The Annales School under the Nourishment of Marx’s Historical Theory

In 1929, a major event occurred in the history of world historiography: the rise of the French Annales School, which rapidly spread across the globe. Peter Burke called it “The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School, 1929–1989”; taking this as his book title, Burke brought the transformation initiated by the Annales School into global视野.

1929年，在世界史学史上发生了一件大事，这就是法国年鉴学派的崛起，并迅速传播到世界。被彼得·伯克称之为“法国史学革命：年鉴学派，1929—1989”，伯克以此为书名，将年鉴学派引发的变革带入全球视野之中。

Over the course of three generations of development, the “French historical revolution” sought to dominate the field with its core concept of “total history.” If we trace its origins, the fact that the Annales School’s theory of total history was nourished by Marx’s theory of world history stands out as a striking highlight in the history of modern and contemporary new historiography.

“法国史学革命”在历经三代的发展过程中，曾力图以其核心理念“总体史”称雄天下。倘追溯源头，年鉴学派的总体史理论受到了马克思世界历史理论的沾溉，在现当代新史学的历史上，当是一个令人夺目的亮点。

The Rising Sun Shines East and West

朝阳初升昱西东

The birth of the Annales School was no accident. On the one hand, the positivist historiography represented by older-generation historians such as Charles Seignobos and Charles-Victor Langlois still relied on political history, neglecting fields such as social-cultural history and economic history. On the other hand, the world situation was turbulent: the outbreak of the First World War, the victory of the Russian October Revolution, and the global economic crisis of 1929—this general crisis, or “crisis of civilization,” dealt a fatal blow to the utility of traditional historiography. “People’s need to understand the crisis and to respond to it was extremely strong; the gaze of the times shifted from politics to economics. The birth of the *Annales d’histoire économique et sociale* precisely answered the demands of the era.”

年鉴学派的诞生并非偶然。一方面，以瑟诺博斯、朗格诺瓦等老一代史学家为代表的实证史学，仍倚重于政治史，忽视社会文化史、经济史等领域；另一方面，世界局势风起云涌，第一次世界大战爆发、俄国十月革命胜利、1929年全球性经济危机，这种总体危机或“文明危机”给传统史学的功用性带来致命打击。“人们对理解危机和对其做出反应的需求十分强烈，时代的目光从政治转向了经济。《经济社会史年鉴》的诞生正好回答了时代的要求。”

The *Annales*’ rebellion against and challenge to traditional historiography was manifested, first, in its emphasis on economic and social phenomena and its advocacy of a more comprehensive history; second, in its promotion of interdisciplinary research, integrating history with the social sciences and natural sciences; and third, in its conviction that the development of historiography lies in practice rather than theory, and that historical theory should be invigorated through concrete historical practice. Marc Bloch, with his lifelong experience in historical research, appealed to people: “Only a total history is true history, and it is only through the collaboration of many that we can approach true history.” This is the fundamental pursuit of the Annales School’s historical approach—the study of total history.

《年鉴》对传统史学的反叛和挑战，首先表现为注重经济和社会现象，主张更为全面的历史；其次是倡导跨学科研究，融合历史学和社会科学与自然科学的交流；再次是坚信史学的发展在于实践而非理论，史学理论应通过具体的史学实践被赋予活力。马克·布洛赫更是用毕生的治史心得向人们呼吁：“唯有总体的历史，才是真历史，而只有通过众人的协作，才能接近真正的历史。”这就是年鉴学派治史的根本追求——总体史研究。

From the perspective of the French historiographical tradition, the Annales School’s total history was actually an echo of the Voltairean school of the 18th century; in the intervening period, Michelet’s historiography, Durkheim’s sociological theory, and even Henri Berr’s “historical synthesis” all influenced the Annales School. Moreover, with regard to the macroscopic evolution of human history, the Annales School shared a common research interest with Marx’s theory of world history. In *The German Ideology*, Marx for the first time articulated the scientific concept of “world history,” putting forward the famous proposition of “the transformation of history into world history.” It is precisely in the process of this transformation into world history that human society moves from the closure of national and regional boundaries toward the integration of world history, and through practice, from the existence of nature-in-itself to the creation of humanized nature, thereby establishing a new paradigm of historical materialism for writing world history. This new paradigm coincided with the Annales School’s emphasis on studying social history as a whole. It can be said that Marx’s theory of world history was an important intellectual source for the Annales School’s total history.

从法国史学传统来说，年鉴学派的总体史实际上是对18世纪伏尔泰学派的历史回响，其间米什莱的史学、涂尔干的社会学理论直至亨利·贝尔的“历史综合论”都影响过年鉴学派。不仅如此，就人类历史宏观演进而言，年鉴学派又与马克思世界历史理论有着相同的研究旨趣。马克思在《德意志意识形态》中，第一次表述科学的“世界历史”概念，提出“历史向世界历史转变”的著名命题，正是在向世界历史的转变过程中，人类社会开始从民族区域的封闭走向世界历史的融合，并通过实践从自在自然的存在迈向人化自然的创造，由此书写世界历史的唯物史观新范式确立了起来。这种新范式与年鉴学派强调的把社会历史作为一个整体进行研究不谋而合。可以说，马克思的世界历史理论是年鉴学派总体史的重要思想来源。

From around the 1930s, Marxism began to spread among French university professors, and the Annales School drew many inspirations from it. “Many of its ideas were close to Marxism,” for example, “its attempt to encompass and grasp all of reality.” Lucien Febvre published numerous commentaries on Marxism in the *Annales* and even encouraged the reading of Marxist works: “I sincerely urge you: read Marx’s books… and also read Lenin’s books.” On this basis, the Annales School devoted itself to broadening the field of history, presenting a complete and comprehensive “history of humanity.”

大约从20世纪30年代起，马克思主义开始在法国大学教授中传播，年鉴学派从中汲取众多启示，“它的许多观念都接近马克思主义”，例如“力图囊括和把握所有现实”。吕西安·费弗尔在《年鉴》上发表过不少对马克思主义的评论，甚至鼓励阅读马克思主义著作：“我真心地敦促你们：要读马克思的书……也要读列宁的书。”在此基础之上，年鉴学派致力于拓宽历史学的领域，呈现出完整而全面的“人的历史”。

Braudel Approaches Marx

布罗代尔走近马克思

Fernand Braudel joined the *Annales* in 1946 and, after Febvre, became director of the “Sixth Section of the École Pratique des Hautes Études: Economic and Social Sciences.” Under Braudel’s leadership, the Annales School rose from an “outsider school” to an “establishment school,” becoming the new fashion in French historiography. Also in 1946, the *Annales* changed its name to *Annales: Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations*, aiming to achieve mutual penetration among different social sciences and hoping that historians would act as the leaders of this synthesis, embodying the spirit of total history.

布罗代尔于1946年加入《年鉴》，并在费弗尔之后出任“经济和社会科学部”主任。在布罗代尔的领导下，年鉴学派由“在野派”上升为“当权派”，成为法国史学的新风尚。也是在1946年，《年鉴》改刊名为《经济、社会、文明年鉴》，企图实现不同社会科学之间的互相渗透，并希望由历史学家充当这种综合的领导者，体现了总体史的研究精神。

Peter Burke believes that, compared with Febvre and Bloch, “Braudel benefited more from Marx.” Braudel himself explicitly stated that history needed “to cooperate with sociologists, anthropologists, economists, and even Marxists.” When asked about his relationship with Marx, he admitted: “Compared with my relationship with Max Weber, my views are closer to Marx.” This closeness might be explained from the perspective of academic strategy: in the struggle against the dominant position of traditional political history, Marxists were allies of the *Annales*. Another possibility is that the historical methods of Marxists and the *Annales* shared common ground, not only in their emphasis on structure and the *longue durée* but also in their concern for totality.

彼得·伯克认为与费弗尔和布洛赫相比，“布罗代尔更多受益于马克思”。布罗代尔本人也明确表示，历史学需要“与社会学家、人类学家、经济学家，甚至马克思主义者合作”；当被问及与马克思的关系时，他坦言：“与马克斯·韦伯的关系相比，我的观点与马克思更加接近。”这种接近或许可以从学术策略的角度进行解释，在反抗传统政治史支配地位的斗争中，马克思主义者是年鉴的盟友，另一种可能性是，马克思主义者的历史方法与年鉴之间有着共通之处，不仅在对结构与长时段的强调方面相似，而且在对总体的关注上也颇为接近。

Whether in Marx’s theory of world history or the Annales School’s total history, “human society” is the fundamental standpoint; human society is an organic unity composed of human beings and society. This organic unity is evident everywhere in the Annales School’s historical practice, especially in Braudel’s works. By explaining the theory of three temporalities in history, he proposed the concepts of “structure,” “conjuncture,” and “event” in order to examine the profound internal movements of human historical evolution. For example, *The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II* is widely recognized as a classic mainly because “in the author’s hands, the Mediterranean is no longer a lifeless sea but a historical figure full of passion and life.” Febvre wrote a book review titled “Toward Another Historiography,” affirming that “in a certain sense, it is revolutionary.” The revolutionary significance here refers to Braudel’s theory of the historical “*longue durée*”: “a time that flows slowly, sometimes approaching stillness.” Within this “nearly static” historical time frame, it helps to examine the evolution of human social history and future developmental trends.

无论是马克思世界历史理论还是年鉴学派总体史，“人类社会”都是根本立足点，人类社会是由人和社会组成的有机统一体。这种有机统一的关系，在年鉴学派的史学实践尤其在布罗代尔的著述中随处可见，他通过对历史三时段理论进行解释，提出了“结构”“情势”“事件”的概念，以便考察人类历史演进的深刻内在运动。比如，《菲利普二世时代的地中海和地中海世界》之所以被公认为经典之作，主要原因在于“在作者笔下，地中海不再是一个毫无生机的海洋，而是一个充满激情和生命的历史人物”。费弗尔撰写了题为《向另一种史学迈进》的书评，肯定“它在某种意义上是革命的”。这里的革命性意义指的是布罗代尔的历史“长时段”理论：“一种缓慢地流逝，有时接近静止的时间。”在“近乎静止”的历史时间段内，有助于审视人类社会历史的演进和未来发展趋势。

Braudel’s emphasis on deep structures and his focus on historical materiality more or less “accepted something resembling a Marxist framework.” In 1957, he wrote: “Marxism is the synthesis of all models. The secret of Marx’s genius and the enduring nature of his influence lies in the fact that he was the first to construct truly social models on the basis of the historical *longue durée*.” Undoubtedly, the historical practice of total history, to some extent, confirmed the scientific foresight of Marx’s theory of world history, providing indispensable spiritual nourishment for the growth of the Annales School.

布罗代尔强调深层结构、重视历史物质性的理念，多多少少“接受了一些类似于马克思主义框架的东西”。他在1957年曾写道：“马克思主义是所有模式的集大成。马克思的天才及其影响的持久性的秘密在于他第一个在历史的长时段的基础上构造了真正的社会模式。”毋庸置疑，总体史的史学实践，某种程度上证实了马克思世界历史理论的科学预见性，为年鉴学派的成长提供了不可或缺的精神滋养。

Evolution through Inheritance

在传承中演进

In 1968, Braudel resigned as editor-in-chief of the *Annales*, handing it over to Jacques Le Goff, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, and Marc Ferro, and the Annales School entered its third stage of development. Between the three generations of the Annales School, there were both continuities and ruptures. The continuities need no elaboration—such as “broad curiosity, interdisciplinary research orientation, and attention to the *longue durée*”—but the ruptures were equally striking. The most important rupture “was manifested in the third generation’s deconstruction of history and abandonment of the concept of totality.” In his later years, Braudel criticized this: “My disciples did not follow my teachings… there is a huge gap between my successors and me.” What dissatisfied him most was that they had abandoned the grand goal of total history and, disregarding the connections between this field and others, plunged headlong into the history of mentalities. He believed that this would inevitably ruin the great mission of history to lead the other social sciences.

1968年，布罗代尔辞去《年鉴》主编的职务，把它交给雅克·勒高夫、勒华拉杜里和马克·费罗，年鉴学派进入第三个发展阶段。三代年鉴学派之间既有连续性也存在着裂痕，连续性无需赘言，诸如“广泛的好奇心、跨学科的研究取向、对长时段的关注”，但裂痕也同样令人印象深刻，最重要的裂痕“表现在第三代年鉴学派对历史的解构和对整体观念的放弃上”。晚年的布罗代尔对此提出了批评：“我的门徒们没有遵循我的教诲……我的接班人和我之间存在巨大鸿沟。”他最不满意之处是他们放弃了总体历史的宏大目标，并不顾该领域与其他领域的联系，一头扎进心态史领域，他认为，这必将断送历史学统领其他社会科学的重大使命。

The diversity and heterogeneity of the third generation of the Annales School provoked François Dosse’s sharp critique; he “had a premonition that the new history represented by the Annales School would face a crisis and inevitably disintegrate.” Under these circumstances, the relationship between the Annales School and Marxism became more delicate. For Jacques Le Goff, this delicate relationship was most evident. He is regarded as a historian with a Marxist inclination. On the one hand, he openly acknowledged Marxism’s influence on the Annales School: “In many respects—such as studying history with a problematic, interdisciplinarity, the longue durée, and holistic observation—Marx is one of the masters of the new history.” On the other hand, he opposed Marx’s “rigid” economic determinism, which relegated mentalities to the superstructure determined by the economic base. Phenomena of this kind are perhaps most aptly summarized by the phrase “holding an ambiguous attitude toward Marxism”—drawing close while inadvertently keeping a distance.

第三代年鉴学派的多样性和异质性，招致弗朗索瓦·多斯的尖锐批判，他“预感到年鉴学派所代表的新史学将出现危机并必将瓦解”。在这种情况下，年鉴学派与马克思主义的关系变得更加微妙。对雅克·勒高夫而言，这种微妙关系体现得最为明显，他被誉为具有马克思主义倾向的史学家，一方面公开承认马克思主义对年鉴学派的影响，“在许多方面，如带着问题研究历史、跨学科、长时段和整体观察等，马克思是新史学的大师之一”，但另一方面又反对马克思“生硬的”经济至上论把心态排挤到受经济结构决定的上层建筑里。诸如此类现象或许用“对马克思主义持有某种暧昧态度”来概括最为恰当不过，接近的同时又在无意中疏远。

Yet we must still note that the Annales School has its congenital defects, the greatest of which is its neglect of human subjective initiative. “Because of its eagerness to break free from the influence of traditional historiography, Annales historiography often turns a blind eye to individuals in practice. The socio-economic history written by Annales historians places great emphasis on collective phenomena and external environments, always prioritizing questions of order over the decisive role of individuals.” Zhang Zhilian also pointed out this defect of the Annales School: “Although it attaches importance to the study of economic and social structures, it often only makes static analyses and descriptions of such structures, paying no attention to qualitative change; it despises political history and ignores the role of the people in creating history. In the minds of Annales historians, people are completely reduced to passive ‘puppets.’” On this point, the Annales School differs considerably from Marx’s theory of world history concerning human subjectivity.

但我们仍需注意的是，年鉴学派有它先天的缺陷，其中最大的缺陷是忽略了人的主观能动性。“由于急于摆脱传统史学的影响，年鉴史学在实际上往往会对个人视而不见。年鉴史家笔下的社会经济史十分注重集体性现象和外在环境，总是优先考虑秩序问题而非起着决定性作用的个人。”张芝联先生也曾指出年鉴学派这一缺陷：“它虽重视经济社会结构的研究，但往往只对这种结构作静态的分析与描绘，不注意质的变化；它鄙视政治史，忽视人民创造历史的作用，在年鉴派史学家的心目中，人完全成了消极被动的‘傀儡’。”就这一点而言，年鉴学派与马克思世界历史理论关于人的主体性还有着不小的差异。

In sum, the Annales School is both an inheritance of the French historiographical cultural tradition and a continuation of the world historiographical lineage. Marxism and Marx’s theory of world history are like the “living source” [n] for several generations of Annales scholars, nourishing and giving birth to the Annales School, which is at once the most French and the most global.

总之，年鉴学派既是法国史学文化传统的继承，同时也是世界史学文脉的联绵，马克思主义、马克思世界历史理论犹如年鉴几代学人的“源头活水”，沾溉孕育了最法国的也是最世界的年鉴学派。

(The author is an associate professor in the Department of History, School of Sociology, Soochow University.)

（作者系苏州大学社会学院历史系副教授）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧