Historical Methodology

Reflection on the processes, the means which the historians use and on the rules that they follow to discover and to establish the past of the men, the historical methodology is interested in two problems:

Comment the historian carry out does his survey?
Once the results of its research gathered, how does he write the history?

The research and the criticism of materials

The Histoire, as its origin points out it, is initially an investigation (Ἱστορίαι means “investigation” in Greek). It is not enough to read the writings left by the old ones to know what occurred. On the one hand because these accounts do not testify to all reality; in addition because they can be made up partially or entirely of false information or deformations.

In addition, the research and the criticism of materials should not only be limited to the written Document S, which would be a too simple Heuristique.

The research of the sources

They are not limited to the narrative sources i.e. with those which return account directly what did without (the medieval Chroniques or an article of newspaper for example). The historian also profits from a more important tank: documentary sources. Those gather the whole of the documents of which the original intention was not to inform about the history. Thus the roles of size (list of the inhabitants subjected to the royal tax with for each one the amount being paid) did not have an intention historian but can enable us to approach the hierarchy of fortunes under the Ancien Mode.

Before launching out in the reading of the sources, the historian reflects on the documents which could answer the historical question that it is posed. The question will determine the sources. Antoine Prost summarizes this idea by a beautiful image: “the historian does not launch his trawl randomly, to see whether it will take fish, and which” ( Twelve lessons on the history , 1996).

The range of the sources at disposal does not cease growing. If, for a long time, research were pressed on the hard copies, the historian makes fire of any wood today. Lucien Febvre wrote: “The history is done with written documents, undoubtedly. When it there of A. But it can be done, it must be made without written documents if there are not some. With all that the ingeniousness of the historian can allow him to use to manufacture its honey, in the absence of the usual flowers. A whole share, and most enthralling undoubtedly of our work of historian, does not consist it in a constant effort to make speak the dumb things” ( Combats for the history , 1959). In order to include/understand the evolution of the landscapes and the agrarian structures, Marc Bloch studied the Cadastre S of the XIXe century. In the same way, the Archéologie provides new data compared to the traditional sources.

The criticism of the sources

The historian never takes for money cash the sources which it has under the eyes. He must preserve a critical attitude in their connection. It is this permanent doubt which does one of specificities of the trade. It is necessary to greet the monks maurists and bollandists to have posed the first stakes of historical criticism at the 17th century.

The historians of the methodical school, Langlois and Seignobos (of inspiration Positiviste), will take again these rules whose defect is however to relate to mainly written testimonys (Charles-Victor Langlois and Charles Seignobos, Introduction to the historical studies , 1897; Charles Seignobos, historical method applied to social sciences , 1901).

They distinguish thus various types of criticism:

external criticism carries on the material characters of the document such its paper, its ink, its writing, the Sceau X which accompany it. Thus, a written letter on paper, known as of the 12th century, is certainly false because one wrote on Parchemin at that time. Let us note that this type of criticism requires knowledge in Paléographie, in Sigillographie, Diplomatique and epigraphy. As many competences as the historian does not control always perfectly.
criticism interns rests on the coherence of the text. It is obvious that a charter of Philippe Auguste gone back with bottom to 1225 is a forgery because this king de France east died in 1223.
the criticism of source touches the origin of the source. The historian will draw some the conclusions on the sincerity and the exactitude of testimony. It is included/understood well that the account of an official historiographer tightens with magnifier the role and qualities of its prince. From where a certain doubt compared to what he tells. In the same way, one will grant more weight to the account of a battle writes by one of the protagonists than by a man born fifty years later.
the criticism of range is interested in the recipients of the text. A prefect will tend for example in his report/ratio with the Minister of Interior Department to minimize the disorders striking his department for fear its superior takes it for an incompetent.

The method criticizes is also based on the comparison of testimonys. When they agree, it is sign of the veracity of the facts. On the other hand, when a witness is contradicted by several others, that does not mean automatically that he lies. Perhaps these other witnesses are based on the same erroneous source.

Once the testimonys screened of this methodical arsenal, the historian sticks to well interpreting the direction of the text. A historical solid knowledge proves still necessary. So Sans-culottes claim the “tax” on corn in a petition, it should not be heard that they ask for the establishment of a tax but rather the imposition of a maximum price. At the amateur, the direction of certain words can lead to mistakes.

Anglo-Saxon historiography more pushed the historians to be wary of the conclusions which one can draw from the reading of a text (New historicism, Turning linguistic).

New methods to make speak the sources

These various stages of criticism would invite to believe that the work of the historians would consist in fact to read the texts, to eliminate the forgeries, to drive out the errors and the inaccuracies in order to discover what was really held. It is a short cut which hiding place the richness of historical methodology.

Research can now benefit from any document, even the forgeries. A text says of it sometimes more by its unvoiced comments that by its effective contents. A very subjective and directed testimony will give information on the system of representation of the witness. The historian thus does not aim always at establishing the veracity of the facts.

The exchanges with other disciplines enriched methodology by the historians. The Sociologie played a great part by spreading the use of the statistics. On its impulse, the historians draw up since years 1930 of the curves of price (work of Labrousse), of mortality (work of Dupâquier), of production… It is a revolution in their work because these serial methods (or quantitative) show that, as opposed to what the public opinion believes, the historical facts are not done everything, it sometimes acts to build them. Another contribution, that of the Linguistic , which made it possible to read again the speeches by seeking the key words contained inside. Through this analysis of the vocabulary, the ideology of certain groups (communist, freemasons…) and the evolution of their ideas were more highlighted.

The taking into account of other materials that only written documents

August 1st

The historian Marc Bloch suggested taking into account other materials that only the Document S written.

The taking into account of the whole of the disciplines

August 1st

The historian Marc Bloch, of the School of Annals, suggested not restricting the historical sources with certain disciplines. He thought that it was also necessary to take into account the made economic.

The writing of the history

It is the second phase of the work of the historian.

The comparison of the historical facts

Starting from his sources, the historian releases from the facts. Then it tries to gather those who seem to him parents, or who belong to the same topic.

Each historical fact has one or more Cause S; with the historian to discover them. This task presents several difficulties even if certain branches of the history are confronted there: the cultural Histoire or the subject-tables in particular more requires a work of description research of the causes. In the other cases, the determination of the factors has a great importance. The historian then uses his judgment, his imagination or his experiment. This way of proceeding, altogether not very scientific (but the history is not a science with its laws), requires to take some precautions and to remember some warning statements.

Initially, it is delicate to put at the place men of formerly, because those did not live in the same cultural and social environment that we and did not think like us. On this subject, Lucien Febvre recommended to the historians to be wary of the “psychological Anachronisme”. Behaviors which seem in our irrational eyes could appear justified for contemporaries. From where need for a good knowledge of the systems of Representation of people of the time.

Second precaution to be taken: to release all the complexity of the Cause S. forever It there only one cause with an event but a multitude, some being the releases (the assassination of the archduke of Austria which is the detonator of the First World War) and others of the more general antecedents (push of the Nationalisme S at the beginning of the 20th century, electric climate diplomatic), some being determining, the other anecdotic ones. Let us acknowledge that no historian can claim to determine the whole of the historical factors of a fact and to weigh with certainty the importance of each one.

Thirdly, the history should not slip into a teleological history . Indeed, the historian is in a typical location compared to the contemporaries of the events: he knows what will occur. From where the risk of reading the history in a directed way. Let us take the example of a researcher who recalls the Campagne of France (1940) vis-a-vis in Germany. He will insist inevitably in his account on the retreat and the weak points of the French Army knowing the final rout. However, this is not a skewed reading? Did the French Army have any asset, no chance? It is to occult part of historical reality.

Lastly, Marc Bloch gave this lesson: “the causes in history, not more than elsewhere, are not postulated. They seek” ( Apologie for the history , rééd. 1993, p. 189). Indeed, the historian falls sometimes into the facility. How much time did one read that a king made the war then was overcome because its army was fewer? It is probable but one saw well in the history, of the sovereigns gained battles in spite of a numerical inferiority. If the king lost for this reason, with the historian to show it and not to postulate it.

The intention of truth

To the 19th century, the German Leopold von Ranke explains that the history has the role of saying “the things such as they occurred”. In other words, the rule of all work history is to respect the Vérité facts. For that, the historian equips his text with a pageantry of evidence. In general, an article or thesis of history comprises footnotes, inside whose the author gives the references of his source (dimension of Archive S or title of an old book) or returns towards the work of one of his colleagues. The reader must thus find the means of checking the theses of the historian. At best, one finds the source quoted in the note or recopied in the appendices of the work.

Consequence of this requirement of truth, one requires of the historians to be objective. Let us recognize it: it is a pious vow. In all work of Social sciences, the researcher transmits a share of itself, voluntarily or unconsciously. Henri-Irenee Marrou quotes all the subjective elements of a historical work: the subject choice and division, put questions, concepts implemented, types of relations, systems of interpretation, the relative value attached to each one. Hayden White prolongs this idea of an impossible objectivity of the researcher: like the novelist, each historian has his own vision of the world, his type of intrigue and his privileged mode of explanation ( Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe , 1973).

In its reflection on the history, Antoine Prost prefers speech of “distance and impartiality” rather than of objectivity ( Twelve lessons on the history , p.288). The historian must show intellectual honesty. Concretely, that means to put between brackets its own opinions and not to conceal the contradictory arguments. The historian does not judge the historical phenomena and characters (this is good, this is bad) but tries to include/understand them. This attitude is not without creating a certain incomprehension in the public opinion when the researcher tackles condemnable subjects morally: the Nazism, the Slavery, the Colonization. Because to try to include/understand, it is, with the eyes of some, to justify.

This search of the Vérité proves always imperfect. As all sciences whose role is to establish the facts and to include/understand the direction of the human actions (i.e. sciences hermeneutics or “sciences of the spirit”). On the one hand, because the historian forever at disposal all sources clarifying an event. Either they do not exist any more (how much files disappeared with the bombardments of 1944), or they never existed. In addition, because no one cannot claim to seize all the springs of a decision, all the motivations, all the share of irrationality of a man. In historical work, the assumptions often cohabit with the certainty. Consequently, the philosopher Paul Ricoeur nuance the idea that the historian tells truth and prefers to write that it has “the intention of truth”. The truth is more one objective that a state of the historical speech.

Form historical speech

For Henri-Irenee Marrou, there is not a doubt that a historian is necessarily a good writer. So much so that one can regard the history as a literary kind. It is necessary to know to tell but also make pass the many elements which break the logical course of the narration: presentation of the contradictory theses, the development of assumptions, the insertion and the explanation of concepts, the comment of statistics, recognition of the imperfection of a source, the notes infrapaginales. Let us recognize that sometimes, the historians do not embarrass these complex elements not to disgust their readers. In this case, one does not see well any more the difference between an article of newspaper and a historical text.

The Récit is the most current form of the historical speech. It indeed has the advantage of being simple to follow, especially when that one wants to show the sequence of the events. A sequence in general according to the chronological order. However, the historian seldom uses of the account in the totality of his work. He often stops to draw a picture of the company or geographical framework of his subject. Sometimes, it is this shape of the table which the historian privileges to present the results of his research. The organization of the historical text will be then more set of themes that chronological. In fact, the form depends on the tackled subject. A work on Roman town planning will rather adopt the table and a book on holy Louis will be rather appeared as an account. Attention all the same with the surprises. The Sunday of Bouvines of Georges Duby, instead of appearing a traditional restitution of the unfolding of the Battle of Bouvines, proves to be a reflection on the significance of the war, peace and the victory in 1214.

Note

Random links: