Waterloo et les regard croisés de l'interprétation
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.
|Date of creation:||01 Jan 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: HEC Paris, 78351 Jouy-en-Josas cedex, France|
Web page: http://www.hec.fr/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:0912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sandra Dupouy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.