Wesleyan University

Arnaldo Momigliano and the History of Historiography

Author(s): Karl Christ
Source: History and Theory, Vol. 30, No. 4, Beiheft 30: The Presence of the Historian: Essays
in Memory of Arnaldo Momigliano (Dec., 1991), pp. 5-12
Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ARNALDO MOMIGLIANOAND
THE HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
KARLCHRIST

In his humorousbut at the sametime quiteseriousafter-dinnerspeechat BrandeisUniversity,ArnaldoMomiglianolookedbackon his own intellectualdevelopment:"Ina sense, in my scholarlylife I have done nothingelse but to try to
understandwhatI owe both to the Jewishhousein whichI was broughtup and
In a certainsense,
villagein whichI was born."'"
to the Christian-Roman-Celtic
this sentencecontainsthe key not only to Momigliano'sintellectualimpetus,
but also to the core of his scholarlywork:the studiesin the fieldof the history
of historiography.
Unlike so many present-dayhistorians, Momiglianodid not proceed accordingto the absolute dogmas of a new programof historicalscholarship,
method, or perspective.Rather,his scholarlywork grew organicallyfrom the
connection between personal initiatives and existentialforces. The Jewish,
Italian,and of coursethe continentaltraditionsof his disciplinehe assimilated
first;fromthe periodof his exilein England,thoseof the EnglishandAmerican
worldsfollowedwithno less intensity.Throughhis personalappropriationand
reflection,they weretransformedinto modesof criticalevaluation,mediation,
and contemporaneitywith an unparalleledbreadthof range-both in time and
in space.
It is, therefore,significantthat for Momiglianothe dimensionof the history
of historiographywas from the beginningnot an isolatedconcern,but rather
one closelyconnectedwith concretehistoricalproblems,with the investigation
of individualsourcesor specificphenomenain politicalandintellectualhistory.
The originalityof this approach,its prioritiesand its results,becomesevident
if we look at the milestonesin Momigliano'sresearchesand activities.
elementsof the traditionare alreadysignificantin the
The historiographical
1934monographon Philipof Macedonia.2Thebook openswithan acknowledg1. ArnaldoMomigliano,Ottavocontributealla storiadeglistudi classicie del mondoantico
(Rome, 1987),432. The presentessay buildson many of the formulationsand reflectionsin the
moreextensivechapteron Momiglianoin myNeueProfilederaltenGeschichte(Darmstadt,1990),
248-294.That longeressay containsdetaileddocumentationof the assessmentsI offerhere.
2. Filippoil Macedone.SaggisullastoriagrecadelIVsecolo a.C. (Florence,1934).Seealso the
appendixby the
newedition,withcorrections,a newprefaceby the author,and a bibliographical
authorand GiampieraArrigoni(Milan, 1987).

This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KARL CHRIST

mentof the achievementsof K. J. BelochandG. Grote- withpraisefor Beloch's

commitmentto source criticismand for Grote's common sense. Above all,
MomiglianopraisedJohannGustavDroysen:"Droysenin fact recognizedfor
once and for all that the essentialcharacteristicof Hellenismis the constitution
of a cosmopolitancivilization."3But this was a returnto the earlyDroysenthe"primoDroysen";Momiglianorejectedthe "secondoDroysen"of the second
edition of the History of Hellenism, which appearedin 1871, just after the
foundingof the GermanEmpire.For Momiglicno,this "secondDroysen,"the
historianof Prussianpolitics, had emphasizedthe power politics of national
unificationthroughthe parallelof therolesof MacedoniaandPrussia.Theearly
Droysen, on the other hand, had taken the priorityof fundamentalreligious
problemsas his startingpoint.
In the study"TheHistoricalGenesisandPresent-dayFunctionof the Concept
of Hellenism,"Momiglianopursuedfurtherthe ramificationsof the problem
of Hellenismin historicalscholarship.4To clarifythe assumptionsfor the evaluation of Greek history in the early nineteenthcentury, he referredback to
Heyne, Herder,and, most of all, to Humboldt.'But he referredalso to Wolf,
Boeckh, and Hegel in his analysis, whichthus provideda clearprofileof the
backgroundof Droysen'sconcept of Hellenism.
MomiglianosawDroysen'sachievementin termsof thefirstdecisiveinvestigation of the Greekworldin the contextof Christianity.At the sametime,Momigliano offereda perspectiveon the multifacetedapplicationof the concept of
classicalscholarship.Most imHellenismin nineteenth-and twentieth-century
portantfor him- and for us now- was the task of clarifyingthe relationships
betweenHellenisticand Romancivilizationwithinthe frameworkof the Imperium Romanum.
From the concernwith the problematicof Droysen'sposition and of Hellenism in general,Momigliano'sstudiesin the history of historiographyproceededin two directions,bothof whichweremotivatedno doubtalsoby external
impulses.On one side, he devoted himself to a generalreviewof the Italian
investigationsinto Greekhistory;on the other,he examinedthe structureof the
historyof the ImperiumRomanum.His 1934bibliographicalstudy of works
in Greekhistorywasset in verypersonalterms.6For Momiglianodid not simply
surveythe pertinentpublicationsin Italianancienthistoryandclassicalscholarship;rather,he formedhis accountinto an overviewof contemporaryItalian
intellectualculture,includingthe philosophicalendeavorsof CroceandGentile.
A short time later Momiglianocompletedhis study, "La formazionedella
3. "11Droysenha infattivisto una volta per sempreche il carattereessenzialedell'Ellenismoe
la costituzionedi una civiltacosmopolitica":Filippo il Macedone,xvi.
4. GiornaleCriticodella FilosofiaItaliana 16 (1935), 10-37; also Contributoalla storia degli
studi classici(Rome, 1955), 165-194.
5. In this regard,see L'Antichit&
nell'Ottocentoin Italia e Germania,ed. K. Christand A.
Momigliano(Bologna, 1988).
6. "Studieniuber
griechischeGeschichtein Italienvon 1913-1933,"inItalienischeKulturberichte,
ed. RomanischesSeminarder UniversitatLeipzig1 (1934), 163-195;Contributo,299-326.

This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MOMIGLIANO AND THE HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY

moderna storiografia sull'impero romano. "7Certain experiences in the presentation 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 scholarship. Just as in the case of Hellenism, the transformation in the overall interpretation 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
"FriedrichCreuzer and Greek Historiography" was concerned chiefly with the
reassessment of a fundamental classical work.9 Friedrich Creuzer's monograph

Die historischeKunstder Griechenin ihrerEntstehungundFortbildung("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,it belongsto those yearsaround 1800which markthe beginningof a new era
for historicalstudiesin Europeand can still offermuchinspiration.What was done in
ancienthistorywas then immediatelyrelevantto historyin general.The methodsof
GreekandRomanhistorywerestillexemplary.Theresultsthusobtainedwereof general
interest.Ancienthistoryhas now becomea provincialbranchof history.It can recover
its lost prestigeonly if it provesagaincapableof offeringresultsaffectingthe whole of
our historicaloutlook. One of the ways is, quite simply, to regaincontactwith those
writersof thepastwhotreatedclassicalsubjectsof vitalimportanceto historyin general.
Creuzerproduceda 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, 628654; 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KARL CHRIST

ancient history for the present, and at the same time to revitalizeit for the
future. This purposeis at the heart of the especiallyrich study of "Ancient
Historyandthe Antiquarian.""Momiglianoheredescribesthe developmentof
antiquarianinterestsin the modernperiodas "anew humanism";the age of the
antiquarians,he argues,led preciselyto a revolutionin historicalmethod.12For
the antiquarianstaught"howto use non-literaryevidence,but they also made
peoplereflecton the differencebetweencollectingfactsandinterpretingfacts."'3
Once havingcalledattentionto the originsof antiquarianresearchin antiquity, Momiglianoturnedto the controversiesof the seventeenthand eighteenth
centuriesabout the value of historicalsources. In particular,he recalledone
of the greatestand most exemplaryachievementsin the eighteenth-century
examinationof the transmissionof non-literaryevidence: the discoveryof
pre-RomanItaly. The critiqueof the conflictbetweenantiquariansand historiansin the eighteenthandnineteenthcenturiesrevealeda surpisingconnection:
The antiquaryrescuedhistoryfrom the sceptics,even though he did not writeit. His
preferencefor the originaldocuments,his ingenuityin discoveringforgeries,his skillin
collectingand classifyingthe evidenceand, above all, his unboundedlove for learning
are the antiquary'scontributionto the "ethics"of the historian.'4

The high point of the firstpostwarphase in Momigliano'sconcernwith the

historyof historiographyis the inaugurallectureas the professorof ancient
historyat UniversityCollegeLondonin 1952. In the addresson "GeorgeGrote
andthe Studyof GreekHistory,"altogetherone of his most impressivelectures,
Momiglianopaid homage,in a way, to the greatliberaltraditionof University
College, to his distinguishedpredecessorsin the chair of ancienthistory, and
not leastto GeorgeGrotehimself.'" His expositionprovideda deeplyinformed
surveyof the modernhistoriographyon ancientGreece,an analysisof the crisis
in this field, and one of the most vigorous argumentsfor its significance.
workof WilliamMitford
Momiglianobeganwiththe late eighteenth-century
and John Gillies,workswhichusheredin a new epoch in the Britishhistoriographyof Greece. "Whatwas really new," he wrote, "was, however, political
discussionembodiedin a GreekHistory,suchas one couldreadin Mitfordand
Gillies."'6Momiglianothen connectedthese highly influentialEnglish works
withthe previouscontinentalas wellas Irishprojectsof C. M. Olivier,the Abbe
de MablyandThomasLeland.He emphasizedparticularlyLeland'scomparison
of Philip II of Macedoniawith Frederickthe Great. Thus underthe rubricof
the historyof historiography,Momiglianoreestablished,as it were, his own,
personalties to "Filippoil Macedone,"along with the reminder,madeen pas-

11. Journalof the Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes13 (1950),285-315;Contributo,67-106.

12. Contributo,67.
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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MOMIGLIANO AND THE HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY

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 evaluations within Greek history. The result of this far-reaching investigation was
as follows:
Howeverthat may be, the simplefacts I have stated compelus to reviseideas on the
developmentof historiographyin the nineteenthcentury.It is commonlybelieved- and
I have said so myself-that Niebuhrwas chieflyresponsiblefor startingthe discussion
on Demosthenesand Philip in Germanyduringthe Napoleonicwarsand that Droysen
discoveredthe analogybetweenMacedonand Prussia.Droysenis also creditedwiththe
originalidea of a historyof the periodinterveningbetweenAlexanderand Augustus.
It now appearsthat the discussionof the fourth centuryin terms of modernpolitical
principles-and evenof Prussia-had startedalmosta centurybeforeDroysen.Though
Droysen'spenetratingvision of the Hellenisticage as the age of transitionbetween
Paganismand Christianitycannotbe comparedwith Gillies'limitedpoliticalinterests,
it is undeniablethat he had a predecessorin this respecttoo.'7
Momigliano thus suggested that George Grote's project of a new representation 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 scholarly tradition, Grote's approach revealed itself as much more direct and personal:
Grote... found all that he wantedin ancientGreece:the originsof democraticgovernment and the principlesof freedom of thought and of rational inquiry. His major
discoveryin the fieldof Greekthought-the revaluationof the Sophists- was the result
of his searchinto the relationsbetweenGreekdemocracyand intellectualprogress.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 uncommonly 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.
18.
19.
20.

Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,

217.
221.
222.
225.

This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KARL CHRIST

10

applicabletoday may be the generalobservationmade in the considerationof

Grote:"GreekHistoryis essentialto the formationof the liberalmind, but in
its turn the liberalmind is religiousin examiningthe evidence."2'
Notwithstandinghis reservationsin mattersof detail, Momiglianoasserted:
When all is said, it remainstrue that Grote possessedthe all-redeemingvirtueof the
liberalmind.He wasdeterminedto understandandrespectevidencefromwhateverpart
it came;he recognizedfreedomof speech,tolerance,and compromiseas the conditions
of civilization;he respectedsentiment,but admiredreason.22

No matterhow contingenton the hour these observationsmay have been,

Momiglianohad everyreasonto identifywiththe traditionwhichhad informed
his teacher,Gaetanode Sanctis, and his entireschool.
III

The programmaticuptakeof the London inaugurallecturewas followed by a

long seriesof individualstudiesin the widestvarietyof formats. Only a very
generalsurveywill be attemptedhere. Highly personalbiographicalportraits
of significanthistoriansandotherscholarsof antiquitytaketheirplacealongside
comprehensiveanalysesof classic historicalworks; systematicsurveysof researchappearalongsidetightly constructedabstractson historicalproblems;
criticaldiscussionsof the ramificationsof newmethodsappearalongsidestudies
A list aloneof the namesof the figurestreatedalong
in the historyof reception.23
the immensespectrumof Momigliano'spurviewincludesPetrarch,Scipione
Maffei,Vico, Gibbon,Niebuhr,Bernays,Ranke,Fustelde Coulanges,Burckhardt, Beloch, EduardMeyer, Max Weber, Croce, Rostovtzeff,De Sanctis,
Fraccaro,Dumezil, Leo Strauss,Vidal-Naquet,MarcelMauss-and these are
only the most important.
A finalphasein Momigliano'seffortsin thisfieldwasinitiatedin 1972,the year
of the firstin the renownedseriesof seminarsin the historyof historiography
at the Scuola Normale di Pisa. Examinedthere in close sequencewere the
contributionsof Wilamowitz,Eduard Schwartz,Karl Reinhardt,Freeman,
EduardMeyer,HermannUsener,KarlOtfriedMuller,JohannJacobBachofen,
and otherrepresentativesof the Europeanclassicaltradition.The problemsin
the historyof Germanscholarshipwereaddressedas well, despitethe degreeof
personalsufferingthat Momiglianohimself had enduredat the hands of its
perverteddescendants.A whole series of late studies, for example"German
Romanticismand Italian ClassicalStudies"and "ClassicalScholarshipfor a
ClassicalCountry:The Case of Italy in the Nineteenthand TwentiethCentu21. Ibid., 230.
22. Ibid., 231.
23. The sources for the studies referred to in this passage are collected in the eight volumes of

the Contributiallastoriadeglistudiclassicie del mondoantico(Rome, 1955-1987).The ninthand

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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MOMIGLIANOAND THE HISTORYOF 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 inevitablecorollaryof historicismis historyof historiographyas the mode of expressingawarenessthat historicalproblemshave themselvesa history.This, however,
has producedbooks the sole purposeof whichis to provethat everyhistorianand any
historicalproblemis historicallyconditioned-with the additionalplatitudethat even a
verdictof this kind by the historianof historiographyis historicallyconditioned.
Such an expressionof pure relativism,in my opinion, is not defensible.Historyof
historiography,like any other historicalresearch,has the purposeof discriminating
betweentruthandfalsehood.As a kindof intellectualhistorywhichpurportsto examine
the achievementsof a historian,it has to distinguishbetweensolutions of historical
problemswhichfail to convinceand solutions( hypotheses;models;idealtypes)which
arenot worthbeingrestatedanddeveloped.To writea criticalhistoryof 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. "GermanRomanticism 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KARL CHRIST

12

If, in this respect,the London inaugurallectureof 1952came to be valued

as exemplaryof his convictions,this wouldbe entirelycorroboratedby a review
of his entire work in the field of history of historiography.The respect for
"evidencefrom whateverpart it came,"for whichhe held Grote in such high
esteem,and aboveall the allegianceto "theliberalmind"whichGroteexemplified remainedprimaryvalues. The historyof historiographyshould not allow
itself to be compromisedeitherby dogma or by ideologicalformulations.
Momiglianocertainlywelcomedthe worldwideexpansionof scholarlywork
in the fieldof the historyof historiographyandits developmentthroughinstitutions and new publications,a processin which he activelycollaborated-not
least in the life of this very journal, with which he enjoyed a long and close
association.But at the same time he saw more clearlyand earlierthan others
the dangersthat grewwith the field. For this reasonhe referredtime and again
to the dialecticbetweenthe investigationof sourcesandthe historyof historiography; for this reason he grew no less tired in his concern for an adequate
understandingof the transmissionof ancientsourcesthan he did in his revival
of an at least partiallydissipatedtradition.
Accordingto Momigliano,contactwiththe classicmastersof historiography
shouldservenot only as the backdropfor the developmentof moderninnovations and perspectives,but shouldlead firstand foremostto the strengthening
of the intellectualpotentialof the discipline,to its vitalizationand securityin
the face of the fashionabletrendswhich threatenfrom all sides. In his view,
only the safeguardingof the historicalfoundationsand preciseknowledgeof
the historyof historiographysolidlybasedon themwouldensurethe continuation of historicalscholarshipinto the future. As all his new initiativeshave
always shown, the consequencesof his convictionsin this area stretchedfar
beyond the traditionalboundariesof ancienthistory.
It is clear that Momigliano'sperspectivesand prioritiesin the history of
historiographycannotsimplybe duplicatedor extended.Theuniqueexistential
conditionsof his scholarlywork are much too strongfor that. But the appeal
to the great mastersof historiographywhich he advocated steadfastlyas a
counterbalanceto the tendenciesto rhetoricize,intellectualize,and ideologize
historywill alwaysentailfor us a returnto ArnaldoMomiglianohimselfas the
mark of his enduringpresencein our enterprise.
Philipps-Universitdt Marburg
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY MICHAEL P. STEINBERG

This content downloaded from 128.176.254.30 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:30:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions