In chapter 3, Burke describes the second generation of the Annales school and in particular Braudel. Braudel's monumental The Mediterranean was greatly influenced by the Annales school and their journal. I found interesting that a historian Febvre attacked often named Friedrich Ratzel greatly influenced Braudel and his work on The Mediterranean. Burke brought up an interesting evaluation about Braudel's book. Burke wrote that although Braudel tried to write a "total history", Braudel had little to say about attitudes, values etc. It seems that when ever a historian writes a radical new perspective on a topic, readers and critics tear it apart. After Febvre's death in 1956, Braudel became the de-facto leader of the Annales school. Chapter three also includes a part on Ernest Labrousse, who started to introduced Marxism into the Annales school.
my question is when does a radical, new perspective on history become a important piece of historical writing?
Chapter 4 deals with the third generation of the Annales school and it should be pointed out that this generation took shape in the years following 1968. This new generation did not want one historian dominating the spotlight like Febvre and Braudel did. The third generation also included women historians, including Mona Ozouf who we have studied. They broke away from France and started to study abroad, including America. There were three themes that Burke talked about: mentalities, cultural history, and historical anthropology. Historians like Aries and Delumeau is discussed. Burke talks about the changing trends in history at the time and how that influenced the newer generation of the Annales.
My question is what generation, if any, is left of the Annales school?
No comments:
Post a Comment