Fustel Would Not Have Tweeted

The great French historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges did not like to be distracted by the transitory.  He therefore adopted a firm policy for dealing with his contemporaries and competitors:

[H]e had imposed upon himself the principle of not reading them, and in particular of not reading the works of Mommsen, until he had almost finished his book. He insists on this independence from modern authors also in the reply to Morel, where the books of Becker and Marquardt are specified among those not read.  ... If the Cité antique is haughtily devoid of references to modern authors while revealing an enviable familiarity with classical texts, one must deduce from this not simple ignorance, but intentional disregard ... . In his inaugural lecture at Strasbourg in 1862 Fustel declared: ‘I then resolved to have no masters on Greece other than the Greeks themselves, nor on Rome than the Romans.’ Even more explicitly, in fragments published after his death: ‘I would rather be mistaken in the manner of Livy than that of Niebuhr; and in the manner of Gregory of Tours than that of Mr Sohm.’

Fustel's most enduring work  is certainly La Cité antique in which he sketched a view of early history in which the family precedes the state, while creating (and guaranteeing) private property.  I gather he still counts as a precursor of the sociologist Emil Durkheim.  I have a copy of The Ancient City over there on the far wall with the Greek and Roman stuff, in an Anchor paperback with design and typography by, I am astonished to discover, Edward Gorey.  No date but I'd guess late 50s, maybe early 60s.  I got about twenty pages into it once and then set it aside as, shall we say, not apposite to my needs. Query, was this a mistake?  Does anyone read Fustel now?  Should I?

Source: Momigliano, Arnaldo (2012-06-26). "Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges," Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Kindle Locations 5599-5609). University Of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
 

All You Need to Know about Historiography

[Arnaldo Momigliano] identified an ethnographic tradition of historians interested in foreign customs and rituals, inspired by Herodotus; a political tradition of historians fascinated by statesmen’s decision making and military successes and failures, inspired by Thucydides; a critical tradition of historians of tyranny, inspired by Tacitus; a national tradition of historians struggling to understand the process of building a coherent state, inspired by Polybius and Livy; an antiquarian strand of writers on laws, rituals, and customs, inspired by Dicearchus and Varro; and a massive body of ecclesiastical history, inspired by Eusebius. 

So Anthony Grafton introducing Arnaldo Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Kindle Locations 135-138). University Of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.   Grafton continues:   "Each of these traditions had its special contours and its particular uses, and they often collided with one another." (Kindle Locations 138-139).    The whole book is rewarding, but if you want to follow up this particular thread, just download the Kindle free sample.

Caro on Valenti on the Best Historians

I heard Robert Caro, the biographer of Lyndon Johnson, talking to Brian Lamb on C-span and bosting (sic?) about how Johnson's minion Jack Valenti had ranked him with "the best historiaans" whom he identified as Macaulay and Gibbon.

Caro seemed pleased. This doesn't work for me in so many ways. One, Valenti is surely major-league suckup by any standard and I can't believe anything he'd say by way of a compliment. Two, I doubt very much that he ever read a history book of any sort, and that would include the six he is said to have written.

But three--Gibbon and Macaulay? Okay, I suppose Gibbon is likely to show up on a lot of lists, and he is a kind of a presence, but I think he is vastly overrated, probably most by people who haven't read him--or who haven't read enough him to realize how tedious and predictable that trademark Gibbonian style can become. But Macaulay was nothing more than a popularizer--the kind of guy whose name you would bandy about (especially) if you didn't know the name of any other historian.

So, who would you pick as the two greatest historians? This kind of contest is always a mug's game. Still, I think I'd have to start with Thucydides. I'd skip over Livy (the Roman Macaulay?). If I had to limit myself to a big British narrative history, I'd surely take Hume over Gibbon. But I am not sure I should be so restricted. What of the great 19th Century Germans, who more or less invented history--of whom, I admit, not knowing a word of German, I have not read a word. Well okay, how about Burkhardt--Swiss, and readily available in translation? What about Michelet, the French Macaulay?

I seem to be getting bogged down here. The point is that after Thucydides, there doesn't seem to be a clear second choice, or 20 second choices, and nobody for third. I suppose if you want to get serious about this, you'd probably have to go all the way to the 20th Century and pick Marc Bloch or Fernand Braudel. I doubt that those names would be on Valenti's smooth tongue. Heck, what about skipping the whole lot and just settling for Robert Caro? I think he'd be pleased.

Update: Damn, I forgot Tacitus, who might just be second behind Thucydides. Shamefaced thanks to Carlton for the reminder.