ABSTRACT
Historians are often the least reliable witnesses of their own endeavors. Nothing equips them better than anyone else to explain why they chose their profession or what led them towards such and such a methodological choice or research subject. However, they know better than anyone else what these subjects are. One only needs to listen to Evelyne Cohen, Alain Corbin, Arlette Farge, Anaés Fléchet, Pascale Gétschel, Pascal Ory, Michel Pastoureau, Michelle Perrot, André Rauch, and Georges Vigarello to be convinced of this. Colors, the body, sensations, the climate, sounds and images, female and male identities, mass culture, and popular culture only interest them insofar as these objects are likely to provide them with the means to better apprehend the whole of society. And whereas artists, writers, police officers, doctors, or athletes are among their greatest suppliers of sources, it is important to understand that no history of art-no history of literature, of medicine, of sport, etc.-can encapsulate the ambitions of this history, which, taking punctual objects as its starting point, aims to be a total history.
