Fernand Braudel (1902–1985)

Longer review to come after I finish parts II and III. So far, though, I feel comfortable saying that this is one of the most eye-opening and awe-inspiring works of history I've ever read, one of the few that really impresses me with the sheer size of the past, while maintaining readable and pleasant prose throughout. Braudel is a master of giving details on details which slowly cohere into some kind of pattern, and then pulling back to give a smart, crisp conclusion which makes that pattern show more come completely into focus. show less

Van abban valami szürreális, amikor Braudel tündökletes, franciás stílusa egy olyan magas szárazanyagtartalmú üggyel találkozik, mint a gazdaságtörténet. Amúgy ez az úr, mint megtudtam, a XX. századi történelemtudomány egyik megújítója, aki elvetette azt a szemléletet, hogy a történelmet nagy eseményeken és nagy formátumú figurákon keresztül kell vizsgálni – ő inkább úgy látja, a lassú változások érdemesek vizsgálatra, mert azok mozgatják a show more világot. Ezzel például mélységesen egyetértek. Persze könnyebb úgy beállítani a dolgokat, mintha mondjuk a magyar történelem elrendezhető lenne a honfoglalás – Mohács – rendszerváltás háromszögben, de a mélyebb megértéshez nem ezeket a látványos kataklizmákat kell tüzetesen szemrevételezni, hanem a hozzájuk vezető folyamatokat, hisz végtére is ezek a folyamatok okozzák a kirobbanó eseményeket, nem pedig fordítva. Másik kacifántja Braudelnek, hogy utálja a szűk definíciókat, ami sajátos, hogy azt ne mondjam, folyós tudományos szöveget hoz létre. De ezzel az elvével is egyetértek. Vonzó persze bizonyos jelenségeket egyszavas fogalmi börtönbe zárni, mondjuk ráaggatjuk a kapitalizmus címkét, és minden meg van oldva, de a helyzet az, hogy maga a fogalom előbb-utóbb úgyis kimászik a megjelölés alól, és lám, a definíció máris pontatlan. Ma ezt értjük kapitalizmus alatt, holnap meg már egészen mást, de mi mégis ragaszkodunk a jelöléseinkhez, ami hibákhoz vezet. Persze kell a definíció, hogy megértessük, most, ebben a pillanatban miről beszélünk, de Braudel világában mindig újra és újra definiálni kell a fogalmakat – ami persze hosszadalmas procedúra, de aligha elkerülhető. Meg aki szeret folyton definiálni, mint én, annak kifejezetten örömet okoz.

Amúgy meg a könyv arról szól, hogy a piacgazdaság (a fogyasztás és termelés közötti kapocs) és a kapitalizmus (a piacgazdaság felülről, mesterségesen történő manipulálása) nem ugyanaz. Meg hogy miért pont Európában alakult ki, Kínában meg miért nem*. Érdekes.

* Mázli, hogy pont most olvastam a Szép asszonyok egy gazdag házban-t. Szépen támasztják alá és értetik meg a szépirodalomban ábrázolt szituációk a braudel-i állításokat a kínai piac magába zártságával kapcsolatban. show less

Books, even history books, run away with their authors. This one has run ahead of me. But what can one say about its waywardness, its whims, even its own logic, that will be serious and valid? Our children do as they please. And yet we are responsible for their actions.

I have a discovered a recent treat, finishing a book early in the morning and basking in its brilliance during the day. There is something more indulgent than ascetic in the practice. Braudel's magnificent first volume was show more completed oh so early today while I listened to obscure chamber music. The effect was nearly intoxicating. Asserting a distinction between the Material Economy and the Market Economy, Braudel attempts to delineate the former as constituted in the daily rituals and practices of humans in their disparate environments. It is the toil of the quotidian. It is the gulf between wealth and poverty. The study displayed isn't an evolution but rather a series of processes, inspirations and missteps.

There isn't a narrative here. Adroit GRer Katie noted the abundance of detail and how one should allow it "to breathe." Hundreds of pages on cereal production and furniture conclude without a sense of surfeit. Maybe it is a testament to Braudel's brilliance, but one never thinks, this is too much. The engine of material progress appears to be necessity. But eachproverbial page isn't tured until "it is time." Overcrowding and offshore resources kept pressure on the metaphorical envelope. Cities appear to combust this creative spirit, even as the swells lamented the rising tide of the rabble. China appears to have held all the cards at one time. Did Islam simply run out of trees to maintain its conquering posture? Venice certainly displayed poise and style periodically. Braudel appears a bit cheeky with his notes on revolutions: in this case, artillery, moveable type and oceanic navigation. I was going to separate credit but that would be unwise. Credit is a remarkable agent for developments as well as minatory movement. show less

Braudel is considered one of the great 20th c. historians. He fought the French educational establishment to broaden the scope of history to include material from sociology, anthropology, geography, etc., and above all economics. This was in opposition to the traditional kings and battles approach, and this book was intended as a textbook (not accepted by the authorities). Arguably the movement’s been quite fruitful, but this book is a very mixed bag – occasionally excellent, sometimes show more quite bad, and usually mediocre to good. It’s also not a history of civilizations - it deals with what Braudel considered the great living civilizations – and rather than being history as usually understood, it describes primary characteristics of each with some development over time. Even the treatment of each “civilization” varies a great deal from one to the next, e.g. considerable space is devoted to the literature of Latin America while not to the others. The civilizations included are the Muslim World, Black Africa, the Far East (includes India), then Europe and European civilization elsewhere (to which he devotes half the book).

In spite of the many gaps, blind spots and weaknesses, there are some real high points and original insights. For example, Braudel points out that, while the Crusades are usually seen as unmitigated folly in the West, and while they achieved nothing lasting on land, at their beginning the Mediterranean was dominated by Islam while at their end it was dominated by the West. This had important consequences limiting Islamic power and culture while removing constraints from those of the West. He’s probably at his best dealing with the West and Islam, and at his worst dealing with Latin America. To his credit he doesn’t pass over Africa as so many do, but gives it reasonable attention, describing among other things the great trading societies which grew up as a result of contact with Islam. His take on the United States is fairly sane, with useful analyses of the evolution of American capitalism and of the centralization of power and growth of bureaucracy in the Executive branch of the Federal government. But the section on the US has its share of romanticisms and a couple chauvinisms (that statement probably applies to all societies outside Europe, and perhaps to European ones as well). His take on the Soviet Union is balanced to slightly sympathetic, although it’s odd that we never hear of the millions killed by Stalin (or Mao).

Braudel’s rejection of traditional historical narrative, with its landmarks and mileposts, sometimes leaves you wondering what, where and when it is that he’s talking about. More importantly, he has a great weakness for making overarching generalizations, usually devoid of rational arguments stocked with facts which might lead us to share his conclusions. It’s often transparently obvious that these generalizations can neither explain the entire phenomenon they purport to explain, nor can the explanation be so simple. After a few of these you start to question Braudel’s judgment. He also spends a fair amount of time contemplating then-contemporary problems and speculating about the future. He defends this, but his performance is unconvincing, particularly in light of events since he wrote (1962). All the same, for someone who doesn’t expect this book to be comprehensive or even, and who reads it along with world histories which are, it’s still worth reading for its strengths and for the not-infrequent original insights. show less