RESEARCH BULLETIN

No. 197 j u n e 1983

The Study of the Urban Past and its Many Approaches: A Historiographie Review

Yvon Desloges, History & Archaeology, Parks Canada, Quebec.

The city, a reality which is both tangible and concrete, is at the same time an abstraction and an enigma. How are we to approach it, define it or clarify it? Its identity is as closely guarded as the secret of the sphinx. In fact, the city may be compared to Esperanto, intended to be a universal language, but understood by only a few. Depending on whether it is being discussed by North Americans, Europeans, geographers or historians, the city manifests itself in very different ways, assumes diverse orientations and takes on various contours. This study is intended to be a preliminary critical survey, enabling us to approach the reality represented by Quebec City in the first half of the 18th century.

Quebec was a city, or at least was recognized as such by the 17th century. But what is a city, how does it come into being, and how can or must we approach it? In other words, it is a matter of analyzing the definitions, of specifying whether it is urbanization or urbanism that is to be dealt with, and finally, of determining which perspective offers the best understanding of this physical and human totality.

Some parameters for this discussion are already discernible. Considering the European and North American literature on the city, and all the more so when it is spread over several disciplines, means operating under certain restrictions; these will then take the following form: the major texts published since 19701. In the space of a decade, the literature concerning cities (should we say urban?) has undergone quite a remarkable shift in orientation.

Moreover, any attempt to resituate 17th- or 18th-century Quebec within an urban conceptual framework means dealing with a pre-industrial and colonial context. We must inevitably bear this fact in mind, and be wary of theories worked out in relation to cities of the 19th century.

European and North American Historiography Whether they are French, British or American, scholars in almost every branch

of the humanities and social sciences, from anthropology to urban studies, including sociology, economy and geology, and of course history and demography, have tackled the urban phenomenon and using various approaches, have attempted to grasp it in all its complexity.

François Bédarida, who was compiling a review of research on the urban past in France, wrote at the end of the sixties that the major work had been done by geographers, urban planners and sociologists. However, he credited them with only limited scope in their ability to define the urban phenomenon. In his view, the

Cette publication est disponible en français. Parks Canada

Pares Canada

geographers do not explain satisfactorily how the dynamics of urban life operate, nor the relationships among the various components. As for the urban planners, they are only interested in forms and neglect the people living in the cities; in other words, they favour the container at the expense of the contents. Sociologists concentrate on the relationship between the form of the city and the life of its inhabitants.2 Moreover, S. Cernushi-Salkoff directly confirms this point of view:

The city is a spatial translation of a type of society. The urban sociologist is not concerned with the city in itself, but with all of the connections that a society maintains with the space it occupies by means of durable structures which condi­tion the development of the society inhabiting this space. Translation. *

Bédarida, however, questions this conception, for he is reluctant to admit its existence. If it does exist, he adds, to what extent may it not be reversed? He does not comment on historical research except to mention the major works in progress.

He does go on to identify the main approaches taken by scholars in these disciplines in their research on the urban past. According to him, there are six different approaches: organic, biological, functional, neo-positivist, Marxist and socio-cultural. Urban planners particularly are given to the "organic" theory, in which the city is compared to a living organism which goes through birth, growth, and decay. Social and economic factors, however, are not accounted for. Bédarida claims that the biological approach is particularly evident in the work of demo­graphers, but, as in the case of the organic theory, its application is too restrictive. Geographers lean toward the functionalist theory. Yet the very concept of function is ambiguous, since it sometimes refers to a part of the whole (thus tying in with the organic theory) and at other times it is seen as a rational factor which is translated into a mathematical model. Furthermore, sometimes this notion of function leads to functional determinism, while the functionalist theory as a whole neglects the interrelations and the correlations among the various functions. As for the neo-positivist approach, Bédarida defines it as an attempt to avoid all ideology and to confine itself to an objective and scientific description based on quantitative data. Hence his question whether the city represents merely a series of statistics. The Marxists, for their part, have devoted little attention to the urban phenomenon. Their dialectic only depends on the opposition between town and country resulting from property ownership. Lastly, the socio-cultural conception tries to make the connection between material conditions and psychological attitudes, between the environment and social values, between the urban form and urban life.^ In short, Bédarida devotes considerable space to the other social-science disciplines without, however, saying very much about historical research. Moreover, while giving a critical assessment of various approaches, he adds little in the way of further considerations on the nature of the city.

3. Meyer, taking up the question a few years later, writes that French scholars have too long neglected cities in favour of the rural population, despite the fact that there are many monographs on provincial towns. He adds, however, that no synthesis can be undertaken where there is a lack of common denominators.^ Meyer and a few Marxist writers are the only French scholars I have consulted who look at urban history from a comparative viewpoint. But it should be pointed out that Marxists such as Lojkine and Castells are particularly interested in the 19th and 20th centuries. Meyer himself does nothing to define his conception of the city and merely contents himself with giving specific methodological indications in order to study urban networks and establish a typology.

This concern with typology is also the subject of a paper given by L. Bergeron, 3.C. Perrot and M. Roncayolo. After discussing the complexity of defining 18th-century cities, the authors spend more time on identifying certain methodological avenues than on making clear their concept of the city.*>

2

Thus French scholars do not seem to be interested in the city as a concept; their reviews of research in the field tend to be empirical, as the few preceding examples show, and further examples could be cited, such as the report by D. Roche, which only deals with work in progress.? This apparent conceptual lack on the part of French historians stems from the fact that, as Meyer pointed out, they are primarily interested in the city and not cities in general. French historians have concentrated on how one historical period uses the word "city."

Among European scholars it is the British who have given the greatest impetus to urban research, and one figure stands out from the rest: H.3. Dyos. In spite of the strength of English scholarship, I have found no synthesis of it, apart from a few indications gleaned here and there. In short, it is the old story of the shoemaker's shoeless children. On the whole, the English urban approach seems to give more weight to the geographers' viewpoint, but as the sociologist P. Abrams recently wrote, "the debates of the previous decade about 'generative' and 'parasitic' towns and the accompanying concern to tease out an 'urban factor' in economic and social history seemed to have lost their momentum.,.."°

It is no longer a matter of separating town and country and therefore of treating cities as variables in themselves. The obsession with drawing generalizations from the study of the city is yielding to a conception in which the city is not so much a social as an economic entity. For this reason, the concept of city must be eliminated.

This position represents a certain change with respect to the work of a scholar such as S.G. Checkland, published at the end of the sixties. At that time he attempted to define urban history, but only succeeded in presenting a rough outline of what a possible definition might include. In his view, his colleagues have chiefly concerned themselves with three forms: firstly, the secular trend, in which the city is part of the evolution of society from nomadism until the present; secondly, the thematic elements which form the basis of comparisons; and lastly, the context.9 Consequently, a model should be constructed for each of these forms and they should then be brought together. This he does not do.

The idea of the conceptual model among British scholars raises echoes of the heated debate among American historians throughout the sixties and early seventies. As M. Frisch remarks, many American scholars jettisoned the concept of the city in order to concentrate on the notion of urbanization as a societal process. 10 Profoundly influenced by the theory of urban sociology, they abruptly gave up the study of the city in favour of the study of cities.

This change in orientation in American historiography proceeds from the following dilemma: is it better to remain a humanist or become a sociologist, since the source of the problem is in knowing whether to study the city or urban civilization. In other words, to quote D.W. Hoover, should history aim at formulating a general theory about the city, or at comparing it with lasting institutions?! 1

Canadian historians, according to Gilbert Stelter, are strongly influenced by American concepts. 3.M.S. Careless is the only one who has shown innovation in formulating his hypothesis on metropolitanism. The literature can be divided according to two tendencies: the first deals with the historical process or historical events in an urban framework without being too concerned about the "urban" connotation; in the second tendency the writer concentrates on what is intrinsically urban, which means that the city is usually considered as a particular environment with a particular social organization. Most of the literature falls into the first category. 1?

Thus there are important disparities among French, British, and American scholars, not only as far as the perspective from which they examine the city is concerned, but also as far as the temporal aspect is concerned. Whereas the French are very much interested in the 18th century, English scholars span the 18th and 19th centuries, and the Americans concentrate on the end of the 19th and even the beginning of the 20th century.

3

History of the City or of Cities? As we have said, in the United States sociologists have had a powerful influence

on urban studies, especially those of the Chicago school. In the 1930s, Louis Wirth proposed an analytical model applicable to cities as a whole, rather than to a single city. Wirth's thinking led directly to a split among the partisans of American urban history. Wirth saw three factors essential to urbanization: physical structure, social organization and collective behaviour. His disciples isolated these factors and made them the spearhead of their various concepts. There are in fact two distinct tendencies among his followers: those who are influenced by an ecological approach, and those who take a behavioural approach.

Philip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore, two sociologists, both stress the ecological aspect of the first factor. Their model focuses on the study of the population, of the environment, of technology and of organization; the interaction of those four areas of analysis leads to the study of urbanization. The economist and historian Eric Lampard also starts with the ecological model, while putting special emphasis on Wirth's second factor. Lampard is more of a polemicist than a scholar, and his harsh and acerbic criticisms have forced American historians to expand their research toward the elaboration of a theoretical framework; the one he proposes favours the study of changes in population, since in his view the structure of the community is the result of a changing balance between population and environment as it is affected by technology and organization.

The sociologist A. Strauss leans toward the third factor, collective behaviour and ideologies. This school of thought, which does not have a large following, brings out images and perceptions of the city, but even its proponent freely admits that it results in only a partial understanding of the urban phenomenon, since it is approached from the angle of intellectual history, urban planning or even social psychology.

These three schools of thought have certain deficiencies, and the first two in particular have been faulted for falling into the trap of determinism. This has prompted two historians, Charles N. Glaab and Roy Lubove, to try and combine all three, while steering clear of sociological determinism. 13 Lubove, a behaviourist, stresses decision-making; for him urbanization is an abstraction. 1^ He therefore brings the debate back toward a perspective that is more humanistic than sociologi­cal.

In short, given the lack of better definitions for the terms "urban," "urbanity" and "urbanization," and an acceptance of these definitions, the American debate is little more than a dialogue of the deaf. That is the only thing American scholars agree on, apart from proclaiming that the study of the urban past is fraught with confusion. 1* In this context it is hardly surprising then, to note the appearance of a new school: the "New Urban History," sponsored by Stephan Thernstrom, a historian. His objective is to understand how and why the changes brought about by urbanization have modified society, that is, 19th-century society. In fact, society extends beyond the urban reality strictly speaking, which makes the N.U.H. historian a social historian as much as an urban historian. While Thernstrom draws on Lampard's critique, he differs from him by the fact that he sets out to study the urban masses, and not the institutions of the elite; this is what he calls "history from the bottom up."16

Although these various schools made their positions known between 1960 and 1968, since then the debate has stagnated. Apart from some work by S.B. Warner and Theodore Hershberg, during the decade from 1970 to 1980, as M.H. Ebner reports, nothing new on the conceptual level is being published in the United States. Hershberg conceives of the city in active terms, which leads to the notion of "urban as process." This is the dynamic modeling of the interrelationships among environ­ment, behavior, and group experience — three basic components in the larger urban system. 17 In spite of the vast means at his disposal, Hershberg does not seem able to win over the majority.

t

What the Americans are after is to set up a model which would create redundancy, somewhat in the manner of Turner and his theory about the frontier. In short, urban history must develop in the wake of national history; besides, in an important article written in 1940, William Diamond warned scholars against this kind of interpretation.

Americans then put considerable stress on the concept of urbanization. But the term is not unanimously accepted, particularly since Europeans also use it as much in dealing with the Middle Ages as with the 18th century. Although the Americans and the English generally use it to apply to modern industrialized cities, the meaning of urbanization does not seem to be very clearly defined. It is essential to distinguish between industrialization and urbanization, even though the two phenomena appear almost simultaneously. Urbanization takes on different meanings, depending on whether it is used by sociologists or historians, ecologists or Marxists. The standard definition of the term is the action of becoming urban; in this sense it refers to the process by which the rural population becomes part of the urban environment or conversely, the process by which the city absorbs this population.^ For an American ecologist like Lampard, urbanization becomes a societal process which characterizes change as a whole. But a behaviourist like Lubove replaces it with the city-building process, which takes place over time.

To add to the confusion, it should be mentioned that some sociologists also infer from this term (urbanization) the formation of differentiated social groups, especially when this differentiation implies a relationship to space. The French sociologist M. Castells distinguishes two definitions of the word, both of which, moreover, he finds inadequate. The first one means the spatial concentration of a population within certain limits of dimension and density; the second has to do with the spreading of an urban culture. Castells has a preference for the concrete forms of the social appropriation of space. ^

To sum up, these few examples give some indication of the complexity of the terminology alone. But at the same time they reveal that although the term can and should be applied to the city, in the final analysis it can only be applied to cities as a whole. There is, therefore, a great disparity between American and French ideas, and even between those two conceptions and those of the English. Whereas the Americans attempt to set up a model for all cities, the French, on the other hand, try to define a particular city. As for the English, having followed from a distanced) the development of American ideas and having tried to pinpoint urban specificity, they seem to remain aloof from the debate. Is it still possible, then, to talk about urban history, and if so, to what extent?

Urban History and the City The American scholar Lampard wrote at the beginning of the sixties that we

had to stop labelling "urban" everything that happened in an urban environment. Thernstrom took this advice to heart; in fact he took it even further, to the point where, according to the "New Urban History," there is no field of historical interest which can be called a field of specialization for urban history, or for sociology for that matter. The city is connected to the society around it and must not be isolated from it. Since N.U.H. is identified with social history, Thernstrom doubts whether a universal model can be created within it. In his view, it is necessary instead to move in the direction of less sweeping theoretical generalizations, limited in time and space and restricted to certain contexts. Thus, N.U.H. may be influenced by certain themes taken from other areas of the social sciences, but before applying them, more than a knowledge of the institutions is necessary; we must know the masses.20

If Thernstrom has doubts about the label "urban history," the English socio­logist, Philip Abrams, also referring to society, agrees that the urban past must be seen as the study of cities as places where inequality may be observed, rather than as

5

actual social structures. He goes on to say that the city is a phenomenon and a social form in which the essential properties of a larger system are concentrated and integrated to the point where residential size, density and heterogeneity (formal characteristics of the city) seem to be constituent properties of a distinct social order.

This is to say, then, that it is again possible to deal with urban history. According to Abrams there would be grounds for approaching the social nature and historical functions of cities, on condition that they be considered in relation with a wider social context. Following Max Weber, Abrams describes this context as the complex of domination and defines it as an ongoing but loosely integrated struggle to constitute and elaborate power. This conception has the advantage of providing a certain dynamism since it concentrates on the analysis of social action and relationships which bring about the construction and destruction of institutions. Thus, the city becomes an area of confrontation, but it offers only a partial view of this struggle for power.21

Abrams merely makes explicit the social nature of the city; nevertheless he does refer to the historical functions of cities. These functions have claimed the attention of the French historians who are strongly influenced by the work of geographers. While 3. LeGoff claimed, at the beginning of the seventies, that there was no acceptable definition of the city, since too many historians confused description with definition,22 B. Lepetit suggested, a few years later, that French historians have pondered the relationship between the way in which a historical period uses a word (city) and the operative concept that must be devised and applied by a discipline that wants to establish itself as a science.23 But he does not give a precise definition of what he means by a city.

Although LeGoff claimed that the existing definitions neglected what was essential to the urban fact and said that he rejected bi-polar or legalistic definitions, he did suggest looking into the notions of primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy and of society. There would be a city whenever in an agglomeration that part of the population involved in tertiary activities was "predominant." But, as LeGoff admits, it is difficult to define the term "predominant" when both quantita­tive (the population of the tertiary sector is not necessarily in the majority) and qualitative factors (the power structure) come into play.

Geographers have been as eager to suggest a definition of the city as LeGoff was unsuccessful in saying exactly what it meant. It remains to be seen whether he will accept their definition. The two geographers, 3. Beaujeu-Garnier and G. Chabot, include four elements in their definition: a certain form of professional activity; a minimum concentration of inhabitants; a notion of lifestyle (which is actually very vague). These elements are coupled with the dichotomy between town and country.24

The geographers' conception of professional activity comes quite close to the sociological concept of tertiary activity expressed by LeGoff. It is not exclusively restricted, however, to the urban situation; moreover, everything is dependent on the quantitative aspect connected with it, which is furthermore not defined. No one can call into question the concentration of settlement, and by extension the number of inhabitants, in any definition of a city. However, since Beaujeu-Garnier and Chabot do not take into account the temporal framework, problems arise when it comes to establishing norms. Besides, even in our own day, the standards of classification are not universally accepted. Finally, the notion of "lifestyle," that the authors themselves say is "vague," is similar to the sociological concept of "urban culture": this means the spreading of a system of values, attitudes and behaviours. This culturalist tendency creates confusion between the urban problematic and the socio-cultural organization.

It is easy to see that each attempt at a definition, from whatever field of study it comes, cannot possibly satisfy every discipline. Although the geographers come closest to defining urban reality, it must nevertheless be admitted that they are only

6

discussing the container, and not the contents. This means, therefore, that a definition of the city should take into account sociological, geographical and historical factors in order to deal with the contents, the container, the temporal framework and the context, at the same time making the vocabulary more precise, to avoid ambiguity.

Thus, to define the city in terms of a container, it is necessary to retain the criteria of concentration of inhabitants and settlement, along with the development and allocation of space, criteria which belong to urban planning, since man is subjected to, puts to use, or changes the geographic conditions of the space he occupies.25 Furthermore, the city may be likened to a moral being; its inhabitants lead lives that are at once political, social, economic and cultural, since these forms of activities are interrelated and variable. Although these activities are not exclusively urban, they are characterized in cities by the intensification stemming from concentration. As for the social aspect, we know that the city cannot be considered a separate social entity; it is here that the acute problem of urban complexity arises. The city is made up of a social fabric which, because of the high rate of density, can eventually conceal the fact that it represents only a part of society as a whole — a part which nevertheless contains the essentials of this larger system, as Abrams noted. This line of argument can also be applied to political, economic and cultural activities. It only remains to fix the boundaries of this whole: would they coincide with a regional, national or even international territory? This boundary is the most ambiguous and the most uncertain, and the case of Quebec, a city and a colonial capital, brings us face to face not only with this boundary, but also with the temporal framework and with the context, which has not been previously dealt with.

The City in the 18th Century What constituted a city in the 18th century? An academic definition found in

Diderot's Encyclopédie states that a city is "an assemblage of several houses arranged by streets and enclosed by a common wall," or "more precisely, it is an enclosure formed by walls containing several districts, streets, public squares and other buildings." This is a formal definition, as P. Lelièvre remarks, which leaves aside the social structures, the legal status of the inhabitants, their fiscal privileges, their mode of life and way of existence. In short, a definition lacking in substance and even somewhat anachronistic at a time when in most places city walls were being demolished and there was a general change in urban attitudes and forms.26 in fact, this definition is rather similar to the one given by Furetière at the end of the 17th century. All that emerges from it is a portrait of the city, and those who drew this portrait are only trying to show that the institutions, privileges and way of life of the citizens all exist within this territorial framework. There is no information here about the density and the distribution of the inhabitants, and it might be added that the ramparts of a city are more readily identified with an enterprise rather than an entity; the material presence does not necessarily imply that a process of materiali­zation has taken place. Because of its ramparts the city seems static and fixed on the space-time scale. But beyond the walls, where do the city and its outskirts end?

The American sociologist, Gideon Sjoberg, has attempted, for his part, to define and construct an analytical model of pre-industrial cities. This is a praiseworthy effort which deserves our attention in several respects (it should be noted that this is a model of cities, not of the city, therefore implying a comparative approach). Sjoberg sees pre-industrial cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants as the exception, since several of them have fewer than five to ten thousand inhabitants. Growth is apparently slow and unpredictable, because of the political structure. As for spatial development, Sjoberg notes that government and religious activities, rather than commercial activities, take place in the centre of the city. This is also where the urban elite live, and the lower "classes" tend to be found at the periphery. What is

7

more, ethnic and occupational differences are also evident in the urban lay-out, since ethnic groups tend to come together, with dwelling and workplace juxtaposed. The city is also characterized by its walls.

On the social level, there is definite stratification. One group of privileged citizens rules, while the inferior groups provide for them. Social mobility seems to be inconsistent. The elite, who are recognizable by their clothing, their speech and their manners, control the government, religion and education and avoid economic activity. As far as social organization is concerned, the family is the basic unit, and it is not unusual to find several relatives living in the same household, except in poor families. Women are dominated by men, and upper-class women are cut off from the community, while women of the lower "classes" play a part in family affairs and enjoy greater freedom and responsibilities. Leisure activities revolve around the family unit; families also determine the careers of individuals.

Economic activity is not greatly developed. The members of the elite shun manual labour. A few merchants gain entry to the upper stratum because of their wealth. Nevertheless, most of the economic activity is carried out by artisans, day labourers and merchants. The guild represents the key to economic activity, since it has the authority to eliminate competition, to set standards, fix prices, control recruitment based on kinship ties, and turn away outsiders. The economic picture does not amount to very much; the craftsman both produces and sells the product, and there is very little specialization in the manufacturing process. Specialization is evident only in terms of the various products. What is more, there is very little in the way of standardization for prices, currency, or weights and measures of the products for sale. Finally, there is little possibility of credit or the formation of capital.

In the political sphere, the elite have control over government positions. The political apparatus in centralized: the sovereign exercizes autocratic power, based on tradition or absolutism. The political, educational and religious bureaucracy demons­trates a rigid hierarchy, and civil servants owe their position to their family connections. Religion is organized in the image of secular society: the wealthiest clerics hold the superior positions. The elite, who are educated, hold beliefs that conform to the scriptures, while the lower segments of society may depart from them. The schools aim to perpetuate the system, and the teaching of science is almost entirely neglected.27

Several serious criticisms could be expressed with regard to Sjoberg's work. The first, and by no means the least, has to do with the concept. Being a sociologist, he has resorted to considering the pre-industrial city as a medieval city, thus leaving no scope for evolution. Moreover, the term "pre-industrial," while it may be acceptable from the viewpoint of western evolution, necessarily and implicitly suggests opposition and comparison to the industrial city. In fact, Florence in the 15th century and Lyons in the 18th century correspond to industrial cities.28 Does this mean that it is only the 19th century which can be used as a yardstick for making the distinction? Obviously, to ask the question is to provide the answer.

Without taking up one by one all of the objections that Burke and others have raised in connection with Sjoberg's work, it should be mentioned that he stresses two essential variables: technology and social, but particularly political, power. As far as political power is concerned, it should be noted that several European cities had municipal suffrage in the 17th and 18th centuries, whereas Birmingham in the 19th century was controlled by a group of inter-related families.29 As for technology, Sjoberg ends up by modifying his point of view and admits that urban "patterns" are especially the result of changes in the power structure on a societal level. In short, what Sjoberg neglects is evolution; he should have stopped to examine the principal stages of change in various cultural frameworks and on several orders of magnitude. When all is said and done, he should have constructed several models.

8

Sjoberg's description stems from this totally American preoccupation with constructing analytical models. This approach fails to satisfy English or French scholars, or even Europeans in general. The Swedish scholar Bo Ohngren defines three characteristics of the city: the morphological entity, the social entity and the functional entity, which are either differentiated or combined.30 Burke, who is a British scholar, stresses four points: the physical structure demographic and social structure, urban government and urban culture.31 Burke takes a similar approach to Ohngren with his first two points; he differs from him on the third point, since urban culture stems from the socio-cultural organization of the city. Ohngren, on the other hand, has much in common with the French school of thought.

French scholars are influenced by geographers; in fact the concept of the city under the Ancien Régime is dependent on retrospective studies, particularly those of 17th- and 18th-century geographers, according to B. Lepetit. Their chief criteria come from urban functions. The term "function" itself is borrowed from physiology, denoting a part of a whole. The totality of the activities carried on by people gathered in one place constitutes the function of the city and therefore its reason for existing. However, the function of the city represents only one organ within a whole system; for this reason, therefore, urban activities are centred on the outside world. Urban function justifies the existence and the development of the city and provides the resources that are necessary for its life. Thus there is a connection between the situation of a city and its function.^2

There are six main categories of functions: military, commercial, industrial, cultural, administrative and political, and the city as a focal point for outsiders. One city may have several functions of varying intensity. The military function is served by a fortress-city created for military purposes, where one of the dominant elements is its garrison. An example would be Quebec, where the fortification served to house the administration and to ensure the defence of the country. The commercial function involves the exchange of products, and naturally ports are well-suited to this activity. The trading post, the centre of trade between two peoples from different civilizations, fits in with this commercial function. In its early days, Quebec was intended to be no more than a trading post.

Trade attracts industry, which may be craft industry (manufacturing by hand). The industrial function is to be found as soon as the city begins manufacturing for export. Although Quebec did not have a sustained output on the industrial level, nevertheless, it did exist. From a cultural point of view, Quebec was first and foremost the headquarters for various religious orders and teaching institutions, which also led to the administrative function. This function was found not only in the guise of episcopal administration, but also in the form of judicial administration. What is more, there was a further split in the administrative function and it became political as well, for since Quebec was the capital city, the colonial administration was centred there. The only function that was lacking was that of serving as a focal point for the reception of travellers from outside, but then very few cities had this function.^

Thus, the functional theory gives a very precise definition of the city and even of the 18h-century city. Most French historians use this theory in defining the city of that period. Moreover, most of the authors, I have consulted contend that this functional view already existed in the 18century. For his part, Lepetit stresses the commercial function, since economic activity leads to growth. In this regard, the administrative function seems to be less frequently depicted as the driving force behind urban growth, although it brings a certain ascendancy, perhaps because administrative power is found at a different level from economic power. However, the administration is intended to be religious first of all, and then secondarily, secular. The city is therefore a sign of cultural abundance. Thus, this functional viewpoint introduces into the field of urban studies concomitant variation.3^

9

10

In his article Lepetit repeats the view presented by J.C. Perrot in his book about Caen. Perrot maintains in his introduction that in order to trace the development of the city, "the 'functional' methodology is more fruitful than the cultural approach. Functionalism leads to a further discovery which is really at the origin of urban science. The method includes in fact the idea of co-variation or interdependence." Translation. He adds that 18th-century observers drew the connection within the city between trade, industry and population, between the death rate and level of income, sickness and occupation, housing and family size. Perrot goes further; in his view, mercantile capitalism was intentionally adopted in Caen, and consequently it has to be shown how the "entire" city rang to the tune of trade. It is a small step from that position to dealing with social dynamics. In short, 18th-century functional theory has yielded to the principal of t r a d e d

According to Perrot, the modern (18th-century) definition of the city concen­trates on two essential themes: the land and the notion of grouped settlement. The land corresponds to the parish boundaries. Grouped and continuous settlement expresses an urban reality which negates the duality between city and suburbs, and prepares the way for the invention of the concept of agglomeration. Thus in the course of the 18th century we see an evolution in the definition of cities: from the fortified town we move on to the consideration of towndwellers in adjoining houses, then to the built-up city or agglomeration, characterized by its density, although this latter term is not applied to populations. This geographical terminology was augmented by the language of the town-planners and economists of the period, who introduced the idea of movement.36

Perrot concludes his study on the 18th-century in the following words: The town has no nature of its own, unless it be a residual one. Everything about it is a remnant of the process of social organization; its demography and economic structure are sub­ordinate to the same process. Everything is a product. The whole meaning is in the relationship among these different levels. And since it is impelled by a homogeneous force, this must be a single and unequivocal meaning. Translation. 37

This observation is thus in partial agreement with the point of view of the English sociologist Abrams, in that the city is only part of the whole. But while 18th-century writers may have been primarily concerned with urban functions rather than structures, there are still two points which must be raised: on the one hand, is function the predominant element in the definition of the city? On the other hand, the space within which this function is carried out must also be considered. In short, we have almost come full circle back to where we began.

Conclusion Dealing with the problem of the city is in some ways like trying to cut the

Gordian knot. If we are trying at the same time to take account of both the European and North American literature on the subject, this means confronting several disciplines with their differing vocabularies, and above all, coming to grips with different periods. When it is the 18th-century city that is being discussed, then we must examine factors which are sometimes sociological and sometimes geographi­cal. In dealing with Quebec in the 18th century, we are compelled to observe that while the city is merely a part of the whole, the boundaries of this whole increase proportionately, without our being able to define them, since they may be regional, North American or international. Quebec, the capital of New France, cannot be considered simply as a provincial extension of France; nor can it be substituted for the colony as a whole. On the other hand, its influence reaches out over the countryside within its administrative sphere.

11

NOTES

1 Some partially annotated bibliographies have proven very useful in the choice of readings; these have been included in the bibliography. It must also be specified that in some cases it was impossible to avoid using a few texts published before 1970, since they constitute the starting point for many publications which have appeared since then.

2 F. Bédarida, "The Growth of Urban History in France: Some Methodological Trends," in H.J. Dyos, The Study of Urban History (London: Edward Arnold, 1968), pp. 50-53.

3 S. Cernushi-Salkoff, "L'historicité du concept de ville," in Cahiers inter­nationaux de sociologie 50 (New Series, January-June, 1971).

4 F. Bédarida, op. cit., pp. 58-59. 5 J. Meyer, "Quelques vues sur l'histoire des villes à l'époque moderne," Annales

E.S.C., 29, No. 26 (November-December, 1974), pp. 1551-1568. 6 L. Bergeron, J.C. Perrot, M. Roncayolo, "Définition de la ville et profils

d'urbanisation en France (c. 1710-c. 1810)," in M. Flinn, Proceeding of the 7th International Economic History Congress (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1978), vol. 1, pp. 84-89.

7 D. Roche, "Urban History in France," Urban History Yearbook (Leicester: Leicester Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 12-22.

8 Philip Abrams and E.A, Wrigley, eds., Towns in Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979), p. 2.

9 S.G. Checkland, "Toward a Definition of Urban History," in H.J. Dyos, op. cit., p. 345.

10 M. Frisch, "L'histoire urbaine américaine: réflexions sur les tendances récentes," Annales E.S.C., 25, No. 4 (July-August, 1970), p. 882.

11 D.W. Hoover, "The Diverging Paths of American Urban History," in A.B. Callow, éd., American Urban History (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973), p. 642.

12 Gilbert Stelter, "The Historian's Approach to Canada's Urban Past," Histoire sociale/Social History, 7, No. 3 (May, 1974), pp. 5-22.

13 D.W. Hoover, op, cit., pp. 642-652. 14 Roy Lubove, "The Urbanization Process: An Approach to Historical Research,"

in A.B. Callow, op. cit., p. 667. 15 A.B. Callow, op. cit., p. 637; M. Frisch, op. cit., p. 880; G.B. Warden,

"L'urbanisation américaine avant 1800," Annales E.S.C., 25, No. 4 (July-August, 1970), p. 882.

16 Stephan Thernstrom, "Reflections on the New Urban History," in A.B. Callow, op. cit., pp. 672-673.

17 M.H. Ebner, "Urban History: Retrospect and Prospect," The Journal of American History, 68, No. 1 (June, 1981), pp. 78-79.

18 N. Anderson, éd., Urbanism and Urbanization (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964), pp. 1-2. 19 M. Castells, "Structures sociales et processus d'urbanisation: analyse compara­

tive intersociétale," Annales E.S.C., 25, No. 4 (July-August, 1970), pp. 1156-1157, 1190.

20 S. Thernstrom, op. cit., pp. 674-675. 21 Abrams and Wrigley, op. cit., pp. 3, 9-10, 31. 22 J. LeGoff, "Ordres mendiants et urbanisation dans la France médiévale,"

Annales E.S.C., 25, No. 4 (July-August, 1970), pp. 924-926. 23 B. Lepetit, "L'évolution de la notion de la ville d'après les tableaux et

descriptions géographiques de la France (1650-1850)," Urbi, No. 2 (December, 1979), p. 99.

12

24 J. Beaujeu-Garnier and G. Chabot, Traité de géographie urbaine (Paris: Colin, 1963), pp. 29-30.

25 P. Lavedan, Qu'est-ce que l'urbanisme? (Paris: Laurens, 1926), p. 3. 26 P. Lelièvre, "La ville au 18e siècle: expansion et morphologie," in La ville au

XVIIIe siècle (Aix-en-Provenance: Edisud, 1975), p. 135. 27 Gideon Sjoberg, The Pre-industrial City: Past and Present (Glencoe: The Free

Press, 1960). 28 Peter Burke, "Some Reflections on the Pre-industrial City," Urban History

Yearbook, 1975, pp. 13-21. 29 Idem. 30 Bo Ohngren, "Urbanization and Social Change," in M. Flinn, éd., Proceedings of

the 7th International Economic History Congress, vol. 1, p. 75. 31 Burke, op. cit., pp. 13-21. 32 Beaujeu-Garnier and Chabot, op. cit., pp. 104-105, 192. 33 Ibid., pp. 117-185. 34 B. Lepetit, op. cit., pp. 104-105. 35 J.C. Perrot, Genèse d'une ville moderne: Caen au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Mouton,

1975), pp. 12-13. 36 Ibid., p. 51. 37 Ibid., p. 947.

Bibliography

1. Bibliographies There are numerous bibliographies, both European and North American.

Naturally it would be impossible to mention all of them. For Europe in general, researchers may refer to P. Wolff's Guide internationale d'histoire urbaine, vol. 1: l'Europe (Paris: Klincksieck, 1977), 544 pp. Since this guide deals with most European countries, the total number of works for a single country is limited, but nonetheless divided according to various subjects. Consequently, researchers would be well advised to consult the annual periodical, Urban History Yearbook, published since 1974 by Leicester University Press. This publication is divided into three parts: a section containing various articles, a bibliography with at least seven or eight hundred titles, and a section on research in progress; it is the best bibliography now available for keeping up with European research. It should be added, however, that there is a heavy concentration on English work, and it is only since 1977 that some French articles are listed there, particularly those appearing in the Annales.

As far as American research is concerned, one particular bibliographical series deserves mention, the Vance Bibliographies. This series, which is partially annotated, covers various topics from architecture to urban planning; more than 900 titles have been listed to date. Naturally, urban history is given considerable treatment in more than a dozen short bibliographies. As an example, we might mention the one by M.H. Ebner, The New Urban History: Bibliography on Methodology and Historiography (Monticello: Council of Planning Librarians, 1973). Many journals have also adopted the idea of including a bibliography covering various subjects in each issue. A prime example is The Journal of American History.

In Canada, the most useful bibliography is still Gilbert Stelter's Canada's Urban Past (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981). A word of caution is necessary, however, since in checking the bibliography pertaining to Quebec City, I noticed- that some of the items that are listed have not been published and are not readily available for consulation, particularly some research carried out for Parks Canada. One wonders whether the same applies to other sections of this bibliography.

13

2. Books Callow, A.B., American Urban History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973, 688 pp. This has become one of the basic studies of American urban history. A useful compendium of the writings of the major schools of American urban history.

Centre aixois d'études et de recherches sur le 18e siècle, La ville au XVIIIe siècle. Aix-en-Provenance: Edisud, 1975, 297 pp. This publication of the Centre for Research and Study on the 18th Century, based in Aix-en-Provenance, contains some excellent articles, particularly those by L. Bergeron and P. Lelièvre.

Dyos, H.3., The Study of Urban History. London: Edward Arnold, 1968, 400 pp. The major papers presented at a conference on urban history; apart from the articles by Bédarida and Checkland, this publication is mostly concerned with presenting case studies. The article by Leo Schnore is a mixture of theoretical and practical considerations.

Flinn, M., Proceedings of the 7th International Economic History Congress. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1978, 2 vols. As the title indicates, these are papers presented at this congress. Consequently the articles are quite limited. Nevertheless it includes authors such as Lampard, Bergeron and Perrot.

Fries, S.D., The Urban Idea in Colonial America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1977, 212 pp. Despite its promising title, this study on the major American colonial cities adds little to our knowledge of the city.

Hollingsworth, H., and 3.R., Dimensions in Urban History: Historical and Social Science Perspectives. Madison: Wisconsin University Press, 1979, 200 pp. Highly recommended for those who like to make life complicated for themselves, or for those who only swear by computersl It is an attempt to set up a typology of average American cities in the 19th century.

Lojkine, J., Le marxisme, l'état et la question urbaine. Paris: P.U.F., 1977, 200 pp. This work deals with the 19th and 20th centuries; it is mainly an analysis of the sectors of intervention by the French state. Does not contribute anything on the conceptual level.

Perrot, 3.C., Genèse d'une ville moderne: Caen au XVIIie siècle. Paris: Mouton, 1975. 2 vols. This work has become the bible of historians of urban France. The introductory chapters help to define the author's point of view. To be read and re­read.

Prendre la ville: esquisse d'une histoire de l'urbanisme d'État. Paris: Anthropos, 1977, 500 pp. A series of articles by French Marxist historians; it is mostly concerned with the 19th century and Paris in particular.

Schnore, Leo F., The New Urban History: Quantitative Explorations by American Historians. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975, 284 pp. The title is misleading, for this work has nothing to do with Thernstrom's school of thought.

Sjoberg, Gideon, The Pre-industrial City: Past and Present. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1960, 353 pp. The only attempt by an American scholar to construct a model for the city before the 19th century. Although it was written some time ago, this study is still quoted in many recent publications. It has lost much of its value, however, since the results of research by other scholars has begun to be known.

14

Thernstrom, S., and R. Sennett, 19th Century Cities: Essays in the New Urban History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969, 430 pp. A collection of articles dealing with the case histories of cities from Europe to South America. None of the articles specifically discusses the concept or the method.

Wrigley, E.A., and P. Abrams, Towns in Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, 344 pp. An excellent collection of articles on specific cities, with a very good introduction by Abrams.

3. Articles Bardet, J.P., "Pour une nouvelle histoire des villes," Annales E.S.C., 1977, pp. 1237-1254. This is in fact a transcript of a round-table discussion with such writers as Bergeron, Roncayolo and Perrot, following the publication of his book on Caen.

Barker, D.A., "A Conceptual Approach to the Description and Analysis of an Historical Urban System." Regional Studies, 12, 1978, pp. 1-10. A geographer's mathematical analysis of the regional influence of a city in 19th-century Somerset. This article is difficult to understand; it makes use of the computer.

Bumstead, J.M., and J.T. Lemon, "New Approaches in Early American Studies: The Local Community in New England." Histoire sociale/Social History, 2 (November, 1968), pp. 98-114. Not very useful, apart from some critical comments on Sjoberg's work.

Burke, Peter, "Some Reflections on the Pre-Industrial City." Urban History Year­book, 1980, pp. 12-22. A list of various research projects in progress.

Cernushi-Selkoff, S., "L'historicité du concept de ville." Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 50 (1971), pp. 83-94. A sociological and critical study. The author is very much influenced by Durkheim.

Ebner, M.H., "Urban History: Retrospect and Prospect." The Journal of American History, 68, No. 1 (June, 1981), pp. 69-84. Contributes little new material as compared to Callow, for example, except perhaps for his remarks on Hershberg.

Frisch, M.H., "L'histoire urbaine américaine: réflexion sur les tendances récentes." Annales E.S.C., 25, No. 4 (July-August, 1970), pp. 880-896. Despite the title, the author is trying instead to promote his own conception of urban history.

Lemon, J.T. "Study of the Urban Past: Approaches by Geographers." CHAAR, 1973, pp. 179-190. Some previous knowledge of American concepts is recommended to gain a better impression of this scholar's contribution.

Lepetit, B., "L'évolution de la notion de ville d'après les tableaux et descriptions géographiques de la France (1650-1850)." Urbi, 2 (December, 1979), pp. 99-107. Gives a good idea of the French approach to urban history. To be read in conunction with Perrot.

Meyer, J., "Quelques vues sur l'histoire des villes à l'époque moderne." Annales E.S.C., 29, No. 6 (November-December, 1974), pp. 1551-1569. The only French historian consulted who takes a comparative approach.

15

Miller, Z.L., C. Griffen and G. Stelter, "Urban History in North America." Urban History Yearbook, 1977, pp. 6-29. Should be read for a better perception of the difference between American and Canadian scholars on the conceptual level.

Roche, D., "Urban History in France." Urban History Yearbook, 1980, pp. 12-22. A list of various research projects in progress.

Stelter, Gilbert A., "The Historian's Approach to Canada's Urban Past." Histoire sociale/Social History, 7, 197^, pp. 5-22. To some extent a historiographie survey, but it also presents schematically the general direction of American research on the subject.

Warden, G.B., "L'urbanisation américaine avant 1800." Annales E.S.C., 25, No. 4 (3uly-August, 1970), pp. 862-879. In fact the article provides a review of the research carried out on the five major American colonial cities.

ISSN: 0228-1228 Published by authority ot the Minister of the Environment

© Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1983

Canada