annales and the writing of contemporary history_wesseling

8/11/2019 Annales and the Writing of Contemporary History_wesseling

1/11

Research oundation of SUNY

The Annales School and the Writing of Contemporary HistoryAuthor(s): H. L. Wesseling

Source:Review (Fernand Braudel Center),

Vol. 1, No. 3/4, The Impact of the "Annales" Schoolon the Social Sciences (Winter - Spring, 1978), pp. 185-194Published by: Research Foundation of SUNYfor and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240779.

Accessed: 03/09/2014 09:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Research Foundation of SUNYand Fernand Braudel Centerare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toReview (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 116.203.220.24 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:18:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rfsunyhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fbchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40240779?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40240779?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fbchttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rfsuny


2/11

Review, ,

3/4,

Winter/Spring

978,

185-194.

The

Annales

School

andtheWritingf

Contemporary

istory

H. L.

Wessettng

The Annales

have had

little or no

impact

on

the

writing

f

contemporary

history.

he

question

s

why

has

this

been

so.

This

question

has

two

different

aspects:

the

amountof

works heAnnales

historians ave done in

this

particular

field,

nd

the

degree

f

influence

hey

have had on

contemporary

istorians

n

general.

n

both

respects,

he

answer eemsto be the

same:

very

ittle.Contem-

porary

history

nd Annales

history

eem to

be

separated,

s if

by

an ocean.

A

simple

omparison

f

any

ssueof

the

Annales

with

n issue

of,

for

xample,

he

Journal

f

Contemporary

istory

willmake

this lear.

n

the

Journal f

Contem-

poraryHistory ne will find articles ealingwiththeCzech question n 1904,

British

trategy

n

Palestine,

N.A.T.O.

and the

M.L.F.,

and the

political

deas

of

Barrs;

n

the

Annales,

rticles

n

Portuguese

mysticism

n

the

eighteenth

en-

tury,

he

feast

n

Provence n

the seventeenth

entury,

irth ontrol n

sixteenth-

century

lorence,

nd

housing

n

Normandy

etween

1200

and

1800.

This

comparison

s

striking

or

two reasons.

First,

t s

amazing

hat

precisely

contemporary

istorians

hould have learned

nothing

rom

Annales. Are

they

then

like the

Bourbons,

who had

learned

nothing

and

forgotten othing?

Secondly,

he

discovery

f

a

general

ack of

nterest

y

the

Annaleshistoriansn

contemporary

istory

s an

astonishing

ne.

They

themselves ave maintained

that

the

spirit

f

Annales s marked

y

social

engagement

nd

concern or he

problems

hattrouble

contemporary

an. 1 Let us

explain

the world o the

Lucien

Febvre,

Combats

pour

l'histoire

Paris:

Lib.

A.

Colin,

1953),

42.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

186

H.

L.

Wesseling

world

through

istory,

n

the tersewords f

Lucien

Febvre.2

Let us

under-

stand the

present hrough

he

past,

in the

equally

sober

formulationf

Marc

Bloch.3

These are mottoes

which

sufficiently

llustrate heir

triving

or

ocial

relevance. hus theproblem s an intriguingne, and it is worthwhileoprobe

intothe

matter omewhat

eeper.

In

considering

he

contribution

f the Annales

to

contemporary

istory,

e

must

distinguish

etween

the Annales as a

group,

school,

an

institution,

nd

Annales as a

journal.

As

a

school

of

thought,

here

s

clearly

ontinuity.

n

the

work f

Bloch, Febvre, raudel,Goubert,

eRoy

Ladurie,Mandrou,

eGoff

and

many

more well-known ames

could

be

cited),

the

main

emphasis

has

always

been

on the Middle

Ages

and

early

modern

imes.This s

true

lso of

the theses

their

upils

nd of

the research

rojects

f the Centre

e

Recherches

istoriques.

From he

1920's

until

o-day,

he

continuity

s

remarkable.

In the case ofAnnales as a journal,thesituations different.his becomes

apparent,

f one

categorizes

he

subject-matter

f

the articles

n Annales

ccord-

ing

to the

period they

deal

with,

and then

considers

he

results ver

a

longer

stretch

f

time. n

doing

this,

have

appropriately

hosen the

ongue

dure,

t

least the

longest

possible:

since

1929.

Moreover,

have triedto

analyze

the

material

n

a

quantitative

or

serial)

way,

albeit without he use of a

computer.

The

results f this

homeopathic

method re found n

figures

and

2.

Figure

1. Modern

history

and

contemporary history

post-1815)

in

Annales,

1929-1976:

Page

volume

of

chronologically-defined

rticles

2#

Ibid.,

40.

*

Marc

Bloch,

Apologie pour

l'histoire

u

mtier

d'historien

Paris:

lib.

A.

Colin,

1966),

2nd

d.,

11.



4/11

Annales nd

Contemporary

istory

187

Figure

2.

Modern

History

and

Contemporary

History

n

Annales:

Page

Volume

under Various Editorial

Directors,

1929-76.



5/11

188

H. L.

Wesseling

Of course

these

figures

hould

be handledwith

are.

Several

problems

rise,

uch

as the

greatgrowth

n volume

of the

review

nd the

changing roportion

f

articles

s

against

maller ontributions.

rom the

1950's

on,

there s also

the

increasingarticipationf the other ocial sciences,whichdealpartlywith on-

temporary

ubject

matter.To

distinguish

hese from

history

proper

would

lead

us intoa

particularly

omplicated

nd scholastic

iscussion.

Hence

I have

ncluded hem

ll

(in

so

far

s

they

re

chronologically

efined)

in

contemporary

istory .

hus

these

ables

do whattables

eem

always

o do.

They

stress

he

obvious,

because

even

a

superficial

omparison

f the

first en

years

of

Annales

with

the last

ten

years

shows

a marked

hange

n character.

Annales

has become

more

theoretical,

more

bstract,

more cientific

f

you

will,

and less

engaged

nd

interested

n current

ffairs.

o

aversion

rom

olitical

nd

ideological

matters

xisted

under Bloch

and

Febvre,

nsofar

s

contemporary

historys concerned.4But after he 1950's, the aversionfrom hesematters

seems o be

total.

How is

this hift

f focus

o be

explained?

Possibly

the

answer

s

that,

from

he 1950's

on,

theories

bout

structural

history,

he

primacy

f the

longue

dure ,

and

the

equation

of

politics

with

events

and

thus

with

superficiality

have in

many

circles

been

raised

to

a

kind

of

dogma.

After

he

Bible,

inevitably

ollows

xegesis.

After

a Mditer-

rane,

nevitably

ollowed

he scholasticism

f structural

istory.

Meanwhile,

or

Annales

as

a

whole,

the

strong redilection

or

more

ncient

history

eems

o be

a

continuing

act.

Why

his

group

nanimously

omes

to

a standstill

t

the

magic

barrier

f

1

789

is a

question

we will

deal

with

ater. Before

hat,

here

s

the

question

s to

the

extentto whichcontemporaryistorians avebeen influencedy theAnnales

revolution.There

is

no need

to

demonstrate

t

length

that

contemporary

history,

articularly

wentieth-century

istory,

was

hardly

nfluenced

t

all,

either

n

subject

matter

or

in

method,

by

Annales.

Everyone

knows

that

in

contemporary

istory,

he

great

discussions

re

about

warand

diplomacy,

evo-

lutions

nd

ideologies.

Those

are

the

topics

which

occupy

the

prominent

isto-

rians.

The contents

f

special

ournals

such

as

the

Vierteljahreshefte

ur

Zeit-

geschichte

nd

the

Journal

f

Contemporary

istory ive

mple

evidence

f

this.

The

first

f these two

journals

has,

of

course,

quite

its own

history

nd

char-

acter,

which

s

why

we would

do better

o turn

o

the

Journal

f

Contemporary

History or comparison. neglance t the atter's ableof contentshows hat

over

78%

of the contributions

eal

with

political

history

n

the wide

sense

of the

word

Items

1-4 of

Table

1).

Two

other

ournals

hat

re

also devoted

mainly

o

contemporary

istory,

he

nternational

eview

of

Social

History

nd

theRevue

d'histoire

moderne

t

contemporaine

llustrate

more

or less the

same

phenom-

enon

see

Tables

1

and

2).

4*

Fcbvrc indeed reproachedthe authors of an Histoirede Russie that they

did

not

pay enough

attention

o

post-revolutionary

ussia.

Moreover,

n

founding

Annales,

Bloch

and

Febvrewanted

to

invite

men

involved

n the

workings

f

contemporary

ffairs,

uch

as

Albert

Thomas,

to

cooperate

with

hem.

See

Febvre,

ombats,

p.

cit.,

352.



6/11

Annales

nd

Contemporary istory

189

Table 1.

Subject

matter

n

fourhistorical

ournals

c h- +

matter

*

VIHZ

1953-76

IRSH

1956-76

RHMC

1954-76

JCH

1966-76

Subject

h- +

matter

* J


7/11

190

H.

L.

Wesseling

It would lead us too far

astray

to

dwell

on the

history

f

contemporary

history

nd the theoretical

iscussions

hat

have

accompanied

t. The

term,

incidentally,

s

ambiguous,

s it

can

refer ither

o

truly ontemporary

istory,

that of our own time,or history incethe French Revolution n the French

usage,

and

history

ince about

1900

in the

English.

n

this last sense

both

meanings

re

almost the

same, since,

for

most

living

historians,

he twentieth

century

may

be

regarded

s their

own

time.

The idea that

a

historian hould

concern

himselfwithhis own time

goes

back to

Thucydides,

nd has

also been

a

generally

ccepted

view

(and practice)

for

a

long

time.

Lessing

held the best

historian

was he who described

he

history

f

his

own

country

nd his own

times.5

t

was the

so-called scientific

istory

f

the ate nineteenth

entury

which

expelled

contemporary

istory

nd removed

er,

on

the

charge

f

being

unscientific,

rom

the domain

of

history.

Thus,

Annales

and

contemporary

history haredthe same foe. The positivisthistorians o scornedby Lucien

Febvre were the

same

as

those

arguing

hat the

recent

past

was

unfinishednd

therefore nfitfor

historical

crutiny.

ierre

Nora has

suggested

ome

possible

causes for

this.

He

quotes,

in

this

context,

report

f

1867

by

three

young

French

istorians

ho

argued

hat he

history

f

a

period

an

only

be

born

when

this

s

completely

losed.

They

concluded:

The domain of

history

s the

past.

The

present

belongs

o

politics

nd the

future

o

God. 6

Of

course,

his

tate-

ment not

only

reflects certain

view

of

contemporary

istory,

ut

also

of

history

n

general.

ts

distinctive

eatures

re

the

equation

of

politics

nd

history,

and

especially

he

linearvisionof time.

Time is

not

conceptual

but

real,

not

a

tool

forhistorical

nalysis

ut an

entity

n its own

right.

Thus contemporary istorywas expelledby the positivisthistorians. he

irony

of

fate was that

this

strong-willed

other,

oliticalhistory,

as

in

turn

dismissed

y

her

younger

isters,

ocial and

economic

history.

And so

contem-

poraryhistory, lready

xiled,

became

an

orphan

s

well.

n

spite

of

her

difficult

childhood,however,

he

orphan

developed

nto

an

amazingly

ital adult.

This

was

not

due to

historiographical,

ut to

political

nd

social

circumstances. he

great

roubles

f the

second

and

third ecades of our

century

war,revolution,

crises,

fascism

simply

demanded

an

answer

of

history. hey

were the

same

problems

which

nspired

he founders

f

Annales.

And

so,

in the

same

year

of

1929

when

Bloch

and Febvre founded

Annales,

the

English

historianR. W.

Seton-

Watson,

withhis

Plea forthe

Study

of

Contemporary istory, ave

he

first

mpulse

or he rehabilitationf

contemporaryistory.7

However,

lthough

born

from he

same

situation,

he two

trends oon

went

separate

paths,

apparently

everto be

reconciled

gain.

Annales

extended he

field f

modern

history,

ven

of

history

tself,

ubjected

t

to

theoretical

iscus-

sions,

ntroduced

methodological

nnovations,

nd

began

reshaping

t in

close

5*

On

Lessing,

ec

F.

W.

Pick,

ContemporaryHistory:

Method

and

Men,

History,

XXXI,

1,

Mar.

1946,

26-55.

*

See

Pierre

Nora,

Pour

une

histoire

ontemporaine,

n

Mlanges

en

l'honneur

e Fernand

Braudel,

(Toulouse: Privt, 973), I,

420.

7#

R. W.

Seton-Watson,

A Plea

for

the

Study

of

Contemporary

istory, History,

XIV, 1,

Apr.

1929,

1-18.



8/11

Annales

nd

Contemporary

istory

191

contact

with the other

social sciences.

Meanwhile,

ontemporary

istory

e-

mained a

captive

of

the

study

of

political

movements,

deologies,

vents,

nd

crises.

Thus,

as

it

were,

two historical ultures

developed:

one,

contemporary

history,mainlydescriptivend oriented owards vnements ,ivingby the

year

and

by

the

day,

strongly reoccupied

by

politics

and

ideologies,

nd

re-

volving

round axes

such as world

wars,

revolutions, ascism,

tc,;

the other

new

historiography,

ith broaderorientation

nd

analyzing

n

depth,

with

n

eye

for

he

constants f environmentnd

climate,

arge

geographical

nits,

co-

nomic

ycles,

nd social

structures,

nd

an inclination

o

the

ong

term.

The outcome

of

these

developments

was

surprising

n several

w'ays.

On

the

one

hand,

the

traditional haracter

f

contemporary

istory

was

sharply

llus-

trated

by

the

Annales

revolution,

o

that,

paradoxically,

he most

modern

history

urned

nto

the most archaic

field. On

the

other

hand,

the Annales

historiansontinuedworking,ll themore o as they ntroducedmethodological

innovations,

n the same

period

favored

y

the

positivist

istorians,

amely,

he

Ancien

Rgime.

Due

precisely

o

the

development

f

contemporary

istory

s

a

separate

and

important

ield

of

studies,

t

became

increasingly

lear

how

the

Annales

historians

ttuned

their

theoretical

oncepts

of

a

continuous,

emi-

permanent

istory

more nd

more

o one

specific

eriod.

After

this

attempt

t

an

analysis,

we

must

now

look

for

an

explanation.

Again,

wo

questions

re

raised:

why

has not

Annales

ntered

nto

the

domain

of

contemporary

istory,

nd

why

have

contemporary

istorians

earned

o

little

from nnales?

The fact

thatAnnales

has

had so

little

oncern

for

ontemporary

istory

as

been noted by others.The explanationgivenby some of them,thatthis s

merely

ccidental,

n

outcome

of

the

personal

nterests

f the

great

masters8

does

not

seem

satisfactory,

specially

or

Annales

s

ajournai,

because

there

we

have seen

in

any

case a

certain

hift

f

focus.

An

explanation

f this

kind

eems

more

applicable

to

Annales

as

a

school,

in which

context

one

may point

to

institutional

actors,

he

founding

f the

Vie Section

n

1947,

with

ts

expanding

institutes

nd

strictly-controlled

unds,

nd

also

to

such

social

factors

n

French

academic

ife s the

patronal

radition

the

system

f

le

patron

t

son

cercle

so

well

lluminated

y

Clark

n

his

nteresting

nalysis).9

Much more

fundamental

s the

problem

put

forward

y

Groh

and

Iggers,

namely hat theAnnalesconception f a semi-permanentistory histoire

m-

mobile )

is

itself

ery

much

tailored

for

pre-industrial

ociety,

not suitablefor

the

explication

of

social

change,

and

not

very

workable

with

respect

to

the

technical-industrial

ge.10

If

this

s

true,

t

might

lso

lead

us

to

the

answer

f

the second

question,

why

contemporary

istory

as

taken

over

so

little

of

the

Annales

pproach.

8#

For this

explanation,

ec

G.

G.

Iggers,

Die

'Annales'

und

ihre

Kritiker.

roblme

moderner

ranz-

sischer

ozialgeschichte,

istorische

eitschrift,

LXIX,

1974,

603.

9#

T.

N.

Clark,

Prophets

nd

Patrons.

The

French

University

nd

the

Emergence

f

the

Social

Sciences,

(Cambridge:

Harvard

University

ress,

1973).

10#

Iggers,

p.

cit.;D.

Groh,

Stmkturgeschichte

ls

totale'

Geschichte?

Viertelijahrsschrift

urSozial-

und

Wirtschaftsgeschichte,

VHI,

1971,

289-322.



9/11

192

H. L.

Wesseling

This, however,

orces s

to

a

prior uestion,

what

s

to be understood

n

this

context

by

the Annales

approach.

t

is not

a

simple

question.

First,

ecause,

contrary

o

the title

of

this

conference,

nnales

has

always

remained

group

rather han a school,withmarked ndividualdifferences.econdly,because

there re

differences

etween

the

various

periods

earlier

nd

later)

of Annales.

Finally,

because,

individually,

oo,

differing

oints

of

view

are to

be

noted

n

different

ritings.

ut n this

ontext,

am not nterestedo much

n the

history

of

ideas of

Annales as in a

social

history

f their

deas;

that

s,

not what

various

Annales

historians ave

stated at

one time or

another,

ut

what

has

trickled

through

nd became

established

mong

historians

n

general

s the

message

f

Annales.

This

set of

ideas

would

thenboil

down

to certain

notions,

ften m-

plicit

rather

han

explicit,

bout

structures ,

conjonctures ,

vnements ,

and their

ierarchization,

bout

the

primacy

f

the

longue

dure ,

he

nsignifi-

cance of politicsand events . These views are bound to createproblems or

contemporary

istorians. ot

because

contemporary

istory

ould

by

definition

be

political

or

event

history ,

nor,

for that

matter,

ecause

political

history

itselfwould be

condemned o

dealing

with

events

nly.1

The

point

s rather

that,

n

contemporary

istory,

aken

from

now on

in

ts

Anglo-Saxon

ense,

he

political

and the

event have takenon a

fundamentally

ifferent

eaning.

Here we

are faced

with an

important pistemological roblem,

amely

hat

there s no

immanent

knowledge

of

the

past.

The

various

nterpretations

f

historians annot

be

held

up

directly

gainst

he

past

to findout

which

de-

scription

est

renders

reality.

n

other

words,

t is not

the

past

itself

which

determines he

relative

mportance

f

events,

but the historian

who decides

whichof themyriad vents re to be selected and elevated o the status f a

historical act.

till,

n this

process

f

selection,

he historians

guidedby

certain

criteria.

he most

important

f

these can be

defined

imply

s this:

what has

influenced

ecisively

he

fate

of

mankind? With this criterion

n

mind,

the

Annales view

is

acceptable,

both

scientifically

nd

humanistically,

ecause it

focuses on all

mankind

nstead of a

small

upper

layer,

nd

it states that the

constantfactors

f

geography

nd

climate,

nd the

slow roll of the

economic

tides have

been the

primary

lement n

determining

heir ives.

The

appropriate

framefor

such an

analysis

of this

kind is indeed a

geographical

nd not a

political

one

(La

Mditerrane).

he central hemeof

history

ecomes the sub-

mission o nature nd thestruggleomaster t (theCivilisationmatrielle). ere,

in

short,

ocial

history

s total

history.

But

how

does this

criterion

pply

to

contemporary istory?

As

a

point

of

departure,

et

us

take

a

famous

entence

from

a

Mditerrane.

bout

political

and

military

ventswe read:

Events re

dust.

They

traverse

istory

s

flashes f

light.

carcely

re

they

born

when

hey

eturn o

darkness,

ften o

oblivion. 1

If,

albeit with

some

hesitation,

ne

accepts

this

passage

n

its

context,

hen

t

would

be

difficult

o

generalize

t and

to

accept

that n

the twentieth

entury

1 1#

Sec

J.

Julliard,

La

Politique,

in

J.

LeGoff,

Pierre

Nora, eds.,

Faire

de

l'histoire

Paris:

Gallimard,

1974), II, 231.

12

F.

Braudel,

La

Mditerrane t

le

monde

mditerranen

l'poque

de

Philippe

I

(Paris:

Lib. A.

Colin,

966),

2nd

d.,

I,

223.



10/11

Annales

nd

Contemporary

istory

193

too,

war and

revolution,

iplomacy

nd

dictatorship

re

merely

ipples

n the

surface,

which

do

not

essentially

nfluence

eoples'

lives,

nd never ouch the

slow undercurrentf

the

ongue

dure.

On

the

contrary,

t seems

hat he once

so

superficial

ventshave

undergone

qualitative

hange,

now that

they

havea

direct

mpact

upon

the

ives

of millions.

emi-permanent

ime

s

affected

y

the

acceleration

f

history.

roblems

rise fromman's

mastery

ver

nature

ather

than

fromhis submission

o it.

The

potentialities

f

power

over

man as

well

as

naturehave become so

great

hat he mostvital

problem

s no

longer

he

striving

to increase

ower,

but

how,

and

by

whom,

t is to

be exercised.

Here,

n

short,

not social

but

political

history,

hat

s,

the

history

f

power,

s total

history.

If

this

hypothesis

s

true,

then the

Annales

conception

eads

to

major

pro-

blems not

only

in the

explanation

f social

change,

s Groh

and

Iggers

have

stated,

ut

also

in

the

nterpretation

f

the

contemporary

orld. uch

authors

s

Barracloughnd Romeinhave abelledtheyears1880-1900as a watershed r

breukvlak

break

of

continuity)

n

history,

nd

have maintained

hat,

with

them,

a new

age

has

opened

up.ls

One

might

describe

his

as the

technical-

industrial

ge

but

also

as the

age

of

mass

politics.

For

the

point

is

that

the

Industrial

evolution

as led not

only

to

a

mastery

ver

nature

and thus

o

a

liberation

f

mankind

but also

to

a concentration

f

power

nd

thus

o a

new

submission.

While,

previously,

he will

to

power

had

been

restricted

y

the

limitations

n its

exercise,now,

through

he technical

evolution,

hese

imita-

tions

have

practically

anished.

n this

way

the

ndustrial

evolution

as ed

to

a

political

evolution,

hat

s,

a revolution

n

the

very

nature

f

politics.

This

process,

which

have called

the

politicization

f the

world,

ives

ontem-

porary

istory

ts

unique

character.14 he distinguishingark f thehistoryf

the Western

orld

from he

long

16e

sicle

on

has

been,

first,

he

separation

of a

public

domain

out of the

original

lend

of

politics,

conomy,

ulture,

nd

so on: der

Staat

als

Kunstwerk ,

n Burckhardt's

ords.And

then,

n the

ate

nineteenth

entury,

he

reunion

f the

two

domains,

tate

and

society,

ut

n a

new

hierarchy:

he state

had won

out

over

society.

Politics

was

no

longer

ne

modest

ector

of

public

ife.

The

word

had

come

to

imply

he domination

f all

the

society.

Therefore,

olitical

history

an

no

longer

be an

appendix

n the

book

of structural

istory.

On

the

contrary,

he

dialectic

between

state

and

society

s

the

main heme

f

a structural

ontemporary

istory.

Looking t thedevelopmentfAnnales ndofcontemporaryistoryutlined

here,

we

reach a somewhat

aradoxical

onclusion.

The

positivist

istorians

f

the late

nineteenth

entury,

ascinated

y

the

growth

f

the

power

and the

machinery

f the

state,

reduced

history

o

a tale

of

politics

nd

diplomacy.

or

the

history

hey

tudied,

hat

of

the

sixteenth

o

eighteenth

enturies,

hiswas

Geoffrey

arraclough,

n

Introduction

o

Contemporary

istory

London:

Pelican,

967); J.

Romein, p

het

breukvlak

an wee euwen

Leiden:

Brill,

967).

14#

See

my

Les

transformations

u

'World

ystem'

la

fin

u

19e

sicle

t

l'empire

olonial

er-

landais, uropa, , 1, Nov.1977,37-49;and EuropeanExpansion.omereflectionsn

a

colloquium

and a

theme,

n E L

Wesseling,

d.,

Expansion

nd

Reaction.

ssays

n

European

xpansion

nd

Reactions

n

Asia

and

Africa

y

F.

Braudel,

.

Brunschwig,

.

N.

Eisenstadt,

.

C.

Heesterman,

.-L.

Mige,

R.

Robinson,

.

Schffer,

.

L.

Wesseling,

nd

E. lurcher

The

Hague:

Leiden

Univ.

ress,

977).



11/11

194

H. L.

Wesseling

an anachronism.

nd

the

history

f their

own

times

they

did not

study.

The

achievement

f

the Annales revolution

as

been

that

they exposed

this ana-

chronism nd introduced he

history

f man instead

of that of the

state.

But,

thoughrevolutionariesn this respect,they were conservatives*n another,

because

they,

oo,

hardly

rossed he

threshold f

the

nineteenth

entury,

nd

hence

developed

historical ulturewhich

had

its

own

chronological

imitations.

The

paradox

now is

that

the

positivist

istorians ere

nstinctivelyight

n

their

discovery

f

politique

d'abord ,

but

they

made

the mistake f

projecting

his

discovery

ack onto

earlier

ges.

The

Annales historianswere

right

o dismiss

this

anachronism,

ut threaten o fall nto a

new

one,

when

they

proclaim

he

validity

f their

oncepts

for

ontemporaryistory

s

well.

The moral

of

this

story

can be short.The

Annales

history

f

the

contem-

porary age

remains

yet

to be written.

f

it

is

written,

t will not be Annales

history.But contemporary istorycan no longerbe writtenwithouttheAnnales.

annales and the writing of contemporary history_wesseling

Documents