arnaldo momigliano and the history of historiography
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
1/9
Wesleyan niversity
Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of HistoriographyAuthor(s): Karl ChristSource: History and Theory, Vol. 30, No. 4, Beiheft 30: The Presence of the Historian: Essaysin Memory of Arnaldo Momigliano (Dec., 1991), pp. 5-12
Published by: Wileyfor Wesleyan UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505508.
Accessed: 12/12/2014 06:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Wileyand Wesleyan Universityare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistory
and Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wesleyanhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2505508?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2505508?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wesleyanhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
2/9
ARNALDO
MOMIGLIANO
AND
THE
HISTORY OF
HISTORIOGRAPHY
KARL
CHRIST
I
Inhishumorous
but at
the same
timequite
seriousafter-dinner
peechat
Bran-
deisUniversity,
ArnaldoMomigliano
ooked
back
onhis own
intellectual
evel-
opment:
In
a
sense,
in
my
scholarly
ife
I
have
done nothingelse
but to try
to
understand
what
I
owe
both
to
the Jewish
housein which
I
was brought
up
and
to
the Christian-Roman-Celtic
illage
n which
I
was
born. '
n a certain ense,
this
sentence
contains
the
key
not
only
to Momigliano's
ntellectual
mpetus,
but also
to the core of
his scholarly
work:
the
studies
n
the
field
of the
history
of historiography.
Unlike
so many present-day
historians,
Momigliano
did not proceed
ac-
cording
to the absolute dogmas
of
a new
program
of
historical
scholarship,
method,
or
perspective.
Rather,
his
scholarly
work
grew
organically
rom the
connection
between
personal
initiatives
and
existential
forces.
The
Jewish,
Italian,
and of course
he
continental
raditions
of his discipline
he assimilated
first; romthe
period
of his exile
n
England, hose
of theEnglish
andAmerican
worlds
ollowed
with
no lessintensity.
Through
his personal
appropriation
nd
reflection, heyweretransformedntomodes of criticalevaluation,mediation,
and
contemporaneity
ith an
unparalleled
readthof range
both
in time
and
in
space.
It is,
therefore,
ignificant
hat
for Momigliano
hedimension
of
the history
of
historiography
was
from the
beginning
not
an
isolated concern,
but
rather
one
closely
connected
with concrete
historical
problems,
with
the
investigation
of individual
ources
or
specific
phenomena
n
political
and
intellectual istory.
The
originality
f this
approach,
ts
priorities
and its results,becomes
evident
if we look at the milestones
n Momigliano's
esearches nd
activities.
Thehistoriographical
lements
of
the tradition
are alreadysignificant
n
the
1934monograph
nPhilipof
Macedonia.2
hebookopens
with
anacknowledg-
1. Arnaldo
Momigliano,
Ottavocontribute
alla
storiadeglistudi
classici
e del mondo antico
(Rome,
1987),
432. The present
essay builds
on many of the formulations nd reflections
n the
more
extensive hapter
n Momigliano
n
my Neue
Profile
deraltenGeschichteDarmstadt,
990),
248-294. That
longer
essay containsdetailed
documentation
f the
assessments offer
here.
2. Filippo
l
Macedone.
Saggi
ullastoriagreca
del
IVsecolo a. C. (Florence,
1934).Seealso
the
new edition,
with corrections,
new prefaceby
the author,
and a bibliographicalppendixby
the
authorandGiampieraArrigoni Milan,1987).
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
3/9
6 KARL CHRIST
mentof the achievements f K. J. BelochandG. Grote- withpraise
or Beloch's
commitment o source
criticismand for
Grote's common
sense.
Above all,
Momiglianopraised
JohannGustav
Droysen: Droysen
n
fact recognized or
once and for all thatthe essentialcharacteristic f Hellenisms theconstitution
of
a
cosmopolitan
civilization. 3 ut this was a return o
the
early Droysen-
the primoDroysen ;Momigliano ejected
he
secondoDroysen
f the second
edition
of
the
History of Hellenism,
which
appeared
n
1871,
just
after the
founding
of the German
Empire.
For
Momiglicno,
his
second
Droysen, he
historianof Prussianpolitics, had emphasized he power politics
of national
unification hrough he parallel f the rolesof Macedonia ndPrussia.The early
Droysen, on the other hand, hadtaken the priorityof fundamental eligious
problemsas his startingpoint.
In
the study TheHistoricalGenesisandPresent-day unction
of the Concept
of
Hellenism, Momiglianopursued
urther
he
ramifications f the
problem
of Hellenism
n
historical
cholarship.4 o clarify
he
assumptions
or the evalu-
ation of Greek
history
in
the
early
nineteenth
century,
he referredback to
Heyne, Herder,and,
most of
all,
to
Humboldt.'But he
referredalso to Wolf,
Boeckh, and Hegel
in
his
analysis,
which thus
provided
a
clearprofileof the
backgroundof Droysen'sconceptof Hellenism.
Momigliano awDroysen's chievementn termsof the firstdecisivenvestiga-
tion of
the
Greekworld
n
the contextof
Christianity.
At
the same
ime, Momig-
liano offereda perspective
on the multifaceted
application
of the
conceptof
Hellenism
n
nineteenth-
nd
twentieth-century
lassical
scholarship.
Most
im-
portant
or
him
and
for us now
was the task of
clarifying
he
relationships
between
Hellenistic
and Romancivilization
within
he
framework f the
Impe-
rium
Romanum.
From the concern with the problematicof Droysen'spositionand of Hel-
lenismin general,Momigliano's tudies n the history of historiography ro-
ceeded n
twodirections,
both
of
whichwere
motivated
no doubtalso
by
external
impulses.
On
one side,
he
devoted
himself
to
a
general
review
of the Italian
investigationsnto Greekhistory;on theother,he examined he structure f the
historyof the ImperiumRomanum.His 1934 bibliographical
tudy of works
in
Greekhistorywas
set in
verypersonal erms.6ForMomiglianodid
not
simply
survey
he
pertinentpublications
n Italian
ancient
history
and classical cholar-
ship; rather,
he formed
his
account nto
an
overviewof
contemporary
talian
intellectual ulture, ncluding
he
philosophical ndeavors
f
Croce
andGentile.
A
short time later Momiglianocompleted
his
study,
La
formazionedella
3.
11
Droysenha infattivisto una volta
per sempre
heil
carattere ssenzialedell'Ellenismo
la costituzionedi una civiltacosmopolitica :
ilippo
il
Macedone,xvi.
4.
GiornaleCriticodella FilosofiaItaliana
16(1935), 10-37;also Contributo lla storia degli
studi classici Rome, 1955), 165-194.
5. In this regard,see
L'Antichit&
ell'Ottocenton Italia e Germania, d.
K.
Christ
and
A.
Momigliano Bologna, 1988).
6. StudieniuberriechischeGeschichte
nItalien on 1913-1933, inItalienischeKulturberichte,
ed. Romanisches eminarder UniversitatLeipzig1 (1934), 163-195;Contributo,299-326.
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
4/9
MOMIGLIANO AND
THE
HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY 7
moderna storiografia sull'impero
romano.
7
Certain experiences in the presenta-
tion of the history of the Roman Empire
for the Enciclopedia Italiana had led
him
to recognize that the universality of the Imperium Romanum cannot be
adequately understood without simultaneous consideration of the Christian
church.8 In this respect modern
scholarship on the Roman Empire was entirely
unsatisfactory;
in
order to correct this picture, Momigliano pointed to the path
of
modern historiography
on
the
Roman
Empire
with
particular
reference
to
his basic idea. Machiavelli, Sigonius and
Gothofredus, Tillemont and Bossuet,
Montesquieu and Voltaire, Herder
and Gibbon, Niebuhr, Hegel, Mommsen,
and
Ranke -all
founding conceptions of the modern period were again called
to
mind,
in
order
to document the
narrowness of
present-day specialized
schol-
arship. Just as in the case of Hellenism, the transformation in the overall inter-
pretation of an historical process was
revealed.
II
During his years in Oxford, Momigliano was
able to pursue
his studies in the
history of historiography with ever more intensity.
As
early
as
1944,
the
essay
Friedrich Creuzer and Greek Historiography was concerned chiefly with the
reassessment of a fundamental classical work.9 Friedrich Creuzer's monograph
Die historischeKunstder Griechen n ihrer
Entstehung
und
Fortbildung The
Origin
and
Development
of the Historical
Art
of the
Greeks ; 1803)
was
placed
in
the
context
of its German
intellectual world; Creuzer was reassociated
with
the brothers
Schlegel, and
with
Heyne and
Schelling.
As
Momigliano
wrote:
Indeed, t belongs o those years around
1800which markthe beginning
of
a new era
for
historical tudies
n
Europeand can still offermuch
nspiration.
What was
done
in
ancient
history
was
then
immediately
elevant
o
history
in
general.
The methods of
GreekandRomanhistorywerestillexemplary.Theresultshusobtainedwereof general
interest.Ancienthistoryhas
now
becomea provincialbranch
of
history.
It
can
recover
its
lost prestigeonly
if
it provesagain capableof
offering
esults
affecting
he whole of
our
historicaloutlook. One
of
the
waysis, quite simply,
to
regain
contact
with
those
writers f the past
who
treated lassical ubjects
of
vital
mportance
o
history
n
general.
Creuzer
produced
a book of this kind.10
Already at this point
it
was clear
that
Momigliano's understanding
of
the
history of historiography did not
imply absorption
in the
sterile, antiquarian
inventory
of tradition. From
the outset it aimed to
strengthen
the
position
of
7. The
Formation of Modern Historiography on the
Roman Empire,
Rivista storica italiana
48
(1936), 1:35-60;
2:19-48. Offprint: Turin, 1938.
Also, Contributo, 107-164.
8. See
the
articles on Roma and
Impero
in
the
Enciclopedia Italiana (1936), XXIX, 628-
654; 661-663.
9. The essay appeared first in the
Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 9
(1946),
152-163;
subsequently
in
the
Contributo, 233-248. For an account of
Momigliano's contacts
during
his exile and the second world war,
see Oswyn Murray's essay Momigliano e
la cultura
inglese,
Rivista storica
italiana
100
(1988), 422-439. [This essay
appears
in
translation on
pages
49-64
of
this volume-ed.]
10. Contributo, 233-234.
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
5/9
8
KARL
CHRIST
ancient history for the present,and at the same time to revitalize
t
for the
future.
This
purpose
is at the heartof the
especially
rich
study
of
Ancient
History
and
the Antiquarian. Momigliano
heredescribes he
development f
antiquariannterestsn the modernperiodas a newhumanism ;heageof the
antiquarians,
e
argues,
ed
precisely
o
a
revolution
n historical
method.
2
For
the
antiquariansaught
how
o
use
non-literary vidence,
but
they
also
made
people
reflecton the difference etween
ollecting
acts
and
nterpreting
acts. '3
Once havingcalled attention
o the
origins
of
antiquarian
esearch
n
antiq-
uity, Momigliano
urned o the controversies f the seventeenth nd
eighteenth
centuriesabout the
value
of historicalsources.
In
particular,he
recalled
one
of the
greatest
and most
exemplary
achievements
n the
eighteenth-century
examinationof the transmissionof non-literaryevidence: the discovery of
pre-Roman taly. The critiqueof the conflictbetweenantiquarians
nd
histo-
rians n the eighteenth nd nineteenth enturies evealed
a
surpising onnection:
The antiquary escuedhistoryfrom the sceptics,
even
though
he did
not
write it. His
preference or the originaldocuments,his ingenuity
n
discovering orgeries,
his skill n
collecting
and
classifying
he evidence
and,
above
all,
his
unbounded ove
for
learning
are the
antiquary's
ontribution o the ethics f the historian.'4
The
high point of
the first
postwarphase
in
Momigliano's oncern
with
the
history of historiography s the inaugural ecture as the professor of ancient
historyat UniversityCollegeLondon
n
1952.
In
the addresson GeorgeGrote
andtheStudyof GreekHistory, altogether ne of his mostimpressiveectures,
Momiglianopaid homage,in a way, to the great iberal raditionof University
College,
to his
distinguishedpredecessors
n the chair of ancient
history, and
not least to GeorgeGrotehimself. His expositionprovideda deeply nformed
survey
of the modern
historiography
n
ancientGreece,
an
analysis
of
the
crisis
in
this
field,
and one of the
most vigorous arguments
or its
significance.
Momiglianobeganwiththe late eighteenth-centuryorkof WilliamMitford
and
John
Gillies,
workswhichushered
n
a
new
epoch
in
the British
historiog-
raphy of Greece. Whatwas really new,
he
wrote, was, however, political
discussion mbodied
n a
Greek
History,
such
as
one could read
n Mitford
and
Gillies. '6
Momigliano
hen
connected
these
highly
influential
English
works
with
the previous ontinental s well as Irishprojectsof
C. M.
Olivier, he Abbe
de
Mably
and
ThomasLeland.
He
emphasized articularly
eland's
omparison
of
Philip
II
of Macedoniawith Frederick he Great.
Thus
underthe
rubric
of
the historyof historiography,Momiglianoreestablished,as it were,his own,
personal
ies
to
Filippo
l
Macedone, along
with the
reminder,
made
en
pas-
11. Journal
of the
Warburg ndCourtauld
nstitutes
13
(1950),
285-315;
Contributo,
7-106.
12.
Contributo, 7.
13. Ibid., 69.
14. Ibid., 102.
15.
Ibid.,
213-231.
16. Ibid., 215.
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
6/9
MOMIGLIANO AND THE HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
9
sant, that already
in
the seventeenth century,
Samuel Pufendorf had chosen the
Macedonian king as the object of his research.
The example of John Gillies, the anti-democratic historian
of Greece,
afforded a parallel between contemporary political phenomena and evalua-
tions within Greek history.
The result of this
far-reaching investigation
was
as
follows:
However hat may be,
the
simple facts
I
have stated
compel
us to revise deas
on
the
development
f
historiography
n
the nineteenth
entury.
t is
commonly
believed and
I
have said so myself-that Niebuhrwas chieflyresponsible or starting
he discussion
on
Demosthenes nd Philip
in
Germanyduring
he
Napoleonic
wars and that Droysen
discovered he
analogy
betweenMacedonand Prussia.
Droysen
s also creditedwith the
original
dea of a
history
of
the
period ntervening
betweenAlexanderand
Augustus.
It now appears hat the discussion
of
the fourth century
n
terms
of
modernpolitical
principles-and even of Prussia-had startedalmosta centurybefore
Droysen.Though
Droysen'spenetrating
vision
of
the
Hellenisticage as
the
age
of
transition
between
Paganismand Christianity
annot be
compared
with
Gillies'
imited
political
nterests,
it is undeniable hat he had a predecessor
n
this respect
oo.'7
Momigliano thus suggested that George Grote's project of a new
representa-
tion of
Greek
history
had to
compete not only
with,
Mitford's work, but also
with
that
of
Thirlwall,
which
had begun
to
appear
in
1835.
But
although
Thirlwall had been strongly influenced by the German philosophical and schol-
arly tradition,
Grote's
approach
revealed
itself as
much
more direct and
per-
sonal:
Grote
..
found
all that
he
wanted
n
ancient
Greece: he
origins
of
democratic
overn-
ment
and
the
principles
of freedom of
thought
and of rational
inquiry.
His
major
discovery
n
the fieldof Greek
hought-the
revaluation
f
the
Sophists
was the result
of his
search nto
the
relations
betweenGreek
democracy
and intellectual
progress.18
In
his analysis
of
Grote's great work, Momigliano sought not only
to uncover
his personal valuations and goals, but at
the
same time
to
place the author
within the
social, political,
and
intellectual structures of
his time.
Above
all
he
reinforced
the links with the
philosophical
radicals-with
John
Stuart
Mill
as
well as with Sir George Lewis. Nevertheless, the individuality of Grote's work
was underscored: What gives Grote's History its almost unique distinction is
this
combination
of
passionate
moral and
political interests,
vast
learning,
and
respect
for the evidence. '9
Impressively, Momigliano
documented
the uncom-
monly powerful resonances of Grote's work across Europe:
All
the
German
studies on Greek History of the last fifty years of the nineteenth century are
either for or
against
Grote. 20
If
Momigliano then traced the phenomena of
the crisis in
Greek
history of
that
time,
it
may
be said that not a
few
of them still
apply
in
our own.
Equally
17.
Ibid.,
217.
18.
Ibid.,
221.
19.
Ibid.,
222.
20. Ibid., 225.
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
7/9
10
KARL CHRIST
applicable oday may be the
generalobservationmadein the consideration f
Grote: GreekHistory s
essential o the formationof the liberalmind,
but in
its turn the liberalmind
is
religious
n
examining he evidence. 2'
Notwithstanding is reservations n mattersof detail,Momiglianoasserted:
When
all
is
said,
it
remains
rue that Grote
possessed
he
all-redeeming
irtue
of
the
liberalmind.He was determined
o understand ndrespect vidence
romwhatever art
it came;
he
recognized reedom
of speech, olerance,and compromise
s the conditions
of
civilization;
he
respected
entiment,
but admiredreason.22
No matterhow contingenton the hour these observations
may have been,
Momiglianohad everyreason o identifywiththe tradition
whichhad informed
his teacher, Gaetano de Sanctis,and his entire school.
III
The programmatic ptakeof the London inaugural ecture
was followed by a
long seriesof individual tudies n the widest varietyof
formats. Only a very
generalsurvey
will
be attemptedhere. Highly personalbiographicalportraits
of significant
istorians ndotherscholarsof
antiquity
aketheir
placealongside
comprehensive nalyses of
classic historicalworks; systematicsurveys
of re-
searchappearalongsidetightlyconstructedabstractson historicalproblems;
critical
discussions f
theramificationsf new methodsappearalongside
tudies
in the
historyof reception.23
list aloneof the namesof the figures reatedalong
the immense
spectrumof Momigliano'spurview
ncludes
Petrarch,Scipione
Maffei,Vico, Gibbon,
Niebuhr,Bernays,Ranke, Fustel
de Coulanges,Burck-
hardt, Beloch,
Eduard Meyer, Max Weber, Croce, Rostovtzeff,
De
Sanctis,
Fraccaro,Dumezil, Leo Strauss,
Vidal-Naquet,MarcelMauss and these are
only
the
most
important.
A finalphase nMomigliano's ffortsnthis fieldwas nitiatedn 1972, heyear
of
the first
n
the renowned eriesof seminars
n the
history
of
historiography
at the
Scuola
Normale di Pisa. Examinedthere
in
close
sequence
were the
contributionsof
Wilamowitz,
Eduard
Schwartz,
Karl
Reinhardt,Freeman,
EduardMeyer,HermannUsener,
KarlOtfried
Muller,
JohannJacob
Bachofen,
and other
representatives
f
the
European
lassical
radition.The
problems
n
the
history
of German
cholarship
wereaddressed
s
well,despite
he
degree
of
personalsuffering
hat
Momigliano
himself had
enduredat the hands
of
its
perverteddescendants.A whole series of late studies, for example German
Romanticism
and Italian ClassicalStudies and
Classical
Scholarship
or a
Classical
Country:
The Case of
Italy
in
the Nineteenth
and Twentieth
Centu-
21.
Ibid., 230.
22.
Ibid., 231.
23. The
sources
for
the studies referred to
in
this passage are collected in
the eight volumes of
the Contributi
llastoriadegli
studi
classici del mondoantico(Rome,
1955-1987).
The ninth
and
tenth volumes
in
the series are
forthcoming. See especially
the
Quarto contribute
(Rome, 1969),
667-727; Sesto contribute (Rome, 1980),
843-860;
Ottavo contribute
(Rome, 1987), 433-449.
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
8/9
MOMIGLIANO
ND
THE
HISTORY
OF
HISTORIOGRAPHY
11
ries, documented once again the
focal points
of an intellectual
ellipse
which
Momigliano always
considered extraordinarily fertile.24
IV
Momigliano made no absolute claims for his
own
method;
nor did
he
presume
to have evolved
an
entirely
new
theory
of
historical
scholarship or,
still
less,
an
Historic for
our
own time.
He
loved
the
concrete work
in the field
of
the
history
of
historiography and spoke only very rarely
in
the
fundamental terms of the
following
two
examples.
In
the
preface
to this
1966 Studies
in
Historiography,
he wrote: I am a student
of the ancient world, and my primary
aim is
to
understand and evaluate the Greek and Roman historians and the modern
historians of the ancient
world. Neither common sense nor intuition can replace
a critical knowledge of past
historians. 25And
in his
discussion of
new trends
in
historicism, he wrote:
The inevitable orollaryof
historicism s history
of
historiography
s the mode
of ex-
pressingawareness hat
historicalproblemshave themselvesa history. This, however,
has producedbooks the sole
purposeof which s to provethat everyhistorianand any
historicalproblem s historically
onditioned
with
the additionalplatitude
hat even a
verdict
of
this kind by the historianof historiographys historically onditioned.
Such an
expression
of
purerelativism,
n
my opinion,
is not
defensible.History
of
historiography,ike any other
historicalresearch,has the purpose of discriminating
between ruthand falsehood.As
a kind
of
intellectual istorywhichpurports
o
examine
the
achievements
f
a historian, t has to distinguishbetweensolutions of historical
problemswhichfail to convince
and solutions hypotheses;models; deal types)which
arenot
worth
being
restatedand
developed.
To write
a
critical
history
of
historiography
one
must
know
both the authors one studies and the historicalmaterialthey have
studied.26
V
Momigliano's lifelong theme was
the
historical dimension of the contacts among
cultures, religions,
and civilizations. For this reason we can trace an arch from
the
concerns of his
scholarly work back to
the
experiences
of his
youth.
It
is
possible
that in
the
period
of his old
age,
his
declining physical health,
and the
awareness of
approaching
death,
the
roots
of his existence and the
origins
of
his own
development became
clearer to
him
than they had been
in
the
earlier
years of constant journeying and hence of the constantly changing intellectual
impressions
made on
him
by
his
varying spheres of activity.
The
identity
of
life
and work
remains
unmistakable.
24. German Romanticism and Italian Classical Studies, in Storia
delta
Storiografia 9 (1986),
62-74; also, Ottavo contribute
(Rome, 1987), 59-72. Classical Scholarship for
a
Classical Country:
The Case of Italy in the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,
TheAmerican Scholar
(Winter 1988),
119-128; Ottavo contribute,
73-89.
25. Studies in
Historiography (London, 1966), viii.
26. Historicism Revisited, in Sesto contribute (Rome, 1980), 31-32.
This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography
9/9
12
KARL CHRIST
If, in this
respect,the
London inauguralectureof 1952
came to be valued
as exemplary
f his convictions, his
wouldbeentirely orroborated y
a review
of his entire
work in the field of history
of
historiography.
The respect for
evidence romwhateverpart it came, for which he held Grote in suchhigh
esteem,and
above all
the allegiance o
the
iberalmind
whichGroteexempli-
fied remainedprimary
values. The history
of historiographyhould not
allow
itself to be compromised
itherby dogma
or by ideological
formulations.
Momigliano
ertainlywelcomed
he worldwide xpansion
of scholarly
work
in the fieldof the historyof
historiographynd its development
hrough
nstitu-
tions and new publications,
a
process
in
which he actively
collaborated
not
least in the
life of this very
journal, with which he enjoyed
a long and close
association.But at the sametime he saw more clearlyand earlier han others
the dangers hat grewwith
the field.
For this reasonhe referred
ime and again
to the dialectic
between heinvestigation
f sourcesand thehistoryof
historiog-
raphy; for this reason he
grew no less tired in his concern
for an adequate
understanding
f the transmission f ancient
sources
han
he did
in
his revival
of an
at least
partiallydissipated radition.
According o Momigliano,
contactwith
the classicmastersof historiography
shouldservenot only as the backdrop or
the development f
modern nnova-
tionsandperspectives,but should eadfirstandforemostto the strengthening
of the intellectualpotentialof the discipline,
o its vitalization
and
security
n
the face of the fashionable rends
which threaten rom all
sides.
In
his
view,
only
the
safeguarding
f the historical
oundationsand preciseknowledge
of
the
history
of historiography
olidlybased
on
them would
ensure he
continua-
tion of
historical
scholarship nto the future.
As all his
new
initiatives
have
always shown,
the consequences
of his convictions n
this area stretched
ar
beyond
the traditionalboundariesof ancient history.
It is clear that Momigliano'sperspectivesand priorities n the history of
historiography
annotsimplybe duplicated
r extended.
The uniqueexistential
conditionsof
his
scholarly
work aremuch too strong
for that.
But the appeal
to the great masters of
historiography
which he advocated
steadfastlyas a
counterbalance
o the
tendencies
o
rhetoricize, ntellectualize,
nd ideologize
history
will alwaysentail
for us a return o ArnaldoMomigliano
himselfas the
mark of his enduringpresence
n our enterprise.
Philipps-Universitdt
Marburg
TRANSLATED
FROM
THE GERMAN BY MICHAEL
P.
STEINBERG
Thi t t d l d d f 128 176 254 30 F i 12 D 2014 06 30 27 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp