Emmauel Le Roy Ladurie (1929 - 2023) An Assessment and a Tribute

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

Dr Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie died in Paris at the age  of 94 a long life filled with admirable contribution to medieval history and a stalwart of the "Annales" School of French Historiography. Of course the fact that his father served as a Minister of Agriculture under the Vichy regime in no way stands in the way of international recognition for his work. In fact as I have argued elsewhere it is about time to reassess the ideology of "collective guilt" imposed by Charles de Gaulle after his "Victory: march with the Allies in 1945. But this fact serves to underscore the complex relationship between the French Historical Establishment and the post "Liberation" French State. 

Dr Le Roy Ladurie

  Ladurie is a rock star among             Historians and his stellar reputation   rests on his Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error a study in which he used  the Inquisitorial Records to uncover the   pattern of culture and popular belief ina small mountainous village of just 250 peasants who came under the gaze of the Roman Catholic Church due to their apparent interest in the Cathars, a Christian movement that was declared heretical by the Catholic Church. Marriage patterns, familial ties, land control and ownership and relationship with the Clergy and its "errors" then as now are scandalous, Though published in 1978 this book still remains a classic study in what the French call mentalite`. 

This particular book has had a very wide impact and it has reshaped the field of agrarian and medieval history in significant ways. This was the first major work that used Inquisitorial Records to probe deeper questions of faith and religion in a medieval peasant society. As many scholars since have pointed out, the French peasants were usually unlettered and the records may at best reflect the scribes' perception. Here were have what Ranajit Guha in his classic paper, "The prose of Counter Insurgency" called History against the grain. Le Roy Ladurie followed this book with one of the classic statements on Historiography, The Territory of the Historian. Unfortunately this book remains almost undiscovered by students of medieval History. Another early book that must be mentioned is Times of Feast, Times of Famine a book in which he used the records of grape harvest to make a study of climate chamge and variation in medieval Europe. 

In 1580 a Carnival in Romans turned into a violent riot in which the leading citizens of the city of Romans attacked and killed craftsmen who were generally adherents of the Protestant faith. This event took place eight years after the 1572 Hugenots Massacre on St Bartholomew Day. The ferocity and the intense scale of the violence unleashed was unprecedented and the Historian puts in in the context of economic, cultural and social changes that were sweeping through France. 

This book is a study of the Platter Family which transitioned from sheep rearing to High social status profession within a single generation. Based on Family Records preserved in the Archives at Montpellier this work is an important contribution to the social history of early modern France. And the Peasants of Languedoc is a classic work of medieval agrarian history. 

One question that needs to be asked as Historians grapple with the methodological sophistication and grandiose sweep of Annales is the, apparent uniqueness of the French Method of History. Most of the world and certainly most of the non white societies lack historical documentation of depth and range that we see in France and other white states. The lack of resources itself should alert Historians to the fact that it is is not possible to replicate the Annales in other countries, certainly not in India. Second why do the Annales School of Historians stay away from Modern History. Is it because in the medieval period France was undefeated and was the proud centre of the European civilization.

The death of this great Historian is a loss and we mourn his death.

 

Pierre Laval:: Patriot, Traitor or Collaborator Laval needs to be reviewed critically

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

Pierre Laval 

    Pierre Laval (1883- 1945) was Prime        Minister of France three thrice, served       as a   Minister of the Third Republic        13   times and   was Foreign Minister         and President of the   Council. A socialist   by conviction and a   French patriot, by   choice he became the   victim of Charles   de Gaulle's politics and   his  execution in   1945 after a trial that even   Stalin would   have found embarrassing,: a   grotesque   

Kafkaesque political drama in   which Laval was denied a fair trial without   witnesses, documents or evidence. And his meeting with Hitler as Prime Minister and with Mussolini earlier held up as evidence of treason, collaboration and therefore guilty.

The great Athenian Historian, Thucydides wrote with great insight, nearly two thousand five hundred years back, "to fit in  with the change of events, words too  had to change their usual meaning." Ideology and political expediency demanded a new Hero and a new Church and the hero and the church required a sacrifice in blood and that was paid by Laval. On the night preceding his execution he tried to kill himself and it was decided to shoot him on a stretcher, if he  could not walk. De Gaulle claimed that his "Fighting France" had "liberated" France from the Germans. The truth is that he was allowed to march a small contingent of 500 men at the head of the Anglo American column and thus the keystone of the Gaullist ideology rests on a piece of contrived propaganda. Gaulle did not liberate France and neither was Pierre Laval a collaborator or a traitor. De Gaulle with the help of the Communists and elements of the French Right whipped up a cloud of passion which cast deep doubts on the motives and actions of Pierre Laval. Unfortunately, the Gaullist State institutionalised the self serving ideologically potent myth and like marionettes Historians are dancing ever since to this absurdity. In fact anyone even suggesting a more nuanced and balanced opinion or assessment is usually hollered down by the rabid defenders of de Gaulle. 

Few Historians recognise today that Pierre Laval was the first European statesman to understand the danger posed by Hitler. After  becoming Prime Minister in 1931 he sought to bring Social Insurance and succeeded and to this day his scheme lasts. In 1935 as Prime Minister he met Mussolini in Rome and convinced him to accept the responsibility of defending Austria and when the Germans assassinated the Austrian Chancellor, Dollfuss, it was Italy that forced Germany and Hitler to back off from outright annexation. Recognizing the danger posed by Germany and responding to that danger by creating an international coalition with Italy and Britain fell through as Britain was going through it "appeasement" phase and when Britain accepted the remilitarization of the Rhineland without a whisper of protest, Laval realised that in any confrontation France would be left high and dry. The same fear took him to Moscow, but Stalin too was in no mood to confront Germany. Given this track record of diplomacy against Hitler's Germany, Laval can be termed a "fascist" and "collaborator" only by those who use History  as a tool of political legitimation. Samuel Hoare the Foreign Minister of Britain signed an agreement with Laval but it created a storm in Britain which did not quite see Germany as an existential threat to civilization, and Laval clearly did. When Laval's policy of containment fell through, he became more prudent. 

In 1940 when Germany invaded France and concluded an  Armistice which was hugely popular, Laval had no role in this at all as he became Prime Minister under Marshall  Phillipe Pe'tain after the Armistice. Does this transfer of power which took place with  the concurrence of the National Assembly constitute treason. The charge of treason cannot be made unless we take into consideration the fact that the Armed Forces, Police and territory were firmly controlled by the existing Government. I hesitate to use the very word Vichy as it carries the stain of Gaullist invective. De Gaulle went to France where he was permitted to claim that he represented "Free France", the Cross of Loraine that Sir Winston Churchill and the Allies carried reluctantly. Pierre Laval was dismissed in 1940 and for the next two years he remained out of office. He was recalled in 1942 and held office until 1944. Only the retrospective judgement marinated in expediency and political need can lead to the imposition of the construct of Traitor and Collaborator on Laval.

Pierre Laval kept French institutions clear of German influence and all the judges on the hastily constituted a High Court of Justice including the chief, Paul Mongibeaux were all servants of the Vichy Government and they did not see the irony of sitting in judgement on a man who was its head. The fact is de Gaulle wanted Pierre Laval punished and executed so that he could build his political future on dead Laval. The jury consisted by Socialists who were politically opposed to Vichy and a death sentence was handed down and on 15th October 1945 Laval faced a firing squad. The trial and sentence were timed so that before the Elections in 1945, de Gaulle could appear before the French as the Grand H'omme the saviour of "Eternal France" and refurbish its image as a Great Power. And the removal of Laval did accomplish all this. France's defeat and neutrality (not collaboration) could be wiped clean and the Gallic Coq was free to strut its stuff on the world's stage. 

The most egregious charge against Pierre Laval was with regard to the French Navy anchored in North Africa. The British planes bombed the ships destroying the ships killing 1300 sailors on board, an attack similar to the Pearl Harbour Attack by Japan. Even this provocation did not lead to France declaring war against England and thereby proving the neutrality of Vichy. How could this incident be brought as evidence of a hostile attitude towards France. Political necessity had created a climate in which honest assessment of Laval's role was neither made nor attempted. And de Gaulle was waiting in the wings to erect his political future on the corpse of Pierre Laval.

An assessment of Pierre Laval must consider the circumstances of his regime and with the exception of Rousso few Historians have taken those under consideration. Pierre Laval preserved France as State and Country in the face of huge challenges. Nazification of French public institutions was resisted almost till the bitter end. German demands for labour was met but with reluctance and Jewish persecution was resisted till the end of 1943 when it became impossible for France to fight Germany.

An assessment of Pierre Laval must consider all  these facts.