“An Eminently Complex World”: Paul Sébillot’s Urban Folklore Studies and Non-academic Genres in late-19^th Century France

Introduction

The monograph entitled Légendes et curiosités des métiers (Legends and curiosities of the trades) was produced by the Parisian publishing house Flammarion in 1895 (Sébillot 1895). [1] It contained a number of booklets by the French folklorist [2] Paul Sébillot (1843–1918) that had previously been available individually. [3] The author presented the folk traditions of a total of 32 occupational groups on more than 600 pages, including 220 illustrations, and based on a wide range of source material. [4] The legends, proverbs, customs and tales collected by Sébillot covered a wide range, from the 16th to the 19th century, stretching from France to the rest of Europe. [5] Sébillot lined up the material more by summarizing than by interpreting, searching for connections and continuities, and spanning the centuries. The text was accompanied by numerous illustrations, mostly woodcuts, but also lithographs, which came from a similarly broad time frame. At first glance, the publication seemed to fit seamlessly and unobtrusively into the work of an early representative of French folklore studies, whose primary research interest was in collecting oral traditions. An examination of the concept behind the volume, the source material on which it is based and the preface that precedes it, however, reveals characteristics that expand our understanding of the collecting activities of early folklore research dedicated to research into cultural relics, which today is often described as one-dimensional. On the one hand, they include Sébillot’s emphasis on wanting to contribute to research into the customs and legends of urban trades, which he felt had been neglected ; and, on the other hand, and in particular, there was reference to a wide range of textual and pictorial material, including journalistic and literary material, the source-critical classification of which is explained in the preface, as well as the publication’s conception, which is based on “popular” [6] formats. The present article is dedicated to them.

While cultural anthropologists and literary scholars have already pointed out the similarities between ethnographic and journalistic writing and emphasized the ethnographic content of journalistic-literary works, [7] this article sheds light on actual institutional and personal cross-connections between folklore studies and journalism in the last third of the 19th century. The question of the significance of the reception of this source material for early ethnographic work is examined in the light of Sébillot’s expertise, working methods and oeuvre. The volume Légendes et curiosités des métiers is used as an example to illustrate the methodological, subject-specific and personal reasons behind Sébillot’s decision to incorporate these formats, while also placing these interpretations in a broader context of the history of knowledge. [8]

After a presentation of the publication and its journalistic context, Sébillot as a scholar will be discussed in this paper. The focus is on the many influences that shaped the work of this early proponent of folklore studies or traditions populaires, [9] which became established in France in the last third of the 19th century. Following this, Sébillot’s publication, which forms the focal point of this paper, is placed in the context of his working method and the reference to the complex source material is interpreted. Finally, it is shown how a perspective from the history of knowledge, which takes into account the journalistic milieus of knowledge as an important component of ethnographic work in the 19th century, leads to a deeper understanding of both Sébillot’s work and the genesis of the subject.

Of Milliners, Laundresses, Hairdressers and Printers

At first glance, Légendes et curiosités des métiers appears to be a conventional monograph (Fig. 1). It is listed as such in bibliographies and discussed in the secondary literature (Belmont 1984, 2012 ; Postic 2008). The fact that the volume was only published in book form at a later stage just becomes apparent on closer inspection : the main section is preceded not by a table of contents (table de matières), but by a table of monographs and engravings (table de monographies et gravures). This indicates that the volume is composed of previously self-contained, independent publications. [10] The main part is divided into the 32 occupational groups discussed by Sébillot, which had previously appeared in 20 separate editions (Fig. 2). [11] The sources and literature references are not grouped together at the end of the monograph, but at the end of each booklet that was previously published as a single publication. The chapters are always headed with the name of the author, the title of the overall publication and the respective professional group. This is followed by a continuous text, which reads more like a collection of material than an analysis or argument. This impression is not only reinforced by the multitude of quotations but also by the lack of a narrative framework. The chapters are organized in a mostly chronological order, and there is no recognizable overarching structure.

While the complete publication was sold for ten francs, [12] the issues of the series published from 1894 to 1895 cost 50 centimes each, or one franc for a double issue. Sébillot’s publication, thus, already alternated between different literary genres regarding its two forms of publication : the series in booklet form can be categorized as “popular” reading material (Schenda 1970), while the finished volume, supplemented by the author’s preface, is much more akin to an academic publication format.

The juxtaposition of bonds between “popular” and scientific formats, typical of the time, shaped both the publication process and the conceptualization of content, and ultimately extended to the reception of the publication. [13] Not only had the individual chapters initially appeared as a series (of booklets), but the focus on urban professional groups also quite obviously pointed to the urban type literature that was becoming established towards the end of the 17th century and became widespread in the 19th century. These included the early series of street vendors and urban tableaus, as well as the social sketches and type portraits that emerged with the expanding newspaper and magazine market as a “new literary form of social self-observation” (Schwab 2016 : 37). [14] This panoramic literature, represented by prominent series and compilations [15] such as Paris, ou le livre des cent-et-un (1831–1834), Les Francais peints par eux-mêmes (1840–1842) or Le Diable à Paris (1845–1846), as well as by journal literature and the genre of physiologies, shared with Sébillot the serial character, the division of urban society into groups of types and the encyclopedic claim of a comprehensive view. Sébillot himself explicitly established the affinity to such literary formats. The literature listed at the end of each chapter, as well as many other references in the text, came, to a large extent, from the journalistic and literary publication contexts mentioned previously. Sébillot consulted Louis-Sébastien Mercier’s (1740–1814) Tableau de Paris, the format peints par eux-mêmes as well as physiologies. He quoted Charles Dickens, Eugène Sue, Honoré de Balzac, Pierre Vinçard, Paul de Kock and Restif de la Bretonne. Many examples and pieces of text also came from journals such as Le Monde illustré, Le Journal pour rire, Le Charivari or La Mosaïque. There were also advertising images and caricatures among the illustrations, as well as lithographs by artists whose works were printed in 19th-century journal literature. These included, for example, Honoré Daumier, Paul Gavarni, Henry Monnier and Maurice Sand. Nevertheless, the publication also had a scientific aspiration and style. This was evident not only in the listing of the secondary literature used, but also in the preface that preceded the monograph. It was here that Sébillot explained his intentions as a researcher, which he also located within a current state of research. He even subjected the compiled text and image material to a verification of sources.

The book’s placement between the scientific and “popular” genres ultimately resulted in widespread attention. Although no definitive statements can be made about the actual readership, the reviews in contemporary periodicals give an impression of the social groups that received or were at least aware of the publication(s). [16] These were, in fact, very broad and ranged from specialist journals abroad, such as the Journal of American Folklore (Newell 1896), the Archivio per lo studio delle tradizioni populari (Pitrè 1895), the Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde (Weinhold 1895), Volkskunde (de Cock 1895a, 1895b, 1895c) and Folk-Lore (Review of Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers 1897), to regional historical journals, such as the Revue de Bretagne, de Vendée et d’Anjou (de Gourcuff 1895a), and daily newspapers, such as the Journal des débats (F. D. 1895a ; F. D. 1895c) or La petite presse (d’Armon 1895). Reviews of his publication also appeared in the Revue des traditions populaires, founded by Sébillot (de Gourcuff 1895b ; F. D. 1895b). [17] The authors recommended the publication almost without exception and, in addition to Sébillot’s achievement of filling a gap in research with his volume, they particularly emphasized the large number of illustrations as beneficial (F. D. 1895a ; F. D. 1895c ; Gourcuff 1895b ; Review of Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers 1897). [18] The comprehensive view of the oral traditions of urban occupational groups was described as encyclopaedic and also welcomed because it included, for example, newer trades, such as printing, and the petites gens (“common people”) (d’Armon, 1895 ; F. D. 1895a ; F. D. 1895c). The choice of a publisher, which mainly published novels and “popular science” works, as well as the presentation aimed at a broader audience, thus, seemed to spark an interest in folklore and ethnological publications on the part of the daily press. [19] Apparently, however, this did not lead to less visibility within academic circles for the volume, which was conceived as a mixture of science and popular reading material.

Paul Sébillot – Painter, Journalist, Folklorist

Paul Sébillot, a native of Matignon (Côtes-du-Nord, now Côtes d’Amor) in Brittany, who had been living in Paris since 1864, was one of the key figures in the network of individuals dedicated to the traditions populaires that formed in France in the 1880s (Belmont 2012 : 468). [20] He is known as a researcher in oral literature and popular traditions with a focus on his homeland, Brittany, publishing legends and fairy tales from the region. In addition to these locally specific works, Sébillot was also a key initiator of two international folklore congresses and networked transnationally with other representatives of folkloristic-ethnological discursive contexts. He also founded two central institutions in the field : the Société des traditions populaires (est. 1885) and its journal Revue des traditions populaires (est. 1886). The topics covered by these institutions were compiled in his comprehensive four-volume work Le folk-lore de France (1904–1907). [21] Owing to the fact that folklore research was not institutionalized as an independent discipline in France, Sébillot only began to receive increased attention as the “prince du folklore” (Voisenat 2008) in the 2010s.

Similar to many of his contemporaries who studied folklore, Sébillot’s path to ethnological topics was neither straightforward nor was it his only interest and mainstay. After dropping out of law school in Rennes and Paris, Sébillot devoted himself to painting from 1867 to 1883 (Belmont 2012 : 467). He also wrote for various, mostly left-wing, magazines (Le Bien Public, La Réforme, L’Art Libre) and was politically active as a committed republican. [22] In addition, he was involved in various learned societies, including, in addition to the “subject-specific” [23] ones mentioned above, the Association des journalistes républicains, La Pomme, Société artistique et littéraire, entre Bretons et Normands, which he and the journalist Elphège Boursin (1836–1891) founded in 1877, as well as, in a special way, the Société d’anthropologie de Paris. [24] Sébillot was also a member of the Société des gens de lettres from 1880, although he was less active there (Voisenat 2007b : Note 21).

Sébillot’s shift toward the traditions populaires around 1875 and his expertise, as well as his working methods and thematic priorities, were significantly influenced by these complex group affiliations and areas of interest. While studying law in Paris, Sébillot joined a group of male students, predominantly medical and law students, but also painters and journalists (mostly of Breton origin), who met every evening in a guesthouse (Voisenat 2008). Without question, this circle of people influenced him both intellectually and professionally. Sébillot also continued the regionally and intellectually motivated exchange with the artistic-literary society La Pomme, which he and Boursin had founded. These activities provided him with important contacts for his later scientific work. Through his friend and brother-in-law, the journalist, economist and politician Yves Guyot (1843–1928), Sébillot not only obtained a position at the then Ministère des Travaux publics, but also gained access to the Société d’anthropologie de Paris. In 1875, Sébillot met the Breton archivist, journalist and folklorist François-Marie Luzel (1821–1895) through the much-acclaimed political pamphlet La République c’est la tranquillité (1875), which introduced him to the circles of folklore researchers and, in 1879, to the philologist and folklorist Henri Gaidoz (1842–1932) (Voisenat 2007b). Both scientific disciplines, anthropology and folklore studies, were to shape Sébillot’s work and, together with their representatives, become professional and personal companions. The connections to La Pomme and the associated artistic and literary circles also played an important role. [25] While Sébillot initially worked closely with philological folklore researchers, represented by Henri Gaidoz and his friend Eugène Rolland (1846–1909), and coordinated publications and professional meetings with them, from the mid-1880s he increasingly aligned himself with the Parisian anthropological school and the materialist currents of thought associated with it (Voisenat 2010c ; Wartelle 2004 : 140–147). As a result, Sébillot developed a different understanding of the subject from the philologically oriented researchers, which ultimately led not only to the end of their collaboration but to an actual rift (Voisenat 2007b).

“Armchair Research” with an Innovative Character ?

From a critical and pessimistic perspective, the use of disparate source material in Légendes et curiosités des métiers, coupled with Sébillot’s weak interpretative performance, could be understood and dismissed as a typical characteristic of an “armchair researcher” of the 19th century. [26] And indeed, according to the preface, the author had not obtained the sources for his publication solely through his own research, but also through reading matter and existing correspondence, as well as through letters in response to the articles on the subject published in advance in the Revue des traditions populaires in 1895. [27] Nevertheless, the label “armchair anthropologist” would ignore more recent considerations regarding the significance and classification of early research methods in ethnology and anthropology and obscure the innovative potential of Sébillot’s work. The historian Efram Sera-Shriar (2014), for example, argues for a change in the perspective of the history of knowledge that does not marginalize so-called “armchair research” as an unscientific counterpart to “proper” field research. In order to align the methodological approaches of early ethnological and anthropological research in the 19th and 20th centuries more closely, Sera-Shriar (2014 : 31, 37) argues in favour of placing less emphasis on the field research paradigm and more on the questions and considerations regarding the differentiation of methods of observation and the evaluation of the material collected, which were more important in the 19th century. [28] Ethnologists and anthropologists were well aware of the problem of obtaining second-hand information and compensated for this deficit by methodically reflecting on comparative source material or formulating instructions and guidelines for data collection in order to ensure certain qualitative standards (Sera-Shriar 2014 : 27). [29] The researchers, who incidentally also did not pursue this activity full-time for many years, did not always collect the material independently, but, according to Sera-Shriar (2013 : 12–16), this does not necessarily mean that methodological considerations were lacking.

Although these dynamics of early anthropology and ethnology cannot, of course, be readily transferred to folklore research, if only because of the much greater significance of colonial structures in these contexts, parallels can nevertheless be drawn. This is because – as exemplified by Sébillot’s broad professional engagement – a clear distinction between the disciplines only emerged towards the end of the 19th century. Folklore researchers were also integrated into personal anthropological networks and societies, and vice versa, and oriented themselves toward the scientific methods that were emerging there.

To dismiss Sébillot as an armchair scholar would, therefore, be insufficient from a perspective of the history of knowledge alone ; [30] an assessment that is confirmed by the preface to the publication, which Sébillot (1895 : I) began as follows :

Much has been written about trades from a technical, economic, social or historical point of view ; the regulations governing them under the guild system have been reproduced in detail ; but little has been said, except in passing, about what might be called their familiar history. In the course of my studies of folk traditions, I was struck by the paucity of information that various authors provided on this subject. The traditionalists of our time, who have collected so many curious observations on peasants, and sometimes on sailors, have rarely studied workers.

Sébillot identified a gap in the research into the legends and stories surrounding the world of manual labour – not only in the historiography of the professions generally, but also in explicitly folkloristic-ethnological studies. While the popular traditions of people in rural areas were intensively studied, there were few people interested in urban workers due to the more challenging nature of the observation and the possibly less extensive material :

The very many Folk Lore books published over the last fifteen years, so rich in details about peasants, recorded very little about workers. Nevertheless, I continued to glean notes, and it was by gathering some of these that I wrote the little monograph entitled : Traditions et Superstitions de la Boulangerie (1890). (Sébillot 1895 : II)

The author’s publication was a response to this deficit. However, this was not the first time he had addressed the topic. In addition to the publication about the bakery trade, Sébillot (1895 : II) also referred in the preface to an article he had published in 1886 in the anthropological journal L’Homme : Journal illustré des sciences anthropologiques. Under the title “Les légendes de Paris”, he had devoted himself to the study of urban traditions years before, decisively rejecting what he saw as the widespread assumption that there was less to research on this topic :

In our opinion, this view is far too absolute : a big city is an eminently complex world, which no one, not even its oldest inhabitants, can claim to know inside out. […] If legends and all their accessories are less numerous and more difficult to discover in cities than in the countryside, we should not immediately conclude that they do not exist there. To do so would be to wipe out the entire past of a land where thousands of men have lived, and which, however much it has been shaken, has, nevertheless, been able to preserve memories of the past. (Sébillot 1886b : 524)

To emphasize this conviction, Sébillot cited examples of places, such as palaces, churches, residential buildings, gardens and streets, which, according to him, were connected with legends. He also published the first attempt at a questionnaire, [31] an “Essai de questionnaire pour recueillir les traditions et superstitions d’une grande ville”, at the end of his remarks (Sébillot 1886b : 529–532). [32]

This way of approaching new fields of research was not an isolated incident for Sébillot, but gave his work its structure, as the ethnologist Claudie Voisenat (2010b) has noted. The fields of study in folklore research and the topics he considered important were not so much discussed through professional definitions as they were often communicated – as Sera-Shriar also describes for anthropology and ethnology – through instructions and data collection sheets. [33] It was not uncommon for Sébillot to take an innovative approach in terms of content, for example, when he emphasized the folklore of the sea (folklore de la mer) or pointed to (big) cities as a field of research. [34] Since folklore research did not address the latter topic, Sébillot published on it himself. In doing so, he drew not only on material he had collected himself, but also on secondary literature and correspondence (Sébillot 1895). This approach was not a reflection of a lack of scholarship but, instead, of the fact that Sébillot was dealing with urban research, a topic that had otherwise not been strongly represented by folklore researchers. What was innovative about this was the counter-narrative to the turn toward rural culture, even though Sébillot’s motivation remained relic research (Sébillot 1886b : 524, 1895 : I, VI). [35]

A Democratic, Encyclopaedic Approach to Source Material

While early folklorists paid less attention to urban life and work than to rural life, it was a central theme in 19th-century journalistic and literary publications. Since the late 18th century, and particularly in the context of the emergence of journal literature in the 1830s, authors in various text genres responded to the social and cultural transformation processes in (large) European cities as a result of industrialization, urban–rural migration and urbanization by attempting to grasp everyday life descriptively (Lyon-Caen 2004 ; Schwab 2019). And so the publishing announcement of Sébillot’s volume also suggested that it would be particularly welcomed by those “who are interested in the world of workers that has become so much a part of our daily lives” (Collection Ernest Flammarion 1895). However, Sébillot not only addressed a topic that was widespread in journalistic and literary genres, he also explicitly referred to these non-scientific publications. They were listed alongside historical publications and his own works, as well as those of colleagues in the field, under the category of secondary literature (Fig. 3). The matter-of-fact way in which journalistic literature and novels were incorporated may seem impressive today, but this approach fits just as well into Sébillot’s understanding of the subject and research interests, as does the methodological preparatory work in the form of data collection sheets and instructions.

It is not without good reason that the term “encyclopaedic” was used several times in the reviews of the publication, and that Olivier de Gourcuff [36] (1853–1938), writer and editor of the Revue de Bretagne, de Vendée et d’Anjou, emphasized Sébillot’s “in-depth knowledge of the history of the common people, of popular life” (Gourcuff 1895b), and even considered it an addendum to Amans-Alexis Monteil’s (1769–1850) Histoire des Français des divers états (1843). Sébillot included a wide range of material because he was aiming for a comprehensive historical view. And if the subject was the city and urban occupations, this comprehensive view also had to include journalistic and literary publications. For Sébillot, it obviously made little difference whether the observations and descriptions came from the pen of a Louis-Sebastien Mercier, Restif de la Bretonne, Honoré de Balzac or François-Marie Luzel. The sources were given equal weight in the text and the validity of their statements was only examined in the preface to the overall publication and categorized in a research status. There, Sébillot stressed that the use of such diverse material was deliberate (1895 : II–III, IV), emphasizing in particular the value of oral tradition as an important supplement to literary works, since it often very accurately reflected popular ideas (idées populaires) (V). These words, and the volume’s open-ended approach to the diverse source material, were grounded in an understanding of history that historian David Hopkin (2010) has termed “histoire démocratique”, as well as in Sébillot’s broad conception of what folklore research should accomplish. The anthropological school and Sébillot’s commitment were particularly influential in this regard.

Thus, it may not come as a surprise that one of Sébillot’s rare programmatic writings, which dealt with the subject of folklore studies, was not published in the subject-specific publications that already existed at the time [37] but in the Revue d’anthropologie (Sébillot 1886a). In it, Sébillot (293) defined the new science, which he saw as influenced by ethnography and anthropology and which he consciously sought to distinguish from the philological school, as

a kind of encyclopaedia of the traditions, beliefs and customs of the common classes or of less advanced nations, with the reciprocal repercussions of oral and cultivated literature ; it is the examination of survivals which, sometimes going back to the earliest ages of mankind, as demonstrated by the study of prehistoric times compared with the similar social state of certain tribes, have been preserved, more or less altered, even among the most civilized peoples and sometimes, unconsciously, among the most cultivated minds.

However problematic and incorrect the social-evolutionary assumptions of this definition may be from today’s perspective, it provides a concrete insight into Sébillot’s understanding of the subject. This was based on the survival theory of the anthropological school and the conception of history it advocated, which aimed to provide a comprehensive social history and search for historical continuity. [38]

In the course of this, not only selected narratives, for example of privileged social groups, but all cultural phenomena came into focus. This approach was democratic because the broad concept of culture behind it revalued material that had otherwise been marginalized. It gave a voice to precisely those social groups that had been given little space in historical accounts of the time. [39] While this was done, as Hopkin (2010, 2012) has shown, by collecting and noting down oral traditions in publications such as Contes populaires de la Haute-Bretagne (1880–1882) and Traditions et superstitions de la Haute-Bretagne (1882), the comprehensive historical view in Légendes et curiosités des métiers became clear in the additional integration of journalistic and literary publications around the professional (urban) world. [40] According to Sébillot, historical accounts, oral traditions, such as legends and fairy tales, (folk) songs and literary works were all equally part of the “archives of the people” (Hopkin 2018 : 11.). While Sébillot shared this view with republican folklore researchers from abroad, [41] the understanding of the subject he proclaimed in France led to a bitter dispute. [42] Sébillot’s openness to anthropology and the archaeological and ethnographic perspectives it represented, as well as to artistic and literary circles, and particularly his intensive collaboration with the Société d’anthropologie and its specialist journals (L’Homme, Revue d’anthropologie), came into conflict with philological folklore research, represented by Henri Gaidoz and Eugène Rolland, whose attitude, in turn, found expression in a stronger connection to the Société de linguistique (Gauthier 2008 ; Voisenat 2011). [43]

As a result of his close involvement in Parisian anthropological circles, Sébillot’s approach was characterized by a desire to take the broadest possible view of popular traditions. This endeavour was evident, on the one hand, in his interdisciplinary openness, which Sébillot lived out in a wide range of exchanges ; not only through his memberships and involvement in various scientific societies, but also in the professional journals he founded, in which he welcomed representatives of anthropological, folkloristic-ethnological and artistic-literary circles alike (Voisenat 2010b). [44] On the other hand, it is evident in Sébillot’s broad conception of the subject matter of folklore studies, which resulted in a rich spectrum of topics and the study of various population groups, as well as including diverse media forms. In addition to a wide range of text sources, illustrations were also taken into account, as can be seen in Légendes et curiosités des métiers. [45]

Folklore Studies and Journalism – Not an Isolated Case

The publication Légendes et curiosités des métiers is a prime example of the different fields of interest and personal networks that shaped the work of the folklore researcher Sébillot. The volume moves effortlessly between the contexts of folkloristic and ethnological discussion and “popular” reading material, between literary and scientific contexts, and, thus, shows how little distinction there was between the disciplines and journalistic genres at the end of the 19th century. At the same time, the publication offers a historical view of the development of folklore and ethnological research, which places journalistic writing and journalistic and literary texts in the context of the discipline of folklore that was emerging in Europe in the last third of the 19th century. While this connection has already been elaborated in relation to social reportage and early social research (Lindner 1990, 2005), the question of the extent to which journalistic contexts were also relevant and fruitful for folklorists and ethnologists has not yet been addressed. Both Sébillot the persona and the publication under discussion provide a prime example of the link between folklore studies and journalism – as evidenced not only by the author’s involvement in relevant societies and circles but also by the book’s design and the inclusion of a wide range of journalistic text and image material. Sébillot was not interested in descriptions and snapshots in the style of early documentary journalism, but in a historical-iconographic view of urban legends and customs. Influenced by the Paris school of anthropology and its comprehensive (historical) view of “the human being”, Sébillot compiled a wide range of image and text formats in which urban professional groups became the focus of observation. The material was given a source value by the unifying theme, with the result that the author naturally included literary and journalistic formats in his considerations. [46]

Sébillot’s example also shows that his broad professional orientation was viewed negatively by other actors in the emerging field of French folklore studies :

If folk-lore in France is scattered, as you regret, it is because our disciples (Rolland’s and mine) Sébillot and Carnoy wanted to play the role of masters and leaders. You can see what they are worth, and what they contribute to the progress of science. For them, folk-lore is simply a genre of literature where it is easy to establish oneself as a writer, and to impose oneself on an ignorant public. (Letter from Henri Gaidoz to Giuseppe Pitrè, March 25, 1889, cited in Voisenat 2011)

Gaidoz and Rolland dismissed Sébillot’s research as amateurish and part of an “anarchy of folklore” (anarchie folklorique). The deciding factor in this judgment, in addition to his interest in anthropology, was his self-image as a publiciste (Gaidoz and Rolland referred to him as a homme de lettres), who, unlike them, did not see himself as belonging to philology (Voisenat 2007b). This is despite the fact that Sébillot’s broader understanding of the field, his reference to anthropology and journalism, was evident above all in his anthropological book and journal publications aimed at a broad audience, but had little influence on his publications in subject-specific folkloristic-ethnological journals. While the former also attracted attention in folklore research circles at the time, representatives of the historiography of folklore studies have only recently taken note of them.

Although the connections between folklore research and journalism have only been discussed here in relation to one actor and one selected publication, the example points to a context in the history of knowledge that was more important than previously assumed. In the case of writers and publicists such as George Sand (Belmont 1975 ; Bernard 2006 ; van Gennep 1926), Benito Pérez Galdós (Hopkin 2018 : 9 ; Parker-Hunt Sierra 2006), Gaston Vuillier (Voisenat 2007a), Rachel Busk and Evelyn Martinengo-Cesaresco (Hopkin 2017), strong personal and institutional links to folkloristic-ethnological discourses have been identified, as well as the interest of scholars such as Reinhold Köhler (Schenda and Tomkowiak 1993) or Giuseppe Pitrè (Schenda 1966) in “popular” reading material. However, the disciplinary differentiation and the associated efforts at professional demarcation and professionalization stood in the way of these actors. Journalistic-literary traditions were apparently not conducive to this process, with the result that the desire for institutionalized professionalism and the conflict over the “legitimate” professional tradition pushed this part of the disciplinary history of folklore studies, along with its actors, out of the professional discourse. Although the necessity of this exclusion is understandable in retrospect, a historiography motivated by the history of knowledge that explicitly includes non-academic milieus of knowledge in its considerations should reflect more strongly on this. This is not only to be historically correct, but especially to draw attention to the broken strands that it has created, the consideration of which today leads to a better understanding of the genesis of the subject of folklore studies.

Bibliography

Anonymous, 1897. “Review of Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers, par Paul Sébillot. Paris. Ernest Flammarion.” Folk-Lore, 8(2) : 158–160.

Arenche, Marie-Laure. 2011. “La presse de vulgarisation ou la médiation des savoirs.” In La Civilisation du journal. Histoire culturelle et littéraire de la presse française au XIX^e siècle, ed. Dominique Kalifa, Philippe Régnier, Marie-Ève Thérenty, and Alain Vaillant, Paris : Nouveau Monde Éditions : 383–415.

Belmont, Nicole. 1975. “L’Académie celtique et George Sand. Les débuts des recherches folkloriques en France.” Romantisme, 9 : 29–38, https://doi.org/10.3406/roman.1975.4980.

Belmont, Nicole. 1984. “Mythologie des métiers. À propos de ‘Légendes et curiosités des métiers’ de Paul Sébillot.” Ethnologie française, 14(1) : 45–56.

Belmont, Nicole. 1986. Paroles païennes. Mythe et folklore. Des frères Grimm à P. Saintyves. Paris : Imago.

Belmont, Nicole (dir.), 1995. Aux sources de l’ethnologie française. L’académie celtique, Paris : Éditions du C.T.H.S.

Belmont, Nicole. 2012. “Sébillot, Paul.” In Enzyklopädie des Märchens. Handwörterbuch zur historischen und vergleichenden Erzählforschung, Vol. 12, ed. Rolf Wilhelm Brednich, Berlin/New York : De Gruyter : 467–470.

Bernard, Daniel. 2006. “Le regard ethnographique de George Sand.” In George Sand. Terroir et histoire, ed. Noëlle Dauphin, Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes : 81–103. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pur.7804.

Bucher, Hans-Jürgen. 2016. “Ein ‘Pictorial Turn’ im 19. Jahrhundert ? Überlegungen zu einer multimodalen Mediengeschichte am Beispiel der illustrierten Zeitungen.” In Historische Perspektiven auf den Iconic Turn. Die Entwicklung der öffentlichen visuellen Kommunikation, ed. Stephanie Geise, Thomas Birkner, Klaud Arnold, Maria Löblich, and Katharina Lobinger, Köln : Herbert von Halem Verlag, 280–317.

Burke, Peter. 2014. Die Explosion des Wissens. Von der Encyclopédie bis Wikipedia. Berlin : Wagenbach.

Buzard, James. 2005. Disorienting Fiction. The Autoethnographic Work of Nineteenth-century British Novels. Princeton : Princeton University Press.

Buzard, James, 2010. “The Country of the Plague. Anticulture and Autoethnography in Dickens’s 1850s.” Victorian Literature and Culture, 38(2) : 413–419, doi:10.1017/S1060150310000082.

Champfleury, Jules. 1869. Les chats. Histoire, mœurs, observations, anecdotes. Paris : J. Rothschild.

Christophe, Jacqueline, Denis-Michel Boëll, and Régis Meyran, eds. 2009. Du folklore à l’ethnologie. Paris : Édition de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

“Collection Ernest Flammarion. Nouveautés pour Étrennes.” Journal des débats, December 22, 1895 (Supplément illustré).

“Collection Ernest Flammarion. Nouveautés pour Étrennes.” Le Gaulois, December 25, 1896 (Supplément illustré gratuit).

Crary, Jonathan. 1996. Techniken des Betrachters. Sehen und Moderne im 19. Jahrhundert. Dresden : ‎Verlag der Kunst.

Davidovic-Walther, Antonia, Michaela Fenske, and Lioba Keller-Drescher. 2009. “Akteure und Praktiken. Explorationen volkskundlicher Wissensproduktion.” Berliner Blätter, 50 : 6–14.

d’Armon, Paul. 1895. La Petite Presse, November 11.

de Cock, Alfons. 1895a. “Review of Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers par Paul Sébillot. Par séries de 52 p. gr.-format, avec illustr., à fr. 0.50. Paris, E. Flammarion.” Volkskunde. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Folklore, 8 : 34–35.

de Cock, Alfons. 1895b. “Review of Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers par Paul Sébillot. Par séries de 32 p., gr.-format, avec illustr., à fr. 0,50. Paris, E. Flammarion.” Volkskunde. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Folklore, 8 : 110.

de Cock, Alfons. 1895c. “Review of Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers par Paul Sébillot. XVI-640 p. in-80 ill. de plus de 200 grav. Paris, Ern. Flammarion, 1895. Prix : fr. 10.00. Chaque livraison de 52 p. se vend à part à fr. 0.50.” Volkskunde. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Folklore , 8 : 190.

de Gourcuff, Olivier. 1895a. “Review of Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers, par Paul Sébillot. IV : Les coiffeurs. V : Les couturières, dentellières et modistes. Paris, E. Flammarion, éditeur, 1895.” Revue de Bretagne, de Vendée et d’Anjou, 39(5) : 394–395.

de Gourcuff, Olivier. 1895b. “Review of Paul Sébillot. Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers (I. Les Tailleurs. — II. Les Boulangers. — III. Les Forgerons). Paris, Ernest Flammarion, éditeur, S. D.” Revue des traditions populaires, 10(1) : 60.

Del Lungo, Andrea, and Pierre Glaudes, eds. 2019. Balzac, l’invention de la sociologie. Paris : Classiques Garnier.

Dietzsch, Ina, Wolfgang Kaschuba, and Leonore Scholze-Irrlitz. 2009. “Horizonte ethnografischen Wissens.” In Horizonte ethnografischen Wissens. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, ed. Ina Dietzsch, Wolfgang Kaschuba, and Leonore Scholze-Irrlitz, Köln/Weimar/Wien : Böhlau : 7–15.

Dorson, Richard. 1968. The British Folklorists. A History. Chicago : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

F. D. 1895a. “Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers.” Journal des débats, May 14 : 1.

F. D. 1895b. “Review of Paul Sébillot. Légendes et curiosité des métiers. Paris, E. Flammarion, 5 fascicules in-8.” Revue des traditions populaires, 10(5) : 317.

F. D. 1895c. “L’histoire intime des métiers.” Journal des débats, November 15 : 1.

Fouché, Pascal, and Alban Cerisier. 2015. Flammarion. 1875–2015. 140 ans d’édition et de librairie (publié à l’occasion de l’exposition ‘De Zola à Houellebecq’ Flammarion, 1875–2015. 140 ans d’édition et de librairie, présentée à l’Institut Mémoires de l’édition contemporaine, Abbaye d’Ardenne, Caen, du 30 mai au 31 juillet 2015). Paris : Gallimard Flammarion.

Gauthier, Claudine. 2008. “Entre philologie et folklore. Biographie d’Henri Gaidoz.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article181.html.

Handler, Richard, and Daniel Segal. 1990. Jane Austen and the Fiction of Culture. An Essay on the Narration of Social Realities. Tuscon : University of Arizona Press.

Hopkin, David. 2010. “Paul Sébillot et les légendes locales. Des sources pour une histoire ‘démocratique’ ?” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article478.html.

Hopkin, David. 2012. Voices of the People in Nineteenth-Century France. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/CBO9781139023474.

Hopkin, David. 2017. “British Women Folklorists in Post-unification Italy. Rachel Busk and Evelyn Martinengo-Cesaresco.” Folklore, 128(2) : 189–197, https://doi.org/10.1080/0015587X.2017.1285609.

Hopkin, David. 2018. “Préface.” In Le folklore espagnol, entre ambition fédératrice et utopie républicaine. Le modèle populaire d’Antonio Machado y Álvarez, Mercedes Gómez García‑Plata, 8–13. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article1532.html.

Hopwood, Nick, Simon Schaffer, and Jim Secord. 2010. “Seriality and Scientific Objects in the Nineteenth Century.” History of Science, 48 (3–4) : 251–285.

Kalifa, Dominique, Philippe Régnier, Marie-Ève Thérenty, and Alain Vaillant, eds. 2011. La Civilisation du journal. Histoire culturelle et littéraire de la presse française au XIX^e siècle. Paris : Nouveau Monde Éditions.

Lauster, Martina. 2007. Sketches of the Nineteenth Century. European Journalism and its Physiologies, 1830–50. Basingstoke/New York : Palgrave Macmillan.

Le Gall, Laurent. 2011. “La République en filigrane. Idéologie républicaine et folklorisme chez Paul Sébillot.” In Paul Sébillot (1843–1918). Un républicain promoteur des traditions populaires (Actes du colloque de Fougères, 9–11 octobre 2008), ed. Fañch Postic, Brest : Éditions de CRBC : 27–52.

Lepenies, Wolf. 1978. “Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Disziplingeschichte.” Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 4 (4) : 437–451.

Lindner, Rolf. 1990. Die Entdeckung der Stadtkultur. Soziologie aus der Erfahrung der Reportage. Frankfurt am Main : Campus Verlag.

Lindner, Rolf, ed. 2005. Die Zivilisierung der Urbanen Nomaden. Henry Mayhew, die Armen von London und die Modernisierung der Lebensformen. Berlin : LIT Verlag.

Lyon-Caen, Judith. 2004. “Saisir, décrire, déchiffrer. Les mises en texte du social sous la monarchie de Juillet.” Revue historique, 630 (2) : 303–331, https://doi.org/10.3917/rhis.042.0303.

Newell, William Wells. 1896. “Review of Paul Sébillot. Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers. Ouvrage de 220 gravures d’après des estampes anciennes et modernes ou de des dessins inédits. Paris : E. Flammarion. 1896. Nos. i–xx, of 32 pp., separately paged.” Journal of American Folklore, 9 (35) : 308–309.

Parinet, Élisabeth. 1992. La Librairie Flammarion. 1875–1914. Paris : Imec Éditions.

Parker-Hunt Sierra, Sarah. 2006. “Nineteenth-Century Folklore Studies and Benito Pérez Galdós.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Boston University.

Pitrè, Giuseppe, 1895. “Review of Paul Sébillot. Légendes et Curiosités des métiers. Paris, Ernest Flammarion. In-4°. (Puntate XIV a cent. 50 l’una).” Archivio per lo studio delle Tradizioni Populari, 14 (3) : 449–450.

Postic, Fañch. 2008. “Bibliographie de Paul Sébillot.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie, Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article269.html.

Postic, Fañch, ed. 2011a. Paul Sébillot (1843–1918). Un républicain promoteur des traditions populaires (Actes du colloque de Fougères, 9–11 octobre 2008). Brest : Éditions de CRBC.

Postic, Fañch. 2011b. “Paul Sébillot, biographie lacunaire d’une personnalité aux multiples facettes.” In Paul Sébillot (1843–1918). Un républicain promoteur des traditions populaires (Actes du colloque de Fougères, 9–11 octobre 2008), ed. Fañch Postic, Brest : Éditions de CRBC : 11–23.

Preiss, Nathalie, and Valérie Stiénon. 2012. “‘Sketched by Themselves’. The Panorama Tested by the ‘Panoramic’.” Interférences littéraires/Literaire interferenties, 8 : 17–24.

Rothöhler, Simon. 2020. Theorien der Serie zur Einführung. Hamburg : Junius Verlag.

Schenda, Rudolf. 1966. “Italienische Volkslesestoffe im 19. Jahrhundert. Einführung und Bibliographie zur Sammlung italienischer Volksbüchlein im Museo Pitrè, Palermo.” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens, 7 : 209–300.

Schenda, Rudolf. 1970. Volk ohne Buch. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der populären Lesestoffe. 1770–1910. Frankfurt am Main : Klostermann.

Schenda, Rudolf, and Ingrid Tomkowiak. 1993. Istorie Bellissime. Italienische Volksdrucke des 19. Jahrhunderts aus der Sammlung Reinhold Köhlers in Weimar. Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz.

Schwab, Christiane. 2016. “Sketches of Manners, esquisses des mœurs. Die journalistische Gesellschaftsskizze (1830–1860) als ethnographisches Wissensformat.” Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 112 (1) : 37–56.

Schwab, Christiane. 2019. “The Transforming City in Nineteenth-century Literary Journalism. Ramón de Mesonero Romanos’ ‘Madrid Scenes’ and Charles Dickens’ ‘Street Sketches’.” Urban History, 46 (2) : 225–245.

Schwab, Christiane, ed. 2021. Skizzen, Romane, Karikaturen. Populäre Genres als soziographische Wissensformate im 19. Jahrhundert. Bielefeld : transcript Verlag.

Sébillot, Paul. 1885. “Essai de questionnaire pour recueillir les traditions et superstitions d’une grande ville.” L’Homme. Journal illustré des Sciences Anthropologiques, 3 (1) : 529–532.

Sébillot, Paul. 1886a. “Le folk-lore. Les traditions populaires et l’ethnographie légendaire.” Revue d’anthropologie, 15 (1) : 290–302.

Sébillot, Paul. 1886b. “Les légendes de Paris.” L’Homme. Journal illustré des sciences anthropologiques, 3 (1) : 523–529.

Sébillot, Paul. 1895. Légendes et curiosités des métiers. Paris : Flammarion.

Sébillot, Paul. 1907. Le folk-lore de France, Vol. 4 : Le peuple et l’histoire. Paris : Librairie Orientale et Américaine, E. Guilmoto.

Seljemoen, Kristine, and Kari Soriano Salkjelsvik. 2021. “The Coexistence of Traditional and Modern Medicine in Costa Rican Sketches of Manners.” In Skizzen, Romane, Karikaturen. Populäre Genres als soziographische Wissensformate im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Christiane Schwab, Bielefeld : transcript Verlag : 173–195.

Sera-Shriar, Efram. 2013. The Making of British Anthropology, 1813–1871. London : Pickering & Chatto.

Sera-Shriar, Efram. 2014. “What is Armchair Anthropology ? Observational Practices in 19th-Century British Human Sciences.” History of the Human Sciences, 27 (2) : 26–40.

Urry, James. 1972. “‘Notes and Queries on Anthropology’ and the Development of Field Methods in British Anthropology, 1870–1920.” Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland : 45–57.

van Gennep, Arnold. 1926. “George Sand folkloriste.” Mercure de France, June 1, 371–382.

Voisenat, Claudie. 2001. “Les archives improbables de Paul Sébillot.” Gradhiva. Revue d’histoire et d’archives de l’anthropologie, (30–31) : 153–166, https://www.persee.fr/doc/gradh_0764-8928_2001_num_30_1_1270 .

Voisenat, Claudie. 2007a. “Gaston Vuillier et les folkloristes.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article177.html .

Voisenat, Claudie. 2007b. “Quand les archives font des histoires. La polémique entre Henri Gaidoz et Paul Sébillot (1912–1913).” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article197.html .

Voisenat, Claudie. 2008. “Paul Sébillot, vie et oeuvre d’un ‘prince du folklore’.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article150.html .

Voisenat, Claudie. 2010a. “Paul Sébillot à la revue L’Homme.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article513.html .

Voisenat, Claudie. 2010b. “Paul Sébillot à la Société d’anthropologie de Paris.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article512.html .

Voisenat, Claudie. 2010c. “Paul Sébillot et l’invention du folklore matérialiste.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article511.html .

Voisenat, Claudie. 2011. “Les relations Gaidoz-Sébillot ou la guerre des prééminences.” In Bérose – Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l’anthropologie. Paris, https://www.berose.fr/article274.html .

Vuillier, Gaston. 1898. La danse. Paris : Hachette.

Wartelle, Jean-Claude. 2004. “La Société d’Anthropologie de Paris de 1859 à 1920.” Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines, 10 (1) : 125–171.

Weinhold, Karl. 1895. “Review of Paul Sébillot. Légendes et Curiosités des Métiers. Ouvrage orné de 220 Gravures. Paris, Ernest Flammarion. (s. a.) 20 Hefte à 32 S. 4°.” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde, 5 (4) : 467.

Zumwalt, Rosemary. 1988. American Folklore Scholarship. A Dialogue of Dissent. Bloomington/Indianapolis : Indiana University Press.

Copyright for the Illustrations

Fig. 1. Title page of the complete edition of Légendes et curiosités des métiers. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Techn. 73, p. 5, urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00076843-7
Fig. 2. Title page of the booklet Les imprimeurs (The Printers) as part of the series Légendes et curiosités des métiers before the printing of the complete edition. Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Sciences et techniques, 4-V-4090, p. 724, ark :/12148/bpt6k82260h
Fig. 3. List of sources used for the chapter Les pâtissiers (The Confectioners) in Légendes et curiosités des métiers. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Techn. 73, p. 118, urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00076843-7