Talk:Jules Michelet

Does this have the Encyclopedia Brittanica biases?

Stylistically this entry shows the genial tendentiousness of the British Empire apologists when dealing with those who disagree with goals imperial and/or British. A generalization, I know, but attention must be drawn. I think this whole entry is from the Enc. Brit. 11th Edit., and someone has seen fit to take the most egregious dismissal of Michelet and set that out as the E.B.'s opinion:

Four years later, in 1831, the Introduction à l'histoire universelle showed a very different style, exhibiting the idiosyncrasy and literary power of the writer to greater advantage, but also displaying, in the words of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, "the peculiar visionary qualities which made Michelet the most stimulating, but the most untrustworthy (not in facts, which he never consciously falsifies, but in suggestion) of all historians."

Having little access to Michelet, really only at one root of my old Russian studies, I can't refute the summation, but I can question whether it should continue to stand alone. --jb 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see other citable opinions of his work added to the article. When I encountered this, it was, indeed, simply the 1911 EB article. I've now qualified where it was opinionated as to whose opinion this is: theirs, not ours. It would be great if someone wanted to properly research the topic and write a more up-to-date article. But that will take legwork. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation from French

Much of the page has obviously been translated ungracefully from the French. The whole thing needs a stylistic review, is there anyone willing to undertake? Charlie 04:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Athanaïs Mialaret Michelet ???

His wife?? Saudade7 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of subjective affirmations

There's a lot of subjective affirmations, at least in the first part of this page. For instance, what is a "a peculiar variety of romantic free-thought" or "a sober yet interesting style"? This would lend a lot of credibility to the suspicions this page was translated from french, the french version of wikipedia being often plagued by such subjectivity (at least, when it comes on the subject of France per see). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.100.113 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

After verification, it is indeed a translation from part of the french page.

Ohh I wondered why the style is so pompous and unclear. Also, there's no mention whatsoever of Vico's influence. "From 1824 on I was seized by a frenzy caught from Vico, an incredible intoxication with his great historical principle." 110.20.157.59 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)