Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography

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


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).

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


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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	markus-ol
View:	241 times
Download:	2 times

Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography

Documents