Апология истории или ремесло историка

by Marc Bloch, Марк Блок, Евгения Лысенко (translator)

В "Апологии …" французский историк Марк Блок обосновывает как "легитимность" своего ремесла, право историка, в частности и моральное, заниматься тем, чем он занимается, так и "полезность" профессии историка в системе общественного разделения труда. Но сколь бы ни был высок социальный статус историка, позволяющий ему претендовать на особую внутреннюю автономию, в своих исследованиях прошлого он не вправе отстраняться от проблем современной действительности.
Предметом исторического исследования согласно концепции автора является человек во времени. Автор исходит их позиции о том, что сознание человека не является единым на протяжении времени, а изменяется под воздействием тех или иных факторов и историку необходимо эту разницу учитывать.
Блок убежден: знание прошлого должно помогать человеку "жить лучше".

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Theory, Academic, Writing, School

232 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1949

About the author

Marc Léopold Benjamin Bloch (6 July 1886 in Lyon – 16 June 1944 in Saint-Didier-de-Formans) was a medieval historian, University Professor and French Army officer. Bloch was a founder of the Annales School, best known for his pioneering studies French Rural History and Feudal Society and his posthumously-published unfinished meditation on the writing of history, The Historian's Craft. He was captured and shot by the Gestapo during the German occupation of France for his work in the French Resistance.

Reviews

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

I turned to the back of the book to read the author's credentials, expecting the usual Oxbridge/Ivy League pedigree and litany of awards. Instead I was shocked to learn that Marc Bloch had been tortured and killed by Nazis. Here was a historian who joined the French Resistance rather than escape while he could. He penned this meditation on the nature of history as a Jew in occupied France, without the aid of an academic library.

Wow. It would be impossible not to respect Marc Bloch. Though this book isn't perfect, it is amazing that it even exists.

There is much to say about the work. As a literature- and material culture-loving type of history grad student, I especially appreciated the value Bloch put on sources beyond documents found in archives. He incorporated place names, old words, objects, and the built environment into his historical analyses. He questioned things like thinking of historical eras in terms of centuries (or really trying to divide up discrete eras to begin with). He considers how a historian evaluates sources and the various falsehoods that can creep into them.

The Historian's Craft is an artifact of its own time, as one can tell from some of Bloch's post-positivist, not-exactly-Marxist, yet pre-post-structuralist [?] ideas and ways of framing them. [Edit: I've since learned about the Annales School that he was part of. Makes sense now]. The prose style is quite florid, filled with analogies and metaphors, unlike most historical writing today. Then there's the subtitle: "...History...and the Men who Write It." So, yes, it's dated in certain ways.

Still. This book is well worth reading and considering.

[Mark Bowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

* 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...

[Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Someone should write a book about people writing books away from their libraries. A passel of them owing to war, WWII in this case (and, I think, in the case of Auerbach's Mimesis); others to distance or remote location (Empson in China). There is something ballsy about saying 'here's my opus--I wrote it from memory since the Nazis blew up my books, the indigenous population cooked them in a stew, the sherpa dropped them in a crevasse...' Anyhoo. Bloch's book is a more elegant, less systematic version of David Hackett Fischer's indispensable Historians' Fallacies. There are some lovely passages here on the historical enterprise, larded with much wisdom about perspective, language, sources and so on. I do wonder how much of the style is owing to the interventions of Lucien Febvre, who rescued the manuscripts on which the text is based, or the English translator Peter Putnam. French medievalists, or just medievalists in general, ought to have a go at this, since most of Bloch's illustrative anecdotes derive from his own historiographical practice. It ends rather abruptly, and the penultimate chapter on Historical Analysis is less polished than the previous three. Nevertheless, worthwhile.

[☄ · Rating 4 out of 5]

the historian never escapes from time.

[Post Scriptum · Rating 5 out of 5]

“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.

[P.E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

« Papa, explique-moi donc à quoi sert l’histoire. »

Un livre sans pareil. Écrit pendant l'Occupation par l'historien Marc Bloch à partir de ses seuls souvenirs, ce livre nourri d'érudition fait la somme de la mission de l'historien, question d'une grande urgence à l'âge des totalitarismes et de leurs falsifications de masse. Dans son dernier texte, l'historien écrit un plaidoyer pour une histoire impliquée, soucieuse de véracité et d'honnêteté intellectuelle. Apologie pour l'Histoire ou métier d'historien est le testament de Marc Bloch en même temps que le manifeste qui réunit les principes chers à l'École des Annales.

Chapitre I : L'Histoire, les Hommes et le Temps
Chapitre II : L’Observation historique
Chapitre III : La Critique
Chapitre IV : L'Analyse historique
Chapitre V : Sans suite


Accompagnement :
Waltz on a Minor Opus 150 - Frédéric Chopin, interprétation de Rigutto Bruno

[Marc Lamot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bloch defends in this booklet the these that history is a science, albeit with its own methodology and with the limited expectations that you may impose on all human sciences. A somewhat ambiguous position this is, in the then (mid-20th century) still furious discussion with positivism. The booklet contains many valuable insights, but the meandering style makes the reading (in French) not easy; in defense of Bloch: he wrote this in captivity in 1942-43, without access to a library. To reread.

[Олег Магдич · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Тату, поясни мені для чого потрібна історія" - ключове питання , на яке намагається відповісти автор. Не скажу, що йому це повністю вдалося ( можливо тому, що книга незавершена), але ця праця - must read для будь-якого історика. Саме звідси можна отримати головні принципи історика - дослідника. 1) " Вмій питати джерело". Тільки коли правильно поставлено питання, тоді воно розкаже тобі щось 2) "Будь людожером" - історія це там, де люди. 3) "Мисли, як епоха" - не вставляй свої думки у голову постатей, які досліджуються тобою 4) "Історія це ремесло" - хочеш бути істориком, готуйся постійно вчитися, навіть будучи майстром

Можливо Марк Блок спеціально до кінця не відповідає на питання. для чого потрібна історія. Тому що кожен повинен сам для себе вирішити це. А ця книга точно спрямує до роздумів щодо цього.

[Ruby · Rating 5 out of 5]

amazing book. i wasn't that sure when i started it, a lot of my colleagues did not like it but to be honest i found it eye-opening and... familiar? at the same time. it both showed me many of the mistakes i was making while also talking about obstacles i had too encountered in my researches (though in a very smaller size. i am definitely not a historian yet, i have just started).

it can be a little difficult to understand if you have never actually practiced "the historian's craft", especially when he talks about little details of the job. on the other hand, some passages may sound obvious but they!! are!! not!! at the end i was always amazed. a true eye-opening experience, in my opinion.

some "popular historians" have never read this book and it shows lol

[Sebastião Martins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Há muitos diferentes tipos de sentimentos após a leitura desta complexíssima obra. Antes de mais, para contexto, Marc Bloch, o autor, foi assassinado antes de encerrar definitivamente o seu estudo e a sua obra. Tal levou a que, inicialmente, Lucien Febvre publicasse o trabalho de Bloch, tendo o problema de, por um lado, não ter o texto integral e, por outro lado, ter feito modificações. Foi, então, Étienne Bloch, filho de M.Bloch, a publicar o texto integral.
Ora, foi este contexto, totalmente inserido no livro, que tornou a minha experiência com a obra bastante complicada - não tenho, contudo, nada a apontar a Marc Bloch. Enquanto lia a sua parte da obra, entendi a generalidade das suas ideias, os seus exemplos (sempre muito bem fundamentados) e a sua instrução naquilo que é, grosso modo, a historiografia. Enquanto aspirante a historiador, só me resta elogios e admiração a Bloch.
O problema no livro passa mesmo pela minha edição. Aconselho a quem comprar o livro para, caso se queira focar únicamente no texto de Bloch, a não comprar a obra com a edição das «Publicações Europa-América», pois grande parte do livro acaba por se basear na evolução dos manuscritos propriamente ditos, o que acaba por desmotivar o leitor, pelo menos com base na minha experiência. Estou certo de que, caso não fosse pelo mérito e trabalho de Bloch, esta obra seria cotada ainda com menos pontuação.
Não obstante, há que destacar o facto de esta ter sido a primeira obra que li enquanto estudante de História, o que lhe confere, a título pessoal, um certo apreço.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all, props to Marc Bloch, who wrote this book essentially from memory while hiding from the Nazis who eventually captured, tortured and killed him. The intellectual capacity to write cogently and compellingly – and the focus to do so while fearing for his life as a Jewish freedom fighter in occupied France – is inspiring, if not intimidating.

The product is a work of remarkable clarity, given its subject, which is basically how history gets written. That's not the most captivating subject, and the result is not the most captivating book – but it's much less dry than you'd expect.

OK, so that's not a ringing endorsement. And basically, at this point, the only reason you're reading this book is you are really invested in historiography (the study of the study of history, an unarguably inward-focused occupation), or you have, like me, been assigned this as part of a graduate course in the subject.

Bloch was an incredibly influential historian before his career was interrupted – and, alas, ended – by World War II. He cofounded Annales, a French historical journal that pushed the field away from the scientific positivism of the 19th and early 20th centuries and more toward using the methods of the social sciences and other fields to tell the stories of those less fortunate than the "great men" on which historians had typically focused before then.

In The Historian's Craft, Bloch lays out a precise, sometimes astonishingly so, overview of how historians work. He's less interested in laying out a philosophy of history than a practice of it, so he spends his time delving into questions of epistemology, critical thinking, comparison and analysis – advocating for greater transparency, understanding and clarity from his colleagues. To Bloch's credit, the book provides ample doses of all three.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deze Nederlandse editie van Marc Bloch’s Apologie pour l’Histoire is uitzonderlijk, vooral omdat het een grondig aangepaste teksteditie is, voorzien van een degelijke inleiding en begeleid door een notenapparaat dat onduidelijkheden toelicht en stellingen van Bloch in zijn context zet en met bibliografische verwijzingen ondersteunt; tenslotte zijn ook nog aanvullende teksten van Lucien Febvre en Bloch zelf toegevoegd.
Ik was enkele maanden geleden al eens begonnen aan een oude Franse editie, maar kreeg me er niet doorheen geworsteld. Dat heeft alles te maken met het onvoltooide karakter van de tekst (Bloch werd door de Nazi’s geëxecuteerd in 1944 terwijl het boek nog niet af was), maar ook met Bloch’s nogal redeneerstijl, voortdurend slingerend tussen algemene stellingen en concrete voorbeelden, zonder veel systematiek.
In de Nederlandse vertaling en met de begeleidende noten kwam de tekst veel beter tot zijn recht. Een dikke pluim dus voor vertaalster en tekstbezorger Marleen Wessel.
Inhoudelijk heeft de tekst van Bloch niet zo erg veel te bieden: het is – zoals de titel zegt – inderdaad een pleidooi voor geschiedschrijving als métier, als ambacht, met zijn sterke en zijn zwakke kanten. Dit lijkt te suggereren dat Bloch geschiedschrijving helemaal niet als wetenschap zag, maar dat is een brug te ver, Bloch raakt die problematiek wel aan maar blijft eerder vaag. Hij voert in elk geval aan dat geschiedschrijving een heel jong vak is dat nog volop in ontwikkeling is en bovendien handelt in de moeilijkste materie die maar denkbaar is, namelijk het menselijke handelen.
Dit boek is door het martelaarschap van Bloch omgeven met een aureool van heiligheid onder historici; voor mij stelde het toch wel wat teleur.

[icaro · Rating 5 out of 5]

L'ho letto, l'ho riletto, l'ho criticato, l'ho rivoltato come un calzino (notare l'usura della copertina scannerizzata).
Non si allontana mai dalla mia vista. E' come un vecchio nonno saggio che, con grande semplicità, al bisogno, mi ricorda il rigore di un mestiere difficile.
Ma non è un testo per addetti ai lavori. E' per chi ama interrogarsi sullo scorrere del tempo e sul posto che ciascuno di noi vi occupa. E' una delle migliori illustrazioni che io conosca di ciò che afferma anche il mitico Francesco: "la storia siamo NOI, nessuno si senta escluso".

[Eilidh Fyfe · Rating 4 out of 5]

literally a gay love letter to febvre

[Letizia Druetta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quando mi dicevano che è la bibbia per lo storico non mentivano.

"La differenza tra uno storico e un antiquario, è che lo storico ama la vita", o qualcosa del genere, non ho più ritrovato la citazione nel libro, ma come ci ha fatto vedere Bloch, non muore nessuno se si cita a memoria.

[Juan Pablo López]

Un libro entra lentamente en una corriente de conocimiento, se instaura y queda como una estación obligatoria. Obligatoria para quien apenas llega en ese entorno, pues esta estación da contexto y aportes de carácter elemental para seguir con paso mejor acertado en esa particular aventura de conocer. En el caso de quien pretende formarse como historiador este libro es esa estación inevitable.

En él, el fundador de la Escuela de los Annales, Bloch, con una prosa sencilla, trata lo más elemental y problemático del trabajo con la historia. Resalta unos puntos, ya lejanos a la historia positivista el siglo XIX, ahora cercanos a cierta calidad más humana y social. Se trata de un nuevo presupuesto para insertarse en un oficio ya más versátil y experimentado, que centro al ser humano como protagonista y medida de los acontecimientos del pasado.

Bloch, le da un vuelco a la historiografía, funda un método más ameno para reflexionar la manera cómo de la historia se puede hacer y cómo se ha comportado. Entre sus logros está el lugar que hoy por hoy y adesde finales de la Segund Guerra tiene lo testimonial. Y también está un valioso aporte ético, del que otros campos de conocimiento requieren para articular su ideas y haceres.

Impacta que esta obra inconclusa --Bloch fue fusilado por las fuerzas nazis--, genera toda una estela de trabajos de edición y reedición. Tal vez esta dinámica ayude al reconocimiento e implantación de la obra como una estación inevitable en nuestra tradición. Clásica en el proceso de formación de los historiadores, al momento es difícil encontrar posturas más originales y que provoquen un impacto tan certero sobre la historiografía.

[Max McDevitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good work. The insights have helped me justify my work to myself.

Warning: when Bloch discusses probability and math in this book, he is commonly making false statements. He falsely asserts that probability theory concerned itself solely with equiprobable events. His example of the probability of two people born on the same day of the year is incorrect due to an oversight in counting. None of this detracts from his actual arguments and the points he is trying to make about contingencies and historical events. Rather he misrepresents the state of probability theory at the time of writing and also demonstrates his inability to understand and apply basic counting tools.

[ტუნგუსკა · Rating 3 out of 5]

ნახევარს ამოვაკლებდი

[ash · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars, witty and clever and certainly set a precedent for many historical conversations to follow. the first have really drew me in and then kind of lost me in the second half bc i just can't think of history through a scientific lens. bloch had an insane life though so he gets a pass

[pabbblo ✧*:･ﾟ · Rating 5 out of 5]

pffffff marc bloch meu perfecto,,,,

[ThedarksideofEma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uno dei libri fondamentali per comprendere il lavoro dello storico oggi

[Murphy]

har egt lest doing history av klaus nathaus men den e ikke på goodreads for mæ te å logge sånn at æ kunna gi den den lavest mulig rating

[Tsai Wei-chieh · Rating 4 out of 5]

作者布洛克（Marc Bloch），生於西元1886年，卒於西元1944年。為歐洲中古史權威、法國史學「年鑑學派」創始人之一。 父親古斯塔夫‧布洛克，為巴黎大學羅馬史教授，家學淵源深厚。就讀於高等師範學院（Ecole Normale Superieure），進修地理與歷史。後於1908年赴德深造，於萊比錫大學與柏林大學聽課一年。回國後即擔任蒂爾基金會（Thiers Foundation）史學研究員。布洛克曾先後應法國政府徵召，參與兩次世界大戰。1943年，德軍南下控制全法，他加入地下反抗組織。1944年春為納粹所捕，同年6月16日遭納粹槍決，享年58歲。

布洛克曾任史特拉斯堡大學歐洲中古史教授與巴黎大學經濟史講座。在史特拉斯堡大學擔任教授任內，由於不滿當時史學家劃地自限的作風，以及流於煩瑣考證的史料學與制度史的研究，故與費夫爾（L. Febvre）等人創辦了《經濟社會史年鑑》，影響後世史學甚大。著有《法國農村史》、《封建社會》、《不可思議之潰敗》、《史家的技藝》等書。

與本書相關的著作，包括了以下作品：
彼得‧柏克（Peter Burke）著，《法國史學革命：年鑑學派 1929-89》，江政寬譯，台北：麥田出版公司，1997。
姚蒙，《法國當代史學主流──從年鑑派到新史學》，台北：遠流出版公司，1997。
張廣智、陳新，《年鑑學派》，台北：揚智文化，1999。
杜維運，《史學方法論》，台北：三民書局，1997。
蔡石山，《西洋史學史》，台北：茂昌圖書公司，1998。

本書自緒論以下，共分為五章：

第一章 歷史、人與時間
第二章 歷史觀察
第三章 歷史考證
第四章 歷史分析
第五章 因果關係

（一）緒論

本書從作者的愛子與其從軍時的一位戰友的一個共同疑問──「歷史有什麼用」開始談起。這牽涉到的是歷史學要作為一門知���，其正當性的問題。

從歷史的價值來說，它也許對於其愛好者是有意義的。因為它能夠為他們帶來樂趣。然而假若歷史只是一種有趣的消遣方式，它是否值得我們如此大費周章的追求其真實、洞察其背後隱藏的原因，以及解決隨之而來的困難呢？如果說史學的目的僅只於娛樂，那麼這種對於時間與精力的大量浪費，將成為不值得推廣歷史工作的理由。

在此，作者為歷史作為一門知識的正當性做了一番辯護與說明。他認為即使歷史對人的物質生活或政治需求永遠沒有什麼貢獻，但它對於人的充分發展是不可或缺的。歷史能夠指出在未來可期望的改進。即使它在發展的現階段不可避免地要滲入相當份量的個人見解。

受到孔德學派的影響，19世紀中期後的學者普遍認為，一門可靠的學科，若不能直接而無可置疑的顯示其可導出具普遍��用性公式，則無法存在。然而當這種理念應用到歷史研究上時，由於各個歷史學者氣質的不同，產生了兩種相當不同的學派。一派相信，建立一門符合所有科學理想之人類演進的科學是可行的，並為此理想全力以赴。而這是受到涂爾幹所創立之社會學派所產生的影響。另一派則認為歷史無法作為嚴謹的物理科學來處理，加以這些史學研究者早期所受之資料批判的訓練，傾向視歷史為一種美學遊戲，而非一門真正的科學。作者認為後者對史學研究造成很大的傷害，因為他們從否認歷史的可能發展中去尋找歷史的本質。

在此，作者自述本書的性質為：「這只是一本屬於一個喜歡反省日常工作的藝匠的備忘錄，一本屬於長久使用尺及水平儀──而不敢想望自己是個數學家──的職工的記事本。」

（二）歷史、人與時間

作者對歷史的定義為：「在時間中的人的科學」。提出我們必須對「歷史」一詞保留最為廣義的解釋，這是由於定義過於細瑣精密，不僅會限制這門尚未定型的科學，且只會帶來更多的禁制。歷史學家要設法釐清與劃定的，該是如何選擇其工具所運使的獨特領域。

作者認為「過去」若未經過事先的蒸餾，是無法使那些現象成為理性知識之內涵的。歷史學家並非對所有過去發生的現象都需加以介入，而這當中的標準則繫於「人」的因素之出現與否。且這裡的人是多數的人（men），並且是在時間中的人。

作者不認為歷史學家應該著眼於起源的研究上，因為這個詞彙含混不清。起源究竟是指原因還是事件的開端？前者是歷史探索工作中必定會碰到的問題，後者則正是造成混淆的所在。對起源研究的崇拜，使得歷史學者成為古物研究學者，而只有社會學家、經濟學家等人，才是活人的研究者。

作者認為將人類的演進過程視為一系列短暫而猛烈之跳動的假設是一種很大的謬誤，因為這種假設完全忽略了社會的慣性與惰性。時代之間是具有凝結性的。也因此要想對過去有所了解，必須要對現代的事物有所認識。史家可從日常生活中的經驗，汲取出重建過去的要素。

歷史研究是不容許閉關自守的，因為唯一的歷史是人類全體的歷史，經由各種學科的輔助，歷史研究才能夠進步。

（三）歷史觀察

作者認為在歷史觀察上，研究遠古和研究晚近，並沒有方法上的差別，因為事實上在歷史研究中，限於時代、人類的感官與注意力的侷限，所用的大部份資料必須從別人處取得。不過，作者也提到歷史學者應該設法廣泛徵引各種資料，不僅僅是文獻的引用，舉凡器物、考古資料等，都是相當好的資料。不過作者更強調的是，對史料進行反覆檢證的工夫。只有透過這種工夫，史家才算是真正使用了這些資料。

歷史學家的論述，在透過不同性質的資料研究後將更為鞏固。然而一個歷史學家要想利用愈多不同性質的資料，他本身所需具備的能力或知識便愈多，而這通常是很難達成的一個理想。故作者在此提出以不同的學者分別運用各種技術來治史，將有助於某一專門題材的研究開展。

證據的收集對史家來說，無異是最困難的一件事。因為決定證據之存在與取得難易的情況，與一般的歷史力量有關，但卻與其研究對象毫無關連。故證據可能在未經選擇的情況下，因不可抗力之因素遭到損毀。但這些因素是史家可以設法去預測的，故並毋需為此而感到挫折。

（四）歷史考證

作者認為，歷史考證這項工作對歷史學來說，是個很重要的工作。然而他也提到，缺乏更高層次的技術性考證工作，只能在無意義的問題上打轉。歷史考證所要追索的，是詐欺背後的詐欺者。也就是歷史學所研究的對象──人。

證據的扭曲本身並非不具意義，它可能反映了當時社會中的某種集體記憶，其傳佈有其社會條件。這對於認識事件背後隱含的真相，是有所助益的。當然，證據的不真實也有可能來自於惡意的欺騙或無意的筆誤，其真實性並不能從或然率上來判定，必須從比較方法與對當時社會脈絡的了解來入手。

歷史考證不該只是歷史學者的輔助研究工具，在今日充斥謠言與欺騙的社會中，歷史學的批判考證方式，更應該成為歷史教育的一部份。

（五）歷史分析

歷史學家被勸導在事實前抽離自己，這樣的說法事實上是消極的。史家應該要注重對事實的分析，而非評價。除非這樣的評價是伴隨著分析之後而來的。而要對事實進行分析，便需對事實有所了解。因此，毋寧說「了解」是史學研究的目標。

為求了解，歷史學者不可避免的要對事實進行選擇與分類。因為有關人類的任一現象，在根本上是與相似現象息息相關的。根據不同種類而分類只不過是為了要突顯力量的主要運作脈絡。因此如何進行適切的分類，成為史家所要追求的目標。然而，雖說由於分類之故，導致各種專史研究的出現，但是一個史家需注意的是，各部份的研究總是有所連結的，而這個連結本身就是歷史的真實。片斷的知識只有透過分析→再整合的過程，才可能對歷史的整體面有所了解。

另外，史家在分類中，對於「命名」的課題必須審慎。無論是使用過去或現今的詞彙來對應其所要指涉的事實，都必須將它放在事實發生當時的脈絡與背景下，且必須考慮到歷史本身的可了解性。而這正是史家首要的任務。

歷史研究和人類、時間息息相關，而人類的時間具有伸縮性，故只有維持這種伸縮性，對歷史的分類才有可能符合事實的真正輪廓。

（六）因果關係

歷史學家基於人類心靈運作的一般法則，不免會處理有關歷史事件的因果問題。因果關係即便被視為是獲得歷史知識的工具，仍然需要史家的批判性處理才能獲得。在歷史事件中，某些具有相當程度之恆久性者，可稱之為「形勢」。而在眾多發生的原因中，具有較大特殊性，似乎也是最容易避免者，才是史家所要研究的對象。

然而在針對因果關係進行解釋時，有可能導致解釋錯誤之因並不在於解釋本身，而是先驗地接受任一解釋。任何的假說被提出，要形成歷史解釋，必須經過證實的手續。簡言之，在歷史研究中，一如在其他地方，原因是不能事先設定的。我們得去尋找……。

在結構上，本書的開頭由康樂所執筆的導言中提到，《史家的技藝》是一部未完成的作品。布洛克原先要寫的共有七章，分別是：

1. 歷史知識：過去與現在
2. 歷史觀察
3. 歷史分析
4. 時間與歷史
5. 歷史經驗
6. 歷史解釋
7. 預測的問題

另外，在結論中布洛克準備探討「歷史在公民生活及教育中扮演的角色」，在附錄中討論有關「歷史教育」的問題。然而本書未及完成，布洛克即遭不幸，實令人不禁撫腕嘆息。

也因此，事實上本書從寫作形式的結構來，可說是不完整的。但是全書在精神與方法上的一貫，亦足以彌補了它在閱讀與了解可能發生的缺憾。加以原先設定卻未能完成的各章主題，在已完成的部份中，亦有所述及。所以若就內容的結構來說，本書已具有相當高的完成度了。

在內容上，正如布洛克在本書中題獻給費夫爾的獻辭中所言：「長期以來，我們曾共同致力於拓寬歷史學的領域，為了使歷史學更富有人性而共同努力。」這句話，可說道盡了布洛克畢生的志業。

然而布洛克在親身經歷了兩次幾乎將人類文明摧折殆盡的世界大戰後，面對他的愛子與戰友對歷史功能的質疑，以史學研究為終身志業的他，其內心對於歷史之功能與價值之懷疑所受的煎熬，想必是極為痛楚與矛盾的。不過，布洛克仍然對他所深愛的歷史抱持著正面肯定的態度，從本書的法文原名為《為歷史學辯護》（Apologie pour l’Historie）這個現象來看，可以說這本書就是他對一切對於歷史有所質疑之問題的回答。

布洛克認為，歷史是一門正在發展中，研究在時間中之人（men）的科學。而它對於人的充分發展是不可或缺的。且歷史能夠指出人類在未來可期望的改進。即使它在發展的現階段不可避免地要滲入相當份量的個人見解。這是本書中布洛克針對歷史之功能與價值何在的問題，所做之最有代表性的回答。在這個回答當中指出，歷史是具有內在功能（促進人的充分發展）與外在功能（指導人類未來可期望的改進）的一門科學。雖然我自己也認同布洛克的想法，但是歷史若是作為一門科學，那麼它應當屬於人文科學，而非自然科學。而所有的人文科學，無非是期望建立一套通則或模型，以解釋所有與該研究主題相關的現象為理想。而歷史以過去為其實驗室，但是看來相似的歷史現象，其內涵之歧異性之大，往往是超乎史家的想像，而不足以做廣泛推論（例如歐洲各國、日本、中國的封建制度）。正因為面臨這樣的困境，再加上研究資料的先天限制，使得史學研究想要獲得一般性的通則或模型，實為一困難之事（事實上所有的人文科學都會面臨這樣的窘境，只是相形之下，歷史學要困難許多）。因此我認為，史學這門性格特殊的科學，不應執著於一般人文科學的理想──建立通則或模型──之上。事實上，透過單一歷史現象的分析與多種類似歷史現象的比較，更能夠加深我們對各歷史現象的認識。加上歷史學屬性上的特殊，使得史學研究者和其他人文科學的研究者比較起來，能夠更為自由地對各學科的研究方法與方法論加以採借，而不必擔心會有所衝突。歷史學這門科學，若能善加利用自身研究上的優勢，專注於能使人對歷史現象有更深入認識的研究上，相信其貢獻並不會比任何一門試圖建立通則或模型的其他人文科學遜色。

在布洛克針對當時史學界對於起源研究的「偶像崇拜」之批評上，我自己亦有同感。例如在討論民族起源時，會發現其中有太多的技術問題有待解決：譬如說，一個民族的起源究竟要追到多久以前才算數？且一個民族、一種文化之形成，由於人們之間的互動，其起源常常是多元的。而各種文化元素之間，其失卻的連結（missing links）又受限於史料之不足，使得研究者所下之結論常常可能會面臨過於大膽而缺乏證據支撐的窘境。在閱讀相關論述時，除了對這樣的情況感到不滿意以外，自己也在思索究竟民族史應該走何種研究取向的問題。有一種可能是將今日之民族誌與過去之民族史的研究做一有機之結合，亦即以過去民族史資料中所顯示之歷史文化現象與今日民族誌中之現象相似者，進行比較分析，試圖求其共同內涵與相異之處，所得到之收穫與之前的「想像的民族史」或許亦能有其獨特之價值。在設法跳脫民族史做為起源偶像崇拜的思考上，布洛克的主張給我的啟發實為良多。

布洛克認為唯一的歷史是人類全體的歷史，對於他所提出這種所謂「整體史」（total history）的概念，事實上在過去的史家，已不乏人秉此概念以治史。西方「歷史之父」希羅多德（Herodotus）即已利用此一概念治史，其著作中對於希臘、小亞細亞、埃及、利比亞等地的歷史、地理、風土民情、政治生活等情況，亦旁及哲學、文藝、科技、宗教等部份。雖然他自己並未清楚的意識到他正在使用「整體史」的概念，同時其描述亦缺乏系統。不過此一概念，後來由18世紀啟蒙運動時期的大師伏爾泰（Voltaire）所繼承，並得到發揚。因此可以說布洛克在這裡所提出的「整體史」概念，是有其所本的。不過布洛克身處的19世紀末，當時事件導向式的歷史研究正大行其道，布洛克與費夫爾等人有這樣的氣魄，大力宣揚「整體史」的概念，從邊緣向當時的史學研究中心開砲。他們所獲致的成功，以及使此一概念對後世史學產生長久的影響，其貢獻不可說不大。

從本書中，我們可以看得出來，布洛克本身受涂爾幹（E. Durkheim）的影響很大。書中，從他所使用的「群體心理」、「集體記憶」、「集體意識」等等名詞來看，他的研究，與其說是歷史學，不如說是社會學也許更能夠切合某一部份的事實。當然，這從他交遊的學者中，有涂爾幹的學生阿爾布瓦什（Maurice Halbwachs），也可看出一些端倪。然而，在這樣的現象中，我們可以發現，布洛克認為必須要透過各種學科的輔助，歷史研究才能夠進步的想法，不僅僅只是本書主要的信念之一，它同時也是布洛克在從事歷史研究時所秉持的一個信念，它更是《年鑑》創辦的宗旨之一。因此我們可以說，布洛克在本書中為後世史學指出了一個大方向，即以社會科學治史的思考。這種思考開創了後世史學的一個新趨勢，舉凡經濟史、社會史、心理史等等，都受到了這種思考的影響。也可以說，這種「以社會科學治史」的思考與其「整體史」概念，是本書對於後世影響最為鉅大的兩個地方，也是布洛克對於後世史學最大的貢獻。

布洛克認為要了解過去，必須先了解現在。歷史學家必須從日常生活的經驗中取出有助於他重建過去的要素。這是因為布洛克承認「超越每個時代個人之獨特性的，的確有些共通的心靈狀態」 、「人類的現象一直是由一條跨越各時代的鎖鍊所連繫起來的」 等等這些概念所致。另外，布洛克在書中提到「在本質上，歷史的事實是心理的事實」這樣的一個概念。而綜合前面所見到的相關論述，我們可以說布洛克是一位心靈史論者，與後來的柯靈烏（R. G. Collingwood）等人有相似之處。不過，認為布洛克會有這樣的概念是基於他受到法國社會學家涂爾幹的影響所致。布洛克從社會的角度來觀察歷史，而涂爾幹又認為社會是社會成員心理之集體表徵，他自然不免會採用這類「社會是個人心靈的產物」 的概念。而這也與他認為歷史證據的檢證，所處理的是「心靈的真實」（psychic realities）這樣的概念若合符節。而布洛克其問題導向的歷史研究，可說便是奠基於此一概念之上。他的研究事實上已經跨越了過去歷史學對於特定事件的研究取向，而放眼於更長大之時間以及空間中所出現的現象之上。正是由於人類心靈上有著超越時代的共通性，加上歷史與社會本身又屬於心理的事實，才使得這樣的研究前提得以成立。而《封建社會》就是最好的例子。

最後，卡爾（E. H. Carr）在他的《歷史論集》（What is History?）中說道：「歷史是史家與其事實的一種持續的互動過程，是現在與過去之間無止盡的對話。���正如此言所道，布洛克站在現世，透過與過去歷史事實的互動當中，試圖找尋一條對話的管道，以增進對「歷史」本身的了解。由於他的英年早逝，沒能夠親眼目睹後世歷史研究的榮景，但是後世的史家從其思想中所獲得之啟發，其影響是深遠的。相信布洛克對史學的卓越貢獻，將會永銘於歷史與後世歷史學家的心中。

（1999.12.08）

[Sense of History]

This book offers a reflection on some fundamental aspects of the historical profession, with valuable insights. But it is rather unsystematic, and clearly unfinished. Especially his assertion that sources, or traces as he calls them, are more useful as indirect witnesses, namely to extract things out of them there that were not intended by the witness, is a bit too extreme. This is true in the field of mental history (histoire des mentalités), but it neglects a very wide domain of the historical métier.

Occasionally there was a surprising insight, as for example the statement that there is only a gradual difference in the investigation of the far past and that of the recent past, because also the present is sometimes only very imperfectly knowledgeable, through lack of testimonials and communication flaws, so that even a reconstruction of very recent facts can only be but imperfect.

[Luis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before going into college, I seriously considered becoming a historian. I ended up studying chemistry and getting accustomed with the rules of the scientific method. And in comparison, this book can be very well considered as a study on the method for history. Bloch is very aware of the possible bias of historians while examining information, and specially of acknowledging the ignorance of situations based on the available data. It is a perfect introduction to the understanding of history as a science.

[Tessa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marc Bloch is one of my new heroes. The incredible thing about this book is that he wrote about the role of the historian completely without the aid of sources--and it's soooo good. He had his teaching license and books taken away by the Nazis, and later he was killed by one of their firing squads outside of Lyon, France, for his involvement in the French Resistance.

[bautista · Rating 5 out of 5]

lo releí para la universidad esta vez con el contexto de la realidad de bloch y lo disfruté ( y entendí) mucho más. qué carta de amor más grande a tu oficio abocarse a la tarea de defenderlo ante la sociedad en tus últimos momentos.

[Rasmus Tillander · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Hyvä historijoitsija muistuttaa sen sijaan tarujen jättiläistä. Hän tietää, että tuntiessaan ihmislihan hajun hän on löytänyt saaliinsa."

Historian puolustus on humanistinen palopuhe sivistyneen pamfletin muodossa. Annales-koulukunnan kovimpiin nimiin kuulunut Bloch kirjoittaa veikeästi, mutta tinkimättömän akateemisesti siitä miksi historian tutkimus on tärkeää ja mitä se oikeastaan on. Vaikka metodiosa on varmaan näin 80 vuotta myöhemmin hieman vanhentunut kyltymätön ymmärtämisenhalu välittyy silti väkevästi.

Kirja saa myös hieman lisäkunnioitusta omasta historiastaan: se on jäänyt kesken, koska Ranskan vastarintaliikeeseen kuulunut Bloch kuoli natsien teloittamana vuonna 1944. Romantikkosydämeni leikehtii kun miettii, että humanismin liekki ei sammunut edes Euroopan synkimpinä aikoina. Tämän traagisen elementin lisäksi kirja on myös sisällöltään innostava: lukiessa tuli sellainen fiilis, että kyllä sitä pitäisi lukea lisää historiaa. Ja fiilis siitä, että oma valinta erikoistua tutkimuksessa nimenomaan filosofian historiaan oli ihan oikea. Kauniin innostava manifesti siis!

"Historia etsii syiden aaltosarjoja, eikä kauhistu havaitessaan niiden olevan moninkertaisia, jollaisina elämä ne näyttää"

[Rafa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Libro que acerca al lector el mundo y las vicisitudes de los historiadores.

El texto es interesante pero padece de algunos lastres, algunos involuntarios, como lo es tratarse de una obra inconclusa interrumpida por la ejecución del autor a manos de las tropas de ocupación alemanas; y otros como son la época en la que se escribió, que determina en gran parte las polémicas y el bagaje intelectual de su época, y un último elemento que a mi juicio es centrarse en demasía en el ámbito cultural francés, por otra parte lógico, al ser el autor de esta nacionalidad.

A mi entender, muy lejos de la categoría de su otra obra "La extraña derrota" que leí hace ya tiempo y recuerdo como una obra excelsa pese a su brevedad.

[Meg Briers · Rating 4 out of 5]

"If I were an antiquarian, I would have eyes only for old stuff, but I am a historian. Therefore, I love life"

An unfinished manuscript on various historiographical concerns written by the author before he was captured and killed in WW2. Reading that at the start potentially primed me but I think you can really feel the context of where the book was written throughout. The references to the war are definitely more striking.

Really interesting read as I work on my vaguely causality centred research on the industrial revolution, couple of thoughts stood out to me including "He who has not lived among scholars does not realize how loath they ordinarily are to admit the innocence of a coincidence"