The Annales School before the Annales [with Discussion]

Author(s): George Huppert

Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center) , Winter - Spring, 1978, Vol. 1, No. 3/4, The
Impact of the "Annales" School on the Social Sciences (Winter - Spring, 1978), pp. 215-
224
Published by: Research Foundation of State University of New York for and on behalf
of the Fernand Braudel Center

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40240782

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

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fernand Braudel Center and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center)

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
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 in-
fluence 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 historio-
graphy, 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 th
most recent authorized philosophical musings coming out of the Annales
namely, the three-volume collection of articles entitled Faire de l'historié, 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 i
no way culture-bound; and finally you will find a collection of articles meant t
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

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 George Huppert

paradoxical. Now it doesn'

don't for a minute believ
culture-bound as they real
ing of our conference as t
case, to be quite possibly a
been culture-bound, narro
are advised to get rid of thi
through the barriers separ
geography, but it must al
sounds reasonable enough.
phy does not have a splend
it accomplished within nar
the argument that the histo
the history of the modern
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 genera-
tions 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 for-
eigners. For instance, when LeRoy Ladurie writes about the hard times of debt-

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annales School Before Annales 217

ridden share-croppers, he speaks of the

would know that this is a pretty allu
seventeenth-century play? Who indeed
once of having spent six or seven year
difficult language, dense and rhapsod
perhaps from Michelet. Romantic in i
and voracious in its search for surprisin
the most abstruse technical vocabulary
expected to know the names of 400-ye
attuned, at the same time, to the lates
Prés. And at the turn of the same parag
- with the juicy, earthy language of si
admire these tricks. I use them. But I
not for export. It cannot be understoo
rians if they are not native French speak
None of these books, not even Braudel's
influencing historians across the Atlan
notice in the American Historical Rev
but the review by the late Prof. Matti
the importance of the book. The repu
an almost clandestine rumor here in the
rumor. But it was impossible, almost
books. They were out of print.
Ten years later I inquired into the po
ranean translated. I discovered that so
for several years. I looked at the result.
it made little sense; it was not publish
Row to take over the task. I spent at
Eight capable and experienced translat
specialists in French history and expe
could produce a reasonable English ver
book. At last we found that rare pe
through the same difficulties with
Someday I hope to tackle Febvre's Fra
unsurpassed masterpiece of the Annales
Which brings me to the question: wh
mass of French academic productions?
to get away from some conventional
about. The view, to begin with, which h
a new and dangerous breed, of barbar
fiers. These historians in white coats
streaming out of the laboratories of t
those well-known dens of iniquity, t
mechanized forces of the social sciences,
as a fearful menace of the future of g
even a menace to the future of civilizatio
There is no denying it: the Annale
managed to give this kind of impress

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 218 George Huppert

tion, much talk about t

cluding computers. It is n
for new techniques, for
persuaded that what the
Well, I defy anyone to
teamwork and those ing
Mr. Cobb, take all the
Mediterranean was writ
before the coming of th
doc or in Bennassar's Va
ligent man cannot do sin
of time, and a cooperati
adays adopt new technique
distinguishes the Annal
gadgets or a fondness for
a style, it is a way of po
the turn of the century.
The origins of this trad
others pointed out, to the
did not begin publication
was in Henri Berr's Re
characteristic traits of what was to become known as the Annales school were
invented. It was also then, in 1910, that Febvre published his thèse on t
Franche-Comté 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 Besançon
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-Comté 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

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annales School Before Annales 219

pages the reader was led into a dense

out meeting a single event. Already
had been coined as a pejorative desc
historians. On purpose I avoid the f
tic history and socio-economic hist
in those terms. They too did politi
no human activity which was not
for their ideal. Politics and diploma
Comté, Febvre shows how politics a
But politics, diplomacy, warfare co
rately from all the other aspects
material civilization, the flora and fa
niques, the functioning of municipal
credit, the mobility of social groups,
the tensions surrounding accusations
towns, the local patriotism expres
ences - all this was part of an insep
the Annales kind of history were l
and holding it down so it would s
determined to catch glimpses of the
worth studying. He groped for w
collective historical person caught
historian, no longer a pedantic bys
for us to see, was becoming a film
away, came back when the subject
came back again, until we were at l
genetic at the same time, in which
gether." It would be pretentious to c
that the goal was a more living histo

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 Discussion

STOIANOVICH
For all our adm
permanent val
the Annales par
impossible? Th
occasions that
think that the
way of learnin
response. We be
- culture, envi
another. That
Aristotle, trans
the French tra
the tradition
the Idéologues.
of cognitive p
Michelet. Now
you use them
terms of one
tradition. The
necessary. The
to be a school,
to be lost, at th
that the rest
German, Polis
histoire globale

HOBSBAWM: C
an internationa
which opinions
I think we are
thinking in te
many people ha
not the way in
seen, what we
countries, of w
the revue Ann
other countrie
fluence which w
Those of us w
sities before th
has changed. T
undergraduate
was an underg
other hand p
mentioning. To
for instance, t
portance of so

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Discussion 221

happened and
expression. Du
as I said previo
I think there
conference itse
policy discuss
instance, there
called broadly
And we have h
some of us hav
Annales have d
might say wit
were the mai
convergent dir
But we should
conquest of the
France by the
I think even in
techniques and
works. I don't

JOHN AGNEW
ments have be
upon history.
Annales Schoo
to this is that
social sciences i
fact that, in te
social science i
analogy betwe
geography in
many writers
sociology, we
science, the se
uniqueness of
writers in the
one that has no
impact of the
minimal.

HUPPERT: We
which may be
social scientist
your remarks
first World W
nobody admit
intellectual sa
included histo

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 Discussion

Vienna even. G
were disciples
Vidal de la Bl
"counterattack
their territory
the actual mec
you have in m
swallow you up
geography in
psychology. Le
which has bee
generations I t
motivation of
finally played o
the social scien
way of looking
to the observat
As for Hobsbaw
wasn't too serio

WALLERSTEIN
sure that it po
as the key artic
who was not a
asserted it was
ceeded to say
Annales was in
how they alway
I would see th
two fronts. It
faces. If the e
British imper
history, this v
and the form
other, which re
ing only of th
specifically Feb
the enemy is B
ing the claim
enemy who disr
see the Annale
same front, th
idiographers.

CONRAD BIEB
am a literary p
seem merely f
made. But it

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discussion 223

translation of th
is indeed a prob
allusions to Fren
they are not th
was called by M
meeting has bee
grind in this re
competently, th
sometimes to "
authors. Thus th

HUPPERT: I just
think there is a
Annalistes who
readers. They w
to be understood

WALLERSTEIN: Nor has it ever succeeded.

ANDREWS: I would just like to make one very brief comment in a critical sen
as to the reasons it seems to me why in say the 1940's, 1950's, into the 1960'
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 o
serious consideration by very important and powerful American historians
think one gets a clue to this not just in the short notice given by Garre
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 ve
interesting to note what Bernard Bailyn said. He found the book incompre
hensible and a methodological failure, because he could see no causal lin
established between this very long discussion in the first part of the geographica
biological milieu in the progression to social systems and finally to politics. T
bulk of Bailyn's review consisted in a discussion of the politics and diploma
which forms the final section of The Mediterranean, declaring the demograp
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.
the New York Review of Books, J. H. Elliot reviewed the first volume. Now w
are not talking about an American historian at this point. This was only a fe
years ago, right after the Harper and Row translation. He taxed Braudel and T
Mediterranean for introducing 500 or 600 pages of physical, economic, dem
graphic discussion which doesn't explain the Battle of Lepanto, and that it w
therefore all the more a failure, a lyrical masterpiece but a failure. J. H. Plum
reviewed the first volume in the New York Times Book Review somewhere a
the end of 1973, and used that review to launch into a massive attack really
the whole geographic, economic, or biological determinism. Now the latter t
historians are English - but within a very definable tradition and a certain ty
of English determinism, which shares certain very basic characteristics with the
major preoccupations of American historians since roughly the 1930's up t
about the 1960's. That is an overwhelming insistence on the event or the poli

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
224 Discussion

or the individu
the and volunta
of, and challen
main tradition
or difficult to
mental assumpt

This content downloaded from

193.52.103.21 on Mon, 09 Dec 2024 16:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms