Draft:French historiography

French historiography (Historiographie française) is the historiographic study of the methods of French historians in developing history as an academic discipline, the differing views among French historians, and how their views have shifted over time about a topic.

Until the last quarter of the 20th century, French historians seemed to have little interest, or even "disdain", for the history of their own profession, although this has changed since then.

Scope
This article is about the study of history as done by French historians. Although France is evidently a major topic of study and occupies a large portion of French historiography, it is not the only topic that attracts French historians, and those other topics are within scope and covered in this article as well.Subtopics such as, , , or are about those historical topics as subjects viewed by French historians of any age, and in particular, do not encompass what other topics historians alive during a given period happened to be studying.

By definition, studies by historians of other nationalities are generally out of scope, except for brief examples or treatments insofar as they may clarify or elucidate French views; the is an example of this. Contrast this with the topic historiography of France, which would be an overlapping, but separate topic, which would include many non-French historians writing about France.

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

The meaning of historiographie in French hews closer to what the decomposition from Greek would indicate; i.e, one who writes history, than the English word does. In French, the word historiographe ("historiographer") came first, in the 13th century, derived from Greek historiographos, meaning "historian". (The French historien, also meaning "historian", and also from the 13th century, is derived from the Latin historia, which in turn is from the Greek historia, meaning "research, inquiry".) The French historiographie is from the 15th century, derived from the earlier historiographe, and means, "the work of a historian", and it is here that the English meaning diverges from the French.

In English, historiography has come to mean "the study of the writing of history" and not "the writing of history" itself; this contrasts with the French meaning which is simply the latter. So, where the French word historiographie is simply the writings of historians, the English word is about the study of such writings. Furthermore, to render the English sense of historiography in French, one must say, l'histoire de l'historiographie (literally, "the history of historiography").

In this article, when the word "historiography" appears unquoted in English, it means "the study of the writings of historians".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other schools
The nationalist school emerged in the 19th century under Adolphe Thiers and François Mignet.

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

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

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

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

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

Gaulish and Frankish origins


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

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

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

Charles de Gaulle alluded to this in his view of Gallic ancestry. (See ).

Who was the first French king?
"First French king" Clovis vs. Charles the Bald as first "French" king

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

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

Concept of nation
Before the 18th century, it was used primarily in a non-political sense meaning "a group of people of the same origin". Universities such as U. of Paris were organized in four nations (natio, in medieval times): French, Normans, Picards, and the English, and later the Alemannian nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feudal transformation
"French medievalists are currently locked in animated debate about a 'feudal transformation' in the late tenth century, and the emergence after the millennium of a fundamentally different sociopolitical order."

Renaissance
Renaissance historiography as a subset of French historiography is about the concept of how French historians study and view the Renaissance, irrespective of what era the historians are writing in, which country they are writing about, or what terms they used to describe it.

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

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

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

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

19th century

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

Second Empire (1852–1870)
Content.

Franco-Prussian War
Opinions of French historians about the Franco-Prussian War underwent a change.

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

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

"Culture of war"
The historiography of war in Europe and in France in particular had always been concerned chiefly with the political fallout of war, and maintained a rather strict separation between those soldiers fighting at the front, and the civilians they were protecting back at home. This was certainly the case with respect to French historical approaches to the First World War. In the 1990s, largely in response to the work of British historian George Mosse and his ''Fallen Soldiers. Reshaping the Memory of the World War'', French historiography underwent a change in approach. This was particularly the case with historians at the research Museum of the Great War, who, in their exhibitions, sought to integrate the experience of civilians in the Great War with the soldiers at the front; understanding the links between them was essential in order to understand the war. Viewing it from the point of view of the average person, rather than the military or political leaders, offered an alternative approach for viewing events as a "culture of war" (culture de guerre). One could draw a straight line from Mosse's work, through the museum, to the historiographical evolution in France about the First World War.

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

Vichy syndrome
Robert Aron's history of France under Vichy described Vichy France as a nation of people fully supportive of the Resistance with the exception of a few traitorous exceptions. According to Pierre Nora, Henry Rousso flipped the script, and viewed France under Vichy as generally collaborationist, with the exception of a few heroes.{{sfn|Nora|1995|p=488–

May 1968


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marc Bloch




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

Lucien Febvre


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

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

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

Charles-Victor Langlois
His 1898 work Introduction aux études historiques with co-author is considered one of the first comprehensive manuals discussing the use of scientific techniques in historical research, He was an important figure in the  ('methodical school').

Georges Lefebvre


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

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

Léon Poliakov


Specializing in World War II and antisemitism.

Ernest Renan


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

Henry Rousso


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

See also above.

Adolphe Thiers


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

Notes and references

 * Notes


 * Citations