(no subject)
May. 28th, 2012 08:28 amIt's Monday morning and already I have a scholarly quibble to make. This means I'm off to a good start this week. It's all a matter of whether the work of Pirenne counts. The author I'm reading argues that looking at the slow and long patterns is postmodern, from the Annales School (especially Fernand Braudel). But Pirenne ought to be credited for that, surely, and, even more surely, he was writing earlier? This means that any notion of flow change or a different length dynamic or even no change at all over a certain period predates the second half of the twentieth century? What this means to me is that the author with whom I quibble is creating false "There was and then there was." History in binary - with simple choices - seldom works, but this time it woks even less seldom simply because the writer in question is basing a part of his/her case on Pirenne's ideas not being around until a half century later.
Unfortunately, this is a review volume and I need to think of a polite way of explaining that it undermines the argument when one tangles the historiography. This is what I've been putting off doing. It's not a bad book, but it really does have a couple of rather big flaws.
Unfortunately, this is a review volume and I need to think of a polite way of explaining that it undermines the argument when one tangles the historiography. This is what I've been putting off doing. It's not a bad book, but it really does have a couple of rather big flaws.