Nations and Nationalities in Historical Perspective, edited by Gudmunður Hálfdanarson and Ann Katherine Isaacs (Edizioni Plus, 2001)
Abstract
This discussion is based on a drastic selection from the enormous documentation that exists, and is limited with a few exceptions, to works that are directly and explicitly historical. For obvious reasons I cannot deal here with problems of political thought and the fundamental relationship that exists between ancient states and the elaboration of modern political thought.
It suffices to think of Machiavelli or the role of politics in Plato, Aristotle or Polybius in the development of political thought. As you can see from the accompanying list of works, printed at the end of this chapter, the historiography of ancient Greece begins very late with respect to the rebirth of Greek studies in general. If we seek a symbolic date, the establishment of the world’s first chair in Greek, in Florence in 1396 (actually beginning in 1397, with the courses of Emanuele Crisolora) it is immediately clear that many years would have to pass before we arrive at the first historical monographs. The very first historical work, relatively unsubstantial even by the standards of the time, was written in 1541 and was written by a Frenchman, Guillaume Postel; the second, much superior, was written by a great humanist, Sigonius (Carlo Sigonio of Modena) in 1564, and represents the real beginning of a new era. Why was there such a wide gap?
The problem is that there had already been a certain continuity of knowledge, in part of the Greek language but mostly of Greek history, thanks to historical works of Latin literature in general and along the lines of universal history. These had become the accepted version of history and of the Christian conception of human events; universal history is a model that lends itself perfectly to Christianity and was by then “exemplary”. Therefore, for a long period the histories written by the ancients were used directly or summarized; nobody thought that one could or should rewrite a history already written by the ancients themselves. Therefore they limited themselves to translating the histories compiled by the Greeks, into Latin or into the various European vernaculars; that was enough. The history which they thought should be written was “modern or contemporary” history, that is, the history which had not yet been written or which had not been rendered superfluous by an ancient model.
Modern States and Ancient Greek History
Carmine Ampolo (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa)
Nations and Nationalities in Historical Perspective, edited by Gudmunður Hálfdanarson and Ann Katherine Isaacs (Edizioni Plus, 2001)
Abstract
This discussion is based on a drastic selection from the enormous documentation that exists, and is limited with a few exceptions, to works that are directly and explicitly historical. For obvious reasons I cannot deal here with problems of political thought and the fundamental relationship that exists between ancient states and the elaboration of modern political thought.
It suffices to think of Machiavelli or the role of politics in Plato, Aristotle or Polybius in the development of political thought. As you can see from the accompanying list of works, printed at the end of this chapter, the historiography of ancient Greece begins very late with respect to the rebirth of Greek studies in general. If we seek a symbolic date, the establishment of the world’s first chair in Greek, in Florence in 1396 (actually beginning in 1397, with the courses of Emanuele Crisolora) it is immediately clear that many years would have to pass before we arrive at the first historical monographs. The very first historical work, relatively unsubstantial even by the standards of the time, was written in 1541 and was written by a Frenchman, Guillaume Postel; the second, much superior, was written by a great humanist, Sigonius (Carlo Sigonio of Modena) in 1564, and represents the real beginning of a new era. Why was there such a wide gap?
The problem is that there had already been a certain continuity of knowledge, in part of the Greek language but mostly of Greek history, thanks to historical works of Latin literature in general and along the lines of universal history. These had become the accepted version of history and of the Christian conception of human events; universal history is a model that lends itself perfectly to Christianity and was by then “exemplary”. Therefore, for a long period the histories written by the ancients were used directly or summarized; nobody thought that one could or should rewrite a history already written by the ancients themselves. Therefore they limited themselves to translating the histories compiled by the Greeks, into Latin or into the various European vernaculars; that was enough. The history which they thought should be written was “modern or contemporary” history, that is, the history which had not yet been written or which had not been rendered superfluous by an ancient model.
Click here to read this article from Nations and Nationalities in Historical Perspective
Sponsored Content