![]() ![]() He puts several of these points very clearly in the introduction: Schama doubts the reality of large, impersonal historical forces he doubts the historical reality of the concept of great classes in society and he focuses instead on the thoughts and actions, often barely rational, of the individuals great and small who contributed to the period. ![]() Schama distances his account from both materialist accounts like that of Albert Soboul ( The French Revolution 1787-1799 ) and more orthodox approaches such as that of de Tocqueville ( The Old Regime and the French Revolution ). To begin, his history breaks radically from earlier approaches to the Revolution. So what is distinctive about his history of the French Revolution? ![]() Schama is a highly original thinker when it comes to conceptualizing history - witness his motif of landscapes as a way of thematizing swatches of European history ( Landscape And Memory ), or his crossing of history and fiction in Dead Certainties: Unwarranted Speculations. ![]() Quite a number of previous posts have focused on historical cognition: how does the historian conceptualize a complex bit of history? Let's reflect a bit on Simon Schama’s conceptualization of the history of the French Revolution in Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (1989). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |