Essays in ancient and modern historiography

by Arnaldo Momigliano

Colección de ensayos y estudios de Arnaldo Momigliano que constituye el conjunto más importante de escritos breves de cualquier investigador contemporáneo en los campos de la historia y de la civilización clásicas. La obra de Momigliano, nos hace reflexionar sobre la historia antigua y acerca de la interpretación histórica en general.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

387 pages, Hardcover

First published January 28, 1977

Reviews

[Judy]

I read the section on Vico's Scienza Nuova: Romane 'Bestioni & Roman 'Eroi'
"One of the few authentically great minds in the field of history, he eludes his own historians." p.253
Giambattista Vico's solitude in his day was real enough. It can be compared with Baruch Spinoza's solitude in his own day." p. 253
"...One need not go beyond the first paragraph of the first Scienza Nuova (1725) to find this implicit reference to Spinoza: 'we wish to be a force superior to nature...which is to be found solely in a God who is not that very nature itself.' Ultimately Spinoza provided the model for the mos geometricus of the the second Scienza Nuova (1730). Vico found himself alone because he tried to reestablish the distinction between Hebrews and Gentiles, at a price which hardly anybody was prepared to pay in the early eighteenth century. The price was to concede to the XII Fables to to Homer the same authority on questions of human origins which the Bible had possessed since the triumph of Christianity." p. 254
"To explain what separated Vico from scholars with similar interests we must return to the special kind of dualism he introduced between sacred and profane history. He put all morality and all rationality on the side of sacred history and saw in profane history the development of irrational instincts, truculent imagination, violent injustice - which Providence knew how to guide to its own ends. The question whether Vico's solution was orthodox from the contemporary Catholic point of view is irrelevant because no ecclesiastical authority disputed his orthodoxy.....what matters is that his theory did not really interest the ordinary Catholic scholar, or the libertine, or the extreme anticurialist......Vico attributed too much importance to the Old Testament and too little to the New Testament to be relevant to his Italian contemporaries." p.256
"This manifesto amounted to a declaration of war against the new Cartesian culture and was in keeping with the selection of four old masters - Plato, Tacitus, Bacon, Grotius - as guides towards the Scienze Nuovoa. In practice, Vico made little use of Plato and Tacitus: they remained pieces of classical scenery, the one contemplating man as he should be, the other as he was." p.258
"Finally, we must remember that in his youth, about 1690, Vico had been a friend of the epicureans who were indicted by the Holy office for their belief that there were wise men in the world before Adam. This was the theory of Isaac de La Peyrére (1655), which Vico mentioned in the Scienza Nuova as contrary to true religion. The exact impact on Vico of his early association with freethinkers - on which the Autobiography is naturally silent - must remain doubtful. But on the whole it seems clear that from the vantage ground of the Scienza Nuovo Vico criticized views on chronology, on the secret wisdom of the pagans, and on the notion of Natural Law to which he himself had been partial in previous years." p 261

[Tony · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my history professors would say if a student had not taken historiography, they knew nothing of history. Real history. He was the only one who taught the course at the uni I attended, so he knew everyone who took or, not uncommonly, avoided his difficult course. He would be glad I remember his words and took the time to read this excellent collection of essays. May he rest in peace.

Anyway, this book shows by example how to do historiography. Know your history then know who wrote your history, their points of view. Their philosophy. Where they were trained in which time period to show their approach to history. Know these off the top of your head. Professor Momigliano drops names constantly. His sources and his own thoughts are clearly separated from one another so there is no confusion.

This is an inspirational work well done. Even if you are unsure or completely ignorant of the specific topic an essay discusses in this book, read it anyway to get a feel, to get a grasp, of how a proper discussion and analysis of history should be executed and what it should look like. You won't leave disappointed or filled with complaints once the reading of all this book is done.