What do you think?
Rate this book
Sather Classical Lectures
The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Sather Classical Lectures)
Here, at last, are the long-awaited Sather Classical Lectures of the great historian Arnaldo Momigliano, In a masterly survey of the origins of ancient historiography, Momigliano captures those features of an ancient historian's work that not only gave it importance in its own day but also encouraged imitation and exploitation in later centuries. He reveals the extent to which Greek, Persian, and Jewish historians influenced the Western historiographic tradition, and then goes on to examine the first Roman historians and the emergence of national history. In the course of his exposition, he traces the development of antiquarian studies as distinctive branch of historical research from antiquity to the modern period, discusses the place of Tacitus in historical thought, and explores the way in which ecclesiastical historiography has developed a tradition of its own. All these lectures illustrate Momigliano's unrivaled ability to combine the study of classical texts and the history of classical scholarship. First delivered in 1962, the lectures were revised during the next fifteen years and then held for annotation that was never completed. They are now published from the author's manuscripts, collated and checked by Momigliano's literary executor, Anne Marie Meyer, of the Warburg Institute, with a foreword by Riccardo Di Donato, of the University of Pisa. The text is printed as the author left it. Sather Classical Lectures, 54
180 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
2 people are currently reading
190 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 30, 2014
Recommended for historians. 500(ish) word review on my blog: http://dearreaderblog.com/2014/06/30/...
Read
April 25, 2024"In pre-exilic times the Jews had chronicles of their kings. The author or authors of the present Books of Kings used them. But the Books of Kings we read now are not comparable with the ordinary Royal Chronicles we know from Assyria and must assume to have existed in Persia. The Books of Kings are a record of events connected with the relationship between Jehovah and the Hebrew nation as a whole. This of course applies even more to the definite post exilic products which we call the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah and Chronicles. These are the histories of a religious society. Two or three centuries later the author of the First Book of Maccabees showed this tradition of the political and religious historian was still alive among the Jews.
In Greece, chronicles played a modest part, if any, in the origins of Greek historiography. Books on individual nations and accounts of big wars almost certainly preceded local history. Thanks to Herodotus and Thucydides the Greeks acquired what was going to remain their characteristic historiography, the history of one big historical event or of one or more cities in their internal upheavals and external warfare. Starting from very different presuppositions Greeks and Jews both developed a kind of history which was not a chronicle of individual kings or heroes, but a chronicle of a political community. Both the Jewish and Greek type of political history broke with the Persian or more generally Oriental type of history centered on the performances of individual kings or heroes: it expressed the life of societies deliberating and acting with clear purposes under the leadership of far-seeing men " pp. 16-17
"It is yet a further arbitrary generalization to maintain that a Christian historian will write better history than a pagan historian simply because he is Christian. Herodatus is better than any medieval historian I know of with the possible exception of Ibn Khaldur - who was not a Christian and believed circular processes of history. " p. 30
"What I think is typically Greek is the critical attitude towards the recording of events, that is, the development of critical methods of enabling us to distinguish between facts and fancies. To the best of my knowledge no historiography earlier than the Greeks or independent of it developed these critical methods; and we have inherited the Greek methods." p. 30
"Hecataeus did find an objective criterion for a choice between facts and fancies. He was not longer at the mercy of the Muses. he turned to foreign evidence." p. 32
"...the pre-Greek stage of Latin history writing involves some very important aspects of Latin culture: how it suddenly jumped from a stage of crude annalistic historical writing, first in Greek... then in Latin; and how it created the prototype of modern national history." p. 81
"The Romans, not the Greeks transmitted to the Renaissance the notion of national history. Livy was the master. " p. 81
"Like the Greeks, the Roman historians remained essentially equipped either to collect and criticize mythical traditions or to observe and report contemporary history. They were hardly able to examine the historical as opposed to the mythical past., if by examination we mean a systematic (not an occasional) study of primary evidence. They could collate and criticize reports by preceding historians, but their study of more remote history never had the value and cogency of their study of contemporary history.....: p. 107
In Greece, chronicles played a modest part, if any, in the origins of Greek historiography. Books on individual nations and accounts of big wars almost certainly preceded local history. Thanks to Herodotus and Thucydides the Greeks acquired what was going to remain their characteristic historiography, the history of one big historical event or of one or more cities in their internal upheavals and external warfare. Starting from very different presuppositions Greeks and Jews both developed a kind of history which was not a chronicle of individual kings or heroes, but a chronicle of a political community. Both the Jewish and Greek type of political history broke with the Persian or more generally Oriental type of history centered on the performances of individual kings or heroes: it expressed the life of societies deliberating and acting with clear purposes under the leadership of far-seeing men " pp. 16-17
"It is yet a further arbitrary generalization to maintain that a Christian historian will write better history than a pagan historian simply because he is Christian. Herodatus is better than any medieval historian I know of with the possible exception of Ibn Khaldur - who was not a Christian and believed circular processes of history. " p. 30
"What I think is typically Greek is the critical attitude towards the recording of events, that is, the development of critical methods of enabling us to distinguish between facts and fancies. To the best of my knowledge no historiography earlier than the Greeks or independent of it developed these critical methods; and we have inherited the Greek methods." p. 30
"Hecataeus did find an objective criterion for a choice between facts and fancies. He was not longer at the mercy of the Muses. he turned to foreign evidence." p. 32
"...the pre-Greek stage of Latin history writing involves some very important aspects of Latin culture: how it suddenly jumped from a stage of crude annalistic historical writing, first in Greek... then in Latin; and how it created the prototype of modern national history." p. 81
"The Romans, not the Greeks transmitted to the Renaissance the notion of national history. Livy was the master. " p. 81
"Like the Greeks, the Roman historians remained essentially equipped either to collect and criticize mythical traditions or to observe and report contemporary history. They were hardly able to examine the historical as opposed to the mythical past., if by examination we mean a systematic (not an occasional) study of primary evidence. They could collate and criticize reports by preceding historians, but their study of more remote history never had the value and cogency of their study of contemporary history.....: p. 107
October 26, 2025
Arnaldo Momigliano 義大利出身，前一個世紀知名的古典歷史學家，中國史學界翻譯了不少他的專著或文章，本書是他加州大學柏克萊分校所做的講座稿，內容是嘗試回答六個作者認為重要的古典史學上的問題。
Momigliano首先提出的是波斯史學、希臘史學跟猶太(希伯來)史學的差異。作者指出，波斯人記錄歷史是以國王為中心，文詞簡單，根本還算不上成熟的體系，。另外兩個，猶太史學包山包海的紀錄，但他們不重視事實的判別，或者是說，在其神學體系裡，一切在現代人眼中看來不可思議的傳說也是真實的歷史。希臘人則不同，他們首先發現文詞結構上重要性，跟著學會要求審視記錄的虛偽與可信度。分別做到這兩點的就是接下來要談的希羅多德跟修昔底德。
在西方史學界，有很長的一段時間後者的名聲是遠勝過前者，似乎很多同行的都對希羅多德那種文筆優美，但不鑑別事實的記錄手法感到不悅，甚至認為他是個“騙子”。事實上修昔底德就是這麼認為，在他眼中，從所有現在的情況都是過去歷史的產物，所以從當代史去研究跟探討即可找出人類行為中可以帶來的教訓，所以他撰寫自己親身體驗的那場戰爭的歷史，致力於寫出最“真實”的篇章以供後人借鏡。修昔底德很長的一段時間都是人們的楷模。直到文藝復興後，史學開始朝向多元化邁進，對美洲的新探索使人想起了希羅多德對其他世界的描述。於是大家不再厚此薄彼，而是從這兩大史家中截長補短。
古文物過去多半被當做是一種收藏，但隨著大量的考古發現跟學者有系統的整理後，逐漸轉變成一個學科，演化成專門的研究途徑。今天我們所熟悉的人類學、社會學等，都可以在這之中找到淵源，Momigliano在結論時也說：「歷史學跟社會學是否該永遠分成兩個學科？」
不論是修昔底德還是希羅多德，撰寫的都不是“希臘人”的歷史，真正開始“民族的史學”，是羅馬的匹克脫，雖然他是吸收了被征服者的特點才發展出這種風格，不過隨著開花結果的是如李維、約瑟夫斯跟塔西陀。特別是最後一位，他為羅馬史學樹立了長久的典範--一種多元視角的編年史，對專制主義的批判，帶有民俗學味道的紀傳等，各種不同的寫作。當然，塔西陀最為不朽的地方，就是他揭示何謂“暴君”，Momigliano說，拿破崙讀到這位古代歷史學家的書就會生氣。塔西陀的思想在政治學也是很有影響力。
作者最後回答的基督教史學。做為同樣為神學服務的基督教史學，是不能有任何獨立的批判精神，雖然尤西比烏等樹立了普世史，後來的各地教會史家撰寫了地方史，但在他們之中，都找不到史學需要的那種精神。以至於作者在卷末嚴肅的提問：在今時今日，教會史學是否還有存在的必要？不過他認為這可以寫成另外一本書而沒有說完。
本書的翻譯基本流暢，而本書是Momigliano的講稿，也比較通俗易懂，沒有什麼太讓人云裡霧裡的東拉西扯，而且有時會帶一點詼諧。像他提到如今希羅多德與修昔底德被現代人並列時說：「希羅多德本人可能不太在乎，但修昔底德如果知道此事，一定驚駭萬分。」
Momigliano首先提出的是波斯史學、希臘史學跟猶太(希伯來)史學的差異。作者指出，波斯人記錄歷史是以國王為中心，文詞簡單，根本還算不上成熟的體系，。另外兩個，猶太史學包山包海的紀錄，但他們不重視事實的判別，或者是說，在其神學體系裡，一切在現代人眼中看來不可思議的傳說也是真實的歷史。希臘人則不同，他們首先發現文詞結構上重要性，跟著學會要求審視記錄的虛偽與可信度。分別做到這兩點的就是接下來要談的希羅多德跟修昔底德。
在西方史學界，有很長的一段時間後者的名聲是遠勝過前者，似乎很多同行的都對希羅多德那種文筆優美，但不鑑別事實的記錄手法感到不悅，甚至認為他是個“騙子”。事實上修昔底德就是這麼認為，在他眼中，從所有現在的情況都是過去歷史的產物，所以從當代史去研究跟探討即可找出人類行為中可以帶來的教訓，所以他撰寫自己親身體驗的那場戰爭的歷史，致力於寫出最“真實”的篇章以供後人借鏡。修昔底德很長的一段時間都是人們的楷模。直到文藝復興後，史學開始朝向多元化邁進，對美洲的新探索使人想起了希羅多德對其他世界的描述。於是大家不再厚此薄彼，而是從這兩大史家中截長補短。
古文物過去多半被當做是一種收藏，但隨著大量的考古發現跟學者有系統的整理後，逐漸轉變成一個學科，演化成專門的研究途徑。今天我們所熟悉的人類學、社會學等，都可以在這之中找到淵源，Momigliano在結論時也說：「歷史學跟社會學是否該永遠分成兩個學科？」
不論是修昔底德還是希羅多德，撰寫的都不是“希臘人”的歷史，真正開始“民族的史學”，是羅馬的匹克脫，雖然他是吸收了被征服者的特點才發展出這種風格，不過隨著開花結果的是如李維、約瑟夫斯跟塔西陀。特別是最後一位，他為羅馬史學樹立了長久的典範--一種多元視角的編年史，對專制主義的批判，帶有民俗學味道的紀傳等，各種不同的寫作。當然，塔西陀最為不朽的地方，就是他揭示何謂“暴君”，Momigliano說，拿破崙讀到這位古代歷史學家的書就會生氣。塔西陀的思想在政治學也是很有影響力。
作者最後回答的基督教史學。做為同樣為神學服務的基督教史學，是不能有任何獨立的批判精神，雖然尤西比烏等樹立了普世史，後來的各地教會史家撰寫了地方史，但在他們之中，都找不到史學需要的那種精神。以至於作者在卷末嚴肅的提問：在今時今日，教會史學是否還有存在的必要？不過他認為這可以寫成另外一本書而沒有說完。
本書的翻譯基本流暢，而本書是Momigliano的講稿，也比較通俗易懂，沒有什麼太讓人云裡霧裡的東拉西扯，而且有時會帶一點詼諧。像他提到如今希羅多德與修昔底德被現代人並列時說：「希羅多德本人可能不太在乎，但修昔底德如果知道此事，一定驚駭萬分。」
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews