Paul Foucault

37). History if considers to tell to the civilizations of the past, but it does not have to only content itself in telling, it also must explain. Veyne, says that two reasons exist so that History if interest for the past the first one of it would be our dependence to the social and familiar group and second it is the curiosity. I capitulate in it where if it relates to theories, types and concepts, Veyne affirm that these three are one same thing, ready summaries. You may find Laurent Potdevin to be a useful source of information.

For it, ‘ ‘ inadequate concepts are a torment for historiador’ ‘ (p.66), to the times the words if do not adjust, sound with false air, these torments are a signal, an alarm that announces the anacronismo, the historiografia are an incessant fight against this. Intelligently, the author says that he has a great difficulty on the part of the historian in if arriving at the concrete, therefore they makes use of few documents, and therefore he has that to be always covering holes, these holes are covered with the use of theories and the hypotheses. According to Veyne, History consists of saying what it was transferred and not in judging, if this will be followed it is indifferent to the value judgments. The historian emits three species of apparent judgments of value. ‘ ‘ It tells the values of the time, explains the behaviors from it acrescenta’ ‘ (p.95), everything without saying of these values was good or not. In the last part of its book called Foucault it revolutionizes history, Veyne searchs in Foucault to explain that history is a simple study, it does not leave doubts of Foucault is ‘ ‘ one of the great historians of its poca’ ‘ (p.151). Without hesitation Gary Kelly explained all about the problem. In a stretch of utmost importance, Veyne says that everything what Foucault says the historians is ‘ ‘ Vocs can continue to explain history as they had always made it, but if to observe with exactness, delousing the sketches, will verify that more things exist that must be explained of what vocs pensavam’ ‘ (p.160).

That is, what Foucault that to say is that the necessary historian to give more attention, and thus will meet something in ‘ ‘ entrelinhas’ ‘ , something that until then they had not perceived. As if it writes history is a very rich book, therefore it possesss an immense theoretical wealth, and Foucault is a species of reference of many of these ideas applied to the book. Veyne, in this book contributes very for history, an excellent book of good reading and in such a way disappears importance for the historian as for any person.