📜 Post with us on Reddit
📝 Create a new article
🏭 Create a company page
🇬🇧 - in English
🇫🇷 - en Français (FR)
🇵🇹 - em Português (PT)
🇩🇪 - auf Deutsch (DE)
🇯🇵 - 日本語で (JA)
Sponsored articles

You can edit almost every page by Creating an account and confirming your email.

French historiography

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki



Template:History of France sidebar

1885 graphic for teaching students about French history

French historiography is the historiographic study of the methods of French historians in developing history as an academic discipline, the differing views among French historians, and how their views have shifted over time about a topic.[lower-alpha 1] Until the last quarter of the 20th century, French historians seemed to have little interest, or even "disdain", for the history of their own profession, although this has changed since then.[1][2]

Between 1860 and 1914, a group of French historians sought to define the nature and purpose of historical writing, focusing on causation and the application of historical knowledge. This would become known later as the École méthodique and founded the Revue Historique (founded by Gabriel Monod in 1876) as their main publication. The journal, non-partisan and secular, contrasted with conservative Catholic historiography in France. Initially recognized as a school only in the early 20th century, they faced criticism from sociologists and later from Annales historians like Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch. By the mid-20th century, their influence had decreased, but interest rebounded in the 1960s through the work of Pierre Nora's work on Ernest Lavisse and examined more fully in the 1970s by nouvelle histoire historians like Charles-Olivier Carbonell, who viewed their work as a new and original response to earlier Catholic historical tradition. Other influential schools included the Marxists, and the structuralists.

Some of the major topics considered by French historians include France's Gaulish and Frankish origins, the concept of Nation and French identity, the "feudal transformation" in the tenth century, Republicanism vs. monarchy, the Ancien régime, the massive historiography of the French Revolution, different periods and governmental systems such as Second Empire, the Third Republic, the Vichy regime and The Holocaust; World Wars I and II, the war guilt question between the wars, and work on later topics such as decolonialization, May 1968, and European integration.

Scope

This article is about the study of history as done by French historians. Contrast this topic with the historiography of France, which would be the overlapping, but separate topic of the study of writings about France by historians from any country. Although France is evidently a major topic of study and occupies a large portion of French historiography, it is not the only topic that attracts French historians, and those other topics are within scope and covered in this article as well.

By definition, studies by historiographers of other nationalities are generally out of scope, except for brief examples or treatments insofar as they may clarify or elucidate French views; the § Paxtonian revolution is an example of this. However, authors writing about the topic of French historiography itself may be from any country; such as, for example, the section on § Feudal transformation, a topic in French historiography which has attracted comment by authors such as Bentley (2006) or West (2013).

Terminology

There is a fundamental difference between the meaning of the word historiography in English and the analogous word historiographie in French. Ultimately, both derive from the Greek historiographia, made up of historia "narrative, history" + -graphia "writing".[3][4][5]

The meaning of historiographie in French hews closer to what the decomposition from Greek would indicate; i.e, one who writes history, than the English word does. In French, the word historiographe ("historiographer") came first, in the 13th century, derived from Greek historiographos, meaning "historian".[6] (The French historien, also meaning "historian", and also from the 13th century, is derived from the Latin historia, which in turn is from the Greek historia, meaning "research, inquiry".[7]) The French historiographie is from the 15th century, derived from the earlier historiographe, and means, "the work of a historian",[4] and it is here that the English meaning diverges from the French. The French term historiographie came to be associated more with a literary genre, and so now the French refer to historiography as the "history of History".[8]

In English, historiography has come to mean "the study of the writing of history"[3] and not "the writing of history" itself; this contrasts with the French meaning which is simply the latter.[4][8][lower-alpha 2] So, where the French word historiographie is simply the writings of historians, the English word is about the study of such writings.

In this article, when the word "historiography" appears unquoted in English, it means "the study of the writings of historians" and "French historiography" means "the study [by writers of any nationality] of the writings of French historians [writing on any topic]".

Introduction

History only matured as a serious academic profession in the 19th century. Before that, it was exercised as a literary pursuit by amateurs such as Voltaire, Jules Michelet, and François Guizot. The transition to an academic discipline first occurred in Germany under historian Leopold von Ranke who began offering his university seminar in history in 1833. Similar introduction of the discipline into academia in France took place in the 1860s. Historians active in France at the time such as Henri Sée [fr] inherited the principles of a new academic discipline from Ranke and earlier mentors including Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges.[9]

Methodology and schools

Allegory of History, by François Chauveau

École méthodique

Further information: École méthodique

In the late Second Empire and Third Republic (roughly 1860–1914), seven historians became concerned about the meaning of a historical work, including Hippolyte Taine, Ernest Renan, Fustel de Coulanges, Gabriel Monod, Ernest Lavisse, Charles-Victor Langlois, and Charles Seignobos. They looked at causation, the role of history, and how to apply historical knowledge. They became known later as members of the école méthodique (lit. methodical school). In modern terms, this was considered a "positivistic methodology".[10]

The Revue Historique, founded in 1876 by Monod,[11] became an organ for the publications of the école méthodique. It is particularly associated with the names of Langlois and Seignobos.[citation needed] The new journal was founded in reaction to the Revue des questions historiques [fr] founded ten years earlier by a conservative Catholic ultramontanist historian who allied with a core of royalists and legitimists who attempted to combat republicanism by promoting a history based around tradition, family, and Catholicism. The new journal adhered to no religion, party, or doctrine;[12] most of the contributors came from a Protestant or freethinker background.[citation needed]

It wasn't until the early 1900s that the group first became recognized as members of a school sharing a common methodology, when they came under criticism in by some Parisian sociologists who were suspicious of their methods, in particular those of Monod, Lavisse, and Seignobos. This reached a crescendo in the 1920s from a group of young historians of the Annales school, in particular Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch.[13]

Due to the continuing attacks on Seignobos who was the last of the positivistic historians (d. 1942), later scholars in the 20th century ignored the positivistic methodology historians. The group regained some interest in the 1960s with the work of historian Pierre Nora, who was writing about Ernest Lavisse.

Finally in the 1970s, there was a reassessment by the nouvelle histoire group of historians such as Charles-Olivier Carbonell [fr] leading to the Third Republic historians' work becoming an object of study. It was Carbonell's work "Histoire est historiens", published in 1976, which saw the Third Republic as a period in which a new type of history writing in France arose as a response by the Protestant historians of the Third Republic who wrote history in a different way than Catholics did previously.[14]

Annales school

Main article: Annales school
Further information: Annales d'Histoire Economique et Sociale
Lucien Febvre (left) and Marc Bloch (right), the founders of the Annales school

The Annales school is a group of historians associated with a style of historiography developed by French historians in the 20th century to stress long-term social history. It is named after its scholarly journal Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, which remains the main source of scholarship, along with many books and monographs.[15] The school has been influential in setting the agenda for historiography in France and numerous other countries, especially regarding the use of social scientific methods by historians, emphasizing social and economic rather than political or diplomatic themes.

The school deals primarily with late medieval and early modern Europe (before the French Revolution), with little interest in later topics. It has dominated French social history and heavily influenced historiography in Europe and Latin America. Prominent leaders include co-founders Lucien Febvre (1878–1956), Henri Hauser (1866–1946) and Marc Bloch (1886–1944). The second generation was led by Fernand Braudel (1902–1985) and included Georges Duby (1919–1996), Pierre Goubert (1915–2012), Robert Mandrou (1921–1984), Pierre Chaunu (1923–2009), Jacques Le Goff (1924–2014), and Ernest Labrousse (1895–1988). Institutionally it is based on the Annales journal, the SEVPEN publishing house, the Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme (FMSH), and especially the 6th Section of the École pratique des hautes études, all based in Paris. A third generation was led by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie (1929–2023) and includes Jacques Revel,[16] and Philippe Ariès (1914–1984), who joined the group in 1978. The third generation stressed history from the point of view of mentalities, or mentalités. The fourth generation of Annales historians, led by Roger Chartier (born 1945), clearly distanced itself from the mentalités approach, replaced by the cultural and linguistic turn, which emphasizes the social history of cultural practices.

Marxist school

Further information: Marxist historiography

The Marxist school sought to explain historical events in terms of class struggle and the relationship between economic structures and political power. One of the most influential Marxist historians in France was Georges Lefebvre, who applied Marxist ideas to the study of the French Revolution. Lefebvre argued that the Revolution was driven by the conflict between the bourgeoisie (the rising capitalist class) and the aristocracy (the traditional ruling class), and that the revolutionaries were motivated by a desire to establish a society based on equality and economic freedom.

Other important Marxist historians in France include Louis Althusser, who applied Marxist ideas to the study of philosophy and culture, and Pierre Vilar, who studied the history of capitalism and imperialism. While the Marxist school of French historiography has declined somewhat in recent years, its ideas continue to have a significant influence on historical scholarship and political debate in France and beyond.[citation needed]

Annales school leader Fernand_Braudel, on the other hand, rejected the Marxist view that history should be used as a tool to foment and foster revolutions.[17]

Interwar period

"During the period between the two world wars, French historians began to earn a reputation for unsurpassed innovation and accomplishment; indeed, according to Pim den Boer, 'After the Second World War French historiography gained unchallenged worldwide supremacy, taking the place of its nineteenth-century German predecessor.' The reason for this supremacy was the Annales movement, which takes its name from the Annales d'histoire économique et sociale, whose first issue appeared in January 1929. ... Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, the two founding fathers of the Annales movement, were the journal's first co-editors."[18]

Structuralism

Further information: Structuralism

Structuralism sought to understand the underlying structures that shape human society and culture. Structuralism is a theoretical approach to understanding human culture and society that emerged in France in the mid-20th century, and had a significant impact on French historiography. Structuralism argues that underlying patterns and structures exist in human culture and society that shape and determine human behavior, beliefs, and institutions. These structures are often hidden and can only be revealed through careful analysis of cultural symbols, language, and other forms of representation.

In the context of French historiography, structuralism was particularly influential in the study of social and cultural history. Many historians argued that by analyzing the underlying structures of social and cultural practices, they could better understand how these practices changed over time, and how they related to broader historical developments.

One of the most famous structuralist historians was § Fernand Braudel, who co-founded the § Annales School of history along with § Marc Bloch and § Lucien Febvre. Braudel argued that history should be studied at three levels: the longue durée (long-term structures and processes), the conjuncture (short-term events and developments), and the événement (individual events and actions). By studying the long-term structures of economic, social, and cultural life, Braudel argued that historians could gain a deeper understanding of the historical developments that shaped individual events and actions.

Other important structuralist historians in France include Claude Lévi-Strauss, who applied structuralist ideas to the study of anthropology and mythology, and Roland Barthes, who studied the ways in which cultural symbols and language shape our understanding of the world.[citation needed]

Postmodernism

Main article: Postmodernism
Further information: Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida

Postmodernism is a theoretical approach to understanding culture and society that emerged in France in the late 20th century and had a significant impact on French historiography. It is primarily associated with Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, and questioned traditional historical narratives, arguing that history is constructed through language and discourse.

Postmodernism argues that traditional approaches to understanding history and culture are inadequate because they rely on grand narratives that ignore the diversity and complexity of human experience. Instead, postmodernism emphasizes the importance of multiple perspectives and competing narratives, and highlights the ways in which language and discourse shape our understanding of the world. In the context of French historiography, postmodernism led to a questioning of traditional historical narratives and a focus on the role of language, discourse, and power in shaping historical knowledge.

Michel Foucault argued that knowledge is not neutral or objective, but is shaped by power relations and discursive practices. Foucault's work challenged traditional historical narratives by highlighting the ways in which institutions like prisons, hospitals, and schools shape our understanding of human experience and behavior.

Another important postmodernist historian was Jacques Derrida, who developed the concept of deconstruction, which emphasizes the ways in which language is inherently unstable and can be used to challenge dominant discourses and power structures.

Postmodernist historians in France have also focused on the role of identity and difference in shaping historical experience, and have sought to challenge dominant narratives that marginalize certain groups based on race, gender, sexuality, and other factors.[citation needed]

Nouvelle histoire

Main article: Nouvelle histoire

The term new history, from the French term nouvelle histoire, was coined by Jacques Le Goff[19][page needed] and Pierre Nora, leaders of the third generation of the § Annales school in the 1970s. The movement can be associated with cultural history, history of representations, and histoire des mentalités.[20] The new history movement's inclusive definition of the proper matter of historical study has also given it the label total history. The movement was contrasted with the traditional ways of writing history which focused on politics and "great men". The new history rejected any insistence on composing historical narrative; an emphasis on administrative documents as basic source materials; concern with individuals' motivations and intentions as explanatory factors for historical events; and the old belief in objectivity.[citation needed]

Other schools

The nationalist school emerged in the 19th century under Adolphe Thiers and François Mignet.[21]

International history is a school that has existed since 1870, and diplomatic and international history has played a major role in French historiography, with such figures as Pierre Renouvin and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle.[22]

The intellectual school focuses on the history of ideas and intellectual movements, examining how they shape and are shaped by social and historical contexts.[citation needed]

The political school of thought focuses on the role of political institutions and actors in shaping historical events and developments.[citation needed]

Major topics

Here are some of the major issues of French historiography, organized by theme, and roughly by chronology.

Nation and identity

The concepts of nation and identity have been an important theme in French historiography, and refer to the ways in which people in France have come to understand themselves as members of a distinct community. The concept of nation can be understood in several different ways, but it generally involves a shared sense of history, culture, and language among a group of people.

Gaulish and Frankish origins

Further information: Roman historiography, Frankish historiography, and Nos ancêtres les Gaulois
Roman world in 58 BCE before the conquest of Gaul; Celts are in green.

The popular view of what constitutes "France" or "French history" differs from that of most historians. The popular sense of French cultural identity is based on Celtic, Gallo-roman and Frankish origins.[lower-alpha 3]

At Bibracte in 52 BCE, Celtic tribal leader Vercingétorix was named head of a Celtic Gaulish coalition against the Romans, and fought and lost to Julius Caesar in the Battle of Alésia, one of the last battles of the Gallic Wars. A monument to Vercingétorix was raised in 1865 by Napoleon III, inscribed with a quotation attributed to Vercingétorix by Caesar in his Gallic Wars (Book VII sect. 29): "A united Gaul, forming a single nation animated by a common spirit, can defy the universe." In 1985, French president Francois Mitterand called for national unity from the hilltop fortress of Bibracte, and said that Vercingétorix's fortress was the site of "the first act of our history", thus clearly idenitifying the Battle of Alésia with the history of France.[23]


The best-selling bande dessiné series Asterix and Obelix portrays an isolated band of pre-Roman inhabitants of Gaul, to which the French feel culturally attached or identified, as shown by the decades-long popularity of the series. The phrase, Our ancestors, the Gauls [fr] (Nos ancêtres, les gaulois) is well-known by everyone, and epitomizes this sense of identity and continuity since ancient times, even if it does not accord with the historical record.[24][25]

Charles de Gaulle alluded to this in his view of Gallic ancestry.[26] (See § Who was the first French king?).

Who was the first French king?

See also: List of Frankish kings and List of French monarchs

Often, either Clovis (c. 509) or Charles the Bald {c. 843) is named as the first "French" king.

Classical French historiography usually regards Clovis I (r. 509–511) as the first king of France, however historians today consider that such a kingdom didn't begin until the establishment of West Francia[26][27] with the Treaty of Verdun in 843.[26][28]

Charles de Gaulle echoed the traditional view, saying:

For me, the history of France begins with Clovis I, chosen as King of France by the tribe of the Franks, who gave their name to France. Before Clovis, we have Gallo-Roman and Gallic prehistory. The decisive factor for me, is that Clovis was the first king who was baptised Christian. My country is a Christian ccountry, and I count French history as beginning with the accession of a Christian king who carried the name of the Franks.

— Charles de Gaulle, Une certaine idée de la France, quoted by David Schoenbrun[29]

Concept of nation

Further information (in français): Historiography of the word nation [fr]

Before the 18th century, the term nation (same in English and French) was used primarily in a non-political sense meaning "a group of people of the same origin".[30][page needed] Universities such as U. of Paris were organized in four nations (Script error: The function "langx" does not exist., in medieval times): French, Normans, Picards, and the English, and later the Alemannian nation.[31][better source needed]


What is a Nation?
Main article: What is a Nation?

[32]


French national identity

Further information: National identity, French people, Fernand Braudel, and Ernest Renan
Further information (in français): French national identity [fr]

One of the key debates in French historiography has been over the origins and nature of French national identity. Some historians have argued that it has deep roots in the medieval and early modern periods, and was shaped by factors such as language, religion, and shared cultural practices. Others have emphasized the more recent origins of French nationalism, and have highlighted the importance of political and economic factors in creating a sense of national unity. As far as the term identité nationale itself, some historians argue that this is a 20th century calque from the term national identity as used in the United States in the 1950s.[33]

During the French Revolution, as the term republic began to be used, the adjective national was widely used to replace the word royal. The former provinces of the ancien régime, now united by legislation, nevertheless remained culturally and linguistically diverse.

The question of national identity was raised again in connection with the annexation of Alsace–Lorraine by the fledgling German Empire in 1871. The What is a Nation? lecture by § Ernest Renan is often interpreted as a rejection of German-style racial, cultural, and linguistic nationalism (which justified the annexation) in favor of a contractualist model of the nation, a voluntary association of individuals having in common "having done great things together, wanting to do more"[lower-alpha 4] in the future, thus justifying Alsace–Lorraine's continuation as an integral part of France.

The theme of national identity was revived in the late 1970s by the left wing. It then integrated minority cultures, and was based on anti-Americanism.[34]

In the 1980s, it was taken up by French Minister of Culture Jack Lang as a major theme of his policy, which he used to justify the "cultural exception" in tax matters involving creative works.[34] The French identity was then culturally defined by the socialist governments by its diversity. Then, in the second half of the 1980s, the theme was taken up by the right.[34]

For Gérard Noiriel [fr], a specialist in the history of immigration, the French term identité nationale comes from the "francization of 'national identity' which has existed in the United States since the 1950s...". According to him, "national identity", is a product of "May '68 thinking" when "progressive academics were for assimilation".[33]

In his book L'Identité de la France, Fernand Braudel was concerned with the centuries and millennia of French national identity, instead of the years and decades. Barudel argued that France was the product not of its politics or economics but rather of its geography and culture, a thesis Braudel explored in a wide-ranging book that saw the bourg and the patois: historie totale integrated into a broad sweep of both the place and the time. Unlike Braudel's other books, L'Identité de la France was much colored by a romantic nostalgia, as Braudel argued for the existence of la France profonde, a "deep France" based upon the peasant mentalité that despite all of the turmoil of French history and the Industrial Revolution had survived intact right up to the present.[35]

Middle Ages

Terminology

Forms of soldiery: a modern vogue for the term 'knighthood', and lack of correspondence between terms used in English French, and German.[36]

Beginnings

See also: fr:Haut Moyen Âge § Histoire d'une limite, histoire des limites du Moyen Âge; and fr:Haut Moyen Âge § Puis, est apparue l'Antiquité tardive, bousculant le haut Moyen Âge

The debate about the dates of the Early Middle Ages, especially its start date, is part of the periodization debate about the Middle Ages more generally. Although the term Middle Ages was not yet in use in the 17th century, German historian G. Horn, in his Arca Noé (1666), gave the name of medium aevum to the period extending from 300 to 1500 and preceding the historia nova. Christoph Cellarius adopted the neologism ten years later in his successful textbooks Nucleus historia (1676) and Historia medii aevi a temporibus Constantini magni ad Constanttinopolim a Turcis captam (1688; 1698).[37]

The debate became more precise in 1922: in his article that year, Léon Leclère [fr] supported the 395 to 1492 dates, while noting other possibilities "further into the 16th century" (476–1453; 395–1492; 395–1517, with the theses of Martin Luther) "...by pushing back part of the 5th century into Antiquity" (476 to 1559, year of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis – for the professorial competitive examination in 1904; 395–1492 for the 1907 licence ès lettres [fr]); but also 1st century – 17th century for François Picavert[clarify] in a 1901 paper.[38] Nevertheless, he recognized that "these dates [were] convenient for teaching, as well as for the writing of programs and manuals [but that] their very precision [took away] all scientific value".

Feudal transformation

Further information: Manorialism and Châtelain
See also: Feudalism § The feudal revolution in France

French medievalists have been involved in lively debate about a 'feudal transformation' or even 'revolution' in the late tenth century, and the emergence after the millennium of a fundamentally different sociopolitical order.[39]

The "feudal transformation" debate in French historiography centers around the nature and timing of the shift from the Carolingian order to feudalism in medieval Europe, particularly in France. The discussion explores whether this transformation was a rapid, revolutionary process occurring around the year 1000 or a more gradual evolution extending over several centuries.

Georges Duby in his 1953 La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise argued that the year 1000 marked a decisive break in French society.[40][41] Duby suggested that the collapse of centralized Carolingian power led to the rise of localized feudal structures, characterized by the fragmentation of power and the emergence of a new warrior aristocracy based on castles and their lords, and a tripartite societal structure of the many who work, to serve those who fight and those who pray, which Carolingian society was unable to deal with and withered away. In Duby's view, it amounted more to a Feudal Revolution, than a transformation.

Jean-Pierre Poly and Éric Bournazel [fr] supported Duby’s view in their 1980 book The feudal transformation: 900-1200. arguing for a feudal transformation around the year 1000. They emphasized the rapid and transformative nature of the changes. Poly and Bournazel's theory of the "feudal transformation" (mutation féodale) around the year 1000 identifies a series of societal changes that marked the emergence of feudalism. These include the collapse of centralized justice, the rise of local lordship over peasants, the increase in knights and castles, and the adoption of a new societal structure dividing people into Duby's three orders. This shift, they argue, led to the full development of feudalism, distinct from earlier practices of vassalage and fiefdoms.[42][43][44]

On the other hand, Dominique Barthélemy [fr] was a major critic of the "feudal transformation" thesis. Barthélemy argued for continuity rather than rupture. He believed that the transition was less abrupt and that many feudal practices existed well before the year 1000, pointing to a gradual evolution rather than a sudden change.[45][46]

The debate evolved in the 1990s in the journals Past and Present and Médiévales [fr], and the criticism by Barthélemy continued across numerous publications arguing for different, and more elongated periodizations. The initial sharp dichotomy between a sudden transformation or revolution and gradual evolution has softened, with many historians now acknowledging that both elements played a role in the transition to feudalism.[47]

Development of the law

Further information: Law of France § History
Zone of customary law in the north and written law in the south


Renaissance

Further information: French Renaissance
Further information (in français): Historiography of the Renaissance [fr]

The word renaissance is a French word meaning "rebirth".

§ Lucien Febvre wrote that § Jules Michelet "invented the Renaissance". What Febvre meant by that, was that the use of the term Renaissance by itself, with capital 'R', to refer to the period we now know by that name, had not been used that way until Michelet did in the mid-19th century, although there were sporadic usages of the word earlier in French, but only in expressions with qualifying words like the renaissance in letters or in art, and always in lower case as a simple descriptive phrase without any implication of its being a proper noun or a periodizational concept. Michelet used the solitary, capital-R Renaissance in a course at the Collège de France he gave in 1840, and after finishing up the portion on the Middle Ages, he created "the Renaissance". The term gained currency in French in the decade of 1850 to 1860, and in the following years became an indispensable term to use to separate that historical era from the Middle Ages, itself a term coined not so long before it.[48]

In academic writing, the French term was first used and defined in its current sense[49] by French historian Michelet in his Histoire de France (History of France).[50] Jules Michelet defined the 16th-century Renaissance in France as a period in Europe's cultural history that represented a break from the Middle Ages, creating a modern understanding of humanity and its place in the world.[51] As a French citizen and a historian, Michelet also claimed the Renaissance as a French movement.[52]

Secularism

Further information: Secularism in France

Laïcité is the French notion of secularism, which has a long history going back to the Enlightenment and beyond.[53] The Church was a powerful force in the Ancien régime, and opposition to its excesses was a contributing factor in the French Revolution. Since 1905, government policy has been based on the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State,Template:Sfn legifrance and since 1958 has been part of the French Constitution, which explictily defines France as a secular republic (Article 1: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic.")[54]

Precursors

Voltaire was a Deist with a hatred of the oppressiveness of the Catholic Church, and was emblematic of Enlightenment thinkers as an advocate of freedom of and from religion. He attacked the established Church in France, as representative of "all the traditionalism, medievalism, intolerance, and political absolutism" in France. Voltaire saw a multiplicity of religions in England cohabiting in relative peace and harmony during his sojourn there, but this was far from the situation in France. Voltaire's influence on laïcité is debated, and the term had not been created yet, but Jean-Michel Gaillard views the 'embryonic laïcité' as having originated in the sixteenth century, and André Magnan views Voltaire's writings in opposition to religions extremes as the seed of ideas of laïcité, but philosophy professor Chrisophe Paillard disagrees, viewing Voltaire as wishing the State to have control over religion and would accept multiple religions, rather than a separation of the two, and thus stands somewhere between tolerance and laïcité, although he recognized that Voltaire's views helped create an intellectual environment that facilitated its development, which Jean Baubérot termed the "first threshold of laïcization".[55]

Jules Ferry laws

Further information: Jules Ferry laws

The Jules Ferry laws, enacted between 1881 and 1882, were a series of French educational reforms that made primary education free, mandatory, and secular. These laws were a cornerstone of the Third Republic's efforts to establish a national education system independent of the Catholic Church, reflecting the broader anti-clericalism of the era. Jules Ferry, a strong proponent of republican values, sought to diminish the influence of the Church in public life by ensuring that education, a key tool for shaping future citizens, was controlled by the state and based on principles of laïcité.[56]

French Revolution

Main article: Historiography of the French Revolution
Few events in history have such a vast, and still-growing literature that seeks to understand its origins, goals, the role played by ordinary citizens, and its enduring impact.[57]

Background

Origins of the Declaration of the Rights of Man

Further information: Declaration of the Rights of Man
Further information (in français): Influence of the American Revolution on the Declaration of the Rights of Man [fr]

The American Revolution preceded the French Revolution, and influenced the debates held in the National Constituent Assembly regarding the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.[58] Among those engaged in debate were thirteen deputies ("the Americans") who had been sent to America as officers by Louis XVI to support the American War of Independence, among them the Marquis de La Fayette[59] the duke Louis Alexandre de La Rochefoucauld d'Enville (who translated the American Constitution of 1787 into French), admirers like the marquis de Condorcet who in 1786 published On the influence of the American Revolution on the opinions and legislation in Europe.[lower-alpha 5]

At the beginning of the 20th century, the question of the origins of the Declaration of the Rights of Man sparked a historiographical controversy tinged with nationalistic overtones. In an 1895 pamphlet,[60] German constitutionalist Georg Jellinek characterized the French document as a simple heir of the British declarations (Petition of Right, Bill of Rights 1689), which, in turn, were inspired by Lutheran Protestantism. Translated into French in 1902, in the context of rising tensions between France and Germany, it gave rise to a similarly unsubtle reply by one of the founders of the École libre des sciences politiques in 1872, Émile Boutmy (also a Protestant), who stated that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was indeed the fruit of French genius, nourished by the philosophy of the Enlightenment and Rousseau.[61]

Histories

First page of Histoire de la Révolution française

The first major work on the Revolution by a French historian was published between 1823 and 1827 by Adolphe Thiers. His celebrated Histoire de la Révolution française, in ten volumes, founded his literary reputation and launched his political career. < attribution: Historiography of the French Revolution and was translated into English in 1838. It was popular in France, but criticized by Carlyle and by George Sainstbury in the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, which criticized it for "inaccuracy" and "prejudice".[62][full citation needed]

Other 19th century historians include François Guizot, François Mignet (Histoire de la Révolution française, 1824), and Alexis de Tocqueville (L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution, 1856). François Furet, a leader of the Annales School, called Jules Michelet's multi-volume Histoire de la Révolution française remains "the cornerstone of all revolutionary historiography and is also a literary monument".[63]

Republicanism vs. monarchy

19th century

  • civic involvement and individual emancipation
  • rural and urban transformation
  • development of the nation-state
  • government – economic intervention, justice, public service
  • industrial revolution
  • colonialization

Second Empire (1852–1870)

Historians inevitably view the Empire, as any topic, with the political lens of their own time, and views of the Second Empire shifted accordingly. Early historians of the Second Empire such as assembly member Taxile Delord, [fr; de] Catholic monarchist Pierre de La Gorce, and Émile Ollivier were themselves involved with the struggles of the Third Republic and saw it from their own values, such as Delord's acclaim for republicanism over Bonapartism, whereas Ollivier saw the republic as doomed without a Bonapartist strong executive.[64]

Later historians had different views. The Zeitgeist favoring a more scientific or methodical view of history led Seignbos and Jean Maurain [] to see it as a failure, but their scientific objectivity was hardly neutral, given the republic was sponsoring the professionalization of historical scholarship and also placed historians in the position of developing a school curriculum that espoused republicanism. For a couple of generations, the Second Empire was seen as an authoritarian interlude in the march towards republicanism, the goal being a stable parliamentary democracy.[65]

Revision began in the 1930s with Marcel Blanchard [fr], Robert Schnerb [fr; de], and Georges Duveau [fr], writing from the perspective of the interwar period. Though very different from each other in outlook, they all saw Second Empire less as characterized by excesses of the authoritarian executive of previous historians, and more as a preparatory stage developing a new social and economic basis for a modern France via economic expansion, to the benefit of society as a whole. They saw Bonapartism as dealing with some of the problems that destroyed the Second Republic and eventually, the Third.[66]

The views of the revisionists became the orthodox position after World War II, with some even saying that post-war successes were inspired by the Bonapartist political economy. This led to a historiographical shift wherein governments were judged primarily on their success in the economy and overall productivity as guided by a dirigiste technocratic administration. Current scholars embody another shift in historiography of the Empire, and more towards the task Napoleon III set for himself of creating a productive economy; as he once said that his place in history would be assured not by politics, but by "the railroads in the provinces and the monuments in Paris".[67][68]

Franco-Prussian War

See also: Franco-Prussian War

Opinions of French historians about the Franco-Prussian War underwent a shift, as detailed in Charles Carbonell's Histoire et historiens: Une mutation idéologique des historiens français, 1865-1885 (1976).[69]

According to some historians, Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck deliberately provoked the French into declaring war on Prussia in order to induce four independent southern German states—Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt—to join the North German Confederation. Other historians contend that Bismarck exploited the circumstances as they unfolded. All agree that Bismarck recognized the potential for new German alliances, given the situation as a whole.[70][lower-alpha 6]

Third Republic

Décadence

The topic of "decadence" of French institutions and France arose as a historiographical debate at the end of the Second Empire and during the Third Republic which succeeded it in 1870. Each defeat or setback or national humiliation served to confirm the idea, as France lost its vital essence or even will to exist, while energetic young countries like the United States appeared to be on the upsurge, France and old world civilization appeared in stasis or on a slow decline, according to this thesis. It first made its appearance in the somewhat bizarre and now obscure writings of Claude-Marie Raudot [fr], who was hostile to First and Second Empire, and showed that France was living and wished to live in a world of illusion. Raudot pointed out the declining birth rate, falling below replacement level, which he considered a cancerous symptom of the national malaise, foretelling an inevitable national decline, while the Russians and the Americans pushed ahead as seen in de Tocqueville's writings, and even Brazil was seen as a future rising star.[71]

By World War I, these ideas were still being expressed, and would continue to be in the interwar period, and then experienced a resurgence with the Fall of France in World War II, and the establishment of the Vichy regime under Maréchal Philippe Pétain.[71]


World War I

"Culture of war"

The historiography of war in Europe and in France in particular had always been concerned chiefly with the political fallout of war, and maintained a rather strict separation between those soldiers fighting at the front, and the civilians they were protecting back at home. This was certainly the case with respect to French historical approaches to the First World War. In the 1990s, largely in response to the work of British historian George Mosse and his Fallen Soldiers. Reshaping the Memory of the World War, French historiography underwent a change in approach. This was particularly the case with historians at the research Museum of the Great War, who, in their exhibitions, sought to integrate the experience of civilians in the Great War with the soldiers at the front; understanding the links between them was essential in order to understand the war. Viewing it from the point of view of the average person, rather than the military or political leaders, offered an alternative approach for viewing events as a "culture of war" (Script error: The function "langx" does not exist.). One could draw a straight line from Mosse's work, through the museum, to the historiographical evolution in France about the First World War.[72]

War guilt question

Main article: War guilt question


World War II

Further information: Historiography of World War II and Historiography of the Battle of France

Battle of France


The Holocaust

See also: The Holocaust and The Holocaust in France

Vichy

Further information: Vichy regime
Collaboration
Further information: Vichy syndrome

Historiographical debates are still passionate about the nature of Vichy's collaboration with Germany in the implementation of the Holocaust.

Three main periods have been distinguished in the historiography of Vichy: first the Gaullist period, which aimed at national reconciliation and unity under the figure of Charles de Gaulle, who conceived himself above political parties and divisions.[citation needed] Next, in the 1960s, with Marcel Ophüls's film The Sorrow and the Pity.[citation needed] And finally in the 1990s, with the trial of Maurice Papon, civil servant in Bordeaux in charge of “Jewish affairs” during the war, who was convicted for crimes against humanity in 1998.[73]

Legitimacy
Further information: Vichy France § Legitimacy, and Government of Vichy France § Legitimacy

Vichy's claim to be the legitimate French government was denied by Free France and by all subsequent French governmentsTemplate:Sfn Legifrance after the war. They maintain that Vichy was an illegal government run by traitors, having come to power through an unconstitutional coup d'état. Pétain was constitutionally appointed prime minister by President Lebrun on 16 June 1940 and he was legally within his rights to sign the armistice with Germany; however, his decision to ask the National Assembly to dissolve itself while granting him dictatorial powers has been more controversial. Historians have particularly debated the circumstances of the vote by the National Assembly of the Third Republic granting full powers to Pétain on 10 July 1940. The main arguments advanced against Vichy's right to incarnate the continuity of the French state were based on the pressure exerted by Pierre Laval, a former prime minister in the Third Republic, on the deputies in Vichy and on the absence of 27 deputies and senators who had fled on the ship Massilia and so could not take part in the vote. However, during the war, the Vichy government was internationally recognised,[74] notably by the United States[75] and several other major Allied powers.

Historians take a variety of views towards this question. Some claim that the Vichy government, led by Marshal Philippe Pétain, was legally established through the constitutional processes available at the time. After the French defeat by Nazi Germany in 1940, the French National Assembly granted Pétain full powers to draft a new constitution. This view suggests that, from a strictly legal standpoint, Vichy was a continuation of the French state, albeit one that collaborated with the Nazi occupiers. Historian Robert Paxton has noted that Vichy, despite its collaborationist policies, maintained continuity with the French state and administration. Many civil servants and institutions that served under the Third Republic continued to operate under Vichy, and this administrative continuity has led some to see Vichy as a legitimate, though morally compromised, government. Some who have taken this view include François-Georges Dreyfus [fr] and René Rémond. Jean-Louis Crémieux-Brilhac, while recognizing its legitimate establishment, condemns its actions and collaboration; and historian Raymond Aron argued that while Vichy was legally established, it became increasingly illegitimate as it collaborated more closely with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]

On the other hand, many historians such as Paxton, Henry Rousso, and Julian Jackson emphasize the view that Vichy was illegitimate at least in a moral sense due to the circumstances under which it came to power and its subsequent collaboration with Nazi Germany. The regime's anti-Semitic policies, its role in deporting Jews to concentration camps, and its collaboration with the German occupiers are often cited as evidence of its betrayal of French republican values. These include Paxton, Henry Rousso in his book The Vichy Syndrome, and Julian Jackson in France: The Dark Years. Jackson portrays the Vichy regime as illegitimate, not only because it was born out of defeat and occupation but also because of its active collaboration with the occupiers and its internal repression of political opponents and minority groups, which are contrary to basic principles of democracy, thus making Vichy illegitimate both morally as well as politically. Stanley Hoffman describes the regime as contrary to basic French republican values in its collaboration with the Nazis and its anti-semitic policies, and therefore illegitimate in the context of French history.[citation needed]

Sword and shield theory
Further information: Sword and shield theory

The sword and shield theory suggests that Marshal Philippe Pétain acted as a "shield" by cooperating with Nazi Germany to protect France while secretly supporting Charles de Gaulle as the "sword" of France in exile. This was primarily a view held by Pétain's supporters and a segment of the French public during and after World War II. This theory was used to justify Pétain's collaboration with Nazi Germany, portraying it as a strategic move to protect the French people and preserve some form of sovereignty in the face of occupation.

Historians do not support this view, arguing that there is no evidence Pétain was in contact with the Resistance or de Gaulle. They generally reject the notion that Pétain was acting as a shield to protect France from worse outcomes. Instead, they emphasize his regime's active collaboration with the Nazis, including the implementation of anti-Semitic laws and the repression of the French Resistance. Robert Paxton debunked the theory in his influential "Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944", showing that Pétain's collaboration with Nazi Germany was driven more by a desire to maintain control and order within France rather than by any secret plan to aid the Resistance.[citation needed]

Paxtonian revolution
Main article: Paxtonian revolution

[76]

[77]

Vichy syndrome
Main articles: The Vichy Syndrome and Vichy syndrome


Robert Aron's history of France under Vichy described Vichy France as a nation of people fully supportive of the Resistance with the exception of a few traitorous exceptions. According to Pierre Nora, Henry Rousso flipped the script, and viewed France under Vichy as generally collaborationist, with the exception of a few heroes.[78]

1950s

Vietnam

See also: First Indochina War

Suez crisis

See also: Suez Crisis

Algerian War

Soldiers of the National Liberation Army (1958)
Main article: Historiography of the Algerian War


The Algerian War remains a contentious event. According to the historian Benjamin Stora, one of the leading historians on the war, memories concerning the war remain fragmented, with no common ground to speak of:

There is no such thing as a history of the Algerian War; there is just a multitude of histories and personal paths through it. Everyone involved considers that they lived through it in their own way, and any attempt to understand the Algerian War globally is immediately rejected by protagonists.[79]

Despite three thousand publications in French on the war, there still is no work produced by French and Algerian authors co-operating with each other. Although according to Stora, there can "no longer be talk about a 'war without a name', a number of problems remain, especially the absence of sites in France to commemorate" the war.[citation needed]

1960s

Decolonization

See also: French decolonization, Decolonisation of Africa, and Algerian War of Independence

May 1968

Further information (in français): Historiography of May 1968 [fr]
May 1968 demonstrations in Bordeaux, rue Paul Bert


One of the paradoxes of May 68, as noted by historian Michelle Zancarini-Fournel [fr], one of the first historians to assess the period, was that even before it became part of history, the greatest social crisis of 20th century France was already a "paper event". In the 50 years since the events, the French passion for analysis, interpretation, and criticism of the events has not let up, and every ten year anniversary witnesses another layer added to the story, told by the actors present in the events.[80]

French historian Raymond Aron was an editorial writer for Le Figaro from 1967 to 1976, and in his memoirs published in 1983 and republished in 2010, wrote that May 68 was a carnivalesque event that "aped the great [events of] history"[81][better source needed] and that it expressed a "general crisis of authority and obedience".[lower-alpha 7][80]

In 1978, Régis Debray accused the spirit of the Sixties of having Americanized France,[80] while sociologist Jean-Pierre Le Goff [fr] saw a heritage of "cultural leftism" won at the price of depoliticization of society and a rise of the individualism.[80] The impact of students and barricades was always evident, but according to some observers, the impact of workers who joined the student strikes is sometimes not given its due. According to historian Philippe Artières [fr], 68 was "above all, people who went on strike for several weeks; it is a country marked by shortages, it is the State which tasked the army with delivering the mail. It's a social movement that has been overly culturalized and estheticized."[lower-alpha 8][80]

In 1989, the Mémoires de 68 association was created, with the goal of assembling and archiving everything relating to May 68. A resource guide based on it was published in 1993 by historian Michelle Perrot, with historians Philippe Artières and Michelle Zancarini-Fournel acknowledging in their 2008 68, une histoire collective (68, a collective history) that the vast archive altered the possibilities of writing a history of the period. The National Archives now have over ten thousand items on the topic. In his Le Moment 68, une histoire contestée Artières wrote that it was at the cost of this complexity, that one could write a history of the period: "A 68 that is not one of authority. Neither that of the witnesses nor that of the historians."[lower-alpha 9][80]

A review written after the 40th anniversary of events noted the emergence of a serious body of knowledge of events, and underlined three main points: that it is a history that is now assured of the legitimacy of its topic, one that is "intensely reflexive", that is, a topic in which the profession can reflect on its own discipline and methods, and finally, a history with important aspects at the regional, national, and international levels, as well as the interplay among them.[82]

Representative of the group of participant/observer historians, was Jacques Le Goff's personal comment about his experiences:

In '68, I was forty years old. I went to all the meetings. I didn't go to the barricades, but I don't know if I would have gone when I was twenty. In any case, I was there all the time. I think I would have had the same mixture of sympathy, hope and disappointment that I had. I didn't feel like I was twenty in '68, but I vibrated in '68, like a young person [...][83]

— Jacques Le Goff, Le Mai 68 des historiens

1970s

European Community and Union

Seminal works

Introduction aux études historiques

Main article: Introduction aux études historiques

Other

Qualitative shift in the "conception of scientific history that dominated French historical thought since the Enlightenment".[84]

Historians

Further information: List of French historians

Some historians and other academics who played a significant role in French historiography follow.

Philippe Ariès

Main article: Philippe Ariès
Further information: History of mentalities


Robert Aron

Main article: Robert Aron


Henri Berr

Main article: Henri Berr


Marc Bloch

Marc Bloch
Main article: Marc Bloch
See also: Administrative history


File:Plaque Marc Bloch, 17 rue de Sèvres, Paris 6e.jpg
Plaque at 17 rue de Sèvres, Paris


Fernand Braudel

Main article: Fernand Braudel


[85]

In his last book, L'Identité de la France, Braudel made important contributions to the national debate on § French national identity.

Charles-Olivier Carbonell

Pierre Chaunu

Main article: Pierre Chaunu


Alain Corbin

File:Alain Corbin (2020).jpg
Alain Corbin
Main article: Alain Corbin


Georges Duby

File:GeorgesDuby1980.jpg
Georges Duby
Main article: Georges Duby

[40][86]


Lucien Febvre

Error creating thumbnail:
Lucien Febvre
Main article: Lucien Febvre

Lucien Febvre (1878–1956) is best known as a founding member of the Annales school.


François Furet

Main article: François Furet

François Furet (1927–1997) was a French historian best known for his books on the French Revolution. From 1985 to 1997, Furet was a professor of French history at the University of Chicago.


Laurent Joly

Main article: Laurent Joly


Fred Kupferman

Main article: Fred Kupferman

Kupferman was a professor of history at Sciences Po and the University of Paris.[87] He was the author of several history books about Vichy France. He also co-wrote two children's books with his wife.

Charles-Victor Langlois

Main article: Charles-Victor Langlois

His 1898 work Introduction aux études historiques with co-author § Charles Seignobos is considered one of the first comprehensive manuals discussing the use of scientific techniques in historical research,[citation needed] He was an important figure in the § École méthodique ('methodical school').

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie

File:Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie par Claude Truong-Ngoc octobre 2014 (cropped).jpg
Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie
Main article: Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie



Georges Lefebvre

File:Georges Lefebvre.jpg
Georges Lefebvre
Main article: Georges Lefebvre

Georges Lefebvre (1874–1959), best known for his work on the French Revolution and peasant life. one of the pioneers of history from below.

Fellow historians tend to examine the last 35 years of Lefebvre's writings (1924-1959). This period is chosen because it is when he wrote his most influential and "much more complex interpretation of the Revolution than had hitherto prevailed amongst historians".[88] Peter Jones elaborates that Lefebvre's take on the Revolution has three major emphases: the idea that the countryside peasantry actively participated in the Revolution, the idea that this participation was not significantly influenced by the bourgeoisie, and the idea that the peasants largely agreed on an anticapitalist way of thinking in the 1790s.[88]

Jacques Le Goff

Main article: Jacques Le Goff


Ferdinand Lot

File:HISTORIEN LOT Ferdinand Portrait tiré de ses Mélanges 1925.jpg
Ferdinand Lot
Main article: Ferdinand Lot


Jules Michelet

Main article: Jules Michelet
File:Jules Michelet par Thomas Couture (cropped).jpg
Jules Michelet

[51][49]

Pierre Nora

Main article: Pierre Nora
File:Pierre Nora.JPG
Pierre Nora

Pierre Nora (born 1931) is a French historian elected to the Académie Française in 2001. He is known for his work on French identity and memory. He is associated with the study of nouvelle histoire.

Léon Poliakov

File:Poliakov-Leon Cerisy-07-1952 b.jpg
Léon Poliakov
Main article: Léon Poliakov

Specializing in World War II and antisemitism.


Ernest Renan

File:Ernest Renan 1876-84.jpg
Ernest Renan
Main article: Ernest Renan

Ernest Renan's definition of a nation has been extremely influential; see § Concept of nation above.


Henry Rousso

File:Henry Rousso (2016).jpg
Henry Rousso
Main article: Henry Rousso

Henry Rousso (b. 1954) is an Egyptian-born French historian specializing in World War II France. Rousso's notable work includes a seminal book on Vichy France entitled The Vichy Syndrome (1987) where he coined a phrase commonly used to describe the era, un passé qui ne passe pas ("a past that doesn't pass"[89]

See also § Vichy syndrome above.

Charles Seignobos

File:Charles Seignobos - photo Henri Manuel.jpg
Charles Seignobos
Main article: Charles Seignobos

Charles Seignobos (1854 – 1942) was a French scholar of historiography and a historian who specialized in the history of the French Third Republic.


Albert Soboul

Main article: Albert Soboul


Adolphe Thiers

File:Adolphe Thiers par Nadar.jpg
Adolphe Thiers
File:Paris 9 - Hôtel Thiers -255.jpg
Thiers' personal library in the Hôtel Thiers
Main article: Adolphe Thiers

Adolphe Thiers (1797–1877) was a statesman and historian. Besides his major contributions to French history, he was also first President of the Third Republic.


Alexis de Tocqueville

File:Alexis de Tocqueville (Théodore Chassériau - Versailles).jpg
Alexis de Tocqueville
Main article: Alexis de Tocqueville


Pierre Vidal-Naquet

File:Plaque Esplanade Pierre Vidal Naquet - Paris XIII (FR75) - 2021-07-20 - 1.jpg
Pierre Vidal-Naquet
Main article: Pierre Vidal-Naquet


Voltaire

File:D'après Nicolas de Largillière, portrait de Voltaire (Institut et Musée Voltaire) -001.jpg
Voltaire
Main article: Voltaire

Voltaire (1694 – 1778) was a French Enlightenment writer, philosopher, satirist, and historian.


Olivier Wieviorka

File:Olivier Wieviorka - Une histoire de la Résistance en Europe occidentale 1940-1945 - Librairie Mollat (cropped).jpg
Olivier Wieviorka
Main article: Olivier Wieviorka


See also

Notes and references

Notes
  1. ↑ The French expression, Historiographie française, is not equivalent in meaning to "French historiography". See section § Terminology for details.
  2. ↑ To complicate matters further, the English word historiography used to mean "the output of a historian", just as the French equivalent still does, and infrequently the English word is still used in that way, especially in sources that are translated into English or written by authors whose native language is not English.
  3. ↑ In the 2nd c BCE, Polybius wrote about the character of the Gauls, especially that of Gallic cavalry participating in the Punic Wars.
  4. ↑ Original: "...avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore"
  5. ↑ De l’influence de la révolution d’Amérique sur les opinions et la législation de l’Europe.
  6. ↑ Ramm highlights three difficulties with the argument that Bismarck planned or provoked a French attack.[70]
  7. ↑ "Une crise générale de l'autorité et de l'obéissance."
  8. ↑ "Non, 68, ce sont avant tout des gens qui ont fait grève pendant plusieurs semaines, c'est un pays marqué par des pénuries, c'est l'Etat qui charge l'armée de distribuer le courrier. C'est un mouvement social qu'on a trop culturalisé, esthétisé."
  9. ↑ "Un 68 qui ne soit pas d'autorité... Ni celle des témoins ni celle des historiens."
Citations
  1. ↑ Carbonell 1976, p. 45.
  2. ↑ Campbell 1978, p. xi.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 OED 2023, historiography.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Dict Acad Fr, historiographie.
  5. ↑ CNRTL 2012, historiographie.
  6. ↑ Dict Acad Fr, historiographe.
  7. ↑ Dict Acad Fr, historien.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 McCrank & Barros 2012, p. 198, fn. 1, On the polysemy and complexity of the term historiography.
  9. ↑ Potter 2010, p. 564.
  10. ↑ Noronha-DiVanna 2010, p. xiii.
  11. ↑ Noronha-DiVanna 2010, p. 108.
  12. ↑ Bourdé & Martin 1997, p. 183.
  13. ↑ Noronha-DiVanna 2010, p. xiii–xiv.
  14. ↑ Noronha-DiVanna 2010, p. xiv–xv.
  15. ↑ See for recent issues Archived 2008-09-28 at the Wayback Machine
  16. ↑ Since 1978, Revel has taught at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris), where he is directeur d'études (full professor); he served as president of the École from 1995 to 2004.
  17. ↑ Harris 2004, p. 169.
  18. ↑ Daileader & Whalen 2010, p. 21.
  19. ↑ Rubin 1997.
  20. ↑ Mucchielli 1995.
  21. ↑ Ben-Israel 2002, p. 94.
  22. ↑ Gienow-Hecht & Schumacher 2004, p. 8.
  23. ↑ Dietler 1994, p. 584–605.
  24. ↑ Bastié 2016.
  25. ↑ Brunaux 2007.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Amalvi 1996, p. 241.
  27. ↑ Sewell 1876, p. 48–49.
  28. ↑ Pognon 1970, p. 30.
  29. ↑ Schoenbrun 1965, p. 40.
  30. ↑ Caron 1995.
  31. ↑ Moncrieff 1820, p. 19.
  32. ↑ Renan 1882.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Mauger 2007.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 Boucheron 2017.
  35. ↑ Boyd 1999.
  36. ↑ Bentley 2006, p. 109.
  37. ↑ Leclère 1922, p. 69.
  38. ↑ Leclère 1922, p. 71.
  39. ↑ Smith 2006, p. 107.
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Abels 2009, p. 1018.
  41. ↑ Duby 1953.
  42. ↑ Abels 2009, pp. 1018–1019.
  43. ↑ Poly & Bournazel 1991.
  44. ↑ Poly & Bournazel 1980.
  45. ↑ Abels 2009, p. 1018–1020.
  46. ↑ L'Histoire 2013.
  47. ↑ West 2013, p. 1–3.
  48. ↑ Febvre 1993, p. 79.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Murray & Murray 1963, p. 9.
  50. ↑ Michelet 1847.
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 Brotton 2002, pp. 21–22.
  52. ↑ Brotton 2006.
  53. ↑ Rémond 1999.
  54. ↑ Conseil constitutionnel 1958.
  55. ↑ Davis 2020, pp. PT43–45.
  56. ↑ EB1911 & Ferry.
  57. ↑ Popkin 2019, Preface.
  58. ↑ François Furet, Mona Ozouf (dir.), Dictionnaire critique de la Révolution française, Article « Droits de l’homme » par Marcel Gauchet, Paris, Flammarion, 1988, p. 686
  59. ↑ Claude Fohlen, Les pères de la révolution américaine [Fathers of the American Revolution]], Paris, Albin Michel, 1989, ISBN 978-2-226-03664-3 Search this book on ., p. 234
  60. ↑ Die Erklärung des Menschen-und Bürgerreschts [Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen], Leizig, 1895.
  61. ↑ Simone Goyard-Fabre, L’État au XXe siècle : regards sur la pensée juridique et politique du monde occidental [The State in the Twentieth Century: A Look at Legal and Political Thought in the Western World], Paris, J. Vrin, 2004, 338; ISBN 9782711617098 Search this book on ., p. 121
  62. ↑ Chisholm & Saintsbury 1911, p. 848.
  63. ↑ Furet 1995, p. 571.
  64. ↑ Campbell 1978, p. 197-198.
  65. ↑ Campbell 1978, p. 198.
  66. ↑ Campbell 1978, p. 199-200.
  67. ↑ Campbell 1978, p. 200.
  68. ↑ Campbell 1978, p. 200, fn. 1.
  69. ↑ Pasamar Alzuria 2012, p. 120.
  70. ↑ 70.0 70.1 Ramm 1967, pp. 308–313.
  71. ↑ 71.0 71.1 Guiral, Pierre (1983). "Les écrivains français et la notion de décadence de 1870 à 1914" [French writers and the notion of decadence from 1870 to 1914]. Romantisme. 13 (42): 9–22. doi:10.3406/roman.1983.4673.
  72. ↑ Julien 2004, p. 53.
  73. ↑ Whitney 2007.
  74. ↑ Jackson & Kitson 2007.
  75. ↑ Langer 1947, p. 364–376.
  76. ↑ Noiriel 2019, p. 547.
  77. ↑ Lagarde 2018.
  78. ↑ Nora 1995, p. 488–.
  79. ↑ Stora 2006.
  80. ↑ 80.0 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.4 80.5 Faure, Sonya; Daumas, Cécile (19 January 2018). "Le roman 68 : sous les clichés, les faits" [The 68 novel : under the clichés, the facts]. Libération (in français). Paris.
  81. ↑ Raymond Aron, Mémoires, Julliard.
  82. ↑ Loyer, Emmanuelle (2009). "Mai 68 et l'histoire : 40 ans après" [May 68 and history: 40 years after]. Cahiers d'Histoire [Journal of History] (in français) (107): 13–22. doi:10.4000/chrhc.1321. ISSN 2102-5916.
  83. ↑ Callu, Agnès (4 May 2018). "La socialisation des historiens : de l'intra-histoire au profil scientifique [Socialization of historians: from intra-history to scientific profile". In Callu, Agnès. Le Mai 68 des historiens [The May 68 of the historians] (2 ed.). Presses Univ. Septentrion. pp. 76–. ISBN 978-2-7574-2038-6. En 68, j’avais quarante ans. Je suis allé à toutes les réunions. Je ne suis pas allé sur les barricades, mais je ne sais pas si j'y serais allé à vingt ans. En tous cas, j’ai été tout le temps présent. Je pense que j'aurais eu le même mélange de sympathie, d'espoir et de déception que j'ai eu. Je n’ai pas eu envie d'avoir vingt ans en 68, mais j'ai vibré en 68, comme un jeune […] » Search this book on
  84. ↑ Bentley 2006, p. 447.
  85. ↑ Harris 2004.
  86. ↑ Patrick Boucheron, « Georges Duby est (encore) un collègue », L'Histoire, No 467, janvier 2020, p. 18-19
  87. ↑ Rousso 2015, p. ix-xviii.
  88. ↑ 88.0 88.1 Jones, Peter M. (Spring 1990). "Georges Lefebvre and the Peasant Revolution: Fifty Years on". French Historical Studies. Fairfax: JSTOR. George Mason U. Lib. 16 (3): 645–663. doi:10.2307/286492. JSTOR 286492.
  89. ↑ "The Occupation, the French State, and Business (book review) - BUSINESS HISTORY REVIEW - Donald Reid" (PDF).

Works cited

Template:Reflib

Template:Reflib

Template:Reflib

Further reading

By theme:

General

Ancien regime

French Revolution

Napoleon

Republicanism

Nineteenth century

Twentieth century

Battle of France


This article "French historiography" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:French historiography. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.


Retrieved from "https://en.everybodywiki.com/index.php?title=French_historiography&oldid=6626700"
License CC BY-SA 3.0
Powered by MediaWiki