¹ L'etrange défaite, témoignage écrit en 1940 (Paris, 1946)Google Scholar, published in English as Strange defeat: a statement of evidence written in 1940 (London, 1949)Google Scholar; and Apologie pour l'histoire ou métier d'historien (Paris, 1949)Google Scholar, published in English as The historian's craft (New York, 1953, and Manchester, 1954).Google Scholar Bloch also contributed an article on Feudalism to the Encyclopedia of the social sciences (New York, 1931).Google Scholar

² Feudal society (London and Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar; French rural history. An essay on its basic characteristics (London and Berkeley, 1966)Google Scholar, a translation of Les caractères originaux de l'histoire rural français (Oslo, 1931 and Paris, 1960–1961, 2 vols.Google Scholar, with additional material); Land and work in mediaeval Europe: selected papers (London and Berkeley, 1967)Google Scholar, taken from Mélanges historiques (2 vols., Paris, 1963)Google Scholar, a posthumous collection; The Ile-de-France (London and Ithaca, 1971)Google Scholar, a translation of an essay of the same name dating from 1913; The royal touch: sacred monarchy and scrofula in England and France (London, 1973)Google Scholar, a translation of Les rois thaumaturges. Etude sur le caractère surnaturel attribué à la puissance royale, particulièrement en France et en Angleterre (Strasbourg-Paris, 1924)Google Scholar; and Slavery and serfdom in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1975)Google Scholar, another collection of papers.

³ Plumb, J. H., The death of the past (London, 1969), p. 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar No mention is made in this book of Febvre or Braudel, let alone such tribute paid them, but it is the text of the Saposnekov lectures given at City College, New York, in 1968, and the author disclaims comprehensiveness.

⁴ Fernand Braudel, preface to: Mann, Hans-Dieter, Lucien Febvre. La pensée vivante d'un historien (Paris, 1971).Google Scholar

⁵ A geographical introduction to history (London, 1924)Google Scholar, a translation of La Terre et l'évolution humaine. Introduction géographique à l'histoire (Paris, 1922)Google Scholar; Martin Luther: a destiny (London and New York, 1930)Google Scholar, a translation of Un destin: Martin Luther (Paris, 1928)Google Scholar; and A new kind of history from the writings of Lucien Febvre, edited by Burke, Peter (London, 1973)Google Scholar, selected from three collections of papers, Combats pour l'histoire (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar; Au coeur religieux du XVIe siècle (Paris, 1957)Google Scholar; and Pour une histoire à pan entière (Paris, 1962)Google Scholar, the last two published posthumously. The papers themselves date from 1928 onwards. Among Febvre's books that still await translation, perhaps the most important are: Philippe II et la Franche-Comté. Etude d'histoire politique, religieuse et sociale (Paris, 1911)Google Scholar, the predecessor and model of the great regional studies by Goubert, Le Roy Ladurie and others, that have appeared since the Second World War; and Le problème de l'incroyance au 16e siècle. La religion de Rabelais (Paris, 1942)Google Scholar, a pioneering work in the history of ‘mentalités.’ Since writing this, a further selection of pieces has appeared in translation: Febvre, Lucien, Life in Renaissance France (edited by Rothstein, Marian (Cambridge, Mass., 1978)).Google Scholar

⁶ The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II (2 vols., London and New York, 1972–1973).Google Scholar The first French edition came out in 1949–50, and a revised edition in 1966. Civilisation matérielle et capitalisme. XVe–XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar was translated as Capitalism and material life 1400–1800 (London, 1973).Google Scholar

⁷ In addition to Plumb's book, referred to above, see Carr, Edward Hallett, What is history? The George Macaulay Trevelyan lectures (London, 1961)Google Scholar; and Marwick, Arthur, The nature of history (London, 1970).Google Scholar The last is still remarkably parochial in scope and tone, however; in a book which does attempt some kind of historiographical survey, Georges Lefebvre, Bloch and Febvre get token mention, but Braudel does not. Note should also be made here of the foundation of the review History and Theory in 1961Google Scholar, although it is mainly concerned with the philosophy of history in the narrow sense.

⁸ But there have been some collections of articles translated from Annales: Social historians in contemporary France. Essays from Annales, edited and translated by the staff of Annales (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Biology of man in history. Selections from the Annales, ed. Forster, R. and Ranum, O. (Baltimore and London, 1975)Google Scholar; and Family and society. Selections from the Annales (Baltimore and London, 1976).Google Scholar

⁹ A new kind of history, p. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy, Histoire du climat depuis l'an mil (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar; and Le territoire de l'historien (Paris, 1973)Google Scholar, part IV, a collection of studies of which the earliest dates from 1959; and a special issue of Annales, 29, no. 3 (1974). A revised edition of the first book has been translated as Times of feast, times of famine. A history of climate since the year 1000 (New York, 1971 and London, 1973).Google Scholar Two British geographers, G. Manley and H. H. Lamb, whose book, The changing climate appeared in 1966, have been pioneers in this field, but British historians have been much slower than their French counterparts to appreciate the relevance of their studies.

¹¹ The main pioneering monographs were: Louis Chevalier, La Formation de la population parisienne au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1950)Google Scholar; Henry, Louis, Anciennes familles genevoises. Etude démographique: XVIe–XXe siècle (Paris, 1956)Google Scholar; and Etienne Gautier et Louis Henry, La Population de Crulai, paroisse normande. Etude historique (Paris, 1958)Google Scholar, all Cahiers of the Institut National d'Etudes Démographiques founded in 1946; and Goubert, Pierre, Beauvais et le Beauvaisis de 1600 à 1730. Contribution à l'histoire sociale de la France du XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1960)Google Scholar, particularly part I, chapter III. The Société de Démographie Historique was founded in 1962, with Goubert as its president, and published Annales de Démographie Historique from 1965. The novel contribution of the French historical demographers stemmed from their nearly exclusive concentration on the early modern period, which led them to develop special techniques, such as family reconstitution, appropriate to the study of the pre-statistical era. These allowed a picture of general demographic structure (birth-rate, death-rate, age at marriage, family size, etc.) to be built up from intensive local studies. Almost none of their works have been translated. Of those which have, Louis Chevalier's Classes laborieuses et classes dangereuses à Paris pendant la première moitié du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1958)Google Scholar, translated as Labouring classes and dangerous classes (London, 1973)Google Scholar, is really a study in social psychology, while Goubert's Louis XIV et vingt millions de Français (Paris, 1966; and London, 1970) is mainly political history.Google Scholar

¹² See Drake, Michael (ed.), Population in industrialization (London, 1969)Google Scholar, in the series ‘Debates in economic history’ (Methuen), which brings together a number of important and characteristic studies by British and American scholars.

¹³ See Laslett's, TTie world we have lost (London, 1965)Google Scholar, a successful paperback, which preached the gospel of Henry and Goubert with unambiguous enthusiasm. Laslett was instrumental in setting up the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure in 1964. On the state of the subject in this country at the time, see Eversley, D. E. C., Laslett, Peter, Wrigley, E. A. et al. , An introduction to English historical demography, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century (London, 1966)Google Scholar, the first publication of the Cambridge Group.

¹⁴ See Ariès, Philippe, L'enfant et la vie familiale sous l'ancien régime (Paris, 1960)Google Scholar, translated as Centuries of childhood (London and New York, 1962)Google Scholar; Histoire des populations françaises et de leurs attitudes devant la vie depuis le XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1948 and 1971)Google Scholar; Western attitudes toward death from the Middle Ages to the present (Baltimore, 1974 and London, 1976)Google Scholar; and Essais sur l'histoire de la mort en Occident du Moyen Age à nos jours (Paris, 1975).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, for example, Lebrun, François, Les hommes et la mort en Anjou au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Essai de démographie et de psychologie historiques (Paris, 1971)Google Scholar; Vovelle, Michel, Piété baroque et déchristianisation. Les attitudes devant la mort en Provence au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1973)Google Scholar; and Vovelle, , Mourir autrefois. Attitudes collectives devant la mort au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1974).Google Scholar The period after the eighteenth century is still relatively neglected, however.

¹⁶ See, for example, the studies in Family and society; and Lebrun, François, La vie conjugale sous l'ancien régime (Paris, 1975)Google Scholar, a general introduction with bibliography. Special mention should be made here, too, of the work of Jean-Louis Flandrin, notably Les amours paysannes. Amour et sexualité dans les campagnes de l'ancienne France (XVIe–XIXe siècle) (Paris, 1975)Google Scholar; and Familles: parenté, maison, sexualité dans l'ancienne société (Paris, 1976)Google Scholar; and of an older work by Denis de Rougemont, L'Amour et l'Occident (Paris, 1939)Google Scholar, translated as Passion and Society (London, 1950).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Two works here that have been translated are: Mandrou, Robert, Introduction à la France moderne, 1500–1640. Essai de psychologie historique (Paris, 1961 and London, 1975)Google Scholar; and Foucault, Michel, Histoire de la folie à l'age classique (Paris, 1961)Google Scholar, which appeared in abridged form as Madness and civilization. A history of insanity in the Age of Reason (New York and London, 1967).Google Scholar On popular literature and literacy, see Mandrou, , De la culture populaire au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles: la Bibliothèque Bleue de Troyes (Paris, 1964)Google Scholar; Bollême, Geneviève, Les almanacks populaires aux XVIIe et XVIII siècles: essai d'histoire sociale (Paris–The Hague, 1969)Google Scholar, the first of a number of similar studies by this author; Furet, François et al. , Livre et société dans la France du XVIIIe siècle (2 vols., Paris–The Hague, 1965–1970)Google Scholar; and François Furet et Wladimir Sachs, ‘La croissance de l'alphabétisation en France (XVIIIe–XIXe siècles)’, Annales, 29 (1974).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Foucault's, Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison (Paris, 1975)Google Scholar has just been translated as Discipline and punish (London, 1977).Google Scholar For more typical approaches, see Abbiateci, A. et al. , Crimes et criminalité en France sous l'ancien régime, 17e–18e siècles (Paris, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy, Les paysans de Languedoc, 2 vols. (Paris, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The English translation, The peasants of Languedoc (Urbana–Chicago–London, 1974)Google Scholar, is of the abridged French edition of 1969.

²⁰ See, for example, from the modern period: Chalmin, Pierre, L'officier français de 1815 à 1870 (Paris, 1957)Google Scholar; Daumard, Adeline, La bourgeoisie parisienne de 1815 à 1848 (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar; and Gerbod, Paul, La condition universitaire en France au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1965), on secondary school teachers.Google Scholar

²¹ An English translation of the first volume of Goubert's L'ancien régime (2 vols., Paris, 1969 and 1973) appeared (London, 1973).Google Scholar

²² Two pioneers in quantitative history in France, extending the scope of Simiand's work on the history of prices at the start of the century, were Georges Lefebvre and Ernest Labrousse. Lefebvre's major work here was Les paysans du Nord pendant la Révolution Française (Paris, 1924)Google Scholar; while Labrousse's include: Esquisse du mouvement des prix et des revenus en France au XVIIIe siècle (2 vols., Paris, 1932)Google Scholar; and La crise de l'économie française à la fin de l'ancien régime et au début de la Révolution (Paris, 1944).Google Scholar

²³ See, for example, my ‘A view of the past: Action Française historiography and its socio-political function’, Historical Journal, XIX (1976).Google Scholar

²⁴ Historical escapism, however, was not a fault of the early Annales writers, concerned as they were with the relevance of history for the present, and Bloch was particularly critical of it; see Bloch, , L'etrange défaite, pp. 189–91.Google Scholar

²⁵ It is characteristic that French historians have shown much more interest in the Paris Commune of 1871 than they have in the Franco-Prussian War, of which it was, in a sense, an episode; also that they have largely neglected the First World War, though the special edition of the Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, xv (1968)Google Scholar, marked a new departure here. There are also signs of more interest now in modern administrative history, though it remains very much a minority concern: see Thuillier, Guy and Tulard, Jean, ‘L'histoire de l'administration du dix-neuvième siècle depuis dix ans, Bilan et perspectives’, Revue Historique, 258 (1977).Google Scholar

²⁶ See, for example, Corvisier, André, L'armée française de la fin du XVIIe siècle au ministère de Choiseul. Le soldat (2 vols., Paris, 1964).Google Scholar

²⁷ See also Braudel, , ‘Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue durée’, Annales XIII (1958)Google Scholar, reprinted in Ecrits sur l'Histoire (Paris, 1969), pp. 41–83.Google Scholar

²⁸ See, for example, Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., Structure and function in primitive society. Essays and addresses (London, 1952)Google Scholar, especially chapters IX and X, which are reprints of pieces dating from 1935 and 1940; and Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Essays in social anthropology (London, 1962)Google Scholar, chapter 1, ‘Social anthropology: past and present’, a lecture given in 1950. It is fair to add that, though his main work on the Nuer and the Azande was done in the structuralist–functionalist framework, Evans-Pritchard was an early advocate of some link between history and social anthropology; see chapter 3 of the same book, for example, a lecture on ‘anthropology and history’, given in 1961.

²⁹ For example, network analysis, for which see Boissevain, Jeremy, Friends of friends. Networks, manipulators and coalitions (Oxford, 1974).Google Scholar The weaknesses of this approach seem to be an underemphasis of determining structures, mental as well as institutional, and a reliance on a ‘Hobbesian’ model of human psychology that has no claim to universality.

³⁰ And some have become sociological historians like Charles Tilly (The Vendée (London, 1964))Google Scholar; and Anderson, Michael (Family structure in nineteenth-century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971)).Google Scholar

³¹ Notably Le Roy Ladurie, whose Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 à 1324 (Paris, 1975) has been a best-seller.Google Scholar

³² Thomas, Keith, Religion and the decline of magic. Studies in popular beliefs in sixteenth-and seventeenth-century England (London, 1971)Google Scholar and Macfarlane, Alan, Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England. A regional and comparative study (London, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The study of witch-hunting and witchcraft beliefs, of which these are only two examples, has been perhaps the main beneficiary of the application of the methods and concepts of social anthropology to European society of the past.

³³ Ladurie, Le Roy, Les paysans de Languedoc (1969 edition), pp. 225–30Google Scholar; and Bercé, Yves-Marie, Fête et révolte. Des mentalités populaires du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Essai (Paris, 1976), PP. 75–9.Google Scholar

³⁴ Keylor thus makes the same fundamental mistake as Stoianovich, which J. H. Hexter sees as a much more general failing among historians: they ‘have neglected systematically to investigate the writing of history’, as opposed to ‘the ideas of historians about the past’, and they have neglected the gap between theories about what history ought to be and the actual practice of writers of history books and articles; see Hexter, , ‘Some American Observations’, in Laqueur, Walter and Mosse, George L. (eds.), The new history: trends in historical research and writing since World War II (New York, 1967), pp. 21–2.Google Scholar

³⁵ See, for example, the two essays on Taine by Henri Sée, Science et philosophie de l'histoire (Paris, 1933), pp. 383–421Google Scholar, where Taine is defended against the critique of Aulard, A., Taine, historien de la Révolution Française (Paris, 1907)Google Scholar, and his role as an initiator acknowledged. Georges Lefebvre similarly declared in 1945–6 that Taine was ‘pour les historiens de la Révolution un initiateur, un éveilleur’. Lefebvre, , La naissance de l'historiographie moderne (Paris, 1971), p. 247.Google Scholar Taine's scholarship has recently been rehabilitated by François Leger; see Leger, , ‘Taine et Napoléon’, Anthinéa, Bulletin d'études historiques, I (1975), pp. 11–19.Google Scholar

³⁶ Henri Bremond's monumental Histoire littéraire du sentiment religieux en France depuis la fin des Guerres de Religion jusqu'à nos jours (11 vols., Paris, 1915–1933)Google Scholar, was a pioneer work in the history of ‘mentalités’. Gabriel Le Bras has been guide and mentor to a most distinguished generation of religious historians; his own most important works are probably: Introduction à l'histoire de la pratique religieuse en France (2 vols., Paris, 1942)Google Scholar and Etudes de sociologie religieuse (2 vols., Paris, 1955–1956).Google Scholar

³⁷ Monod, Gabriel, La vie et la pensée de Jules Michelet (Paris, 1923)Google Scholar; and Febvre, Lucien, Michelet (Geneva–Paris, 1946)Google Scholar, which does not figure in Orr's bibliography; see also, for example, Sée, Science, pp. 351–69Google Scholar, ‘Michelet et l'histoire-résurrection’, which, though critical of Michelet's use or rather neglect of essential sources, praises his search for synthesis; and Lefebvre, Naissance, chapter XII, where, despite reservations and the warning that he should not be taken as a model, Michelet is still said to be ‘le plus grand de nos historiens’ (p. 204).