Arnaldo Momigliano
A collection of research notes, quotations, references
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

Resources on Arnaldo Momigliano

• Google Search for "Arnaldo Momigliano" or to the WIKI entry
• Arnaldo Momigliano and the human sources of history - newcriterion article by Donald Kagan
• Review of T.D.Barnes' Tertullian by Arnaldo Momigliano - Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976), pp.273-276
• The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography - A Brief Review and notes
• Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century - A Brief Review and notes
• Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire - A Brief Review and notes
• On Pagans, Jews and Christians - A Brief Review and notes
• AM on AM - Commentary by Arnaldo Momigliano on Ammianus Marcellinus

Research into history, shows it to be, surprisingly - like nature itself, composed of a myriad of factal things rather than a myriad of things called "historical facts". At some point we then encounter another term, in addition to history, namely historiology. Essentially, historiology may be looked at as the study of changes in methods, interpretations, and conclusions of historians over time.

This article is reserved for references to some of the works of Momigliano, and other resources, such as a compendium of external resources. However, it is important to briefly diverge and examine a little the fields of history, and historiology. It was within both these fields that he was considered by many, to be among the foremost of twentieth century commentators.

Arnaldo Momigliano's commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus was of particular interest to my research, and since then information and articles written by Momigliano have been sought, with specific reference to the history of the fourth century.

Firstly, I'd like to introduce the terms hierarchical and relational as being descriptive of the generalised structure of, and backbone framework of, the presentation of the history (or indeed historiography). A basic definition of these terms is that the former makes specific reference throughout to a specific agenda, whereas the latter makes specific integrational approached of a series of competing agendas, often associated with opposing traditions, or cultures.

Hierarchical and Relational Historiology

The subject matter of history is also looked at, it would appear, through a number of various regimes, many of them hierarchical, such as for example, the "Historia Ecclesiastica" of the christian historiographical tradition, in its adherence to a very gradual lineage of both canon and apostolic succession of its bishops. In such an hierarchical perspective, everything is essentially presented with exclusive reference to a specific ideology, or tradition.

It would become apparent to students of life and particularly of history, that there are very few historians able to engage the presentation of history - particularly ancient history for the period 0 to 300 - from a relational perspective. By this, relational perspective, I mean simply that nothing is excluded from examination and review about the period in question, but that the information so accumulated may be presented from different perspectives. Different traditions are equally represented in the picture.

Relational Historiology - Barbarian Interlude

Perhaps Barbarians by Terry Jones & Alan Ereira s a classic example of both this relational methodology, and the surprising (to some) results which are presentable on what known "factals" exist.

The authors show how technology and science of the ancient world was plundered for power and tribute. To cut a long story short, the above two authors present a thesis...

"The thesis is that
we've all been told
a false history of Rome that has twisted
our entire understanding
of our own history -
glorifying (and glossing over)
a long era of ruthless imperial power ..."

So what is Historiology ?

It's about trying to get questions answered in some manner.
Some of these questions will include the following ...
• Who wrote the source (primary or secondary)?
• Who Primary sources - the person in his or her society?
• Who Secondary sources - the theoretical orientation of the approach, categorisable **?
• What authenticity, authority, bias/interest, and intelligibility of source(s)?
• What view of history when the source was written?
• When was the source written?
• Was history supposed to provide moral lessons?
• What or who was the intended audience?
• What sources were privileged or ignored in the narrative?
• By what method was the evidence compiled?
• How was it written, and using what material media?
• In what historical context was the work of history itself written?
• What it the story of the textual transmission of the text to the present?
• What citation trail is evident by date and by category**.

  Now, the problem remains that the answers to these questions are not exactly things called "facts", but more resemble things that might be termed "factals". These atomic elements of history are sometimes used by different historical commentators to derive certain hypotheses, and thereby frame a theory of history. Discernment and integrity are the hallmarks of great historians, in their ability to perceive the parallel paths of nations and tribes, politics and conquest, and to make a more and more "relational" picture of the history, and historiology, of the times.

  History is obviously a massively parallel thing. Histories were written in parallel, and often destroyed in parallel. To the victors of the hard and cruel times of antiquity not only went the spoils, but the right by conquest, to publish literature -- often described as propaganda. The transmission of history is in the hands of the victorious.

  Arnaldo Dante Momigliano

  Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987) was Italian historian known for his work in historiography. The following notes represent some of the more enlightening "gems of wisdom" that I have managed to locate, in my current research project concerning Momigliano's views upon ancient history.

  Many historians of ancient history regard Momigliano as perhaps one of the foremost historians of ancient history. He became professor of Roman history at the University of Turin in 1936. Anti-Jewish Racial Laws (enacted by the Fascist regime in 1938) forced a move to England, where he remained. Earlier at Oxford University, then at University College London, where he was professor from 1951 to 1975, he was the author of many articles and books.

  He wrote in, and conversed in many languages, and he read in a large number of the classical languages, including Hebrew. His commentaries on history, and on historiography, are filled with the perspective of his great breadth of research into the sources of antiquity.

  There is a story about him, written somewhere, concerning a visit to the zoo, in England, in which a party of historians were looking at a monkey in a monkey enclosure. If someone has the source, please send it to me. Momigliano describes the monkey as "a librarian".

  The reliability of historians - and what is not history

  But I have good reason to distrust any historian who has nothing new to say or who produces novelties, either in facts or in interpretations, which I discover to be unreliable. Historians are supposed to be discoverers of truths. No doubt they must turn their research into some sort of story before being called historians. But their stories must be true stories. [...] History is no epic, history is no novel, history is no propaganda because in these literary genres control of the evidence is optional, not compulsory

  ~ Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260

  Enough trivia, the notes following have been extracted from a number of sources, the primary source being "The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century".

  
  Pete Brown
  EDITOR
  www.mountainman.com.au

This book is a collection of essays on the above subject matter
by a number of contributors, from lectures delivered 1958-1959, and
edited by Arnaldo Momigliano in 1960.  Some were expediently translated
(by him) from German and Italian.

In this collection are two articles by Momigliano.
The first he has entitled "Christianity and the Decline
of the Roman Empire", and describes it in this way:

   "For the general reader I have added, by way of introduction,
    a few pages on the problem of Christianity and
    the decline of the Roman empire.".

The second is his main article (pp.79-99, 20 pages) entitled
"Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.".

Here is Momigliano's opening paragraph ...

Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D.
--- ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO (1959/60)

On 28 October 312 the Christians
suddenly and unexpectedly
found themselves victorious.
The victory was a miracle -
though opinions differed
as to the nature of the sign
vouchsafed to Constantine.

The winners became conscious of their victory
in a mood of resentment and vengeance.
A voice shrill with implacable hatred
announced to the world
the victory of the Milvian Bridge:
Lactatius' De mortibus persecutorum.

In this horrible pamphlet by the author of De ira dei
there is something of the violence of the
prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy
that inspired Nahum's song for the the fall of
Nineveh.

Why does such a man as Momigliano use the word "miracle"?
He knew only too well that the victory, as described by Gibbon,
for example, was certainly no miracle. Constantine was
a great military commander, was very well prepared for
the military exercise, and in fact never lost a battle
in his 30 years at the top. So there was nothing at
all "miraculous" in the military victory.

It is as if Momigliano is saying "hint", "hint".
Almost "wink, wink, say no more ...".

But indeed why?

And as if to highlight this, on the following page (p.80)
of the work, Momigliano makes a second reference to
this "miracle". This only serves to highlight something
about what Momigliano is saying, or not saying.  The
expanded context of this quote is as follows:


If there were men who recommended
tolerance and peaceful coexistence
of Christians and pagans,
they were rapidly crowded out.

The Christians were ready
to take over the Roman empire,
as Eusebius made clear
in the introduction of the Preparatio evangelica
where he emphasises the correlation
between pax romana and the Christian message:
the thought indeed was not even new.

The Christians were also determined
to make impossible a return to the conditions
of inferiority and persecution for the Church.
The problems and conflicts inside the Church
which all this implied
may be left aside for the moment.

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians appreciated and exploited

the miracle

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector, and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

One fact is eloquent enough. All the pioneer works
in the field of Christian historiography are earlier
than what we may call their opposite numbers in
pagan historiography."

END QUOTAGE — Arnaldo Momigliano

        “Once Constantine recognized the church
         he had to decide what kind of church it was.
         Recognition led to intervention.”

         — Robert M. Grant, "Augustus to Constantine"


        “Among historians of the Christianization of the Roman empire,
         certain generalizations have not died easily.
         Foremost is the assertion that by the fourth century paganism
         was morally, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt.”

        —Clifford Ando, “Pagan Apologetics and Christian Intolerance
                         in the Ages of Themistius and Augustine”

Here is Momigliano's opening paragraph ...

Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire.
--- ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO (1959/60)

I may perhaps begin with a piece of good news.
In this year 1959 it can still be considered an historical truth
that the Roman empire declined and fell. Nobody is as yet prepared
to deny that the Roman empire has disappeared. But here historians
begin to disagree. When we ask them to tell us when the Roman empire
disappeared, we collect an embarrissing variety of answers. The more
so because there is a tendency to identify the beginnings of the
Middle Ages with the end of the Roman empire: a tendency which would
have given no little surprise to medieval men who firmly believed in
the continuity of the Roman empire.


There are, of course, historians who see the Middle Ages making their
appearance and the Roman empire sinking into oblivion with the
conversion of Constantine in 312 or with the inauguration of
Constantinople in 330. And there are historians who would delay
the end of the ROman empire to that year 1806 - more precisely
to that day 6 August 1806 - in which Napolean I compelled the
Austrian emperor Francis II to underwrite the end of the Holy
Roman empire. Between these two extreme dates there are plenty
of intermediate choices.


-- End Quote

The following list represents a summary the continuation
which I have collated in point form.  Momigliano appears
to be making people think about concenses of opinion ...

When did the Roman Empire actually decline & fall?
Favorite dates are the following ...

* 431BCE Professor Arnold Toynbee (Peloponnesian War)
* 0312 - Conversion of Constantine?
* 0330 - Inauguration of Constantinople?
* 0410 - Sack of Rome by Goths?
* 0476 - Romulus Augustus lost throne (still "traditionalists")?
* 0565 - Death of Justinian ("more sophisticated researchers" [traditionalists?])?
* 0800 - Coronation of Charlemagne (2 Roman empires)
* 1453 - Fall of Constantinople, the end of the New Rome.
* 1806 - Napoleon compels Francis II to underwrite end.

Continuing in quotation of Momigliano ...

     "Behind the question of dates there is the question
      of the continuity of European history.
      Can we notice a break in the development
      of the social and intellectual history of Europe?

• Google Search for "Arnaldo Momigliano" or to the WIKI entry
• Arnaldo Momigliano and the human sources of history - newcriterion article by Donald Kagan
• Review of T.D.Barnes' Tertullian by Arnaldo Momigliano - Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976), pp.273-276
• The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography - A Brief Review and notes
• Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century - A Brief Review and notes
• Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire - A Brief Review and notes
• On Pagans, Jews and Christians - A Brief Review and notes
• AM on AM - Commentary by Arnaldo Momigliano on Ammianus Marcellinus

  
  
  

  
  Julian's Kronia | Did Constantine Invent Christianity | Authors of Antiquity | Mountain Man Graphics