Innovation and Critique in the Handbuch

Abstract

Abstract The Handbuch’s original program proposed that methods developed in the GG’s mapping of concepts be combined with two further types of investi gation associated with French historiography: mentalités in the Annales style exemplified by Vovelle and the quantitative treatment of political vocabular ies exemplified by French lexicologists. As has been seen, Reichardt con cluded that upon closer examination, quantitative lexicology had not contributed much to research on political language, and even less to that on revolutionary mentalités. If the study of political concepts and language was to inform knowledge of the mentalités developed during the French Revo lution, the Handbuch’s findings would have to be synthesized by other means. Reichardt has now attempted to do so. Thus my assessment of the Handbuch will include its editor’s latest contributions. But there is a prior set of issues which must be considered. For the Handbuch’s project needs to be reexamined in the light of the powerful critiques recently mounted by such French social historians as Roger Chartier, and directed against the previous generation of Annales historians who have provided much of Reichardt’s research program.