Guidance is often useful. The problem then becomes who or what one uses as guides to the field of ancient history. I have no problem naming my own guides. For the modern epoch I am guided by Arnaldo Momigliano who is often regarded as a "continuator" of Edward Gibbon, and generally regarded as one of, if not the foremost of the ancient historians of the 20th century. For the epoch of late antiquity I am guided by the 4th century historian Ammianus Marcellinus.Let's start at the beginning.
What are we doing here?
///
What was that?
A lot of what gets expressed as study happens without an explicit context. Why do it? What to think about while doing it? What are you doing? What are the pitfalls? I don't believe that I have articulated these questions quite so clearly before, and I haven't really found anything addressing them either. So these are my notes when I attempted to think about these questions more clearly. If you can think of anything that has discussed this kind of thing before, or if you have your own thoughts, please feel free to share them.
Having made this preface (which to some may reveal bias) I'd contribute here by quoting Momigliano:
"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” [1]
[1] Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260
[1] Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260
The key here is the proposition that "Historians are supposed to be discoverers of truths." If we are to discuss "Zen and the Art of Historical Study" then I'd liken this to archery. The historians are like archers shooting at a target. The central bull's eye is the historical truth. This is the ultimate central target.
Around this central (Zen?) target of "historical truth" are a number of concentric rings. The closest ring I would name as "primary evidence". The next closest ring I would name as "secondary evidence". The third as "tertiary evidence". I am not sure whether there need to be any other concentric rings around the center. Others may chime in here.
That FWIW is my contribution at the moment.
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Sat Jun 08, 2024 5:59 pm