译者按
本文译自 Marnie Hughes‑Warrington 所著 Fifty Key Thinkers on History（Routledge，2014 年第三版）一书中关于吕西安·费弗尔的词条。
原书版权归作者及出版社所有。本译文为个人兴趣翻译，非官方授权版本，仅供学习、交流与研究之用，不作任何商业用途。
译文难免有疏漏，欢迎指正；如涉及版权异议，请权利人联系我删除。建议有兴趣的读者查阅原书。
译文使用 DeepSeek V4 Flash 完成，并在格式上适配个人博客。

费弗尔（1878–1956）

具有讽刺意味的是，吕西安·费弗尔这位与马克·布洛赫合作、推动以问题为导向的、涵盖人类全部经验范围的历史书写的现代历史学家，在法国的精神疆界之外却相对不为人知。吕西安·费弗尔（1878–1956）是一位文法教师的儿子，童年是在洛林度过的。在路易大帝中学完成学业并服完兵役后，费弗尔考入巴黎高等师范学院。1898年至1902年间，他参加了亨利·柏格森、吕西安·列维-布留尔和保罗·维达尔·德拉布拉什等学者的研讨课。费弗尔从这些研讨课中获益良多，同时他也从阅读儒勒·米什莱和雅各布·布克哈特等历史学家和政治思想家的著作中收获颇丰。从学业早期开始，费弗尔就拒绝那种把历史视为对政治和军事事件进行科学研究的日耳曼主流历史观。相反，他赞成一种更宽广的历史观，这种历史观受到地理学家、人类学家、社会学家、经济学家和语文学家等社会理论家思想的启发。

这种历史观奠定了他博士论文的基础。该论文研究十六世纪西班牙国王腓力二世统治时期的弗朗什-孔泰地区。费弗尔描述了尼德兰对腓力二世的反抗以及宗教改革的临近。他还生动地描绘了该地区的社会地理特征，以及负债累累的贵族与日益富裕的资产阶级之间激烈的经济、政治和情感斗争（《腓力二世与弗朗什-孔泰：政治、宗教与社会史研究》，1912年）。在《历史综合杂志》创办者亨利·贝尔的支持下，费弗尔计划撰写一部关于历史与地理关系的更一般性研究。然而，他的计划因第一次世界大战的爆发而中断。战争期间，费弗尔在一个机枪连服役。

1919年10月，费弗尔在新近收复的阿尔萨斯地区的斯特拉斯堡大学获得现代史讲师职位。在就职演讲中，费弗尔概述了历史在一个“废墟中的世界”中的功能。他认为，当历史学家摆脱了无意义的事实收集，不再为政治、意识形态和民族主义目的而写作，也不再把事件归入人为或虚假的规律之下时，他们就能成为“我们民族理想、我们文明、我们独立以及我们对和平与自由意志的最好、最可靠的保障”。¹

在斯特拉斯堡，他重新转向对地理与历史关系的研究，该研究成果以《土地与人类演进》（1922年，英译名为《历史的地理导论》）出版。这本书以弗里德里希·拉采尔的主张为出发点：物质环境“充当人们情绪和不断变化的抱负的固定基础，并以盲目的粗暴支配着各民族的命运”（《历史的地理导论》，第18页）。费弗尔呼应维达尔·德拉布拉什，对拉采尔的观点提出两点反对意见。第一，他强调对特定环境可以作出多种多样的回应；例如，山脉可能成为边界，也可能不会。第二，环境对人的影响总是通过社会结构和观念来中介；例如，一条河流可能被一个群体视为障碍，而被另一个群体视为宝贵的贸易路线。因此，社会在塑造每个个体对世界的看法方面发挥着重要作用。

这两个论点在他与阿尔贝·德芒戎合作对莱茵河的研究《莱茵河：历史与经济问题》（1935年）以及他1944–45年关于欧洲的讲座（《欧洲》，1999年出版）中得到了进一步探讨。在关于莱茵河的著作中，费弗尔论证说，人们对河流的感知并不是自然给定的，而是人类经验的产物。莱茵河的例子说明了这样一个论点：“边界”存在于当你发现自己身处一个不同的世界，置身于一套令外国人感到惊讶和困惑的观念、情感和热情之中时。换言之，强有力地“铭刻”在大地上的边界，并不是警察、海关人员或部署在壁垒后面的大炮，而是情感、激昂的激情——以及仇恨。²

费弗尔希望，围绕莱茵河心理边界所展开的批判性讨论，能够帮助人们消解当代民族主义的神话。同样的抱负在他对欧洲的分析中得到了更大规模的体现，他把欧洲视为一种文化建构：它并不稳定，但又足够强大，能够将人们联结在一起。在这些问题上，费弗尔预示了至少在他去世二十年后才出现的地理历史学的发展方向。

在斯特拉斯堡大学开始工作后不久，费弗尔与中世纪史家马克·布洛赫建立了持续终生的友谊。费弗尔和布洛赫共同怀有一种“更宽广、更有人性”的历史观愿景。1929年，他们创办了期刊《经济与社会史年鉴》，该刊今天以《年鉴：历史学、社会科学》之名存续，以推广他们的“新历史”。³ 通过《年鉴》，费弗尔和布洛赫希望，第一，促进人文科学的统一；第二，质疑将历史划分为古代、中世纪和现代，以及将社会划分为“原始”或“文明”类型的做法。费弗尔写了大量论战性的书评和文章，反对那些不是“我们的”历史观，尤其是那些崇拜事实和专门化的观点。

在完成《历史的地理导论》之后，费弗尔转向研究法国人对文艺复兴和宗教改革的看法。在大量文章和讲演中，费弗尔论证说，米什莱的“文艺复兴”或“再生”概念使历史学家忽略了中世纪与文艺复兴之间的联系。例如，费弗尔声称，资产阶级的兴起横跨这两个时期（参见例如《新史学》中的“亚眠”和“儒勒·米什莱如何发明文艺复兴”，第193–207、258–267页）。在其他文章和讲演中，例如“法国宗教改革的起源：一个提得不好的问题？”，费弗尔挑战了把宗教改革视为由路德领导的反抗天主教会弊端的正统观点。他认为，宗教史不应只涉及特定教会制度的历史，还应考虑人们的宗教观念、情感、倾向和回应（另见《新史学》中的“宗教实践与法国史”，第268–275页）。在费弗尔看来，宗教改革的发生在很大程度上是因为新兴资产阶级寻求一个“清晰、相当有人情味且温和友爱的教会”，在这个教会中，所有人都可以研读《圣经》，信徒与上帝之间可以进行直接对话（“法国宗教改革的起源”，《新史学》，第66、69–80页）。资产阶级在费弗尔所写的路德传记《一种命运：马丁·路德》（1928年，英译名为《马丁·路德：一种命运》）中也被赋予重要角色。费弗尔声称，资产阶级是路德思想的乐于接受的听众。然而，他谨慎地指出，路德的思想不能化约为资产阶级的思想。例如，当路德谴责荷兰改革家伊拉斯谟以及“抢劫杀人的”农民时，一些资产阶级便拒绝了他的思想。在这些论文中，没有任何单一个体支配着宗教改革的历史。

1933年，费弗尔离开斯特拉斯堡，在巴黎的法兰西公学院担任历史学教授。当占领区和维希法国的反犹政策使作为犹太人的布洛赫无法共同主持时，费弗尔还不得不承担更多与《年鉴》相关的工作。第二次世界大战期间，他大部分时间都在弗朗什-孔泰的乡间小屋中园艺和写作。他写了三本书：《十六世纪的不信神问题：拉伯雷的宗教》（1942年，英译名为《十六世纪的不信神问题》），《奥利金与德佩里耶：或〈世界钟声〉之谜》（1942年），以及《围绕〈七日谈〉：神圣之爱，世俗之爱》（1944年）。

《十六世纪的不信神问题》是费弗尔最重要也最具争议的著作。在这本书中，费弗尔旨在表明，阿贝尔·勒弗朗将弗朗索瓦·拉伯雷的《卡冈都亚与庞大固埃》（1532–4年）描绘为对基督教的攻击是缺乏根据的。费弗尔首先仔细审查了据称由拉伯雷同时代人对他的无神论指控。他借助一些小出版商、神学家、论战者和诗人的观点，表明历史学家认为针对拉伯雷的许多谴责是含混不清的，可能是指向其他人的。他还声称，“无神论者”是一个常见的辱骂词，或“一种意在让信徒听众感到战栗的污言秽语”（《十六世纪的不信神问题》，第135页）。他写道：

让我们对过去的词语保持警惕。它们通常有两种含义，一种是绝对的，另一种是相对的。即使是第一种含义也常常难以界定。说无神论是否认神的行为，并没有说出任何精确的东西。但除此之外，这个词的相对含义已经发生了相当大的变化。在十六世纪，它意味着人们所能谴责的最可怕的丑闻。这一点在相当普遍的程度上是明显的。不那么明显的是，推理方式本身在代际之间发生了多大的变化。
（同上，第146页）

由于这种不精确性，我们既不能肯定也不能否定拉伯雷是无神论者。费弗尔认为，通过《卡冈都亚与庞大固埃》来考察拉伯雷，可以为否定提供更有力的论证。在勒弗朗看到无神论者作品之处，费弗尔看到的是一个受中世纪广泛流传的戏仿神圣传统影响的人的作品。例如，在第5章中，费弗尔向我们表明，巴奴日把爱庇斯德蒙的头重新接上的故事（《卡冈都亚与庞大固埃》，第2卷第30章），更像是对中世纪传奇《艾蒙四子》的仿写，而不是对福音书中拉撒路和睚鲁女儿复活记载的亵渎性评论。在费弗尔看来，拉伯雷与荷兰改革家伊拉斯谟一样，对中世纪晚期教会的某些实践和观念持批评态度，但他仍然希望通过理性和宽容来革新教会。费弗尔对伊拉斯谟与拉伯雷之间联系的分析，为更一般地讨论十六世纪“绝对”无神论的可能性开辟了道路。在这一点上，他声称基督教观念如此深入地渗透到十六世纪的生活之中，以至于无神论几乎不可能存在。即使是哲学和科学——它们可能被视为不信仰的潜在支撑——也缺乏自然与超自然的区分，以及“绝对”与“相对”、“抽象”与“具体”、“因果性”与“规律性”等概念，而这些概念将在一个世纪之后滋养笛卡尔等思想家的理性主义。费弗尔总结说，诸如此类概念的缺乏，连同对空间和时间的不精确理解，以及对自然美的感受力的缺乏，向我们表明十六世纪的“心智装备”与我们的相距何等遥远。

《十六世纪的不信神问题》为我们生动地描述了一种非常不同的心理“装备”。此外，该作品的风格使我们得以一窥费弗尔本人的心理“装备”。他的文字向我们表明，历史可以像一场生动的对话。《十六世纪的不信神问题》被广泛认为是二十世纪最重要的历史著作之一，但它也受到了许多批评。许多历史学家指出，拉伯雷对路德思想的同情可能比费弗尔所承认的更多；西班牙和意大利宗教裁判所的记录显示，一些人确实是怀疑论者；而且十六世纪的思想和信仰具有更大的多元性。许多人也对费弗尔关于十六世纪人时间感、空间感和美感不发达的论断提出异议。

1944年布洛赫被德国士兵处决后，费弗尔受托将未完成的《为历史学辩护或历史学家的技艺》付梓出版（1949年，英译名为《历史学家的技艺》）。他还受邀协助重组高等研究院，并担任其“第六部”（致力于社会科学）的主任。费弗尔没有写出更多的专著，⁴ 但继续通过书评阐述他对历史的理解，这些书评涉及各种主题，带他跨越人文学科的边界，进入社会科学和创造性艺术。当我们注意到他撰写了1,293篇书评时，二战后他的观点在法国占据主导地位就不难理解了。⁵ 更令人费解的是，虽然“年鉴”观点作为一个致力于无边界历史书写的国际性群体延续至今，但法国以外很少有人知道布洛赫并非其唯一创始人。

注释

费弗尔主要著作

• Philippe II et la Franche-Comté: étude d’histoire politique, religieuse et sociale, Paris: Champion, 1912.
• A Geographical Introduction to History, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1924.
• Martin Luther: a Destiny, New York: Dutton, 1929.
• Combats pour l’histoire, Paris: Colin, 1953.
• A New Kind of History: from the Writings of Febvre, ed. P. Burke, trans. K. Folca, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
• Life in Renaissance France, trans. and ed. M. Rothstein, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.
• The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: the Religion of Rabelais, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.
• L’Europe: Genèse d’une civilisation, Paris: Perrin, 1999.

另见

Bloch, Braudel, Davis, Hobsbawm, Le Roy Ladurie, Michelet

进一步资源

• Berti, S., ‘At the Roots of Unbelief’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 1995, 56(4): 555–75.
• Burgière, A., The Annales School: An Intellectual History, Ithaca, NJ: Cornell University Press, 2009.
• Burke, P., The French Historical Revolution: the Annales School, 1929–1989, Cambridge: Polity, 1990.
• Clark, S., The Annales School: Critical Assessments, 4 vols, London: Routledge, 1999.
• Davis, N. Z., ‘Rabelais among the Censors (1940s, 1540s)’, Representations, 1990, 32(1): 1–32.
• Dewald, J., ‘Lost Worlds: French Historians and the Construction of Modernity’, French History, 2000, 14: 424–42.
• Lyon, B., and Lyon, M., The Birth of Annales History: the Letters of Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch to Henri Pirenne, 1921–1935, Brussels: Comm. Royale d’Histoire, 1991.

英文原文

It is ironic that Lucien Febvre, a modern historian who worked with Marc Bloch to foster the writing of problem-orientated histories of the whole range of human experiences, is relatively unknown beyond the mental frontiers of France. The son of a grammar teacher, Lucien Febvre (1878–1956) spent his childhood in Lorraine. After studying at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand and performing his military service, Febvre won a place at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. Between 1898 and 1902 he attended seminars by writers such as Henri Bergson, Lucien Lévy-Bruhl and Paul Vidal de la Blache. While Febvre learned much from these seminars, he also gained a great deal from reading works by historians and political thinkers such as Jules Michelet and Jacob Burckhardt. From early on in his studies, Febvre rejected the dominant Germanic view of history as the scientific study of political and military events. Rather, he favoured a wider view of history informed by the ideas of social theorists such as geographers, anthropologists, sociologists, economists and philologists.

Such a view of history underpins his doctoral thesis, a study of the Franche-Comté region during the reign of Philip II of Spain in the sixteenth century. Febvre describes the revolt of the Netherlands against Philip II and the approach of the Reformation. He also presents a vivid account of the socio-geographical features of the region and the bitter economic, political and emotional struggle between a nobility falling into debt and an increasingly wealthy bourgeoisie (Philippe II et la Franche-Comté: étude d’histoire politique, religieuse et sociale, 1912). With the support of Henri Berr, the founder of the journal Revue de Synthèse Historique, Febvre planned to write a more general study of the relationship between history and geography. His plans, however, were interrupted by the outbreak of the first world war. During the war, Febvre served in a machine-gun company.

In October 1919, Febvre was offered a lectureship in modern history at the University of Strasbourg in the newly reclaimed region of Alsace. In his inaugural lecture, Febvre outlined the function of history in a ‘world in ruins’. When historians, he argued, free themselves from idle fact-gathering, writing accounts to serve political, ideological and nationalistic ends, and subsuming events under artificial or false laws, they can be the ‘best and surest safeguard for our national ideal, for our civilisation, for our independence and our will to peace and freedom’.⁶ At Strasbourg he turned back to his study of the relationship between geography and history, which was published as La terre et l’évolution humaine (1922, trans. as A Geographical Introduction to History). This book takes as its point of departure Friedrich Ratzel’s contention that the physical environment ‘serves as a fixed foundation for the moods and changing aspirations of men, and governs the destinies of peoples with blind brutality’ (A Geographical Introduction to History, p. 18). Echoing Vidal de la Blache, Febvre presents two objections to the Ratzelian view. First, he stresses the variety of responses that can be given to a particular environment; for example, mountain ranges may or may not act as a boundary. Second, the influence of the environment on people is always mediated through social structures and ideas; so, for instance, a river may be considered by one group to be a barrier and by another to be a valuable trade route. Thus, society plays an important role in shaping each individual’s views of the world.

These two points are further explored in his study of the Rhine with Albert Demangeon, Le Rhin: Problèmes d’histoire et d’économie (1935) and in his 1944–5 lectures on Europe (L’Europe, published in 1999). In his work on the Rhine, Febvre argues that people’s perceptions of the river are not naturally given, but are the product of human experiences. The case of the Rhine demonstrates the point that a ‘frontier’ exists when you find yourself in a different world, among a set of ideas, feelings and enthusiasms surprising and disconcerting to the foreigner. In other words, what ‘engraves’ a frontier powerfully in the earth is not policemen or customs men or cannons drawn up behind ramparts. It is feelings, and exalted passions – and hatreds.⁷

Febvre hoped that critical discussion on the mental frontiers of the Rhine would help people to disarm contemporary nationalist myths. The same aspiration is written on a bigger scale in his analysis of Europe as a cultural construct that is unstable yet strong enough to connect people together. On these points, Febvre anticipates the direction of geographical histories which followed at least two decades after his death.

Not long after he started work at the University of Strasbourg, Febvre struck up what would be a lifelong friendship with the medievalist Marc Bloch. Febvre and Bloch shared the vision of a ‘wider and more human’ view of history. In 1929 they founded the journal Annales d’Histoire Economique et Sociale, which survives today under the title Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales, to promote their ‘new kind of history’.⁸ Through Annales, Febvre and Bloch hoped first to foster the unity of the human sciences and, second, to question the division of history into ancient, medieval and modern periods, and societies into ‘primitive’ or ‘civilised’ types. Febvre wrote a number of polemical reviews and articles directed against views of history that were not ‘ours’, especially those which idolised facts and specialisation.

After finishing A Geographical Introduction to History, Febvre turned to the study of French views of the Renaissance and Reformation. In a number of articles and lectures Febvre argued that Michelet’s concept of the ‘Renaissance’ or ‘rebirth’ had led historians to ignore the connections between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. For instance, Febvre claims that the emergence of the bourgeoisie straddled both periods (see, for instance, ‘Amiens’ and ‘How Jules Michelet Invented the Renaissance’ in A New Kind of History, pp. 193–207, 258–67). In other writings and lectures, such as ‘The Origins of the French Reformation: a Badly Put Question?’, Febvre challenged the orthodox view of the Reformation as a revolt led by Luther against the abuses of the Catholic church. The history of religion, he contends, should not only involve the history of particular church institutions, but also take into account people’s religious ideas, emotions, tendencies and responses (see also ‘Religious Practice and the History of France’, in A New Kind of History, pp. 268–75). For Febvre, the Reformation came about largely because of the emerging bourgeoisie’s search for a ‘clear, reasonably human and gently fraternal church’ in which the Bible could be studied by all men and a direct dialogue between believer and God was possible (‘The Origins of the French Reformation’, in A New Kind of History, pp. 66, 69–80). The bourgeoisie are also accorded an important role in Febvre’s biography of Luther, Un destin: Martin Luther (1928, trans. as Martin Luther: a Destiny). The bourgeoisie, Febvre claims, were a willing audience for Luther’s ideas. He is careful to note, however, that Luther’s ideas cannot be reduced to those of the bourgeoisie. Some of the bourgeoisie, for instance, rejected Luther’s ideas when he denounced the Dutch reformer Erasmus and the ‘robbing and murderous’ peasants. In these papers, no single individual dominates the history of the Reformation.

In 1933 Febvre left Strasbourg to take up a chair in history at the Collège de France in Paris. He also had to take on more of the work associated with Annales when the anti-Semitic policies of occupied and Vichy France made it impossible for Bloch, a Jew, to co-direct. During the second world war, he spent most of his time gardening and writing at his country cottage in Franche-Comté. He wrote three books: Le problème de l’incroyance au XVIe siècle: la Religion de Rabelais (1942, trans. as The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century), Origène et Des Périers: ou, l’énigme du ‘cymbalum mundi’ (1942) and Autour de l’Heptaméron: amour sacré, amour profane (1944).

The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century is Febvre’s most important and controversial work. In this book, Febvre sets out to show that Abel Lefranc’s portrayal of François Rabelais’s Gargantua and Pantagruel (1532–4) as an attack on Christianity is unfounded. Febvre begins by scrutinising the accusations of atheism supposedly levelled at Rabelais by his contemporaries. Drawing on the ideas of minor publishers, theologians, controversialists and poets, he shows that a number of the denunciations assumed by historians to be levelled at Rabelais are ambiguous and could have been addressed to other people. He also claims ‘atheist’ was a common term of abuse or a ‘kind of obscenity meant to cause a shudder in an audience of the faithful’ (The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century, p. 135). He writes:

Let us be suspicious of the words of the past. They generally have two meanings, one absolute, the other relative. Even the first is often difficult to define. To say that atheism is the act of denying the deity is not to say anything precise. But on top of that the relative meaning of the word has changed considerably. In the sixteenth century it implied the most terrible scandal one could decry. This is apparent in a rather general way. What is less apparent is how much the very modes of reasoning were transformed from generation to generation.
(Ibid., p. 146)

Because of such imprecision, we cannot either affirm or deny that Rabelais was an atheist. A stronger case for denial, Febvre believes, can be achieved by interrogating Rabelais through Gargantua and Pantagruel. Where Lefranc sees the work of an atheist, Febvre sees the work of a man influenced by the widespread medieval tradition of the parody of the sacred. For example, in chapter 5 Febvre shows us that the tale of how Epistemon’s head was reattached by Panurge (Gargantua and Pantagruel, 2: 30) is more of a copy of the medieval romance The Four Sons of Aymon than a blasphemous commentary on the accounts of the resurrection of Lazarus and Jairus’s daughter in the Gospels. In Febvre’s estimation, Rabelais, like the Dutch reformer Erasmus, was critical of some of the practices and ideas of the late medieval church, but he still hoped to renew the church through reason and toleration. Febvre’s analysis of the links between Erasmus and Rabelais opens the way for a more general discussion on the possibility of ‘absolute’ atheism in the sixteenth century. In this he claims that the ideas of Christianity so permeated sixteenth-century life as to make atheism all but impossible. Even philosophy and the sciences, which might be seen as a possible support for unbelief, lacked the distinction between the natural and the supernatural and concepts such as ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’, ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’, ‘causality’ and ‘regularity’ that would feed the rationalism of thinkers like Descartes a century later. The lack of concepts such as these, along with an imprecise understanding of space and time and a lack of a sense of beauty in nature, Febvre concludes, shows us just how far away the outillage mental of the sixteenth century is from our own.

The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century offers us a vivid account of a very different mental ‘apparatus’. Furthermore, the style of the work allows us to glimpse something of Febvre’s own mental ‘apparatus’. History, his words show us, can be like a lively conversation. The Problem of Unbelief is widely recognised as one of the most significant historical works of the twentieth century, but it has also been subjected to much criticism. Numerous historians have pointed out that Rabelais may have had more sympathy for Luther’s ideas than Febvre allows, that records of the Spanish and Italian inquisitions show that some individuals were sceptics, and that there was a greater plurality of thought and belief in the sixteenth century. Many have also taken issue with Febvre’s claims about sixteenth-century man’s underdeveloped sense of time, space and beauty.

After Bloch’s execution by German soldiers in 1944, Febvre was entrusted with the task of bringing the unfinished Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien to publication (1949, trans. as The Historian’s Craft). He was also invited to assist with the reorganisation of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes and to serve as the president of its ‘sixième section’ (dedicated to the social sciences). Febvre produced no further monographs,⁹ but continued to expound his understanding of history through reviews of books on topics that took him across the boundaries of the humanities and into the social sciences and creative arts. The ascendancy of his views within France after the second world war is not hard to fathom when we note his production of 1,293 reviews.¹⁰ More puzzling is the fact that while the ‘Annales’ view survives as an international milieu dedicated to the writing of history without boundaries, few people outside of France are aware that Bloch was not its sole founder.

Notes

Febvre’s major works

• Philippe II et la Franche-Comté: étude d’histoire politique, religieuse et sociale, Paris: Champion, 1912.
• A Geographical Introduction to History, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1924.
• Martin Luther: a Destiny, New York: Dutton, 1929.
• Combats pour l’histoire, Paris: Colin, 1953.
• A New Kind of History: from the Writings of Febvre, ed. P. Burke, trans. K. Folca, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
• Life in Renaissance France, trans. and ed. M. Rothstein, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.
• The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: the Religion of Rabelais, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.
• L’Europe: Genèse d’une civilisation, Paris: Perrin, 1999.

See also

Bloch, Braudel, Davis, Hobsbawm, Le Roy Ladurie, Michelet

Further resources

• Berti, S., ‘At the Roots of Unbelief’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 1995, 56(4): 555–75.
• Burgière, A., The Annales School: An Intellectual History, Ithaca, NJ: Cornell University Press, 2009.
• Burke, P., The French Historical Revolution: the Annales School, 1929–1989, Cambridge: Polity, 1990.
• Clark, S., The Annales School: Critical Assessments, 4 vols, London: Routledge, 1999.
• Davis, N. Z., ‘Rabelais among the Censors (1940s, 1540s)’, Representations, 1990, 32(1): 1–32.
• Dewald, J., ‘Lost Worlds: French Historians and the Construction of Modernity’, French History, 2000, 14: 424–42.
• Lyon, B., and Lyon, M., The Birth of Annales History: the Letters of Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch to Henri Pirenne, 1921–1935, Brussels: Comm. Royale d’Histoire, 1991.