Waterloo et les regard croisés de l'interprétation

Philippe Mongin

Working Papers from HAL

Abstract: The interpretations of the Waterloo campaign are numerous, diverse and constantly reworked, so they are part of history no less than the event itself. This article briefly reviews them before considering more carefully two selected interpreters, i.e., Clausewitz and Stendhal. It likens the former to a rational choice theorist who makes a step away from intelligible narrative in the direction of modelling, and it represents the latter, who expresses himself through his character Fabrice, as a theoretically informed critique of the inert categories of the historical discourse. Despite their opposing trends towards unification and dissolution, both examples testify to general features, which the end of this essay tries to bring out, of the concepts of interpretation and plurality of interpretations.

Keywords: Waterloo; campaign of 1815; Napoleon; Clausewitz; Stendhal; The Charterhouse of Parma; interpretation; interpretative plurality; intelligible narrative; rational choice theories (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in 2009

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Working Paper: Waterloo et les regard croisés de l'interprétation (2009)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-00489981

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().