Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>The Annales: the early years</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:50:13" n="8750">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="fr">French</language>

<language id="la">Latin</language>



<person id="nm0091" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0091, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="om0092" role="observer" n="o" sex="m"><p>om0092, observer, observer, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="4"><p>number of speakers: 4</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">History</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG3</item>

<item n="module">Historiography</item>





<u who="nm0091"><kinesic desc="overhead projector is on showing transparency" iterated="n"/> right that's a clash with something i was going to announce so <pause dur="0.7"/> Wednesday first of December what's coming around if if you're interested or think you might be interested <pause dur="0.5"/> in # continuing # and doing a <pause dur="0.4"/> an M-A course # and maybe <pause dur="0.8"/> going on from there doing research or whatever <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> we are have a session next # <pause dur="0.5"/> week for you <pause dur="0.2"/> # so <pause dur="0.6"/> no obligation so just pop along if you're interested and you'd like to know more about it basically <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> tomorrow <trunc>afterno</trunc> # next # week <pause dur="0.3"/> # first of December <pause dur="0.2"/> in the afternoon <pause dur="0.3"/> # if you can't make any of those times and # <pause dur="0.4"/> would like to see the people obviously you can drop in at another time but that that's the idea is to sort of just give you a <pause dur="0.8"/> a general <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of <trunc>intr</trunc> <trunc>in</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> introduction to the idea of # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> carrying on in the academic world rather than getting into the outside world <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> some of us have never got out you see so we # <pause dur="0.5"/> can't imagine <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>why anyone else would <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>but # <pause dur="0.3"/> no it's a good thing have a have a look at it </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0091" trans="pause">

the Annales the early years sounds like some sort of epic doesn't it you know like Godfather one <pause dur="0.4"/> the Annales year <pause dur="0.5"/> year one or the early years <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> i always start a sort of started with three men and a journal but the way i want to start it is with i <pause dur="0.3"/> tell this story it's completely true <pause dur="0.5"/> i i went to this # lecture <pause dur="0.2"/> it's now about eighteen months ago <pause dur="0.5"/> which was the worst lecture by a historian i have ever seen in my <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>entire <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>life i know you've experienced a few <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> you think but i tell you this was stellar <pause dur="0.3"/> this was absolutely stellar <pause dur="0.5"/> and it was by <pause dur="0.5"/> someone who's widely believed to be one of the greatest historians in # <pause dur="0.3"/> # practising today <pause dur="0.2"/> and because he was <pause dur="0.2"/> you know a great man <pause dur="0.6"/> enormous quantities of people were there it was in the senate house in <pause dur="0.2"/> # of every historian you've ever read i think who's still alive was there watching this thing <pause dur="0.6"/> and he's introduced <pause dur="0.3"/> and he's a French guy and he spoke with a sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> slightly Antoine de Caune accent which added to the <trunc>ch</trunc> sort of charm of the occasion <pause dur="0.4"/> # obviously <pause dur="0.4"/> and he

spoke complete <pause dur="0.2"/> drivel <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> it was absolutely amazing <pause dur="0.4"/> most of it related to a an overhead <pause dur="0.4"/> which he had which was a graph and as graphs do it went up <pause dur="0.2"/> and then it came down and then went up again and then it went down <pause dur="0.4"/> and the entire <pause dur="0.3"/> hour was spent with him sort of saying <pause dur="0.5"/><shift feature="voice" new="mimicking French accent"/> and it goes up here <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> he obviously didn't know how to sort of turn his own graph <trunc>p</trunc> # his own O-H-P so he had a man in a <trunc>j</trunc> sort of uniform a flunkey <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="2" n="ss"/> with a sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> crest <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>who sort of march out and <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>sort of like take and put on the next one <pause dur="0.4"/><shift feature="voice" new="mimicking French accent"/> up <pause dur="0.2"/> down <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>you know and then he'd sort of talk about this it was absolutely terrible <pause dur="0.5"/> of course he hadn't realized which <pause dur="0.5"/> you know is one of the early techniques they tell us when we're learning to be lecturers that you actually <pause dur="0.2"/> point at something <pause dur="0.5"/> on the O-H-P machine you know and you can see the finger it's <pause dur="0.4"/> so he didn't realize this absolutely enormous lecture theatre the O-H-P was about twenty feet high <pause dur="0.4"/> and he had a small stick and he

was jumping up <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="2" n="ss"/> pointing <shift feature="voice" new="mimicking French accent"/> up <pause dur="0.4"/> down up <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> and it was absolutely and of course you know at these occasions like this <pause dur="0.5"/> you know great man everyone's real like really embarrassed <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> really really <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>truly embarrassed <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>so whenever he cracked a joke <pause dur="0.3"/> there was like <pause dur="0.3"/> hysterical laughter <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="3" n="ss"/> you know just like that actually <pause dur="0.2"/> and then it stopped you know you knew that everyone was <trunc>think</trunc> oh my God we've got to <trunc>s</trunc> sort of go back to it <pause dur="0.6"/> and you know at the end of it and everyone applauded and <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> said what a great lecture it was at the end of it obviously because he is a great man <pause dur="0.4"/> and that is the moral of the story we were all sitting there and suffering <pause dur="0.5"/> because this guy is supposed to be the living <pause dur="0.4"/> embodiment of the Annales School <pause dur="0.3"/> whose early years <pause dur="0.4"/> my link <pause dur="0.3"/> # we will be talking about today he was Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie <pause dur="0.3"/> as i say a very very fine historian on a terrible off day <pause dur="0.5"/> and the only reason as i say people were there people were so respectful people

were so silent people laughed at his jokes <pause dur="0.5"/> # people didn't tell him how appalling it all was <pause dur="0.3"/> was because <pause dur="0.2"/> of this sort of sense of # <pause dur="0.3"/> awe almost or certainly <pause dur="1.0"/> incredible respect which people have for the <pause dur="0.4"/> Annales <pause dur="0.3"/> tradition which he as i say is the sort of latest embodiment for so this is serious stuff this is stuff <pause dur="0.5"/> if you like that historians take with that sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> # # seriousness when <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>c</trunc> you know when faced by a <pause dur="0.4"/> a bad lecture of these stellar proportions they <trunc>s</trunc> they still hang on <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> hang on in there <pause dur="0.9"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> people put up with it because as i say he's a a living embodiment <pause dur="0.3"/> of a historical tradition which is <pause dur="0.3"/> revered <pause dur="0.2"/> the Annales <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> which i guess we would say since over the last fifty years if we took it back say to the Second World War <pause dur="0.4"/> we'd say with Marxism <pause dur="0.2"/> it's probably been the most influential <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> what should we say tradition of historical <pause dur="0.2"/> scholarship <pause dur="0.5"/> # in <pause dur="0.3"/> # in world history not just in England but in fact in England in some ways it's not as <pause dur="0.4"/> important as as elsewhere <pause dur="0.4"/> but in <trunc>w</trunc> in global <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # terms <pause dur="1.1"/>

in nineteen-forty-five <pause dur="0.5"/> it was still very much a French <pause dur="0.2"/> # thing and i think <pause dur="0.4"/> the early years which i'll sort of take through to the to nineteen-forty-five this # <pause dur="0.5"/> # today <pause dur="0.3"/> will be about # <pause dur="1.4"/> # that sort of French phase if you like but it's in the <pause dur="0.4"/> fifties and particularly the sixties and seventies that the <pause dur="0.6"/> the tradition <pause dur="0.3"/> # the school the Annales School <pause dur="0.4"/> goes global <pause dur="0.2"/> gets an enormous # sort of # # wide <trunc>le</trunc> wide # <pause dur="0.4"/> # level of # respect across the world and it's a form of <pause dur="0.4"/> social history a form of social history <pause dur="0.2"/> and that's something i'd hold on to and talk about <pause dur="0.4"/> which is very much admired <pause dur="0.3"/> and very much emulated and what we're looking at today is the origins of that <pause dur="0.4"/> # movement as i say <unclear>as</unclear> <pause dur="0.2"/> in the last fifty years incredibly influential <pause dur="0.3"/> among # historians <pause dur="0.4"/> and it starts around <pause dur="0.3"/> a journal <pause dur="0.4"/> a journal which still runs and which # <pause dur="0.5"/> now i'm going to do what i this terrible lecture did and sort of point upwards <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> # but # <pause dur="0.3"/> which starts in nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="1.2"/> has gone through a number of titles it's changed its titles i

couldn't remember the exact date actually but a few years ago <pause dur="0.5"/> # now <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/> a journal which has had a very <pause dur="0.3"/> great <pause dur="0.2"/> level of <pause dur="0.2"/> continuity <pause dur="0.5"/> and consistency <pause dur="0.3"/> in editorial policy we still <trunc>re</trunc> have it in the # you know every every history department <pause dur="0.4"/> which has a library <pause dur="0.2"/> has the Annales and we have the Annales so you can go and check it out and we've got it back i think in <trunc>a</trunc> in in this library through to the forties i don't think we go back to nineteen-twenty-nine but you can get the whole set in most <pause dur="0.6"/> # most # # libraries which go back that far <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="1.3"/> its foundation <pause dur="0.3"/> in <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> nineteen-twenty-nine by two men <pause dur="0.4"/> # Lucien Febvre <pause dur="0.6"/> who is <trunc>b</trunc> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the editor from the early years and died in nineteen-fifty-eight <pause dur="0.3"/> and Marc Bloch <pause dur="0.4"/> the # <pause dur="0.2"/> medieval historian who was killed by the <pause dur="0.4"/> # Nazis in # nineteen-forty-four <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> the other great figure <pause dur="0.3"/> # of the Annales Fernand Braudel <pause dur="0.5"/> which before he died in the early nineties he he was you know <pause dur="0.5"/> the heir to the Annales tradition which Le Roy Ladurie has followed up on <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> who was the editor of the # <pause dur="0.2"/> who <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> no

sorry that's not # that's a mistake he's editor from # the late forties <pause dur="0.3"/> # through to # <pause dur="1.1"/> his death in the nineties so a sort of tremendous <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> continuity and then this man here Emmanuel <pause dur="0.4"/> Le Roy Ladurie <pause dur="0.3"/> who comes on stream in the nineteen-sixties and is still in fact on the editorial <pause dur="0.4"/> # board <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> a <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> a tradition if you like i mean i've been to <pause dur="0.3"/> it's one of those things where when there's a conference people say <pause dur="0.5"/> well let's get <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> get some member of the Annales <pause dur="0.2"/> tradition to talk about the Annales School <pause dur="0.5"/> and so they <trunc>c</trunc> they have the lecture <pause dur="0.3"/> heading the Annales School by Le Roy Ladurie or whoever <pause dur="0.3"/> and the first thing they always say is there is no Annales School it's not a school it's a scholarly tradition <pause dur="0.3"/> it's a <pause dur="0.4"/> you know a school suggests there's a doctrine <pause dur="0.2"/> and as we see <pause dur="0.9"/> you know a single doctrine or a dogma <pause dur="0.4"/> is something which it doesn't have the # but on the other hand it has a sort of <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> approach which is consistent enough for people to sort of pick it out <pause dur="0.3"/> as a tradition if you like or a school of #

school of thinking <pause dur="0.5"/> and it represents and it represented i think in nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="0.7"/> what Lucien Febvre actually sort of <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> thought he was doing he described it as <pause dur="0.2"/> a new kind of history <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="12"/> so let's put that on the board and put it in <pause dur="0.9"/> inverted commas <pause dur="9.0"/> a new kind of history but <pause dur="0.2"/> quote from Lucien <pause dur="0.3"/> Febvre <pause dur="0.9"/> pan in <pause dur="0.2"/> you know as this is the you know we're doing this filmically after all <pause dur="0.4"/> pan in <trunc>o</trunc> in nineteen-twenty-nine to a small Parisian garret actually <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>i'm making this up <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> now i don't know <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> nineteen-twenty-nine <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>two men however in are are sort of sitting round a table at least # <pause dur="0.3"/> # together talking about this new journal that they're going to establish <pause dur="0.5"/> one is Lucien Febvre <pause dur="0.2"/> who's # a sixteenth century # specialist the other is the medievalist very distinguished <pause dur="0.3"/> as he becomes <pause dur="0.4"/> # Marc Bloch they're young men <pause dur="0.4"/> they survey the <trunc>histori</trunc> the <trunc>histor</trunc> historical scene as i'm sure some of my younger colleagues do today <pause dur="0.4"/> and they look around and they say well look at

all those bloody fuddy-duddies at the top of this # <pause dur="0.3"/> this <trunc>m</trunc> this # academic establishment <pause dur="0.5"/> you know they've been trained in another generation they have a sense # they are out of touch with interesting things that are going on <pause dur="0.4"/> # in the in the world <pause dur="0.3"/> what they do in nineteen-twenty-nine they look round and say well <pause dur="0.4"/> the the sort of high spots of the historical profession are in the Sorbonne <pause dur="0.2"/> you know sort of Paris # university <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> represented by # actually <pause dur="0.4"/> in many ways looking back at what is a very fine historian but <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="9"/> who becomes a sort of like whipping boy for <pause dur="0.5"/> # hang on <pause dur="0.2"/> sorry i'm <trunc>s</trunc> completely misspelling that <pause dur="1.1"/> # Seignobos <pause dur="1.8"/> Charles Seignobos <pause dur="0.3"/> good historian but for them <pause dur="0.5"/> you know <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> the worst imaginable influence on history <pause dur="0.4"/> at the Sorbonne because <pause dur="0.3"/> the type of history <pause dur="0.3"/> that he represents and the type of history that he does represent <pause dur="0.5"/> is we on this course would say would be essentially Rankean <pause dur="0.2"/> i guess it would be that <pause dur="0.6"/> the historian by now has become even more professionalized because there are

universities with university history departments in a way that there weren't when Ranke wrote <pause dur="0.5"/> where people specialize in particular periods so we have an intense sense of specialism <pause dur="0.6"/> # where the history is text based <pause dur="0.2"/> usually <pause dur="0.4"/> based on texts in archives which are drawn from official government # repositories <pause dur="0.7"/> government <trunc>theref</trunc> # sorry # history therefore which is essentially small scale in its orientation <pause dur="1.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> not only small scale but <pause dur="0.3"/> you would say perhaps they didn't use the word but politicocentric <pause dur="0.2"/> in which politics is absolutely at the heart of what they do just as it <trunc>di</trunc> it was for <pause dur="0.4"/> for von Ranke <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> a minister <pause dur="0.7"/> dies a king <pause dur="0.8"/> rises to power <pause dur="0.3"/> # a mistress falls from power or whatever you know that so that type of <pause dur="0.7"/> history <pause dur="0.4"/> which is moreover narrative highly narrative in its # mode of exposition <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>sh</trunc> tells a story if you like the story is a chronicle of # <pause dur="0.3"/> of the state if you like or the politics of the state <pause dur="0.8"/> # history which is intensely Eurocentric <pause dur="0.6"/> in other words where <pause dur="1.2"/> what is of

you know what historians do is European history <pause dur="0.4"/> first of all and secondly when they look outside Europe it's nearly always <pause dur="0.3"/> with the <pause dur="0.4"/> # imperial <pause dur="0.3"/> # gesture <pause dur="0.2"/> about their their they their their view of the rest of the world so the rest of the world just comes into the story <pause dur="0.3"/> the narrative if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> as <pause dur="0.2"/> places to be subjected to European power that is why they're in history if you like so intensely Eurocentric <pause dur="1.8"/> highly positivistic by which we mean shall we say <pause dur="0.5"/> emphasizing a cult of facts and these facts are derived from archives and they're put together by the historian out there <pause dur="0.3"/> trying to find out how things really were <pause dur="0.3"/> just a little <pause dur="0.9"/> motto from the past there <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> and put together in this narrative mode and so the historian's like a sort of <pause dur="0.5"/> # you know the historian's out there on the beach the beach is the archive and you pick up the pebbles and you sort of like take them home and you arrange them in a sort of like <pause dur="0.3"/> a beach-like structure and that's that's your # <pause dur="0.3"/> that's what the historian does

or he's like a butterfly collector if you like he collects the butterflies <pause dur="0.6"/> puts them in a nice little case that's that's history it's small scale it's <trunc>sa</trunc> safe <pause dur="0.3"/> it is <trunc>p</trunc> highly professional <pause dur="0.6"/> it is <pause dur="0.7"/> these two men say intensely boring <pause dur="0.8"/> you know i mean it's got its skills it's got its expertise you know it has its place in the world all the rest of it it <trunc>s</trunc> feels confident <pause dur="0.4"/> about itself <pause dur="0.6"/> but in nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="0.5"/> is history <trunc>shi</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>m</trunc> purely and simply about butterfly collection if you like or pebble <pause dur="0.4"/> # amassing # pebbles after all this is a moment of intense <pause dur="0.5"/> # turbulence <pause dur="0.3"/> # in not just European history <pause dur="0.2"/> or French history <pause dur="0.3"/> although it is in that but in world history is too nineteen-twenty-nine after all <pause dur="0.6"/> is the year of the world crash the economic slump of the great crash of # nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="0.3"/> it's absolutely <pause dur="0.3"/> halfway as you know # though they didn't know that at <pause dur="0.2"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> the time of course <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> between the two world wars at this sort of moment of intense European <pause dur="0.4"/> # tension <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> erupting onto the European

scene are not just sort of new politicians new mistresses new kings or whatever <pause dur="0.4"/> but collective forces collective political forces <pause dur="0.2"/> fascism communism <pause dur="0.3"/> # collective political <pause dur="0.2"/> movements if you like are very much there in the <trunc>f</trunc> in the forefront <pause dur="0.3"/> # of political # events <pause dur="0.4"/> and new forms of politics new types ways of doing thing are <pause dur="0.3"/> # emerging and <pause dur="0.3"/> that is a <pause dur="0.3"/> a <trunc>patte</trunc> # # <trunc>tha</trunc> that is a <pause dur="0.2"/> development which has its irrational as well as its rational side you only have to think about the ideology of Marxism <pause dur="0.3"/> or or or fascism <pause dur="1.6"/> history seems to carry on with butterfly collection or amassing its pebbles <pause dur="0.8"/> blithely disregarding <pause dur="0.2"/> anything that's going on in the outside <pause dur="0.3"/> # world <pause dur="0.7"/> and indeed and this is part of the charge which Febvre and <trunc>luci</trunc> Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch bring against the history <pause dur="0.4"/> not only are is are historians <pause dur="0.3"/> unresponsive and <pause dur="0.2"/> you know completely <pause dur="0.7"/> immaterial to this sort of thing <pause dur="0.6"/> other intellectual traditions are open to this type # to to to this sort of spirit of turbulence and change

and trying to understand it <pause dur="0.3"/> and historians seem to have opted out <pause dur="0.4"/> that's the it's a sort of intellectual <pause dur="0.5"/> treason of the clerks if you like they've sort of moved out of # interest in in you know <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>th</trunc> the the the realities of their own day so <pause dur="0.4"/> professional has history become that they're completely uncommitted completely uninvolved unengaged <pause dur="0.8"/> you only however have to look at other of the disciplines which are current at that time to realize a whole <pause dur="0.4"/> bunch of other intellectuals are interested in these things <pause dur="0.4"/> # far more than historians in economics obviously <pause dur="0.3"/> the # <pause dur="0.5"/> economics schools Marxism or <pause dur="0.4"/> anti-Marxist schools like # Schumpeter or or or whoever <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> in sociology you've got the influence of Max Weber who's trying to you know whose disciples after all have tried to understand society how society works <pause dur="0.4"/> you've got Durkheim and Pareto <pause dur="0.3"/> # you've got # # <pause dur="0.2"/> in anthropology you've got <pause dur="0.3"/> people like James Frazer you've got Malinowski going out to the South Seas trying to sort of understand the ways in which

other societies operate <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> not just through the sort of imperial lens if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> but in terms of their own <pause dur="0.3"/> # values and # # and societies <pause dur="0.2"/> in Freud we've got # sorry in <trunc>psycho</trunc> # in psychology and in psychoanalysis we have Freud trying to understand <pause dur="0.2"/> the irrational in human <pause dur="0.3"/> # nature <pause dur="1.0"/> historians and this would be the charge <pause dur="0.2"/> have nothing to say to these men <pause dur="0.3"/> and women <pause dur="0.2"/> there is as it's as if <pause dur="0.2"/> history has so shut off <pause dur="0.3"/> not just from the wider world <pause dur="0.3"/> but from other intellectual <pause dur="0.2"/> # disciplines <pause dur="0.3"/> # that it has become <pause dur="0.3"/> you know completely <pause dur="0.3"/> out of # <pause dur="0.9"/> out of phase with its own age out of phase with other <pause dur="0.3"/> # # disciplines and Lucien Febvre <pause dur="0.4"/> and # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> Marc Bloch <pause dur="0.2"/> try and change all that and two the two people funnily enough that they say <pause dur="0.7"/> are most influential looking back on these early days and say what were we trying to do and who influenced us <pause dur="0.3"/> they say well two people were crucial <pause dur="0.3"/> to us and one was <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> <pause dur="0.9"/> they could have said if they were German they would have said Max # Weber obviously but <pause dur="0.6"/> the French <pause dur="0.3"/> sort

of equivalent in some ways of # Weber <pause dur="0.4"/> Emile Durkheim <pause dur="1.2"/> his idea that i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> his study of suicide as a mass phenomenon of <pause dur="0.2"/> of modern urban society his # analysis of religion as a social fact which # i mean which again you can see very much in Weber <pause dur="0.3"/> # as well his his idea on <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>s</trunc> # on society as something which has to <trunc>un</trunc> to be understood in its own terms if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> and something which just a political <pause dur="0.5"/> # glance at will <pause dur="0.3"/> you know not do justice to the variety the richness and the complexity <pause dur="0.3"/> of any past # # society <pause dur="0.4"/> and the other person that they pick up on and this is <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="7"/> a totally you know if you asked # <pause dur="0.8"/> just about anyone they wouldn't know who the hell this is <pause dur="0.5"/> # Vidal de la Blache <pause dur="0.8"/> Vidal de la Blache is a geographer <pause dur="0.2"/> actually i think geography you know this is one of the big <pause dur="0.6"/> most <trunc>int</trunc> interesting and <trunc>in</trunc> influential <pause dur="0.5"/> aspects of the Annales tradition <pause dur="0.4"/> the sense that history takes <pause dur="0.2"/> place <pause dur="0.7"/> in space somewhere <pause dur="0.3"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> it doesn't just happen anywhere space isn't just a neutral thing that you sort of think

oh it could have happened here there or <pause dur="0.4"/> everything space actually <pause dur="0.4"/> # counts <pause dur="0.4"/> # the spatial <pause dur="0.5"/> that history the past if you like has a spatial dimension <pause dur="0.3"/> which historians <pause dur="0.2"/> have <trunc>wi</trunc> with their politicocentric <pause dur="0.2"/> just politics you know small scale all the rest of it <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>s</trunc> close periodization <pause dur="0.3"/> they've lost sight of this and so what <pause dur="0.4"/> # Bloch and # <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # Febvre try and pick up on is a sense of space <pause dur="0.2"/> so it actually matters that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are close to each other but distant as well and you can't get in <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> to one from one to the other very <pause dur="0.4"/> # easily <pause dur="0.3"/> it actually matters that <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the # that <trunc>certai</trunc> that Versailles is where it is for example and that there are political social economic cultural consequences if you like which come from the fact <pause dur="0.4"/> # the facts of space which historians have completely <pause dur="0.4"/> # # <pause dur="0.5"/> # sort of # disregarded <pause dur="0.8"/> so what <pause dur="0.2"/> Febvre <pause dur="0.3"/> and # Marc Bloch try and # do <trunc>d</trunc> what they try and <pause dur="1.2"/> sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> attempt if you like <pause dur="0.5"/> is to <pause dur="0.2"/> open eyes <pause dur="0.3"/> or take away blinkers

or the way the which they'd describe it <pause dur="0.5"/> open doors onto other <pause dur="0.2"/> disciplines <pause dur="0.3"/> history has become closeted in itself a little sort of historical ivory tower the idea would be <pause dur="0.5"/> let's <pause dur="0.2"/> and they they have a wonderful quote which is in the editorial of the first <trunc>i</trunc> issue <trunc>i</trunc> # where they say <pause dur="0.6"/> you know <pause dur="0.4"/> if you go into universities it's as if you've two groups of people passing each other in the corridors that <pause dur="0.4"/> and they don't know what the hell they're doing each other are doing they're the social scientists the economists the sociologists <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the psychologists in one <pause dur="0.4"/> camp <pause dur="0.4"/> the historians on the other they just have no way of talking to each other they're in the same building even you know but they don't # don't <pause dur="0.3"/> relate they don't communicate <pause dur="0.5"/> and one of the first things they try and do is to have <pause dur="0.3"/> basically and establish as a <pause dur="0.3"/> as a house rule of this new journal which they're establishing in nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="0.5"/> # the Annales <pause dur="0.4"/> an open door policy onto any type

of # human <pause dur="0.2"/> or social <pause dur="0.4"/> # science anything which talks about and the way they talk about it is man <pause dur="0.4"/> anything man is the object <pause dur="0.5"/> history is one <pause dur="0.5"/> angle into it if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> for it <pause dur="0.2"/> for it to be a good history it has to be a history which somehow connects up with <pause dur="0.4"/> what <trunc>hist</trunc> what <pause dur="0.3"/> non-historians do <pause dur="0.2"/> # who are interested in man as well what sociologists psychologists <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # geographers and all the rest # do so straight from and i think you know if you're talking about <pause dur="0.6"/> crucial things if you like for the for the Annales <pause dur="0.2"/> group you would say interdisciplinary <pause dur="0.6"/> an open door policy if you like from history into <pause dur="0.2"/> other areas of <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>histori</trunc> <trunc>o</trunc> of # <pause dur="0.3"/> # analysis of society and of analysis of man in <pause dur="0.3"/> # in society and that is a line <pause dur="0.5"/> that is a line which is held to very very firmly i mean extremely polemically i should say <pause dur="0.3"/> # in the nineteen-thirties and nineteen-forties as i say poor old Seignobos gets a regular <pause dur="0.3"/> whipping you know in the pages of the <pause dur="0.2"/> editorials to the journals he's the sort of bad old

history <pause dur="0.3"/> they want to get rid of you know they want to introduce this sort of vibrant and interesting <pause dur="0.4"/> # sort of # type of # history <pause dur="0.3"/> which is <pause dur="0.6"/> open to other disciplines <pause dur="0.4"/> which is anti specialist and anti small scale and anti small scale which thinks about society as something big which thinks about big process if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> # not just small scale <pause dur="0.2"/> # stuff going <trunc>o</trunc> on in # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>i</trunc> in someone you know in a ministerial cabinet or in the king's bedroom <pause dur="0.3"/> # or or whatever interesting no doubt though that would be <pause dur="0.5"/> # they're against the idea that the past has to be studied solely through <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.4"/> by centring or privileging the political element <pause dur="0.3"/> society the past is about <pause dur="0.4"/> more than just <pause dur="0.3"/> the political elite <pause dur="0.3"/> more than just what is found <pause dur="0.3"/> # in archives <pause dur="0.5"/> it is therefore a history which will be open to the idea that other forms of evidence exist in the past which are non-written <pause dur="0.4"/> so in other words you can only get at certain forms of <pause dur="0.4"/> of the past and understand the past fully <pause dur="0.3"/> if you turn yourself

into for example a geographer <pause dur="0.4"/> an archaeologist a field <trunc>wor</trunc> walker or worker <pause dur="0.3"/> # or or or whatever <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="1.1"/> other types of <trunc>sourc</trunc> # visual sources as well why not if you're working on the Middle Ages why not for God's sake look at manuscript illuminations why not why just as medieval historians would do at least in the Seignobos <pause dur="0.4"/> # model <pause dur="0.3"/> just look at what's written underneath them the visual can be as as as important # <pause dur="0.3"/> an element of # understanding the past as <pause dur="0.2"/> as as as written # sources <pause dur="1.4"/> anti-Eurocentric <pause dur="0.2"/> so in other words let's be interested in <pause dur="0.5"/> well in a way it's a sort of Rankean thing like you know your understanding of the past in its own terms let's try and understand <pause dur="0.4"/> # the Trobriand Islands or <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> east African tribal groupings in their terms as as societies in the past not just in terms of <pause dur="0.4"/> you know the Europeans came and they started to have a history <pause dur="0.3"/> # and that history is only refracted through the relationship they have with the # <pause dur="0.3"/> # metropolitan power let's think about how that society works let's <pause dur="0.4"/>

let's let's work on it as a sociologist of of of another type of society a society they call a primitive society <pause dur="0.2"/> we wouldn't use the term # today so much <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but you know open up a a way <pause dur="0.3"/> from <pause dur="0.3"/> Eurocentrism to a more sort of measured <pause dur="0.3"/> acceptance that all types of societies # are # susceptible to a historical <pause dur="0.4"/> # gaze <pause dur="1.1"/> and it's a history moreover which isn't as <pause dur="0.2"/> individual orientated it's not the great men of the past you know Colbert Louis the Fourteenth and all that shower <pause dur="0.5"/> it's what about the peasants what about the workers <pause dur="0.2"/> what about <trunc>s</trunc> these wider social forces can we understand the past in terms of them because if they are <pause dur="0.6"/> as they are in the nineteen-twenties and thirties such a shaping influence <pause dur="0.3"/> # on <pause dur="0.3"/> on politics on the way societies are being conducted in this period <pause dur="0.2"/> surely we need as historians to understand how these things operate in the in the past <pause dur="0.3"/> so this will be <pause dur="0.6"/> a new <pause dur="0.4"/> kind of history as Lucien <pause dur="0.2"/> # Febvre a new <pause dur="0.5"/> shall we put it again <pause dur="0.4"/> paradigm <pause dur="0.2"/> a new in another way a new

paradigm for history <pause dur="0.3"/> a history which moves out of the <pause dur="0.3"/> the Rankean <pause dur="0.3"/> # paradigm <pause dur="0.5"/> with which to a certain extent we're still all familiar <pause dur="0.3"/> # and offers a new type of history open to the social <pause dur="0.4"/> the social <pause dur="0.3"/> # as the crucial element for understanding <pause dur="0.3"/> # people in <pause dur="0.2"/> the past <pause dur="1.5"/> let's <pause dur="0.3"/> so that's the sort of theory what about in practice how does it actually pan out what what does the new kind of history mean apart from <pause dur="0.4"/> people standing on their editorial soapboxes and mouthing off every so often about this that <pause dur="0.4"/> # and the other so let's have a look at <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="15"/> some new kinds of history <pause dur="1.4"/> # according to Bloch <pause dur="0.5"/> some <pause dur="12.0"/> some new kinds of history <pause dur="1.5"/> read Marc Bloch's Historian's Craft <pause dur="0.3"/> that's what you got to do on the that's the next seminar <pause dur="0.4"/> # that will give you an insight into some of the things i've just been saying and it will be an attempt to <pause dur="0.6"/> to theorize if you like to talk about <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> what this new kind of approach which i've been outlining <pause dur="0.2"/> actually means for the practice of history how a historian will actually <pause dur="0.4"/> # work and that book written in the nineteen-forties is a

sort of <pause dur="0.5"/> handbook <pause dur="0.2"/> or <distinct lang="la">vade mecum</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> of this new kind of # history <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> but i think as a general rule <pause dur="0.4"/> i think it <trunc>remai</trunc> it it's it's true to say that <trunc>histor</trunc> and i think it's a great book <pause dur="0.2"/> and it's a terrific read and all the rest of it <pause dur="0.5"/> but however good it is <pause dur="0.2"/> historians are probably better at <pause dur="0.2"/> doing history <pause dur="0.2"/> than talking about it it's a general rule <pause dur="0.3"/> you know that we're better <pause dur="0.2"/> at <pause dur="0.3"/> being historians than talking about being historians or understanding or theorizing <pause dur="0.4"/> the historical process <pause dur="0.4"/> and i think <pause dur="0.3"/> Marc Bloch Lucien Febvre <pause dur="0.4"/> are <pause dur="0.6"/> you know they have their theory but <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>w</trunc> you have to look at their work if you like to understand <pause dur="0.2"/> exactly what's going on what is new what is novel what is <pause dur="0.2"/> # innovatory let me take a book to start with <trunc>b</trunc> from Lucien Febvre <pause dur="0.6"/> # he writes a book which is called Unbelief well it's translated as <pause dur="0.4"/> Unbelief in the Age of Rabelais <pause dur="0.2"/> Rabelais the sixteenth century # <pause dur="0.4"/> # writer <pause dur="0.2"/> madman writer <pause dur="0.9"/> and what he's doing there he's picking up <pause dur="0.2"/> the question of <pause dur="0.3"/> atheism <pause dur="0.3"/> now <trunc>th</trunc>

atheism would be a good thing for a French historian to be interested in because anticlericalism <pause dur="0.3"/> since the eighteenth century has been one the <pause dur="0.3"/> dominant and you know sort of endless tropes of French history anticlericalism <pause dur="0.4"/> so in a way what Lucien Febvre is doing is saying well let's go back <pause dur="0.4"/> to the sixteenth century and <pause dur="0.4"/> you know what is anticlericalism there can people <pause dur="0.3"/> you know are people anticlerical is atheism possible if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> # in the # # sixteenth # century <pause dur="1.5"/> and he's <pause dur="0.4"/> coming up against many people who've looked at Rabelais and said <pause dur="0.4"/> you know this is a you know this an anticlerical <pause dur="0.3"/> like a classic sort of third republic anticlerical <pause dur="0.4"/> # writer who sort of endlessly criticizes the church <pause dur="0.3"/> endlessly satirizes religious figures <pause dur="0.3"/> sends up with great humour and # <pause dur="0.3"/> # sort of brio <pause dur="0.3"/> # many essential # <trunc>s</trunc> # sort of aspects of the sacred <pause dur="1.9"/> what <pause dur="0.2"/> Febvre says is we can only answer that question if we understand the context and the values <pause dur="0.5"/> in <trunc>wh</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> with which Rabelais <pause dur="0.2"/> # was

was working <pause dur="0.5"/> that to import <pause dur="0.4"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> our sort of sense of what anticlericalism is or might be or whatever from the nineteenth or twentieth century <pause dur="0.6"/> and import it <pause dur="0.3"/> into <pause dur="0.2"/> the sixteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> is committing what Marc Bloch <pause dur="0.2"/> in that book calls the cardinal sin <pause dur="0.3"/> of the historian <pause dur="0.4"/> and the cardinal sin of the historian is <pause dur="0.3"/> anachronism <pause dur="0.3"/> bringing in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> your values your ideas from a later period and just plonking them <pause dur="0.4"/> in the middle of the sixteenth century i don't know if you've ever seen that famous # <pause dur="0.3"/> Hollywood picture of # <trunc>j</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # with Marlon Brando as Marc you know Julius Caesar <trunc>r</trunc> it's a really great # <pause dur="0.2"/> nineteen-fifties edition <pause dur="0.7"/> and Marlon Brando is Marc Anthony <pause dur="0.2"/> it's great <pause dur="0.2"/> it's great but they're <trunc>i</trunc> they're all around Marc Anthony saying friends Roman countrymen <pause dur="0.3"/> and they all at the end of the speech hurl up their hands from their togas <pause dur="0.2"/> and you see several people are carrying carrying <trunc>wi</trunc> wristwatches so you think oh my God that's completely ruined it for me <pause dur="0.3"/> i'm a historian i

can't enjoy anything where there is anachronism <pause dur="0.3"/> # in it well the cardinal sin of the # <pause dur="0.3"/> of the historian for Bloch is anachronism <pause dur="1.3"/> <trunc>w</trunc> if we <trunc>a</trunc> want to understand what atheism is in Rabelais' age we have to think about it not in terms of a checklist of points we've got from the nineteenth and <trunc>twe</trunc> twentieth century we have to think about it in terms of the own <pause dur="0.4"/> values and ideas and belief systems of the sixteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="1.0"/> Febvre says if you try and do it that way <pause dur="1.2"/> and his argument becomes <pause dur="0.2"/> atheism is unthinkable <pause dur="0.6"/> in the sixteenth century <pause dur="0.2"/> it is <trunc>unthi</trunc> because there is no <pause dur="0.5"/> and this is a a phrase he uses which has sort of entered the # historical <pause dur="0.3"/> vocabulary <pause dur="0.3"/> there is no mental equipment <pause dur="0.3"/> for a sixteenth century person to think about a world <pause dur="0.3"/> in which there is no God there is no mental equipment <distinct lang="fr">outillage mental</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> # there is no mental equipment for him to <pause dur="0.4"/> # him or her to do that so <pause dur="0.4"/> you can only think in terms of the beliefs with a <trunc>o</trunc> of a a belief system of a particular <pause dur="0.3"/> #

period <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> God is so rooted into the # <pause dur="1.0"/> # sort of ways of understanding matter the ways of understanding society the way of understanding men and women in society <pause dur="0.3"/> that it is impossible to suddenly sort of lift them out of the <pause dur="0.3"/> of the picture it is impossible therefore to be an atheist you can be critical of the church you can be <pause dur="0.5"/> you know <trunc>s</trunc> # criticize certain views <trunc>ab</trunc> which the church holds but it's impossible to believe <trunc>i</trunc> in no no God because otherwise you wouldn't you wouldn't exist <pause dur="0.2"/> okay there would be no way of thinking about <pause dur="0.4"/> about yourself <pause dur="0.6"/> so what he's saying is that <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>pe</trunc> the collective attitudes of people are <pause dur="0.3"/> resistant to certain types of things okay <pause dur="0.3"/> that there is a sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> well the term which <pause dur="0.2"/> again if you think Annales <pause dur="0.2"/> if you think Annales <pause dur="0.4"/> you think this word <distinct lang="fr">mentalités</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> you think a few other words as well but # <pause dur="0.3"/> which we'll talk about <pause dur="0.6"/> <distinct lang="fr">mentalité</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> less <pause dur="0.2"/> ideas well i don't mean ideas you know the ideas of the past

what we mean is if you like like that mental equipment idea <pause dur="0.3"/> if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> the sort of preconditions of having ideas the mental frameworks with <trunc>i</trunc> which people are equipped <pause dur="0.4"/> # with which they do their thinking <pause dur="0.2"/> okay the <distinct lang="fr">mentalités</distinct> the underlying okay and we're using a metaphor there <pause dur="0.3"/> but the underlying set of values <pause dur="0.4"/> and sort of frameworks of belief <pause dur="0.2"/> # which people have and the idea will be and i'll give you an illustration of that <pause dur="0.4"/> in a in a minute that people in the sixteenth century have a set of <distinct lang="fr">mentalités</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> of mentalities <pause dur="0.3"/> # which are resistant to them thinking certain types of things <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> atheism is literally unintelligible <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> in the sixteenth century because of this <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of <pause dur="0.9"/> importance of mentalités many <trunc>s</trunc> historians of the sixteenth century now i think looking back <pause dur="0.4"/> would say well this is nonsense in fact you know we need to think about ideas differently and <pause dur="0.4"/> you know that he's been much criticized on that point but i want to <trunc>s</trunc> insist on it <pause dur="0.4"/> here because i think it's such a good

illustration of the way of thinking of the <pause dur="0.3"/> of the Annales and they say you can think about atheism and that there's atheists in the <trunc>m</trunc> Middle Ages and all the rest of it <pause dur="0.5"/> but they <pause dur="0.2"/> they do still think of it in terms of <pause dur="0.4"/> the mental structures the mental structures that'd be a way to think about it <pause dur="0.4"/> of of the past and understanding beliefs only in terms of those mental <pause dur="0.3"/> # structures </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0091" trans="pause"> let's switch <pause dur="0.2"/> to another type of # # Annales style new kind # of history and # through Marc Bloch <pause dur="0.4"/> well Marc Bloch <pause dur="0.8"/> there are two great books which you might # have read if you've done any French history or medieval history one is French Rural <pause dur="0.3"/> # History # well it's translated as French Rural History <pause dur="0.4"/> which is # a wonderful exemplar i think of the and which he sort of <pause dur="0.5"/> goes back and just talks about the countryside and the place of the countryside in French history and how it's formed <pause dur="0.3"/> and how important it is and what its important changes <pause dur="0.3"/> # are <pause dur="0.4"/> this is a history which is done with Bloch <pause dur="0.3"/> as

a historian and an extraordinarily gifted historian <pause dur="0.3"/> but also as a an archaeologist as an expert in place names as a student of the landscape <pause dur="0.3"/> # # et cetera et cetera so it's a it's a good example of that sort of open door <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of multidisciplinary interdisciplinary sort of approach which is very much at the heart of the Annales <pause dur="0.3"/> # tradition <pause dur="0.5"/> the other work which he # again if you've <trunc>di</trunc> # did medieval society you might have done this <pause dur="0.3"/> # feudal society <pause dur="0.4"/> which again at the time i mean now we think oh feudal society big deal at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> it was actually seen as extraordinarily innovatory that one could take all those which existed which were called feudal <pause dur="0.4"/> # in the Middle Ages <pause dur="0.3"/> and try and work out if you like what Weber would probably have called a sort of ideal type of <trunc>u</trunc> of # feudal society <pause dur="0.3"/> how feudal societies operate <pause dur="0.3"/> so you don't not just talking about one you know # where there's a king or there's a duke or a <pause dur="0.3"/> a vassal or whatever <pause dur="0.3"/> you're talking about <trunc>ha</trunc> <trunc>ha</trunc> # <pause dur="0.4"/> feudal society as as a generic group as a sociologist would

look at say modern societies or mass society <pause dur="0.4"/> # or whatever <pause dur="0.3"/> so history the historian becomes in <pause dur="0.4"/> feudal society a sort of retrospective sociologist writing the sociology <pause dur="0.3"/> of the past <pause dur="0.2"/> okay so those two examples i would <pause dur="0.5"/> give you an <trunc>exam</trunc> # you know is sort of examples of this # tradition but let me <pause dur="0.2"/> # report on the <pause dur="0.5"/> another book which i think is one of his best i really really love this book <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and he wrote it in nineteen-twenty-four it's not one of his most famous books but it is i think # very striking it's the book <pause dur="0.3"/> and those of you who've done my <pause dur="0.3"/> course on # medicine will know me know me <pause dur="0.3"/> heard me banging on about this before so i apologize for that <pause dur="0.5"/> but it's a book which appeared in nineteen-twenty-four <pause dur="0.7"/> # only translated in English <pause dur="0.2"/> interestingly in the late # nineteen-seventies <pause dur="0.3"/> which is about the royal touch <pause dur="0.3"/> and the royal touch is the belief <pause dur="0.4"/> that # <pause dur="1.3"/> from the Middle Ages onwards from sort of twelfth century it really kicks in although there's some <pause dur="0.2"/> sense that it might have existed before then but

the belief <pause dur="0.5"/> is that the kings of France and England <pause dur="0.5"/> # have miraculous powers thaumaturgic powers <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>p</trunc> miraculous powers <pause dur="0.5"/> and that individuals who are suffering from a disease which becomes called <pause dur="0.4"/> becomes known as the king's evil <pause dur="0.2"/> the king's evil <pause dur="0.4"/> and which is scrofula <pause dur="0.3"/> scrofula <pause dur="0.5"/> # which is <pause dur="0.5"/> # tuberculosis <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> scrofula <pause dur="0.8"/> of the of the lymph gland especially <pause dur="0.4"/> # essentially <pause dur="0.4"/> # scrofula so a skin disease it's a very disfiguring skin disease <pause dur="0.7"/> # that <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="2.2"/> they have the miraculous powers # over of curing this <pause dur="0.2"/> so that every <pause dur="0.5"/> well quite frequently in the # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in the sort of # royal year the ceremonial year various individuals would be wheeled out suffering from this disease <pause dur="0.5"/> and the king will <pause dur="0.9"/> touch them king of England king of France would touch them and say <pause dur="1.4"/> God <pause dur="0.3"/> i <pause dur="0.3"/> the king touches you actually what he says is the king touches you <pause dur="0.2"/> and God cures you and then they go away and the idea is they should be cured <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> anyone looking at this as a sort of Seignobos <pause dur="0.3"/> style historian you know <pause dur="0.8"/>

politics you know important political stuff political narrative <pause dur="0.7"/> you know this is <pause dur="0.2"/> this is irrational <pause dur="0.3"/> crap you know this is this is superstition you know we're not <trunc>intere</trunc> that's not really something a historian <pause dur="0.3"/> needs to be interested in you know because it's just the sort of <pause dur="0.6"/> you know the sort of stuff of history which isn't terribly terribly interesting or certainly very <pause dur="0.3"/> # important <pause dur="0.4"/> # and it's irrational it's about popular irrational beliefs and we know it couldn't possibly happen 'cause we're all good positivists # <pause dur="0.3"/> we don't believe in this # sort of thing <pause dur="0.6"/> so Bloch is taking something which is if you like in the dustbin <pause dur="0.3"/> of the historian's <trunc>cra</trunc> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # the historical <pause dur="0.3"/> # community <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> something which is there we've got some records of but no one's really # looked at much apart from a few antiquarians who've not really put it together <pause dur="0.5"/> and what <trunc>bl</trunc> what # Bloch says is let's well let's look at that as a belief system <pause dur="0.2"/> as part of a belief system which when you

think about it <pause dur="0.3"/> is incredibly enduring <pause dur="0.7"/> you know <pause dur="0.6"/> now we may be very <pause dur="0.2"/> # sort of sceptical about <pause dur="0.4"/> the efficacity of the royal touch in this way i should think we <trunc>mo</trunc> nearly everyone would be <pause dur="0.4"/> # # sceptical about that <pause dur="0.3"/> but nevertheless how do we explain that something which is <pause dur="0.3"/> coming in <pause dur="0.4"/> in the # in the # twelfth century lasts centuries nearly a millennium <pause dur="0.2"/> # in fact because the last touching for the king's evil <pause dur="0.5"/> # is done <pause dur="0.3"/> # in England # in the early part of the seventeenth century by # sorry eighteenth century by Queen Anne <pause dur="0.4"/> # Samuel Johnson in fact if you you know the <pause dur="0.2"/> # dictionary man goes and tries to be touched by the for the king's evil but they don't give it to him <pause dur="0.3"/> they don't touch they refuse by then <pause dur="0.4"/> in France they're carrying on <pause dur="0.3"/> way into the <trunc>w</trunc> well up to the revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> Louis the Sixteenth had his coronation <pause dur="0.3"/> touches well over two-thousand people for the # scrofula <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> # so they're lining up in in fact and when the Bourbons come back after eighteen-fifteen i'm # <trunc>sh</trunc> sure you remember all this stuff <pause dur="0.4"/> #

Charles the Tenth is touching them <pause dur="0.2"/> at his coronation in eighteen-twenty-seven so this is a belief which goes twelfth century nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> and there's no shortage of people turning up <pause dur="0.6"/> so what's going on <pause dur="0.5"/> you know something which must be irrational is going on now if you say well it's just superstition it's irrational <pause dur="0.3"/> but surely the irrational irrational beliefs irrational mass beliefs <pause dur="0.3"/> are actually quite an interesting topic <pause dur="0.3"/> in a Europe which is dominated by Nazism and fascism so maybe we could <pause dur="0.7"/> you know try and understand what's going on there if you like in much the way a sociologist or a cultural analyst or whatever of the nineteen-twenties would be trying to understand <pause dur="0.3"/> # # <trunc>an</trunc> and the <trunc>un</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> understand the # # <trunc>s</trunc> <trunc>stand</trunc> this # <pause dur="0.2"/> in in their own society <pause dur="1.8"/> and what we have therefore is a study of why people and how people believe and how beliefs are kept in place if you like i mean and there is a <pause dur="0.3"/> that is a multilayered story obviously just establishing what was happening is important <pause dur="0.3"/> but

was is going on there as well <pause dur="0.6"/> what he picks up very clearly # obviously as you would expect <pause dur="0.3"/> is the way in which the kings of France see that this is a good thing for their own authority and their power <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> be attributed this miraculous # power <pause dur="0.3"/> so in fact in becomes part of dynastic propaganda <pause dur="0.3"/> in both England and France <pause dur="0.2"/> # that they have this sort of miraculous power so if you're up against your over mighty subjects <pause dur="0.5"/> you know it's not a bad thing to have up your sleeve that you're also well known to be a miraculous # miracle <pause dur="0.3"/> # worker <pause dur="0.4"/> and indeed that does happen without any question of a doubt it gets written in to the propaganda story the <trunc>pr</trunc> the script if you like <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.7"/> # of of the of the dynast of the dynasties <pause dur="0.3"/> but also it <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>f</trunc> infiltrates into the rituals of kingship <pause dur="0.4"/> the way in which kingship operates over this particular period <pause dur="0.3"/> and so <pause dur="0.2"/> maybe power isn't just about <pause dur="0.3"/> # in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> kings sort of having <pause dur="0.2"/> passing laws or parliaments passing laws which are then you know believed or not believed or

put into effect or not <pause dur="0.3"/> put into effect <pause dur="0.3"/> maybe one the things one one of one of the ways in which power operates <pause dur="0.3"/> is through irrational beliefs is through <pause dur="0.3"/> the promotion of ideological <pause dur="0.3"/> # sort of takes <pause dur="0.3"/> on what power <pause dur="0.3"/> # consists in <pause dur="0.4"/> okay i haven't put that very well <pause dur="0.3"/> that that basically <pause dur="0.4"/> # the royal touch <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> # is built into royal ceremonies royal rituals <pause dur="0.2"/> # <trunc>roy</trunc> <trunc>r</trunc> # royal procedures in a way which plays up <pause dur="0.4"/> # the importance of their power and obviously <pause dur="0.4"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> becomes part of absolutist power if you're a king by divine right <pause dur="0.4"/> what better proof that you're of divine right and therefore not to be resisted <pause dur="0.3"/> # than that you can perform # # miracles <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> it's interesting in the interest in the rituals the ceremonies and the symbols of kingship and seeing that as part of <trunc>m</trunc> of political authority not just <pause dur="0.3"/> # you know # what # <trunc>s</trunc> a Seignobos type of historian <pause dur="0.3"/> would # look at <pause dur="0.5"/> it's a multiperiod thing you know this is talking about a millennium this is not Marc Bloch talking about as a medievalist he's going from the

Middle Ages and ending up in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.5"/> it's # <pause dur="0.5"/> a it's # <trunc>ori</trunc> it's a # <pause dur="0.2"/> around a problem <pause dur="0.2"/> if you like a problem of belief not a not a sort of you know what happened in so and so a ministry it's a <pause dur="0.2"/> a massive political <pause dur="0.3"/> and sociological problem <pause dur="0.5"/> and it is moreover something which is a story which cannot be told as a chronology <pause dur="0.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so the narrative mode <pause dur="0.3"/> which is the sort of classical <pause dur="0.2"/> as we know Rankean sort of approach you know you <pause dur="0.2"/> tell a story <pause dur="0.4"/> in a very straightforward way <pause dur="0.4"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> simply not possible with a story like that so you have deal it with it in layers you have to sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> like outline what <pause dur="0.3"/> the propaganda element is what the ceremonial element is if you like <pause dur="0.4"/> and and to sort of have a much more structured and less narrative a <trunc>br</trunc> you break up the <trunc>chrono</trunc> chronology if you like break up the narrative <pause dur="0.4"/> and and # <pause dur="0.3"/> # sort of # <pause dur="1.0"/> # <trunc>re</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> reconceptualize <pause dur="0.2"/> the modes of <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>narrat</trunc> no no not modes of narrative well <trunc>d</trunc> <trunc>m</trunc> modes of # <pause dur="0.8"/> # the word's gone <trunc>d</trunc> out of mind <pause dur="3.3"/> the way in which

you you argue <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah modes of argumentation let's say that <pause dur="0.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/> course one of the interesting things he then gets into <pause dur="0.4"/> is why do people believe you know okay it's <trunc>i</trunc> you know you can say well <pause dur="0.6"/> they're encouraged to believe because the symbolism and all the rest but but <trunc>wh</trunc> how come you know you'd expect if all these thousands of people turning up then they're all going away <pause dur="0.5"/> they've been touched by the king's # hand and they <pause dur="0.8"/> well presumably not all of them are going to be cured in fact <pause dur="0.2"/> one would think <trunc>an</trunc> none of them would be cured <pause dur="0.3"/> and yet <pause dur="0.3"/> they still carry on believing this well <pause dur="0.3"/> he has a sort of analysis of this i mean one of the crucial elements in it obviously as you probably <pause dur="0.4"/> # have guessed is what's called the <pause dur="0.3"/> the placebo effect which we still see <trunc>tog</trunc> today if you you endlessly turn up to your doctor and ask for medicine medicine medicine medicine <pause dur="0.4"/> after a while they give you a sort of like bit of chalk and they say we've got this great new drug try this <pause dur="0.4"/> # they don't tell

you it's chalk and you <pause dur="0.2"/> you <pause dur="0.3"/> consume it and then you go back and you say that new that medicine you gave me is fabulous i loved it and it really works <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words auto-suggestion <pause dur="0.5"/> # can be a <pause dur="0.2"/> you know crucial part of cure <pause dur="0.2"/> and presumably that's what's going on you know these people are going up there <pause dur="0.4"/> and they're sort of being touched and they <trunc>thi</trunc> they've <pause dur="0.4"/> oh i feel much better now they say and they walk away <pause dur="0.2"/> actually also scrofula's quite a good disease to have that effect moreover because <pause dur="0.2"/> it's one of those diseases where the symptoms come in <pause dur="0.4"/> and then they go into remission so actually the cure might just be that some of the symptoms of the <pause dur="0.3"/> horrible skin disease disappear so people think they've been cured <pause dur="0.2"/> so in other words you have to understand why people believe something which is <pause dur="0.3"/> not <pause dur="0.4"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> which is falsifiable you know we <pause dur="0.2"/> no unless you believe in miracles there is no way that these things could <pause dur="0.3"/> could occur yet people still <pause dur="0.4"/> do believe in them <pause dur="0.3"/>

and one of the other and i think it's a fascinating and # absolutely on the <pause dur="0.2"/> on the spot on the ball sort of # <pause dur="0.3"/> analysis that he does <pause dur="0.4"/> he says what is interesting is that <pause dur="0.4"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>be</trunc> the belief stops in # the practice shall we say <pause dur="0.2"/> stops in the early eighteenth century in England <trunc>e</trunc> early nineteenth in France <pause dur="0.5"/> if it had carried on there would still be people lining up <pause dur="0.6"/> # but the point is <pause dur="0.2"/> by the end <pause dur="0.5"/> the political elite have given up on the belief <pause dur="0.3"/> they don't <trunc>en</trunc> actually it's the <trunc>p</trunc> it's the kings who don't believe in their miraculous power <pause dur="0.3"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> which is the real reason <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> for the decline of this not <pause dur="0.3"/> you know that people have all become much more enlightened or whatever <pause dur="0.3"/> it's because the kings have no longer <trunc>belie</trunc> # <trunc>belon</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> longer believe this and i think <pause dur="0.5"/> he says the <trunc>m</trunc> the sort of sign of this and i think it's a wonderful little historical touch <pause dur="0.3"/> he says <pause dur="0.2"/> if you look at <trunc>w</trunc> the what they said the traditional <trunc>s</trunc> traditional # <pause dur="0.2"/> formula they use when the kings touch the <trunc>s</trunc> scrofula person <pause dur="0.2"/> so i'm sort of

beckoning not towards you <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> there <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n" n="om0092"/> but it's just generally they <pause dur="0.3"/> they sort of <pause dur="0.6"/> # the king # the king touches you <distinct lang="fr">le roi te touche</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> # <distinct lang="fr">Dieu te guérit</distinct> God <pause dur="0.2"/> cures you so the king touch you God cures you <vocal desc="whooshing noise" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> like that <pause dur="0.4"/> he says what is interesting in the well it's right <pause dur="0.2"/> in the end of the seventeenth century but it becomes current in the eighteenth century period of <trunc>re</trunc> relative religious indifference and # <pause dur="0.4"/> # secularism <pause dur="0.5"/> the <trunc>s</trunc> the formula changes and the king says <distinct lang="fr">le roi te touche</distinct> the king touches you <pause dur="1.1"/> <distinct lang="fr">Dieu te guérisse</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> may God <pause dur="0.4"/> cure you <pause dur="0.3"/> okay a shift from the indicative to the subjunctive which he says in <pause dur="0.3"/> opens up <pause dur="0.2"/> a space of uncertainty <pause dur="0.3"/> a space of uncertainty which in that <pause dur="0.6"/> you know in terms of a <trunc>s</trunc> symbolic structure which has lasted for over half a millennium <pause dur="0.4"/> is absolutely fatal to the belief because it shows that <pause dur="0.4"/> kings are no longer believing that <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>ki</trunc> the divine power is sort of shooting through their bodies <pause dur="0.3"/> and out of their <pause dur="0.3"/> their fingers there is an

element of doubt an element of <pause dur="0.2"/> uncertainty an element of scepticism <pause dur="0.2"/> so wonderful <pause dur="0.3"/> work i think which is picking up on this idea of <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">mentalités</distinct> which can only be understood in a way <pause dur="0.3"/> in <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> long <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> periods of times and by breaking up breaking apart completely <pause dur="0.3"/> fragmenting <pause dur="0.3"/> the normal way <pause dur="0.3"/> in which history <pause dur="0.2"/> # is done <pause dur="14.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="17"/> so what i've been trying to # <pause dur="2.7"/> open up <pause dur="0.4"/> today <pause dur="1.2"/> is <pause dur="1.2"/> what is seen at the time <pause dur="1.0"/> in France particularly <pause dur="0.3"/> comes <pause dur="0.4"/> more widespread <trunc>a</trunc> <trunc>a</trunc> after <pause dur="0.4"/> later on elsewhere <pause dur="0.5"/> a new kind of history a history resolutely orientated around the social <pause dur="0.5"/> # # a history which understands the social not just in terms of professional historical <pause dur="0.3"/> expertise <pause dur="0.3"/> but in terms of an open door policy an interdisciplinary approach <pause dur="0.3"/> # to the # to the past and <pause dur="0.5"/> if you're looking at the <trunc>twenti</trunc> <trunc>la</trunc> <trunc>la</trunc> late twenties and thirties <pause dur="0.4"/> and you look at this work you this is a a book of this is an <trunc>edito</trunc> these editorials this is a journal of <pause dur="0.4"/> contestation <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> you

know outsiders <pause dur="0.4"/> trying to shake the Bastille of the historical <pause dur="0.3"/> # establishment <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> it's a crusading period for a new kind of history <pause dur="0.5"/> what happens <pause dur="0.9"/> just after the Second World War <pause dur="0.2"/> is that <pause dur="0.4"/> the values have totally changed because <pause dur="0.7"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> Bastille falls essentially <pause dur="0.4"/> the Sorbonne the type of history <pause dur="0.3"/> which is established by <pause dur="0.4"/> # Seignobos and the Sorbonne that traditional Rankean view <pause dur="0.3"/> is completely overtaken as higher education in France and the historical <pause dur="0.5"/> sort of structure of the profession if you like in France after forty-five <pause dur="0.3"/> is completely changed they bring in new types of # <pause dur="0.4"/> # sort of # research schools <pause dur="0.3"/> which are headed <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.4"/> the Annales group Marc Bloch has died in nineteen-forty-four <pause dur="0.3"/> Lucien Febvre is still very much around and he becomes <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> director of this sort of new research school <pause dur="0.3"/> # which <pause dur="0.5"/> has all these other groupings all these other sort of social scientists within it <pause dur="0.3"/> and they have a historian and this very celebrated historian <pause dur="0.2"/> # <trunc>withi</trunc> <trunc>wi</trunc> at the heart of it now

that seems to me <pause dur="0.7"/> you know a crucial thing for understanding the Annales as a phenomenon as an intellectual phenomenon because from <trunc>ninet</trunc> nineteen-forty-five nineteen-forty-six onwards <pause dur="0.3"/> they are at the heart of the sort of intellectual establishment they cut you know they storm the Bastille <pause dur="0.3"/> they've taken over the establishment <pause dur="0.4"/> they have now institutional power for implementing if you like for putting into effect <pause dur="0.3"/> for encouraging for stimulating <pause dur="0.3"/> this new kind of history <pause dur="0.2"/> right across the board and i think actually if you're interested in <pause dur="0.4"/> intellectual patronage i think you know these guys are <pause dur="0.9"/> experts at it they really do a very very <pause dur="0.3"/> # good job <pause dur="0.3"/> and what they try and introduce and the term is being used by Lucien Febvre <pause dur="0.4"/> quite <pause dur="0.5"/> quite a lot in the thirties but then particularly in the forties and fifties is <pause dur="0.9"/> in this sort of institutional <pause dur="0.5"/> framework where historians sit down with to <pause dur="0.2"/> to dinner and lunch and have a drink with sociologists and psychiatrists and all the rest of it <pause dur="0.4"/> let's go for a total history <pause dur="0.5"/> a history which brings it all in <pause dur="0.3"/> which isn't all those Seignobosian

you know politicocentred <trunc>na</trunc> narrative all the rest of it <pause dur="0.4"/> but which <pause dur="0.3"/> tries to sort of understand the past as an <trunc>ent</trunc> as a total entity <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="1.0"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> in nineteen-forty-nine <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> if you look at the editorials he says we've found the man <pause dur="0.6"/> for the next generation <pause dur="0.3"/> the dauphin <pause dur="0.3"/> if you like <pause dur="0.2"/> the succession <pause dur="0.2"/> for the Annales School <pause dur="0.5"/> will pass to a man called <pause dur="0.3"/> Fernand Braudel <pause dur="0.5"/> what we have worked for Lucien Febvre says is precisely the type of work <pause dur="0.3"/> which Braudel introduces in nineteen-forty-nine just as i've <pause dur="0.5"/> said in nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="0.3"/> you know there's a sort of like <pause dur="0.6"/> seismic shift if you like in the in the way in which history is practised in France <pause dur="0.4"/> in nineteen-forty-nine <pause dur="0.2"/> the appearance of Braudel his great work on the Mediterranean <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> offers a new <pause dur="0.5"/> # oh well a sort of in some ways a continuation and exemplification of the <pause dur="0.3"/> of the new <pause dur="0.3"/> # # of the new kind of history which Febvre and # Bloch have # outlined <pause dur="0.3"/> and allows us to go into <pause dur="0.6"/> part two <pause dur="0.4"/> the Annales <pause dur="0.2"/> the later years <pause dur="0.2"/> # which will be my <pause dur="0.2"/> # topic next week