Re-reading this fantastic introduction to discuss with my students :) It is inspiring that Bloch wrote this book in the middle of WWII when he had little/no access to libraries and was also busy with his side hustle as a freedom fighter... The book is sprinkled with insights that have special resonance coming from someone who was living history while writing it.

Apología para la historia o el oficio del historiador del eterno Marc Bloch, obligatoria lectura para cualquier historiador que se precie, una lectura muy agradable, la verdad. En mi opinión, un libro de su tiempo, como no puede ser de otro modo e inacabado, pero no por ello menos interesante. Bloch estaba convencido del estatuto científico de la historia, definida como ciencia en pañales, por lo que es coherente que se lanzara a la definición de nuestro oficio y a la defensa de la historia como disciplina científica aunque con sus particularidades. La definición de la historia como una ciencia tiene su extensa bibliografía y cuenta hasta con autores a los que se le atribuye un pensamiento opuesto, como Hayden White, de deliciosa lectura también. Por supuesto, la obra abre con una disertación acerca de la utilidad y la legitimidad de la historia. Bloch defiende la obligación del historiador de difundir y enseñar sus trabajos, sabiendo hablar "en el mismo tono, a los doctos y a los alumnos". También versa sobre la doble naturaleza de la historia. Si se entiende la historia como una ciencia, surge el problema de la comparación, de la interpretación, de que no hay explicación definitiva de un hecho que se aprehende desde una época y un lugar. En este sentido, Bloch define a la historia como un híbrido de ciencia y poesía, una afirmación que de haberse dicho 30 años más tarde podría haberle valido el descalificativo de "posmo". Sin duda una obra introductoria y que marca época, vestigio fundador de la llamada escuela de los Annales y su intención declarada de renovación de la disciplina. Porque, nos dice Le Goff, Bloch no sólo define la historia, sino que sienta las bases para la que está por hacerse. Gran trabajo el de Bloch para remarcar la importancia de la elección en el trabajo del historiador. Toda investigación de principio a fin queda marcada por la elección del profesional. Y para tales investigaciones Bloch define un método: observación, crítica y análisis. Tres partes constantes e imposibles de diseminar, pero al fin y al cabo, partes constituyentes de un método de estudio. Interesantes son también sus reflexiones en torno a los tiempos y las nomenclaturas, si bien la idea de un continuo temporal pervive en su pensamiento. El fin abrupto de su vida truncó el final de la obra, inacabada. Este ensayo sobre el estudio de "los hombres en el tiempo" es una referencia imperativa y muy agradable para cualquier investigador que se precie.

"Tatínku, k čemu je vlastně historie?" - Bloch se snaží laikovi (i profesionálovi) objasnit, co je historie a čím se historik zabývá. Historie má totiž schopnost uchvacovat obraznost. Bloch dále tvrdí, že vědy jsou jen takové, které stanoví svazky mezi jevy. Historie má navíc nabízet racionální třídění a pochopení těchto jevů, jde vlastně o dokonalejší poznání.

Svou Obranu historie považuje za jakýsi deník řemeslníka, který uvažuje nad svým každodenním úkolem. Historie = věda o lidech v čase. "Což budeme-li pod slovem počátky naopak rozumět příčiny?" Minulost slouží k vysvětlování přítomnosti - lépe ji ospravedlnit nebo odsoudit. Zaprvé historik musí zasadit jev do jeho prostředí. Společnost lze pochopit na základě jejich reakce na historický okamžik.

Bloch říká, že minulost je neproměnná, ale její poznávání se mění. Jsme odsouzeni poznávat skrz někoho jiného - říká pravdu? Bloch zdůrazňuje, že každá historická kniha by měla obsahovat i zdroj. Dříve byla pochybnost brána jako nedostatek víry a negativní postoj, nyní potřeba pro prověřování pravdivosti (z čehož vyplývá historická kritika). "Konstatovat klam nestačí, ke třeba znát i jeho pohnutky." Dodává, že schopnost pozorovat se v různých dobách různí, není to samozřejmá konstanta.

Někdy pravděpodobnost je třeba nahradit za zřejmou pravdu, pro jednoduchost. Kritika pak otevírá cestu ke správnému poznání. Bloch tuto kapitolu končí tvrzením, že okamžik definic a názvosloví u historie ještě nenadešel a slučuje historické události s podstatou psychologického faktu.

Bloch udává historika, jako člověka, co zkoumá událost těsně před tím, než k ní došlo.

Marc Bloch's "The Historian's Craft" is a necessary read for anyone even considering becoming a historian. It details in a thoughtful and comprehensive way the limitations and difficulties of bridging that gap between the dead and the living.

A truly masterful work by an experienced and equally amazing author, "The Historian's Craft" is at once educational and a reflection on historiography.

* Introduction
* What is the use of history? What is the legitimacy of history?
* There is an entertainment value to history
* History can help to integrate fragments of knowledge into a unified whole, synthesis
* History, Men and Time: This chapter defines history
* This book accepts a broad interpretation of the word history--inquiry
* The object or history or inquiry is man
* History is further defined by calling it the study of men in time
* The present effects the knowledge of the past, as does the past influence the present
* Thus, history is the study of men in time from the past to the present
* Historical Observation
* Historians cannot directly observe what they study. They look through others eyes
* But, history does leave behind traces which the historian can observe directly
* As our methods improve we can better see the past--ex. archeology
* The most difficult task is to assemble the evidence of the past (documents)
* Historical Criticism
* Not all documentary evidence is truthful
* Criticism of documents in archives began in 1681
* One type of bad evidence is fraud or forgery. This can lead to positive evidence when the motive behind the forgery is discovered.
* A second type of bad evidence is a slight misrepresentation of the facts (a bias).
* In order for an error to become accepted as historical truth it must fit with social conscious (it must sound plausible)
* We can critically accept documents by how well they "fit in" with other documents of its particular time period. Ex. if a 10th century document were written on paper and all others were written on parchment, it is likely that the paper document is a fraud
* This is critical comparison. It can either accept of deny the authenticity of a document by comparing it to its time period.
* The majority of the problems of historical criticism are actually problems of probability. Ex. what is the likelihood that the document is correct.
* Historical Analysis
* Should historians attempt to merely understand or should they judge what they study? To judge something we impose our own value system on the past. Thus, the goal of the historian is understanding
* Analysis requires a language to accurately describe the facts. The problem is that language meaning has changed throughout time. Thus, the vocabulary of documents itself is another form of evidence.
* Periodization is another tool for analysis. Centuries are given a variety of attributes that help describe those who lived in that time. Yet, human time will never correspond directly with clock time. (centuries do not philosophically begin in xx01)
* Historical Causation: why did an event happen?
* The most recent antecedent is usually defined as the cause of an event (ex. a man falls off a cliff. Gravity or the slope of the mountain is not blamed, his misstep is.)
* Causes are not to be assumed. They are to be looked for...

ნახევარს ამოვაკლებდი

Livre instructif qui permet de mieux comprendre le but et le rôle de l'Histoire et de son impact social. Le comparatif avec d'autres sciences telles que la biologie et la chimie est très bien pensé et adéquate.

Toutefois le style employé par l'auteur rend l'accrochage difficile et le rythme de lecture s'en trouve affecté

Second reading of this book; placed here because I really don't remember when I read it first.

This is a remarkable little book that should be read by anyone in the social sciences since the methodology transcends.

Loved this. I will be reading more Marc Bloch, he is really inspiring to me. This is a passionate treatise on the necessity of history and the historiographical debates of the time. The context of the book is that Bloch wrote it while under house arrest between 1941-1942 in Nazi occupied France. He joined the French resistance in 1942 and was executed by the Nazis in 1944, before he was able to finish this book. With that information in the back of your mind, the book can be very moving. When he argues for history as a collective project and for historians to stay grounded in humanism and the ingenuity of human action it hits with a lot more weight.
Many historians were questioning the use of history as a discipline because of the two catastrophic world wars. Clearly no one is learning from the mistakes of the past and we are not travelling on a linear path of progress. Bloch shifts the goal of history to understanding rather than practical use. He opens up the field to an interdisciplinary methodology. Lucien Febvre gathered the notes and published this book. The two of them founded the Annales school that changed the trajectory of history writing. I will return to this book in the future.

Coincidentally, just as I finished reading this I saw the news that Bloch would be inducted into France's Panthéon.

The Historian's Craft is a fascinating read that truly explores the science of man in time, composed in extraordinary circumstances by a scholar and a Resistance fighter. It felt as if I were reading a love letter to history. I liked how he drew up the complexities and challenges of the discipline while demonstrating his conviction of its simple ground principles.

"In a word, in history, as elsewhere, the causes cannot be assumed. They are to be looked for..."

Well deserved Monsieur Bloch!

In the face of Nazi rule and the collapse of his world, a historian asks “what is the use of history?” To many, the study of history seems out-of-touch with the urgency of the times. In answering this question, he writes eloquently on doing history well. He hints at history as a study of humanity that aids in the understanding of one another and opposes the distortion of propaganda. Sadly, he was executed before he could complete the book and tie these ideas together. Putting the fascinating background to this book aside, I found it to be a helpful primer on historical method.

An excellent book about the historian craft. Of lively interest for anyone who cares about his/her understanding of history.