Lucien Febvre (1878-1956), The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century:
The Religion of Rabelais
, tr. Beatrice Gottlieb (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 5:
The problem is not (for the historian, at any
rate) to catch hold of a man, a writer of the sixteenth century,
in isolation from his contemporaries, and, just because a certain
passage in his work fits in with the direction of one of our own
modes of feeling, to decide that he fits under one of the rubrics
we use today for classifying those who do or do not think like
us in matters of religion. When dealing with sixteenth-century
men and ideas, when dealing with modes of wishing, feeling,
thinking, and believing that bear sixteenth-century arms, the
problem is to determine what set of precautions to take and
what rules to follow in order to avoid the worst of all sins, the
sin that cannot be forgiven—anachronism.
Id., p. 11:
Can it be that the problems about their views that we have declared to be insoluble
have been brought into being by ourselves, and by us alone?
Do we not substitute our thought for theirs, and give the words
they used meanings that were not in their minds?
Id., p. 12:
But to reread the texts with
eyes of 1530 or 1540—texts that were written by men of 1530
and 1540 who did not write like us, texts conceived by brains of
1530 and 1540 that did not think like us—that is the difficult
thing and, for the historian, the important thing.