The Historian’s Craft – Marc Bloch
Written in France during the Second World War, The Historian’s Craft by Marc Bloch was never
finished; its author was tragically killed by the Germans before he could complete the book. The
manuscript was later edited and published by Bloch’s friend, colleague and fellow thinker from
the ‘Annales’ school of History, Lucien Febvre. Bloch lays out his primary objective for writing
the book in his introduction: ‘to explain how and why a historian practises his trade’ and
significantly adds that, ‘it will then be the business of the reader to decide whether this trade is
worth practising.’ (p. 10.)
One of the most fundamental aspects to Bloch’s vision of the study of history is that he believed
that everything boiled down to man; history is ‘the science of men in time.’ (p. 23.) He stresses
that, ‘behind the features of landscape, behind tools or machinery, behind what appear to be the
most formalised written documents, and behind institutions...there are men.’ (p. 22.) Bloch
places great emphasis on a humanistic approach to the study of history; one that is less about
politics, governments or military achievements and more about the ordinary man.
‘A good historian is like the giant of a fairy tale. He knows that wherever he catches the scent of
human flesh, there his quarry lies.’ (p. 22) This reinforces Bloch’s idea of history centred on man
and also leads to another strand of his thought in Craft; that history must be viewed holistically.
He advocates the use of inter-disciplinary approaches when researching and writing history and
gives examples of when ‘the union of two disciplines is shown to be indispensible to any
attempt at explanation.’ (p. 21.)
An important view of Bloch’s in Craft is the presentation of history as a science with
methodologically specific approaches to study. Although, however much Bloch stresses history’s
status as a science and a craft, he also recognises how the study of history differs from the study
of mathematics for example (‘each science has its appropriate aesthetics of language.’ (p. 22.).
He understands that the accuracy which can be applied to maths can never be applied to history
and that ‘where calculation is impossible we are obliged to employ suggestion.’(p. 22.)
It is in his dissection and explanation of the use and validity of sources in which Bloch hopes to
aid historians in reaching their conclusions. He employs mathematical principles of probability
to evaluate sources. To Bloch, the historian is also a detective, who must be equipped with the
tools to critically analyse sources, with the aim of increasing the quality of their own work. At
the beginning of his chapter on Historical Analysis, Bloch makes a comparison between the
historian and the judge in Hades: ‘for a long time, the historian has passed for a sort of judge in
Hades, charged with meeting out praise or blame to dead heroes.’ (p. 115.) He dissuades the use
of such black and white labels and promotes the need for a historian to remain somewhat
neutral, particularly when dealing with personalities of men.
Finally, even though Bloch promotes history as a serious science and craft, he stresses the
importance of imagination and beauty in writing. ‘Let us guard against stripping our science of
its share of poetry. Let us also beware of the inclination, which I have detected in some, to be
ashamed of this poetic quality.’ (p. 7.) Bloch bestows guidance on how history should be written,
even including a paragraph on the proper use of footnotes.
Questions/points for discussion
To what extent/how was Bloch influenced by war and the political state of Europe?
Does it matter that the manuscript was unfinished? How could Febvre’s editorial choices
have changed the book?
Written in France during the Second World War, The Historian’s Craft by Marc Bloch was never
finished; its author was tragically killed by the Germans before he could complete the book. The
manuscript was later edited and published by Bloch’s friend, colleague and fellow thinker from
the ‘Annales’ school of History, Lucien Febvre. Bloch lays out his primary objective for writing
the book in his introduction: ‘to explain how and why a historian practises his trade’ and
significantly adds that, ‘it will then be the business of the reader to decide whether this trade is
worth practising.’ (p. 10.)
One of the most fundamental aspects to Bloch’s vision of the study of history is that he believed
that everything boiled down to man; history is ‘the science of men in time.’ (p. 23.) He stresses
that, ‘behind the features of landscape, behind tools or machinery, behind what appear to be the
most formalised written documents, and behind institutions...there are men.’ (p. 22.) Bloch
places great emphasis on a humanistic approach to the study of history; one that is less about
politics, governments or military achievements and more about the ordinary man.
‘A good historian is like the giant of a fairy tale. He knows that wherever he catches the scent of
human flesh, there his quarry lies.’ (p. 22) This reinforces Bloch’s idea of history centred on man
and also leads to another strand of his thought in Craft; that history must be viewed holistically.
He advocates the use of inter-disciplinary approaches when researching and writing history and
gives examples of when ‘the union of two disciplines is shown to be indispensible to any
attempt at explanation.’ (p. 21.)
An important view of Bloch’s in Craft is the presentation of history as a science with
methodologically specific approaches to study. Although, however much Bloch stresses history’s
status as a science and a craft, he also recognises how the study of history differs from the study
of mathematics for example (‘each science has its appropriate aesthetics of language.’ (p. 22.).
He understands that the accuracy which can be applied to maths can never be applied to history
and that ‘where calculation is impossible we are obliged to employ suggestion.’(p. 22.)
It is in his dissection and explanation of the use and validity of sources in which Bloch hopes to
aid historians in reaching their conclusions. He employs mathematical principles of probability
to evaluate sources. To Bloch, the historian is also a detective, who must be equipped with the
tools to critically analyse sources, with the aim of increasing the quality of their own work. At
the beginning of his chapter on Historical Analysis, Bloch makes a comparison between the
historian and the judge in Hades: ‘for a long time, the historian has passed for a sort of judge in
Hades, charged with meeting out praise or blame to dead heroes.’ (p. 115.) He dissuades the use
of such black and white labels and promotes the need for a historian to remain somewhat
neutral, particularly when dealing with personalities of men.
Finally, even though Bloch promotes history as a serious science and craft, he stresses the
importance of imagination and beauty in writing. ‘Let us guard against stripping our science of
its share of poetry. Let us also beware of the inclination, which I have detected in some, to be
ashamed of this poetic quality.’ (p. 7.) Bloch bestows guidance on how history should be written,
even including a paragraph on the proper use of footnotes.
Questions/points for discussion
To what extent/how was Bloch influenced by war and the political state of Europe?
Does it matter that the manuscript was unfinished? How could Febvre’s editorial choices
have changed the book?
