H
ENRI
P
IRENNE
(1862-1935):
A
B
ELGIAN HISTORIAN AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL SCIENCES
I
NTRODUCTION
Sarah Keymeulen
Ghent University
Many topics are worth to be discussed when it comes to the life and work of Henri
Pirenne (1862-1935). Combining exceptional professional success, family tragedies, a dramatic
wartime experience and illustrious stays abroad, his biography could almost be the screenplay for
a film. His Histoire de Belgique, which he published in the early decades of the twentieth
century, was regarded as a model of innovative national history. His ideas about the development
of the medieval city were equally influential, and his thesis on the influence of Islam on European
history initiated a debate that continues today. His intellectual reputation extended far beyond the
borders of his own country, inspiring a whole generation of French historians, and numerous
other European and American intellectuals too. The Belgian historian is now established as one
of the twentieth century‟s greatest historians, whose significance continues to be recognised even
outside his discipline.
In 2008-2009 the University of Ghent and the Free University of Brussels co-organised a number
of events to commemorate and re-evaluate the scientific heritage of Henri Pirenne. Starting point
was an academic ceremony, followed by the exhibition Henri Pirenne and Mahomet et
Charlemagne: genesis and contingencies of a historical hypotheses. The exhibition, that found its
reflection in the internet site
www.henripirenne.be
, concentrated on the genesis, the reception and
the recuperation of the famous Pirenne-thesis about Mahomet et Charlemagne, a thesis that
continues to inspire and provoke historians throughout the world. Concluding the “Pirenne-year”
was the two-day colloquium Henri Pirenne (1862-1935): a Belgian historian and the
development of historical and social sciences.
As its title suggests, the main focus of the colloquium, organised in Ghent and Brussels on March
27
th
and 28
th
2009, was the importance of Pirenne‟s historical writing on the broader development
of the historical and social sciences. In what sense did Pirenne was a social-economic historian?
What did he derive from social and economic sciences, what did he add to them? As the
professionalisation of these disciplines and their influence on historical writing was strongly
interconnected with the modernisation of science and scientific life in general, attention was also
paid to the “modern” character of Pirenne‟s historical practice and to his ability for “community
building” and developing efficient professional networks for himself and his pupils. Finally, the
image of Pirenne as a “national historian” could not be left untreated, as it still dominates the
discourse about the historian and as it both undermined and reinforced his status as a
historiographic renewer. The contributions compiled in this issue have thus been classified in
four chapters that treat some of the main qualities or merits which are generally attributed to
Pirenne.
First to be examined is the label of Pirenne as a social-economic historian. Not only did
he write a number of explicitly economical studies, such as the famous article Les périodes
sociales du capitalisme (1914), all of his work is claimed to have had a strong social-economic
perspective and continues to inspire economist thinkers up till today.
According to Martha Howell, Henri Pirenne can indeed be seen as one of the founding
fathers of a “commercial school” of economists. Although partly inspired by Marxist literature,
Pirenne was first and foremost influenced by the progress-oriented narratives and the economic
determinism of liberal economic theory. In his view - a “patently ideological” one, as she calls it
– it was freedom that led to commerce, and commerce that led to the rise of a capitalist spirit.
Nevertheless, he was more a political and social historian than an economic one. Moreover,
Howell will argue that there are two important missing links in Pirenne‟s economic theory, as he
neglected to study the impact of consumption on economic development and as he overlooked
the part women played in economic development.
Eric Thoen and Erik Vanhaute examine the origins of Pirenne‟s methodology and ideas
and the influence of his work on economic history until present. They situate Pirenne‟s
development as a historian within the context of the evolution of “economic history”, a discipline
that was still emerging in the field of “economics” during his studies and early career. Pirenne
contributed to its development as a mature discipline of history and played an important part in
the evolution towards an implementation of positivism (laws, processes) in history, heavily
influenced as he was by positivist German historiography. The “German historical school” used
an “historical” approach to explain economics and was heavily influenced by sociology and
psychology. Pirenne became the intermediary between this trend in German economics and
economic history in the rest of the Western world. His ideas and methods formed a bridge which
helped create a new economic and social history in France, the Anglo-Saxon world and the rest of
Europe.
Kaat Wils explores the disciplinary boundaries of history and the social and economic
sciences around 1900. The modernisation of historiography gave way to a growing interest
among historians for sociology and its methods. The kind of social and economic history Pirenne
envisaged came very close in its content to the boundaries of sociology, even though Pirenne‟s
interest in sociological works was rather small and always instrumental to his own work as a
historian. For Pirenne, sociology and economics were labelled as theoretical and abstract but
usefull suppliers of ideas or hypotheses to historians. An attraction did exist in the opposite
direction, however: Pirenne‟s work was recognised and praised by many who were promoting
sociology as an independent discipline, such as the Durkheimian sociologists or the members of
the Institut de Sociologie Solvay in Brussels. Because sociology was a very diffuse discipline
without specific methodology or content, the boundaries between sociology and history remained
unclear and every historian could be “his own sociologist”.
The second label to be scrutinized is that of Pirenne as one of the first “modern”
historians. By having studied in Germany and France, his contemporaries considered Pirenne to
be one of the godfathers of modern historiography. Pirenne himself enjoyed being seen as a
bridge builder between the two scientific leading countries of his time. Vigorously, he published
articles in both French and German historical magazines, he wrote letters to befriended historians
from his study time in both countries and set up exchange programs for his pupils.
Jo Tollebeek considers both Pirenne and his colleague Paul Fredericq to be the personification of
the new historiographical ambitions around 1900: the “nouvelle histoire”. They felt themselves to
be the embodiment of a modern historiography that had a revolutionary character, that was
breaking prevailing norms and championing new ambitions. According to Tollebeek, Pirenne
succeeded in realising the new historiographical ambitions better than Fredericq on many counts.
This was evident in the reception of his work, his power and influence, the social capital he
acquired, his successful training of pupils, his social standing and prestige. However, from at
least a number of viewpoints the less successful Fredericq was more modern than Pirenne. This
was especially noticeable in the significance he accorded to archive work and in his collective
approach to historiography, as modern history writing was a matter of teamwork. It was Pirenne,
however, who came to be regarded as a quintessentially modern historian, not the least because
the well-documented relationship between Pirenne and the Annales-historians Marc Bloch and
Lucien Fèbvre gave way to a deterministic reading of Pirenne‟s work and historiographical
practice.
Jean-Louis Kupper examines the special bond between Pirenne and his teacher Godefroid
Kurth, a bond which generated a university collaboration which principally benefited Pirenne.
Kurth played a decisive role in the successive stages of Pirenne‟s brilliant ascension within the
scholarly world. The tandem Kurth-Pirenne was so rich in possibilities and influence, Kupper
argues, that it could win each stage of the competition, in the university world of Liège and
Ghent, within the Academy, and in political circles, whether Catholic or liberal. In his profession
as a historian too, Pirenne owes a deep debt to Kurth‟s rigourous technique and solid scientific
methodology. Moreover, Kupper argues that Pirenne‟s Mahomet et Charlemagne is nothing more
than a vibrant tribute to Les origins de la civilisation moderne, the now forgotten work of his
master.
The central question in the article of Geneviève Warland is how to describe the
intellectual transfer from Karl Lamprecht to Pirenne in the area of Kulturgeschichte. It is clear
that Pirenne borrowed some concepts and aspects of Lamprechts Kulturgeschichte, but unlike
Lamprecht he placed the explanatory factor in history in economics, not in psychology.
Moreover, in his defense of Lamprechts Kulturgeschichte Pirenne made sure to emphasize only
those elements that were quite consensual and avoided irritating the German historicist school.
Both Lamprecht and Pirenne were very active in the scholarly and scientific development and the
internationalisation of the historic discipline. They shared in a community of thought which
conceptualised history as the study of primarily social phenomena, using methods borrowed from
the social sciences and employing comparison as a fundamental research method of
Kulturgeschichte. But the use of Kulturgeschichte in Pirenne‟s work was selective and partial and
hence a typical case of an intellectual transfer.
In the third chapter we will look more closely to the accomplishments of Pirenne as a
teacher and “community builder”. That Pirenne was a gifted narrator and that he could easily
captivate any audience – students, collegues and non-academic listeners alike – is sufficiently
known. More interesting is the way in which Pirenne managed to launch the careers of some of
his pupils, careers of which the succes would shine back on their master, thus adding to Pirenne‟s
prestige as a teacher.
Marc Boone and Claire Billen explain why, despite the kin-like bonds between masters
and students amongst historians at that time, the relationship between Pirenne and his pupil
Guillaume Des Marez was specific and singular. Even though Des Marez has repeatedly
endangered his relationship towards Pirenne, his master always remained loyal to his student.
Their long and collaborative friendship began when Des Marez enlisted to follow Pirenne‟s
seminar in 1892. Impressed with Des Marez‟ abilities, Pirenne developed the ambition to
construct a career for him worthy of his talents. The fundamental problem facing Des Marez and
Pirenne eager to launch his student‟s career, was how to become a recognized member of the
scientific community when one is lacking both the right ancestors, and the necessary capital, and
when one has no useful access to the deciding circles that dispose of assignments in scientific
institutions and of the budgets that go with scientific success. As Boone and Billen argue, Des
Marez therefore could only succeed as the creation of a person or a group – in this case of
Pirenne and of a particularly complex network: that of Brussels liberalism. Des Marez embodied
the entrance of the Belgian scientific milieu into the 20
th
century: a new world in which one can
become university professor without belonging to a social elite.
Christophe Verbruggen and Lewis Pyenson discuss the influence of Henri Pirenne and
historian of science George Sarton upon Hendrik De Man, one of Pirenne‟s most brilliant pupils.
All three men were modernists, as they shared a critical realism about the world and welcomed
innovation, illustrated by their strong attraction, before 1914, to the German social historian Karl
Lamprecht. They also found a common interest in medievalism. Verbruggen and Pyenson argue
that De Man drew some of his crucial ideas from both Pirenne and Sarton. He followed Pirenne‟s
view about the rise of capitalist structures in medieval Europe. One of De Man‟s pre-war
ambitions had been to become a citizen of the world, not because he denied nationality or even
patriotism, but by being proud of his home country being a microcosm of Europe, an idea he
borrowed explicitly from Pirenne. To advance his academic dreams in the US after the War, with
the help of Pirenne who was then rector of the University, De Man obtained a doctoral degree in
history at Ghent. In 1926, it came to a fundamental break with Marxism when he abandoned class
struggle as a revolutionary strategy, following Pirenne‟s insight that a mechanical and rational
interpretation of class solidarity was inadequate. If Pirenne‟s socio-economic focus and his
pledge for comparativism were the inspirational sources behind the Annales, his modernist
medievalism was the guiding spirit for the thought and work of Hendrik De Man.
The last chapter will focus on the prevailing image of Pirenne as “our national historian”.
The four parts of Pirenne‟s national synthesis Histoire de Belgique that were published before
1914, made him a monstre sacré of the Belgian intellectual and even political establishment.
After the First World War and his return from exile as a „war hero‟, that status only increased. He
was now chronicled not only as the man „who had been able to capture the Belgian soul‟, but at
the same time as a fully „impartial‟ historian, and thus apt, from the viewpoint of different
political angles, to be presented as a national icon.
Pierre Raxhon inspects if the Pirenne agenda was overflowed with commemorative
activities and what the historian‟s role has been in the transmission of patriotic values. His
examination shows that Pirenne wrote few texts which were listed on the programs of
commemorations or made explicit reference to commemorations, that he gave few speeches and
took on few lectures connected to commemorations. The centenary of Belgium remains one of
the only moments which inevitably retained the attention and the energy of Pirenne. Thus, he
argues, Pirenne was not a commemorative fool, nor an automaton of a State in need of
celebrations. It is noteable that Pirenne produced more historiography for commemorations of
institutions than for celebrations of past events evoked in a national context. For Raxhon, Pirenne
doesn‟t leave the impression of a commemorative opportunist, neither for ideological motives nor
for financial reasons or social prestige. In counterpoint, as from 1912 onwards, there were ardent
events held in his honour. These commemorations or celebrations for Pirenne, during his life and
after his death, are opportunities to understand better the man and his work.
Sophie De Schaepdrijver focuses on Pirenne‟s “unfinished business” with the war. After
the war, Pirenne had been lionized as an emblem of national resistance. In his discourses and his
work on the war (that covered a time span from 1919 to 1928), he specifically dismissed the
“racist principle” and the “greater German imperial idea” that he had pointed out as the driving
forces behind Germany‟s conduct of the First World War. Pirenne remained uncomfortably
aware of the resilience of “race theory” as he noted that German historical scholarship was
increasingly framed by essentialism, by a völkish-national perspective. In Belgium, the punitive
drive against “unpatriotic” behaviour that accompanied the triumphant return of the Belgian state
after the war fuelled an ethicized redefinition of the language question. De Schaepdrijver argues
that in the process, Pirenne‟s confidently liberal interpretation of the occupation came to be
discredited as belonging to war discourse. Together with the historiographic shibboleth of
Pirenne‟s “finalist” view of Belgian history, this resulted in a rejection of his contemporaneist
vision which is now the dominant perspective. It was precisely his robustly patriotic perspective
that enabled him to pinpoint “that theory of races” as one of the war‟s totalising dynamics.
In his article about the construction and deconstruction of the Pirenne phenomenon, the
final article of this issue, Walter Prevenier presents a number of theses for further examination.
For him, the construction of Pirenne as a prominent historian and a “founding father” of the
Ghent historical school is a perfect example of a successful mythologisation. Pirenne had the
perfect personality to develop into a mythological icon. His reputation already got mythical
proportions at a relatively early age as a result of his talent as a pedagogue, a causeur and a
tireless network-tiger. But the mythologisation process of Pirenne as the father of the “Ghent
school” was in many ways a construction by his direct alumni, and the image of Pirenne as the
icon of the nation-state Belgium is only partly correct as well. Although Pirenne had not
primarily a nationalistic, but a cosmopolitan perspective in mind and although his Histoire de
Belgique had been, before the war, essentially a scientific success story, by the war it suddenly
got the colour and the tone of a political statement. It is still unclear, Prevenier concludes, if it is
Pirenne who invented “la Belgique éternelle”, or if it is “une certaine Belgique” that constructed
“a certain Pirenne”.
The socio-economist historian, the historiographic renewer, the network tiger and the
national icon: Pirenne was a man of many labels, and they all added to the image of Pirenne as a
“scientific hero”. By examining these topics from the viewpoint of current academic research, the
authors do not only whish to bring homage to the scientific heritage of the historian, but they also
hope to open new research perspectives, to revive the intellectual debate and to re-adjust the
prevailing, all to iconic image of Pirenne.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |