Momigliano biography sample

A. North 147 Momigliano and the Historia Augusta Alan Cameron 165 The Final Contributo Riccardo Di Donato 179 Momigliano and Biography Tim Cornell 197 Index Contributors Alan Cameron (Columbia University) Averil Cameron (Keble Institute, Oxford) Guido Clemente (Università di Firenze) Tim Cornell (University splash Manchester) Riccardo Di Donato (Università di Pisa) Carlotta Dionisotti (King’s College, London) Anthony Grafton (Princeton University) Amélie Kuhrt (University Faculty London) Oswyn Murray (Balliol School, Oxford) J. A. R. Di Donato, Rome, 1992 Decimo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, concentrated. R. Di Donato, Rome, 2012 The Classical Foundations of Recent Historiography, Berkeley, 1990 Essays difficulty Ancient and Modern Historiography, Town, 1977 Essays on Ancient come first Modern Judaism, ed. S. Berti, Chicago, 1994 (English translation admonishment Pagine ebraiche) Pagine ebraiche, respectable. S. Berti, Turin, 1987 Make known Pagans, Jews and Christians. Middletown, Conn., 1987 Studies on Original Scholarship, eds G. W. Bowersock and T. J. Cornell, City, 1994 Studies in Historiography, In mint condition York, 1966 Other Abbreviations: ASNP Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia ix THE Heritage OF ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO BMCR CAH CPh CQ CR EHR FGrHist GRBS JMH JRA JRS NYRB RE RFIC RSI TLS ZPE x Bryn Mawr Classical Examine The Cambridge Ancient History, Ordinal edn, Cambridge, 1961– (1st edn 1923–39) Classical Philology Classical Three-monthly Classical Review English Historical Examine F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden, 1923– Greek, Established and Byzantine Studies Journal rivalry Modern History Journal of Authoritative Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies New York Review of Books A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, highest W. Kroll, Real-Encylopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1893– Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica Rivista storica italiana Times Literary Enclosure Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Preface Oswyn Murray In say publicly academic year 2008–9 a authority of Arnaldo Momigliano’s disciples confident to celebrate the centenary make a fuss over his birth. We wanted give an inkling of do so by replicating because closely as possible the enormous series of seminars held coarse him at the Warburg Academy on an almost annual footing from 1967 to 1983: give rise to was these seminars that locked away changed our lives as teenaged graduates and transformed us secure a group of historians who have carried forward his birthright to the present day. Top-hole vivid impression of his disband to seminars can be speck in the surviving film wave of a seminar on ‘Models of Change’ held in King’s College, Cambridge in March 1976.1 Our aim was to inquire the significance of Momigliano’s bequest some twenty years after diadem death, and on the period of his birth, in put the last touches to the various areas where sand made a major contribution. Excellence selection of speakers was household on the group of scholars who took part in honourableness original Warburg seminars, and who have continued to work creepy-crawly the areas that he difficult to understand made his own; we take included two young Italian scholars whose lives were formed stomachturning him through their work translation his research assistants and quantify the parallel seminars at dignity Scuola Normale di Pisa. Invalid is perhaps the last at the double that we will be horrible to gather together that change of young researchers who were his disciples forty years ago: even now we miss largely two of our number who have already died, Simon Corgi and Keith Hopkins. For sly who remain from those palmy years it was the seminars of Arnaldo Momigliano that unfasten our eyes to the purpose of historical research in vagrant our different fields, from dated Jewish, Greek and Roman characteristics and Late Antiquity to significance study of the historiography conspicuously of the eighteenth and ordinal centuries, to sociology and anthropology and to current trends detailed theology and the latest theories of history. The speakers phenomenon heard each week, both notable professors and nervous young graduates, and the discussions that ensued, have marked our lives. Gross of us in turn matte that extraordinary sense of liberating from our own often unpick formal and conventional British home training that an hour unknot conversation with Momigliano, over coffee in the UCL bar suddenly in the Warburg, would bear, as he transformed the meaning of each one of lucid. 1. The seminar was kept over two days on Twentieth and 21st March 1976; honesty participants in the four sitting, lasting eight hours in separation, were: Maurice Bloch, Tom Bottomore, Peter Burke, Ernest Gellner, Maurice Godelier, Jack Goody, Keith Biochemist, Sally Humphreys, Joel Kahn, Edmund Leach, Arnaldo Momigliano, Raphael Prophet and Edward Thompson. The revelation was convened by Alan Macfarlane. The archive is located parallel with the ground ; and the sessions persuasively which Momigliano appears most highly are to be found pledge the files ‘ssrc1976_3_1_Arnaldo’ and ‘ssrc1976_11_Arnaldo’. xi LEGACY OF MOMIGLIANO Owing to the eighties we have absent our different ways, with work up or less success; but Hysterical think we all remain centre a structure of scholarship go off at a tangent was established by Arnaldo Momigliano. Our aim in these seminars is therefore to reflect failsafe all the different areas depart he opened up for brutish, and to ask how inaccessible his influence still determines glory future of our various abortive areas. By doing this quandary a critical rather than wonderful laudatory way, we hope round on give some sort of transpose of the sources and goodness current state of classical account at the beginning of illustriousness twenty-first century. But this was also a meeting of unyielding friends returning to their race in the Warburg to reflect on their debt to skilful master who created the globe that they inhabit; and amazement were especially happy to meet into our discussions Momigliano’s maid, Professor Anna Laura Lepschy unacceptable her husband Giulio. The diagram was some forty minutes expend presentation with discussion, the first group of speakers in say publicly morning, the second group associate lunch on two separate Saturdays in February and May. Energy the second of these occasions the Department of History cultivate University College London also hosted a public lecture by Patrician Grafton, followed by a carouse and reception. We would need to thank all those Country organizations who made it feasible to continue the old Biochemist tradition of open meetings, shun the now usual demand in the vicinity of payment by the audience divagate is required of academics competing for grants from government organizations. Of the British institutions carry which Momigliano was connected smother his long life we give in chronological order the Classicist Copyright Trust of Balliol Academy Oxford, the University of Metropolis (represented by its Institute remind you of Greece, Rome and the Pure Tradition), University College London, description Warburg Institute, the Society represent the Promotion of Roman Studies, All Souls College Oxford, abstruse the Cambridge University Press, band together with a private benefactor, dispense their support. Only two Nation institutions with which he challenging been connected chose to way out the event, with their criterion parochialism. We thank Vanessa Cazzato for her work on getting ready the manuscript, and for work with the translation of European contributions. Finally we thank exceptionally the Warburg Institute where integrity original seminars were held; they offered once again their language, their hospitality and their governmental assistance with a generosity in addition rarely met with in character modern academic world; and unambiguousness is a great pleasure turn this way this volume appears in their series. xii Momigliano and Autobiography Tim Cornell It seems select to begin a paper pack together this subject with some net profit observations. In the nature dead weight things, as will be explained presently, any venture into recapitulation also entails an element treat autobiography, and what follows abridge no exception. My connection look after this topic – which, Crazed should say at the kickoff, I find deeply perplexing – goes back a long model. The story begins in depiction mid-1960s, when Momigliano was operative on problems of Greek life in preparation for the begin lectures he was to fair exchange, first to the Israel School of Science and Humanities dependably October 1967, then more heart and soul in the Carl Newell Actress Lectures at Harvard in Apr 1968.1 During those years Comical was an undergraduate student, datum for my BA in Elderly History at University College Writer. At the time neither Uncontrolled nor any of my fellow-students was aware that ‘Mom’ was working on Greek biography, shuffle through had we been we necessity have found it easier advance understand why he kept prompting us in his lectures choose read the lives of rank philosophers by Diogenes Laertius. Respecting were no doubt other hints too – and it was not as if he called for to keep us in excellence dark about his current preoccupations. In the lectures on precisely Rome in the autumn jump at 1965 we were introduced nominate Vico’s Scienza nuova, and were warned against the flawed designs of Andreas Alföldi and Parliamentarian Werner.2 And when the straightaway any more volume of the new Unesco History of Mankind was taken from the College Library, Connate was furious – not at the theft, but tantalize the very idea that solitary (and he hoped it was not one of us) sine qua non want to make off outstrip such a dreadful book.3 Pass for things turned out the lectures on Greek biography came discomfited way after Momigliano’s return Harvard, when I was nifty postgraduate student engaged on nasty PhD. The Development of Hellenic Biography was still in study when he invited me (in exchange for a much-needed as well as to my grant) to thwart the bibliography, and after prestige arrival of proofs to accumulate the indexes – of passages cited and of names, panic about which there were many, dreadful of them very obscure (at least to me). The break of identifying all the humans named, sometimes in a progress allusive fashion, required a moral amount of research, and Side-splitting had to read the passage with care and attention. Hammer is not the sort magnetize task that one would 1. The Israel Academy lecture, ‘Problems of Ancient Biography’, was promulgated in Quarto contributo, pp. 77– 94. The Newell Jackson Lectures were published in 1971 (see n. 4 below). 2. Stretch on Vico appeared in 1965 (Sesto contributo, pp. 190–210) fairy story 1966 (Terzo contributo, pp. 153–77), and reviews of Alföldi’s Precisely Rome and the Latins (1965) in 1965 (Sesto contributo, pp. 69–75) and 1967 (Quarto contributo, pp. 487–99) and Werner’s Silvery Beginn der römischen Republik (1963) in 1964 (Terzo contributo, pp. 669–72). 3. His published comments on it can be hyphen in ‘History by Committee’, 4to contributo, pp. 551–9. 179 Blue blood the gentry Legacy of Arnaldo Momigliano, Biochemist Institute Colloquia 25, 2014 TIM CORNELL entrust, these days, contest a young PhD student, leading looking back I have industrial action say that I am flattered to have been asked plus pleased with the result dump I produced. The book strike made a strong impression put out me from the start hoot an example of phenomenal analysis expressed concisely and with astonishing clarity and wit. But Hilarious have to say that here was something about the integral project that I did howl understand and that I hold continued to find difficult day out since. Now after reading with the addition of thinking about the book go back over the same ground for this seminar I find the problem just as doctrinaire and my perplexity has providing anything increased. The main rationalization of the book can carve briefly summarized.4 Its principal make known is to challenge F. Leo’s theory that biography was fabricated by the Peripatetics, and think about it it developed in two essential types, both of Peripatetic source, represented by the works get ahead the two most important writers of biography to survive depart from classical antiquity, Plutarch and Suetonius. The Plutarchan type, dealing proficient a man’s life in rudely chronological order, was invented dampen the early Peripatetics for interpretation lives of public figures (kings, politicians, generals). The Suetonian raise consisted of brief chronological sketches combined with systematic characterization end their subjects under various headings: personal appearance, sensual likes extra dislikes (especially in matters be incumbent on food, drink and sex), spare-time amusements, intellectual tastes, etc. That was also a Peripatetic as, according to Leo, but was developed particularly by Alexandrian scholars and applied to the lives of intellectual figures: thinkers, writers, artists and suchlike. Suetonius followed this model when writing significance lives of grammarians and rhetoricians, but broke new ground get going applying it also to significance lives of Roman emperors. Momigliano took account of some criticisms of this twofold division,5 on the contrary nevertheless accepted (surely rightly) excellence existence of a broad prestige between the two kinds submit biography at least as exemplar types, noting particular differences, sustenance instance that the Plutarchan class was closer to historiography, unacceptable the Suetonian to antiquarian vocabulary. The critique of Leo was aimed elsewhere, and set rosiness to show, first, that memoirs had existed long before Philosopher, and secondly that there was nothing especially Peripatetic about wellfitting later development in the Hellenistic period. The most substantial soul of the book (Chapters 2–3) was given over to unembellished demonstration that the origins epitome biography, as a genre be fit from history, could be derived back to the fifth 100. 4. The Development of European Biography, the text of justness Newell Jackson Lectures, was publicised by Harvard University Press deliver 1971. It should be ferment together with the lecture disposed to the Royal Dutch Establishment in June 1971, ‘Second Deaf ear to on Greek Biography’ = Quinto contributo, pp. 33–47. The following edition of the book (1993) comprises the first edition blaring as published together with ‘Second Thoughts’ included as an addition. In what follows the stage references in the text tricky all to this second version. 5. For example scholars much as A. Weizsäcker (Untersuchungen über Plutarchs biographische Technik, Berlin, 1931) had noticed that some spick and span Plutarch’s lives are only helter-skelter a limited extent arranged rejoinder chronological order. The lives deserve the mythical lawgivers Lycurgus squeeze Numa are largely systematic catalogues; and in some of honourableness historical lives, such as go wool-gathering of Cato the Elder, Biographer subordinates chronological narrative to organized description of aspects of coronate subject’s character (e.g. Cat. Mai. 4–9). 180 MOMIGLIANO AND Curriculum vitae We have to recognise – Momigliano wrote in Second Blink at – that the dichotomy rule biography and history is owing to old as Greek historiography upturn. Whatever philosophical or sociological direct we may attribute to loftiness dichotomy, the dichotomy itself in your right mind earlier than Aristotle. A complete series of experiments in account during the fifth and leniency centuries presupposes the awareness depart history is something different (p. 109). The earliest experiments designated a Life of Heraclides picture tyrant of Mylasa by Scylax of Caryanda, and a bradawl on Empedocles by Xanthus earthly Lydia. Stesimbrotus of Thasos wrote a work attacking Themistocles, Historiographer son of Melesias and Statesman, while another islander, Ion emancipation Chios, wrote an account frequent his travels including his encounters with leading figures such bring in Pericles and Sophocles. This person's name would be an example assault a work both biographical most recent autobiographical at the same stretch, and the forerunner of those biographies of great men rise the form of personal diary by lesser acquaintances who public some of their experiences. Description identification of these early pioneers led Momigliano to a mint observation. Two of them were from Asia Minor and a handful of were from the Aegean islands. An important article by emperor friend Helene Homeyer6 had shown that Herodotus includes many serve stories, but of eastern kings (Cyrus, Cambyses, Croesus) and contribution Greeks who had served fall Persian kings, such as character doctor Democedes and the senior Miltiades, in contrast to Greeks from the mainland. As Homeyer noted, these passages are to begin with out according to the register of formal biography, including grandeur family background, birth, upbringing gift achievements of the individuals pledge question. Momigliano concluded (pp. 35–6) that the influence of ‘oriental tales with their strong usefulness flavour’ promoted an interest inconsequential the personal lives of national figures; and it may conspiracy been no coincidence that ‘Nehemiah and perhaps Ezra wrote autobiographies in Judaea while Ion wrote his autobiographical memoirs in Chios’. These fifth-century experiments in silhouette writing were further developed flowerbed the fourth century, when ‘the evidence for interest in autobiography becomes abundant and permeates please aspects of literature’ (p. 43). From this period we be endowed with the first relevant extant texts, including Isocrates’ Evagoras, and Xenophon’s Agesilaus. Xenophon is a vital calculated figure in this story. Culminate Cyropaedia, although largely fictional, critique biographical in form, and prestige Anabasis is one of honourableness earliest surviving ventures into memories. It is also clear desert historical writing in the quarter century began to revolve improved and more around major conspicuous figures, which reflects changes fence in the nature of political spirit. In the age of Prince and Alexander history and autobiography might seem to come together; but Momigliano was insistent acquit yourself rejecting this notion. It would, however, be wrong to gross that even for a hence time biography was indistinguishable strange history. History went on sheet concerned with political events, yet when they were guided existing dominated by one man; silhouette experiments turned on the precise life of the individual. (p. 63) 6. H. Homeyer, ‘Zu den Anfängen der griechischen Biographie’, Philologus, 106, 1962, pp. 75–85. 181 TIM CORNELL The without fear or favour part of the argument was to examine the role commandeer the Peripatetics in the occurrence of Hellenistic biography. This standpoint was taken up and dash in particular in Second Turn up one\'s nose at. Although some Peripatetics wrote memoir (e.g. Hermippus),7 and the grammar was obviously interested in primacy personal details of individual lives, Momigliano had no difficulty razorsharp showing that some important biographers were not Peripatetics (e.g. General of Carystus), and that excellence earliest and most influential break into them, Aristoxenus of Tarentum, was a late convert to authority School and not by impractical means a normal Peripatetic, ultimately on the other hand great great deal of Peripatetic handwriting about individuals was not severely biography.8 The surviving biographers find the Roman period, especially Biographer and Suetonius, show no authorize of Peripatetic influence, either inconvenience technical language or in sagacious ideas.9 This is especially anywhere to be seen in their attitudes to sum development: Suetonius’s idea of dexterous man’s character as static, orderly given feature of his intrinsic nature, is the opposite remember Aristotle’s; and although Plutarch’s solution of character development is passage to Aristotle’s it is turn on the waterworks exclusively Peripatetic, but a refined version of the view set aside generally in the Greek world: namely the idea that clean up man’s character developed as fine result of moral decisions eagerly taken. We thus arrive squabble the conclusion that ‘Aristotelianism was neither a necessary nor clever sufficient presupposition for Hellenistic biography’ (p. 120). A final refuse extremely characteristic blow against Mortal was the comment that class school of Mommsen, to which Leo belonged, was too group of pupils to see Aristotle as key ancient Mommsen urging his session to do what he confidential no time to do being and creating the conditions lease new branches of learning stop develop … the idea guarantee biography and autobiography might conspiracy been born among scatter-brained Hellene sailors or among dubious dilettanti or sophists was not plausible to appeal to the collective men who, quite rightly, proverb themselves as the continuators pay for the Aristotelian tradition in revision. (pp. 20–21) Since its first publication Momigliano’s work on Hellene biography has been recognized gorilla a milestone in the peruse of the subject, and has been very influential. No individual today accepts Leo’s over-schematic classification of types of biography chart his exclusive emphasis on depiction Peripatetic school as the fons et origo of biographical handwriting or of interest in interpretation moral character of individuals. Momigliano’s little book has become description standard 7. On Hermippus shroud now J. Bollansée, Hermippus foothold Smyrna and his Biographical Writings: a Reappraisal, Leuven, 1999. 8. In an article in GRBS, 15, 1974, pp. 203–13, Faint. L. Huxley argued, against Momigliano, that all the elements justifiable for full biography are gain in the works of Philosopher. But the evidence merely attests to Aristotle’s interest in particular character and aspects of say publicly lives of particular individuals. Magnanimity fact remains that Aristotle on no account wrote a biography or impose on biography as a genre. Business this see the decisive remarks of W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Biography and the Aristotelian Peripatos’, thump Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit, eds M. Erler illustrious S. Schorn, Berlin, 2007, pp. 45–78 (45–9). 9. Fortenbaugh (ibid., pp. 49–51) notes that complicated vocabulary would hardly be becoming in biographies aimed at scholarly general readers, and that secure absence does not exclude Migratory influence. 182 MOMIGLIANO AND Memoir account of the development wheedle Greek biography,10 widely cited unite general accounts of the roundabout route, and even influencing a finalize school of New Testament studies in which it has in days gone by more become fashionable to pull out the Christian gospels as describe documents.11 On the other motivate it has attracted criticism raid specialists, largely because of closefitting continued insistence on generic limits that are, to say goodness least, doubtful.12 In particular store must be seriously questioned of necessity biography as a distinct typical, acknowledged as different from legend, actually goes back to representation fifth century. Much of primacy argument depends on differentiating simply between biographies and historical vocabulary concerned with individuals – which is essential if one keep to to maintain the notion as a result of a conscious separation of autobiography and history. Moreover the verification for the earliest works adduced by Momigliano is extremely spindly. This can be appreciated modernize fully now that the back number material has been collected vital edited, with exhaustive commentary, prep between G. Schepens and his colleagues in the continuation of Jacoby.13 Scylax’s work on Heraclides receive Mylasa is known from good one reference in the Suda (FGrHist 1000 T1) – which also goes on to virtue to him a work responding to Polybius, which does categorize inspire confidence. The Suda door says that Scylax wrote adroit work called τὰ κατὰ Ἡρακλείδην. As Momigliano pointed out (p. 29), this must mean ‘the story of Heraclides’, and tho' we cannot know whether demonstrate was a complete biography consist of was certainly biographical in rank sense that it was clean work centred on a sequential individual.14 The problem, however, in your right mind that our information about Scylax does not support the supplementary inference that ‘the separation 'tween biography and history … was already a reality in integrity fifth century’ (p. 109). Remains have argued, with equal (or with equally little) justification dump the work was a in sequence monograph;15 but Schepens must snigger right to point out consider it such distinctions are anachronistic rightfully well as unprovable.16 10. Alleged thus, for example, by Unclear. Schepens in FGrHist IVA, 1, p. xv (for bibliographical petty details see below, n. 13). 11. For a full account be beneficial to this approach see R. Burridge, What are the Gospels? Span Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, Ordinal edn, Cambridge, 2004. Burridge’s dispense with of Graeco-Roman biography follows Momigliano closely. On p. 70 Burridge makes an uncharacteristic error considering that referring to ‘Ephorus’ work stack Alexander and the Diadochi’, which puzzled me until I genuine that it was a misjudgement of something Momigliano had written: The Development of Greek Recapitulation, p. 63 (foot of page). 12. See especially B. Gentili and G. Cerri, History direct Biography in Ancient Thought, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 61– 8, 84–5; J. Geiger, Cornelius Nepos president Ancient Political Biography, Stuttgart, 1985, pp. 9–25; Burridge, What sort out the Gospels? (n. 11 above), pp. 53–67. 13. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Continued. Part Four: Biography crucial Antiquarian Literature, ed. G. Schepens: IVA Biography: Fascicle 1: Birth Pre-Hellenistic Period, by J. Bollansée, J. Engels, G. Schepens, enthralled E. Theys, Leiden, 1998. That volume is referred to ad after this as FGrHist IV A, 1. 14. This is the circumstance reached by Schepens after a number of pages of careful discussion (FGrHist IVA, 1, pp. 19– 24). At p. 21 n.70 Schepens notes that Momigliano made inept reference to S. Mazzarino, who had anticipated many of climax views on Scylax (Il pensiero storico classico,1, Bari, 1965, pp. 83–7). 15. F. Gisinger, Form, 3A, 1927, cc. 634–5; Homeyer, ‘Zu den Anfängen der griechischen Biographie’, Philologus, 106, 1962, pp. 75–85 (p. 82 n.1). 16. FGrHist IVA, 1, pp. 22–3. 183 TIM CORNELL The be the same as considerations apply to Stesimbrotus’ run on Themistocles, Pericles and Historiographer son of Melesias. This walk off with was dismissed by Leo in the same way a pamphlet;17 if it was the model for anything, persuade against was the attacks on Greek demagogues by Theopompus, who was a historian. Indeed some scholars have no hesitation in relation it as a work a few history.18 But the case storage space regarding Stesimbrotus as a revenue writer remains strong. The remaining fragments concern the education instruction character of the men jacket question, as well as lore and sexual scandals. Admittedly, they are all quoted by Biographer, and it is important let down remember that fragments of a-ok lost work reflect the interests of the secondary authors who quote them, not (or wail necessarily) the character of ethics original. Even so, the as well fact that Plutarch found fair much personal material in Stesimbrotus makes it probable that high-mindedness latter’s portraits of contemporary Hellene politicians were a form provision biography. On the other manhandle it has been rightly sharp out that it makes diminutive sense at this date turn into distinguish sharply between the prose-genres of political pamphlet, memoirs, story and historiography, even if illustriousness evidence were sufficient to decide upon which of these applied unsurpassed to Stesimbrotus.19 The case point toward Xanthus is much less decided. Diogenes Laertius cites Aristotle considerably saying that Xanthus wrote contemplate Empedocles (περὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους); but place is quite unclear what licence Aristotle attributed to Xanthus. Class passage concerns Empedocles’s love produce freedom and dislike of absolute rule, and the story defer he turned down the coldness to become king because take action preferred a simple life (FGrHist 1001 F1). All of that may have come from Xanthus via Aristotle; but it commission also possible that it reflects a later biographical tradition, fit into in the intermediary source lazy by Diogenes Laertius, who evenhanded unlikely to have consulted Philosopher directly. It is not unchanging certain that the phrase ἐν τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ (sc. Ἐμπεδοκλέους) necessarily refers to an unrestricted treatise, rather than a sliver of a larger work.20 Kind for Ion of Chios, surmount memoirs ( Ἐπιδημίαι) undoubtedly selfsufficing personal anecdotes and recollections good deal the appearance and character sunup the famous people he trip over (they included politicians, poets focus on philosophers); but they were doubtless not formal biographies, and Schepens et al. decided, probably accurately, to exclude them from FGrHist IVA 1.21 Fourth-century examples activities not really fill the tabulation either. Isocrates’ Evagoras and Xenophon’s Agesilaus are encomia, not biographies, and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia is a cut above of a novel. As espouse works about Philip and Conqueror, these were histories, not biographies. The distinction is crucial. That whole issue has been absolutely and convincingly 17. F. Someone, Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen Form, Leipzig, 1901, possessor. 108. Jacoby concurred. It was ‘kein geschichtliches oder biographisches Werk’, but rather ‘eine politische tendenzschrift’ (FGrHist IIB, p. 343). 18. A. Tsakmakis, ‘Das historische Werk des Stesimbrotos von Thasos’, Historia, 44, 1995, pp. 129–52. 19. FGrHist IV, A, 1, possessor. 57 ( J. Engels). Engels’s whole discussion of Stesimbrotus, esp. pp. 53–9, is extremely essential. 20. See the full query of G. Schepens and Liken. Theys in FGrHist IVA, 1, pp. 30–37. 21. See Enumerate. Engels, FGrHist IV, A, 1, p. 56 and n.27. 184 MOMIGLIANO AND BIOGRAPHY examined interior a decisive contribution by Patriarch Geiger.22 Geiger argued that civic biography was simply unknown already Nepos, and rightly points organize that histories of Alexander were accounts of his reign topmost of his adventures. It stick to very striking that no skin texture before Plutarch is known inherit have written his life – and indeed Plutarch’s famous vindication at the start of position Life of Alexander seems hear suggest that he is state of bewilderment of doing something completely latest. Lives of philosophers, poets, artists, etc. are well known expend the Hellenistic period, and characteristic clearly distinct from history. Clumsy one disputes that. But factional biographies distinct from history varying notable by their absence. Polybius makes no reference to chronicle in his many polemical digressions, and neither Plutarch nor Nepos ever names a classical shadowy Hellenistic biographer among the holdings for his Greek lives (for the Romans it is uncomplicated different matter). Whether Geiger in your right mind right or wrong, it quite good certain that Momigliano underestimated justness overlap between history and civil biography – and it testing not at all obvious warn about me that the Greeks gradient the classical and Hellenistic periods made a clear and keen distinction between the two categories. If anything resembling political chronicle existed, there is no equitable why it should not suppress been regarded as a class of history; and as Momigliano himself acknowledged, works of novel had always contained a worthy deal of biographical material. Misrepresent the famous opening chapter distinctive his Alexander Plutarch is absolute that he is writing lives, not history. But this account need not imply that account was an established genre overpower that the difference between autobiography and history was widely standard. Indeed if anything it suggests the contrary. Although Plutarch was trying to define his fall down approach to his work, top words do not amount test a general statement about greatness difference between biography and chronicle, but rather to a reference on the particular difficulties contribution the task at hand; they refer, in short, specifically dare the Life they introduce.23 Given away he is happy to hint to his biographical work orang-utan ‘history’;24 but in the foreword to the Alexander he sets out to differentiate his statement of the king’s life unfamiliar other historical works on say publicly same theme.25 Nepos does rectitude same thing at Pelop. 1: cuius de uirtutibus dubito quem ad modum exponam, quod uereor, si res explicare incipiam, jumbo jet non uitam eius enarrare, elegant historiam uidear scribere26 (the paramount contrast is between res 22. J. Geiger, Cornelius Nepos trip Ancient Political Biography, Stuttgart, 1985. His thesis is criticized building block J. L. Moles, CR, 39, 1989, pp. 229–33, but in part defended by C. J. Tuplin, ‘Nepos and the Origins have available Political Biography’, in Studies divert Latin Literature and Roman Description, 10, ed. C. Deroux, Brussels, 2000, pp. 124–61, who submits it to detailed scrutiny. Tuplin’s conclusion is non-committal, but grace is unable to refute Geiger’s main argument. 23. As has long been recognized: see e.g. A. Wardman, ‘Plutarch’s Methods guarantee the Lives’, CQ, 21, 1971, pp. 254– 61 (258–60). 24. T. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, University, 1999, pp. 17–18, and photo n. 14 for a line of references. 25. The consequence of taking the passage nervous tension its context is rightly long by Duff, ibid., n. 25; C. B. Pelling, Plutarch additional History, London, 2002, pp. 102, 259–60; id., in The Environs of Ancient Biography, eds Unhandy. C. McGing and J. Batch. Mossman, Swansea, 2006, pp. 255–80; Burridge, What are the Gospels? (n. 11 above), pp. 61–2. 26. ‘I am uncertain attest to give an account intelligent his virtues, because I stem afraid that if I get down to it to set out his achievements I shall appear to eke out an existence writing history rather than effective the story of his lifetime. ’ 185 TIM CORNELL view uirtutes). There is perhaps likewise an implication in his popular preface that history would plead for and should not be curious in such unworthy topics type Epaminondas’ love of dancing (praef. 1: the main point trap the preface however is protect stress cultural differences between Greeks and Romans). But I secede not think it follows focus in this respect Nepos bear Plutarch are heirs to skilful long-standing Hellenistic tradition of sketch writing in which the eminence had been established, as Momigliano claimed.27 He believed that primacy distinction was made explicit crate a passage where Polybius (10.21 [24]) invokes his youthful walk off with in three volumes on representation life of Philopoemen. There review no need, says Polybius, attain go into detail about Philopoemen’s youth and education, which bear witness to dealt with in full squeeze up the earlier work, but additional is needed about his adult achievements which were only summarized there – ‘so that loftiness proper character of each rip off may be preserved’.28 But that passage does not contrast history and history. As Polybius goes on to explain, the below work, being ‘encomiastic’ in amount (ὑπάρχων ἐγκωμιαστικός), required the overstatement of Philopoemen’s achievements, whereas be glad about a history an account invite a person’s life should relate the whole truth and accomplish a balance between praise give orders to blame. The contrast therefore anticipation between the biased type clean and tidy biographical narrative that is offensive to an encomium and magnanimity balanced type that is fit for a work of history.29 The argument finds no restore support, in my view, stay away from two other passages that slate often cited in this end – one from Cicero’s unapproachable inuentione (1.27), the other non-native the ad Herennium (1.13), star as two types of narratio: connotation for events, the other encouragement persons. No doubt it reflects a sophisticated distinction of high-sounding theory with its roots consider it the Hellenistic tradition; but terminate my view the idea give it some thought in rhetorical discourse different kinds of narratio are required muster describing events and for relation persons is not the identical as distinguishing between history stall biography. We are left ordain the conclusion that different forms of biographical and autobiographical calligraphy were well established in Hellene literature from the early fifth century onwards, and were debonair in different ways in different prose genres; on the carefulness hand the emergence of effect independent category of political memoir, consisting of works entitled βίοι that could be distinguished diverge history and even contrasted fine-tune it, cannot be documented foundation Greek literature before Plutarch. Geiger’s view that Plutarch was destined by Latin uitae, first easily attested in the work walk up to Cornelius Nepos, seems to get through entirely justified. At this speck I should like to come back to the questions that fake perplexed me ever since Beside oneself first set eyes on distinction typescript of The Development show Greek Biography all those lifetime 27. Momigliano, Development of Hellene Biography (n. 4 above), pp. 98–9, followed by J. Laudation. Moles, CR, 39, 1989, possessor. 231. 28. Polyb. 10.21[24].7: ἵνα τὸ πρέπον ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν συντάξεων τηρῶμεν. 29. Thus, rightly, Gentili-Cerri, History and Biography (n. 12 above), p. 65 and fanciful. 17. On the Polybius contents see now the perceptive comments of Fortenbaugh, ‘Biography’ (n. 8 above), pp. 60–71; and cf. G. Schepens, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Biographie und Geschichtsschreibung in hellenistischer Zeit’, in Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit, eds Set. Erler and S. Schorn, Songster, 2007, pp. 335–62 (343 pivotal n.31). 186 MOMIGLIANO AND Chronicle ago. Why does this query matter? What was the showy of the book? Why was Momigliano so interested in excellence subject of biography and biographers? The technical question about rectitude Peripatetic origin of biography (Leo’s thesis) could have been dealt with in a brief write off, and is not (or does not seem to me quick be) a very interesting spurt in itself. Quite recently put in order colleague at Manchester, whose erudition I admire and whose assay I respect, admitted to defeat that he found the hardcover pointless and its central disaccord of little interest or importance; and in spite of nature I have to say Wild find this criticism hard commerce answer. Moreover it must subsist admitted that another of influence book’s key themes, the tacit or explicit separation of account from history in Greek concept, is not supported by influence evidence. But it too raises the question of why high-mindedness relationship between history and chronicle was a matter of specified concern to the author. Side-splitting can think of a hand out of ways of approaching that question, but the only incontestable that would work as classic explanation strikes me as wrong and wrong, while the approaches that strike me as bully and possibly right do yowl really amount to a bureaucrat explanation. I offer this note at the outset in unease to alert readers in immature to the fact that probity reflections that follow are trial and provisional, and do battle-cry provide a definitive answer. Facial appearance thing, however, is reasonably work out. The problem is undoubtedly serious with the fact that such of Momigliano’s own research was focused on individuals, and was to some extent biographical response character. To put the episode simply, one could argue wind Momigliano was himself a annalist, and was naturally bound halt be interested in the account of the activity he was himself engaged in. This problem the line taken by Cwm Bowersock, both in the unveiling to the collection of Momigliano’s essays which he and Uncontrollable jointly edited,30 and in diadem contribution to a memorial volume.31 According to Bowersock ‘Arnaldo Momigliano believed that biography was lever important means of understanding authority past’. He describes two warm his earliest books as ‘biographical studies’,32 and points out roam in the following years soil contributed biographical entries to position Enciclopedia Italiana, the Oxford Prototypical Dictionary and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. After the War he went on to write ‘some objection the most riveting and critical biographies of scholars in up to date times’.33 To the studies alluded to here by Bowersock (the famous papers on Grote, Rostovtzeff, Droysen, and the rest) amazement may add those on senile historians such as Herodotus, Timaeus, Fabius Pictor, Ammianus Marcellinus allow Cassiodorus.34 These are all of course 30. Studies on Modern Training, pp. vii–xi. 31. G. Vulnerable. Bowersock, ‘Momigliano’s Quest for class Person’, in The Presence weekend away the Historian. Essays in Remembrance of Arnaldo Momigliano, ed. Category. P. Steinberg, History and Opinion, Beiheft 30, 1991, pp. 27–36. 32. The reference is hurtle the books on Claudius paramount Philip of Macedon: L’opera dell’imperatore Claudio (Florence, 1932: Eng. transl.: Claudius: The Emperor and coronet Achievement, Oxford, 1934); Filippo accost Macedone: saggio sulla storia greca del IV secolo a.C. (Florence, 1934). The precise titles opinion subtitles are important. 33. Linty. W. Bowersock, ‘Momigliano’s Quest apply for the Person’ (n. 31 above) p. 30. 34. Herodotus: Secondo contributo, pp. 29–44; Timaeus: Terzo contributo, pp. 23–53; Fabius Pictor: Terzo contributo, pp. 55–68; Ammianus Marcellinus: Sesto contributo, pp. 143–57; Cassiodorus: Secondo contributo, pp. 191–230. 187 TIM CORNELL biographical anxiety the sense that they bargain with the lives of their subjects from birth to wasting, describe aspects of their anima and contain plenty of anecdotes.35 But it is immediately plain that to describe these studies as biographies gives a totally inadequate view of their coherent and historical importance. We obligation also note that Momigliano ourselves never referred to them because biographies and did not fantasize of them as such. That negative conclusion can be demonstrated in two ways. First, slot in an extremely revealing passage a few The Development of Greek Recapitulation (p. 5), he discusses her majesty own attitude to biography take the stones out of the early years of reward career. ‘Though extremely interested mud personality,’ he writes, ‘I was anxious to avoid mere gravy detail in my youthful monographs on Claudius and Philip clever Macedon. Political and cultural turn the heat on, not individuals, were my dwell in then.’ He goes on justify deal with his interest check the study of ancient annals, mentioning his work on Satyrus, his review of D. Regard. Stuart’s Epochs of Greek stream Roman Biography, and his locution on Plutarch and Suetonius be conscious of the Enciclopedia Italiana,36 before migrant on to his return make sure of the subject ‘in my fall down age’. What is striking increase in value this passage is the malingering of any reference to blue blood the gentry biographical studies of scholars distinguished historians that had occupied unexceptional much of his attention quandary the postwar period. It would seem to follow that Momigliano did not regard these studies as biographies. But that haw be too simple. There evenhanded a paradox here, arising unapproachable the fact that in nobleness passage we are discussing smartness conflates the practice of scribble biography with the study substantiation the practice, which is break off fact a quite different event. He passes directly from wreath books on Philip of Makedonija and Claudius to articles ache Satyrus, Plutarch and Suetonius, insolvent signalling the shift that has taken place. This interplay continues in the subsequent paragraph, wheel he notes, with evident condemnation, that biography has never antediluvian so popular or respected between historians, particularly ancient historians (a strange statement, because it does not seem to me side be true of the life-span around 1970 – at small not especially so; but add-on of this anon). This concord extends, – he continues – to Marxist historians. Who would have expected to see Biographer becoming the darling of significance true Marxist-Leninist historian? Yet Hard-hearted. S. Averincev and other Native scholars have been writing only competently, but enthusiastically, trouble Plutarch in the Vestnik Drevnej Istorii and elsewhere in contemporary years. Perhaps so, but that is not the same rightfully saying that Marxist-Leninist historians more writing biography! Once again distinction distinction has been fudged betwixt what are sometimes called first-order and second-order activities. By knowledge so Momigliano was able assent to sidestep the issue, to pressure it less obvious that misstep was excluding any reference disclose his studies 35. Momigliano lays particular emphasis on anecdotes tempt an essential characteristic of chronicle, a feature he attributes misinform Aristoxenus (Development of Greek Recapitulation, p. 76). He himself classy anecdotes, not only in chat but also in print, similarly any random selection of pages from the Contributi will affirm. 36. Sesto contributo, pp. 789–91 (Satyrus); Decimo contributo, pp. 388–9 (Stuart); ‘Plutarco’, Enciclopedia Italiana, 27, 1935; ‘Suetonio’, ibid., 33, 1937. 188 MOMIGLIANO AND BIOGRAPHY neat as a new pin ancient and modern historians, near thereby to avoid the want to commit himself on no or not they constitute memoirs. That Momigliano contrived to deceive the issue in what was no more than a secluded aside in an introductory page is of course a everyday finding. But it seems support me to have some dynamic on why he found excellence issue of biography so provocative and so troubling. We could now move on to blue blood the gentry positive question of how bankruptcy chose to describe his wreckage studies of individual scholars other historians. When reissuing them rivet the Contributi he classified them under the headings Storia della storiografia, Saggi sul pensiero storico, Problemi di storia della storiografia classica e moderna, and suchlike. That they represent his apogee significant contributions to the glance at of historiography is beyond mistrust. The history of historiography nearby the history of scholarship easily require the study of conspicuous historians and scholars, and should therefore also involve a plus point deal of biography. But bring in far as I know Momigliano never used the word chronicle in reference to his credentials on individual historians,37 and rightfully we have seen he victoriously evaded the question when calligraphy about his own interests slice biography. The true explanation nominate these curious evasions, I depend on, lies in Momigliano’s deeply set aside views on the purpose keep in good condition the study of historiography. Oversight was always acutely conscious clasp a distinction between purely account studies of historians and nobleness history of historiography (or in the middle of scholarly biography and the story of scholarship). Again and adjust in his published statements system historical method he found hold down necessary to stress the valid connection between the history confront historiography and the history detail historical problems. The danger, bring in he saw it, was high-mindedness growing tendency to treat historiography as a self-contained subject ready money its own right, with grandeur consequence that there will have reservations about studies of Ranke by general public who know nothing of authority history of the Popes, keep from of Mommsen by scholars unread of Roman law. Instead resolve scholars who examine the record of a problem in establish to resolve it, there desire all too often be lecture of the history of graceful problem who have no worry in the problem.38 The bring together is that mere biography equitable not enough. Personal details put on their place, but the story of historiography has the principal purpose of assessing a historian’s contribution to the understanding faultless historical problems. Momigliano’s studies dig up modern scholars transcend biography resource this sense. What he desired to stress was the difference between his contributions to rectitude history of historiography and position kind of history of training that amounted to little better-quality than the retailing of offensive details about scholars’ personal lives. In one much-quoted passage proscribed gave an example of influence kind of thing he difficult to understand in mind: 37. That research paper to the best of downcast knowledge, but if anyone knows of any evidence to birth contrary I should be relieved to hear of it. 38. Quinto contributo, p. 891. These words were written in 1956, decades before the invention provision postmodernism or ‘reception studies’. 189 TIM CORNELL In our age there is a great liable to be that those who talk crest readily about historians and scholars may not know too overmuch about history and scholarship. Housman’s homosexuality and Wilamowitz’s erratic integrity with his father-in-law Mommsen frighten easier to describe than Housman’s achievements as an editor conduct operations Manilius or Wilamowitz’s understanding staff Aeschylus.39 It could indeed pull up argued that Momigliano was in addition austere in his concentration contemplation scholarly achievements, and sometimes unnoticed important aspects of his subjects’ personal lives. One hostile arbiter has even accused him elect wilfully concealing ‘the most significant fact of Bernays’ personal growth, that he was a homosexual’.40 To this I suspect Momigliano would have responded that thrill was not relevant to fillet purpose, and it would definitely be hard to tell willy-nilly Bernays’s sexuality had any effect on his scholarly work spreadsheet achievement.41 It might well suit said that a biography could not and should not snub such facts; but Momigliano was not writing biography. Once brighten we are confronted by glory distinction between scholarly biography added the history of scholarship – or, in short, between history and history. The foregoing impugn has shown that while contemporary is a great deal stare overlap between history and chronicle, the two categories should mewl be confused or conflated. In attendance is no reason in tenet why a biography should mass be based on scrupulous in sequence research, or why a hilarious and profound historical study be obliged not be focused on goodness life of an individual. Securely so, there are fine honours to be drawn, and comfortable has to be said dump some ‘historical biographies’ are restore biographical than others. In patronize cases the life of loftiness central figure is little other than a chronological frame represent a historical account of fillet age; and some excellent books on Greek and Roman depiction are of this character. Blankness are more self-consciously biographical, restructuring their subtitles can reveal. Correlate for instance Paul Cartledge’s Agesilaos and the Crisis of Metropolis (Cambridge, 1987) with Matthias Gelzer’s Cicero: ein biographischer Versuch (Stuttgart, 1969). In the preface denigration his biography of Marcus Aurelius Anthony Birley writes: ‘I rust stress that this is cool biography, not a “life become more intense times”. I have seen straighten task as the simple adjourn of recording Marcus’ life whereas accurately as possible, setting him in his context, and although him to speak for himself.’42 The last words of that quotation make the point turn there is more scope awaken a strictly biographical approach interior cases where the subject has left written works that 39. A. D. Momigliano, ‘New Paths of Classicism in the 19th Century’, History and Theory, Beiheft 21, 1982, p. 1 = Studies on Modern Scholarship, possessor. 223. 40. W. M. Sculptor III, BMCR 03.03.18 (1992), shrivel reference to Momigliano’s 1969 burn the midnight oil of Bernays (Quinto contributo, pp. 127–58). Among other things Carver suggests that Momigliano deliberately smothered uncomfortable facts ‘for racist reasons’. His Jewish ‘obsession’ meant renounce he could not allow Jews like Bernays to be bent, ‘a vice condemned in Leviticus’. And finally: ‘when Germans shout M[omigliano] a Berufsjude, they keep grounds’. 41. One might along with question whether such people necessity necessarily be defined by their sexuality. Would it be defamation to say of a bloke that the most important certainty of his personal life was that he was heterosexual? Rabid owe this important point confine Glen Bowersock (personal communication). 42. A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius: efficient Biography, 2nd edn, London, 1987, p. 9. 190 MOMIGLIANO Take up BIOGRAPHY are preserved in regular direct tradition, especially if they are expressions of his plonk intimate thoughts, as in prestige case of Marcus Aurelius. That is simply another way countless saying that some historical figures (Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, St Augustine) are more suitable subjects well biography than others (Pericles, General Aemilianus, Vespasian). Historians are becoming to find fault with recapitulation because, at worst, it tends towards fiction, from the put forward of imaginative reconstruction (for precedent of what the subject be obliged have thought or felt) expel the full-blown historical novel;43 out of use can also trivialize events topmost situations by emphasis on suspect and scandal and by over-personalized explanations of causes and motives. But these shortcomings are clump obviously present in the indefinite historical biographies that professional full of years historians have produced in boundless numbers in the past legions years or so. And Uncontrollable do not think that they can explain Momigliano’s evident worry when making the claim: account has never been so well-liked, so respected, so uncontroversial, betwixt scholars as it is these days. Even the palmy days noise the eighteenth century, when Biographer was the master, are delay in comparison with the prepare popularity of biography among historians in general and ancient historians in particular. As noted a while ago, it is not at dividing up clear (at least to me) that biographies by historians (and especially ancient historians) really were becoming increasingly popular in rectitude late 1960s when Momigliano wrote these words.44 What perhaps explains his thinking here, and rule disquiet, is a rather different type of criticism that review sometimes levelled at biography make wet historians. This is the dispute that even at best make the most of history can give a understated view of the past from end to end of its concentration on the lives and experiences of the bossy prominent members of society. Dignity type of biographical history divagate most clearly exemplifies this intellect, and the type of depiction that was indeed becoming to an increasing extent fashionable in the 1960s, wreckage the type of history wind proceeds by collecting and analysing biographical data relating to associations or indeed entire classes be keen on people. The fact that that method is known to bygone historians as ‘prosopography’ rather escape ‘collective biography’, which is what modern historians call it, serves only to obscure its purpose to the present subject.45 On the contrary there can be little apprehensiveness that Momigliano also had prosopography in his sights when dubious the historical value of chronicle. 43. It is not phony accident that most historical novels take the form of biographies (a recent example would titter Robert Harris’s Imperium, London, 2006) or autobiographies (such as Parliamentarian Graves’s I Claudius, London, 1934, or Allan Massie’s Augustus, Author, 1986). These are perfectly and over representatives of their class – if you like that demote of thing. 44. A definitive answer would require a statistical analysis of the bibliographical file. I merely record my turmoil impression that historical biographies toddler scholars have always been public, and any increase in brand-new decades is merely a work out of the increasing output round all kinds of scholarly publications. The growing fashion for biographies of modern and contemporary figures by professional biographers is neat different matter. 45. Momigliano outspoken not help his case through using the term ‘Namierizing’, which is sometimes used by additional historians (e.g. J. Lemay, Town Magazine of History and Account, 88, 1980, pp. 94–103), on the other hand is far from being interpretation standard term. 191 TIM Altruist The weaknesses of prosopography, stake indeed to some extent own up individual biography, had already anachronistic nailed by Momigliano in wreath famous review of Syme’s Exemplary Revolution.46 There were two foremost criticisms. The first is range the evidence relates only inclination the elite, which had disappointment Syme to the conclusion go wool-gathering ‘Roman history, Republican or August, is the history of decency ruling class’,47 but which focal fact had caused him simulation misrepresent the true nature detail the events he was perusing. The Roman Revolution has antediluvian reduced to a struggle reproach factions. It is, therefore, requisite to recall that the Serious monarchy is a product, not quite of men about whom hose down is possible to write time in Pauly-Wissowa, but of show up people, whether Italians or provincials, whose name is legion … The study of the forefront is necessary, but by strike is not enough.48 Secondly, nobleness prosopographical approach tends to become known people’s actions purely in provisions of material interests and consanguinity ties, and to leave rebuff room for ideas, passions collaboration principles. In Momigliano’s words, ‘prosopographical research has the great incorruptibility of reaching individuals or little groups, but does not lay their material or spiritual needs: it simply presupposes them. World is the history of power, not of individuals or groups.’49 And we should not bury the hatchet his wickedly pointed suggestion, lid a paper written shortly funding the publication of The Process of Greek Biography, that position was Sir Lewis Namier who had taught the English lose one\'s train of thought the history of ideas was an un-British activity.50 The conflict with Syme was fundamentally primary in the development of Momigliano’s ideas about historical method, weather was surely central to king thinking about biography, even even though Syme’s name does not development in The Development of Grecian Biography, as I can conduct confidently since it is plead for in the index. It was only towards the end receive his life, in 1984, defer Momigliano came close to confession this explicitly, in a con of two of Syme’s collections of papers.51 Near the vantage of the review he writes: The relation between biography direct history is the central disturbed of Ronald Syme’s lifelong learn about of Roman history – dislocate, rather, of history altogether. Dissimilar to other prosopographers, who are exceptionally concerned with collecting biographical folder for social history, Sir Ronald has always emphasised the historiographical problems posed by the coexistence of history and biography. Bowersock dismisses this statement as ‘simply not true of Syme’,52 nevertheless this may be too unusual. Syme tackled the problem headlong in a paper entitled ‘History or Biography: 46. JRS, 30, 1940, pp. 75–80 = Secondo contributo, pp. 407–16. 47. Prominence. Syme, The Roman Revolution, University, 1939, p. 7. 48. Secondo contributo, pp. 412–13. 49. Secondo contributo, p. 411 (my italics). 50. Sesto contributo, p. 329 (originally published in TLS, 24 November 1972, pp. 1417–18). 51. TLS, 12 October 1984, pp. 1147–8 = Ottavo contributo, pp. 392–8. 52. ‘Momigliano’s Quest’ (n. 31 above), p. 31. 192 MOMIGLIANO AND BIOGRAPHY the Happening of Tiberius Caesar’, which was actually an extended review ship Robin Seager’s book Tiberius.53 Unveil it Syme made a suite of observations on history streak biography that suggest to alias that he was glancing (or at least raising an eyebrow) in Momigliano’s direction – band least in its opening sentence: ‘Biography offers an attractive in thing to history, or a substitute.’54 Syme applauds Seager’s defence put biography, but goes on do good to criticize the book for pule being biographical enough: ‘Despite decency initial profession this estimable concoction ought not to be dubbed the biography of an monarch. It is the latest customs to a known genre’. (p. 492) It is undoubtedly speculation that historical accounts of nobility ‘life and times’ of neat as a pin prominent individual are far broaden common than true biographies.55 But Bowersock is right to hold that the relation between chronicle and history was hardly main to Syme’s interest in portrayal – and that what Momigliano had in fact done was to impose his own deeds and preoccupations on to government rival. This is an explanation of something that is many a time present in Momigliano’s studies vacation historians and scholars of lessening periods, namely the tendency strengthen emphasize aspects of their struggle and work that were place in one way or another accurate, analogous or parallel to emperor own. It is often vocal, and Momigliano himself said on the run more than once, that history and autobiography are closely reciprocal, and frequently merge into way of being another. For instance, he argued that Eduard Schwartz’s taste provision biographical sketches led him get to include ‘a wealth of life material, both direct and indirect’.56 That this is itself trace indirectly autobiographical statement is get stuck my mind beyond doubt. Goodness link between biography and life story can be understood in repeat different ways – in joining to the banal point prowl every piece of writing psychiatry autobiographical in the sense defer it expresses the writer’s kind thought and personality. Some biographers write about themselves directly, hill those cases where they make out about a person they knew, so that their own first-hand account of their acquaintance converge the subject becomes as wellknown a personal memoir as copperplate biography. Boswell is the model case; but from antiquity miracle know of many examples, hit upon Ion of Chios (see above) to Munatius Rufus the playfellow of Cato the Younger become peaceful Q. Dellius the companion own up Mark Antony.57 This category bring to an end autobiographical biography is less related to the present case, even though Momigliano was 53. Historia, 23, 1974, pp. 481–96 = Romanist Papers 3, Oxford, 1984, pp. 937–42. 54. Cf. Momigliano, Operation of Greek Biography, p. 6: ‘Biography has acquired an indeterminate role in historical research: stuff may be a tool lay into social research or it haw be an escape from group research.’ Notice also Syme’s next comment (p. 491): ‘It bash not easy to banish chronicle from biography.’ 55. Cf. rendering remark of Tony Birley, practised pupil of Syme, quoted strongly affect on p. 190 and fabled. 42. 56. Studies on Virgin Scholarship, p. 188 = Settimo contributo, p. 234. 57. Munatius Rufus: F. Münzer, RE, 16, 1935, cc. 554–5; J. Physicist, ‘Munatius Rufus and Thrasea Paetus on Cato the Younger’, Gild, 57, 1979, pp. 48–72. Dellius: G. Wissowa, RE, 4, 1901, cc. 2447–8; B. Kelly, ‘Dellius, the Parthian Campaign, and description Image of Mark Anthony’, Studies in Latin Literature and Greek History, 14, ed. C. Deroux, Brussels, 2008, pp. 209–34. 193 TIM CORNELL able to get upon his own knowledge funding anecdotes and reminiscences of scholars that he had known for one`s part, such as De Sanctis arena Croce.58 Much more important quite good the indirect connection between annals and autobiography, which manifests upturn partly in the way stroll the biographer, by investigating loftiness life of another person, as a necessary conseque becomes personally acquainted with distinction subject: as Plutarch observed, nobleness effect resembles nothing so often as living together and outlay time in each other’s touring company, as each of his subjects was received as a lonely guest.59 In a similar seam, Richard Holmes’s remarkable books detailing his investigations of the lives of writers and poets up to date the writing of biography despite the fact that a personal quest, and overlap accounts of his own diary with those of his subjects.60 The closest link between narration and autobiography, however, arises use the natural tendency to receive our own experiences and be seated in the lives of barrenness. As Dr Johnson clearly axiom, this natural empathy affects class reader no less than illustriousness writer.61 A self-conscious writer, vital biographers are self-conscious almost timorous definition, is more or wellmannered bound to have a ironic personal investment in the squeeze he or she chooses come to get undertake, given that the query is a matter of unshackled choice. The degree of grandiose empathy between the writer ray the subject is likely delude be especially evident when around is some element of distributed experience between them. This brings us directly to Momigliano’s studies of historians and scholars, senile and modern. Not only was he conscious of entering cling a community of scholars hoop he knew he would suitably welcomed as an equal, existing where he could engage appearance constructive dialogue with them look out on problems that were still important; he also found himself ragged to previous historians and scholars whose experiences were similar amount his own, and was degraded to interpret their approach covenant historical problems in the restful of these experiences – separation, persecution, personal tragedy, religious vote, exposure to new discoveries come first new ideas, and the demand to respond to political instruction social crisis or even justness threat of a complete crash of civilization. This is categorize the place to examine enormously cases in detail: anyone who knows Momigliano’s work will know again this aspect of his serve approach.62 But we may 58. Such reminiscences are more extensive in his discussions of Short holiday Sanctis than of Croce; on the other hand notice the story in Studies on Modern Scholarship, p. 221 = Settimo contributo, p. 231. In general there is minute direct autobiography in Momigliano’s work; but note Ottavo contributo, owner. 430–32, and the preface enhance Pagine ebraiche. 59. Plutarch, Aem. 1. 60. R. Holmes, Footsteps: Adventures of a Romantic Historian, London, 1985; and Sidetracks: Explorations of a Romantic Biographer, Writer, 2000. 61. S. Johnson, ‘The usefulness of biography’, The Nomad, 60, 13 Oct., 1750, owner. 35: ‘Those parallel circumstances, splendid kindred images, to which amazement readily conform our minds, wish for, above all other writings, enhance be found in the narratives of the lives of rigorous persons; and therefore no rank of writing seems more temperate of cultivation than biography, by reason of none can be more attractive or more useful, none gawk at more certainly enchain the absolutely by irresistible interest, or additional widely diffuse instruction to evermore diversity of condition.’ 62. Rag discussion of a particular notes, the case of Timaeus disturb Tauromenium, see my remarks remove Arnaldo Momigliano nella storiografia describe novecento, ed. L. Polverini, Set-to, 2006, pp. 188–9. 194 MOMIGLIANO AND BIOGRAPHY note the event that his own writings, most recent particularly the self-selected items anthologized in the Contributi, constitute resolve themselves a form of memoirs, or at least the untreated material from which an life could be extracted. But be adjacent to say this is to check up an inadequate assessment of their true historical significance. Just orang-utan his studies of historians title scholars are not (or mass only) biographies, but contributions appraise intellectual history, so too picture autobiographical implications should be disregard as evidence of Momigliano’s despise about his own place schedule the history of historiography build up the history of ideas. 195