I got interested in Bloch through some things Norman Cantor wrote about him, and also I'm just trying to learn more about historiography in general. This channel seems really helpful and I'm surprised it still has under 500 subscribers. One general concept I still don't understand is how exactly do we distinguish between books that are useful for understanding the period they were written about from books only useful for understanding the period they were written in? To take Herodotus for example, if you needed to just learn the facts of the history of ancient Greece as fast as possible, you'd probably be better off with some modern day pop historian, right? But Herodotus is more valuable to history overall and more worth reading if you intend to study history deeply. So what I'm wondering is, when someone says 20th century historians like Marc Bloch are worth reading, do they mean worth it in the sense that the most up to date peer reviewed research is worth reading, or do they mean it more in the sense Herodotus or old primary sources are worth reading?
That encompasses a complex and interesting set of questions, which I probably could not cover in a whole episode. The first is to do with the difference between between primary and secondary sources. Herodotus will always be relevant because the work is a primary source for the period it describes, other works will always need to refer to it because it will never be superseded as evidence. But, yes secondary sources definitely have a useful lifetime, and that can be complicated. Pop histories and general introductions are trying to communicate what is known about questions contemporaries care about using language that is accessible - since all of those three things change over time, they tend to date very quickly (they also tend to be very useful for the relatively short period before they become dated for similar reasons). Specialist works often date more slowly, the notes in Stein's publication of the Rajatarangini, published in the 1890s, are still valuable as secondary literature. This is partly to do with how much new evidence accumulates, how radical theoretical changes are, etc. For example, I suspect if you picked up a copy of Bury (a century old or more) for information on the chronology of Classical Greece it would be basically sound, but the chronology in any book more than 20 years old on Early Historic India is pretty much worthless (it will mislead more than it enlightens). Works like Bloch's Historians Craft tend to have a longer shelf-life, because they are reflecting on practice and that changes more slowly. This is why Barbara Tuchman features in this set of talks despite being a popular historian, because her reflections on what she does have more staying power than her pop histories (in some ways more than other theorists because she is unusual among popular historians to have written those sorts of reflections). But even for method there is a definite shelf-life. Eventually what is useful gets so thoroughly embedded its better learnt through more recent texts. I can't imagine ever doing an episode on someone in the generation before Bloch in this way, because historical practice changed so dramatically in the early twentieth century. I don't think Ranke's methodological reflections would have much insight to offer, however important they were at the time. But some would disagree - Nathan Hill (I reference Nathan because his thoughts are available on CZcams) thinks Marx is still relevant (I'm doubtful but can see an argument). A lot of theorists think Hegel is still relevant (I'm confident they are wrong), and as I will cover in an episode this year some academics think a 14th century North African writer is still relevant (I think they are nuts). So, yeah, most of Bloch's work is probably no longer 'worth reading' in that sense. But some of it still is - the trick of course is to know which is which.
@@HistoricalPerspectiveRBr Thanks, I didn't expect a response so quickly. Looks like it's a cheap paperback, which is also an important consideration for me cause I'm not rich, so I think I'll check it out.
@@roundninjaif you have any interest in world war 2 history I highly recommend strange defeat. It’s a short, primary document providing a French perspective of the war. Marc Bloch is a pleasure to read and is often required reading for 20th century french history classes.
Excellent information on the beginning of historical method ۔
I got interested in Bloch through some things Norman Cantor wrote about him, and also I'm just trying to learn more about historiography in general. This channel seems really helpful and I'm surprised it still has under 500 subscribers. One general concept I still don't understand is how exactly do we distinguish between books that are useful for understanding the period they were written about from books only useful for understanding the period they were written in? To take Herodotus for example, if you needed to just learn the facts of the history of ancient Greece as fast as possible, you'd probably be better off with some modern day pop historian, right? But Herodotus is more valuable to history overall and more worth reading if you intend to study history deeply. So what I'm wondering is, when someone says 20th century historians like Marc Bloch are worth reading, do they mean worth it in the sense that the most up to date peer reviewed research is worth reading, or do they mean it more in the sense Herodotus or old primary sources are worth reading?
That encompasses a complex and interesting set of questions, which I probably could not cover in a whole episode. The first is to do with the difference between between primary and secondary sources. Herodotus will always be relevant because the work is a primary source for the period it describes, other works will always need to refer to it because it will never be superseded as evidence. But, yes secondary sources definitely have a useful lifetime, and that can be complicated. Pop histories and general introductions are trying to communicate what is known about questions contemporaries care about using language that is accessible - since all of those three things change over time, they tend to date very quickly (they also tend to be very useful for the relatively short period before they become dated for similar reasons). Specialist works often date more slowly, the notes in Stein's publication of the Rajatarangini, published in the 1890s, are still valuable as secondary literature. This is partly to do with how much new evidence accumulates, how radical theoretical changes are, etc. For example, I suspect if you picked up a copy of Bury (a century old or more) for information on the chronology of Classical Greece it would be basically sound, but the chronology in any book more than 20 years old on Early Historic India is pretty much worthless (it will mislead more than it enlightens).
Works like Bloch's Historians Craft tend to have a longer shelf-life, because they are reflecting on practice and that changes more slowly. This is why Barbara Tuchman features in this set of talks despite being a popular historian, because her reflections on what she does have more staying power than her pop histories (in some ways more than other theorists because she is unusual among popular historians to have written those sorts of reflections). But even for method there is a definite shelf-life. Eventually what is useful gets so thoroughly embedded its better learnt through more recent texts. I can't imagine ever doing an episode on someone in the generation before Bloch in this way, because historical practice changed so dramatically in the early twentieth century. I don't think Ranke's methodological reflections would have much insight to offer, however important they were at the time. But some would disagree - Nathan Hill (I reference Nathan because his thoughts are available on CZcams) thinks Marx is still relevant (I'm doubtful but can see an argument). A lot of theorists think Hegel is still relevant (I'm confident they are wrong), and as I will cover in an episode this year some academics think a 14th century North African writer is still relevant (I think they are nuts).
So, yeah, most of Bloch's work is probably no longer 'worth reading' in that sense. But some of it still is - the trick of course is to know which is which.
@@HistoricalPerspectiveRBr Thanks, I didn't expect a response so quickly. Looks like it's a cheap paperback, which is also an important consideration for me cause I'm not rich, so I think I'll check it out.
@@roundninjaif you have any interest in world war 2 history I highly recommend strange defeat. It’s a short, primary document providing a French perspective of the war. Marc Bloch is a pleasure to read and is often required reading for 20th century french history classes.
@@coles11q Thanks for the tip! I was able to find the book online and it's really interesting so far.
Giọng anh rất hay, cảm xúc nữa ạ.