Fransız Tarih Profesörü Marc Bloch'un tarihyazımı alanında önemli kaynak eseri Türkçe'ye Fransızca'dan Profesör Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay tarafından çevrildi ve birçok defa yayınlandı! Marc Bloch, tarihyazımında metodolojik soruları yanıtladığı kitabında, "modern bir Tarihçi"nin niteliklerini tanımladı ve tarihçiliğin "meşrûiyet"ini kanıtlayıcı (modern anlamda ve modern bağlamda!) bilgilerini ve düşüncelerini kitabında okurlarına açıkladı. Marc Bloch, Fransız tarihçilik okullarının gelişmesi içinde "Annales Okulu"nun getirdiği yeni tarihçilik yaklaşımlarını ve metodolojik yenilikleri de ayrıntıları ile kitabında yazdı.

“Le cause in storia non si suppongono. Si cercano” .

Bloch sospese la stesura di “Apologia della storia” per unirsi al movimento di Resistenza Franc-tireur, scelta che gli costò la fucilazione per mano dei nazisti il 16 giugno 1944.
Il libro uscì, incompiuto, nel 1949 grazie al suo amico e compagno di studi Lucien Febvre.

Cos’è la Storia? Bloch afferma che è la scienza degli uomini nel tempo.
“Lo storico non pensa solo "umano". L'aria in cui il suo pensiero naturalmente respira è la categoria della durata.”
Dunque, in che modo lo storico deve indagare il passato per restituire ai contemporanei la memoria dell’umanità?
Il buon storico somiglia all'orco delle fiabe: là dove fiuta carne umana, egli sa che è là che si trova la sua preda.
Compito dello storico è analizzare criticamente fonti documentarie e narrative individuando inesattezze e falsità, che fra tutti i “veleni in grado di viziare una testimonianza” è il più potente; suo compito è ragionare sulla scelta delle testimonianze, sul metodo di ricerca e lavoro, sullo studio degli accadimenti e degli uomini; suo compito è ancora lavorare con onestà intellettuale per riconsegnare ai posteri la Storia scevra da ideologie e strumentalizzazioni.
Tante, tante le domande e le riflessioni in quest’opera interrotta drammaticamente dalla Storia, che rimane testo fondamentale per storici e non.

Conoscere il passato per comprendere il presente, perché “L'incomprensione del presente nasce fatalmente dall'ignoranza del passato”.
Ecco il grande insegnamento di Bloch.

Maravilhoso livro, pena que demorei tanto para lê-lo. Marc Bloch descreve muito bem o ofício do historiador, o ato de ser fazer história. Passando por sistemáticas de pesquisa, crítica, objetivos e metodologia, é um livro excelente para aquele que gosta de história e principalmente para os historiadores de plantão. Marc Bloch escreveu este livro já na segunda guerra, pouco tempo antes de ser morto. Um livro rico de informações e é possível ver o nível de conhecimento que este velho homem teria acumulado. Excelente livro!

My only regret in reading this book is that I did not read it sooner. When beginning the study of history in College, the professor ought to give this book to all of the students on the first day of class. Bloch's writing has changed how I think about history, and I can see how his analysis is the foundation to the craft of historians (pardon the joke) to this very day.

In a short little book (197 pages), Bloch lays out the job and responsibility of historians, and he gives insight into what historians actually do. History is, of course, more than just retelling the past; it is the art of explaining both why the past happened in the way it did and what that has to do with us today.

In the first chapter, "History, Men, and Time," Bloch lays out a definition of history: "any study of a change taking place in time," in stark contrast to the more popular "science of the past." History cannot be the science of the past because just as there is no one universal science to explain the present (although Bloch admits that Physics comes close), history cannot help us understand the past with any degree of scientific accuracy and exclusivity. For one, history is always supplemented by other disciplines; archeology and anthropology jump to mind, but of course, others such as sociology, political science, and economics have their place. Secondly, and more importantly, history is, in the mind of Bloch, the study of men (humankind), and humans possess an important but non-exclusive place in the history of the universe. Other forces, geological or meteorological, beyond the influence of mankind, also have parts to play in changes taking place in time. Bloch recognizes this and categorizes his theories of history as explaining the relationship between men and time.

What follows the first chapter are three successive chapters, "Historical Observation," "Historical Criticism," and "Historical Analysis." In my experience, these chapters are best read and understood as related but separate essays, and each is complex and deep enough to stand on its own. Furthermore, Bloch's essay, "Pour une histoire comparée de sociétés européennes," could also be a chapter in this book, and it would fit well thematically and topically. Bloch's theories on these three topics are foundational enough that any discussion of them here would be too brief and cursory, but suffice to say, Bloch's work has become my handbook as I write my senior thesis, never too far from my reach or mind as I consider how best to write a history that effectively combines observation, criticism, and analysis to meaningfully relate the story of a "change taking place in time."

Resume moi ben este fermoso oficio a verdade. Recomendo. Pena que por culpa dos nazis tivera que escribilo na cárcere deixándonos sen todos os matices e profundización de ideas que podiamos haber tido.

На вопрос "зачем нужна история", пожалуй, все же Марк Блок ответа не дал. А вот о том, что является центром ее и как ее делать, Апология истории говорит достаточно. Все бы хорошо, но :"К сожалению, недостаточное знакомство Блока и Февра с марксизмом и марксистской историографией изолировало их от наиболее плодотворного направления научной мысли современности и вынуждало идти ощупью там, где давно уже были выдвинуты и разработаны методологические основы общественных наук". (А. Гуревич "Марк Блок и «Апология истории»").

I get emotional reading this book. Perhaps I get emotional because I am an emotional little boy, but perhaps it's also that I read this justification of history, this statement of purpose, this clear and simple expression of the philosophy of my field, written by a man who gives his life to the future, at a moment in time when history itself stands on the precipice of elimination. It's a shame.
I also read this in frustration. We completely lack a sense of *stakes* that animate this field, and fail to see, as Bloch does, how a patient analysis of forgeries, a skepticism for "origins", is revolutionary.

Powerful work that I heard about while in Europe and tracked down while still on the road in Barcelona. Marc Bloch was a historian at a tough time for historians. He fought the Nazis and was killed by the Gestapo. Along the way he wrote this powerful primer on the basics of history, the value of primary sources, the inability for history to be an exact formula like the sciences, but above all the importance in telling the history even in the toughest of times. A good read and a good man. Marc Bloch.

as careful and nuanced and ultimately hard to pin down as anything Bloch or the Annales school ever farted out...there's something incredibly admirable about the fact that this was written with almost zero access to any other sources, with bloch being killed prior to its true conclusion. here was one of the first great "if only we had more time, more information, more expertise, more nuanced analysis" folks - qualities I respect in Bloch that came into their fullest flowering with Braudel - and here Bloch has run out of time. somehow "fresher" and more relevant than EH Carr's chatty "What is History?", which I re-read this week. Carr, like many Englishmen, had a kind of amateur's "love" for the work he did, an impressionistic if cautious approach, but Bloch was a man who worked, not someone who did the work.

I discussed the book a bit in this recent article:

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/w...

Marc Bloch was a historian from France and was educated at Lycée Louis-le-Grand and taught at the University of Mainz during World War I and the University of Strasbourg shortly thereafter. He was a well respected historian and writer before the beginning of World War II. He fought in both World Wars and he died refusing to give information while being tortured by the Vichy and Gestapo in Nazi occupied France in 1944.

In The Historian’s Craft, Marc Bloch defends history as a science and defines exactly what it is and can be. The Historian’s Craft is also somewhat of a history and a critique of the historian. It also gives guidelines to how the historian should approach history. Knowing what I know now about Bloch, I am inclined to read his other works or perhaps other historian’s documentation of his life. Given the popularity of his work as a historian, why shouldn’t he write a book defining the craft?

Considering the extraordinary circumstances in which Marc Bloch wrote this book, you feel a lot of respect for Bloch's understanding of the science of history and his amazing recollection of historical facts in absence of access to proper sources. Therefore the book has to be approached as a sort of first draft that the author could never improve further with historical criticism. For many of us who are pursuing the discipline of history, most of what Bloch discusses seem very elementary in present times but still none of us can hope to articulate our thoughts on history as clearly as Bloch does. Though I am appreciative of Bloch's passion for history, his main points tend to get obscured with multitude of examples which after a while tend to dominate the author's main points. Moreover the examples are extremely Eurocentric and therefore an approach to historical methodology seems very narrow and less relatable for his non-European readers. Still, my hats off to this amazing historian and his momentous work.

Marc Bloch is the most epic hero for historians. He fought in WWI, was actively involved in the French resistance to the Nazis in WWII, and was finally executed by the French Regime working with the Nazis. This actually cut short the finishing of this book. The book is an excellent summary and defense of the historian’s craft. It is useful for the historian and student of history, but it is also accessible and useful for the general public, giving a defense for why and how we should study history. It felt like a real privilege to read this book.