The Past and Present SocietyThe Revival of Narrative: Some CommentsAuthor(s): E. J. HobsbawmSource: Past & Present, No. 86 (Feb., 1980), pp. 3-8Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/650738 .Accessed: 24/01/2011 09:01Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com. Oxford University Press and The Past and Present Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Past & Present.http://www.jstor.org
THE REVIVAL OF NARRATIVE: SOME COMMENTSLAWRENCE STONE BELIEVES THAT THERE IS A REVIVALOF "NARRATIVEhistory" because there has been a decline in the history devoted toasking "the big why questions", the generalizing "scientific history".This in turn he thinks is due to disillusionment with the essentiallyeconomic determinist models of historical explanation, Marxist orotherwise, which have tended to dominate in the post-war years; to thedeclining ideological commitment of western intellectuals; con-temporary experience which has reminded us that political action anddecision can shape history; and the failure of "quantitative history"(another claimant to "scientific" status) to deliver the goods. Twoquestions are involved in this argument, which I have brutally over-simplified: what has been happening in historiography, and how arethese developments to be explained?Since it is common ground that inhistory "the facts" are always selected, shaped and perhaps distortedby the historian who observes them, there is an element ofpartipris,not to say intellectual autobiography, in Stones treatment of bothquestions, as in my comments on it. I think we may accept that the twenty years following the SecondWorld War saw a sharp decline in political and religious history, in theuse of "ideas" as an explanation of history, and a remarkable turn tosocio-economic history and to historical explanation in terms of"social forces", as Momigliano noted as early as i954.2 Whether ornot we call them "economic-determinist", these currents of hist-oriography became influential, in some cases dominant, in the mainwestern centres of historiography, not to mention, for other reasons,the eastern ones. We may also accept that in recent years there hasbeen considerable diversification, and a marked revival of interest inthemes which were rather more marginal to the main concerns of thehistorical outsiders who in those years became historical insiders,though such themes were never neglected. After all, Braudel wroteabout Philip II as well as the Mediterranean, and Le Roy Laduriesmonograph on Le carnaval de Romans of 1580 is anticipated by amuch briefer, but most perceptive, account of the same episode in hisLes paysans du Languedoc.3 If Marxist historians of the 1970S write 1 Lawrence Stone, "The Revival of Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History",Past and Present, no. 85 (Nov. 1979), pp. 3-24. 2 Arnaldo Momigliano, "A Hundred Years after Ranke", in his Studies inHistoriography (London, 1966), pp. 108-9. 3 Fernand Braudel, La Mediterranee et le monde mediterraneen d lepoque dePhilippe II (Paris, 1960); Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Le carnaval de Romans (Paris,1979); Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Les paysans du Languedoc, 2 vols. (Paris, 1966),i, pp. 394-9, 505-6.
4 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 86entire books on the role of radical-national myths, such as the WelshMadoc legend, ChristopherHill at least wrote a seminal article on themyth of the Norman Yoke in the early 1950S.4 Still, there probably hasbeen a change. Whether this amounts to a revival of"narrative history" as definedby Stone (basically chronological ordering of the material in "a singlecoherent story, albeit with sub-plots" and a concentration "on mannot circumstances") is difficult to determine, since Stone deliberatelyeschews a quantitative survey and concentrates on "a very tiny, butdisproportionatelyprominent, section of the historical profession as awhole".5 Nevertheless there is evidence that the old historical avant-garde no longer rejects, despises and combats the old-fashioned"history of events" or even biographical history, as some of it used to.Fernand Braudel himself has given unstinted praise to a notablytraditional exercise in popular narrative history, Claude Manceronsattempt to present the origins of the French Revolution through aseries of overlapping biographies of contemporaries,great and small.6On the other hand the historical minority whose supposedly changedinterests Stone surveys, has not in fact changed over to practisingnarrative history. If we leave aside deliberate historiographical con-servatives or neo-conservatives such as the British "antiquarianempiricists", there is very little simple narrative history among theworks Stone cites or refers to. For almost all of them the event, the in-dividual, even the recapture of some mood or way of thinking of thepast, are not ends in themselves, but the means of illuminating somewider question, which goes far beyond the particular story and itscharacters. In short those historians who continue to believe in the possibility ofgeneralizing about human societies and their development, continueto be interested in "the big why questions", though they may some-times focus on different ones from those on which they concentratedtwenty or thirty years ago. There is really no evidence that suchhistorians - the ones Stone is mainly concerned with - haveabandoned "the attempt to produce a coherent... explanation ofchange in the past".7 Whether they (or we) also regard their attemptas "scientific"will no doubt depend on our definition of "science", butwe need not enter this dispute about labels. Moreover I very muchdoubt whether such historians feel that they are "forcedback upon the 4 Christopher Hill, "The Norman Yoke", in John Saville (ed.), Democracy and theLabour Movement: Essays in Honour of Dona Torr (London, 1954), repr. in Chris-topher Hill, Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the EnglishRevolution of the i7th Century (London, 1958), pp. 50- 22. 5 Stone, op. cit., pp. 3, 4. 6 Fernand Braudel, "Une parfaite reussite" [review of Claude Manceron, LaRevolution qui leve, I785-I787 (Paris, 1979)], Lhistoire, no. 21 (1980), pp. o18-9. 7 Stone, op. cit., p. 19.
THE REVIVAL OF NARRATIVE 5principle of indeterminacy",8 any more than Marx felt his writingsabout Louis Napoleon to be incompatible with the materialist concep-tion of history. No doubt there are historians who have abandoned such attempts,and certainly there are some who combat them, perhaps with a zealincreased by ideological commitment. (Whether or not Marxism hasdeclined intellectually, it is hard to detect much muting of ideologicalcontroversy among western historians, though the participants andthe specific issues may not be the same as twenty years ago.) Probablyneo-conservative history has gained ground, at any rate in Britain,both in the form of the "young antiquarian empiricists" who "writedetailed political narratives which implicitly deny that there is anydeep-seatedmeaning to history except the accidental whims of fortuneand personality",9 and in the form of works like Theodore Zeldins(and Richard Cobbs) remarkableplunges into those strata of the past,to which "almost every aspect of traditionalist history" is irrelevant,including the answering of questions.10So, probably, has what mightbe called anti-intellectual leftist history. But this, except very tan-gentially, is not what Stone is concerned with. How then are we to account for the shifts in historical subject-matter and interests, in so far as they have occurred or are occurring? One element in them, it may be suggested, reflects the remarkablewidening of the field of history in the past twenty years, typified by therise of "social history", that shapeless container for everything fromchanges in human physique to symbol and ritual, and above all for thelives of all people from beggars to emperors.As Braudel has observed,this "histoire obscure de tout le monde" is "the history towards which,in different ways, all historiography tends at present"." This is notthe place to speculate on the reasons for this vast extension of the field,which certainly does not necessarily conflict with the attempt toproduce a coherent explanation of the past. It does, however, increasethe technical difficulty of writing history. How are these complexitiesto be presented? It is not surprising that historians experiment withdifferent forms of such presentation, including notably those thatborrow from the ancient techniques of literature (which has made itsown stabs at displaying la comedie humaine), and also from themodern audio-visual media, in which all but the oldest of us aresaturated. What Stone calls the pointilliste techniques are, at least inpart, attempts to solve such technical problems of presentation. Such experiments are particularly necessary for that part of history 8 Ibid., p. 13. 9 Ibid., p. 20. 10 Theodore Zeldin, France, 1848-I945, 2 vols. (Oxford History of Modern Europeser., Oxford, 1973-7), trans. as Histoire des passionsfrancaises (Paris, 1978); RichardCobb, Death in Paris (Oxford, 1978). 11Braudel, "Une parfaite reussite", p. 109.
6 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 86which cannot be subsumed under "analysis" (or the rejection ofanalysis) and which Stone rather neglects, namely synthesis. Theproblem of fitting together the various manifestations of humanthought and action at a specific period is neither new nor unrecog-nized. No history of Jacobean England is satisfactory which omitsBacon or treats him exclusively as a lawyer, a politician, or a figure inthe history of science or of literature. Moreover even the most con-ventional historians recognize it, even when their solutions (a chapteror two on science, literature, education or whatnot appended to themain body of politico-institutional text) is unsatisfactory. Yet thewider the range of human activities which is accepted as the legitimateconcern of the historian, the more clearly understood the necessity ofestablishing systematic connections between them, the greater thedifficulty of achieving a synthesis. This is, naturally, far more than atechnical problem of presentation, yet it is that also. Even those whocontinue to be guided in their analysis by something like the "three-tiered hierarchical" model of base and superstructures which Stonerejects,2 may find it an inadequate guide to presentation, thoughprobably a less inadequate guide than straight chronological narra-tive. Leaving aside the problemsof presentation and synthesis, two moresubstantial reasons for a change may also be suggested. The first is thevery success of the "new historians" in the post-wardecades. This wasachieved by a deliberate methodological simplification, the concentra-tion on what were seen as the socio-economic base and determinantsof history, at the expense of - sometimes, as in the French battleagainst the "history of events", in direct confrontation with - tradi-tional narrative history. While there were some extreme econo-mic reductionists, and others who dismissed people and events asnegligible ripples on the longue duree of structure and conjoncture,such extremism was not universally shared either in Annales, oramong the Marxists who - especially in Britain - never lost interestin events or culture, nor regarded "superstructure" as always andentirely dependenton "base". Yet the very triumph of works like thoseof Braudel, Goubert and Le Roy Ladurie, which Stone underlines, notonly left "new" historians free to concentrate on those aspects ofhistory hitherto deliberately set aside, but advanced their place on the"new historians" agenda. As an eminent Annalist, Le Goff, pointedout several years ago, "political history was gradually to return inforce by borrowing the methods, spirit and theoretical approachof thevery social sciences which had pushed it into the background".3 Thenew history of men and minds, ideas and events may be seen as com- 12 Stone, op. cit., pp. 7-8. 13 J. Le Goff, "Is Politics Still the Backbone of History?", in Felix Gilbert andStephen R. Graubard (eds.), Historical Studies Today (New York, 1972), p. 340.
THE REVIVAL OF NARRATIVE 7plementing rather than as supplanting the analysis of socio-economicstructures and trends. But once historians turn to such items on their agenda, they mayprefer to approach their "coherent explanation of change in the past"as it were ecologically rather than as geologists. They may prefer tostart with the study of a "situation" which embodies and exemplifiesthe stratified structure of a society but concentrates the mind on thecomplexities and interconnections of real history, rather than with thestudy of the structureitself, especially if for this they can rely partly onearlier work. This, as Stone recognizes, lies at the root of somehistorians admirationfor works like Clifford Geertzs "close reading"of a Balinese cock-fight.4 It implies no necessary choice betweenmonocausality and multicausality, and certainly no conflict between amodel in which some historical determinants are seen as more power-ful than others, and the recognition of interconnections, both verticaland horizontal. A "situation" may be a convenient point of departure,as in Ginzburgs study of popular ideology through the case of a singlevillage atheist in the sixteenth century or a single group of Friu-lian peasants accused of witchcraft.15 These topics could also beapproachedin other ways. It may be a necessarypoint of departureinother cases, as in Agulhons beautiful study of how, at a particulartime and place, French villagers converted from Catholic tradi-tionalism to militant republicanism.16 At all events, for certainpurposes historians are likely to choose it as a starting-point. There is thus no necessary contradiction between Le Roy LaduriesLes paysans du Languedoc and his Montaillou, any more thanbetween Dubys general works on feudal society and his monographon the battle of Bouvines, or between E. P. Thompsons The Makingof the English WorkingClass and his Whigs and Hunters.7 There isnothing new in choosing to see the world via a microscoperather thana telescope. So long as we accept that we are studying the same cosmos,the choice between microcosm and macrocosm is a matter of selectingthe appropriate technique. It is significant that more historians findthe microscope useful at present, but this does not necessarily meanthat they reject telescopes as out of date. Even the historians of 14Clifford Geertz, "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cock-Fight", in his TheInterpretation of Cultures (New York, 1973). 15 Carlo Ginzburg, II formaggio e i vermi (Turin, 1976); Carlo Ginzburg, Ibenandanti: ricerche sulla stregoneria e sui culti agrari tra Cinquecento e Seicento(Turin, 1966). 16Maurice Agulhon, La Republique au village (Paris, 1970). 17 Le Roy Ladurie, Les paysans du Languedoc; Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie,Montaillou, village occitan de I294 d I324 (Paris, I976), trans. B. Bray asMontaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, I294-I324 (London, 1978);Georges Duby, Le dimanche de Bouvines, 27 juillet I2I4 (Paris, 1973); E. P.Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London, I963); E. P.Thompson, Whigs and Hunters (London, 1975).
8 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 86mentalite, that vague catch-all term which Stone, perhapswisely, doesnot try to clarify, do not exclusively or predominantlyavoid the broadview. This at least is a lesson they have learned from the anthro-pologists. Do these observationsaccount for Stones "broadcluster of changesin the nature of historical discourse"?8Perhaps not. However, theydemonstrate that it is possible to explain much of what he surveys asthe continuation of past historical enterprisesby other means, insteadof as proofs of their bankruptcy.One would not wish to deny that somehistorians regard them as bankrupt or undesirableand wish to changetheir discourse in consequence, for various reasons, some of themintellectually dubious, some to be taken seriously. Clearly somehistorians have shifted from "circumstances" to "men" (includingwomen), or have discovered that a simple base/superstructuremodeland economic history are not enough, or -since the pay-off fromsuch approaches has been very substantial - are no longer enough.Some may well have convinced themselves that there is an in-compatibility between their "scientific" and "literary"functions. Butit is not necessary to analyse the present fashions in history entirely asa rejection of the past, and in so far as they cannot be entirelyanalysed in such terms, it will not do. We are all anxious to discover where historians are going. Stonesessay is to be welcomed as an attempt to do so. Nevertheless it is notsatisfactory. In spite of his disclaimer the essay does combine thecharting of "observed changes in historical fashion" with "valuejudgements about what are good, and what are less good, modes ofhistorical writing",9 especially about the latter. I think this is a pity,not because I happen to disagree with him about "the principle of in-determinacy" and historical generalization, but because, if the argu-ment is wrong, a diagnosis of the "changes in historical discourse"made in terms of this argument must also be inadequate. One istempted, like the mythical Irishman, askedby the traveller for the wayto Ballynahinch, to stop, ponder, and reply: "If I were you, I wouldntstart from here at all".Birkbeck College, London E. J. Hobsbawm 18 Stone, op. cit., p. 23. 19Ibid., p. 4.