Abstract
As local preservation societies opened their special collections to visitors around 1900, history teaching and research expanded in the USA as it had in England, France, Germany and Italy. 1 John Franklin Jameson presided over the American Historical Association, edited the American Historical Review, directed the Department for Historical Research at the Carnegie Institute — otherwise devoted entirely to the natural sciences — and founded the Historical Manuscripts Commission. In other words, he did more than anybody to lead developments.2 Jameson, aided by several other historians, in this way created the professional practice of history, which worked out of ‘love of civil and religious liberty’ to train historians to create extensive documentary resources that subsequent generations could interpret. 3 Closure of the Carnegie Department and the end of Jameson’s career in 1928, as well as an Association review of history teaching four years later, signalled regime change: monopolization by a small number of historians of syllabi looked terminal, and the scope of historical interpretation grew. 4 The coincidence of these alterations with publication of the first issues of Annales provides, therefore, an apposite time-frame in which to examine opposition to Berr and his circle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Roy F. Nichols, ‘Postwar Reorientation of Historical Thinking’, AHR, 54 (1948): 78–89; Bert James Loewenberg, ‘Some Problems Raised by Historical Relativism’, JMH, 21 (1949): 17–23; Willson H. Coates, ‘Relativism and the Uses of Hypotheses in History’, JMH, 21 (1949): 23–7; Charles A. Beard, John H. Randall, George Haines IV, Howard K. Beale, Sidney Hook and Ronald Thompson, Theory and Practice in Historical Study: A Report of the Committee on Historiography (New York, 1946), i–xi; Novick, Noble Dream, 107.
Leonard Krieger, review of Marrou, De La Connaissance historique, AHR, 64 (1959): 331–3; Leonard Krieger, ‘The Horizons of History’, AHR, 63 (1957): 3–23; Harvey, ‘An American Annales?’ 621.
F.-L Ganshof, Qu’Est-Ce Que La Féodalité? (Brussels, 1944), xv.
Joseph R. Strayer, ‘Feudalism in Western Europe’, in Rushton Coulborn, ed., Feudalism in History (Princeton, NJ, 1956), 16; Joseph R. Strayer, ‘Two Levels of Feudalism’, in Robert S. Hoyt, ed., Life and Thought in the Early Middle Ages (Minneapolis, MN, 1967), 52–3.
Charles M. Andrews, ‘On the Writing of Colonial History’, WMQ, 3rd series, 1 (1944): 27–48, 31–3.
Joseph R. Strayer, ‘The Tokugawa Period and Japanese Feudalism’, in John W. Hall and Marius B. Jansen, eds, Studies in the Institutional History of Modern Japan (Princeton, NJ, 1968), 3.
Bernard Bailyn, ‘Morison. An Appreciation’, PMHS, 89 (1977): 112–23, 114.
Samuel Eliot Morison, ‘Faith of a Historian’, AHR, 56 (1951): 261–75, 263; cf. Iggers, ‘Image of Ranke’, 18.
Dexter Perkins, ‘We Shall Gladly Teach’, AHR, 62 (1957): 291–309, 308.
Samuel Eliot Morison, The Growth of the American Republic (2 vols; Oxford, 1930), i. v, 382–3; Krieger, ‘European History’, 273; Reeves, America, 155.
William L. Langer and Sarell Everett Gleason, The Challenge to Isolation: The World Crisis of 1937–40 and American Foreign Policy (2 vols; New York, 1952), ii. 776; Samuel Eliot Morison, History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II (15 vols; Boston, MA, 1945), i. x, xviii; Charles A. Beard, A Foreign Policy for America (New York, 1940).
Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago, IL, 1953), 3; Schlesinger Jr, The Vital Center, 170; John Fairbanks to Schlesinger Jr, 19 Aug. 1949, Houghton Mifflin MSS box 11.
Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Have Made It (New York, 1974), xxxvi–vii.
Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago, IL, 1953), 157.
See also Bernard Bailyn, ‘The Challenge of Modern Historiography’, AHR, 87 (1982): 1–24, 9.
Devereux C. Joseph, Waldo G. Leland and Luther H. Evans, unpublished copy, ‘Report on Visit to Europe, October–December 1946’, Leland MSS box 101.
Philipp Stelzel, ‘Working towards a Common Goal? American Views on German Historiography and German–American Scholarly Relations during the 1960s’, CEH, 41 (2008): 639–71, 640; Gerhard A. Ritter, ed., Friedrich Meinecke. Akademischer Lehrer und emigrierte Schüler: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen 1910–1977 (Munich, 2006), 105–12; Rutkoff and Scott, New School, 128–9.
William O. Aydelotte, ‘Quantification in History’, in Don Karl Rowney and James Q. Graham, eds, Quantitative History: Selected Readings in the Quantitative Analysis of Historical Data (Homewood, IL, 1969), 3–22; Roy F. Nichols, A Historian’s Progress (New York, 1968), 132; Philip Pomper, The Structure of Mind in History: Five Major Figures in Psychohistory (New York, 1985), 1–19.
Henry Hunt Keit, ‘Manoel da Silveira Cardozo (1911–1985)’, HAHR, 66 (1986): 767–9, 767; Middell, ‘Gedanken zur Geschichte der Zeitschriften’, 15.
Manoel Cardozo, review of Chaunu, Séville et l’Atlantique, AHR, 68 (1963): 436–8, 437.
C.H. Haring, Trade and Navigation between Spain and the Indies in the Time of the Hapsburgs (Cambridge, MA, 1918); Cardozo, review of Chaunu, Séville et l’Atlantique, 437.
Orest Ranum, review of Febvre, Histoire à part entière, AHR, 68 (1963): 1096–7; Palmer Throop, review of Febvre, Combats, JMH, 35 (1963): 162–3; Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, review of Labrousse, ed., L’Histoire sociale, AHR, 73 (1967): 154–6; Robert Forster, review of Ladurie, Paysans de Languedoc, AHR, 72 (1967): 596–7.
Palmer Throop, Criticism of the Crusade: A Study in Public Opinion and Crusade Propoganda (Philadelphia, PA, 1940), ix.
Garrett Mattingly, ‘Some Revisions of the Political History of the Renaissance’, in Tinsley Helton, ed., The Renaissance: A Reconsideration of the Theories and Interpretations of the Age (Madison, WI, 1964), 3–23.
Bernard Bailyn, ‘Braudel’s Geohistory: A Reconsideration’, JEH, 11 (1951): 277–82, 281.
Richard A. Newhall, review of Braudel, La Méditerranée, JMH, 22 (1950): 365; A. Roger Ekirch, ‘Sometimes an Art, Never a Science, Always a Craft: A Conversation with Bernard Bailyn’, WMQ, 3rd series, 51 (1994): 625–58, 627.
J.H. Hexter, ‘Historiography: The Rhetoric of History’, in David Sills, ed., International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (13 vols; New York, 1968), vi. 378.
J.H. Hexter, ‘Storm over the Gentry’, E, 10 (1958): 22–34.
J.H. Hexter, ‘Fernand Braudel and the Monde Braudelien’, JMH, 76 (1971): 480–539, 530–2.
John R. Hall, ‘The Time of History and the History of Times’, H&T, 19 (1980): 113–31, 119.
Hayden White, Metahistory: The Literary Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore, MD, 1973); Dominick LaCapra, Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language (Ithaca, NY, 1983); Paul Ricoeur, Temps et récit (3 vols; Paris, 1983–1985); Lawrence Stone, ‘The Revival of Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History’, P&P, 85 (1979): 3–24. Hexter did not dismiss social sciences altogether: see J.H. Hexter, The History Primer (London, 1972), 115.
Garrett Mattingly, unpublished essay, ‘Burckhardt and the Renaissance’, n.d., Mattingly MSS 1/26–39.
A.T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power on History 1660–1783 (Boston, MA, 1890); A.T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution and Empire 1793–1812 (2 vols; Boston, MA, 1892).
Elizabeth Francis, ‘History and the Social Sciences: Some Reflections on the Reintegration of Social Science’, RP, 13 (1951): 354–74, 365–6.
Robert W. Fogel, The Union Pacific Railroad: A Case in Premature Enterprise (Baltimore, MD, 1960); Douglass C. North, The Economic Growth of the United States 1790–1860 (Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1961).
See also Ernst Schulin, ‘German “Geistesgeschichte”, American “Intellectual History” and French “Histoire des mentalités”: A Comparison’, HEI, 3 (1981): 195–214, 205.
Richard P. McCormick, ‘Suffrage Classes and Party Alignments: A Study in Voter Behavior’, MVHR, 46 (1959): 397–410, 397, 409; Lee Benson, The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case (Princeton, NJ, 1961), 275.
Herbert H. Rowen, review of Braudel, Civilisation matérielle, AHR, 73 (1967): 766–7, 767.
Andreas Daum, ‘History in Transatlantic Perspective: Interview with Hans-Ulrich Wehler’, BGHI, 26 (2000): 117–25, 119.
Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte (5 vols; Munich, 1987–2008), i. 10, 28–30.
Samuel Kinser, ‘Annaliste Paradigm? The Geohistorical Structuralism of Fernand Braudel’, AHR, 86 (1981): 63–105, 103, 88.
Hunt, ‘Annales Paradigm’, 212–13.
François Furet, ‘Beyond the Annales’, JMH, 55 (1983): 389–410; Jacques Le Goff, ‘Is Politics Still the Backbone of History’, D, 100 (1971): 1–19.
Peter Wagner, review of David Palambu-Liu, Bruce Robbins and Nirvana Tanoukhi, eds, Immanuel Wallerstein and the Problem of the World: System, Scale, Culture, AHR, 117 (2012): 823.
Copyright information
© 2013 Joseph Tendler
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tendler, J. (2013). The Challenge of Plurality: The USA. In: Opponents of the Annales School. Studies in Modern History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294982_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294982_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45171-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-29498-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)