Bloch - Feudal Society

In the introduction to Feudal Society, Marc Bloch wrote that his concern in writing this book was for the sake of “[h]istory, not historians” (p. xxvii).  This statement sums up my adventure into this graduate degree.  So, with that beginning I began to read Feudal Society with a confidence that I had not experienced with the other required readings. 

First, it seems as was not written specifically with only the historian in mind.  In fact, T.S. Brown stated in his forward that Bloch’s admirers came more from the other social sciences than from the ranks of medieval historians (p. xii).  When Bloch did mention the historian’s craft, he appeared to be explaining the tools of the trade to people who were not necessarily his peers in his field (pp. 31, 52, 181, 206, & 212).  He truly seemed to be interested in writing about the feudal society of medieval Europe.  So, who was Bloch’s audience?  In my opinion, it was written mostly for the present and future leaders of government.  While Bloch had a genuine affinity for the study of medieval Europe and wanted to pass on his knowledge to others who cared about the period, he also lived through the Nazi occupation and would ultimately become a victim of that regime.  I believe that he had a desire to tell why the atrocity of totalitarian regimes could happen in Europe.    

Second, his detached descriptions of the foundations of law, government, and society in the feudal period struck a familiar tone.  His systematic organization, more topical than chronological, appealed to my study of governmental systems.  Moreover, his chapter that surveyed the feudal systems gave insight into the governments and societies of the various western European nations in a comparative form to modern governments.  He also wrote an entire section on the lessons learned from the invasions of the Arabs, Hungarians, and the Scandinavians, which is another part of governmental study.  If Bloch’s analytical style is indeed the form of writing used by historians of the 1930s and 1940s, I can see the value it adds to other fields.

My major criticism of his work is the almost complete lack of citation.  He explained his reasoning for this negation by stating that the body of text contained the necessary sources and that the references would be listed in the bibliography.  Unfortunately, it was difficult to pull sources out of the main body and my copy of the book had no bibliography.  This lack of citation of sources was a disappointment in an otherwise quality work.