In chapter one of Burkes book he speaks about how history was typically written. He goes into depth about how history is typically written in a various types of genres such as, monastic chronicle, the political memoir, the antiquarian treatise, and so on. He then began to speak about how the romans integrated a socio-cultural form into a history narrative. This is a basic overview of how other wrote history which I found quite interesting how he breaks down different aspects from different ways of writing history. For example, he notes that the economic historian were the most organized, and in the 1900's france's history was up for a debate.
Chapter two speaks of the Annales School and its beginning. Burke then begins to explain Febvre and Bloch's background and how they came to work together to form this new way of looking at history. The two of these men then began to focus on focal points in history such as the royal touch, or the renaissance and reformation period. After focusing on things like this the two men realized that people were not looking at history from every point of view that could be looked at.
What are some things that we may not know if the Annales form of looking at history was not made?
No comments:
Post a Comment