nm0091: right that's a clash with something i was going to announce so [0.7] 
Wednesday first of December what's coming around if if you're interested or 
think you might be interested [0.5] in er continuing er and doing a [0.4] an M-
A course er and maybe [0.8] going on from there doing research or whatever [0.
8] er [0.6] we are have a session next er [0.5] week for you [0.2] er so [0.6] 
no obligation so just pop along if you're interested and you'd like to know 
more about it basically [0.6] er [0.7] tomorrow afterno-, er next er week [0.3] 
er first of December [0.2] in the afternoon [0.3] er if you can't make any of 
those times and er [0.4] would like to see the people obviously you can drop in 
at another time but that that's the idea is to sort of just give you a [0.8] a 
general [0.3] sort of intr-, in-, [0.3] introduction to the idea of er [0.6] er 
[0.2] carrying on in the academic world rather than getting into the outside 
world [0.6] er [1.0] some of us have never got out you see so we er [0.5] can't 
imagine why anyone else would but er [0.3] no it's a good thing have a have a 
look at it 
nm0091: 
the Annales the early years sounds like some sort of epic doesn't it you know 
like Godfather one [0.4] the Annales year [0.5] year one or the early years [0.
4] er [0.5] i always start a sort of started with three men and a journal but 
the way i want to start it is with i [0.3] tell this story it's completely true 
[0.5] i i went to this er lecture [0.2] it's now about eighteen months ago [0.
5] which was the worst lecture by a historian i have ever seen in my entire 
life i know you've experienced a few [laughter] you think but i tell you this 
was stellar [0.3] this was absolutely stellar [0.5] and it was by [0.5] someone 
who's widely believed to be one of the greatest historians in er [0.3] er 
practising today [0.2] and because he was [0.2] you know a great man [0.6] 
enormous quantities of people were there it was in the senate house in [0.2] er 
of every historian you've ever read i think who's still alive was there 
watching this thing [0.6] and he's introduced [0.3] and he's a French guy and 
he spoke with a sort of [0.2] slightly Antoine de Caune accent which added to 
the ch-, sort of charm of the occasion [0.4] er obviously [0.4] and he 
spoke complete [0.2] drivel [0.6] [laughter] it was absolutely amazing [0.4] 
most of it related to a an overhead [0.4] which he had which was a graph and as 
graphs do it went up [0.2] and then it came down and then went up again and 
then it went down [0.4] and the entire [0.3] hour was spent with him sort of 
saying [0.5] and it goes up here [0.6] [laughter] and [0.2] he obviously didn't 
know how to sort of turn his own graph p-, er his own O-H-P so he had a man in 
a j-, sort of uniform a flunkey [0.4] [laughter] with a sort of [0.4] crest who 
sort of march out and sort of like take and put on the next one [0.4] up [0.2] 
down you know and then he'd sort of talk about this it was absolutely terrible 
[0.5] of course he hadn't realized which [0.5] you know is one of the early 
techniques they tell us when we're learning to be lecturers that you actually 
[0.2] point at something [0.5] on the O-H-P machine you know and you can see 
the finger it's [0.4] so he didn't realize this absolutely enormous lecture 
theatre the O-H-P was about twenty feet high [0.4] and he had a small stick and 
he 
was jumping up [laughter] pointing up [0.4] down up [0.4] and it was absolutely 
and of course you know at these occasions like this [0.5] you know great man 
everyone's real like really embarrassed [0.2] [laughter] really really truly 
embarrassed [0.4] so whenever he cracked a joke [0.3] there was like [0.3] 
hysterical laughter [laughter] you know just like that actually [0.2] and then 
it stopped you know you knew that everyone was think-, oh my God we've got to s-
, sort of go back to it [0.6] and you know at the end of it and everyone 
applauded and [1.0] er [0.2] w-, said what a great lecture it was at the end of 
it obviously because he is a great man [0.4] and that is the moral of the story 
we were all sitting there and suffering [0.5] because this guy is supposed to 
be the living [0.4] embodiment of the Annales School [0.3] whose early years [0.
4] my link [0.3] er we will be talking about today he was Emmanuel Le Roy 
Ladurie [0.3] as i say a very very fine historian on a terrible off day [0.5] 
and the only reason as i say people were there people were so respectful people 
were so silent people laughed at his jokes [0.5] er people didn't tell him how 
appalling it all was [0.3] was because [0.2] of this sort of sense of er [0.3] 
awe almost or certainly [1.0] incredible respect which people have for the [0.
4] Annales [0.3] tradition which he as i say is the sort of latest embodiment 
for so this is serious stuff this is stuff [0.5] if you like that historians 
take with that sort of [0.4] er er seriousness when [0.2] c-, you know when 
faced by a [0.4] a bad lecture of these stellar proportions they s-, they still 
hang on i-, [0.2] hang on in there [0.9] so [0.5] people put up with it because 
as i say he's a a living embodiment [0.3] of a historical tradition which is [0.
3] revered [0.2] the Annales [0.5] er [0.4] which i guess we would say since 
over the last fifty years if we took it back say to the Second World War [0.4] 
we'd say with Marxism [0.2] it's probably been the most influential [0.6] er [0.
5] what should we say tradition of historical [0.2] scholarship [0.5] er in [0.
3] er in world history not just in England but in fact in England in some ways 
it's not as [0.4] important as as elsewhere [0.4] but in w-, in global [0.3] er 
[0.3] er terms [1.1] 
in nineteen-forty-five [0.5] it was still very much a French [0.2] er thing and 
i think [0.4] the early years which i'll sort of take through to the to 
nineteen-forty-five this er [0.5] er today [0.3] will be about er [1.4] er that 
sort of French phase if you like but it's in the [0.4] fifties and particularly 
the sixties and seventies that the [0.6] the tradition [0.3] er the school the 
Annales School [0.4] goes global [0.2] gets an enormous er sort of er er wide 
le-, wide er [0.4] er level of er respect across the world and it's a form of 
[0.4] social history a form of social history [0.2] and that's something i'd 
hold on to and talk about [0.4] which is very much admired [0.3] and very much 
emulated and what we're looking at today is the origins of that [0.4] er 
movement as i say as [0.2] in the last fifty years incredibly influential [0.3] 
among er historians [0.4] and it starts around [0.3] a journal [0.4] a journal 
which still runs and which er [0.5] now i'm going to do what i this terrible 
lecture did and sort of point upwards [0.3] er but er [0.3] which starts in 
nineteen-twenty-nine [1.2] has gone through a number of titles it's changed its 
titles i 
couldn't remember the exact date actually but a few years ago [0.5] er now [0.
5] er [0.2] and [0.8] a journal which has had a very [0.3] great [0.2] level of 
[0.2] continuity [0.5] and consistency [0.3] in editorial policy we still re-, 
have it in the er you know every every history department [0.4] which has a 
library [0.2] has the Annales and we have the Annales so you can go and check 
it out and we've got it back i think in a-, in in this library through to the 
forties i don't think we go back to nineteen-twenty-nine but you can get the 
whole set in most [0.6] er most er er libraries which go back that far [0.7] 
and [1.3] its foundation [0.3] in [0.4] er [0.7] nineteen-twenty-nine by two 
men [0.4] er Lucien Febvre [0.6] who is b-, er [0.6] the editor from the early 
years and died in nineteen-fifty-eight [0.3] and Marc Bloch [0.4] the er [0.2] 
medieval historian who was killed by the [0.4] er Nazis in er nineteen-forty-
four [0.8] and [0.2] the other great figure [0.3] er of the Annales Fernand 
Braudel [0.5] which before he died in the early nineties he he was you know [0.
5] the heir to the Annales tradition which Le Roy Ladurie has followed up on [0.
5] er [0.4] who was the editor of the er [0.2] who [0.2] er [0.7] no 
sorry that's not er that's a mistake he's editor from er the late forties [0.3] 
er through to er [1.1] his death in the nineties so a sort of tremendous [0.5] 
er [0.3] continuity and then this man here Emmanuel [0.4] Le Roy Ladurie [0.3] 
who comes on stream in the nineteen-sixties and is still in fact on the 
editorial [0.4] er board [0.7] so [0.4] a n-, [0.2] a tradition if you like i 
mean i've been to [0.3] it's one of those things where when there's a 
conference people say [0.5] well let's get s-, [0.2] get some member of the 
Annales [0.2] tradition to talk about the Annales School [0.5] and so they c-, 
they have the lecture [0.3] heading the Annales School by Le Roy Ladurie or 
whoever [0.3] and the first thing they always say is there is no Annales School 
it's not a school it's a scholarly tradition [0.3] it's a [0.4] you know a 
school suggests there's a doctrine [0.2] and as we see [0.9] you know a single 
doctrine or a dogma [0.4] is something which it doesn't have the er but on the 
other hand it has a sort of r-, [0.2] approach which is consistent enough for 
people to sort of pick it out [0.3] as a tradition if you like or a school of 
er 
school of thinking [0.5] and it represents and it represented i think in 
nineteen-twenty-nine [0.7] what Lucien Febvre actually sort of s-, [0.2] 
thought he was doing he described it as [0.2] a new kind of history [0.9] so 
let's put that on the board and put it in [0.9] inverted commas [9.0] a new 
kind of history but [0.2] quote from Lucien [0.3] Febvre [0.9] pan in [0.2] you 
know as this is the you know we're doing this filmically after all [0.4] pan in 
o-, in nineteen-twenty-nine to a small Parisian garret actually i'm making this 
up [laughter] now i don't know [laughter] nineteen-twenty-nine two men however 
in are are sort of sitting round a table at least er [0.3] er together talking 
about this new journal that they're going to establish [0.5] one is Lucien 
Febvre [0.2] who's er a sixteenth century er specialist the other is the 
medievalist very distinguished [0.3] as he becomes [0.4] er Marc Bloch they're 
young men [0.4] they survey the histori-, the histor-, historical scene as i'm 
sure some of my younger colleagues do today [0.4] and they look around and they 
say well look at 
all those bloody fuddy-duddies at the top of this er [0.3] this m-, this er 
academic establishment [0.5] you know they've been trained in another 
generation they have a sense er they are out of touch with interesting things 
that are going on [0.4] er in the in the world [0.3] what they do in nineteen-
twenty-nine they look round and say well [0.4] the the sort of high spots of 
the historical profession are in the Sorbonne [0.2] you know sort of Paris er 
university [0.5] er [0.5] represented by er actually [0.4] in many ways looking 
back at what is a very fine historian but who becomes a sort of like whipping 
boy for [0.5] er hang on [0.2] sorry i'm s-, completely misspelling that [1.1] 
er Seignobos [1.8] Charles Seignobos [0.3] good historian but for them [0.5] 
you know [0.6] the [0.2] the worst imaginable influence on history [0.4] at the 
Sorbonne because [0.3] the type of history [0.3] that he represents and the 
type of history that he does represent [0.5] is we on this course would say 
would be essentially Rankean [0.2] i guess it would be that [0.6] the historian 
by now has become even more professionalized because there are 
universities with university history departments in a way that there weren't 
when Ranke wrote [0.5] where people specialize in particular periods so we have 
an intense sense of specialism [0.6] er where the history is text based [0.2] 
usually [0.4] based on texts in archives which are drawn from official 
government er repositories [0.7] government theref-, er sorry er history 
therefore which is essentially small scale in its orientation [1.6] er [0.4] 
not only small scale but [0.3] you would say perhaps they didn't use the word 
but politicocentric [0.2] in which politics is absolutely at the heart of what 
they do just as it di-, it was for [0.4] for von Ranke [0.5] er [0.8] a 
minister [0.7] dies a king [0.8] rises to power [0.3] er a mistress falls from 
power or whatever you know that so that type of [0.7] history [0.4] which is 
moreover narrative highly narrative in its er mode of exposition [0.2] sh-, 
tells a story if you like the story is a chronicle of er [0.3] of the state if 
you like or the politics of the state [0.8] er history which is intensely 
Eurocentric [0.6] in other words where [1.2] what is of 
you know what historians do is European history [0.4] first of all and secondly 
when they look outside Europe it's nearly always [0.3] with the [0.4] er 
imperial [0.3] er gesture [0.2] about their their they their their view of the 
rest of the world so the rest of the world just comes into the story [0.3] the 
narrative if you like [0.3] as [0.2] places to be subjected to European power 
that is why they're in history if you like so intensely Eurocentric [1.8] 
highly positivistic by which we mean shall we say [0.5] emphasizing a cult of 
facts and these facts are derived from archives and they're put together by the 
historian out there [0.3] trying to find out how things really were [0.3] just 
a little [0.9] motto from the past there [0.5] er [0.5] and put together in 
this narrative mode and so the historian's like a sort of [0.5] er you know the 
historian's out there on the beach the beach is the archive and you pick up the 
pebbles and you sort of like take them home and you arrange them in a sort of 
like [0.3] a beach-like structure and that's that's your er [0.3] that's what 
the historian does 
or he's like a butterfly collector if you like he collects the butterflies [0.
6] puts them in a nice little case that's that's history it's small scale it's 
sa-, safe [0.3] it is p-, highly professional [0.6] it is [0.7] these two men 
say intensely boring [0.8] you know i mean it's got its skills it's got its 
expertise you know it has its place in the world all the rest of it it s-, 
feels confident [0.4] about itself [0.6] but in nineteen-twenty-nine [0.5] is 
history shi-, [0.2] m-, purely and simply about butterfly collection if you 
like or pebble [0.4] er amassing er pebbles after all this is a moment of 
intense [0.5] er turbulence [0.3] er in not just European history [0.2] or 
French history [0.3] although it is in that but in world history is too 
nineteen-twenty-nine after all [0.6] is the year of the world crash the 
economic slump of the great crash of er nineteen-twenty-nine [0.3] it's 
absolutely [0.3] halfway as you know er though they didn't know that at [0.2] 
the time of course [0.4] between the two world wars at this sort of moment of 
intense European [0.4] er tension [0.6] er [0.4] erupting onto the European 
scene are not just sort of new politicians new mistresses new kings or whatever 
[0.4] but collective forces collective political forces [0.2] fascism communism 
[0.3] er collective political [0.2] movements if you like are very much there 
in the f-, in the forefront [0.3] er of political er events [0.4] and new forms 
of politics new types ways of doing thing are [0.3] er emerging and [0.3] that 
is a [0.3] a patte-, er er tha-, that is a [0.2] development which has its 
irrational as well as its rational side you only have to think about the 
ideology of Marxism [0.3] or or or fascism [1.6] history seems to carry on with 
butterfly collection or amassing its pebbles [0.8] blithely disregarding [0.2] 
anything that's going on in the outside [0.3] er world [0.7] and indeed and 
this is part of the charge which Febvre and luci-, Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch 
bring against the history [0.4] not only are is are historians [0.3] 
unresponsive and [0.2] you know completely [0.7] immaterial to this sort of 
thing [0.6] other intellectual traditions are open to this type er to to to 
this sort of spirit of turbulence and change 
and trying to understand it [0.3] and historians seem to have opted out [0.4] 
that's the it's a sort of intellectual [0.5] treason of the clerks if you like 
they've sort of moved out of er interest in in you know [0.2] th-, the the the 
realities of their own day so [0.4] professional has history become that 
they're completely uncommitted completely uninvolved unengaged [0.8] you only 
however have to look at other of the disciplines which are current at that time 
to realize a whole [0.4] bunch of other intellectuals are interested in these 
things [0.4] er far more than historians in economics obviously [0.3] the er [0.
5] economics schools Marxism or [0.4] anti-Marxist schools like er Schumpeter 
or or or whoever [0.5] er [0.3] in sociology you've got the influence of Max 
Weber who's trying to you know whose disciples after all have tried to 
understand society how society works [0.4] you've got Durkheim and Pareto [0.3] 
er you've got er er [0.2] in anthropology you've got [0.3] people like James 
Frazer you've got Malinowski going out to the South Seas trying to sort of 
understand the ways in which 
other societies operate n-, [0.4] not just through the sort of imperial lens if 
you like [0.3] but in terms of their own [0.3] er values and er er and 
societies [0.2] in Freud we've got er sorry in psycho-, er in psychology and in 
psychoanalysis we have Freud trying to understand [0.2] the irrational in human 
[0.3] er nature [1.0] historians and this would be the charge [0.2] have 
nothing to say to these men [0.3] and women [0.2] there is as it's as if [0.2] 
history has so shut off [0.3] not just from the wider world [0.3] but from 
other intellectual [0.2] er disciplines [0.3] er that it has become [0.3] you 
know completely [0.3] out of er [0.9] out of phase with its own age out of 
phase with other [0.3] er er disciplines and Lucien Febvre [0.4] and er [0.6] 
er [0.4] Marc Bloch [0.2] try and change all that and two the two people 
funnily enough that they say [0.7] are most influential looking back on these 
early days and say what were we trying to do and who influenced us [0.3] they 
say well two people were crucial [0.3] to us and one was [0.9] they could have 
said if they were German they would have said Max er Weber obviously but [0.6] 
the French [0.3] sort 
of equivalent in some ways of er Weber [0.4] Emile Durkheim [1.2] his idea that 
i mean [0.3] his study of suicide as a mass phenomenon of [0.2] of modern urban 
society his er analysis of religion as a social fact which er i mean which 
again you can see very much in Weber [0.3] er as well his his idea on [0.3] s-, 
er on society as something which has to un-, to be understood in its own terms 
if you like [0.3] and something which just a political [0.5] er glance at will 
[0.3] you know not do justice to the variety the richness and the complexity [0.
3] of any past er er society [0.4] and the other person that they pick up on 
and this is a totally you know if you asked er [0.8] just about anyone they 
wouldn't know who the hell this is [0.5] er Vidal de la Blache [0.8] Vidal de 
la Blache is a geographer [0.2] actually i think geography you know this is one 
of the big [0.6] most int-, interesting and in-, influential [0.5] aspects of 
the Annales tradition [0.4] the sense that history takes [0.2] place [0.7] in 
space somewhere [0.3] you know [0.2] it doesn't just happen anywhere space 
isn't just a neutral thing that you sort of think 
oh it could have happened here there or [0.4] everything space actually [0.4] 
er counts [0.4] er the spatial [0.5] that history the past if you like has a 
spatial dimension [0.3] which historians [0.2] have wi-, with their 
politicocentric [0.2] just politics you know small scale all the rest of it [0.
2] s-, close periodization [0.3] they've lost sight of this and so what [0.4] 
er Bloch and er [1.1] er [0.5] er Febvre try and pick up on is a sense of space 
[0.2] so it actually matters that the House of Commons and the House of Lords 
are close to each other but distant as well and you can't get in f-, [0.2] to 
one from one to the other very [0.4] er easily [0.3] it actually matters that 
[0.3] er [0.3] the er that certai-, that Versailles is where it is for example 
and that there are political social economic cultural consequences if you like 
which come from the fact [0.4] er the facts of space which historians have 
completely [0.4] er er [0.5] er sort of er disregarded [0.8] so what [0.2] 
Febvre [0.3] and er Marc Bloch try and er do d-, what they try and [1.2] sort 
of [0.2] attempt if you like [0.5] is to [0.2] open eyes [0.3] or take away 
blinkers 
or the way the which they'd describe it [0.5] open doors onto other [0.2] 
disciplines [0.3] history has become closeted in itself a little sort of 
historical ivory tower the idea would be [0.5] let's [0.2] and they they have a 
wonderful quote which is in the editorial of the first i-, issue i-, er where 
they say [0.6] you know [0.4] if you go into universities it's as if you've two 
groups of people passing each other in the corridors that [0.4] and they don't 
know what the hell they're doing each other are doing they're the social 
scientists the economists the sociologists [0.4] er [0.2] the psychologists in 
one [0.4] camp [0.4] the historians on the other they just have no way of 
talking to each other they're in the same building even you know but they don't 
er don't [0.3] relate they don't communicate [0.5] and one of the first things 
they try and do is to have [0.3] basically and establish as a [0.3] as a house 
rule of this new journal which they're establishing in nineteen-twenty-nine [0.
5] er the Annales [0.4] an open door policy onto any type 
of er human [0.2] or social [0.4] er science anything which talks about and the 
way they talk about it is man [0.4] anything man is the object [0.5] history is 
one [0.5] angle into it if you like [0.3] but [0.4] for it [0.2] for it to be a 
good history it has to be a history which somehow connects up with [0.4] what 
hist-, what [0.3] non-historians do [0.2] er who are interested in man as well 
what sociologists psychologists [0.3] er [0.3] er geographers and all the rest 
er do so straight from and i think you know if you're talking about [0.6] 
crucial things if you like for the for the Annales [0.2] group you would say 
interdisciplinary [0.6] an open door policy if you like from history into [0.2] 
other areas of [0.3] er histori-, o-, of er [0.3] er analysis of society and of 
analysis of man in [0.3] er in society and that is a line [0.5] that is a line 
which is held to very very firmly i mean extremely polemically i should say [0.
3] er in the nineteen-thirties and nineteen-forties as i say poor old Seignobos 
gets a regular [0.3] whipping you know in the pages of the [0.2] editorials to 
the journals he's the sort of bad old 
history [0.3] they want to get rid of you know they want to introduce this sort 
of vibrant and interesting [0.4] er sort of er type of er history [0.3] which 
is [0.6] open to other disciplines [0.4] which is anti specialist and anti 
small scale and anti small scale which thinks about society as something big 
which thinks about big process if you like [0.3] er not just small scale [0.2] 
er stuff going o-, on in er [0.3] i-, in someone you know in a ministerial 
cabinet or in the king's bedroom [0.3] er or or whatever interesting no doubt 
though that would be [0.5] er they're against the idea that the past has to be 
studied solely through [0.3] or [0.4] by centring or privileging the political 
element [0.3] society the past is about [0.4] more than just [0.3] the 
political elite [0.3] more than just what is found [0.3] er in archives [0.5] 
it is therefore a history which will be open to the idea that other forms of 
evidence exist in the past which are non-written [0.4] so in other words you 
can only get at certain forms of [0.4] of the past and understand the past 
fully [0.3] if you turn yourself 
into for example a geographer [0.4] an archaeologist a field wor-, walker or 
worker [0.3] er or or or whatever [0.3] so [1.1] other types of sourc-, er 
visual sources as well why not if you're working on the Middle Ages why not for 
God's sake look at manuscript illuminations why not why just as medieval 
historians would do at least in the Seignobos [0.4] er model [0.3] just look at 
what's written underneath them the visual can be as as as important er [0.3] an 
element of er understanding the past as [0.2] as as as written er sources [1.4] 
anti-Eurocentric [0.2] so in other words let's be interested in [0.5] well in a 
way it's a sort of Rankean thing like you know your understanding of the past 
in its own terms let's try and understand [0.4] er the Trobriand Islands or [0.
3] er [0.2] east African tribal groupings in their terms as as societies in the 
past not just in terms of [0.4] you know the Europeans came and they started to 
have a history [0.3] er and that history is only refracted through the 
relationship they have with the er [0.3] er metropolitan power let's think 
about how that society works let's [0.4] 
let's let's work on it as a sociologist of of of another type of society a 
society they call a primitive society [0.2] we wouldn't use the term er today 
so much [0.4] er [0.4] er [0.3] but you know open up a a way [0.3] from [0.3] 
Eurocentrism to a more sort of measured [0.3] acceptance that all types of 
societies er are er susceptible to a historical [0.4] er gaze [1.1] and it's a 
history moreover which isn't as [0.2] individual orientated it's not the great 
men of the past you know Colbert Louis the Fourteenth and all that shower [0.5] 
it's what about the peasants what about the workers [0.2] what about s-, these 
wider social forces can we understand the past in terms of them because if they 
are [0.6] as they are in the nineteen-twenties and thirties such a shaping 
influence [0.3] er on [0.3] on politics on the way societies are being 
conducted in this period [0.2] surely we need as historians to understand how 
these things operate in the in the past [0.3] so this will be [0.6] a new [0.4] 
kind of history as Lucien [0.2] er Febvre a new [0.5] shall we put it again [0.
4] paradigm [0.2] a new in another way a new 
paradigm for history [0.3] a history which moves out of the [0.3] the Rankean 
[0.3] er paradigm [0.5] with which to a certain extent we're still all familiar 
[0.3] er and offers a new type of history open to the social [0.4] the social 
[0.3] er as the crucial element for understanding [0.3] er people in [0.2] the 
past [1.5] let's [0.3] so that's the sort of theory what about in practice how 
does it actually pan out what what does the new kind of history mean apart from 
[0.4] people standing on their editorial soapboxes and mouthing off every so 
often about this that [0.4] er and the other so let's have a look at [0.6] some 
new kinds of history [1.4] er according to Bloch [0.5] some [12.0] some new 
kinds of history [1.5] read Marc Bloch's Historian's Craft [0.3] that's what 
you got to do on the that's the next seminar [0.4] er that will give you an 
insight into some of the things i've just been saying and it will be an attempt 
to [0.6] to theorize if you like to talk about [1.1] er [0.5] what this new 
kind of approach which i've been outlining [0.2] actually means for the 
practice of history how a historian will actually [0.4] er work and that book 
written in the nineteen-forties is a 
sort of [0.5] handbook [0.2] or vade mecum [0.3] if you like [0.3] of this new 
kind of er history [0.4] er [1.6] but i think as a general rule [0.4] i think 
it remai-, it it's it's true to say that histor-, and i think it's a great book 
[0.2] and it's a terrific read and all the rest of it [0.5] but however good it 
is [0.2] historians are probably better at [0.2] doing history [0.2] than 
talking about it it's a general rule [0.3] you know that we're better [0.2] at 
[0.3] being historians than talking about being historians or understanding or 
theorizing [0.4] the historical process [0.4] and i think [0.3] Marc Bloch 
Lucien Febvre [0.4] are [0.6] you know they have their theory but [0.4] w-, you 
have to look at their work if you like to understand [0.2] exactly what's going 
on what is new what is novel what is [0.2] er innovatory let me take a book to 
start with b-, from Lucien Febvre [0.6] er he writes a book which is called 
Unbelief well it's translated as [0.4] Unbelief in the Age of Rabelais [0.2] 
Rabelais the sixteenth century er [0.4] er writer [0.2] madman writer [0.9] and 
what he's doing there he's picking up [0.2] the question of [0.3] atheism [0.3] 
now th-, 
atheism would be a good thing for a French historian to be interested in 
because anticlericalism [0.3] since the eighteenth century has been one the [0.
3] dominant and you know sort of endless tropes of French history 
anticlericalism [0.4] so in a way what Lucien Febvre is doing is saying well 
let's go back [0.4] to the sixteenth century and [0.4] you know what is 
anticlericalism there can people [0.3] you know are people anticlerical is 
atheism possible if you like [0.3] er in the er er sixteenth er century [1.5] 
and he's [0.4] coming up against many people who've looked at Rabelais and said 
[0.4] you know this is a you know this an anticlerical [0.3] like a classic 
sort of third republic anticlerical [0.4] er writer who sort of endlessly 
criticizes the church [0.3] endlessly satirizes religious figures [0.3] sends 
up with great humour and er [0.3] er sort of brio [0.3] er many essential er s-,
er sort of aspects of the sacred [1.9] what [0.2] Febvre says is we can only 
answer that question if we understand the context and the values [0.5] in wh-, 
[0.3] with which Rabelais [0.2] er was 
was working [0.5] that to import [0.4] you know [0.2] our sort of sense of what 
anticlericalism is or might be or whatever from the nineteenth or twentieth 
century [0.6] and import it [0.3] into [0.2] the sixteenth century [0.3] is 
committing what Marc Bloch [0.2] in that book calls the cardinal sin [0.3] of 
the historian [0.4] and the cardinal sin of the historian is [0.3] anachronism 
[0.3] bringing in other words [0.3] your values your ideas from a later period 
and just plonking them [0.4] in the middle of the sixteenth century i don't 
know if you've ever seen that famous er [0.3] Hollywood picture of er j-, [0.2] 
er [0.5] er with Marlon Brando as Marc you know Julius Caesar r-, it's a really 
great er [0.2] nineteen-fifties edition [0.7] and Marlon Brando is Marc Anthony 
[0.2] it's great [0.2] it's great but they're i-, they're all around Marc 
Anthony saying friends Roman countrymen [0.3] and they all at the end of the 
speech hurl up their hands from their togas [0.2] and you see several people 
are carrying carrying wi-, wristwatches so you think oh my God that's 
completely ruined it for me [0.3] i'm a historian i 
can't enjoy anything where there is anachronism [0.3] er in it well the 
cardinal sin of the er [0.3] of the historian for Bloch is anachronism [1.3] w-,
if we a-, want to understand what atheism is in Rabelais' age we have to think 
about it not in terms of a checklist of points we've got from the nineteenth 
and twe-, twentieth century we have to think about it in terms of the own [0.4] 
values and ideas and belief systems of the sixteenth century [0.4] and [1.0] 
Febvre says if you try and do it that way [1.2] and his argument becomes [0.2] 
atheism is unthinkable [0.6] in the sixteenth century [0.2] it is unthi-, 
because there is no [0.5] and this is a a phrase he uses which has sort of 
entered the er historical [0.3] vocabulary [0.3] there is no mental equipment 
[0.3] for a sixteenth century person to think about a world [0.3] in which 
there is no God there is no mental equipment outillage mental [0.4] er there is 
no mental equipment for him to [0.4] er him or her to do that so [0.4] you can 
only think in terms of the beliefs with a o-, of a a belief system of a 
particular [0.3] er 
period [0.4] er [0.6] God is so rooted into the er [1.0] er sort of ways of 
understanding matter the ways of understanding society the way of understanding 
men and women in society [0.3] that it is impossible to suddenly sort of lift 
them out of the [0.3] of the picture it is impossible therefore to be an 
atheist you can be critical of the church you can be [0.5] you know s-, er 
criticize certain views ab-, which the church holds but it's impossible to 
believe i-, in no no God because otherwise you wouldn't you wouldn't exist [0.
2] okay there would be no way of thinking about [0.4] about yourself [0.6] so 
what he's saying is that [0.2] pe-, the collective attitudes of people are [0.
3] resistant to certain types of things okay [0.3] that there is a sort of [0.
2] well the term which [0.2] again if you think Annales [0.2] if you think 
Annales [0.4] you think this word mentalités [0.4] you think a few other words 
as well but er [0.3] which we'll talk about [0.6] mentalité [0.9] less [0.2] 
ideas well i don't mean ideas you know the ideas of the past 
what we mean is if you like like that mental equipment idea [0.3] if you like 
[0.3] the sort of preconditions of having ideas the mental frameworks with i-, 
which people are equipped [0.4] er with which they do their thinking [0.2] okay 
the mentalités the underlying okay and we're using a metaphor there [0.3] but 
the underlying set of values [0.4] and sort of frameworks of belief [0.2] er 
which people have and the idea will be and i'll give you an illustration of 
that [0.4] in a in a minute that people in the sixteenth century have a set of 
mentalités [0.4] of mentalities [0.3] er which are resistant to them thinking 
certain types of things [0.3] okay [0.8] atheism is literally unintelligible [0.
4] er [0.3] in the sixteenth century because of this [0.4] sort of [0.9] 
importance of mentalités many s-, historians of the sixteenth century now i 
think looking back [0.4] would say well this is nonsense in fact you know we 
need to think about ideas differently and [0.4] you know that he's been much 
criticized on that point but i want to s-, insist on it [0.4] here because i 
think it's such a good 
illustration of the way of thinking of the [0.3] of the Annales and they say 
you can think about atheism and that there's atheists in the m-, Middle Ages 
and all the rest of it [0.5] but they [0.2] they do still think of it in terms 
of [0.4] the mental structures the mental structures that'd be a way to think 
about it [0.4] of of the past and understanding beliefs only in terms of those 
mental [0.3] er structures 
nm0091: let's switch [0.2] to another type of er er Annales style new kind er 
of history and er through Marc Bloch [0.4] well Marc Bloch [0.8] there are two 
great books which you might er have read if you've done any French history or 
medieval history one is French Rural [0.3] er History er well it's translated 
as French Rural History [0.4] which is er a wonderful exemplar i think of the 
and which he sort of [0.5] goes back and just talks about the countryside and 
the place of the countryside in French history and how it's formed [0.3] and 
how important it is and what its important changes [0.3] er are [0.4] this is a 
history which is done with Bloch [0.3] as 
a historian and an extraordinarily gifted historian [0.3] but also as a an 
archaeologist as an expert in place names as a student of the landscape [0.3] 
er er et cetera et cetera so it's a it's a good example of that sort of open 
door [0.4] sort of multidisciplinary interdisciplinary sort of approach which 
is very much at the heart of the Annales [0.3] er tradition [0.5] the other 
work which he er again if you've di-, er did medieval society you might have 
done this [0.3] er feudal society [0.4] which again at the time i mean now we 
think oh feudal society big deal at the time [0.3] it was actually seen as 
extraordinarily innovatory that one could take all those which existed which 
were called feudal [0.4] er in the Middle Ages [0.3] and try and work out if 
you like what Weber would probably have called a sort of ideal type of u-, of 
er feudal society [0.3] how feudal societies operate [0.3] so you don't not 
just talking about one you know er where there's a king or there's a duke or a 
[0.3] a vassal or whatever [0.3] you're talking about ha-, ha-, er [0.4] feudal 
society as as a generic group as a sociologist would 
look at say modern societies or mass society [0.4] er or whatever [0.3] so 
history the historian becomes in [0.4] feudal society a sort of retrospective 
sociologist writing the sociology [0.3] of the past [0.2] okay so those two 
examples i would [0.5] give you an exam-, er you know is sort of examples of 
this er tradition but let me [0.2] er report on the [0.5] another book which i 
think is one of his best i really really love this book [0.6] er [0.3] and he 
wrote it in nineteen-twenty-four it's not one of his most famous books but it 
is i think er very striking it's the book [0.3] and those of you who've done my 
[0.3] course on er medicine will know me know me [0.3] heard me banging on 
about this before so i apologize for that [0.5] but it's a book which appeared 
in nineteen-twenty-four [0.7] er only translated in English [0.2] interestingly 
in the late er nineteen-seventies [0.3] which is about the royal touch [0.3] 
and the royal touch is the belief [0.4] that er [1.3] from the Middle Ages 
onwards from sort of twelfth century it really kicks in although there's some 
[0.2] sense that it might have existed before then but 
the belief [0.5] is that the kings of France and England [0.5] er have 
miraculous powers thaumaturgic powers [0.2] p-, miraculous powers [0.5] and 
that individuals who are suffering from a disease which becomes called [0.4] 
becomes known as the king's evil [0.2] the king's evil [0.4] and which is 
scrofula [0.3] scrofula [0.5] er which is [0.5] er tuberculosis scrofula [0.8] 
of the of the lymph gland especially [0.4] er essentially [0.4] er scrofula so 
a skin disease it's a very disfiguring skin disease [0.7] er that [0.2] er [2.
2] they have the miraculous powers er over of curing this [0.2] so that every 
[0.5] well quite frequently in the er [0.4] er [0.2] in the sort of er royal 
year the ceremonial year various individuals would be wheeled out suffering 
from this disease [0.5] and the king will [0.9] touch them king of England king 
of France would touch them and say [1.4] God [0.3] i [0.3] the king touches you 
actually what he says is the king touches you [0.2] and God cures you and then 
they go away and the idea is they should be cured [0.4] now [0.4] anyone 
looking at this as a sort of Seignobos [0.3] style historian you know [0.8] 
politics you know important political stuff political narrative [0.7] you know 
this is [0.2] this is irrational [0.3] crap you know this is this is 
superstition you know we're not intere-, that's not really something a 
historian [0.3] needs to be interested in you know because it's just the sort 
of [0.6] you know the sort of stuff of history which isn't terribly terribly 
interesting or certainly very [0.3] er important [0.4] er and it's irrational 
it's about popular irrational beliefs and we know it couldn't possibly happen 
'cause we're all good positivists er [0.3] we don't believe in this er sort of 
thing [0.6] so Bloch is taking something which is if you like in the dustbin [0.
3] of the historian's cra-, er [0.3] er the historical [0.3] er community [0.2] 
okay [0.5] something which is there we've got some records of but no one's 
really er looked at much apart from a few antiquarians who've not really put it 
together [0.5] and what bl-, what er Bloch says is let's well let's look at 
that as a belief system [0.2] as part of a belief system which when you 
think about it [0.3] is incredibly enduring [0.7] you know [0.6] now we may be 
very [0.2] er sort of sceptical about [0.4] the efficacity of the royal touch 
in this way i should think we mo-, nearly everyone would be [0.4] er er 
sceptical about that [0.3] but nevertheless how do we explain that something 
which is [0.3] coming in [0.4] in the er in the er twelfth century lasts 
centuries nearly a millennium [0.2] er in fact because the last touching for 
the king's evil [0.5] er is done [0.3] er in England er in the early part of 
the seventeenth century by er sorry eighteenth century by Queen Anne [0.4] er 
Samuel Johnson in fact if you you know the [0.2] er dictionary man goes and 
tries to be touched by the for the king's evil but they don't give it to him [0.
3] they don't touch they refuse by then [0.4] in France they're carrying on [0.
3] way into the w-, well up to the revolution [0.2] Louis the Sixteenth had his 
coronation [0.3] touches well over two-thousand people for the er scrofula [0.
4] er [1.3] er so they're lining up in in fact and when the Bourbons come back 
after eighteen-fifteen i'm er sh-, sure you remember all this stuff [0.4] er 
Charles the Tenth is touching them [0.2] at his coronation in eighteen-twenty-
seven so this is a belief which goes twelfth century nineteenth century [0.4] 
and there's no shortage of people turning up [0.6] so what's going on [0.5] you 
know something which must be irrational is going on now if you say well it's 
just superstition it's irrational [0.3] but surely the irrational irrational 
beliefs irrational mass beliefs [0.3] are actually quite an interesting topic 
[0.3] in a Europe which is dominated by Nazism and fascism so maybe we could [0.
7] you know try and understand what's going on there if you like in much the 
way a sociologist or a cultural analyst or whatever of the nineteen-twenties 
would be trying to understand [0.3] er er an-, and the un-, [0.2] understand 
the er er s-, stand-, this er [0.2] in in their own society [1.8] and what we 
have therefore is a study of why people and how people believe and how beliefs 
are kept in place if you like i mean and there is a [0.3] that is a 
multilayered story obviously just establishing what was happening is important 
[0.3] but 
was is going on there as well [0.6] what he picks up very clearly er obviously 
as you would expect [0.3] is the way in which the kings of France see that this 
is a good thing for their own authority and their power [0.3] to [0.2] be 
attributed this miraculous er power [0.3] so in fact in becomes part of 
dynastic propaganda [0.3] in both England and France [0.2] er that they have 
this sort of miraculous power so if you're up against your over mighty subjects 
[0.5] you know it's not a bad thing to have up your sleeve that you're also 
well known to be a miraculous er miracle [0.3] er worker [0.4] and indeed that 
does happen without any question of a doubt it gets written in to the 
propaganda story the pr-, the script if you like [0.5] and [0.7] er of of the 
of the dynast of the dynasties [0.3] but also it [0.3] f-, infiltrates into the 
rituals of kingship [0.4] the way in which kingship operates over this 
particular period [0.3] and so [0.2] maybe power isn't just about [0.3] er in 
other words [0.3] kings sort of having [0.2] passing laws or parliaments 
passing laws which are then you know believed or not believed or 
put into effect or not [0.3] put into effect [0.3] maybe one the things one one 
of one of the ways in which power operates [0.3] is through irrational beliefs 
is through [0.3] the promotion of ideological [0.3] er sort of takes [0.3] on 
what power [0.3] er consists in [0.4] okay i haven't put that very well [0.3] 
that that basically [0.4] er the royal touch i-, [0.4] er is built into royal 
ceremonies royal rituals [0.2] er roy-, r-, er royal procedures in a way which 
plays up [0.4] er the importance of their power and obviously [0.4] you know [0.
2] becomes part of absolutist power if you're a king by divine right [0.4] what 
better proof that you're of divine right and therefore not to be resisted [0.3] 
er than that you can perform er er miracles [0.7] so [0.4] it's interesting in 
the interest in the rituals the ceremonies and the symbols of kingship and 
seeing that as part of m-, of political authority not just [0.3] er you know er 
what er s-, a Seignobos type of historian [0.3] would er look at [0.5] it's a 
multiperiod thing you know this is talking about a millennium this is not Marc 
Bloch talking about as a medievalist he's going from the 
Middle Ages and ending up in the nineteenth century [0.5] it's er [0.5] a it's 
er ori-, it's a er [0.2] around a problem [0.2] if you like a problem of belief 
not a not a sort of you know what happened in so and so a ministry it's a [0.2] 
a massive political [0.3] and sociological problem [0.5] and it is moreover 
something which is a story which cannot be told as a chronology [0.9] okay [0.
3] so the narrative mode [0.3] which is the sort of classical [0.2] as we know 
Rankean sort of approach you know you [0.2] tell a story [0.4] in a very 
straightforward way [0.4] is [0.3] simply not possible with a story like that 
so you have deal it with it in layers you have to sort of [0.3] like outline 
what [0.3] the propaganda element is what the ceremonial element is if you like 
[0.4] and and to sort of have a much more structured and less narrative a br-, 
you break up the chrono-, chronology if you like break up the narrative [0.4] 
and and er [0.3] er sort of er [1.0] er re-, [0.5] reconceptualize [0.2] the 
modes of [1.0] er [0.8] er [0.7] narrat-, no no not modes of narrative well d-, 
m-, modes of er [0.8] er the word's gone d-, out of mind [3.3] the way in which 
you you argue [0.2] yeah modes of argumentation let's say that [0.4] okay [0.6] 
course one of the interesting things he then gets into [0.4] is why do people 
believe you know okay it's i-, you know you can say well [0.6] they're 
encouraged to believe because the symbolism and all the rest but but wh-, how 
come you know you'd expect if all these thousands of people turning up then 
they're all going away [0.5] they've been touched by the king's er hand and 
they [0.8] well presumably not all of them are going to be cured in fact [0.2] 
one would think an-, none of them would be cured [0.3] and yet [0.3] they still 
carry on believing this well [0.3] he has a sort of analysis of this i mean one 
of the crucial elements in it obviously as you probably [0.4] er have guessed 
is what's called the [0.3] the placebo effect which we still see tog-, today if 
you you endlessly turn up to your doctor and ask for medicine medicine medicine 
medicine [0.4] after a while they give you a sort of like bit of chalk and they 
say we've got this great new drug try this [0.4] er they don't tell 
you it's chalk and you [0.2] you [0.3] consume it and then you go back and you 
say that new that medicine you gave me is fabulous i loved it and it really 
works [0.3] in other words auto-suggestion [0.5] er can be a [0.2] you know 
crucial part of cure [0.2] and presumably that's what's going on you know these 
people are going up there [0.4] and they're sort of being touched and they thi-,
they've [0.4] oh i feel much better now they say and they walk away [0.2] 
actually also scrofula's quite a good disease to have that effect moreover 
because [0.2] it's one of those diseases where the symptoms come in [0.4] and 
then they go into remission so actually the cure might just be that some of the 
symptoms of the [0.3] horrible skin disease disappear so people think they've 
been cured [0.2] so in other words you have to understand why people believe 
something which is [0.3] not [0.4] you know [0.2] which is falsifiable you know 
we [0.2] no unless you believe in miracles there is no way that these things 
could [0.3] could occur yet people still [0.4] do believe in them [0.3] 
and one of the other and i think it's a fascinating and er absolutely on the [0.
2] on the spot on the ball sort of er [0.3] analysis that he does [0.4] he says 
what is interesting is that [0.4] you know [0.2] the be-, the belief stops in 
er the practice shall we say [0.2] stops in the early eighteenth century in 
England e-, early nineteenth in France [0.5] if it had carried on there would 
still be people lining up [0.6] er but the point is [0.2] by the end [0.5] the 
political elite have given up on the belief [0.3] they don't en-, actually it's 
the p-, it's the kings who don't believe in their miraculous power [0.3] which 
is the real reason for the decline of this not [0.3] you know that people have 
all become much more enlightened or whatever [0.3] it's because the kings have 
no longer belie-, er belon-, [0.2] longer believe this and i think [0.5] he 
says the m-, the sort of sign of this and i think it's a wonderful little 
historical touch [0.3] he says [0.2] if you look at w-, the what they said the 
traditional s-, traditional er [0.2] formula they use when the kings touch the 
s-, scrofula person [0.2] so i'm sort of 
beckoning not towards you namex there [laugh] but it's just generally they [0.
3] they sort of [0.6] er the king er the king touches you le roi te touche [0.
3] er Dieu te guérit God [0.2] cures you so the king touch you God cures you 
[0.2] like that [0.4] he says what is interesting in the well it's right [0.2] 
in the end of the seventeenth century but it becomes current in the eighteenth 
century period of re-, relative religious indifference and er [0.4] er 
secularism [0.5] the s-, the formula changes and the king says le roi te touche 
the king touches you [1.1] Dieu te guérisse [0.9] may God [0.4] cure you [0.3] 
okay a shift from the indicative to the subjunctive which he says in [0.3] 
opens up [0.2] a space of uncertainty [0.3] a space of uncertainty which in 
that [0.6] you know in terms of a s-, symbolic structure which has lasted for 
over half a millennium [0.4] is absolutely fatal to the belief because it shows 
that [0.4] kings are no longer believing that [0.2] the ki-, the divine power 
is sort of shooting through their bodies [0.3] and out of their [0.3] their 
fingers there is an 
element of doubt an element of [0.2] uncertainty an element of scepticism [0.2] 
so wonderful [0.3] work i think which is picking up on this idea of [0.3] 
mentalités which can only be understood in a way [0.3] in [0.4] er [0.2] long 
t-, [0.2] periods of times and by breaking up breaking apart completely [0.3] 
fragmenting [0.3] the normal way [0.3] in which history [0.2] er is done [14.8] 
so what i've been trying to er [2.7] open up [0.4] today [1.2] is [1.2] what is 
seen at the time [1.0] in France particularly [0.3] comes [0.4] more widespread 
a-, a-, after [0.4] later on elsewhere [0.5] a new kind of history a history 
resolutely orientated around the social [0.5] er er a history which understands 
the social not just in terms of professional historical [0.3] expertise [0.3] 
but in terms of an open door policy an interdisciplinary approach [0.3] er to 
the er to the past and [0.5] if you're looking at the twenti-, la-, la-, late 
twenties and thirties [0.4] and you look at this work you this is a a book of 
this is an edito-, these editorials this is a journal of [0.4] contestation [0.
3] of [0.3] you 
know outsiders [0.4] trying to shake the Bastille of the historical [0.3] er 
establishment [0.6] er [0.3] it's a crusading period for a new kind of history 
[0.5] what happens [0.9] just after the Second World War [0.2] is that [0.4] 
the values have totally changed because [0.7] the [0.3] Bastille falls 
essentially [0.4] the Sorbonne the type of history [0.3] which is established 
by [0.4] er Seignobos and the Sorbonne that traditional Rankean view [0.3] is 
completely overtaken as higher education in France and the historical [0.5] 
sort of structure of the profession if you like in France after forty-five [0.
3] is completely changed they bring in new types of er [0.4] er sort of er 
research schools [0.3] which are headed [0.3] by [0.4] the Annales group Marc 
Bloch has died in nineteen-forty-four [0.3] Lucien Febvre is still very much 
around and he becomes [0.4] the [0.3] director of this sort of new research 
school [0.3] er which [0.5] has all these other groupings all these other sort 
of social scientists within it [0.3] and they have a historian and this very 
celebrated historian [0.2] er withi-, wi-, at the heart of it now 
that seems to me [0.7] you know a crucial thing for understanding the Annales 
as a phenomenon as an intellectual phenomenon because from ninet-, nineteen-
forty-five nineteen-forty-six onwards [0.3] they are at the heart of the sort 
of intellectual establishment they cut you know they storm the Bastille [0.3] 
they've taken over the establishment [0.4] they have now institutional power 
for implementing if you like for putting into effect [0.3] for encouraging for 
stimulating [0.3] this new kind of history [0.2] right across the board and i 
think actually if you're interested in [0.4] intellectual patronage i think you 
know these guys are [0.9] experts at it they really do a very very [0.3] er 
good job [0.3] and what they try and introduce and the term is being used by 
Lucien Febvre [0.4] quite [0.5] quite a lot in the thirties but then 
particularly in the forties and fifties is [0.9] in this sort of institutional 
[0.5] framework where historians sit down with to [0.2] to dinner and lunch and 
have a drink with sociologists and psychiatrists and all the rest of it [0.4] 
let's go for a total history [0.5] a history which brings it all in [0.3] which 
isn't all those Seignobosian 
you know politicocentred na-, narrative all the rest of it [0.4] but which [0.
3] tries to sort of understand the past as an ent-, as a total entity [0.2] 
okay [1.0] and [0.2] in nineteen-forty-nine [0.5] er [0.6] if you look at the 
editorials he says we've found the man [0.6] for the next generation [0.3] the 
dauphin [0.3] if you like [0.2] the succession [0.2] for the Annales School [0.
5] will pass to a man called [0.3] Fernand Braudel [0.5] what we have worked 
for Lucien Febvre says is precisely the type of work [0.3] which Braudel 
introduces in nineteen-forty-nine just as i've [0.5] said in nineteen-twenty-
nine [0.3] you know there's a sort of like [0.6] seismic shift if you like in 
the in the way in which history is practised in France [0.4] in nineteen-forty-
nine [0.2] the appearance of Braudel his great work on the Mediterranean [0.4] 
er [0.2] offers a new [0.5] er oh well a sort of in some ways a continuation 
and exemplification of the [0.3] of the new [0.3] er er of the new kind of 
history which Febvre and er Bloch have er outlined [0.3] and allows us to go 
into [0.6] part two [0.4] the Annales [0.2] the later years [0.2] er which will 
be my [0.2] er topic next week