitality out of history. Let us be serious: Braudel's Mediterranean was written without them, without new techniques, and long before the coming of the computer. There is nothing in the Peasants of Langue- doc or in Bennassar's Valladolid or in Meyer's Breton Nobility which an intel- ligent man cannot do singlehanded, equipped only with a pen, paper, ten years of time, and a cooperative wife. To the extent that the Vie Section does now- adays adopt new techniques, this is a trait in no way limited to Annalistes. What distinguishes the Annales tradition is not an unusual propensity for trying gadgets or a fondness for laboratory coats. It is something utterly different. It is a style, it is a way of posing problems, a way of thinking, which all go back to the turn of the century.

The origins of this tradition must be pushed back, as Jacques Revel among others pointed out, to the years before the First World War. The journal Annales did not begin publication until 1929. But it was thought of before 1914, and it was in Henri Berr's Revue de synthse between 1900 and 1914 that all the characteristic traits of what was to become known as the Annales school were invented. It was also then, in 1910, that Febvre published his thse on the Franche-Comt which served as a model of the Annales tradition.

What were the most striking features of this history which proclaimed its novelty in a fiercely aggressive tone in the first years of the century? Were we in the presence of new techniques, of secret weapons, of a technical breakthrough? Not at all. The methods of research employed by Febvre in 1910 were entirely, unimpeachably, orthodox: a thorough investigation of the archives of Besanon in the best German tradition. What was new then? The narrative style, certainly: it was visibly, triumphantly different. There was nothing academic about the narrative. The historian addressed the reader in a very personal way. The reader was cajoled and lectured, the reader was asked to share the author's enthusiasm. And the author took risks.

But the style was only the most visible novelty. The subject was new: utterly, strikingly new. In the Franche-Comt in the Age of Philip II, it was the province, not the Prince which was the subject. This doctoral thesis began with an ac- counting of the human geography of the region. The reader was transported into the hill country of the Jura. He was taken along the narrow twisting valleys of little-known mountain streams. The size of the towns, the number of people, the pressure of these numbers against the resources of the woods, the harvesting of timber, the hammering of the tanneries along the river, the mining of salt, the pattern of the grain trade and the map of the wine country, even the under- ground resources - all this was sketched in masterfully. I need hardly remind you that such geographical introductions have become standard features in the Annales tradition.

From geography to economy, from the rural economy to the map of indus- trial production, on to the re-creation of the urban habitat, for hundreds of


ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

Annales School Before Annales 219

pages the reader was led into a dense recreated sixteenth-century province without meeting a single event. Already in 1903 the phrase histoire vnementielle had been coined as a pejorative description of the narrow vision of traditional historians. On purpose I avoid the false distinction between political or diplomatic history and socio-economic history. Febvre and his companions did not think in those terms. They too did political history and diplomatic history. There was no human activity which was not part of the total history which they claimed for their ideal. Politics and diplomacy were important subjects. In his Franche- Comt, Febvre shows how politics and diplomacy slowly strangled this province. But politics, diplomacy, warfare could not be understood, Febvre argued, sepa- rately from all the other aspects of life as it was lived in this province. The material civilization, the flora and fauna, the social structure, the agrarian techniques, the functioning of municipal and regional institutions, the machinery of credit, the mobility of social groups, the religious observances of the population, the tensions surrounding accusations of heresy and witchcraft, the culture of the towns, the local patriotism expressed in travel books and private correspond- ences - all this was part of an inseparable whole. Here again the ground rules of the Annales kind of history were laid out. Instead of catching a piece of history and holding it down so it would stand still while being dissected, Febvre was determined to catch glimpses of the motion of history. The movement alone was worth studying. He groped for ways of getting past the documents at "the collective historical person caught at a specific moment of its evolution." The historian, no longer a pedantic bystander who holds up an album of snapshots for us to see, was becoming a film director. He zoomed in for closeups, moved away, came back when the subject changed his pose, moved away again, and came back again, until we were at last able to discern "a new order, dynamic and genetic at the same time, in which nothing in separate which ought to be together." It would be pretentious to call this total history. Let us say with Febvre that the goal was a more living history, better thought out.


ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

220 Discussion

STOIANOVICH: My friend Professor Huppert is very witty and very cynical. For all our admiration of Voltaire should we forget that there is perhaps a more permanent value in Montesquieu? Is it impossible for Americans to make use of the Annales paradigm? Is there anything in the American culture that makes this impossible? There may be, and I think there is, and I think that on several occasions that we have been on the point of determining what that problem is. I think that the problem lies with two different, two hostile interpretations of the way of learning. How do we learn? One explanation is in terms of stimulus- response. We begin with a tabula rasa and then we are hit by things from outside - culture, environment, everything else - to which we respond in one way or another. That is one way of looking at it, stated crudely. It comes to us from Aristotle, transmitted to Locke, today by way of Skinner. And we get it through the French tradition too: not the tradition of French philosophy, but through the tradition of French psychology, through Condillac. Destutt de Tracy, and the Idologues. The other is a volistic tradition, an attempt to interpret in terms of cognitive patterns. It comes to us from Plato, from Descartes, and Vico and Michelet. Now I myself think that both explanations have some value, but that you use them under different occasions, and you explain some problems in terms of one tradition and you explain other problems in terms of the other tradition. They are both probably incomplete in themselves, but both highly necessary. Therefore, what I would urge is that if the Annales school has ceased to be a school, if it has been miett, that there is no need for the paradigm itself to be lost, at the very moment it is in the process of arriving. I therefore suggest that the rest of us, whatever our traditions - French, English, American, German, Polish, yes Polish - go on with this great adventure of creating an histoire globale.

HOBSBAWM: Could I just disagree with Huppert on one thing. The Annales is an international phenomenon in spite of the fact that these three volumes, about which opinions can be very divided, are written exclusively by Frenchmen. Only I think we are looking for the wrong kind of international phenomenon. We are thinking in terms of the influence of the Annales school. We are seeing how many people have got a bumper sticker on saying "I am for Annales." But that is not the way in which in fact an international movement develops. What we have seen, what we are seeing here, is a confluence of various trends in various countries, of which it so happened, for historical and other reasons, in France the revue Annales, the Vie Section, and so on became the main carriers. But in other countries it exists, either organized or less organized. And it is this confluence which we notice.

Those of us who are old enough to remember what we were taught in universities before the war, or even until let us say 1945-50, know how totally history has changed. The textbooks - even the kind of "Western Civ" textbooks

- that undergraduates are taught from today contain stuff which, in the days when I was an undergraduate, nobody, except on the one hand the Marxists and on the other hand people like Marc Bloch, thought was worth putting in or even mentioning. To this extent, the transformation of history in certain directions

- for instance, to put it into its lowest common denominator, the growing importance of social and economic structures and so on - is something that has


ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

Discussion 221

happened and is happening, and of which the Annales is at least one national expression. Due to the great merits of the French school, broader than Annales, as I said previously, it has had a considerable amount of international resonance.

I think there is another thing which I have noticed in the course of this conference itself. A lot of people, even though they haven't been up to the latest policy discussions in Annales, are in fact thinking along the same lines. For instance, there is the tendency of Annales to draw closer towards what might be called broadly an anthropological approach. Well, we have had it in England. And we have had it independently. We didn't have to read Annales for it, though some of us have benefitted by reading some of the things that the people in the Annales have done. So to the extent that we have, in a sense, a community, you might say with luck an avant-garde community which hopes to become as it were the main army, which is moving in the same kind of direction or in convergent directions, we are facing, we are part of, an international movement. But we should be wrong if we look at it in terms of cultural imperialism, the conquest of the United States by the Annales, or the conquest for that matter of France by the United States. There have been attempts to do this, and attempts I think even in the Annales uncritically to borrow, partly on ideological grounds, techniques and approaches from other countries. I don't think that is the way it works. I don't think that is the way it ought to work.

JOHN AGNEW (Geography, Syracuse): It strikes me that many people's comments have been directed exclusively to the impact the Annales school has had upon history. I thought the title of the conference was "The Impact of the Annales School on the Social Sciences." A point I would like to make in relation to this is that perhaps the lack of influence the Annales school had upon the social sciences in the United States, in Britain, even in France, may be due to the fact that, in terms of its origins, it was in fact a reaction to the developments of social science in France at the turn of the century. If we could perhaps draw an analogy between the work of the Annales school and the development of human geography in France under Vidal de la Blache, which has been interpreted by many writers as a response or a reaction to the development of Durkheimian sociology, we can then perhaps see the seeds of resistance being sown in social science, the seeds of resistance to particularism, the seeds of resistance to the uniqueness of places, the very things that Vidal de la Blache and certain of the writers in the Annales tradition seem to have emphasized. I raise this question, one that has not been addressed so far in attempting, in trying to account for the impact of the Annales school upon social science, which I see as being pretty minimal.

HUPPERT: Well, I can't really give a very good answer to that last observation, which may be just. After all I am an historian, an historian of history, not a social scientist. If I turn my mind back to the moment which you conjure up in your remarks, namely that arcane and magically-charged decade just before the first World War in Paris, I am not sure that your observation is correct. Certainly nobody admitted to it. To the contrary. The people who collaborated in the intellectual salons of the time and who published in the Revue de synthse, included historians, economists, psychologists, some of them writing from


ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

ASUSHighlight

222 Discussion

Vienna even. Geographers always had pride of place. Febvre and these people were disciples and great admirers of the French school of human geography of Vidal de la Blache. There never was any question among the historians of "counterattacking", for fear that the newer social sciences would take away their territory. Perhaps that was the unexpressed motive, I can't really say. But the actual mechanism was a sort of preemptive mechanism. Perhaps that is what you have in mind. That is to say, we love you and we will take you in. We will swallow you up like Saint-Exupry 's elephant or snake. Let's have 100 pages of geography in our books. Let's have 100 pages of economy. Let's have some psychology. Let's have it all. And I guess your remark, coming from a discipline which has been historically slighted in this country in the last two or three generations I think, makes sense in a way. I understand. There is a kind of motivation of bitterness, perhaps, which I understand. I guess the way it is finally played out in the French tradition is that the historians cleverly took over the social sciences and reigned over them in the Vie Section. At least that is one way of looking at it. This is not meant to be anything new or a surprising answer to the observation you made, but I think that is how I feel about it more or less. As for Hobsbawm, well I can't really argue with that. He knows perfectly well I wasn't too serious in my remarks.

WALLERSTEIN: I would like to talk to that last question because I am not sure that it poses the question correctly at all. In his talk, Jacques Revel claimed as the key article in the whole cultural history of Annales the article by Simiand, who was not a historian but an economist, very much of a social scientist. He asserted it was the cornerstone, if you will, of Annales ideology, and he pro- ceeded to say that Simiand had been very influenced by Durkheim, and that Annales was in fact in the heart of the social scientific tradition, which I think is how they always thought of themselves.

I would see the issue differently. I would see, in fact, Annales as fighting on two fronts. It was fighting against one enemy, which in fact had two different faces. If the enemy was, as I suggested in my opening remarks, the kind of British imperial view of the world as it got expressed in social science and history, this view took two forms - the form of universalizing generalizations, and the form of the absolute segregation of the social sciences one from the other, which relegated to history the role of being totally idiographic, of speaking only of the nonrepeatable phenomenon. People like Febvre and Bloch, quite specifically Febvre in that section I quote in my editorial in Review, assert that the enemy is Bourgeois, the idiographic historians. Against them, Febvre is push- ing the claim for social science. On the other hand, there was also the other enemy who disregarded the fact that all of the world was not of a single piece. I see the Annales as always having fought on these two fronts, which were the same front, the same enemy coming together, the pure universalizers and the idiographers.

CONRAD BIEBER (French, SUNY, Stony Brook): I am not a social historian. I am a literary person. After Mr. Hobsbawm 's enlightening critical remarks, it may seem merely frivolous to come back to a minor point that Professor Huppert made. But it is not so minor so as not to deserve perhaps a footnote. The


Discussion 223

translation of the Annales, and the translation of the books to which you refer, is indeed a problem, but it may be more than the fact that one falters over allusions to French classical literature. If foreigners read American social science, they are not the only ones to be turned off by what in the 1940's and 1950's was called by Malcolm Cowley the impossible jargon of social science. Now this meeting has been to my ears refreshingly free from jargon, so I have no axe to grind in this respect. But if you read what is written in social sciences very competently, the references are not to writers of the quality of Molire, but sometimes to "B" category movies, baseball or basketball, or very minor authors. Thus the problem is an international one indeed.

HUPPERT: I just have a one or two sentence reply to that very true remark. I think there is a difference though between the predicament of the French Annalistes who cannot make themselves understood among English-speaking readers. They want to be understood. American social science was never meant to be understood in the first place.

WALLERSTEIN: Nor has it ever succeeded.

ANDREWS: I would just like to make one very brief comment in a critical sense as to the reasons it seems to me why in say the 1940's, 1950's, into the 1960's, why the most significant works of the Annales school in fact did not succeed or were not permitted to enter within the mainline or anywhere near the summit of serious consideration by very important and powerful American historians. I think one gets a clue to this not just in the short notice given by Garrett Mattingly to the first edition of The Mediterranean, but, when the second edition was published in 1966, in the review by Bernard Bailyn. It is very interesting to note what Bernard Bailyn said. He found the book incompre- hensible and a methodological failure, because he could see no causal links established between this very long discussion in the first part of the geographical, biological milieu in the progression to social systems and finally to politics. The bulk of Bailyn's review consisted in a discussion of the politics and diplomacv which forms the final section of The Mediterranean, declaring the demograpny practically irrelevant, the role of geography in it to be irrelevant to what Bailyn considered to be relevant, which is his political discussion. Let us go further. In the New York Review of Books, J. H. Elliot reviewed the first volume. Now we are not talking about an American historian at this point. This was only a few years ago, right after the Harper and Row translation. He taxed Braudel and The Mediterranean for introducing 500 or 600 pages of physical, economic, demo- graphic discussion which doesn't explain the Battle of Lepanto, and that it was therefore all the more a failure, a lyrical masterpiece but a failure. J. H. Plumb reviewed the first volume in the New York Times Book Review somewhere at the end of 1973, and used that review to launch into a massive attack really on the whole geographic, economic, or biological determinism. Now the latter two historians are English - but within a very definable tradition and a certain type of English determinism, which shares certain very basic characteristics with the major preoccupations of American historians since roughly the 1930's up to about the 1960's. That is an overwhelming insistence on the event or the policy


224 Discussion

or the individual as a subject matter of history, an overwhelming concern with the and voluntaristic basically Lockean reading of history. This work is corrosive of, and challenging to, that reading and I think it has been rejected by a certain main tradition of American historiography, not because it is occasionally exotic or difficult to read in its language, but because it challenges certain very funda- mental assumptions of twentieth-century American intelligentsia.


Article Contentsp. [215]p. 216p. 217p. 218p. 219p. 220p. 221p. 222p. 223p. 224

Issue Table of ContentsReview (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 1, No. 3/4, The Impact of the "Annales" School on the Social Sciences (Winter - Spring, 1978), pp. 1-262Front MatterIntroductory Note [pp. 3-3]Annales as Resistance [pp. 5-7]The Annales: Continuities and Discontinuities [pp. 9-18]Social History: Perspective of the Annales Paradigm [with Discussion] [pp. 19-52]The Impact of the Annales School in Mediterranean Countries [with Discussion] [pp. 53-67]Impact of the Annales School on Ottoman Studies and New Findings [with Discussion] [pp. 69-99]Impact of the Annales School in Eastern Europe [with Discussion] [pp. 101-121]The Influence of the Annales School in Quebec [pp. 123-145]Reflections on the Historical Revolution in France: The Annales School and British Social History Comments [with Comments and Discussion] [pp. 147-164]Some Implications of the Annales School and Its Methods for a Revision of Historical Writing about the United States [with Discussion] [pp. 165-183]The Annales School and the Writing of Contemporary History [pp. 185-194]The New Annales: A Redefinition of the Late 1960's [with Discussion] [pp. 195-206]Anthropology, History, and the Annales [pp. 207-213]The Annales School before the Annales [with Discussion] [pp. 215-224]The Annales School and Social Theory [with Discussion] [pp. 225-242]En Guise de Conclusion [with Discussion] [pp. 243-261]Back Matter

Documents

Annales Before Annales_huppert