60 SOCIAL SCIENTIST 9. L. Stone, The Past and the Present Revisited, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1987, p. 26. 10. John Cannon, et. al (ed.) The Blackwell Dictionary of Historians, New York, 1988, p. 6. 11. In fact, the influence of the Annales school on the US historians can be seen as early as 1939. See the obsorbing account of the formative influence of Marc Bloch on a leading American historian, William H. McNeill, in his own words, William H. McNeill, Mythhistory and Other Essays, Chicaco, 1986, pp. 199-209. The point is, this influence enriched, and not displaced, McNeilTs originality and the historical tradition in which he was rooted. The publication of the English translation of BraudeTs Mediterranean by the Harper's owes something to him (ibid, p. 211), and his initiative in bringing out the special issue of the Journal of Modem History (19/2) on the French history is well-known. It is instructive, therefore, to contrast his judgement on the French influence in the USA with Aymard and Mukhia's. 'Yet it seems dear that effective interaction between American historians and the French Annalistes has yet to occur, save on a rather superficial level.' (ibid, p. 223.) See also George Huppert, 'The Annales School Before the Annales', Review, vol. I, nos. 3-4,1978, pp. 216-17. 12. John Cannon, op.dt, p. 128 ff. 13. Lawrence Stone, 'Prosopography', in op.dt. 14. Peter Burke, 'Reflections on the Historical Revolution in France: The Annales School and British Sodal History', Review, vol. I, nos. 3-4,1978, p. 150. 15. J.H. Hexter, 'Fernand Braudel and the Monde Braudellien . ..', Journal of Modem History, vol. 44, no. 4, Dec. 1972, pp. 495-97; Jacques Revel, 'The Annales: Continuities and Discontinuities', Review, op.dt., p. 14; George G. Iggers, New Directions in European Historiography, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut, 1975, pp. 56-57,73-74. 16. George G. Iggers, op.dt., pp. 129-33. Cf. G.A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, pp. 199-200; E.J. Hobsbawm, 'Karl Marx's Contribution to Historiography', in R. Blackburn (ed) Ideology in Social Science, Fontana, 1972, p. 281, n. 23. 17. Review, op.dt, p. 161. 18. George G. Iggers, op.dt., pp. 145-49. 19. Stuart dark "The Annales Historians', in Q. Skinner (ed) The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 182-87. 20.' 'Karl Marx's Contribution to Historiography', op.dt., p. 271. 21. Quoted in Iggers, op.dt. p. 56. 22. In Peter Burke (ed) A New Kind of History From the Writings of Lucien Febvre. (tr.) K. Foica, London, 1973 23. R. Chartier, op.dt. p. 20. 24. E.g.Feudal Society, Vol. I. 25. Peter Burke (ed.) op.dt. Introduction; idem, in Review, op.dt. p. 153. The indifferent treatment of C. Blondel is also seen in the index to the first volume, where he has been identified with M. Blondel, a contemporary of Newton (vol.1, p. 329). 26. R. Chartier, op.dt., p. 27 ff. 27. G. McLennan, Marxism and the Methodologies of History, Verso/ NLB, London, 1981, p. 113. 28. Published in Review, op.dt. 29. Having said this, we can now see the flaws in the arguments of McLennan. He argues that the 'vastness of reference of interdisciplinary history admits of strands that might turn out to be quite diverse (psychology, sodal history)', contrasts the interdisdplinary approach of Bloch and Febvre with that of later historians such as Le Goff, and the later quantitative history with 'the more cultural and literary concerns of Febvre and Bloch', and condudes that 'general methodological agreements over the years may misleadingly suggest a common theoretical core'.Op.dt., pp. 13V32. He cannot think that the school could have had more than one identity. He in effect argues against the Annales school having a common identity from 1929 to, say, 1970, mixes the identities of the school, and condudes that there was no identity. Cf. p. 130 where he uses the term 'methodology' in a contradictory sense.