he nineteenth century, at least in

he nineteenth century, at least in France, was the golden age of local history. Following and enlarging upon the example given by provincial academies in the second half of the eighteenth century, many "societies" that called themselves "scholarly" or learned (and occasionally were so) appeared on the scene, existing sometimes for only a few years. Their members were typical elements of bourgeois society: magistrates, notaries, priests, spinsters, rentiers, a few teachers, minor nobility. Among thousands of papers and hundreds of volumes issued in France from the middle of the nineteenth century, a tenth is perhaps worth glancing through, a hundredth worth keeping. This "petit bourgeois" social science would profit from serious sociological and psychological analysis. The weakness of many of these pseudohistorical works partly ex plains the contempt with which professional historians of the early twentieth century regarded local history?a jumble of chance genealogies, usurped glories, proofless assertions.
Professional historians disdained such local history also be cause of their own conception of what they chose to see as "general" history. General history was political, military, diplomatic, administrative, and ecclesiastical. Studying the state involved a study of statesmen; studying war permitted a study of the military feats of generals; studying foreign relations involved the publication of ambassadors' memoirs; studying religion led to a recounting of the achievements of popes and bishops, generally holy and pious; studying administrative history (written from the records of offices located in Paris) was represented as being the history of a whole people. A retrospective psychoanalysis of the historians of the nineteenth century would probably reveal that many of the historians who chose to write about monarchy more or less identified themselves with the monarch, that the historian of a particular minister sometimes imagined he was himself governing the country. An elementary Freudian interpretation could explain many of the curious histories that were published.
Yet, the first serious attempts at local history were made by historians and intellectuals who rank with the best. They understood that a thesis or interpretation, however ingenious, needs to be supported by precise facts; precise facts have a space as well as a time dimension. Thus, S?bastien Vauban, pleading for fiscal reform, used the precise examples of the Vezelay election, his native pays, and Normandy, where he had often been. Thus Messance, a demographer, rightly opposing the thesis of French depopulation so brilliantly advanced by intellectuals as famous though unqualified as demographers as Montesquieu and Voltaire, proved with a strictly regional analysis of numerous parishes in the Lyonnais, Auvergne, and Upper Normandy that the French population had risen markedly between the end of the seventeenth century and the end of the eighteenth. Alexis de Tocqueville, with his great design, which was to understand at the same time the dying Ancien R?gime and the French Revolution, used the provincial record offices, particularly in Tours, and illustrated with actual examples the accomplishments of the states of Languedoc.5 But cana historical form depend upon the work of men of genius?
Alphonse Feillet's technique was more common and more commonly used. Feillet, an often-neglected historian of the misery inFrance at the time of the Fronde,6 was a contemporary of Napol?on III. He believed that the French people did not suffi ciently know the misdoings of "legitimate" Bourbon monarchies. To support his rather simple thesis, having to do with the misery of the French before, during, and after the Fronde, Feillet used memoirs, letters, monographs, and essays published in large numbers in the nineteenth century: one could always find a French village where somebody was dying of the plague or malnutrition, or where soldiers' violence had created massive disorder in every month between 1640 and 1660. A careful reading of the same docu ments by a historian who wished to prove the opposite would certainly have been equally compelling. It is quite possible to prove that France was flourishing or that it was miserable during Louis XIII's reign: one needs only to choose one's evidence carefully in the sea of published local histories.
The Feillet method (though Feillet never thought of founding a method; this was still a time when few laid claim to being concerned with methodology) has in fact become very widely used. Any thesis, if it is brilliant, unexpected, or paradoxical, may be supported by selected examples chosen from old scholarly studies of different provinces. History becomes a game where the guilt less amateurs of local history provide others with materials they find useful.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Ia abad kesembilan belas, setidaknya di Perancis, adalah zaman keemasan sejarah lokal. Mengikuti dan memperbesar berdasarkan contoh yang diberikan oleh provinsi Akademi di paruh kedua abad ke-18, banyak "masyarakat" yang menyebut diri mereka "ilmiah" atau belajar (dan kadang-kadang orang begitu) muncul di adegan, yang kadang-kadang ada untuk beberapa tahun. Anggota-anggota mereka yang elemen khas masyarakat borjuis: hakim, Notaris, para imam, spinsters, rentiers, beberapa guru, bangsawan kecil. Di antara ribuan kertas dan ratusan volume yang dikeluarkan di Prancis dari pertengahan abad kesembilan belas, sepersepuluh bernilai mungkin melirik melalui, hasi layak disimpan. Ilmu sosial "petit bourgeois" ini akan mendapatkan keuntungan dari analisis sosiologis dan psikologis yang serius. Kelemahan dari banyak ini pseudohistorical bekerja di sebagian ex dataran penghinaan yang sejarawan profesional awal abad kedua puluh dianggap sejarah lokal? gado kesempatan silsilah, merebut kemuliaan, pernyataan-pernyataan proofless.Sejarawan profesional direndahkan sejarah lokal tersebut juga menjadi penyebab konsepsi mereka sendiri apa yang mereka memilih untuk melihat sebagai "umum" sejarah. Sejarah umum ini politik, militer, diplomatik, administrasi, dan kependetaan. Belajar negara terlibat studi negarawan; belajar perang diizinkan studi tentang prestasi militer Jenderal; mempelajari hubungan luar negeri terlibat publikasi memoar Duta; mempelajari agama menyebabkan menceritakan prestasi dari Paus dan uskup, umumnya Kudus dan saleh; belajar sejarah administratifnya (ditulis dari catatan kantor yang berlokasi di Paris) diwakili sebagai sejarah seluruh rakyat. Psikoanalisis retrospektif sejarawan abad kesembilan belas mungkin akan mengungkapkan bahwa banyak dari para sejarawan yang memilih untuk menulis tentang monarki lebih atau kurang mengidentifikasi diri mereka dengan raja, bahwa sejarawan Menteri tertentu kadang-kadang membayangkan ia adalah dirinya sendiri yang mengatur negara. Penafsiran Freudian dasar bisa menjelaskan banyak dari sejarah penasaran yang diterbitkan.Yet, the first serious attempts at local history were made by historians and intellectuals who rank with the best. They understood that a thesis or interpretation, however ingenious, needs to be supported by precise facts; precise facts have a space as well as a time dimension. Thus, S?bastien Vauban, pleading for fiscal reform, used the precise examples of the Vezelay election, his native pays, and Normandy, where he had often been. Thus Messance, a demographer, rightly opposing the thesis of French depopulation so brilliantly advanced by intellectuals as famous though unqualified as demographers as Montesquieu and Voltaire, proved with a strictly regional analysis of numerous parishes in the Lyonnais, Auvergne, and Upper Normandy that the French population had risen markedly between the end of the seventeenth century and the end of the eighteenth. Alexis de Tocqueville, with his great design, which was to understand at the same time the dying Ancien R?gime and the French Revolution, used the provincial record offices, particularly in Tours, and illustrated with actual examples the accomplishments of the states of Languedoc.5 But cana historical form depend upon the work of men of genius?Alphonse Feillet teknik adalah lebih umum dan lebih sering digunakan. Feillet, sering terabaikan sejarawan dari inFrance kesengsaraan pada saat Fronde, 6 adalah sezaman Napol? pada III. Ia percaya bahwa orang-orang Perancis melakukan tidak mendap ciently tahu misdoings "sah" Bourbon monarki-monarki. Untuk mendukung tesis-nya yang agak sederhana, yang berkaitan dengan penderitaan Perancis sebelum, selama, dan setelah Fronde, Feillet digunakan memoar, huruf, monograf, dan esai yang diterbitkan dalam jumlah besar dalam abad kesembilan belas: satu selalu bisa menemukan sebuah desa Prancis yang mana seseorang sedang sekarat wabah atau kekurangan gizi, atau di mana para prajurit kekerasan telah menciptakan gangguan besar dalam setiap bulan antara 1640 dan 1660. Pembacaan yang cermat dari nyata docu sama oleh sejarawan yang berharap untuk membuktikan sebaliknya akan pasti telah sama-sama menarik. Sangat mungkin untuk membuktikan bahwa Prancis berkembang atau bahwa itu sengsara pemerintahan Louis XIII: satu hanya perlu hati-hati memilih salah satu bukti di laut diterbitkan sejarah lokal.Metode Feillet (meskipun Feillet tidak pernah berpikir untuk mendirikan sebuah metode; ini adalah masih waktu ketika beberapa meletakkan klaim yang bersangkutan dengan metodologi) bahkan menjadi sangat banyak digunakan. Tesis apapun, jika itu brilian, tak terduga atau paradoks, mungkin didukung oleh contoh-contoh dipilih yang dipilih dari studi ilmiah yang lama dari berbagai propinsi. Sejarah menjadi sebuah permainan di mana rasa bersalah kurang amatir sejarah lokal memberikan orang lain dengan bahan-bahan yang mereka temukan berguna.