Grafton, A - Footnote, A Curious History (Harvard, 1999)

THE FOOTNOTE
A Curious History
*
THE FOOTNOTE
A Curious History
*
ANTHONY
GRAFTON
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Copyright 1997 by Les Editions du Seuil
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
First Harvard University Press paperback edition, 1999
This work will be published as Les Originu tragiqueJ
de /'inuiition: U ne hiJtoire de Ia note en bas de page
as part of the series La Librairie du XXe Siecle,
edited by Maurice Olender.
Library of Congrus Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Grafton, Anthony.
The footnote : a curious history I
Anthony Grafton . ..,-- [Rev. ed.]
p. em.
Original English ms. version was translated into German
and published under tide: Die tragischen Urspriinge
der deutschen Fussnot (Berlin, 1995) ;
this is a revision of the original English version.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN o-674-90215-7 (cloth)
ISBN o-674-30760-7 (pbk.)
1. Bibliographic citations. I. Tide.
PNI7I.F56G73 1997
97-17732
Designed by Gwen Nefsky Frankfeldr
This book has been digitally reprinted. The content
remains identical to that of previous printings.
CONTENTS
Preface vu
Acknowledgments tx
I Footnotes: The Origin of a Species 1
2 Ranke: A Footnote about Scientific History 34
3 How the Historian Found His Muse:
Ranke's Path to the Footnote 62
4 Footnotes and Philosophie:
An Enlightenment Interlude 94
5 Back to the Future, I:
De Thou Documents the Details 122
6 Back to the Future, 2: The Antlike Industry of
Ecclesiastical Historians and Antiquaries 148
7 Clarity and Distinctness in the Abysses of Erudition:
The Cartesian Origins of the Modern Footnote 190
Epilogue: Some Concluding Footnotes
Index 237
223
PREFACE
*Many books o!ler fOOtnotes to histoJ;y: they tell marginal
stories, reconstruct minor battles, or describe curious individ-
uals. So far as I know, however, no one has ever dedicated a
book to the history of the footnotes that actually appear in the
margins of modern historical works. Yet footnotes matter to
historians. They are the humanist's rough equivalent of the
scientist's report on data: they offer the empirical support for
stories told and arguments presented. Without them, historical
theses can be admired or resented, but they cannot be verified
or disproved. As a basic professional and intellectual practice,
they deserve the same sort of scrutiny that laboratory notebooks
and scientific articles have long received from historians of sci-
ence.
Statements about the nature and origins of the footnote ap-
pear in histories of historiography and manuals for writers of
historical dissertations. They are particularly likely to occur in
polerri'ks about the good old days when historians were men
and footnotes were footnotes. These often suggest that at a
particular date-usually the nineteenth century-and place-
often the pre-World War I German universities-footnotes en-
viii * Preface
joyed a golden age of solidity and accuracy. Such statements,
however, rarely rest on extensive research, and are often in-
tended to support or attack the practices of a given school rather
than to reconstruct their sources and development. The scat-
tered studies that do exist, moreover, naturally reflect the lim-
itations of their authors' specialized training and perspectives.
Scholars have placed the birth of the footnote in the twelfth
century, the seventeenth, the eighteenth, and the nineteenth-
never without good reason, but usually without attending to
the other chapters in this story. One point of my essay is, quite
simply, to connect these scattered threads of research. Another,
and more important one, is to show that, when woven together,
these strands make up a story as full of unexpected human and
intellectual interest as many more famous episodes in intellec-
tual history. The footnote is not so uniform and reliable as some
historians believe. Nor is it the pretentious, authoritarian de-
vice that other historians reject. It is the creation of a varied
and talented group, one that included philosophers as well as
historians. Its development took a long time and followed a
bumpy path. And its story casts new light on many dark re-
cesses in the unwritten history of historical scholarship.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
*I became interested in this subject as an undergraduate,
when I read parts of Pierre Bayle's Dictionary and Arnaldo
Momigliano's Studies in Historiography. A plan, conceived with
friends, to create a pseudo-scholarly journal and devote a whole
issue to the topic sadly failed. But I slowly continued to collect
information. At last, a conference on Proof and Persuasion in
History, held in 1993 at the Davis Center for Historical Stud-
ies, Princeton University, provided the impetus to assemble my
materials and advance an interpretation of them. I owe warm
thanks to Sue Marchand, with whom I organized the confer-
ence, and to Mark Phillips and Randolph Starn, who offered
sharp and useful criticisms of my original paper. A revised ver-
sion of this appears, with other papers from the conference, as
"The Footnote from de Thou to Ranke," in History and Theory,
Theme Issue 33 (1994; copyright Wesleyan University). Rich-
ard Vann kindly permitted me to reuse my original formula-
tions in this book.
An invitation to spend the academic year 1993-94 at the
Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin both enabled and stimulated me
to attack the footnote a second time. The Wissenschaftskolleg
x * Acknowledgments
provided free time for work in the city of Ranke and Meinecke.
Gesine Bottomley and her staff in the Wissenschaftskolleg li-
brary found the most ordinary and the most obscure materials
with equal ease and rapidity. They also guided me through the
magnificent labyrinth of Berlin's collections of manuscripts and
rare books. I feel a special debt to the staff of the Handschrif-
tenabteilung of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer
Kulturbesitz, Haus II, who helped me to explore the dark
boxes, every one an Ali Baba's cave, that house the magnificent
chaos of Ranke's Nachlass. The library staffs of the Freie Univ-
ersitat and the Humboldt Universitat, especially those of the
Meinecke Institut and the Seminar fiir Klassische Philologie at
the Freie Universitat, also gave me open access to their treas-
ures. Earlier research was done chiefly in the Firestone Library
of Princeton University and at the Bibliotheque Nationale de
France; supplementary research at the British Library, the Fan-
dation Hardt, the Warburg Institute, the Osterreichische Na-
tionalbibliothek, and, above all, the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Many friends offered criticism and information. My thanks
to ]. W. Binns, Robert Darnton, Henk Jan de Jonge, Erhard
Denninger, Carlotta Dionisotti, John Fleming, Simon Horn-
blower, Reinhart Markner, Reinhart Meyer-Kalkus, Grant
Parker, James Powell, Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, ). B.
Trapp, Giuseppe Veltri, David Wootton, and Paul Zanker, all
of whom made valuable suggestions or asked helpfully unan-
swerable questions. Hartog, Glenn Most, and Nancy
Siraisi criticized earlier versions of the text. Tim Breen, Chris-
topher Ligota, and Wilfried Nippel invited me to present my
arguments to well-informed and contentious seminar audi-
ences. Had Arnalda Momigliano not taught me so much about
the subjects treated here, I would never have ventured to qual-
Acknowledgments * xz
ify one or two of his theses. Christel Zahlmann, whose death
came as a heavy blow to so many friends in and outside Ger-
many, saw the potential of a book about the footnote well before
I did; Petra Eggers and Maurice Olender helped me realize it.
And a number of the reviewers of the German edition--espe-
cially Patrick Bahners, Martin Giel, Herfried Miinkler, and
Helmut Zedelmaier-helped me to reshape the work for its
appearance in this enlarged form.
Finally, my thanks to those who have commented on the
English versions of this book. H. Jochen Bussmann, who pro-
duced the graceful translation published by Berlin Verlag in
1995 under the title Die tragischen Urspriinge der deutschen Fuss-
note, made many pointed observations on the original English
text. So did Sue Marchand and Peter Miller. Jill Kraye and
Randolph Starn, both of whom read the final English manu-
script for Harvard University Press, subjected it to criticism as
constructive as it was unsparing.
As successive directors of the Davis Center, Lawrence Stone
and Natalie Davis made the History Department at Princeton
a center for critical reflection on historical method. As histo-
rians, both have thought hard and written well about the nature
of archival documents and the problems of historical documen-
tation. As friends and advisers, both have given me and many
others unstinting encouragement and constructive criticism.
And both have written, and will write, many superb footnotes.
This book is offered as a small tribute to two masters of the
craft it discusses.
THE FOOTNOTE
A Curious His tory
*
CHAPTER ONE
Footnotes:
The Origin of a Species
*In the eighteenth century, the histotical footnote was a
high form of literary art. No Enlightenment historian achieved
a work of more epic scale or more classic style than Edward
Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And
nothing in that work did more than its footnotes to amuse his
friends or enrage his enemies.
1
Their religious and sexual ir-
reverence became justly famous. "In his Meditations," says Gib-
bon the historian of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, husband of
the notoriously "gallant" Faustina, "he thanks the gods, who
had bestowed on him a wife, so faithful, so geode, and of such
a wonderful simplicity of manners."
2
"The world," urbanely
reflects Gibbon the annotator, "has laughed at the credulity of
Marcus; but Madam Dacier assures us (and we may credit a
lady) that the husband will always be deceived, if the wife
1. See in general G. W. Bowersock, ""The Art of the Footnote," American
Scholar, 53 (1983-84), 54-62. For the wider context, see the remarkable older
study by M. Bernays, "Zur I.ehre von den Citaten und Noten,"" Schriften zur
Kritik und Litteraturgeschichte, IV (Berlin, 1899), 255-347 at 302-322.
2. E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Bmpire, chap. 4;
ed. D. B. Womersley (London, 1994), I, ro8-ro9.
2 * Footnotes
condescends to dissemble."
3
"The duty of an historian," re-
marks Gibbon in his ostensibly earnest inquiry into the mir-
acles of the primitive church, "does not call upon him to
interpose his private judgment in this nice and con-
troversy."4 "It may seem somewhat remarkable," comments
Gibbon in a footnote which drops all pretense of decorum, "that
Bernard of Clairvaux, who records so many miracles of his
friend St. Malachi, never takes any notice of his own, which,
in their turn, however, are carefully related by his companions
and disciples."
5
"The learned Origen" and a few others, so Gib-
bon explains in his analysis of the ability of the early Christians
to remain chaste, "judged it the most prudent to disarm the
tempter. "
6
Only the footnote makes clear that the theologian
had avoided temptation by the drastic means of castrating him-
self-and reveals how Gibbon viewed this operation: "As it
was his general practice to allegorize scripture; it seems unfor-
tunate that, in this instance only, he should have adopted the
literal sense. "
7
Such cheerfully sarcastic comments stuck like
burrs in orthodox memories and reappeared to haunt their au-
thor in the innumerable pamphlets written by his critics.
8
Gibbon's artistry served scholarly as well as polemical
3 Chap. 4, n. 4; ibid., 109.
4 Ibid., chap. Is; I, 473
5 Chap. rs, n. 8r, ibid., 474
6. Ibid., 480.
7 Chap. 15, n. 96, ibid. For a recent critical discussion of the story of
Origen's self-castration, see P. Brown, The Body and Society (New York, 1988),
r68 and n. 44
8. This point is well made by Bemays. For more recent studies along the
same lines, see F. Palmeri, "The Satiric Footnotes of Swift and Gibbon," The
Eighteenth Century, 31 (1990), 245-262, and P. W. Cosgrove, "Undermining the
Footnote: Edward Gibbon, Alexander Pope, and the Anti-Authenticating Foot-
note," Annotation and Its Texts, ed. S. Barney (Oxford, 1991), 13o-rsr.
Clerc
and it
ry fre-
with
ndem-
ofthe
on has
es, the
1posed
earlier
t1 for a
mused
learn-
tensive
:l have
'Treach-
r8), 4D-

assesses
Antonio
works,"
s writer,
If would
duties);
ree storia
The Origin of a Species * 3
<'nds-just as his footnotes not only subverted, but supported,
rhe magnificent arch of his history.
9
He could invest a biblio-
graphical citation with the grave symmetry of a Ciceronian
peroration: "In the account of the Gnostics of the second and
third centuries, Mosheim is ingenious and candid; Le
dull, but exact; Beausobre almost always an apologist;
is much to be feared, that the primitive fathers are ve
quently calumniators."
10
He could supply a comic paralic
a gravity usually reserved for the commendation or co
nation of a major historical figure: "For the enumeration
Syrian and Arabian deities, it may be observed, that Milt
comprised, in one hundred and thirty very beautiful lin
two large and learned syntagmas, which Selden had con
on that abstruse subject."
11
And he could salute the
scholars, good Christians all, whose works he drew upo
thousand curious details, with a unique combination of a
dismissal of their beliefs and genuine respect for their
ing.
12
Gibbon was certainly right to think that a comprel
account of his sources, written in the same style, woul,
9 For two helpful case studies see J. D. Garrison, "Gibbon and the
erous Language of Panegyrics,' Eighteenth-Century Studies, 1 I (I977-
62; Garrison, and Laborious: Characterization in Gibbon's Meta
Modern Philology, 76 (I978-79), I63-178.
ro. Chap. 15, n. 32; I, 458.
II. Chap. 15, n. 9, ibid., 449
I2. See e.g. n. 98 to chap. 70, in which Gibbon expertly reviews and
rhe work of the indefatigable historian and editor of texts Ludovico
Muratori, "my guide and master in the history of Italy." "In all his
Gibbon comments, "Muratori approves himself a diligent and laboriou
who aspires above the prejudices ofa Catholic priest" (Murarori himse
have claimed that writing accurate history lay within a good priest's
ed. Womersley, III, ro6 r. On Muratori himself see S. Bertelli, Erudizi01
in Ludovico Antonio Mflf'atori (Naples, I96o).
4 * Footnotes
been "susceptible of entertainment as well as information. "
13
Though his footnotes were not yet Romantic, they had all the
romance high style can provide. Their "instructive abundance"
attracted the praise of the brilliant nineteenth-century classical
scholar Jacob Bernays as well as that of his brother, the Ger-
manist Michael Bernays, whose pioneering essay on the history
of the footnote still affords more information and insight than
most of its competitors.
14
Nowadays, historians' arguments must still stride forward
or totter backward on their footnotes. But the lead of official
prose has replaced the gold of Gibbon's classic oratory. In the
modern world-as manuals for writers of dissertations ex-
plain-historians perform two complementary t a s k s .
1
~ They
must examine all the sources relevant to the solution of a prob-
lem and construct a new narrative or argument from them. The
13. "Advertisement," I, 5 (this text first appears, under the same ride, on
the verso of the half tide to the endnotes in the first edition of the first volume
of the Decline and Fall [london, 1776]).
14. The phrase "lehrreiche Fiille" is Jacob Bernays', as quoted with approval
by Michael Bernays (305, n. 34). The relationship between the two deserves a
study. Jacob mourned his brother as dead when he converted to Christianity:
but Michael nonetheless emulated Jacob's analysis of the manuscript tradition
of Lucretius in his own genealogical treatment of the editions of Goethe. For
Jacob, see A. Momigliano, "Jacob Bernays," Quinto contributo alia storia degli studi
classici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1975), 127-158; for his work on Lucretius, see
S. Timpanaro, La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, 2nd ed. (Padua, 1985). For
Michael Bernays, see W Rehm, Spate Studien (Bern and Munich, 1964), 359-
458, and H. Weigel, Nur was du nie gesehn wird ewig dauern (Freiburg, 1989).
So far as I know, the third brother, Freud's father-in-law Berman, did not venture
an opinion on Gibbon's footnotes.
15. See e.g. E. Faber and I. Geiss, Arbeitsbuch zum Geschichtsstudium, 2nd ed.
(Heidelberg and Wiesbaden, 1992). For a detailed and judicious American
guide to these issues, see F. A. Burkle-Young and S. R. Maley, The Art of the
Footnote (Lanham, Md., and London, 1996).
footnote proves that both tasks have been carried out. It iden-
tifies both the primary evidence that guarantees the story's nov-
elty in substance and the secondary works that do not under-
mine its novelty in form and thesis. By doing so, moreover, it
identifies the work of history in question as the creation of a
professional. Like the high whine of the dentist's drill, the low
rumble of the footnote on the historian's page reassures: the
tedium it inflicts, like the pain inflicted by the drill, is not
random but directed, part of the cost that the benefits of mod-
ern science and technology exact.
As this analogy suggests, the footnote is bound up, in mod-
ern life, with the ideology and the technical practices of a pro-
fession. One becomes a historian, as one becomes a dentist, by
undergoing specialized training: one remains a historian, as one
stays a dentist, if one's work receives the approval of one's teach-
ers, one's peers, and, above all, one's readers (or one's patients).
Learning to make footnotes forms part of this modern version
of apprenticeship. Most historians begin on a small scale, dur-
ing the frenetic weeks they dedicate to writing papers that
must be read aloud to their professor's seminar. At this point,
their footnotes are only seen, not read. They form a blurred,
closely printed mass of text vaguely glimpsed on the bottoms
of pages which move up and down in the shaking hands of the
nervous, mumbling speaker. Later, in the long months spent
composing a dissertation, students move from craft to indus-
trial styles of footnote production, peppering each chapter with
a hundred or more references to show that they have put in
hours of hard work in archive and library. Once elevated to the
doctorate and employed, finally, active historians compose foot-
notes every time they write a monograph or an article for a
learned journal.
6 * Footnotes
Over rime, however, the writing of footnotes usually loses
irs flavor: the thrilling claim of membership in a mysterious
new profession, the bold assertion of one's right to take part in
a learned dialogue, degenerates into a mere routine. Historians
for whom composing annotations has become second nature-
like dentists who have become inured to inflicting pain and
shedding blood-may hardly notice any more that they still
extrude names of authors, titles of books, and numbers of fold-
ers in archives or leaves in unpublished manuscripts. In the
end, the production of footnotes sometimes resembles less the
skilled work of a professional carrying out a precise function to
a higher end than the offhand production and disposal of waste
products.
Historians, however, cannot afford to ignore waste products
and their disposal. The exploration of toilets and sewers has
proved endlessly rewarding to historians of population, city
planning, and smells. The stages of their development distin-
guish the textures of modern from premodern social life far
more vividly than the loftier periodizations found in political
and intellectual histories.
16
One who wishes to learn how a
sixteenth-century French classroom differed most pungently
from a modern one should not only examine Petrus Ramus'
popular textbooks, but also ponder his biographer's statement
that he bathed once a year, at the summer solsticeY Similarly,
the study of those parts of history which lie beneath ground
level may reveal hidden cracks and forgotten conduits in both
16. See A. Corbin, Le miasml et Ia jonquille (Paris, 1982); L. Chevalier, Classes
laborieuses et classes dangereuses a Paris pendant Ia pmnim moitii du 19e siecle (Paris,
1984).
17. P. Sharratt, "Nicolaus Nancelius, Petri Rami Vita, Edited with an English
Translation," Humanistica Lovaniensia, 24 (1975), 238-239.
the modern practice and the millennia! traditions of historical
scholarship.
Even a brief exercise in comparison reveals a staggering range
of divergent practices under history's apparently stable surface.
At first glance, of course, all footnotes look very much alike.
All over the modern historical world, articles begin with an
industrialized civilization's equivalent to the ancient invocation
of the Muse: a long note in which the author thanks teachers,
friends, and colleagues. Prefatory notes evoke a Republic of
Letters--or at least an academic support group--in which the
writer claims membership. In fact, they often describe some-
thing much more tenuous, the group of those who the author
wishes had read his work, offered him references, or at least
given him the time of day. Hence they retain something of the
literary-not to say fictional--quality of traditional poets'
prayers. But sober daylight soon dispels the cool, fragrant
shades of scholarly autobiography. Long lists of earlier books
and articles and strings of coded references to unpublished doc-
uments supposedly prove the solidity of the author's research
by rendering an account of the sources used. In fact, however,
only the relatively few readers who have trawled their nets
through the same archival waters can identify the catch in any
given set of notes with ease and expertise.
18
For most readers,
footnotes play a different role. In a modern, impersonal society,
in which individuals must rely for vital services on others whom
they do not know, credentials perform what used to be the
function of guild membership or personal recommendations:
they give legitimacy. Like the shabby podium, carafe of water,
1 8. Cf. V. Laden thin, "Geheime Zeichen und Botschaften," SiJdtkutsche Zei-
tung, 8/9 October 1994
8 * Footnotes
and rambling, inaccurate introduction which assert that a par-
ticular person deserves to be listened to when giving a public
lecture, footnotes confer authority on a writer.
19
Unlike other types of credentials, however, footnotes some-
times afford entertainment-normally in the form of daggers
stuck in the backs of the author's colleagues. Some of these are
inserted politely. Historians may simply cite a work by author,
title, place and date of publication. But often they quietly set
the subtle but deadly "cf." ("compare") before it. This indicates,
at least to the expert reader, both that an alternate view appears
in the cited work and that it is wrong. But not everyone who
reads the book will know the code. Sometimes, accordingly, the
stab must be more brutal, more direct. One can, for example,
dismiss a work or thesis, briefly and definitively, with a single
set-phrase or well-chosen adjective. The English do so with a
characteristically sly adverbial construction: "oddly overesti-
mated." Germans use the direct "ganz abwegig" ("totally off
the track"); the French, a colder, but less blatant, "discutable."
All these indispensable forms of abuse appear in the same
prominent position and carry out the same scholarly version of
assassination. Anyone who has read a normal piece of profes-
sional history recently produced in Europe or America can sup-
ply details of these and analogous procedures. The professional
codes and techniques behind them seem as universal in use as
they are limited in appeal.
20
19. Cf. B. Lincoln, Authority (Chicago and London, 1994).
20. For an elegant study (and satire) of these practices in German jurispru-
dence seeP. Riess, VorJtudien zu eiru!f' Theorie der Fussnote (Berlin and New York,
1983-84), e.g. 3: "Die Fussnote ist (oder gibt vor, es zu sein) Trager wissen-
schaftlicher Informacion" ("The footnote is, or pretends co be, the bearer of
scholarly information"). Footnote 5 (one of three to this phrase), on the word
Closer scrutiny of detail, however, reveals that appearances
of uniformity are deceptive. To the inexpert, footnotes look like
deep root systems, solid and fixed; to the connoisseur, however,
they reveal themselves as anthills, swarming with constructive
and combative activity. In Italy, for example, the footnote often
operates as much by omission as by statement. The failure to
refer to a particular scholar or work amounts to a polemical
statement, a damnatio memoriae, which the circle of interested
parties will immediately recognize and decode. But that circle
has only a limited circumference. The author thus makes one
point to the small community of specialists who know the
native idiom, another to the much larger one of historians and
other readers who might pick up the odd copy of a particular
journal. Only those who have memorized the dots and dashes
of citation code-a code which changes, naturally, by the
hour-will read the lacunae as charged and argumentative. To
outsiders the same notes will seem calm and informative. Many
Italian historical texts with footnotes, in other words, tell not
only the theoretically required two stories but three. They ad-
dress not only the theoretically universal public of historians,
the "community of the competent" in every nation, but a far
smaller group, the coven of the well-informed. The combined
precision and obscurity of the Italian citation code compel ad-
miration-especially in light of the practical difficulties that
confront any Italian scholar who wants to read a given work
before not citing it. Italian historians work, in most cities, in
inadequate collections of modern secondary literature, where
the razors of unscrupulous readers have stripped many journals
"Information," reads: "Oder auch nicht." ("Or else it isn't"). See also pp. 2o-2 1
and U. Holbein, Samthase und Odratkk (Frankfurt, 1990), 18-23.
1 0 * Footnotes
of their most influential articles, standard modern works and
rare older materials often prove inaccessible, and foreign mono-
graphs are rarities. The enormous lists of works actually cited
in Italian footnotes offer evidence for a continuing respect for
erudition that itself deserves respect-as well as a background
that vividly sets off intentional omissions.
In postwar Germany, by contrast, omission has been less a
matter of particular than of general statement. West German
historians loved to condemn others for their failure to cite "the
older German Literature." They themselves, however, regularly
failed to cite more recent work--especially on German his-
tory-in languages other than German, and often failed to no-
tice or assimilate the newer, interdisciplinary forms of history
that flourished in France and the United States. In doing so
they did not reveal ignorance (perish the thought). Rather, they
exhibited a conviction: that they inhabited a Middle Kingdom
of the historical mind, one organically connected with the Be-
griff-stricken, German-dominated historical discipline of the
nineteenth century. Hence they had no need to admit the bar-
barians outside--except in those few privileged cases where the
barbarians had learned enough of the procedures and mysteries
of German scholarship to become civilized themselves. The his-
torical community so revealed coincided neatly, for all its di-
visions, with national borders.
At the same time, however, West German historians not only
perpetuated a prejudice but carried on a research practice, one
which dovetailed neatly with their sense of their own position
in the world of learning. They (or their research assistants)
usually worked in a specialized library designed to provide the
basic literature of modern historiography: that of their univer-
sity's historical institute or seminar. The holdings of this lim-
ired collection they cited in detail and extensively. Works not
represented in the seminar, by contrast, might be drawn on for
information, if one's student assistant could find them in the
university library or obtain them by interlibrary loan. But they
played no large role in forming historical debates and usually
occupied little space in footnotes. Naturally, foreign books were
likelier than German ones to lie deep in the stacks of the uni-
versity library rather than to stand in plain view on the open
shelves of the seminar. In Germany, moreover, unlike the
United States and England, the books in large university li-
braries are usually stored in order of acquisition, not in system-
atic subject groupings. The stacks, which remain inaccessible
to readers, serve only as storehouses. The practical difficulties
of access thus reinforced the intellectual border guards already
set in place by traditions of instruction and scholarship. East
German historians, for their part, had flesh-and-blood border
guards to contend with. They made their statements of intel-
lectual centrality and allegiance more directly-above all, per-
haps, by placing the works of Marx and Engels, out of alpha-
betical order, at the start of their lists of citations. The history
of the footnote that the joint forces of eastern and western schol-
arship will create in a united Germany remains, of course, to
be written.
As these cases suggest, the footnote varies as widely in nature
and content as any other complex scientific or technical prac-
tice. Like "precise quantitative measurement," "controlled ex-
periment," and other guarantees that a given statement about
the natural world is rigorous and valid, footnotes appear in
enough forms to challenge any taxonomist's ingenuity. Each
has an organic relation to the particular historical community
in which it was spawned--one at least as important as its re-
12 * Footnotes
lation to the supposedly international community of historians,
that chimera imagined by the English Catholic historian Lord
Acton, who did so much to introduce the methods of German
scientific history into England. Acton hoped to edit a Cambridge
Modern History in which the nationalities of contributors could
not be inferred from the method and substance of their arti-
cles-a history which will be written when the seas turn to
lemonade.
21
Footnotes, moreover, vary in origin as well as style. Some
consist of long lists of archival citations documenting a grad-
uate student's hard-won individual knowledge of an obscure
point; others, like those that decorated the erudite-looking ar-
ticles and books on the history of German unions and politics
by the East German leader Walter Ulbricht, result from col-
laborative work and offer information dug up after the text was
written, in order to sustain a preexisting thesis. The two sorts
of note look similar, but obviously have very different relations
both to the texts they supposedly came into being to support
and to the historical professions that supposedly regulated their
production.
22
Citations in scientific works-as a number of studies have
21. For Acton's program see The Varieties of History, ed. F. Stern, 2nd ed.
(London, 1970), 249, and the commentary of H. Butterfield, Man on His Past
(Boston, 1960), and J. L. Altholtz, "Lord Acton and the Plan of the Cambridge
Modern History," Historical journal, 39 (1996), 723-736.
22. See e.g. W. Ulbricht, "Die Novembecrevolution und der nationale
Kampf gegen den deutschen Imperialismus," Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen
Arbeiterbewegung, r (1959), 8-25 at 17-18. The "Vorwort," p. 7, also emphasizes
that the journal would publish "unveroffentlichte, fur die Forschung wie fur
die Propagandaarbeit wertvolle Dokumente und Materialien" ("unpublished
documents of value for research and for purposes of propaganda"}--as it did, in
articles grouped under the heading "Dokumente und Materialien."
s h o w n ~ o far more than identify the originators of ideas and
the sources of data. They reflect the intellectual styles of dif-
ferent national scientific communities, the pedagogical meth-
ods of different graduate programs, and the literary preferences
of different journal editors. They regularly refer not only to the
precise sources of scientists' data, but also to larger theories and
theoretical schools with which the authors wish or hope to be
associated.
23
Citations in historical writings show at least as
many signs of their origin in fallible and prejudiced human
effort.
One who actually follows historians' footnotes back to their
sources, accordingly, taking the time to trace the deep, twisted
roots of the blasted tree of scholarly polemic, may well discover
much more of human interest than one would expect buried in
the acid subsoil. Jacob Thomasius offered a neat taxonomy of
the wrong forms of citation as early as 1673. Some authors "say
nothing, at the most significant point, about one whom they
then cite only on a point of no or little importance." Wickeder
ones "take the most careful precautions never to mention [their
source] at all." And the wickedest "mention him only when
they disagree with or criticize him."
24
In addition to these "neg-
23. See in general B. Cronin, The Citation Process (London, 1984), with an
extensive bibliography. On the social sciences see J. Bensman, "The Aesthetics
and Politics of Footnoting," Politics, Culture, and Society, I (1988), 443-470
(reference kindly supplied by C. Gattone). The cartoonist Carole Cable makes
a similar point more simply. She shows two academics facing each other, one of
them holding a text and saying: "You've fine-tuned the footnote to a major
networking device" (Chronicle of Higher Education, I I April I997 B13).
24. J. Thomasius, praeses, Dissertatio philosophica de plagio /iterario, resp. Joh.
Michael Reinelius (Leipzig, 1692), 25 1, 106: "Nam qui loco maxime illustri
tacent eum, quem in re demum nullius aut parvi pretii nominant, hi videlicet
plagiariorum tech11a1Tl exercent, id agentium, ut accusati de silentio habeant,
14 * Footnotes
ative" forms of mis-citation, Thomasius also described a "pos-
itive" procedure: that of the scholar-pickpocket. When caught
in the act, the adept criminal begs his victim to take his wallet
back quietly: as soon as the victim reaches for it, the thief cries
out, "Help, he's robbing me!" Similarly, more than one scholar
has plagiarized material from another while simultaneously ac-
cusing the victim, in the relevant footnote, of having done the
same. Few readers will have. the tenacity to check the story for
its accuracy, and most will assume that the elegant pickpocket,
nor the disheveled victim, has told the truth. ~ The path of a
fact or factoid from archive to notebook to footnote to book
review is, in short, often anything but straight. In this case as
in others, the critical reader may well find that "the journey,
nor the arrival, matters."
The footnote demands attention for other reasons as well:
not only as a general part of the practice of science and schol-
arship, but also as an object of keen nostalgia and a subject of
sharp debate. Twentieth-century historians have added one
modern room after another to the traditional mansions of their
discipline. In doing so, of course, they have sometimes blocked
the windows, not to mention the prospects for promotion, of
more traditional colleagues. The process has caused much pain,
and the resulting clamor has more than once taken the form of
unde se utcunque tueantur. Nequiores illi, qui religiosissime cavent, ne uspiam
nominent, cui plurima debent. Nequissimi, qui non nominanc, nisi ubi absen-
tiunt aut reprehendunt."
25. Ibid., 252, 107: "Caeterum ab hoc actu tacendi negativo distinguendus
alter poJitivus, cum, quod alibi furati sunt, alibi ut suum defendunt quidam,
negantque illi se debere, qui ipsis tanquam verus auctor obiicitur, aut hunc
maiore malitia pro suo plagiario accusant."
sharp cries that the traditional footnote has fallen into disre-
~ a r d .
Some of the new forms of history rest on evidence that foot-
notes cannot accommodate-like the massive analyses of sta-
tistical data undertaken by historical demographers, which can
be verified only when they agree to let colleagues use their
computer files. Others rest on evidence that footnotes have not
normally included-like the field notes of anthropologists,
which record ephemeral events, from rituals to interviews, and
document customs that change even as they are described.
These cannot in principle be verified: as Heraclitus saw, no
anthropologist can live and work in the same village twice. No
two anthropologists will describe the same transaction in iden-
tical terms, or analyze and code the same description of a trans-
action in identical categories. Most serious of all, even one set
of normal field notes usually bulks far too large to be published
in any normal way.
26
Still other up-to-date historians muster
and cite archival evidence in the traditional manner, but use it
to answer new questions deriving from political economy, lit-
erary theory, and all disciplines between.
27
A hundred years ago, most historians would have made a
simple distinction: the text persuades, the notes prove.
28
As
26. See Fieldnotes: The Making of Anthropology, ed. R. Sanjak (Ithaca, N.Y.
1990), and R. M. Emerson, R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw, Writing Ethnographic
Fieldnotes (Chicago and London, 1995).
27. For a pioneering discussion of these points see L. Stone, The Prnt and the
Present Revisited (London, 1987), 33-37
28. See e.g. Ch.-V. Langlois and Ch. Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of
History, tr. G. G. Berry (London and New York, 1898; repr. 1912), 305-306;
for the original text see Langlois and Seignobos, Introduction aNX etudes historiqUeJ
(Paris, r898), 264-266. And for a recent, highly critical discussion seeP. Car-
16 * Footnotes
early as the seventeenth century, after all, some antiquaries
entitled the documentary appendices of their works simply
"Preuves"-"Proofs. "
29
Nowadays, by contrast, many historians
would claim that their texts offer their most important proofs:
proofs that take the form of statistical or hermeneutic analyses
of evidence, only the sources of which are specified by notes.
In each of these cases, for all their differences, many critics have
responded much as a slow-footed fullback responds in a hard-
fought soccer match to the evasive tactics of a fast-moving
striker. Just kick the legs out from under your opponents-
show that they have misread, or misinterpreted, the docu-
ments-and you need not bother to refute their arguments.
Such criticisms vary radically in intellectual quality, scholarly
rigor, and rhetorical tone. But most of them rest in part on a
common and problematic assumption: that authors can, as
manuals for dissertation writers say they should, exhaustively
cite the evidence for every assertion in their texts.
30
In fact, of
course, no one can ever exhaust the range of sources relevant to
an important problem-much less quote all of them in a note.
In practice, moreover, every annotator rearranges materials to
prove a point, interprets them in an individual way, and omits
those that do not meet a necessarily personal standard of rele-
vance. The very next person to review the same archival rna-
rard, "Disciplining Clio: The Rhetoric of Positivism,'" Clio, 24 (1995), 189-
204.
29. E.g. A. Duchesne, Preuves de l'histoire tk Ia maison des Chasteigners (Paris,
1633). This accompanied Duchesne"s work on the history of the family, as its
title indicates.
30. For a provocative-and nostalgic--discussion of what footnotes can and
cannot do, see G. Himmelfarb, "Where Have All the Footnotes Gone?" in On
Looking into the Abyss (New York, 1994), 122-130.
terials will probably line them up and sort them out quite
differen tl yY
A number of controversies about footnotes reveal some of the
ways that polemicists have used--and misused-them: most
often, perhaps, in order to make a charge of incompetence take
the place of a counterargument. One in particular, provoked by
an innovative outsider, sent waves of turbulence through the
entire North Atlantic historical community.
32
Henry Turner, a
senior historian of German business and the Nazis who teaches
at Yale University, discovered early in the 1980s that a younger
scholar at Princeton, David Abraham, had made mistakes in
identifying and quoting archival documents in his Collapse of
the Weimar Republic: Political Economy and Crisis (Princeton,
1981). Abraham's errors, so Turner and others argued, were not
only gross but purposeful: Abraham had deliberately misdated,
misattributed, and mistranslated archival texts in order to make
the relations between the Nazis and the businessmen seem far
closer than they had been. These critics denounced Abraham,
absurdly, as a forger, instead of acknowledging that he had gone
to German archives with highly developed theoretical interests,
a novel point of view, and little active knowledge of the Ger-
man language or the best techniques for taking notes.
33
As
3 r. Cf. P. Veyne, Comment on lcrit l'histoire (Paris, 1977), 273-276.
32. For what follows, and for the published and unpublished texts to which
the controversy gave rise, see P. Novick, That Noble Dream (Cambridge, 1988),
612-621; I should warn the reader that David Abraham was for several years
my colleague at Princeton (cf. Novick, 612, n. 51).
33- This was not the first such attack Turner had mounted. See H. A. Turner,
"Grossunternehmertum und Nationalsozialismus, 1930-1933 Kritisches und
Ergiinzendes zu zwei neuen Forschungsbeitragen," Historische Zeitschrift, 221
(1975), 18-68, with the reply by D. Stegmann, "Antiquierte Personalisierung
18 * Footnotes
often happens, in short, the critics refused to see the genuine
errors they discovered in perspective--or to admit their own
fallibility. When Turner's own book, German Big Business and
the Rise of Hitler (New York, 1985), also a polemical one, ap-
peared, it too naturally attracted closer than usual scrutiny from
historians who did not share his sympathies. More than one
pointed out that Turner, too, had rearranged documents to
make them fit his thesis and failed to cite evidence that went
against him.
34
Abraham's proved mistakes were far more nu-
merous than Turner's (as his book was far more intellectually
ambitious). But both cases exemplify the fallibility of all schol-
ars-and the fact that a historical work and its notes can never,
in the nature of things, reproduce or cite the full range of
evidence they rest on.
35
Still, the tactics of Abraham's critics continue to find appli-
cation. Two distinguished anthropologists recently offered the
public a parallel cautionary tale. Both tried to explain a single
event: the death of Captain Cook. Each flailed the other's foot-
notes mercilessly in the hope of destroying the interpretations
given in the other's text. Each showed far more awareness of
the gaps in his opponent's record of his research in the sources
and the inferences he drew from them than of those in his own.
oder soziali:ikonomische Faschismus-Analyse?" Archiv fiir Sozialgeschichte, 17
(1977). 275-296.
34 See K. Wernecke, "In den Quellen steht zuweilen das Gegenteil," Frank-
furter Rundschau, 17 May 1986, ZB 4, and F. L. Carsten, review of H. A. Turner,
German Historical lmtitute, lmzdon, Bulletin, 22 (Summer 1986), 20-23; both
previously cited by Novick, 619, n. 6o; "The David Abraham Case: Ten Com-
ments from Historians," Radical History RetJiew, 32 (1985), 75--96 at 76-77.
35 For another episode in some respects similar to the Abraham case, see
R. M. Bell and J. Brown, "Renaissance Sexualiry and the Florentine Archives:
An Exchange," Renaissance Quarterly, 40 (1987), 485-511.
And neither showed any clear awareness of the necessary lacu-
nae in normal citation procedure-at least as used by the other.
( Jp-to-date academics often speak demeaningly of"positivism,"
by which they refer to a form of historical research that heaped
up citations in the hope of arriving at the truth about the past,
as an ancient superstition long abandoned by the enlightened.
The hopeful energy with which these votaries of the once-proud
craft of ethnography looked for salvation in the disciplines of
historical pedantry shows that such pronouncements are exag-
gerated.36
Sharp controversies about footnotes are nothing new. Master,
as well as apprentice, historians have provoked them. In 1927
Ernst Kantorowicz published his biography of the Holy Roman
Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen. A follower of Stefan
George, Kantorowicz saw himself as tracing the history of a
lost "other Germany." This enterprise would have no meaning
if it failed to reach a nonacademic public. He brought out his
passionately rhetorical work, unencumbered by footnotes but
adorned, on its tide page, with an elegant swastika, in the series
Blaetter fuer die Kunst of the Berlin publisher Georg Bondi.
The book became an instant best-seller, multiple copies of
which appeared in the windows of fashionable bookshops on
the Kurfiirstendamm. But it also aroused the fury of academic
medievalists, who denounced Kantorowicz for what they saw
36. See G. Obeyesekere, The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking
in the Pacific (Princeton and Honolulu, 1992), and M. Sahlins, How "Natives"
Think: About Captain Cook, For Example (Chicago and London, 1995). Solely in
terms of historical criticism, Sahlins has the better of the exchange, as I. Hacking
rightly pointed out in his review of Sahlins's book, London Review of Books, 7
September 1995, 6-7, 9 But Sahlins too at times transforms what are clearly
normal shortcuts in Obeyesekere's arguments into nonexistent errors.
20 * Footnotes
as an intellectually dangerous tendency to mistake the myths
and metaphors of his sources for historical facts. Kantorowicz's
decision to publish the text, in the first instance, without ap-
paratus did nothing to soften the tempers of his critics. They
found the omission all the more frustrating because they knew
that this dandified conservative ex-soldier was a master of the
crafts of textual editing and interpretation. He had stood out
in a famous generation of Heidelberg students for the depth of
his technical preparation and the passion of his commitment
to the study of primary sources. No one could doubt that he
knew the entire literature of his subject in minute detail.
37
But
his expertise made the format and style of his book even more
annoying to his critics.
Two years after Kantorowicz's book appeared, Albert Brack-
mann attacked it in public at a meeting of the Prussian Acad-
emy of Sciences. A report on his lecture appeared in an impor-
tant Berlin newspaper, the Vossische Zeitung, and the whole text
was printed in the major German historical journal, the Histo-
rische Zeitschrift.
38
Kantorowicz had claimed that Frederick saw
himself, during his coronation in Jerusalem, as a holy king, the
direct successor to David, like Jesus himself.
39
Brackmann fa-
37 On Kanrorowicz's early training, E. Griinewald, Ernst Kantorowicz und
Stefan George (Wiesbaden, 1982), offers much new information; for his time at
Heidelberg, see 34-56. Kantorowicz claimed that he had omitted footnotes for
two reasons: "Urn einerseits den Umfang des Buches nicht zu vergrossern, an-
dererseits die Lesbarkeit nicht herabzumindem, unterblieb jede Att von Quel-
len- und Literaturnachweisen" ("All forms of references to sources and secondary
literature were omitted, in order to avoid making the book both longer and less
readable"). Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927), 65 I.
38. Grunewald, 86-87; A. Brackmann, "Kaiser Friedrich II in 'mythischer
Schau,' " Historische Zeitschrift, 140 (1929), 534-549
39 Kantorowicz, Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite, 184-186.
cused his critique on chis thesis. When Kancorowicz replied,
citing the German witness Marquardt of Ried, who had cele-
brated Frederick as God's servant, "famulus Dei," Brackmann
was unmoved. Kantorowicz, he pointed out, had omitted from
his book the crucial line in which Marquardt clearly discin-
between Jesus and Frederick: "Hie Deus, ille Dei pius
ac prudens imitator" ("The one is God, the ocher the pious and
prudent imitator of God"). In quoting chis line in his rebuttal,
Brackmann argued, Kantorowicz silently modified his book, in
which he had translated different verses bur omitted the salient
one.
40
Yet Kantorowicz evidently stuck co his in 1931,
when he finally issued his supplementary volume of annota-
tions, he still emphasized the celebratory tone of Marquardt's
poem, not its distinction between the Emperor and the Savior.
He added no reference co Brackmann's refutation, though he
did cite his own article.
41
The point here is not chat Kantorow-
icz or Brackmann was right, but rather chat even now the reader
cannot follow in full detail the movement of Kantorowicz's
thought on chis one, central source.
In the period just before and after he produced his volume
of annotations, Kancorowicz made his commitment co histori-
cal erudition clear. His analysis of the sources for the life and
reign of Frederick II remains standard, even though the biog-
raphy it was meant to support, with its fervent rhetoric, plays
little role in scholarly discussion.
42
He himself spent much of
40. Kantorowicz, " 'Mythenschau: Eine Erwiderung," Historische Zeitschrift,
14I (I930), 457-47I at 469-470; Brackmann, "Nachwort," ibid., 472-478 at
476-477
4 I. E. Kantorowicz, Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite. Ergiinzungsband (Berlin, I 9 3 1;
repr. Diisseldorf and Munich, I964), 74
42. D. Kuhlgatz, "Verehrung und Isolation. Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte dec
22 * Footnotes
his time--especially after he lost his professorship in Frankfurt
because he was a Jew-as a guest in one of the citadels of
German learning, the Berlin quarters of the Monumenta Ger-
maniae H istorica, where historians young and old collaborated
in the production of meticulous editions of the primary sources
for Germany history.
43
Did he change his mind? Did he decide
he had been wrong to omit the line Brackmann emphasized?
Did he have an answer to Brackmann's criticism? The docu-
mentation is unusually plentiful, but the full range of intellec-
tual operations by which a given document became part of
Kantorowicz's apparatus, and this in tum part of a story, an
argument, and a set of footnotes, remains mysterious.
Both experience and logic, then, suggest that the footnote
cannot carry our all the tasks that the manuals claim it does:
no accumulation of footnotes can prove that every statement in
the text rests on an unassailable mountain of attested facts.
Foototes exist, rather, to perform two other functions. First,
they persuade: they convince the reader that the historian has
done an acceptable amount of work, enough to lie within the
tolerances of the field. Like the diplomas on the dentist's wall,
footnotes prove that historians are "good enough" practitioners
to be consulted and recommended-but not that they can carry
out any specific operation. Second, they indicate the chief
sources char the historian has actually used. Though footnotes
usually do not explain the precise course that the historian's
interpretation of these texts has taken, they often give the
reader who is both critical and open-minded enough hints to
Biographie Friedrichs II. von Ernst Kantorowicz," ZeitJchrift fiir GeJchichtJwiJ-
umchaft, 43 (1995), 736-746.
43 H. Fuhrmann, with M. Weschke, "Sind eben atleJ Memchen geweJen." Ge-
lehrten/eben im 19. und 20. jahrhundert (Munich, 1996), 39, 100, 193-194, n.
229.
make it possible to work this out-in part. No apparatus can
~ - : i v e more information--or more assurance-than this.
Even if the intentions of text and annotation have become
somewhat blurred, however, the radical nature of the shift from
providing a continuous narrative to producing a text that one
has annotated oneself seems clear. Once the historian writes
with footnotes, historical narrative tells a distinctively modern,
double story. Traditional political historians, in the ancient
world and in the Renaissance, wrote from within a rhetorical
tradition, as statesmen or generals addressing their peers. The
histories they produced reflected far more interest in virtue and
vice than in sources and dating. Their works claimed universal
validity; they eloquently described examples of good and evil,
prudent and imprudent speech and action, that would provide
moral and political lessons valid in all times and places.
44
Mod-
ern historians, by contrast, make clear the limitations of their
own theses even as they try to back them up. The footnotes
form a secondary story, which moves with but differs sharply
from the primary one. In documenting the thought and re-
search that underpin the narrative above them, footnotes prove
that it is a historically contingent product, dependent on the
forms of research, opportunities, and states of particular ques-
tions that existed when the historian went to work. Like an
engineer's diagram of a splendid building, the footnote reveals
the occasionally crude braces, the unavoidable weak points, and
the hidden stresses that an elevation of the facade would con-
ceal.
The appearance of footnotes-and such related devices as
44 See G. H. Nadel, "Philosophy of History before Historicism," History &
Theory, 3 (1964), 291-315; R. Koselleck, Vergangene Zukunft (Frankfurt, 1984),
38-66; E. Kessler, "Das rhetorische Modell der Historiographie," Formen der
Geschichtsschreibung, ed. R. Koselleck et al. (Munich, 1982), 37-85.
24 * Footnotes
documentary and critical appendices-separates historical mo-
dernity from tradition. Thucydides and Joinville, Eusebius and
Matthew Paris did not identify their sources or reflect on their
methods in texts parallel to their narratives. This fact elicits
cries of regret from hypocrites but also gives employment to
squads of classicists and medievalists, who devote themselves
to bringing about a return of the suppressed sources.
45
In the
last two centuries, by contrast, most histories--except those
written to inform and entertain the larger public of nonspe-
cialists, and a few designed to irritate the small community of
specialists-have taken some version of the standard double
form.
46
Footnotes are the outward and visible signs of this kind
of history's inward grace-the grace infused into history when
it was transformed from an eloquent narrative into a critical
discipline. At this point, systematic scrutiny and citation of
original evidence and formal arguments for the preferability of
one source over another became necessary and attractive pur-
suits for historians. As the locus classicus for these pursuits, the
erudite footnote naturally formed a vital part of any solid work
of history. Presumably the footnote's rise to high social, if not
typographical, position took place when it became legitimate,
after history and philology, its parents, finally married. The
question, then, is simply to identify the church in which the
wedding took place and the clergyman who officiated.
Or so, at least, I thought-until I began to examine modern
studies of footnotes and of historiography, in search of the pre-
cise point when history publicly doubled back on itself. The
45 See Bernays.
46. For a recent and successful effort to annoy, seeS. Schama, Dead Certaintie.r:
Unwarranted Speculations (New York, 1991).
harder I looked, the less secure my answers became. Most stu-
dents of footnotes, in recent times, have come to bury, not to
praise, them. A slew of recent articles and a few books discuss
footnotes at length. But most of their authors are interested
less in studying, historically and empirically, what footnotes
have done and what they have suffered, than in making fun of
them. American law students, for example, write parodies, in
which every word has a footnote number leading to detailed
citations, to elucidate the common law origins of baseball rules.
German jurists write satires calling for the creation of new
disciplines like "Fussnotenwissenschaft" and "Fussnotologie."
47
Both generally treat the footnote as the quintessence of aca-
demic foolishness and misdirected effort. The sterile pedantry
of scholars makes a perpetually attractive theme, and the crit-
icism is usually justified--especially in the law, where a single
footnote in a judicial opinion or a code may exercise an im-
mense influence on the lives of individuals and the fortunes of
companies. The best students in America's best law schools-
who devote much of their time, for a year or two, to checking
and compiling exhaustive footnotes for the legal journals which
they edit-have an especially good excuse for regarding foot-
notes with dislike, though their own occasional parodies of
footnotes are rarely distinguished for their wit or tastefulness.
48
Nonetheless, what Peter Riess argued in fun is also true in fact:
47 See respectively "Common-Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule," Uni-
verJity of Pmmylvania Law Review, 123 (1975), 1474-1481, and Riess.
48. See the articles cited by B. Hilbert, "Elegy for Excursus: The Descent
of the Footnote," College EngliJh, 51 (1989), 4oo-404 at 401; this article is one
of several exceptions to the general description offered in my text above. On
the perhaps excessive impact of some judges' footnotes, see A. Mikva, "GtJodbye
to Footnotes," University of Colorado Law Review, 56 (1984-85), 647-653 at
649
26 * Footnotes
"The frequency with which footnotes appear, particularly in
legal scholarship, stands in striking contrast to the minimal
amount of scholarly attention that footnotes as such have re-
ceived."49
Most students of historiography, for their part, have inter-
ested themselves in the explicit professions of their subjects,
rather than their technical practices--especially those that were
tacitly, rather chan explicitly, transmitted and employed. The
philosophy of history has had far more attention than its phi-
lology. Most studies of the latter, moreover, have addressed
themselves only to che ways in which historians do research-
as if the selection and presentation of one's data did not affect
it in fundamental ways.
The much-abused French historians Ch.-V. Langlois and
Charles Seignobos, authors of a late ninetenth-century manual
of historical writing so old-fashioned chat parts of it now look
strangely modern, at least admitted that "it would be interest-
ing to find out what are the earliest printed books furnished
with notes in the modern fashion." But they confessed that
"bibliophiles whom we have consulted are unable to say, their
attention never having been drawn to the point." And their
own suggestion-that the practice began in annotated collec-
tions of historical documents-goes astray.
50
Annotation of
documents-X writing commentary on Y-began in the an-
49 Riess, 3: "Die Hiiufigkeit der Fussnote, namentlich im rechtswissen-
schaftlichen Schrifttum, steht in einem auffa:lligen Gegensatz zu der geringen
wissenschaftlichen Behandlung, die die Fussnote als solche erfahren hat."
so. Langlois and Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, tr. Berry, 299
and n. I (Introduction aux etudes historiquer, 259 and n. I). They remark: "It was
in collections of documents, and in critical dissertations, that the artifice of
annotation was first employed; thence it penetrated, slowly, into historical works
of other classes."
rient world and has flourished in every culture that possessed
a formal, written

The complex texts, usually of diverse
origins, that make up a society's holy scriptures normally in-
clude commentary of various sorts: perhaps they always do so.
Thus Michael Fishbane has shown, in a remarkable book, how
scribes and authors alike worked veins of commentary directly
into the text of the Hebrew Bible. Brief glosses on unusual
words and phrases became organic parts of the texts they clar-
ified. Later books quoted and commented on earlier ones. Some-
rimes deliberately, sometimes inadvertently, the Scripture be-
came its own interpreter.

Even later commentaries-like the
so-called Glossa ordinaria, or extended word-by-word gloss, that
wound itself around the Latin text of the Vulgate Bible used
in the medieval West, or the gloss of Accursius, the medieval
commentator on the Roman Corpus iuris---eventually came to
be seen as integral parts of the texts they explicated. These were
regularly taught with their commentaries.
Secular scriptures also breed explanatory remarks. Some of
these are occasional and isolated, others systematic and ex-
tended. The Roman grammarians who lectured on Virgil in the
lase centuries of the Empire and the medieval grammarians who
taught Horace in the twelfth century had to introduce their
students to an alien language as well as to difficult poetic texts.
Their glosses offer the historian rich information about the
ever-edgy relationships among teachers, texts, and pupils. El-
ementarv .ll}qsesJed students throu.llhJ:he obstacle course of
Latin grammar and syntax; more advanced ones used the prin-
5 I. See e.g. J. B. Henderson, Scripture, Canon, and Commentary (Princeton,
1991); J. Assmann, Da1 klllture/le Gedi:ichtnis (Munich, 1992), 102, 174-177.
52. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient brae/ (Oxford, 1985).
2 8 * Footnotes
ciples of rhetoric to justify the presence in the text of unex-
pected words; still more advanced ones offered allegorical ex-
plications of strange myths and apparently immoral stories.
Many included long digressions on questions ranging from the
natural to the moral sciences. Detailed autobiographical pas-
sages, as Jean Ceard has pointed out, make some commentaries
on texts surprisingly similar to the autobiographical Commen-
taries of Julius Caesar. Even the introspective, wide-ranging
Essays of Montaigne sometimes resemble a set of commentaries
set loose from the texts they originally applied to.
53
Occasionally the writer served as his own explicator. Dante
and Petrarch wrote formal commentaries on segments of their
own poetic production-a tradition which continued, through
the erudite commentaries of Andreas Gryphius on his gruel-
ingly learned six-hour tragedies, down to T. S. Eliot's notes on
The Waste Land. 5
4
Many Renaissance authors, from Petrarch on,
came to see themselves as writing for a posterity as distant as
they themselves were from the classics. Hence they began to
53 See the richly suggestive studies ofR. A. Kaster, Guardiam of Language
(Chicago and London, 1988); S. Reynolds, Medieval Reading (Cambridge, 1996);
). Ceard, "Les transformations du genre du commentaire," L'automne de Ia Re-
naissance, I5Bo-I6jo, ed.). Lafond and A. Stegmann (Paris, 1981), 101-115.
54 B. Sandkiihler, Die friihen Dantekommentare und ihr Verhaltnis zur mittel-
alterlichen Kommentartradition (Munich, 1967); K. Krautter, Die Renaissance der
Bukolik in der lateinischen Literatur des xiv. jahrhunderts: von Dante bis Petrarca
(Munich, 1983); W. Rehm, "Jean Pauls vergniigtes Notenleben oder Noren-
macher und Notenleser," Spate Studien (Bern and Munich, 1964), 7-96 at 7-
IO; cf. Goethe's comment on the Riimische Elegien, quoted ibid., 10: "Denn bei
den a! ten lieben Toren I Braucht man Erklarung, will man Noren; I Die Neuen
glaubt man blank zu verstehn; I Doch ohne Dolmetsch wird's auch nicht gt;hn"
("The reader who on dear old ancients dotes, knows that he needs good glosses,
and wants notes. The modems seem far easier, far straighter. Yet they too need
a talented translator").
nrord in writing the sorts of historical and biographical infor-
mation they themselves most prized when studying the Ro-
mans-as Petrarch did, imitating Ovid, in his prose letter to
posterity and elsewhere. Johannes Kepler-whose historical
sl'nse was as acute as his scientific talent-wrote a formal com-
mentary in middle age on his own first book, the Mysterium
m.rmographicum, in order to explain to readers in a distant future
1 he personal circumstances and particular experiences that had
given that book its shape and content.
55
The historical footnote is also connected with a second older
form of annotation-one that provides precise references to the
section of an authoritative text from which a given quotation
in a later work comes. Such references rarely appeared in ancient
literary prose, since the well-educated author cited texts from
memory, not from books, often introducing a slight change to
show that he had done so. 56 Even the authors of works avowedly
written as compendia did not always identify their sources pre-
cisely: if the elder Pliny listed the authors from whom he de-
rived the matter of his Natural History and Aulus Gellius cited
the authors, and sometimes the books, that he quoted in his
Attic Nights, Macrobius often failed even to mention the writers
whom he quoted word for word in his enormous, influential
Saturnalia. H But Roman jurists provided very precise references
55 For Petlurch and Kepler see the provocative and insightful analysis of
H. Giinther, Zeit r.kr Geschichte (Frankfurt, 1993). Kepler's commentary on the
MyJterium appears in vol. VIII of his Gesammelte Werke, ed. M. Caspar et al.
(Munich, 1937-).
56. See]. Whittaker, "The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment
of Greek Philosophical Texts, or the Art of Misquotation," Editing Greek and
Latin Text!, ed.]. Grant (New York, 1989), 63--95.
57 See A. L. Astarita, La cultura ne//e "Noctes Atticae" (Catania, 1993), 23-
26.
30 * Footnotes
to the earlier legal treatises they drew upon. The fourth-century
Collatio legum Romanarum et Mosaicarum, for example-a treatise
which argued that the laws of Moses were compatible with
those of the former vaguely, but provides chapter
and verse for every reference to the latter. Fragmencarily pre-
served notes on a legal lecture from the late fifth century C.E.
reveal that professors referred students to their sources not only
by book and chapter divisions, but also by the page number,
in what were evidently uniform copies. 5
8
Medieval scholars who
worked within the new schools of the twelfth century and the
universities that took shape after them developed high stan-
dards of precision and neat sets of abbreviated reference forms
for other disciplines as well as law. Evidently, precise citation
comes with professionalization.
The margins of manuscripts and early printed texts in the.,
ology, law, and medicine swarm with glosses which, like the
historian's footnote, enable the reader to work backward from
the finished argument to the texts it rests on. Peter Lombard,
the theologian whose commentaries on the Psalms and the Let-
ters of Paul "are probably the most highly developed of glossed
books," systematically named his sources in marginal glosses,
creating what Malcolm Parkes has called "the ancestor of the
modern scholarly apparatus of footnotes. "
59
Peter certainly de-
58. For the Collatio see the edition by M. Hyamson (London, 1913). The
Scholia Sinaitica are to be found in Fontes iuris rumani anteiustiniani, ed. S. Ric-
cobono et al. (Florence, 1940-1943); see P. Stein, Regulae iuris (Edinburgh,
1966), II 5-II6.
59 See the seminal article of M. B. Parkes, "The Influence of the Concepts
of Ordinatio and Compiiatio on the Development of the Book," in Mediaeval
Literature and Learning, ed. ]. ]. G. Alexander and M. Gibson (Oxford, 1976),
I I5-I4I at I I6-I n; cf. alsoP. Lombard, Sententiae in iv. libris distinctae, Spi-
cilegium Bonaventurianum, 4 (Rome, 1979), I, pt. I, prolegomena, *I38-
I39*
serves credit for one typically modern feat: provoking the first
controversy over a wrong reference in a note. One of his glosses
mentioned St. Jerome as a source for the story, a popular one
in the twelfth century, that the Salome mentioned in the Gos-
pel of Mark was not a woman but the third husband of St.
Anne. His student Herbert of Bosham, who attacked this the-
sis, argued fiercely that Peter's gloss was wrong. As a good
pupil, though, he preferred to ascribe the mistake to an igno-
rant scribe rather than his learned teacher.
60
Experimentation
with new and safer forms of reference began early: the thir-
teenth-century encyclopedist Vincent of Beauvais cried co avoid
scribal errors by incorporating his source references into his
texts, presumably on the theory that glosses were more vul-
nerable chan the text proper co errors in copying.
61
But no traditional form of annotation-from the grammar-
ian's glosses to the theologian's allegories co the philologist's
emendations-is identical to the historical footnote. Modern
historians demand that every brand-new text about the past
come with systematic notes, written by its author, on its
sources. This is a rule of professional historical scholarship. It
has no obvious connection with the long-established historical
fact chat all writings deemed important by a scholarly or reli-
gious community have received commentaries from later in-
terpreters. Scriptural commentaries buttress a text which draws
its main authorization from qualities that histories cannot
6o. P. Lombard, *140. For the full text see Patrologia Latina, 190, 1418 B-
C; for the context see B. Smalley, "A Commentary on the Hebraica by Herbert
of Bosham," Recherrhes tk thlologie ancimne et mldievale, 18 (1959), 29"-65 at 37-
40.
6r. Parkes, 133 See also J. P. Gumbert, "'Typography' in the Manuscript
Book," Journal of the p,.inting History Society, 22 (1993), 5-28 at 8, and, for the
general context, M.A. Rouse and R. H. Rouse, Authentic Witnesses (Notre Dame,
1991), chaps. 4-7.
3 2 * F ootnoteJ
boast: the fact that its author was divine or, more often, divinely
inspired, its antiquity, its literary form. Such notes act as in-
termediaries between a text considered to be of eternal value
and a modern reader whose horizons are necessarily limited by
immediate needs and interests. Some annotators see the scrip-
tures as a bomb that may go off if roughly handled by ordinary
people, others as a bulwark to theological and social order.
62
All of them agree, however, that the text, like an everlasting
beacon, sends out a message of eternal value and relevance.
Human readers need commentaries only because their parochial
needs and interests may blind or distract them.
Historical footnotes resemble traditional glosses in form. But
they seek to show that the work they support claims authority
and solidity from the historical conditions of its creation: that
its author excavated its foundations and discovered its com-
ponents in the right places, and used the right crafts to mortise
them together. To do so they locate the production of the work
in question in time and space, emphasizing the limited hori-
zons and opportunities of its author, rather than those of its
reader. Footnotes buttress and undermine, at one and the same
time.
Nor does the historian's apparatus derive from late medieval
and Renaissance authors' commentaries on their own works.
The historian who builds a literary house on a foundation of
documents does not address the same task as the author of a
62. See e.g. E. B. Tribble, Margim and Marginality (Charlottesville and Lon-
don, 1993), chap. 1. On the distinction between the different forms of com-
mentary and the footnote see also]. Kaestner, "Anmerkungen in Biichern.
Grundstrukturen und Hauptentwicklungslinien, dargestellc an ausgewiihlten
literarischen und wissenschaftlichen Texcen," Bibliothek: Ftmchung 11nd Praxis, 8
(1984). 203-226.
rcligious, literary, or scientific work who cries to fix the text's
message unequivocally for posterity. The one explains the
methods and procedures used to produce the text, the ocher the
methods and procedures that should be used to consume it.
Finally, the historian who cites documents does not cite au-
thorities, as the theologians and lawyers of the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance did, but sources. Historical footnotes lise
not the great writers who sanction a given statement or whose
words an author has creatively adapted, but the documents,
many or most of them not literary texts at all, which provided
its substantive ingredients. The modern professional historian
is not in any simple way the direct descendant of the profes-
sional intellectual of the medieval schools or the Renaissance
court.
In chis necessarily speculative essay, I will try co find out
when, where, and why historians adopted their distinctively
modern form of narrative architecture-to learn who first
erected this curious arcade with its ornate piano nobile and its
open bottom floor that offers glimpses of so many alluring
wares. My answers will necessary be schematic and tentative,
but I hope to show that the footnote has a longer pedigree than
we have been accustomed co believe--and that the beast's or-
igins shed a light of their own on its nature, functions, and
problems.
CHAPTER TWO
Ranke: A Footnote about
Scientific His tory
*Every schoolboy knows-at least every German high
school student once knew-what scientific history is and who
invented it. Scientific history rests on primary rather than sec-
ondary sources: Leopold von Ranke, the Protestant jurist's son
from the wonderfully named Thuringian town of Wiehe a. d.
U nstrut who became one of the dominant figures of the nine-
teenth-century University of Berlin, was its first famous prac-
titioner. Though Ranke became the academic historian par ex-
cellence, moreover, his achievements were of far wider than
merely academic interest. His university was founded after
Prussia's defeat by Napoleon. Designed by Wilhelm von Hum-
boldt to foster original research, it formed an organic part of
the effort to renew Prussian culture and society that also led to
the building of official Berlin's splendid classical island of mu-
seums and the propounding of Hegel's splendidly unclassical
philosophy of history.
1
By the middle of the nineteenth century,
r. On the founding and early history of the University of Berlin see the
complementary accounts by U. Muhlack, "Die Universitaten im Zeichen von
Neuhumanismus und ldealismus: Berlin," Beitrage zu Prob/emen deutscher UnitJ-
ersitiitsgriindungen der friihen Neuzeit, ed. P. Baumgart and N. Hammerstein, Wol-
fenbiltteler Forschungen 4 (Nendeln/Liechtenstein, 1978), 299-340, and C.
A Footnote about Scientific History * 35
1 he university had established worldwide preeminence in nat-
ural science, systematic philosophy, and philological scholar-
It made the appropriate stage for a grand intellectual
drama in the realm of history-the realm in which, many Ger-
man thinkers of different schools agreed, the spirit of the age
must manifest itself. Ranke's books thrilled thousands of read-
while his lectures and seminars won dozens of earnest
young men to the belief that history, properly studied, would
t'nable them and their country to master the chaos of the mod-
t'rn world. He made a crowd-pleasing hero for this attractive
series of scenes.
No one, certainly, believed this more firmly than Ranke him-
self. Other historians complain about having to read dull
sources in dusty archives far from home. But collections of
primary sources and folders of archival acts acted on Ranke like
clover on a pig. His letters evoke the pleasures of document-
diving with a vividness seldom attained in this context. Here
he is in 1827, happily ensconced in the archives at Vienna:
After three I make my way to the archive. Hammer is still
working here, on his Ottoman affairs, and a Herr von Buch-
holtz, who wants to write a history of Ferdinand I. It is really
a complete office. One finds one's pens, pen-knife, scissors, and
so on, all ready for one, and has one's own well-defined work-
place. Usually it becomes dark rather soon, and I find it very
pleasant, when the overseer calls out "A Liecht" ["A light," in
the Viennese dialect]: at once the servant brings two for each
person who is working there.
2
McClelland, " 'To Live for Science': Ideals and Realities at the University of
Berlin," The University and the City, ed. T. Bender (New York and Oxford, 1988),
181-197 On the remaking of German cultural institutions in this period, see
the informative work ofT. Ziolkowski, German RMTJanticism and Its lmtitutiom
(Princeton, 1990).
2. L. von Ranke, Das Briefwerk, ed. W. P. Fuchs (Hamburg, 1949), 131-
36 * Ranke
Here he is again in August r829, this time in the libraries of
Rome:
I find the fresh, cool, quiet evenings a great pleasure. The Corso
is busy until midnight. The cafes stay open until 2:oo or 3:oo
A.M., and the theater often does not close until 1:30. Then one
dines. Not I, naturally. I hurry into bed, since I would like to
be at the Palazzo Barberini by 7=00 the next morning. There I
use a room belonging to the librarian, which receives the north
wind; my manuscripts are piled up there. My scribe arrives
soon after I do, and slips in with a "Ben levato" ["Good morn-
ing"] at the door. The librarian's servant, or the servant's wife,
appears before me, and offers me their services with the usual
"Occorre niente?" Also the librarian, named Razzi, is really
good and has given me and other Germans excellent help.-A
few steps from there is the Biblioteca Albani, where Winck-
elmann wrote his history of art I use two other libraries,
making good progress. How quickly one studies the day away!
3
132: "'Nach drei Uhr begebe ich mich nach dem Archiv. Hier arbeitet noch
Hammer (an den osmanischen Sachen) und ein Herr v. Buchholtz, der eine
Geschichte Ferdinands I. schreiben will. Es ist eine vollige Kanzlei: man finder
Federn, Federmesser, Papierschere usw. vorbereitet, hat seinen umziiunten Platz.
Gewohnlich wird es bald etwas dunkel, und ein angenehmer Augenblick ist
mir, wenn der Vorsteher ruft: 'a Liecht,' worauf der Diener fi.ir jeden, der da
arbeitet, deren zwei bringt."' Ranke"s working companions were the historians
Franz Bernhard von Buchholtz and Joseph Freiherr von Hammer-Purgstall.
3 Ibid., 194: "Ein grosser Genuss sind die frischen, kiihlen, stillen Abende
und Nachte. Bis Mitternacht ist der Corso belebt. Die Cafes sind 2-3 Uhr nach
Mittemacht eroffnet. Das Theater schliesst oft erst halb zwei. Dann nimmt man
noch die Cena ein. lch natiirlich nicht. lch eile ins Bert; ich m&hte gerne des
andern Morgens urn sieben beim Palast Barberini anlangen. Dort benutze ich
ein Zimmer des Bibliothekars, welches die Tramontana hat, wo meine Man-
uskripte aufgehauft sind. Bald nach mir langt mein Schreiber an und huscht
mit einem Ben levato! zur Tiir herein. Der Diener des Bibliothekars oder die
Frau des Dieners erscheint und bietet mir mit dem gewohnlichen: occorre
niente? ihre Dienste an. Auch der Bibliothekar namens Razzi ist wahrhaft gut
With these vivid words Ranke evoked what became, for many
< ;trman scholars and many non-German admirers, one of the
l>(rl'at discoveries of early nineteenth-century history: the plea-
'urcs of the archive;
4
For Ranke, despite the charm of his style
illld the profundity of his historical thought, won his status as
1 ht' founder of a new historical school by the rhetorical appeal
of his documentation.
Late in life, Ranke dictated a sketchy autobiography. He
dramatized his life as the story of a vocation as irresistible and
unique as Bertrand Russell's call to philosophy. His early edu-
cation had been classical: he had mastered Greek and Latin at
an old and famous secondary school, Schulpforta, where young
philologists were stuffed like Strasbourg geese with ancient
literature. Then he had learned the methods of modem classical
philology at the University of Leipzig, where he studied with
a pioneering student of Greek tragedy, Gottfried Hermann.
( J.radually, however, he had developed an interest in history-
both that of modem Europe, including the life of Martin Lu-
ther, and that of ancient Rome, which he studied in the pio-
neering critical treatment of Barthold Georg Niebuhr. While
teaching in the Gymnasium, or high school, at Frankfurt an
der Oder, Ranke fell in love with Sir Walter Scott, whose novels
brought the Middle Ages and the Renaissance back to life for
und hat mir und anderen Deutschen die besten Dienste geleistet.--Wenige
Schritte von da ist die Bibliothek Albani, wo Winckelmann die Kunstgeschichte
schrieb Noch zwei andere Bibliotheken besuche ich mit gutem Fortgang.
Wie bald ist ein Tag wegstudiert!"
4 A. Farge, Le GoOt de /'archive (Paris, 1989)-a wonderful description of
the nature of archival work in one of the great national collections. For vivid
and insightful descriptions of archival work in other locales, see also S. Nievo,
II prato in fondo a/ mare (Rome, 1995), and R. Hilberg, The Politics of Memory
(Chicago, 1996).
38 * Ranke
him as they had for many others. But the love affair was deeply
troubled. Scott proved as unreliable as he was charming. Com-
parison with the historical tradition, as preserved by the chron-
icler Philippe de Commines and contemporary reports, revealed
that the Charles of Burgundy and Louis XI portrayed in Scott's
Quentin Durward had never really lived. Ranke found these er-
rors-which he took as deliberate-unforgivable. But he also
found them inspiring: "In making the comparison I convinced
myself that the historical tradition is more beautiful, and cer-
tainly more interesting, than the romantic fiction." So he set
out to write his Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen
Votker (Histories of the Latin and German Peoples) from contem-
porary sources alone. Unfortunately, these too disagreed; hence
Ranke had to build his narrative by dismantling those of his
predecessors, each of whom--even the German ones-proved
unreliable on some points. Only close, comparative study could
produce a critical history.
5
The work that appeared in I 824 brought Ranke everything
he could have wanted. His still immature narrative style, with
its classicizing and Gallicizing turns of phrase, aroused objec-
tions. He had meant to reach the middle of the sixteenth cen-
tury, but allowed his publisher-who began setting the text
sooner than Ranke had thought possible-to bring out a trun-
cated version of his original project, one that ended in the
I 5 I os. But the same novelist's ability to find vivid details that
would later enliven his letters on libraries had already given
fire and ceremony to his discussion of critical research. Ranke's
5 Ranke, Sammt/iche Werke, 53/54 (leipzig, 1890), 61-62: "Bei der Ver-
gleichung iiberzeugte ich mich, dass das historisch Ueberlieferte selbst schoner
und jedenfalls interessanter sei, als die romantische Fiction."
preface to his long second volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschi-
rhtsschreiber (On the Criticism of Modern Historians), portrayed the
contact between the critical historian and his sources as com-
plex and ceremonious, strenuous but rewarding:
Consider the strange feelings that would arise in someone who
entered a great collection of antiquities, in which genuine and
spurious, beautiful and repulsive, spectacular and insignificant
objects, from many nations and periods, lay next to one another
in complete disorder. This is also how someone would have to
feel who found himself all at once within sight of the varied
monuments of modern history. They speak to us in a thousand
different voices; they reveal the most widely different natures;
they are dressed in all the colors.
6
The library and archive transform themselves through Ranke's
glamorous metaphors into a gallery of three-dimensional an-
tiquities, the sources assembled in them into precious objects.
The historian, for his part, turns into the man of taste, whose
sense of what is genuine and false becomes a touchstone. By
applying this deftly, the astute and critical historian performs
magic: he reassembles the dusty thrift shop of the past into a
modern museum, in which the visitor encounters coherent sets
of material from distinct historical periods, organized room by
room, dated, labeled, and attested. Ranke himself underwent
6. Ranke, Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Vo1ker von r 494 his
1514, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber (Leipzig and Berlin, 1824), iv: "Wie
cinem zu Muth seyn wiirde, der in eine grosse Sammlung von Alterthiimern
crate, worin Aechtes und Unachres, Schi:ines und Zuriickstossendes, Glanzendes
und Unscheinbares, aus mancherley Nationen und Zeitaltem, ohne Ordnung
neben einander !age, so etwa miisste sich auch der fiihlen, der sich mit Einem
Mal im Anschaun der mannichfaltigen Denkmale der neuern Geschichte fande.
Sie reden uns in tausend Stimmen an: sie zeigen die verschiedensten Naturen:
sie sind in aile Farben gekleidet."
40 * Ranke
a similar metamorphosis, as a great writer and teacher emerged
from the chrysalis of the provincial Gymnasium teacher. He
found himself the possessor of a chair at Berlin, the recipient
of special permission to use the archives, and the beneficiary of
grants for travel to foreign archives and libraries.
Ranke's "method of research" had an intellectual edge fully
worthy of his brilliant style. The history of the Italian wars of
the early sixteenth century by Machiavelli's friend Francesco
Guicciardini had long been thought the most accurate and the
most profound account of those terrifying years, when huge
French and Spanish armies, equipped with cannon and muskets
in unprecedented quantities, fought their way up and down the
Italian peninsula. Even the most powerful Italian states found
themselves reduced by their lack of military force to pawns in
a game of power politics which they had traditionally domi-
nated by guile. As part of the foundation for his own political
analysis of Italy's failure to resist the great powers from the
north, Guicciardini quoted the speeches of many political ac-
tors in full. Moreover, he described any number of events in
which he or friends of his had taken part. In sum, Guicciardini
lived up to all the demands traditionally made of historians in
the classical tradition: that they themselves have had political
and military experience, that they report as eyewitnesses or on
the basis of interviews with other eyewitnesses, and that they
manifestly love the truth.
7
Evidently Guicciardini deserved the
faith reposed in him by Ranke's most eloquent and recent pred-
ecessor, the Genevan philosopher Sismonde de Sismondi.
8
His
7. G. Nadel, "Philosophy of History before Historicism," History and Theory,
3 (1964). 291-315.
8. On whom see e.g. P. B. Stadler, Geschichtschreibung und historisches Denken
in Frankreich, 1789-IB?I (Zurich, 1958), chap. 5
l'ight-volume history of the Italian republics in their medieval
heyday of political freedom and artistic creativity reached its
melancholy climax in the High Renaissance, when the downfall
of Italy and the hegemony of Spain brought progress to an end.
Sismondi's dose-packed footnotes referred to all major chron-
iclers of the sixteenth century, but he relied especially heavily
on Guicciardini.
Ranke appreciated the depth and intricacy of Guiccardini's
political analyses, which he saw as typically Florentine. The
passage he devoted to characterizing the historian is a little
masterpiece of cultural history in its own right:
He wants to show what was to be expected in each case, what
was to be done, what the real reason of an action was. Therefore
he is a true virtuoso and master in his explanations of the extent
to which each human action derived from an inborn passion,
from ambition, from selfishness. These discourses are not the
product of Guicciardini's wit alone. They depend, in two re-
lated ways, on the condition of his Florentine fatherland. On
the one hand, Florentine power was not independent, and the
situation in public affairs often swung from one extreme to the
other. Therefore men spontaneously directed their attention to
affairs and their possibility of success That is the one side.
But their manner was the same in domestic matters. To un-
derstand the origin of a work like Guicciardini's, one must first
read in Varchi and Nerli how much thought, gossip, trading,
suspicion, and judgment took place before the election of a
gonfaloniere [an official of the Commune}. Relationships, al-
liances, and counter-alliances were formed in this small circle,
just as in European affairs, to win a few more black beans (in
the selection process}. A vast range of things had to be taken
into account: observations, rules, and counsels took shape.
9
9 Ranke, Zur Kritik, 47-48: "Was in jedem Fall zu erwarten, zu thun, was
42 * Ranke
Ranke traced the connections between the arts of politics and
history, showing that a single cultural style determined Flor-
entine political behavior and historical exposition. No wonder
that his student Jacob Burckhardt, who later applied a similar
method to a much wider range of cultural forms, from statecraft
to the dance, found his method inspiring.
10
Never before had
historical method been analyzed with so much intensity or the
results presented with such brilliance. Yet Ranke's central con-
clusions were negative. The same skills that won Renaissance
writers like Guicciardini high office and inspired their brilliant
political reportage produced bad history. Because Guicciardini
cared only about his actors' motives, intentions, and skills,.
Ranke argued, he allowed his larger narrative to become con-
fused and shapeless. Still worse, because the establishment of
facts did not matter greatly to Guicciardini, he made no sys-
tematic effort to obtain first-hand information. In fact, he cop-
der eigentliche Grund einer Handlung gewesen, will er zeigen. Daher ist er in
den Erliiucerungen, in wiefern eine jede menschliche Handlung aus angeborner
Leidenschafc, Ehrgeiz, Eigennucz, komme, ein wahrer Virtuos und Meister.
Diese Discorsen sind niche eine Hervorbringung von Guicciardini 's Geist allein;
sie ruhen, und zwar in doppelter Hinsichc, nur allzuwohl auf dem Zustand
seiner Vacerstadt Florenz. Erstens niimlich, da die Macht von Florenz niche
selbstandig war, und die Lage der offendichen Angelegenheiten zuweilen von
dem einen Extrem zum andern schwankte, richtete sich die Aufmerksarnkeit
unwillkiirlich auf die moglichen Erfolge der Dinge Das ist das Eine. Aber
auch in den innern Angelegenheiten pflegen sie derselben Art und Weise. Wenn
man in Varchi und Nerli Iiese, wie vie! vor einer Gonfalonierewahl gesonnen,
geschwatzt, unterhandelt, vermuthet, geurtheilt ward, wie man in diesem klei-
nen Kreis, so gut als in den europiiischen Angelegenheicen, Verwandtschaften,
Biindnisse, Gegenbiindnisse schloss, urn einige schwarze Bohnen mehr zu be-
kommen, wie vie! es da zu beriicksichtigen gab, wie sich nun Beobachcungen,
Regeln, Rathschliige entwickelten, so versteht man erst den Ursprung eines
Werks, wie Guicciardini's Werk ist."
10. W. Kaegi,jacob B11rckhardt: Eine Biographie, II (Basel, 1950), 54-74.
itd materials from other historians not only in the earlier part
of his histories, which covered the years of his childhood, but
1ven for the events of his maturity.U
Guicciardini also made plenty of mistakes. His reports on
r reaties, for example, had won him particular respect as a re-
searcher: "Francesco's nephew Agnolo, who edited his history,
maintains that his uncle showed special industry in exploring
1 he public monuments [sources}, and had excellent access to
rhem."
12
In fact, however, many errors disfigured these pas-
sages. Even the famous speeches lacked historical credibility.
Some differed from the texts actually delivered, while others
lacked any confirmation from external sources. Not one of
Guicciardini's set-piece orations, Ranke argued, could be
proved to have been delivered as the historian recorded it.
Rather, they exemplified the typical methods of Renaissance
historians, who tried to emulate the ancients and show their
brilliance at formal rhetoric, just as Livy had. They did not
report, but composed, speeches which might provide sharp po-
litical commentary on a situation but "had nothing in common
with historical sources."
13
For all his political insight, Guic-
ciardini was not a "documentary" historian. Therefore the crit-
I I. Ranke, zu,. Kritik, 8-20.
I2. Ibid., 38: "Agnolo, der Neffe Franzesco's, der Herausgeber dieser Ge-
schichte, behauptet, sein Oheim habe mit besonderem Fleiss die offentlichen
Denkmiiler (pubbliche memorie) erforscht, und habe vielen Zugang zu ihnen
gehabt." Ranke goes on to remark: "Wir sahen, wie Johann Bodin auf diese
originale Kunde der Beschliisse und Biindnisse einen besondern Werth legte"-
"As we saw, Jean Bodin attached special value to. these original reports about
decisions and alliances." For the importance of Ranke's use of Bodin, see Chapter
3 below.
13. Ibid., 27: "mit historischen Monumenren so gut wie nichts gemein
hatten."
44 * Ranke
ical modern scholar who wished, as Ranke did, to learn and
show "wie es eigentlich gewesen," "how it really was," should
not cite him.
14
Footnotes, in other words, were not enough. Sismondi had
plenty of those. Ranke even counted them, establishing that
Sismondi's 27 references to Beaucaire in chapter 104
and at least 27 more in chapter 105 put the French historian
in second place, behind Guicciardini, among Sismondi's sources.
But the peppering of short references to authors, tides, and
page numbers that supposedly proved Sismondi's conscientious
workmanship in fact revealed only that he had failed to ask the
right question in the first place: "who, of these many writers,
possesses information that is really original with him: who can
offer us real instruction?"
15
A historical account that marched
on Guicciardini's evidence was doomed to suffer fallen arches,
if not worse:
Let us clearly acknowledge, once and for all, that this book
does not deserve the unconditional respect it has enjoyed up to
now. It should be described not as a source, but only as a re-
working of sources, and a faulty one at that. If we accomplish
that, we will have reached our goal: the Sismondis will have to
stop citing Guicciardini at the bottom of every page, and al-
ways the same Guicciardini. They will have to know that he
does not provide any proof.
16
14. Ranke exaggerated here: see e.g. E. Schulin, Traditionskritik und Rekon-
JtruktionsverJuch (Gottingen, 1979), 48-50; and more generally the classic work
of F. Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini (Princeton, 1965).
15. Ranke, Zur Kritik, v: "wem von so Vielen eine originale Kenntniss bey-
gewohnt, von wem wir wahrhaft belehrt werden konnen."
16. Ibid., 36: "Erkennen wir klar, class das unbedingte Ansehen, welches
diess Buch bis jetzt genossen, ihm mit Unrecht gewiihrt worden, classes nicht
eine QueUe, eine Urkunde, sondern allein eine Bearbeitung, und zwar eine
Only the right footnotes, not a random assembly of references,
muld enable a text to stand proud under critical scrutiny.
Ranke's apparatus, by contrast, attested to his systematic,
original, critical research. Even while teaching in book-de-
prived Frankfurt an der Oder, he had managed to obtain the
main printed histories of the Renaissance from the Royal Library
in Berlin, the patience of whose staff he tried (when he received
his call to Berlin, the joke went round that it had been necessary
either to bring the whole library to Ranke or to bring him to
the library; given his small size, the latter course had proved
casier)Y He had also learned from an older student friend,
Gustav Stenzel, who himself became a distinguished medie-
valist, that the historian should begin work on a given reign
or period by making systematic excerpts from the sources.
18
These amounted, in effect, to long, closely written summaries
of the texts, in German. Ranke divided the pages of his folio
notebook into two columns, one devoted to Guicciardini, the
other to complementary or divergent accounts. Systematic
comparison revealed the Florentine historian's dependencies
and defects. As Ranke set out to explain his conclusions, the
notebooks metamorphosed almost spontaneously into a radical
critique. It became clear almost at once, both to Ranke and his
publisher, that this material, far more than his narrative, would
excite the public: it amounted to the dynamiting of what had
mangelhafte zu nennen ist, so ist unser Zweck erreicht; so miissen die Sismondi
aufhoren, unter jeder Seite den Gucciardini und immer den niimlichen zu ci-
riren; sie miissen wissen, dass er nicht beweist."
17. For Ranke's use of the Royal Library see C. Varrentrapp, "Briefe an
Ranke ... ," HistfWische Zeitschrift, 105 (1910), 105-131, and Ranke, Neue Brufe,
ed. B. Hoeft and H. Herzfeld (Hamburg, 1949), 22, 24-25, 39, 41-42, 44-
45. 54-55
18. See the excellent account in Schulin, 49
46 * Ranke
looked like historical bedrock. As Ranke wrote to his brother
in October r824,
You will probably still remember the handwritten notebook in
folio (or rather the not-yet handwritten one) in which I entered
all my notes about the historians whom I read. I could not
avoid offering some justification for my treatment of these his-
torians in my history. So I made the folio notebook into a quarto
one, and the quarto one in turn is being transformed into a
printed octavo. They predict that this will bring me more suc-
cess than the other.
19
19. Ranke, Das Briefwerk, ed. Fuchs, 6s: '"Du wirst Dich wohl noch auf das
geschriebene Foliobuch besinnen (vielmehr das noch niche geschriebene) in das
-ich alle- Noi:izen tiber -die "die- kh- las, eintrug. Nun wares
unerlii.sslich, class ich meine Behandlung dieser Geschichtschreiber in der Ge-
schichte selbst einigermassen rechtfertigte. Da habe ich nun aus jenem Foliob-
uch eins in quarto gemacht, und daraus wird eins in octavo gedruckt; aus diesem
prophezeit man mir einen grossern Erfolg als aus dem andern." Students of
Burckhardt will recall chat he, coo, excerpted primary sources with remarkable
energy and assiduity (W. Kaegi, Jacob Burckhardt: Eine Biographie, III [Basel,
1956}, 383-396); his culrural history of the Renaissance also came together as
he reworked a vase mass of excerpts. Cf. his famous letter to Paul Heyse of 14
August 1858, quoted ibid., 666: "Gestern habe ich zum Beispiel 700 kleine
Zeddel nur mit Cicacen aus Vasari, die ich in ein Buch zusammengeschrieben
harte, auseinandergeschnitten und sortierc zum neuen Aufkleben nach Sachen.
Aus andern Autoren habe ich noch etwa 1000 Quartseiten Excerpte iiber die
Kunst und 2000 iiber die Cultur. Wie vie! von all diesem werde ich wohl
wirklich verarbeicen?"' ("Yesterday, for example, I cut up 700 little slips, with
quotations from Vasari alone, which I had written down in a book, and rear-
ranged them to be glued up again, organized by copies. From other authors I
have some rooo more quarto pages of excerpts on art and 2000 on culture.
How much of all chis will I really be able to process?") On Burckhardt's working
methods seeP. Ganz, "Jacob Burckhardts Knltur der Renaissance in ltalien. Hand-
werk und Methode," Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fiir Literaturwissenschaft und Geis-
tesgeschichte, 62 (1988), 24-59, and E. H. Gombrich, In Search of Cultural History
(Oxford, 1969). Next to the unwritten history of annotation chat haunts his-
torical libraries wails the ghost of the even thicker history of note-taking. See
for now the rich survey by A. Moss, Printed Com1fl(}nplace-Books and the Structuring
The prophets were right. Ranke's first readers had many doubts
about his narrative. But almost all of them-from Stenzel to
the old Gottingen scholar Arnold Heeren to the German exile
Karl Benedikt Hase, a brilliant lexicographer and deft forger
whose diary, in classical Greek, affords unique guidance through
the brothels and cafes of Balzac's Paris-agreed that they had
never seen such brilliant, cogent, and polished critical argu-
ment carried out by so young a scholar.
20
A favorable reviewer
in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung emphasized the iconoclastic
brilliance of Ranke's analysis of his sources, which stripped
hallowed texts of their aura of authoriry: "He illuminates the
works of the historians who have previously been considered
the chief sources for the history of the period in question
as well as the personalities of their authors with the torch of
his uncompromising, strict criticism. Pitilessly he deprives
both of the aura, in which they previously glowed: or at least
he determines precisely the extent to which they really deserve
and do not deserve belief, and in general how far they should
be considered true sources. "
21
Even the most savage of Ranke's
of RenaiJJance Thought (Oxford, 1996), which ranges far more widely than its
title promises.
20. See the materials published by Varrentrapp in Hi.stOf'iJche ZeitJchrift, 105
(1910), 109 (Heeren), II2 (v. Raumer), II4 (Schulze), 115 (Kamptz); A . .von
Hase, "Briickenschlag nach Paris. Zu einem unbekannten Vorstoss Rankes bei
Karl Benedikt Hase (1825)," Archiv fiir Kulturge.rchichte, 6o (1978), 213-221 at
2 1 s. On Hase himself see the witty and erudite article of P. Petitmengin, "Deux
ceces de pont de Ia philologie allemande en France: le The.rauruJ linguae Graecae
et Ia 'Bibliotheque des auteurs grecs' (183o-I867)," Philo/ogie und Hermeneutik
im 19.]ahrhundert, II, ed. M. Bollack and H. Wismann (GOttingen, 1983), 76-
98.
2 I. Anonymous review of Ranke, ErgiinzungJbliitter zur A//gemeinen Literatur-
Zeitung (February 1828), nos. 23-24, cols. 183-189 at 183-184: "Mit der
Fackel einer unbestechlichen, strengen Kritik beleuchtet er die Werke der bisher
48 * Ranke
critics admitted that his "contributions to the criticism of mod-
ern historians" were "the best part of Mister Ranke's work; at
least they reveal that he has compared the different extracts in
many ways. "
22
In the next few years, Ranke's interest in historiography
would die down as his interest in documents blazed up. He
concluded his Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber not with a
final analysis of published histories but with a chapter entitled
"What Is Still to Be Done." Here he argued that historians
must now go beyond the printed texts. Everywhere in Europe,
but above all in Germany, the original sources lay unexplored
and inaccessible: "For this period we have files of documents,
letters, biographies, and chronicles of the highest importance,
which remain in the state they would have been in if printing
had never been invented. "
23
Even the qualities of the best mod-
ern historians mattered less than those of the primary sources,
the documents that revealed the real intentions of politicians
and generals. To lay these open must become the vocation of a
chosen individual, one who would travel with the boldness of
als Hauptquellen fiir die Geschichten der bezeichneten Periode . geachteten
Historiker wie die Personlichkeit ihrer Urheber, und beraubt beide schonungs-
los des Nimbus, worin sie bisher geglii.nzet, oder bestimmt wenigstens genau,
in wie fern und in wie fern nicht sie wirklich Glauben verdienen, iiberhaupt in
wiefern sie als wahre Que/len zu achten seyen."
2 2. "H. L. Manin" [H. Leo}, review of Ranke, Erganzungsbliitter zur ]enaischen
Allgemeinen Literatur-Zeitung, 16 (1828), nos. 17-18, cols. 129-140 at 138:
Ranke's "Beytrage zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber" were "das Beste an
Hn. Rankes Arbeit, und zeigen wenigstens zugleich von mannichfacher Ver-
gleichung der verschiedenen Excerpte unter sich."
23. Ranke, Zur Kritik, 177= "Es s{nd tiber diese Zeit Acten, Briefe, Lebens-
beschreibungen, Chroniken von der grossten Wichtigkeit vorhanden, fiir die es
aber ist, als ware die Buchdruckerkunst noch gar nicht erfunden."
the eighteenth-century explorer of Arabia, Carsten Niebuhr,
not into some African or Near Eastern desert but into German
heans of archival darkness:
What we need is a man equipped with reasonable knowledge,
lavish letters of recommendation and good health, who would
traverse Germany in all directions in order to hunt down the
remains of this world, which is half sunken and yet so close to
us. We pursue unknown grasses into the deserts of Libya: how
can the life of our forefathers, in our own country, not deserve
the same zeal?
24
The right man, of course, was Ranke himself. He was inspired
by the first publications of the young G. H. Perez, a better-off
scholar who had already begun the German invasion of Italian
libraries, and who would soon lead the greatest of all German
historical publishing enterprises, the Monumenta Germaniae His-
torica.
25
Ranke was also exalted by the success of his first book.
He sent a flurry of letters and complimentary copies off to
scholars, to ministers, and to the intellectual and statesman
Barthold Georg Niebuhr, who was both a former ambassador
to Rome and a historian. In short, Ranke solicited anyone and
24. Ibid., 181: "'Hier ware ein Mann erforderlich, der mir leidlichen Kennr-
nissen, sattsamen Empfehlungen und gurer Gesundheit ausgeriisrer, Deutsch-
land nach allen Seiren durchzoge, und die Resre einer halb unrergegangenen
und so nahe liegenden Welt aufsuchre. Wir jagen unbekannren Griisern bis in
die Wiisren Libyens nach; sollre das Leben unserer Alrvordem nicht denselben
Eifer in unserm eigenen Land werrh sein?"
25. Ranke, Das Briefwerk, ed. Fuchs, 70. For Perez see H. Bresslau, Geschichte
rkr Monumenta Germaniae Historica (1921); D. Knowles, Great Historical Enter-
prises: Problems in Monastic History (Edinburgh, 1963), chap. 3; H. Fuhrmann,
wirh M. Wesche, "Sind eben alles Memchen gewesen." Ge/ehrten/eben im 19. und 20
.fahrhundert (Munich, 1996).
50 * Ranke
everyone who, he thought, might help him to obtain a uni-
versity teaching post, travel grants and the keys to archival
kingdoms at home and abroad.
26
The exploration and exploitation of the primary sources of
history-in the first instance the reports of Venetian ambas-
sadors to their government, but in the end many sorts of public
and private papers-became the guiding principle of Ranke's
working life. From the later r82os Ranke cocooned himself in
the original materials of history. He regularly traveled, with
official help, to gain access to what were in the early years still
closely guarded archivesY He judiciously exploited the post-
revolutionary book market, in which many Italian families put
their papers up for sale. He systematically used the human
coovi.np machines who came lone: bsfore the microfilm camera
and the Xerox machine, the professional scribes who produced
fair copies of archival documents for a fee. Continuous purchase
of such important new editions as those contained in the Mon-
umenta produced the mountain of books and manuscripts now
preserved at Syracuse University in New York. A photograph
shows the old historian dwarfed, almost crushed, by the ma-
terial embodiment of his erudition.
28
26. See e.g. Ranke, Neue Briefe, ed. Hoeft and Herzfeld, 56-59.
27. For a fascinating study in the glacial opening up of one of Europe's
richest archives, see H. Chadwick, Catholicism and History (Cambridge, 1978).
28. For Ranke's practices see U. Tucci, "Ranke and the Venetian Document
Market," in Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline, ed. G.
G. lggers and J. Powell (Syracuse, N.Y., 1990), 99-107; for an image of him
in his library see the frontispiece, ibid. See also the remarkable catalogue by E.
Muir, The Leopold von Ranke ManUJcript Collection of Syracuse University (Syracuse,
N.Y., 1983). And for the larger history of the notaries and others who produced
precise copies before the age of photography, see the fascinating work of H.
Levine, The Culture of the Copy (New York, 1996), chap. 6.
A Footnote about Scientific HiJtory * 51
Ranke did not simply accumulate: what he read and had
copied, he used. He represented his history of Germany in the
Reformation, for example, his chief work of the r83os and
r 84os, as the result of a triumphal progress across the German
archives. In words that became famous, Ranke prophesied that
this heavy book was only the first small swallow, the harbinger
of a historical revolution: "I can see the time approach when
we will no longer have to base modern history on reports, even
those of contemporary historians--except to the extent that
they had first-hand knowledge-to say nothing of derivative
reworkings of the sources. Rather, we will construct it from the
accounts of eyewitnesses and the most genuine and direct
sources."
29
His excitement lasted through years of hard work,
of searching and copying, assessing and editing, comparing
printed editions with manuscript texts. As he prepared the
documentary appendix of the history of the Reformation, for
example, Ranke drew up repeated drafts for an introduction in
which he called for "readers who take part in the work," "par-
ticipatory readers." He admitted that he could not print all the
relevant sources, or all those he had used: "Nobody would want
to publish whole archives." But he insisted that intelligent
29. Ranke, DeutJche GeJchichte im Zeita/ter der Reftwmation, ed. P. Joachimsen
ct al. (Munich, 1925-26), I, 6*: "Ich sehe die Zeit kommen, wo wir die neuere
Geschichte niche mehr auf die Berichte, selbst nicht der gleichzeitigen Histo-
riker, ausser insoweit ihnen eine originale Kenncnis beiwohnte, geschweige denn
auf die weiter abgeleitecen Bearbeitungen zu grtinden haben, sondern aus den
Relationen der Augenzeugen und den iichtesten unmittelbarsten U rkunden auf-
bauen werden." Despite considerable progress in the study of Ranke and his
Nachlass, some of which has resulted in important corrections to the work of
Joachimsen and his collaborators, his introduction to chis edition remains one
of the finest treatments of Ranke's scholarship and thought. It is reprinted in
his GeJammelte Aufiatze, ed. N. Hammerstein (Aalen, 1970-83), I, 627-734; on
Ranke's thought and scholarship see also 735-758.
52 * Ranke
readers should work through at least the documents he did
print. He urged them to overcome what he described as the
minor linguistic difficulties posed by the sources, to follow the
"particularly lively" accounts of great events that the original
documents offered. If possible, they should work through text
and documents together-a recommendation that suggests
that Ranke's method was not so naive as some nowadays sup-
pose.30 Ranke himself never ceased to feel the sharp joy of dis-
covery when a new set of sources became available. Each new
kind of document widened his point of view, he thought, and
enabled him to be more objective. When some of the docu-
ments originally kept in the Spanish archives at Simancas
turned up in the accessible Archives du royaume in Paris, for
example, he had the exciting opportunity to compare the re-
ports of the diplomats of the Holy Roman Empire from the
French court with those of the French diplomats at the imperial
court. Even someone naturally inclined to impartiality, he re-
flected, could not read these sharply contrasting documents in
tandem without feeling even more disposed to admire the rep-
resentatives of both sides and be fair to them.
31
At the same
rime, he nourished no illusions about his ability to reconstruct
all important events in exact detail. Over the years, as Ranke
produced new editions of his history of the Reformation, he
continued to find new sources. These added graphic details to,
for example, his precise and passionate account of the social and
religious revolution that took place in Miinster in the r 5 30s,
the Anabaptist Kingdom of God. But he admitted in the fourth
edition of his work that the exact sequence of events that led
30. Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeita/ter der Reformation, VI, 3-4: "Wer will
auch die ganzen Archive drucken lassen?"
3 1. Ibid., III, ix.
up to the fall of the city remained problematicY In such cases,
Ranke's footnotes taught lessons in the fallibility of even the
most scientific historians.
Ranke also devoted much attention to his sources in his
in the seminar which he organized in his
own home. He explained, in the Latin speech of I 82 5 with
which he opened this informal but essential institution, that
he would have liked to concentrate entirely on selected prob-
lems emerging from the primary sources. For the best students,
this would have been the ideal approach. They, he explained,
'"have decided to dedicate their lives to learning history in a
really deep way: I think that a sort of impulse of the soul and
a particular quality of mind brings them to these studies. They
will certainly want to know the springs from which histories
<tee derived: they will not be content to have read the standard,
required authors, and will wish to know the suppliers of every
narrative. "
33
Even less dedicated historians, if of high ability,
"are not content to accept, believe, and teach, to trust others,
but wish to use their own judgment in these matters. "
34
Ranke
32. Ibid., 441-442, n. I (from 44I), ending: ''Doch bescheide ich mich,
dass hier, wie oft in ahnlichen Fiillen, immer noch gewisse Zweifel mi:iglich
hleiben" ("Yet I accept, that here, as often happens in similar cases, it remains
possible to entertain certain doubts").
33 Leopold von Ranke Nachlass, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer
Kulcurbesitz (Haus II), 38 II A, fol. 72 recto: "eorum, qui historiae rerum
discendae penitusque imbibendae vitam suam dicare constituerunt. Istos animi
quodam imperu ingeniique sui natura ad haec studia ferri credo. Hi sine dubio
fontes, e quibus historiae hauriuntur, cognoscere volent. Non saris habentes
scriptores perlegisse quos schola suppeditat, promos omnis relati volent cog-
noscere." On this text (and Ranke's seminar) see the exemplary monograph of
G. Berg, Leopold von Ranke als historischer Lehrer (GOttingen, I968), 5 I-56 at 52
and n. 2.
34 Ranke Nachlass, 38 II A, fol. 7 2 recto: "Non ramen satis habent accipere
ea, credere, docere, fidem aliis habere, sed suo ipsorum judicio in his rebus uti
cupiunt."
54 * Ranke
would have liked to teach, rigorously, for the first group only:
"I would set out a series of loci classici and have them read them:
then I would remove the difficulties that struck them as they
read. We would treat medieval history in the same way. "
35
He
decided not to do so only because he had students of quite
varied abilities and interests, for some of whom such critical
study was too hard. No one could have left Ranke's seminar
without grasping his strong preference for the really gifted stu-
dents who insisted on uncovering the treasures of the original
texts on their own, or at least refused simply to repeat what
they read in secondary works, without knowing what the
sources of their information were. The seminar naturally con-
centrated-though not exclusively-on source criticism, and
chis interest moved with his students co other centers of his-
torical research, like Munich, where the gifted and charismatic
Heinrich von Sybel founded a seminar on the model of
Ranke's.
36
Most of Ranke's lecture courses also began with detailed ac-
counts of the primary documents and some reference to the
particular difficulties they posed.
37
Even at the end of Ranke's
life, when he had ceased to teach and worked only with great
physical difficulty, he still devoted hours every day to his fa-
vorite study. Surrounded by the irretrievably confused contents
35 Ibid., fol. 72 verso: "Si primum canrum genus hie adessec, rem ira
insticuerem---diger(er)em seriem locorum classicorum--eos legendos propo-
nerem. Difficulcaces, quae legencibus offendunc, e media coHere curarem. Eadem
ratione hiscoriam medii aevi craccaremus."
36. L. von Ranke, Aus Werke und Nachlass, ed. W. P. Fuchs ec al. (Munich
and Vienna, 1964-1975), I, 83-84. Cf. more generally GI!Jchichtswissenschaft in
Berlin im I 9 und 20. jahrhundert (Berlin, 1 992), and for Sybel's Munich seminar
see V. Doccerweich, Heinrich von Sybel (GOccingen, 1978), 255-284.
37 See Berg; Ranke, Aus Werke und Nachlass, ed. Fuchs ec al., IV.
of his private library, the largest one in Germany, he listened
to his young secretaries reading aloud excerpts from the doc-
uments he could no longer read himself-and stopped them,
almost as soon as they began, when his uncanny sixth sense
told him that a given passage was relevant and what it meant.
Ranke insisted that only he knew what treasures the unpub-
lished sources could yield. Neither his rival historians, who
worked from mere selections, nor the archivists themselves
could match his combination of detective instinct and historical
insight.
38
Even more important than this rich germ plasm of erudition,
of course, were the books spawned in it: the endless series of
histories of medieval and early modern Europe (and much
more), each attended by a stately row of liveried documents
and supported by a mass of footnotes providing not only ref-
erences but whole passages from the sources. Ranke produced
a new theory of history and wrote with a cosmopolitanism that
would not be rivaled for a century. Long before Fernand Braude!
became famous for his enormous, glitteringly detailed recrea-
tion of the economy and society of the sixteenth-century Med-
iterranean world, Ranke drew from the reports of Venetian am-
bassadors a vivid and pointed account of the societies of the
two powers that dominated that world, Habsburg Spain and
Ottoman Turkey.
39
He ranged with bravura across time and
38. T. Wiedemann, "SechzehnJahre in der Werkstatt Leopold von Ranke's,"
Deutsche Revue, November 1891, 177-179
39 See L. Ranke, FNrsten und Votker von Slid-Europa im sechszehnten und sieb-
zehnten]aht-hundert. Vortl8hmlich aNJ ungedruckten Gesandtschafts-Berichten, 2nd ed.
(Berlin, 1837-1839), I, translated by W. K. Kelly as The Ottoman and the Spanish
Empires in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (london, 1843). For an expen
assessment of this prescient work see J. H. Elliott, Europe Divided (london, 1 968;
repr. 1985), 418.
56 * Ranke
space, tackling subjects as varied as the English revolution of
the seventeenth century, the Serbian revolution of his own time,
the history of the Reformation and that of the early modern
papacy. With these achievements I am not directly concerned.
40
But he also created and dramatized a new practice, based on a
new kind of research and made visible by a new form of docu-
mentation. Each serious work of history must now travel on an
impregnably armored bottom, rather like a tank. Failure to live
up to this ideal of discovery and presentation brought disaster
to such adherents of traditional method (or the absence of
method) as Froude-whose name, like Holland's, came to des-
ignate a recognizable disease.
41
Living up to it meant, in the
first instance, producing a large and informative apparatus, a
set of juicy footnotes that the next scholar could productively
squeeze-as Ranke indicated, implicitly, when he had his sec-
retary read aloud extracts not from the text, but from the foot-
notes, of Droysen's History of Prussia while he prepared his own
treatment of the same subject.
42
The man, the moment, the
method come together with a neatness that immediately
awakes suspicion.
Ranke insisted that his kind of history imitated no existing
40. See the masterly appreciation of F. Gilbert, History: Politics or Culture?
(Princeton, 1990). For a more critical point of view, one which emphasizes the
breadth and originality of eighteenth-century historiography (and brings out
aspects of that tradition, like its interest in cultural and social history, which
are not treated here), seeP. Burke, "Ranke the Reactionary," in Leopold von Ranke,
ed. Iggers and Powell, 36-44.
41. For "Froude's disease" see Ch. V.l.anglois and Ch. Seignobos, Introduction
to the Study of History, tr. G. G. Berry (London and New York, 1898; repr. 1912),
124-128.
42. T. Wiedemann, "SechzehnJahre in der Werkstatt Leopold von Ranke's,"
Deutsche Revue, December 1891, 322.
A Footnote ahout Scientific History * 57
model.
43
In terms of source criticism, as we will see, he exag-
gerated his own originality-as the most original historians
often do. But in another sense he was right: earlier historians
did not anticipate Ranke's ability to bring the flavor and tex-
ture of the documents into his own text. When Ranke used
account books, ambassadorial dispatches and papal diaries to
characterize the austere, willful, and determined Franciscan
who became Pope Sixtus V, and rebuilt the city of Rome into
a magnificent stage for Catholic festivals and triumphal pro-
cessions, he made his book into a sort of archive. He enabled
the reader to share something of the impact of his own direct
encounter with the sources.
44
In Ranke's own day, accordingly,
his rhetoric generally carried conviction. Experienced haunters
of archives like the Konigsberg historian Johannes Voigt felt
that Ranke had somehow given them a voice, or a language,
with which they could for the first time explain the importance
of what they had long been
Practitioners of quite dif-

43 Ranke, Sammtliche Werke, 53/54, 62.
44 See Ranke, Die rifmischen Papste in den letzten 11ier jalffhunderten, book IV,
in Ranke, Sammtliche Werke, 38 (Leipzig, 1878) = The Popes of Rome (Glasgow
and London, 1846-47), I, 278-377. Cf. more generally C. Ginzburg, "Veran-
schaulichung und Zitat. Die Wahrheit der Geschichte," Der Historiker a/s Men-
schen.fresser. Ober den Beruf des Geschichtsschnibers (Berlin, 1990), 85-102.
4 5. See Voigt's letter to Ranke, surprisingly humble for the compiler of the
entire Prussian Codex diplomatiCNs and the author of the heavily documented and
methodologically innovative Geschichte Marienburgs (Konigsberg, 1824) and Hi/-
tkbrand (Weimar, 1815), in Varrentrapp, 127-128, and his strategic citation of
Ranke's lines on the coming age of manuscript-based history, quoted above, in
his Brie.fwechse/ der beriihmtestm Gelehrten des Zeitalters der Reformation mit Herzog
A/brechtwn (Konigsberg, 1841), [v). Admittedly, Voigt was a far less
original and critical historian than Ranke, and ended up a disappointed man,
unable to obtain leaves to do research and outdated in his critical technique.
See e.g. the long and well-documented article on Voigt in the Allgemeine Deutsche
Biographie; H. Protz, Die Kimigliche zu Kimigsberg i. Pr. im
58 * Ranke
ferent fields acknowledged that Ranke's kind of history was
something radically new. In 1863 the classicist Heinrich Nis-
sen set out to show, in his famous study ofLivy and his sources,
that ancient historians had normally worked not like modern
historians but like modern journalists. They had drawn their
information, he argued, from one principal source, only occa-
sionally using other texts to correct or supplement it. Nissen
based this thesis partly on an ingenious use of various forms of
collateral evidence-like the fact that ancient books, being
scrolls, would have been almost impossible to collate with one
another systematically.
46
But he received his main impetus from
Ranke-who, he thought, had shown that medieval and Re-
naissance historians still worked in the same way, if in very
different literary circumstances.
47
"Nissen's law"-as it came
neunzehnten ]ahrhundert (Konigsberg, 1894), 186-188; G. von Selle, Geschichte
der AibertUJ-Universitat z11 Konigsberg in PreUJsen (Konigsberg, 1944), 278-280.
But Voigt's testimony is therefore all the more representative.
46. H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen iJber die Que/len der vierlen und fiJnften
Dekade des LiviUJ (Berlin, 1863), 70-79. For a recent discussion of how ancient
historians used their predecessors--one which shows both how useful and how
limited Nissen's perspective was-seeS. Hornblower, "Introduction," Grk His-
toriography, ed. S. Hornblower (Oxford, 1994), I-7 I at 54-7 I.
47. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen, 77: Livy "steht unter dem Einfluss des-
selben Grundgesetzes, welches die ganze Historiographie bis auf die Entwick-
lung der modernen Wissenschaft beherrscht. Ranke hat zuerst in glanzender
Weise an einer Reihe von Geschichtschreibern des I5. und 16. Jahrhunderts
nachgewiesen, wie sie die Werke ihrer Vorganger in der Art benutzten, dass sie
dieselben einfach ausschrieben" (Livy "reflects the influence of the same fun-
damental law, which determined all historical writing until the development
of modern scholarship. Ranke was the first who used a whole series of historians
from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to prove, in a brilliant manner, that
the way they used the works of their predecessors amounted simply to direct
copying"). Ranke, of course, would never have confused Thucydides with the
journalists of his own time--or treated the whole tradition of historiography as
uniform.
to be called-was as exaggerated as it was ingenious, and re-
flected its creator's tendency to make wild hypotheses into solid
lacts.
48
Ranke's own view of the historical tradition was far
more complex. But Nissen's version of Ranke became a central
principle of research in ancient history for many years after he
advanced it. For almost a century after Ranke's time, his dis-
ciples would repeat like a mantra an exaggerated version of
what Ranke himself had taught them to believe: "The propo-
sition that before the beginning of the last century the study
of history was not scientific may be sustained in spite of a few
exceptions Erudition has now been supplemented by sci-
entific method, and we owe the change to Germany." So]. B.
Bury ecumenically declared in his Cambridge inaugural address
of 1902, at the height of Anglo-German imperial rivalry.
49
Doubts arose, to be sure, even in the later years of Ranke's
exceptionally long life--especially as his appeal as a teacher
began to fail. It became evident that he had unjustifiably ac-
cepted cenain classes of documents-like the official reports of
Venetian ambassadors to their Senate-as transparent windows
on past states and events rather than colorful reconstructions
48. "Das liege in seinem schleswigholsteinecnen kopf," wrote Hermann Use-
nee plaintively, explaining how he had failed to persuade his old friend not to
argue that the ancient kings of Latium somehow represented the biblical days
of Creation. H. Diels, H. Usener, and E. Zeller, Briefwechsel, ed. D. Ehlers (Ber-
lin, 1992), I, 425. The work in question was Nissen's Das Templum (Berlin,
r869), ac 127. Nissen received some sharp criticism: see e.g. L. 0. Brocker,
Moderne Quel/enforscher u. antike Geschichtschreiber (Innsbruck, 1882). But the age
of Quellenforschung which began with his work was also largely governed by his
spirit of reckless simplification: see C. Wachsmuth, Einleitung in daJ Studium tier
A/ten Geschichte (Leipzig, I 895), 55-56, and the erudite (if peculiarly organized
and written) work of B. A. Desbords,Introduction a Diogene Lairce (Diss., Utrecht,
1990).
49 See The Varieties of HiJtory, ed. F. Steen, 2nd ed. (London, 1970), 2 I I.
60 * Ranke
of them, whose authors wrote within rigid conventions, had
not heard or seen everything that they reported, and often
wished to convince their own audience of a personal theory
rather than simply to tell what had happened. Like the splendid
Venetian processions recorded by Carpaccio, the rich Venetian
documents Ranke loved told a story about elite values and
beliefs in their city of origin, as well as about the events and
institutions they described. More generally, it became evident
that in his reliance on central archives and great families' papers
Ranke had accepted, without reflecting hard enough, a certain
interpretation of history itself: one in which the story of nations
and monarchies took precedence over that of peoples or cul-
tures, which had initially won his interest for the p a s t . ~
0
Ranke's claims to originality in method, however, took far
longer to attract critical scrutiny than his claims to objectivity
in results. In the nineteen-forties and after, non-German schol-
ars began to study the history of historical thought in a sys-
tematic way. Not bound by what had become traditional as-
sumptions, far less inclined than their predecessors had been to
accept a German account of"how it really was," Arnaldo Mom-
igliano and Herbert Butterfield did not accept what had seemed
as obvious to Acton as to Ranke: that the application of min-
utely precise critical scrutiny to the full range of historical
sources was part of the intellectual revolution set off in German
universities around I8oo by the louder revolution that began
in the Paris streets and led to the forcible opening of some of
Europe's once secret chanceries and archives. Ranke's account
50. See esp. E. Fueter, Geschichte der mueren Historiographie (Munich and Ber-
lin, I9II), 48o-482; H. Butterfield, Man on His Past (Cambridge, 1955; repr.
Boston, 196o); G. Benzoni, "Ranke's Favorite Source," Leopold von Ranke, ed.
Iggers and Powell, 45-57
A Footnote about Scientifo History * 61
of the development of his discipline was what historians of
science call "disciplinary history" rather than the history of the
discipline. He told his own story, in other words, to enhance
rhe technical and emotional appeal of the sort of history he
practiced, rather than to offer a full-scale, documented account
of the development of historiography. In doing so, moreover,
Ranke considerably exaggerated the archival component of his
work. When the English Reformation scholar A. G. Dickens
analyzed the footnotes to Ranke's history of the Reformation,
for example, he discovered that fewer than 10 percent of them
cited archival sources. The rest referred, for the most part, to
the wealth of primary sources that earlier German scholars had
published between the sixteenth century and the early nine-
teenth-a result that does as much to confirm the quality of
Ranke's knowledge of historical literature as to undermine his
reputation as a spelunker in deep archival shafts.
51
The first
task that faces us, then, is simple: we must develop this cri-
tique, abandon Ranke's own, retrospective schema and re-
turn-as he always urged-to the documents. These are for-
tunately plentiful, both in print and in manuscript, and recent
scholarship has already called attention to many of them. Taken
together, neglected sources and novel works of scholarship
make it possible to tell a quite different story about both Ranke
and the tradition with which he claimed to have made a radical
break.
5 I. A. G. Dickens, Ranke as Reformation Historian, Stenton Lecture 13 (Read-
ing, Eng., 1980), 12-17, summarized in Dickens and]. Tonkin, with K. Powell,
The Reformation in Historical Thought (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), 174-175 Cf.
also E. Armstrong, "Introduction," L. von Ranke, H i.Jtory of the Latin and Teutonic
Nations (1494 to r:5I4), cr. G. R. Dennis (London, 1909), ix-xxiv at xiii-xvi.
CHAPTER THREE
How the Historian Found His Muse:
RankeJ s Path to the Footnote
*The road that Ranke followed as he learned to dramatize
the central importance of documents to the historian's enter-
prise was in some ways more direct, in others much more
crooked than he remembered as an old man. To follow Ranke
back to the origins of his new German history, we must begin
in the middle of the American Middle West. Around the turn
of the century, many American universities began to make
themselves over, following what they saw as the German model.
Professors, many of whom had enjoyed the adventure of study-
ing in scholarly Gottingen, romantic Heidelberg, or metro-
politan Berlin, began to enroll graduate students and offer spe-
cialized seminars at home. They carved our new spaces for these
advanced courses--often within the impressively crenelated
university libraries of the time, in rooms equipped with refer-
ence books and primary sources. Students from Berkeley to
Baltimore could learn dead languages, master bibliographies,
and apply sophisticated research techniques, just as their teach-
ers had. And they could do so without having to live in Ger-
many, drink beer, and translate texts, extemporaneously, into
as well as out of Gothic and Anglo-Saxon, as German professors
required the members of seminars to do.
Ranke's Path to the Footnote * 63
The discovery of the truth about the past-to be obtained
by German forms of scholarship--took on the moral prestige
of a crusade and the cultural allure of a fashion. It captured
academic hearts in Middle America as well as on the coasts.
1
Before the First World War, the historians at the University of
Illinois decided to create a historical seminar of the German
kind. To adorn their meeting room they bought portraits of
the greatest American and the greatest non-American historian
they could think of: respectively Francis Parkman and Edward
Gibbon. Though Ranke lost out in the competition to have his
picture on the wall, he received a consolation prize. A letter of
his, bought from a dealer in Frankfurt, was also framed and
hung in the seminar whose patron saint he naturally was. Years
later, when the university found a new function for the room,
the letter disappeared. Perhaps some historical aficionado of
wide interests and low morals stole it.
Fortunately, a copy of this lost manuscript has survived.
Ranke directed the letter--one of the few early ones that have
been published-to his publisher, Georg Reimer, a great lit-
erary entrepreneur, who brought out such fundamental works
of German literature and scholarship as the Fairy Tales of the
brothers Grimm. In it Ranke addressed, with understandable
anxiety, the delicate question of whether his first book could
survive the state censorhip unharmed.
2
But he also raised, with
even more anxiety, the question of the footnote. Surpris-
ingly--especially to the late-twentieth-century reader, who ex-
pects learned authors to demand space for footnotes and hard-
driving publishers to refuse it-Ranke insisted that he had felt
I. See e.g. B. Perry, Arzd Gladly Teach (Boston and New York, 1935).
2. On Reimer see G. Ludtke, Der Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co. (Berlin,
1924; repr. Berlin, 1978), 51-62.
64 * How the Historian Found His Muse
it necessary to use notes only because a young author had to
cite his sources. At all events, he had kept the distasteful things
as short as possible: "I carefully avoided going in for real an-
notation. But I felt citation was indispensable in the work of a
beginner who has to make his way and earn confidence." Ranke
still hoped to find a way to avoid disfiguring his text with
footnote cues and his pages with swelling feet of claylike an-
notation. Perhaps, he suggested, one could number the lines
on each page or in each section, as was already normal practice
in editions of classical authors, and put the notes at the end,
keyed to the text. At best he saw the presence of annotation in
his work as a necessary evil.3
Historians, young or old, are not on oath in letters to their
publishers. But when the young and unknown Ranke professed
his lack of interest in the formal aspects of documentation and
his distaste for the appearance of pedantry, he was not striking
a pose--even though he knew that his publisher cared as much
about style as about science. The collection of Ranke's papers
in Berlin includes not only his working notebooks, but part of
the manuscript of his first book. Like the references in his fin-
ished book, those in the draft are the extremely shon citations
Ranke claimed to prefer: authors, titles, page numbers. Some
pages have no footnotes at all; others have several footnote num-
bers, but not all of the references are filled in. And many foot-
notes give the author's name and the tide, but no page number.
All of the notes, finally, were added after Ranke had written
3 G. Stanton Ford, "A Ranke Letter," Journal of Modern Histrwy, 32 (196o),
143: "Sorgfaltig babe ich mich vor der eigentlichen Adnotation gehiitet: das
Citat schien mir in dem Werk eines Anfangers, der sich erst Bahn machen und
Glauben verdienen soli, unerliiszlich."
out the entire text.
4
The document yields at least two obvious
inferences. In the first qlace. ,Ranke. ,the of the_
modem historian's craft, practiced it with no more discipline
than his professional grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
He composed his text as a whole. Only then did he search his
books and notes, extracts and summaries, for the evidence to
support it: he used a salt-shaker to add references to an already
completed stew. This seems to have been Ranke's consistent
practice. Even when, as an old man, he worked with and
through secretaries, his methods underwent no fundamental
change. The young men had to chase up references, for which
Ranke supplied only hints, and which now and then did not
exist at all, "a point on which Ranke was always very hard to

In fact, the scantiness of the notes in Ranke's Geschichten led
to the worst public;_ embarrassment of his career. In 1828 he
learned that he had offered powerful ammunition to his fiercest
critic. Heinrich Leo, another young Berlin historian, responded
to his rival's rapid ascent to the academic stratosphere with
understandable jealousy-as well as a passionate desire to save
the literary ideal of history thai: he cherished from Ranke's
many stylistic and intellectual sins. He did his best to puncture
what he saw as the hot air balloon of Ranke's purported schol-
arship. In a long and dismissive review, he criticized Ranke's
style and his philosophy, predicting that his inchoate, senti-
mental book would find its warmest reception "among learned
4 Ranke Nachlass, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz
(Haus 10, Fasz. 1, I.
5 T. Wiedemann, "SechszehnJahre in der Werkstatt Leopold von Ranke's,"
Deutsche Retme, December 1891, 333: "wovon Ranke immer nur sehr schwer
iiberzeugt wurde."
ladies"-"bey gelehrten Weibern." Worse still, Leo identified
many passages where Ranke's text did not correspond precisely
to the source quoted in the footnotes.
6
Ranke was appalled and
infuriated by this "devilish review," which attacked him "on
the most sensitive point of his research."
7
In a long reply he
argued that support for every assertion Leo had contested could
be found in one of the texts he had cited-though not neces-
sarily in the passage referred to by any given footnote. The
reader who wished to test Ranke's use of the originals must
compare all of them systematically, as Leo had evidently failed
to. "I cite," Ranke wrote in an indignant foonote, "for those
who want to find, but not for those who look in order not to
find. Incidentally, this book is not the sort that one can scru-
tinize over a cup of coffee, with just one of the editions I cited
in one's hand. "
8
Leo's rejoinder to this rebuttal was even more
6. "H. L. Manin" [H. Leo}, review of Ranke, in Ergiinzungsblatter zur jen-
aischen Allgemeinen Literatur-Zeitung, r6 (1828), nos. 17-18, cols. 129-140,
esp. r 36: "Doch wozu noch mehr anfiihren?-Man schlage nach, auf jedem
Blatte fast wird ein verdrehtes, ein nichrssagendes oder nachHissig benurztes
Citat zu linden seyn. Heisst das nun nackte Wahrheit? Heisst das griindliche
Erforschung des Einzelnen?" ("But why cite more evidence? One need simply
look, and on every page one finds a distorted, a meaningless or a carelessly used
quotation. Should this be called the naked truth? Should this be called thorough
research into the details?"). On the philosophical dimension of the debate be-
tween Leo and Ranke see G. G. lggers, The German Conception of History (Mid-
dletown, Conn., 1968), 66-69, and S. Baur, "Rankes Historik, Teil 1: Der junge
Ranke'" (Diss., Freie Universitat Berlin, 1996), 125-138.
7 L. von Ranke, Das Briefwerk, ed. W. P. Fuchs (Hamburg, 1949), 156-
161, 165, 168, 240: "auf dem kitzlichsten Punkt der Forschung."
8. L. Ranke, "Replik," lnte//igenzb/att der Allgemeinen Literatur-Zeitung (May
1828), no. 131, cols. 193-199, at 195-196 n.: "lch citire fiir die, welche linden
wollen, aber niche fiir solche, die da suchen, urn nicht zu linden. Bey einer Tasse
Kaffee, mit einem einzigen der citirten Ausgaben in der Hand, lasst sich iibri-
gens diess Buch niche priifen"; cf. Das Briefwerk, ed. Fuchs, 159.
dismissive than his original review, and his judgment of the
Geschichten even more absurdly negative. But he had no trouble
using Ranke's own words to show that his victim's practices as
a writer of footnotes were genuinely problematic. Leo advised
Ranke to give up footnotes entirely in the future. A simple list
of the sources used in each section would serve the reader better
than annotations randomly attached to portions of the text "in
which one finds things completely different from those in the
citations. "
9
Michael Bernays described the footnotes in Ranke's
first book as exemplary: "No one who deserves to read Ranke
would want to do without notes of this kind. But everyone
realizes that the material they contain could not be moved into
the text."
10
No praise would have pleased its recipient more.
But not all his original readers would have agreed.
For all his modern erudition, Ranke evidently retained his
allegiance to the classical notion of what a history should look
like. Far from joyously accepting that a history should tell the
double story of the historical past and the historian's research,
Ranke shied away from disfiguring his powerful narrative and
set-piece battle scenes with the ugly contrivances of scholarly
mechanics. In this he was far from alone among Germany's
historical revolutionaries. Barthold Georg Niebuhr, the revi-
sionist who won fame by insisting that the traditional narrative
of Rome's early history must be dissected by source-criticism
9 H. leo, "Replik,n Intelligenzblatt der ]enaiJchen A//gem. Literatur-Zeitung
(June r828), no. 39, cols. 305-3I2 at 3ro: ''in denen ganz andere Dinge zu
linden sind, als in den Citaten. D
ro. M. Bernays, "Zur Lehre von den Citaten und Noten," Schriften zur Kritik
und LitteraturgeJchichte, IV (Berlin, r899), 333: "Keiner, der Ranke zu lesen
verdient, mi:ichte Noten dieser Art entbehren; jeder aber sieht ein, dass ihr lnhalt
sich in den Text nicht schicken wi.irde."
and then reframed as a social analysis of the city's rise, loved
the details of historical investigation and lectured about them
to his students at Berlin.
11
He too, however, thought that the
best historical narrative was a classical one, free of notes. He
longed to write without a learned apparatus, if he could only
solve all the technical problems and then push them out of the
way: "Should the learned work, which reconstructs the mate-
rial, ever be finished, I found it an appealing thought to write
a straight narrative history of the Romans, without investiga-
tions, proofs, and erudition, as it would have been written 18oo
years ago."
12
For Niebuhr as for Ranke, the hope proved im-
possible to fulfill: the historian who had eaten from the tree of
source-criticism could not regain the innocence needed to write
a simple narrative. But their aspirations remained rhetorical
and literary, to an extent that would surprise many later pro-
fessional historians. Some American scholars of an older gen-
eration, sure of their own right to claim professional descent
from Ranke, regarded writing well as incompatible with the
duties of a professional historian.
13
In doing so they hardly
followed their master.
I I. See now the remarkable study by G. Walther, Niehuhrs Frwschung (Stutt-
gart, I993), with ample references to the older literature.
I2. B. G. Niebuhr, Briefe. Neue Fo/ge,IBI6-IB3o, ed. E. Vischer, IV: Briefe
aus Bonn (juli bis Dezember 1830) (Bern and Munich, I984), I I7: "Es war fiir
mich ein reizender Gedanke, wenn dies gelehrre Werk, wodurch der Stoff wieder
geschaffen wird, vollendet seyn wiirde, eine ganz erzahlende Geschichte der
Romer zu schreiben, ohne Untersuchung, Erweis und Gelehrsarnkeit; wie man
sie vor I Boo Jahren geschrieben haben wiirde." Cf. W. Nippel, "'Geschichte'
und 'Alterrumer': Zur Periodisierung in der Althistorie," Geschichtsdiskurs, ed.
W. Kutder eta!., I (Frankfurt, I993), 3Io-31 1.
I 3 For Ranke's qualities as a writer see the fine account by P. Gay, Style in
History (London, 1975), chap. 2. Two further acts of resistance against the ne-
cessity of providing footnotes, both carried out by distinguished historians who
had minutely precise knowledge of the documents they used, are described in
Ranke'J Path to the Footnote * 69
Ranke, after all, wished-as he said in an all-too-often
quoted and all-too-rarely analyzed phrase-"only to say, how
it really was"-"nur sagen, wie es eigentlich gewesen. "
14
But
what does that mean? As Hajo Holborn and others have shown,
Ranke's famous dictum about his intentions as a historian was
in fact a strategically placed citation of an even more famous
passage from Thucydides (1.22)Y One who cited the most
profound of Greek political historians as his model for serious,
accurate exposition could hardly be eager to obscure the literary
relation between their texts by adding a commentary to the
body of his own work.
More than one recent critic has pointed out that footnotes
interrupt a narrative. References detract from the illusion of
veracity and immediacy that Ranke and so many other nine-
teenth-century historians wished to create, since they contin-
ually interrupt the single story told by an omniscient narrator
(Noel Coward made the same point more memorably when he
a characteristically elegant essay by J. H. Hexter, uGarrett Mattingly, Histo-
rian," From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation, ed. C. H. Carter (London,
I966), I3-28 at I5-17, and in the sharply contrasting treatments of G. H.
Selement, uPerry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The
Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly, 31 (I974), 453-464, and P.
Miller, Sources for "The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," ed. J. Hoopes
(Williamsburg, Va., I98I); on the second case cf. D. Levin, Exemplary Elders
(Athens and London, 1990), 3o-32.
I4. For the wording of this text see W. P. Fuchs, "Was heissr das: 'bloss
zeigen, wie es eigendich gewesen'?" Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, I I
(I979), 655-667, showing that in 1874 Ranke changed the original phrase
quoted in the text, to make it read "bloss zeigen, wie es eigendich gewesen."
15. H. Holborn, History and the Humanities (Garden City, N.Y., 1972), 9D-
9I; K. Repgen, uUeber Rankes Diktum von I824: 'Bloss sagen, wie es eigen-
tlich gewesen,' "Historisches]ahrbuch, 102 (1982), 439-449; R. S. Stroud," 'Wie
es eigentlich gewesen' and Thucydides 2.48.3," Hermes, I I5 (I987) 379-382
(who refutes much of Repgen's analysis). Cf. F. Gilbert, History, Politics, or Cul-
ture? (Princeton, 1990).
remarked that having to read a footnote resembles having to
go downstairs to answer the door while in the midst of making
love).
16
Ranke's desire to imitate a classical historical model
and his modern tastes both militated against the heavy use of
notes. No wonder, then, that Ranke struggled to preserve the
coherence of his narrative-and even tried, by placing the full
texts of documents after his own text, to give the reader the
experience of two kinds of authenticity, the literary and the
documentary. No wonder, either, that modern scholars are not
sure whether to treat him as the first scientific historian or the
last RomanticY Many distinguished later historians also re-
belled against the need to provide rich documentation. Fustel
de Coulanges, a passionate believer in the importance of full
and accurate use of sources, only gradually and grudgingly ac-
cepted what he saw as the new fad of providing extensive formal
documentation.
18
Ernst Kantorowicz, as we have seen, caused
16. L. Gossman, Between History and Literature (Cambridge, Mass. and Lon-
don, 1990), 249-250; F. Hartog, Le xixeJiecleet l'histoire (Paris, 1988), esp. 112-
I 15; G. Pomata, "Versions of Narrative: Overt and Covert Narrators in Nine-
teenth Century Historiography," History Workshop, 27 (1989), 1-17. Coward
attributed a stronger version of the remark to John Barrymore: C. Lesley,
Remembered Laughter (New York, 1976), xx.
17. He seems to play both roles in Pomata, 12 and 14.
18. See Fustel's declaration, published by CamilleJullian in 1891, in Hartog,
360: "J'appartiens a une generation qui n'est plus jeune, et dans laquelle les
travailleurs s'imposaient deux regles: d'abord d'etudier un sujet d'apres routes
les sources observees directement et de pres, ensuite de ne presenter au lecteur
que le resultat de leurs recherches; on lui epargnait l'appareil d'erudition,
!'erudition etant pour !'auteur seul et non pour le lecteur; quelques indications
au bas des pages suffisaient au lecteur, qu'on invitait a verifier. Depuis une
vingtaine d'annees les procedes habicuels one change: !'usage aujourd'hui est de
presenter au lecteur J'appareil d'erudition plutot que les resultats. On tient plus
a J'echafaudage qu'a Ia construction. I: erudition a change ses formes et ses pro-
cedes; elle n'est pas plus profonde, et !'exactitude n'est pas d'aujourd'hui; mais
a scandal with his brilliant, best-selling Kaiser Friedrich II,
which at first possessed no apparatus at all.
19
They and others
were Ranke's heirs to an extent that they and their critics did
not suspect.
Ranke, then, had footnotes forced upon him. But what of
the second, and more important, component of his learned ap-
paratus-the extended commentary on his sources, in the form
of an essay on historians or a selection of primary documents
with commentary? Appendices in fact formed the more distin-
guished and distinctive part of Ranke's commentary on his own
text. They called forth his best efforts as researcher and as
writer. They made clear to intelligent readers that his views
about the possibility of obtaining absolute accuracy in describ-
ing the past were nowhere near so simple as modern versions
['erudition veut se montrer davantage. On veut avant tout paraitre erudit." ("I
belong to a generation no longer young, in which researchers followed two rules.
First of all, they approached each subject through direct and close study of all
the sources. Then they offered the reader only the results of their researches,
sparing him the paraphernalia of learning. Learning was reserved for the author
alone, and not for the reader. Some references in footnotes sufficed for the reader,
who was thus invited to make his own verification. Some twenty years ago,
normal methods underwent a transformation. Today, the standard practice is to
present the reader with the paraphernalia of learning rather than the results.
The scaffolding matters more than the structure. Learning has changed its forms
and methods. It is no longer deep, and precision is not a virtue of the present
day. But learning wishes to make more of a display of itself. Scholars wish above
all to appear learned.")
19. See e.g. Y. Malkiel, "Ernst H. Kantorowicz," in On Four Modern Human-
ist!, ed. A. R. Evans, Jr. (Princeton, 1970), rso-1sr. IBI-192. Malkiel points
out that Kantorowicz's views changed considerably in later life, when he nor-
mally wrote in English, without artistic ambitions and with a sharp sense of
the dangers that historical theses not derived from documents posed. He at-
tacked a proposal to eliminate footnotes from Speculum, the main American
journal of medieval studies, and supplied the work that he wrote in Berkeley
and Princeton with a splendidly elaborate technical apparatus.
of his thought, whether intended as praise or as caricature,. have
suggested. And they gave the experience of reading Ranke
something of the same symphonic density, the same continual
interplay between chronological narrative and systematic re-
flection, that Gibbon offered his readers.
For all its originality and its impact, however, Ranke's tex-
tual apparatus also carne into being in a different, and a more
complex, way than he himself claimed. In his late dictations
Ranke portrayed his turn to criticism as a conversion experi-
ence, with all the unpredictability and shock value that nor-
mally invests such moments. Like someone falling through a
weak spot in an apparently solid floor, he recalled, he suddenly
saw that history must rest on thick pillars and joists which only
criticism could fashion and put in place. That insight became
the foundation of the second volume of his Geschichten, in which
he dealt with the sources and their problems. No one, he
thought, had anticipated his moment of revelation--even the
classical scholars, whose revolutionary work on Greek and Ro-
man history and literature presented some apparent parallels to
his own enterprise. Ranke expected Niebuhr's support, but rec-
ognized no fundamental debt to Niebuhr's method: "Here I
had regard neither for Niebuhr, who really wanted more to
provide the tradition with a meaning, nor, in particular, for
Gottfried Hermann, who criticized authors on points of de-
tail-though I promised myself that great men of this sort
would applaud me. "
20
20. Ranke, Si:immtliche Werke, 53/54 (Leipzig, 1890), 62: "lch habe hierweder
auf Niebuhr, der eigentlich mehr der Tradition einen Sinn verschaffen will, noch
vollends auf Gottfried Hermann, der die Autoren im einzelnen kritisirt, Riick-
sicht genommen, obwohl ich mir bei grossen Miinnern dieser Art Beifall ver-
sprach."
Ranke'J Path to the Footnote * 7 3
This late testimony in fact conflicts with what Ranke himself
would have considered the more authoritative evidence: that of
earlier and original sources. In the first place, historians before
Ranke were not all innocent and uncritical compilers. Recent
research has shown that a number of the critical techniques
that Ranke used-systematic comparison of all the sources for
a given event, identification of those that were produced closest
to it or rested on official documentation, elimination of later
sources, the information in which is derivative-came into be-
ing in the Renaissance. Italian and northern humanists, follow-
ing up hints in classical models, exposed authoritative texts as
forgeries by applying these practices systematically. Lorenzo
Valla, for example, demolished the Donation ofComtantine. This
text, long treasured in the papal curia, purported to tell the
story of how the grateful emperor Constantine, cured by the
pope of his leprosy, gave the papacy in return the entire western
half of the Roman Empire and bared off to Constantinople.
Valla, a deep student of Latin usage and a master of the ancient
rhetorical tradition, used this knowledge to show that the Do-
nation could not have been written by a Roman in the fourth
century. A classical text--even a late-classical one-would be
cast in the language used by other writers in its period, and
composed, in accordance with the principle of decorum, to fit
its author, its recipients, and its situation. The Drmation hap-
lessly violated all these principles, in ways Valla could pin down
and expose with contemptuous ease: "You address me in the
words of a barbarian; do you want me to think it is the language
of Constantine or Lactantius?" He also showed that none of the
sources that should have mentioned the Donation and its results
actually did so. Along the way, Valla took the time to make
clear that among the sources for Roman history, the learned
antiquary Varro offered better information about early tradi-
tion than the nostalgic historian Livy, and Livy, in turn, better
information than the compiler of anecdotes, Valerius Maxi-
mus-and to suggest that a similarly unsparing critique of
modern traditions revealed the falseness of the supposedly sa-
cred objects and images shown to pilgrims in dozens of Roman
churches.
21
Valla exaggerated, of course: he laid his whole work
2 1. L. Valla, De fa/so cm:lita et ementita Constantini donatione, eel. W. Setz,
Monumenta Germaniae HistOf'ica, Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters,
IO (Weimar, I976), I 17-I I8: "Quis unquam phrygium Latine dici audivit?
Tu mihi dum barbare loqueris videri vis Constantini aut Lactantii esse sermo-
nem?" For the Roman historical tradition, see 148-151; for the pious frauds of
the Roman churches, 14I-I44 Setz reviews earlier literarure and offers an in-
terpretation of his own in Lorenzo Vallas Schrift gegen die KonstantinischeSchenkrmg
(Tiibingen, I975). See also M. P. Gilmore, "The Renaissance Conception of the
Lessons of History," in Facets of the Renaissance, ed. W. H. Werkmeister, 2nd ed.
(New York, Evanston, and London, I963); P. Burke, The Renaissance Sense of the
Past (New York, 1969); D. R. Kelley, Foundations of Modern HistOf'ical Scholarship
(New York and London, I970), chap. 2; J. M. Levine, "Reginald Pecock and
Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine," Studies in the Renaissance, 20 (I 97 3),
118-I43; and R. Fubini, "Contesta.zioni quaccrocentesche della Dona.zione di
Costantino: Niccolo Cusano, Lorenzo Valla," in Costantino il Grande dall'antichita
all'umanesifll(), ed. G. Bonamente and F. Fusco (Macerata, I992), I, 385-43I
(English summary: "Humanism and Truth: Valla Writes against the Donation
of Constantine;" journal of the History of Ideas, 57 [I996}, 79-86). On the role
of rhetoric in Valla's argument see H. H. Gray, "Renaissance Humanism: The
Pursuit of Eloquence," journal of the History of Ideas, 24 (I963), 497-5 I4, re-
printed in Renairsance Essays from the journal of the History of Ideas, ed. P. 0.
Kristeller and P. P. Wiener (New York, I968), 199-216; G. Most, "Rhetorik
und Hermeneutik: Zur Konstitution der Neuzeidichkeit," Antike und Abend-
land, 30 (1984), 62-79; V. de Caprio, "Retorica e ideologia nella Declamatio di
Lorenzo Valla sulla Dona.zione di Costantino," Paragone, 29, no. 338 (1978),
36-56; S. I. Camporeale, "Lorenzo Valla e il 'De falso credita donatione': Re-
rorica, liberca e ecclesiologia nell '4oo," Memorie Domenicane n.s. 19 (1988), 191-
293 (English summary: "Lorenzo Valla's Oratio on the Pseudo-Donation of
Constantine: Dissent and Innovation in Early Renaissance Humanism," journal
of the History of Ideas, 57 [1996}, 9-26); C. Ginzburg, "Preface," in Lorenzo
out as a denunciatory oration, indicted the papacy as well as
the Donation, and took no argumentative prisoners. Pans of his
argument came, as Riccardo Fubini has shown, from Nicholas
of Cusa, who had already pointed out the absence of the Do-
nation from sources where one would expect it to appear. But
no later text showed more dramatically than Valla's how the
sharp blade of criticism could cut its way through the contra-
dictions and errors of tradition.
In the sixteenth century, Baudouin,Jean Bodin, and
others wrote elaborate manuals on how to read and use histor-
ical sources, ancient and modem. These included instructions
on how to choose which historians to believe-a topic on which
the ancient canons of the rhetorical tradition generally retained
their authority. But they also included-in Baudouin's case-
something more radical. Baudouin admitted that many histor-
ical texts had been lost, that some medieval chronicles were
riddled with error. But he also insisted that a critical study of
tradition could produce a coherent history of the whole known
past. Modern scholars could draw on an imposing list of
sources: literary texts like Cicero's letters, inscriptions and other
material remains, the oral traditions mentioned both by Char-
lemagne's biographer, Einhard, and by European observers of
the societies of the New World, derivative histories which pre-
served the gist of earlier texts now lost, and original documents
held in the French royal archives. Any energetic student of
Valla, La Donation tk Comtantin, tr. J.-B. Giard (Paris, 1993), ix-xxi. On the
hermeneutical uses of rhetoric see also K. Eden, HermeneuticJ and the Rhetorical
Tf'adition (New Haven and London, 1997). For the reception of Valla's work,
see G. Antonazzi, Lorenzo Valla e Ia polemica Julia Donazione di COJtantino (Rome,
1985), and R. K. Delph, "Valla Grammaticus, Agostino Steuco, and the Do-
narion of Constantine," journal of the History of ltkm, 57 (1996), 55-78.
history, Baudouin solemnly argued, must realize that "great and
rich are the remains of ancient memory." Bodin-though far
less sure-footed on philological questions than Baudouin-
made clear that the reader must subject every historian to criti-
cal scrutiny, looking for possible sources of bias and omission.
22
Both men, in other words, saw history as a form of inquiry as
well as a form of narrative: both offered arts of reading, as well
22. F. Baudouin, De institutione historiae universae et eius cum iurisprudentia
coniunctione prolegomenon libri ii, in Artis historicae penus, ed.). Wolf (Basel, 15 79),
I, 64o-662, at 653: "Magnae et uberes sunt reliquiae veteris memoriae, si iis
ipsi non defuerimus";). Bodin, Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem, ibid.,
35-78. On this literature see F. von Bezold, "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der
historischen Methodik," Intemationale Monatsschrift, 8 (1914), reprinted in Aus
Mittelalter und Renaissance (Leipzig and Berlin, 1918); L. Strauss, The Political
Philosophy of Hobbes, cr. E. M. Sinclair (Oxford, 1936; repr. Chicago and London,
1952, 1963), chap. VI;). L. Brown, The Methodus ad facilem historiarum cogni-
tionem of jean Bodin: A Critical Study (Washington, D.C., 1939); G. Spini, "I
trattatisti dell'arte srorica nella Controriforma italiana," Quaderni di Be/fagor, I
(1948), 109--136 (English translation in The Late Italian Renaissance: I525-
I6Jo, ed. E. Cochrane {New York, 1970}, 91-133); B. Reynolds, "Shifting
Currents in Historical Criticism," journal of the History of Ideas, 14 (1953), 471-
492, reprinted in Renaissance Essays, ed. P. 0. Krisreller and P. P. Wiener (New
York, 1968), I 15-136;). G. A. Pocock, "The French Prelude to Modem His-
toriography," in The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (Cambridge, 1957);
). Franklin, jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-Century Revolution in the Methodology of
Law and History (New York and London, 1963); D. R. Kelley, Bau-
douin's Conception of History," journal of the History of Ideas, 25 (1964), 35-
57; G. Cotconeo,jean Bodin teorico della storia (Naples, I966); G. Huppert, The
Idea of Perfect History: Historical Erudition and Historical Philosophy in Renaissance
France(Urbana, Chicago, and London, I970); D. R. Kelley, Foundations of Modern
Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance (New
York and London, 1970); Cotroneo, I trattatisti dell'ars historica (Naples, I971);
E. Kessler, Theoretiker humanistischer Geschichtsschreibung (Munich, I 97 I); R.
Landfesrer, Historia magistra vitae (Geneva, I972); C.-G. Dubois, La conception de
l'histoire en France au xvie siecle (Paris, 1977); E. Hassinger, Empirisch-rationaler.
Historismus (Bern and Munich, 1978); U. Muhlack, Geschichtswissenschaft im Hu-
manismus und in der Aufkliirung: Die Vorgeschichte des Historismus (Munich, I99I).
as writing, and showed that the modern reader must construct
an account of the past by critical study of all the sources. True,
not every learned student of ancient history took these points.
Thomas Hobbes, the translator of Thucydides into English,
thought it "a sign of too much opinion, and self-conceit, to be
a follower in such an History, as has been already sufficiently
achieved by others." He liked most to read, along with Homer
and Virgil, "Xenophon, or some probable historie"-an author
who met the moral and biographical criteria set down long
before by Thucydides, Polybius, and Cicero. But others grasped
and applied the new historical hermeneutics of the French the-
orists.23 The study of history became one of the many areas in
which traditional and innovative methods jostled and inter-
fered with each other through the seventeenth century
Ranke himself cited Bodin at the outset of his discussion of
Guicciardini's speeches: "Five years after Guicciardini's work
first appeared, Jean Bodin described it in his Methodus ad facilem
historiarum cognitionem: 'His zeal to discover the truth is re-
markable. He is said to have taken letters, laws, and treaties
from the original sources and copied them. Therefore he often
uses terms like "He said these words" --or, if the original text
is missing, "He spoke to this effect."' Bodin's opinion is clear:
the speeches in Guicciardini are genuine And this opinion
has remained the established one, though not without some
contradiction, down to the present day."
24
Admittedly, Ranke
23. T. Hobbes, "A Discourse upon the Beginning of Tacitus," in Three DiJ-
cotmes, ed. N. B. Reynolds and A. W. Sa:xonhouse (Chicago and London, 1995),
39; J. Aubrey, Brief Lives, ed. 0. Lawson Dick (London, 1949; repr. Ann Arbor,
1957), IS4.
24. Ranke, Zur Kritik neuerer GeschichtJJchreiber, 2o-2 1: ''Fiinf Jahr, nachdem
das Werk Guicciardini's zuerst erschienen, schrieb Johann Bodin im methodus
cited Bodin's opinion in order to refute it. But the fact that he
quoted one of the first systematic treatises on how to read his-
torical texts shows that he knew he was not entering uninhab-
ited territory when he attacked the problem of Guiccardini's
use of sources. Later, when Ranke set out to show his appre-
ciation of the political subtlety of the rhetoric Guicciardini put
in the mouths of his speakers, he quoted both Bodin and
Bodin's reader, Michel de Montaigne.
25
ad facilem historiae cognitionem cap. iv. von demselben: Est mirum in eo stu-
dium veritatis inquirendae. Fertur epistolas, decreta, foedera, ex ipsis fontibus
hausisse et expressisse. ltaque frequenter occurrit illud: 'locutus est haec verba,'
aut si ipsa verba defuerint: 'locutus est in hanc sententiam.' Man sieht, die
Meynung Bod insist: die Reden bey Guicciardini seyen acht ... Diese Meynung,
obwohl niche ohne einigen Widerspruch, hat sich jedoch bis auf den heutigen
Tag erhaJten.'' For another critical but revealing citation of Bodin see ibid., 13
and n. r. Ranke's quotations from Bodin and Montaigne (for the latter see n.
25 below) had appeared earlier in the partial manuscript of Zur Kritik neuerer
Geschichtsschreiber preserved in the Ranke Nachlass, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin,
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Haus II, Fasz. r, I
25. Ibid., 46-47: "Es ist wohl nie eine Zeit gewesen, welche in lebendiger
Theilnahme an dem offentlichen Leben, an jedem kleinsten Ereigniss die letzte
Halfte des r6. Jahrhunderts iibertroffen. Allenthalben Selbststandigkeit, und
doch durch die beyden Partheyen eine so enge Vereiningung, class fast keine
Geschichte geschrieben werden konnte, sie ware denn allgemeine Weltgeschi-
chte geworden. Da kamen denn die Discorse Guicciardini's, diese Betrachtungen
jeder Begebenheit von allen Seiten zur rechten Stunde. 'Ubi quid in delibera-
tionem cadit,' sage Bodin, 'quod inexplicabile videatur, illic admirabilem in
disserendo subtilitatem ostentat.' Man ftihlte sogleich, class diess die Hauptsache
in dem Werk sey. 'La partie,' sage Montaigne, 'de quoi il se semble vouloir
prevaloir le plus, soot ses digressions et ses discours.' " ("There has perhaps never
been a period when active participation in public life, in every minor event, was
greater than in the second half of the sixteenth century. For all their indepen-
dence, the two parties were so tightly connected that it was almost impossible
to write a history, without its becoming a general world history. Guicciardini's
speeches, which analyzed every event from all the angles, appeared at just the
right time. 'When something very complex must be debated,' says Bodin, 'there
above all he shows wonderful subtlery in the discussion.' It was clear at once
This late humanist tradition of historiographical debate,
moreover, was far from dead in the Germany of the eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries.
26
The Halle theologian Johann
Salomo Semler analyzed the sources for German medieval his-
tory in a widely read essay. The Gottingen scholar Johann
Christoph Gatterer founded Germany's first historical seminar,
where students learned to put the rules of higher and lower
criticism into practice. And his colleague August Ludwig von
Schlozer, who did exemplary work on the earliest Russian his-
torians, also produced an impressive general program for the
collection and analysis of historical sources.
27
The encyclope-
dically learned Marburg professor Ludwig Wachler brought
out, not long before Ranke wrote, a heavily footnoted five-
volume history of historical writing, a book which extended
chronologically from the Renaissance to his own day, meth-
odologically from sweeping narratives to antiquarian mono-
that this formed the most important feature of the work: 'The part of the work
for which he seems most ambitious,' says Montaigne, 'consists of his digressions
and his speeches.' ")
26. See esp. P. H. Reill, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism
(Berkeley, 1975), and H. W. Blanke, "Aufklarungshistorie, Historismus, und
historische Kritik. Eine Skizze," in Von der Aufklarung zum Historismus, ed. H.
W. Blanke and J. Riisen (Paderborn, 1984), 167-186, with the comment by
W. Weber, 188-189, and Blanke's reply, 189-190.
27. "SchlOzer iiber die Geschichtsverfassung (Schreiben iiber Mably an seinen
deutschen Herausgeber)," in J. G. Heinzmann, Litterarische Chronik (Bern,
1785), I, 268-289, translated into English with useful commentary by H. D.
Schmidt as "Schli:izer on Historiography,'' History and Theory, 18 (1979), 37-
51. See also Reill; N. Hammerstein, "Der Anteil des 18. Jahrhunderts an der
Ausbildung der historischen Schulen des 19. Jahrhunderts," Historirche Forschung
im 18. jahrhundert, ed. K. Hammer and J. Voss (Bonn, 1976), 432-450; G.
Wirth, Die Entwicklung der A/ten Geschichte an der Philipps-Universitiit Marburg
(Marburg, 1977), 114-u6, 141, 146--155; and the essays in Aufklarung und
Geschichte, ed. H. E. Bi:ideker, G. lggers, and J. Knudsen (Gtittingen, 1986).
graphs, and geographically from Finland to Portugal. Ranke
admired it. Wachler did not anticipate Ranke's attack on Guic-
ciardini's standing as a reliable and scholarly writer: "Guic-
ciardini narrates in a properly serious and candid way, often as
an eyewitness and active participant, always with exact knowl-
edge of the persons and conditions. Hence he can claim a high
degree of credibility." But he saw that Guicciardini had im-
posed his own view of situations and motives on his actors,
rather than allowing them to express their own views and per-
ceptions. And he praised Guicciardini, above all, because his
book so powerfully expressed the character of the epoch that
produced it: "When we set this work of history down, the
picture of the period has appeared to us in spirit in its out-
lines, drawn in a sharp and expressive way." Ranke, who saw
Guicciardini's responsiveness to his environment as crucial to
both his achievements and his defects, would certainly have
agreed-and could have found the core of part of his own cri-
tique and appreciation of Guicciardini, as well as some of the
received opinions he attacked, in Wachler.
28
Ranke also knew other works of historical literature that
may, in a more general way, have stimulated him to see more
28. L. Wachler, Geschichte der historischen Forschung und Kunst seit der ~ e d e r
herstellung der /itteriirischen Cuitur in Europa, I, pc 1 (GOttingen, 1812), 174-
175: "Da er oft als Augenzeuge und rhiiriger Theilnehmer, seers mit genauer
Kennrniss der Personen und Verhiiltnisse, wiirdig ernst und freymiithig erziihlr,
so kann er auf einen sehr hohen Grad von Glaubwiirdigkeit Anspruch machen
Das Bild des Zeitalrers trite in reinen Umrissen, scharf und ausdrucksvoll
gezeichnet, vor unsee Gemiith, wenn wir dieses Geschichrsbuch aus der Hand
legen." For an appreciative discussion of Wachler, emphasizing his effort to set
past historians into their own historical contexts, see H. W. Blanke, Historio-
graphiegeschichte als Historik, Fundamenra Hisrorica 3 (Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt,
1991), 193-204.
clearly than his predecessors had that Guicciardini's methods
and goals had differed from his own. For example, he knew
Giambattista Vico's Scienza nuova, which had put forward a
complex, insightful program for a cultural history of the human
race and treated traditional accounts of ancient history with
sharp criticism a century before Ranke wrote. He cited the
German translation of Vico, in passing, in his discussion of
another Italian historian, Paolo Giovio.
29
Moreover, Ranke, as
we have already seen, was far from the only young German
historian to see that the history of the German lands, and that
of the Middle Ages and early modern times more generally,
must be reframed and rebuilt on a documentary foundation.
All of them had learned at least part of their craft by reading
the first classic of German-language historical literature, Jo-
hannes von Muller's history of Switzerland. This rested on mas-
sive documentary foundations, as befitted the work of an author
who, so Ranke believed, thought that heaven itself would be
an endless, untouched archive.
30
Above all, one should bear in mind a simple fact that many
students of Ranke have ignored. He addressed himself to the
history of Italy during the Renaissance. This field had attracted
many of the most erudite Italian scholars of the eighteenth
century, a great age of manuscript-cataloguing, source-editing,
and other forms of eruditionY At the very end of the century
29. Ranke, Zur Kritik netm'et" Geschichtm:hreiber, 76, n. I.
30. Bemays, 334-336; on Ranke's appropriation of Muller see esp. L. Krie-
ger, Ranke: The Meaning of History (Chicago and London, I977), BI and 366-
367, n. 33
3 I. See in general E. Cochrane, uThe Settecento Medievalists," journal of the
History of Ideas, I9 (I95B), 35--6I; S. Bertelli, Enulizione e storia in LNdoviro
Antonio Muratori (Naples, I96o).
the rector of the University of Pisa, Angelo Fabroni, published
learned lives ofCosimo and Lorenzo de' Medici and ofLorenzo's
son Giovanni, who became Pope Leo X. Each of these books
included a massive series of documentary endnotes. In his life
of Lorenzo, Fabroni even adumbrated some of Ranke's most
famous early statements about history. He insisted that the
distinction of his work lay not in its solutions to disputed prob-
lems of historical interpretation but in its massive presentation
of archival documents, which made the book itself a sort of
virtual archive.
32
Ranke-as yet inexperienced in archival re-
search-was more inclined to complain about the masses of
other documents which, Fabroni admitted, he had had to omit,
than to acknowledge his merits.
33
Neither Fabroni nor William
32. See A. Fabroni, Lau_rentii Medicis Magnifici vita (Pisa, 1784), "Leccori," I,
vii-viii: "ea gloria contenti, quod in narrandis rebus incorrupta rerum gestarum
monumenta secuti fuerimus. Ex his secundum operis volumen conftabitur;
quodque eorum pleraque asserventur in Florentino tabulario, quod Mediceum
vel Segreteria Vecchia appellari solet, quae nominavimus volumina, seu Filze, ad
illud spectare existimabis" ("We will be content with the glory due us for having
followed in our narrative of events the incorrupt records of them. The second
volume of our work will consist of these. And since a great many of the volumes
or Filze we have mentioned are preserved in the Florentine archive known as
that of the Medici, or the Segreteria Vecchia, you will think you are actually
seeing that"). See also his Leonis X Pontificis Maximi vita (Pisa, 1797).
33 At the end of his Laurentii vita, II, 399, after n. 227, Fabroni added a
final caution: "Cave putes, lector humanissime, nos omnia monumenta, quae ad
Laurentium pertinent, quaeque nos studiose collegimus, in hoc volumen retu-
lisse. lnnumera enim pene sunt, quae, dolenter sane, edere praetermisimus, ne
nimium excresceret magnirudo voluminis. Utinam quae praestitimus, aequis
iudicibus minime displiceant" ("You should not think, gentle reader, that we
have included in this volume all the records relating co Lorenzo that we carefully
gathered. With regret, we have had to omit countless documents, to prevent
the volume from becoming too big. We hope that those we have provided may
not provoke the displeasure of fair-minded judges"). In Zur Kritile, 173-174,
Ranke insisted that even for Florence documents of foreign affairs were not
Roscoe, the amateur historiarn from Liverpool who continued
his work on the Medici, read the souces with Ranke's critical
eye. Nonetheless, their work presented him with much vital
primary material and offered him what became his normal
mode of presentation-the text followed by a long documen-
tary appendix.
34
More important still, the German historians who applied a
critical method to the sources of medieval and early modern
available in adequate numbers (the situation for domestic ones was better). Of
Fabroni he wrote: "Fabroni bekennt, es sey ihm nicht moglich gewesen, aile
seine Urkunden aufzunehmen, als deren eine fast unziihlbare Menge sey; und
wenn er sich in seinem Lorenzo beschrankt hat, so hat er's im Leben Leo's X.
noch mehr gethan. In Hinsicht auf den Zweck eines Biographen muss man diess
billigen Doch wem an der genauem Kenntniss dieser Dinge gelegen ist,
der wird hiemit nicht befriedigt" ("Fabroni confesses thar he could not include
all of the almost countless sources at his disposal. If he accepted this limitation
in his Lorenzo, he did so even more in his life of Leo X. With regard to a
biographer's purposes, this is acceptable . But anyone to whom exact knowl-
edge of these things really matters will feel most unsatisfied by it"). This seems
ungracious-and certainly reflects Ranke's inexperience with the practical prob-
lems of providing documentation.
34 See W. Roscoe, The Life and Pontificate of Leo the Tenth (liverpool, 1805),
esp. his preface, I, {i]-xxxvii, at viii, where he anticipates Ranke by arguing
that Giovio "had every opportunity of obtaining the most exact and authentic
information on the subject of his history"; xi-xiii, on Fabroni, praising his use
of "much original information"; xv, on literary matters, where Roscoe claims to
have cited only original sources "as far as my opportunities would permit"; xvff.,
on his own use of "original documents" from the Florentine archives, the Vat-
ican, and elsewhere. Roscoe warmly appreciated the Italian scholars who had
explored this country before him. He thanked A. M. Bandini, author of the
great catalogue of the manuscripts of the Laurenziana, for providing "several
scarce and valuable documents, both printed and manuscript" (xviii-xix), J.
Morelli for his help in Venice (xx-xxi), and an English friend who had made
"several curious extracts" from the Parisian MSS of one of the papal diarists,
Paris de Grassis (xxv-xxvi). The 2 1 8 extracts from sources at the end of his four
volumes were heavily used by the more critical historians of the next generation.
See also his Life of Lorenzo de' Medici, Called the Magnificent (Liverpool, 1795).
history imitated what German classical scholars had already
done for the sources of ancient literary and political history.
35
From the r76os onward German classicists like Christian Got-
doh Heyne and Friedrich August Wolf worked through sleep-
less nights and sweaty days to tear down the idols of neoclas-
sicism. They did not attack the cultural authority of the
ancients. On the contrary, they insisted that the Greek spirit,
as manifested in architecture and sculpture, poetry and religion,
was absolutely fresh and creative, and had a unique moral and
educational value for modern readers--especially German ones.
But they also insisted that modern readers who hoped to grasp
this spirit as it really had been must perform an act of icono-
clasm before they could genuflect with proper reverence. An-
cient scholars and historians had tried not to preserve but to
:IS Ill rm: rnsrory-br- - c -I _]-- - - _,- _]- '- aaurh 'cnelt:mrtkni:s o'rOiaer periO
G student could not penetrate ilizations. Accordingly, the moder
Homer's epic or Rome's ear- backward to the true freshness of
ty the veils that later writers liest society except by tearing aw:
:udent of Greek epic, Wolf had woven around them. The s1
the Odyssey had origi- showed, must realize that the
Ierent form: in the first in- nally circulated in a radically di1
:d written texts. After suffer- stance, as songs rather than as fixt
msmission, they underwent ing multiple changes in oral tr:
G the Athens of the sixth and rearrangement and interpolation i
.thenian statesmen who had fifth centuries B.C.E. The same }
.lso added lines co them for the texts fixed in written form a
>ics were edited even more political ends. Still later, the e1
se lines see U. Muhlack, "Von der
' Theorie der Ge.rchichte, Beitriige zur
eier and ]. Riisen (Munich, 1988),
35 For a general argument along the
philologischen zur historischen Methode,'
Historik, V: Historische Methode, ed. C. M
154-180.
Ranke'J Path to the Footnote * 85
heavily by the first professional scholars of Western history, the
denizens of the Museum in the Hellenistic Greek city of Al-
exandria. These men had tried not to establish the original texts
Homer wrote but to adjust the epics they inherited to fit their
own, more modern standards in aesthetics and ethics. "The
Homer that we hold in our hands now is not the one who
flourished in the mouths of the Greeks of his own day, but one
variously altered, interpolated, corrected, and emended from
the time of Solon down to that of the Alexandrians. "
36
Niebuhr demolished the traditional story of Rome's foun-
dation by Romulus and Remus, two youths nourished by a she-
wolf, as handily as Wolf demolished the idea that Homer had
written polished, classically coherent epics.
37
Both men, finally,
insisted that their demolition jobs were only the prelude to a
true appreciation of the ancient world. And both repeatedly
argued that the critical reader had a duty to forget all preju-
dices, read the sources in historical order and context, and listen
to the voice of history before trying to write about the past.
The appearance of Wolfs text made writers as well as philol-
ogists think that scholarship was undergoing a revolution. Goe-
the and Herder, both Schlegels, and one Humboldt were fas-
cinated by Wolfs and Niebuhr's discoveries-so fascinated, in
fact, that they forgot that Wolf and Niebuhr, in their turn,
were repeating work done long before by the critical humanists,
36. F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homer11m, I (Halle, 1795), chap. XLIX: ''Ha-
bemus nunc Homerum in manibus, non qui viguit in ore Graecorum suorum,
sed inde a Solonis temporibus usque ad haec Alexandrina mutatum varie, in-
terpolatum, castigatum et emendatum"; Prolegomena to Homer (1795}, tr. A.
Grafton, G. W. Most, and]. E. G. Zetzel (Princeton, 1985; rev. ed., 1988), 209
(slightly altered).
3 7. See Walther.
theologians, and philosophers of the sixteenth through the early
eighteenth centuries.
38
In this context, Ranke's assertion that he had not imitated
or employed the method of Niebuhr and Gottfried Hermann
deserves special scrutiny. The first assertion is called into ques-
tion by a letter Ranke sent to Niebuhr in December 1824 to
accompany copies of his Histories. Here the modern historian
portrayed himself as the ancient historian's disciple. He made
clear that he had read, studied, copied, and dissected Niebuhr's
work with all the attention he would have brought to a primary
source: "Your Excellency's Roman History was one of the first
German historical works that I really studied. As early as my
time [as a student] at the university I made notes on it and
tried in every way I could to make it my own." Ranke explained
that he had continued to use Niebuhr's work while teaching at
the Gymnasium, and expressed the hope "that the present
books may appear not wholly unworthy of your instruction,
which I enjoyed without your knowing it."
39
Ranke could not
imitate Niebuhr directly. He set out not to reinterpret a tra-
dition, as Niebuhr did, but to identify the sources that would
38. See A. Grafton, Defenders of the Text (Cambridge, Mass., and London,
1991), chap. 9
39 L. von Ranke, Das Briefwerk, ed. W. P. Fuchs (Hamburg, 1949), 69--70:
"Ew. Exzellenz eigene Romische Geschichte ist eins der ersten deutschen histo-
rischen Werke, die ich eigentlich studiert babe. Schon auf der Universitat habe
ich diesel be exzerpiert und mir auf aile Weise zu eigen zu machen gesucht
class gegenwartige Bucher des Unterrichts, den ich ohne Ihr Wissen von Ihnen
genossen, nicht vollig unwiirdig erscheinen mogen." Ranke really did read and
make excerpts from Niebuhr's Roman history while at Leipzig, at a time when
he was beginning to write historical essays and ponder methodological prob-
lems. See "Das Luther-Fragment von 1817,'' ed. E. Schweitzer, in Ranke, Deut-
sche Geschichte im Zeita/ter der Reformation, ed. P. Joachimsen et al. (Munich,
1925-26), VI, 370-371, 375, 383-384.
enable him to replace tradition with history. But he could
hardly have made it clearer that he owed at least part of his
skeptical attitude toward received accounts and respected au-
thorities to the man he called "the originator of a new form of
criticism."
40
Admittedly, the letter must be read in context.
Ranke wanted travel money to consult manuscripts in the li-
brary of the Alfieri family in Rome, to which Georg Heinrich
Pertz had called attention. He hoped that Niebuhr, a political
man as well as a scholar, could helpY Nonetheless, his debt
seems clear enough that admirers as well as debunkers of Ranke
have repeatedly acknowledged it--even though in doing so
they have had to qualify his own testimony.
42
Gottfried Hermann, the other older man whose influence
Ranke denied, played at least as great a role in the historian's
formation. When Ranke entered the University of Leipzig in
1814, he attended Hermann's lectures on Aeschylus and Pin-
dar. Hermann-a brilliant, austere disciple of Kant-is now
remembered for work of exceptional originality on Greek met-
rics and textual criticism. But he supposedly showed little in-
terest in wider historical questions and little tolerance for schol-
ars who did not share his priorities and views. In fact, as Ranke's
notes on Hermann's lectures show, he taught his students a
great deal about the pains and pleasures of historical criticism.
43
40. Ranke, Das Briefwerk, 70: "der Urheber einer neuen Kritik."
4 1. See E. Vise her, "Niebuhr und Ranke," Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Ge-
schichte, 39 (1989), 243-265; in the end, the Alfieri papers proved of no great
value for Ranke's ends, but the relationship is fascinating, as Vischer shows,
using newly found documents.
42. For an admirer, see C. Varrentrapp, "Briefe an Ranke ... ," Historische
Zeitschrift, 105 (1910), 108; for a debunker, W. Weber, Priester tier Klio (Bern
and New York, 1984), 213.
43 For Ranke's own late recollections of Hermann and his other teachers at
Ranke's surviving notes on Hermann's course on Aeschylus'
Persae begin on 26 May 1814, when the class was already three
quarters of the way through the play. Almost immediately a
historical question came up. The spirit of the Persian king
Darius laments that his son Xerxes' defeat represents the worst
calamity to befall the Persians since Zeus founded their royal
line. "For Medos," he says, "was the first leader of the Persian
army" (765); then he lists the others. Cyrus comes third. But
Herodotus gave a divergent list of Persian kings (1.98). Who
was to be trusted: the playwright or the historian? "Here,"
Hermann told his students, "we see the error of those who hold
that Aeschylus is an accurate and certain historical source, be-
cause, they think, he is older than Herodotus. As a poet, he
was at liberty t9 adaot ;vervth!n. h ~ r e as elsewhere. to. his
plot."
44
A long further discussion made it clear how hard it was
to decide if Aeschylus's poetic Persian history coincided with
the prose account of Herodotus or the divergent one of Xeno-
phon; a second excursus described how historians of Persia had
"tortured themselves" trying to make sense of the royal names
in a slightly later verseY The implications of these problems
Leipzig see his Neue Briefe, ed. B. Hoeft and H. Herzfeld (Hamburg, 1949),
476-477; here he speaks of "die geisrvollen Interpretationen der Klassiker, z.
B. des Pindar, welche der unsterbliche Hermann vortrug" (476) ("the sagacious
interpretations of the classics, such as Pindar, which the immortal Hermann
presented in his lectures'"). See also Baur, 92-101.
44 Ranke-Nachlass, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz
(Haus II), 38 II C: "Kollegnachschrifren aus Leipzig," r: "Observationes Go-
dofredi Hermanni ad Aeschyli Persas a v. 758 usque ad finem, a die XXVI
mensis Maii ad diem XIV mensis lulii MDCCCXIV," fol. 2 verso: "Hie frustra
ii sunt, qui historicam fidem et certirudinem in Aeschylo quaerunt, cum, ur
putant, antiquior sir ipso Herodoro: sed ut poetae ei licuit ut in omni re ira hie
res ad consilium suum adremperare."
45 Ibid., fol. 3 verso-4 recto.
of detail were clear: historical truths could be established only
by critical, comparative study of the sources that attested to
them, which might in turn yield surprising results.
Ranke also took notes on Hermann's lectures on Pindar's
odes to the Greek Olympic victors, this time from the begin-
ning. Here, especially in the introduction, Hermann not only
discussed specific historical problems but also raised general
questions about historical method-and, indeed, about the
quality and extent of the knowledge one can hope to obtain
about the past. He began by telling his students, depressingly,
that "the monuments of Greek poetry that remain to us are the
wreckage saved after a great shipwreck. "
46
He evoked what he
sadly but expressively described as "the history of Greek poetry
that we do not have"-this in a section whose title he or his
student later changed to read, even more pointedly, "On the
difficulties which confront one who sets out to write the history
of Greek poetry. "
47
In the case of Pindar, Hermann made clear,
the surviving works had been so radically altered in the course
of transmission that one could not possibly hope to read exactly
what Pindar wrote. The philologists of Hellenistic Alexandria
had done their worst by way of deliberate editorial revision,
making Pindar meet their own standards of taste and elegance.
Only scholarship could scour away the false patina and reveal
the real texts underneath: "Pindar's writings were edited in
antiquity by Aristarchus and other grammarians of the Alex-
andrian school. They set out both to explain them and to cor-
46. Ibid., notebook 2, "Godofredi Hermanni Prof. Lips. Praelectiones in
Pindarum," p. 3: "'Quae nobis restant graecae poeseos monumenta, rudera sunt
ex magno naufragio servata."
47 Ibid.: "'Historia graecae poeseos quam non habemus," changed to "De
difficultatibus quae se historiam graecae poeseos scripturo obiiciunt.'"
rect them so that they fitted the grammatical and ethical stan-
dards which these gentleman had made up for themselves. How
they did this, we simply do not know, since a great ponion of
their commentaries has been lost. Hence we must not think
that the text of these poems that we now have before us is what
Pindar produced, but rather one into which the grammarians'
corrections have been interpolated. We must, therefore, recon-
struct the genuine texts and remove these inventions of the
grammarians. "
48
The surviving work was only a selection from
the originals, made not by the poet or in his lifetime but by
the Hellenistic scholar Aristophanes of Byzantium, centuries
later. The oldest clearly identifiable stage in the transmission
of the text reflected not what the poet had put down in the
white heat of inspired composition, but the cold, calm schol-
arship carried out by the professional philologists of the Al-
exandrian Museum. And even this stage in the transmission of
the text of Pindar could not be reconstructed completely, since
the manuscripts, though they fell into two distinct families, all
showed metrical errors so gross that they could not possibly
stem from Pindar (or, presumably, his Alexandrian editors).
49
On Ranke-the young student, fresh from the Gymnasium,
where he had learned to read the ancients as if they they wrote
directly for him, and on the assumption that their works sur-
vived basically intact-these lectures must have had an explo-
48. Ibid., p. 13: "Pindari scripta in antiquitate et Aristarchus ec alii scholae
Alexandrinae grammatici tractarunt, ita ut tum ea explicarent, tum ad gram-
matices et ethices, quam sibi finxerant, praecepta corrigerent. Quod quomodo
fecerint, non cognitum habemus, cum pleraque ex eorurn commentariis inter-
ierint. Hinc quam nunc in manu habemus horum carminum recensionem, ea
non putanda est ita esse a Pindaro instituca, sed Gcarnmaticorum
interpolata. Genuina ergo eruenda sunt, eiicienda haec Grammacicorurn fig-
menta."
49 Ibid., 13, 16.
sive impact. Ranke learned from listening to his professor of
Greek, as well as from reading Sir Walter Scott, to prefer bare
facts and historical sources to derivative later narratives, how-
ever well they read.
Hermann's considerations were not wholly original. Much
though he disliked his rival Hellenist, August Bockh, he had
learned a good deal from the brand-new first volume ofBockh's
edition of Pindar (r8r r), which provided fresh information
about the textual tradition as well as stimulation and irritation.
Hermann told his pupils that B&kh had used the manuscripts
of Pindar in an exemplary, critical way, after making a system-
atic study of their relations to one another-and thus touched
on what would become central tenets of Ranke's historical
method.
50
More generally, Hermann clearly modeled his brief
so. Ibid., pp. rsff. Before criricizing B&kh's views on Pindaric mercies,
Hermann praised his approach to the manuscript tradition (ibid., r6): "non
potest negari, Bockhium primum ex editoribus veram viam esse ingressum.
Recte enim intellexit diversas esse codicum familias, quarum alia magis, alia
minus interpolata sit, neque his aequum pretium concedendum esse a Critico,
id quod novos, quorum erat ei copia, codices conferens confirmavit. Multo magis
ramen a prioribus metri ratione differt" ("No one can deny that B&kh is the
first editor ofPindar to have proceeded in the right way. For he correctly grasped
that the manuscripts belong to different families, some of which have suffered
more interpolation and some less, and that the critic cannot attach equal worth
to these. By collating new manuscripts, to a number of which he had access, he
confirmed this. But he differs much more from the earlier editors in his mer-
cies"). Some humanists had studied the genealogy of manuscripts of classical
and legal texts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and German scholars
had seen the need to carry out a systematic recension of the manuscripts of the
New Testament in the eighteenth century. Wolf, borrowing from the theolo-
gians, emphasized in his Proleg0111e11a ad Homerum that systematic recension of
the manuscripts must precede any effort to edit a text. But this approach, which
remains fundamental to textual criticism, was still taking shape in the early
nineteenth century, and B&kh's work had considerable novelty. For the history
of systematic recension see S. Timpanaro, La geneJi del metodiJ del Lachmann, new
ed., repr. with corrections (Padua, 1985). B&kh's discussion of the thirty-seven
92 * How the HiJturian Found HiJ MuJe
history of the text of Pindar on the big history of the text of
Homer that Wolf, Bockh's teacher, had reconstructed in his
Prolegomena two decades before. 51 As Ranke's disciples imitated
his criticism of the Renaissance historians, so Hermann imi-
tated what Wolf had done to Homer and the Homeric tradi-
tion. But Hermann's impact matters more than his sources. He
showed the young Ranke how to think as a historical critic: he
cautioned him to view traditions and texts with suspicion and
to reason about the age and value of sources. That Ranke would
ask such questions in his own later work was almost foreor-
dained-however much the old Ranke, romantically recalling
his all too well-spent youth, refused to admit the point. Like
Wolf-and Niebuhr-he could not refrain from asserting his
claims to that originality which all desired--even at the price
of censoring his memories of the tradition he came from. 5
2
Ranke innovated in many ways. He combined narrative with
analytical history, on the grand scale. He dramatized the process
of criticism as powerfully as the events it enabled him to re-
construct. And he set the stage for new research projects and
forms of exposition-many of which he himself devised and
manuscripts of Pindar he used, as well as of the Byzantine scholars whose efforts
to correct the text he deplored, appears in Pindari opera quae superstmt (leipzig,
181 1-1825), I, vii-xxvii.
51. In Ranke's second notebook, Hermann's introduction bears the tide
"Prolegomena" (p. 3). B&kh touched only briefly on the early history of the
Pindaric text (Pindari opera, I, ix).
52. See Walther's interesting analysis ofNiebuhr, 319-320; he in turn draws
on W. Lepenies, "Fast ein Poet. Johann Joachim Winckelmanns Begriindung
der Kunstgeschichte," in Autorm und Wissmschaftler im I 8. jahrhundert (Munich
and Vienna, 1988), 91-120. Ranke's efforts to think his way through to a
pedagogy more appropriate for creating patriotism in young Germans also led
him co evince bitter impatience with the domination of the Gymnasium by
philologists: see "Luther-Fragment," ed. Schweitzer, 374
carried out. Nothing quite like his Ge.rchichten had appeared
before. But he and his first book did not represent the begin-
nings of documented, critical history. If not in r824, when? If
not Ranke, who? Like so many genealogies, that of the footnote
turns out to have more branches and twists than one might
have expected. The next one leads away from historicism and
back into the Enlightenment, away from the hard-pressed
teacher begging for books and travel grants and into the
well-stocked libraries of several eighteenth-century gentlemen.
CHAPTER FOUR
Footnotes and Philosophie:
An Enlightenment Interlude
*Evidently Ranke did not officiate at the marriage of
eloquent and erudite history. The time is ripe, then, for a new
hypothesis: the combination of narrative and reflection proba-
bly established itself in historiography well before the nine-
teenth century--or Ranke--dawned. True, this thesis may
seem paradoxical at first sight. One of the most eminent and
influential historians of the eighteenth century, Voltaire, re-
peatedly made clear his distaste for scholarly details. In pre-
paring the segments of his Age of Louis XIV that would deal
with the king's private life, Voltaire told the Abbe Dubos, "I
have the memoirs of M. Dangeau in forty volumes from which
I have extracted forty pages." He was writing history on the
grand scale, painting "frescoes of the great events of the time"
and trying
to trace the onward march of the human mind in philosophy,
oratory, poetry and criticism; to show the progress of painting,
sculpture, and music; of jewelry, tapestry making, glassblow-
ing, gold-cloth weaving and watchmaking. As I do this I want
to depict only the geniuses that have excelled in these under-
An Enlightenment Interlude * 95
takings. God preserve me from devoting 300 pages to the story
of Gassendi!
To the philosopher who composed this innovative essay on cul-
tural history and its political background, technical scholarship
naturally seemed little more than an interruption to his proper
studies: "Woe to details! Posterity neglects them all; they are
I
a kind of vermin that undermines large works. "
1
A penetrating
historical critic who treated his sources with a well-informed
lack of deference, Voltaire nonetheless notoriously despised the
"empty, sterile science of facts and dates."
2
Voltaire both reflected and set intellectual fashion. In 1768,
when S. A. Tissot published his elaborate study The Health of
Scholars, for example, he felt it necessary to defend himself in
his preface for having "retained the citations even though they
daily undergo even sterner banishment from French writing";
only those authors who had written works which were abso-
lutely complete and in need of no further development by their
successors, he explained, had a right to forgo citations. In his
own case, since he expected his readers to continue attacking
the same problems, he felt it necesssary to indicate the sources
he had used. After all, he argued, he found "nothing evil" in
showing the authors he had drawn on "the honor he owed them,
r. Voltaire to Dubos, 30 October 1738; tr. J. Barzun in The Varieties of
History, ed. F. Stem (New York, 1973), 38-40 (for the original, see Voltaire,
Complete Works, ed. T. Besterman, 89 {Geneva and Toronto, 1969], 344-345).
See G. G. lggers, "The European Context of Eighteenth-Cenrury German En-
lightenment Historiography, Aufk/iirung und Geschichte, ed. H. E. B&leker et
al. (GOttingen, 1986), 225-245, esp. 229.
2. Voltaire to Maffei, 1744, as quoted inK. Pomian, Collectionneurs, amateurs
et curieux. Paris, Venise: xvie-xviiie siecle (Paris, 1987), 198: "cette science vague
et sterile des faits et des dates."
96 * Footnotes and Philosophie
with some words set at the margin, where they hurt nobody in
any way."
3
Tissot's defensive tone reveals as much as the content
of his preface. The dry, humble footnote seems ill at ease in the
glamorous company of the eighteenth century's new theories
about the relation between climate and constitution, the evo-
lution of material and artistic culture, and the sequence of
stages in the development of human society.
In fact, however, in the last generation it has become clear
that the eighteenth century harbored more than one kind of
historiography. Social and cultural history flourished alongside
political and military narratives. Fiction and history inter-
sected, before Ranke was born or thought of, and not all their
contacts took the form of collisions. The new taste for reading
about the details of family life and relationships that inspired
both readers and writers of the English novel expressed itself,
as Mark Phillips has shown, not only in new kinds of analytical
history but also in new forms of documentary publication.
4
3 S. A. Tissot, Vorrede, in Von der Gesundheit der Ge/ehrten, tr. J. R. Fiiesslin
(Zurich, 1768), sig. 08(] recto-verso: "Die Citationen habe ich beybehalten,
wei! sie mir niitzlich scheinen, obgleich sie taglich mehr aus den franzosischen
Schriften verbannr werden. Schriftsteller die ihren Gegenstand erschopfen, und
ihren Nachfolgern nichts mehr zu sagen iibrig lassen, konnen derselben ent-
behren; ihre Werke sind vollendete Gebaude, an die man niemals mehr Hand
legen wird; zum Ungliick ist das mein Fall nicht, so wenig als vieler andern
ihrer, und dennzumahl, diinkt mir, soli man citiren, damit man denen welche
die namliche Arbeit einmal fiir die hand nehmen wollen, die Entdeckung der
Quellen erleichtere, woraus sie schopfen konnen. In Werken die der Erfolg
meiner eigenen Bermerkungen sind, habe ich es nicht gethan, allein wenn man
sich anderer ihrer bedient, so find ich nichts bOses darinn, wenn man ihnen
durch einige unten an der Seite hingesetzte Worte wo sie niemandem nichts
schaden, dieserwegen die schuldige Ehre beweiset."
4 M. S. Phillips, "Reconsiderations on History and Antiquarianism: Arnalda
Momigliano and the Historiography of Eighteenth-Century England," journal
Erudite collectors of texts and iconoclastic critics of historical
tradition coexisted, sometimes contentiously, but sometimes
quite happily, with the philosophical students of social and
cultural development: some individuals-like William Rob-
ertson-played both roles at once. Some kinds of informa-
tion-like the unsettlingly long chronologies of Egyptian,
Chinese, and Indian history that circulated widely in the eigh-
teenth century, apparently calling the short chronology of the
Bible into question-attracted the attention of erudite anti-
quaries and disrespectful philosopheJ alike. Some antiquaries
used sharp philosophical chisels to shape--or demolish-the
multiple and contradictory accounts of ancient history; some
philosophes, as we will see, enjoyed displaying their mastery of
the tools of It seems only reasonable, then, to ex-
amine this lively scene of historical exchange and debate for
signs of new methods in the documentation, as well as the
composition, of history. Scholars have already cut paths into the
sources, down which the student can travel with some ease.
Momigliano, for example, argued in a pioneering essay that
Edward Gibbon, with whom I began this inquiry, fused exist-
ing traditions to create a modern, critical history of the ancient
world. The Decline and Fall combined the irony and broad view-
point of the philosophes with the minute erudition of the anti-
quaries, the crabbed, Latin-writing, pedantic students of the
ancient and medieval worlds whom many philosopheJ loved to
ridicule. Gibbon wrote the high classic language of traditional
historiography, but he addressed himself to the dusty details of
of the Hirtory of Ideas, 57 (1996), 297-316 (a thoughtful essay, which, however,
takes too narrow a view of the antiquarian tradition).
5 See C. Grell, L'histoire entre lrudition et philosophie (Paris, 1993).
98 * Footnotes and Philosophic
the sources as well as to the lurid lives of emperors. The bot-
toms of his pages swarm with references to the literature of
erudition, tantalizingly precise and yet frustratingly uninform-
ative to the modern reader. He regularly referred to the heroes
of early modern scholarship: the erudite Maffei and Muratori,
the reliable Mosheim and Tillemont, and the learned but over-
heated Lipsius. These short passages in small type may reveal
the grand fusion of two kinds of history.
6
Only Gibbon, moreover, could have brought it about. In his
youth he studied, unhappily, at Oxford, where at age sixteen
he converted to Catholicism. Sent by his father to live with a
Calvinist minister at Lausanne, he not only recovered from this
uncharacteristic outbreak of piety but improved his Latin, be-
gan to study Greek, and tho-toughly mastered French literature
and the French language-which he both wrote and spoke,
fluently and elegantly. He thus knew at first hand the French
standards of taste and elegance that dominated the literature
of the Enlightenment. Later still--or so, at least, he firmly
maintained-his period as a sociable, if hardly heroic, volunteer
officer gave him the military experience a classical historian
needed. Above all, however, Gibbon loved erudition. In his
teens, as he obsessively studied the chronology of the ancient
world, "the Dynasties of Assyria and Egypt were my top and
cricket-ball: and my sleep has been disturbed by the difficulty
of reconciling the Septuagint with the Hebrew computation. "
7
On returning from the Continent to England, he set out to
show in an essay that "all the faculties of the mind may be
6. See above all A. Momigliano, "Gibbon's Contribution to Hiscorical
Method," Contributo alia storia deg/i studi classici (Rome, 195 5), 195-2 r r.
7 E. Gibbon, of My Life, ed. G. A. Bonnard (New York, 1966), 43
exercised and displayed by [the) study of ancient littera-
ture"-an iconoclastic thesis, especially in France, where "the
learning and language of Greece and Rome were neglected by
a philosophic age. "
8
Years before Gibbon undertook to write
the Decline and Fall, he had read his way into the most technical
scholarly literature of the previous three centuries. Numerous
remarks in his journal, alternatively caustic and admiring, trace
his progress through the byways of modern discussions of such
thorny subjects as ancient chronology and geography.
9
Gibbon's
efforts to explain Rome's fall were for the most part rather
conventional. But his ability to combine massive knowledge
of the older scholarly tradition with the high style of eigh-
teenth-century letters still excites admiration. And only this
ability enabled him to create what seemed, in his day, the rad-
ically unlikely synthesis of philosophical and erudite history.
The argument is temptingly neat, and sheds, as we will see, a
penetrating light on Gibbon's historical position. But the his-
torical footnote certainly did not originate with Gibbon, or
even in his generation.
Consider just one of Gibbon's most famous polemical writ-
ings-A Vindication of Some Passages in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(1779). A Mr. Davis of Balliol College, now forgotten except
by readers of the Decline and Fall, had had the effrontery to
attack not only Gibbon's text, but his footnotes-which
amounted, in this context, to his honor:
B. Ibid., 99
9 Gibbon's journal to january 28th, 1761, ed. D. M. Low (New York, n.d.),
22-23,42,44,81,87,95, 104,105,108-109,123-125,163,166-169,173,
181-182, 187, 197-198.
The remarkable mode of quotation, which Mr. Gibbon adopts,
must immediately strike every one who turns to his notes. He
sometimes only mentions the author, perhaps the book, and
often leaves the reader the toil of finding out, or rather guessing
at the passage. The policy, however, is not without its design
and use. By endeavouring to deprive us of the means of com-
paring him with the authorities he cites, he flattered himself,
no doubt, that he might safely have recourse to misrepresenta-
tion.10
Davis accused Gibbon of every sin in the footnote-writer's cat-
echism: heaping up without distinction citations to authorities
who actually disagreed, partial quotation designed to suppress
inconvenient facts or theses, reliance on secondary sources not
cited, and plagiarism. Gibbon's method of citation seemed to
him designed above all "as a good artifice to escape detec-
tion."11
Gibbon had no trouble replying to what he rightly described
as a "rude and illiberal" attack. Turning Davis' concern with
petty details into an indication of social inferiority, Gibbon
invited his opponent to call at his house "any afternoon when
I am not at home." "My servant," Gibbon promised, "shall shew
him my library, which he will find tolerably well furnished
with the useful authors, ancient as well as modern, ecclesiastical
as well as profane, who have direaly supplied me with the ma-
terials of my History." But he also replied with detailed argu-
ro. H. E. Davis, BA, An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of
Mr Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 1778),
ii, quoted in Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, ed. John, Lord Sheffield (London,
1814), IV, 523 (Gibbon's emphasis). Gibbon says in his Memoirs of My Life that
Davis "presumed to attack, not the faith, bur the good faith, of the historian";
ed. G. Bonnard, r6o.
II. Davis, Examination, 230 n.
ments of his own. Gibbon examined and counted the 383 notes
he had appended to chapters I 5 and I 6, pointing out that they
contained hundreds of precise citations. He insisted that when
he had borrowed evidence from earlier scholars, he had "ex-
plicitly acknowledged my obligation." And he showed that the
vast majority of Davis' criticisms in fact rested on errors of
Davis's own. The ignorant critic had failed to confirm Gibbon's
references, for example, because he checked them in differently
paginated or did not know the whole texts from which
they came. Gibbon even acknowledged that no learned appa-
ratus can be complete. All 383 of his footnotes, he admitted,
had not made fully explicit the grounds by which he used and
combined his sources. Many of the texts he cited, as he pointed
out with an honesty that deserves respect, had to be "softened"
if they were to be made to agree far enough to yield a coherent
narrative or a plausible analysis of a political institution or a
social development. Only an expert reader-not a Davis-
could actually work backward from the citations and arguments
to the thought and research that had produced them.
12
What matters here is not the reduction of a fool to rubble
or the glory of Gibbon's prose, but the single point that the
adversaries had in common. Both assumed-without arguing
the point-that a serious work of history must have notes. Both
evidently agreed that these notes must lead the reader to the
original sources and represent them accurately. And both im-
plicitly accepted that the apparatus provided the diagnostic test
of a historian's critical expertise. These shared assumptions re-
veal much about Gibbon's stance and method. Evidently, the
12. For Davis' not very effective response see A Reply to Mr. Gibbon'.r Vindi-
cation (London, 1779).
footnote had already become part of historians' standard oper-
ating procedure, before the great English historians of the En-
lightenment made it theirs. That helps to explain why a Ger-
man reviewer of volume III of the Decline and Fall, writing
from the new and advanced University of Gottingen, hailed
Gibbon not as the creator but as a skilled practitioner of his-
torical criticism. Gibbon, he said, had drawn his information
from the best sources, with good criticism, and explained them
with sound reasoning. From a German viewpoint at least, Gib-
bon appeared to be the master of an existing craft rather than
the inventor of a new one.
13
Further confirmation comes from one of the most illustrious
documents ever to concern itself with the humble problem of
the footnote: David Hume's letter of 8 April 1776 to the pub-
lisher William Strahan. Strahan had brought out the first vol-
ume of the Decline and Fall and was currently printing Hume's
own History of England. The philosopher declared himself "very
much taken with Mr Gibbon's Roman History" and "glad to
hear of its success." He also asked that "a Copy of my new
Edition shoud be sent to Mr Gibbon, as wishing that a Gen-
tleman, whom I so highly value, shoud peruse me in the form
the least imperfect, to which I can bring my work"--clear ev-
idence of his esteem for Gibbon's learning and acuity. But
Hume also put forward some technical complaints, which he
hoped Gibbon might take into account in preparing the second
edition of his work, chiefly in order to make it more accessible
to the reader:
He ought certainly to print the Number of the Chapter at the
head of the Margin, and it would be better if something of the
13. GbUingiiche Ge!ehrte Anzeigen, 18 October 1783, 1704.
Contents coud also be added. One is also plagued with his
Notes, according to the present Method of printing the Book:
When a note is announced, you turn to the End of the Volume;
and there you often find nothing but the Reference to an Au-
thority: All these Authorities ought only to be printed at the
Margin or the Bottom of the Page.
14
This text reveals much. It reminds us, first of all, that Gibbon's
footnotes began as endnotes, and only reached what we now
think of as their traditionally prominent position on Gibbon's
page after Hume complained. But it also confirms that the
technical, documentary side of Gibbon's footnoting did not
represent a radical innovation in exposition or format. Hume
did not see the notion that citations should identify the sources
of statements in a historical text as radically new. Instead, he
urged that such notes should occupy a convenient position, at
the foot of the page or in the margin. He himself, after all, had
learned a decade or so earlier to support his statements with
references, when Horace Walpole and others criticized him for
his failure to do so in his History of
Hume did not

ask that Gibbon's longer notes, the ones that amounted to a
partly satirical commentary, move as well, though that was the
solution Gibbon adopted. Perhaps Hume thought that the need
to find the satirical comments after the text proper actually
enhanced their impact. At all events, here too Gibbon's method
emerges not as wholly radical but as part of an ongoing enter-
prise-though his own mixture of references and commentaries
proved unique.
Gibbon-like Hurne and his fellow philosophic historian
14. The Letters of David Hume, ed. J. Y. T. Greig (Oxford, 1932), II, 313.
I 5 F. Palmeri, "The Satiric Footnotes of Swift and Gibbon," The Eighteenth
Century, 31 (1990), 245-262 at 246. See also Chapter 7 below.
William Robertson-pioneered in writing double, critical nar-
ratives in English. But these inventive English and Scottish
authors had colleagues on the Continent.
16
Consider a writer
far less philosophic-and even in Germany far less famous-
than Gibbon, the Osnabrock notable Justus Moser. Like Gib-
bon, Moser was a man of broad culture, who spoke French as
well as he did German; unlike Gibbon, Moser enjoyed the most
up-to-date education of his time, which he obtained at the
University ofGottingen. There Moser studied law, and learned
from the erudite tradition of jurisprudence that flourished in
the Holy Roman Empire from the late sixteenth to the late
eighteenth century how to base a description of a social or legal
transaction on a solid mass of sources, cited in detailY The
highly technical questions of public law and royal genealogy
that occupied students of the constitution of the Holy Roman
Empire required them to know, compare, and cite historical
and legal texts. Taught at an early age to value "the testimonies
of ancient writers" more than "the varied and clever genealog-
ical arguments of more recent writers, which rest on conjecture
alone, and use the mere agreement of certain names, as if it
provided a solid foundation for their demonstration, future
bureaucrats were trained to base their historical arguments on
long series of "probationes," direct quotations from primary
sources, meticulously arranged.
18
r6. On the increasingly systematic use of documentation in eighteenth-
century English historiography see D. Hay, Annalists and Historians (London,
1977). 175-181.
17. See on this tradition N. Hammerstein's classic jus und Historie (Gottin-
gen, 1972).
I 8. Dissertatio genealogica de familia Augusta Franconica quam sub praesidio l o.
Moser dedicated his life both as civil servant and as historian
to the ecclesiastical principality of Osnabrock. Gradually he
formed the conviction that the old-fashioned institutions of this
old-fashioned corner of the Holy Roman Empire worked for its
inhabitants in a way that innovations could not: history had
fitted them to the land, the population, and the traditions of
the community. In his own account he set out to show society
and institutions taking shape, to help the reader watch his-
torical processes in vitro. Like Gibbon, but from a totally dif-
ferent point of view, he combined the erudition of traditional
humanism with the philosophical history and political thought
of Saint-Evremond and Montesquieu.
19
Moser worked through
a vast mass of materials, including ancient, medieval, and mod-
ern histories and the sources collected and printed by learned
antiquaries in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He cop-
ied out large extracts from the sources, some of which he hoped
to publish.
Moser was no cutting-edge historical critic. He took posi-
tions on questions of provenance and authenticity with re-
luctance, since he normally had no opportunity to assess the
material and script, as opposed to the textual contents, of prob-
Davidis Koe/eri P.P. pub/ice disceptandam proponit Carolus Gustavus Furer de Hai-
mendorf et Wolkersdorf ad d. xxv. Septembris a. MDCCXX/l (Altdorf, 17 22), Prae-
fario, sig. [*4] recto: ''Plus enim apud nos valent tot antiquorum scriptorum
testimonia ... quam variae et ingeniosae [ed. ingeniosa} recentiorum autorum
deductiones genealogicae, quae nudis innirunrur coniecruris, et solam conven-
ientiam quorundam nominum pro solido fundamento demonstrarionis adhi-
bent." The work consists of a series of genealogical tables with sixty-six pages
of documentary "probationes."
19. See in general ). Knudsen, ]ust11J Moser and the German Enlightenment
(Cambridge, 1986).
lematic documents. His own reproductions of texts were often
marred by carelessness in detail. And at times he made fun of
his own propensity to combine materials of the most wildly
different natures and provenances in his massive notes. In these
he responded not only to the primary sources, but also to the
sprawling historical literature of the seventeenth century, every
encounter with which set him baring off down another schol-
arly alley. "Yesterday," Moser wrote to Thomas Abbt in June
1765,
I quoted a Hebrew word in a note-and I cannot even read the
language. Isn't that pedantic? And yet I couldn't leave it out.
In fact, after I had gone through the Geographia sacra ofBochart,
I was even tempted to make a hundred notes about it and to
correct him in Hebrew and Atamaic-I, who do not even know
the alphabet.
20
For all Moser's self-mockery, he set out, even more systemati-
cally than Gibbon, to write a double story. Like a good lawyer,
Moser provided virtually every statement of fact in his history
with a footnote, not an endnote, in which sources were cited
and divergent opinions laid out and assessed. Ten years before
Gibbon brought out the first, endnoted volume of the Decline
and Fall, Moser had already finished printing the first, prelim-
20. Moser to Abbt, 26 June 1765; Moser, Briefwechsel, ed. W. F. Sheldon et
a!. (Hanover, 1992), 365: "Allein, wie wird man das alles in einer ossnabri.ick-
ischen Geschichte vertragen? Doch es sind 12 Bogen Einleitung, und ich kann
mir nicht helfen. Gestern fi.ihrte ich in einer Note ein hebra.isch Wort an und
kann doch diese Sprache nicht lesen. 1st das niche pedantisch? Und doch konnte
ich es nicht lassen; ja, ich war sogar in der Versuchung, nachdem ich des Bochart
Geographiam sac ram durchgelesen hatte, einhundert Anmerkungen dari.iber zu
machen und ihm im Hebraischen und Arabischen zurechte zu weisen, ich, der
die Buchstaben niche kenne." The seventeenth-century polymath Samuel Do-
chart wrote with great erudition on biblical geography and chronology.
inary, spectacularly documented edition of his Osnabriickische
Geschichte. The early twentieth-century historian of historiog-
raphy Eduard Fueter---ever more willing to notice exceptional
individual achievements than to abandon the traditional cate-
gories they challenged-found Moser's achievement surpris-
ingly modern, even radical, in method and presentation (though
highly conservative in content). Moser, he admitted, did not
try to conceal, but strove to reveal, the sources from which he
workedY Footnotes, in short, were written by eighteenth-cen-
tury historians who lived and worked in very different worlds,
societies, and even libraries. The need for clearly presented his-
torical documentation established itself, paradoxically, in the
age of the philosophes, who despised pedantry as a form of secular
superstition.
If the Enlightenment saw footnotes proliferate, the intellec-
tuals of the nineteenth century did not view them with the
unmixed admiration and affection one might expect. Hegel, for
example, clearly rebelled against the idea that a philosopher's
text should use footnotes to exemplify and carry on a dialectical
argument. In fact, he fled them like the plague, as if they were
the outward signs of an infectious erudition that he feared he
might catch. He appreciated a predecessor, like Dietrich Tie-
demann, who provided "valuable extracts" from rare books. But
he appreciated even more the chance to point out that another
one, Wilhelm Gottlieb Tennemann, had used his extensive
footnotes only to shoot a scholarly own goal: "With great hon-
esty Tennemann puts the passage from Aristotle under his text,
2 1. See E. Fueter, GeJchichte der neueren H iJtoriographie (Munich and Berlin,
191 I), 393-397 at 396-397, and, for a detailed analysis of his working method,
P. Schmidt, Studien iiber Justus Moser als Histuriker (Goppingen, 1975).
so that the original and the translation often contradict one
another. "
22
In this rhetorical way as in many others, Hegel
wished to distance himself from Kant, the most oppressive and
challenging of his predecessors, who had made masterly use of
footnotes to give material form to his inner ambiguities. Kant,
as Wolfert von Rahden has shown, deliberately confined all
suggestions that reason might have had a historical origin or
might undergo a further development to the murky region
below the superstructure of his texts.
23
Even in more philological fields, the intellectual landscape
of nineteenth-century positivism was not always adorned by
intellectual flower beds swarming with colorfully blooming
footnotes. A recent, intelligent essay points out that in modern
American classical scholarship, footnotes often serve to prove
the author's membership in a guild rather than to illuminate
or support a particular point. Citations are heaped up, without
much regard to their origins or compatibility, in order to make
the text above them seem to rest on solid pilings. The author,
no doubt rightly, connects this practice with the authoriry long
enjoyed by German philology in America, and lays particular
weight on the habit of citing Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Mollen-
dorff, the student of Greek literature and religion whose edi-
tions and analyses of texts remain deeply influential decades
after his death.
24
Stephen Nimis rightly argues that many of these references
22. G. W. F. Hegel, Vor/esungen iiber die Geschichte der Phi/osophie, I: Siimmt/iche
Werke, jubiliiumsausgabe, XVII (Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt, 1965), 147-148: "Da-
bei ist Tennemann so aufrichtig, die Stelle aus dem Aristoteles unter den Text
zu setzen, so class Original und Uebersetzung sich oft widersprechen."
23. On Kant see W. von Rahden, "Sprachpsychonauten," Sprachwissenschaften
im rB.]ahrhundert(Munich, 1993), III-141 at uB--127.
24. S. Nimis, "Fussnoten: das Fundament der Wissenschaft," Arethusa, I 7
(1984). 105-134
play no substantive role in the arguments they supposedly sup-
port. But he nowhere mentions the curious fact that Wilamow-
itz himself had little use for the footnote that exhaustively cited
secondary works on a given topic; when he could, he preferred
to write a straightforward, uninterrupted text. Though he often
quoted primary sources lavishly, both in his text and in notes,
he assumed that his readers knew the literature of philology
well enough to supply the references he presupposed. This is
not altogether surprising. One of the rare teachers of philology
whom the aristocratic Wilamowitz actually admired in his days
as a student was Jacob Bernays. And Bernays, though himself
an expert on the history of scholarship and a lavish composer
of erudite appendices to his short, eloquent texts, had little
love for the literary appurtenances of erudition. He described
the detailed endnotes that filled three quarters of one of his
books as a Giftschrank ("poison cupboard"), denying any desire
to comply with the request of distinguished and sympathetic
colleagues for a more detailed presentation. Neither his warm
friend the Roman historian Theodor Mommsen nor the distin-
guished classicist and musicologist Otto Jahn could persuade
Bernays to clutter his text with notes of the normal kind. "If
Qahn] thinks, as Mommsen does, that all the detail from the
notes should have been woven directly into the text, and that
the citations should cover the lower halves of the pages, in the
normal fashion, in rebuttal I can say only that this is not my
way, that the whole thing would thus have taken on a really
horrifying appearance of erudition. I did not envisage a public
with strong enough lungs to plow through twenty gatherings
of that kind at one go. "
25
Even on the central stages of nine-
25. Bernays to Paul Heyse, 9 March 1855, quoted by H. I. Bach, jacob
Bernays (Tiibingen, 1974), 128 ("Giftschrank"); Bernays to Friedrich Ritschl,
teenth-century positivism, in short, the footnote played at best
an equivocal role. Some of the most learned nineteenth-century
scholars harbored literary ambitions that did not exhaust them-
selves in exhaustive display of what they had read. The sins of
twentieth-century epigoni should not be projected backward
onto nineteenth-century heroes-who, after all, committed
quite enough sins of their own.
These facts may not seem altogether puzzling or surprising,
in the light of the evidence that Ranke himself wrote footnotes
reluctantly. They will seem less puzzling still if we step back
for a moment from the historical tradition, to examine the wide
range of other roles played by footnotes in the literary culture
of Enlightenment Europe. For in that age of polite conversa-
tion, when philosophers loved to present the most abstruse
problems of Newtonian physics at a level accessible to the gen-
tle--especially the gentle female-reader, the footnote enjoyed
surprising popularity as a literary device. From Rabelais and
Cervantes on, as Walter Rehm showed long ago, the tendency
of many writers to support every sentence in their own texts
and illustrate every sentence in those of others with some sort
of gloss or reference has provided a fruitful source of satirical
pleasure.
26
29)uly 1855, quoted ibid., 130, n. 23: "Was Jahns Wunsch nach mehr Detail
angeht, so kann ich niche 'simpliciter' darauf antworten. Meine er, mit Momm-
sen, dass alles Detail der Noren gleich in den Text harte vetwebt werden und
die Citate, nach der gewohnlichen Manier, die untere Halfte der Seiten bedecken
sollen: so kann ich dagegen nur sagen, class dieses nicht meine Weise ist, class
das Ganze dadurch ein viel zu abschreckend gelehrtes A.nsehen bekommen hiitte
und dass ich mir ein kurzathmigeres Publicum gedacht habe als dasjenige sein
diirfte, welches im Stande ware, 20 Bogen solcher A.rt in einer Tour durch-
zuackern."
26. W. Rehm, "Jean Pauls vergniigres Notenleben oder Norenmacher und
Norenleser," Spate Studien (Bern and Munich, 1964), 7--96.
In the eighteenth century, literary footnotes burgeoned and
propagated like branches and leaves in a William Morris wall-
paperY Even in Enlightened France, footnotes adorned some
best-selling-if hardly respectable-texts. The garret-dwellers
of Paris's Grub Street, the poor devils of literature, used the
appurtenances of historical learning to pretend that their por-
nographic novels about randy royals were actually sober "secret
histories" of court life, based on genuine letters, clandestine
memoirs or other unimpeachable sources. Thus the compiler of
Anecdotes about Mme. Ia comtesse du Barry, which appeared in
1775, claimed to have called his work "anecdotes" in order that
he could include in the text "a multitude of details which
would have sullied the majesty of a history." Otherwise, he
would have been forced "to omit, or to relegate to notes," such
"spicy" facts. Louis-Sebastien Mercier used elaborate, preachy
footnotes to show that his best-seller The Year 2440, which
went through some twenty-five editions, was meant as a "mas-
sive indictment" of the France of 1771.
28
In England, tradition and philosophy, erudition and philol-
ogy, solid learning and its counterfeit double met in sharp con-
flicts that were waged on the bottom margins of some of the
most brilliant pages of eighteenth-century literature. England's
professional textual scholars included some of the most up-to-
date intellectuals of the day-like Richard Bentley, Master of
Trinity College, Cambridge, specialist in Latin poetry and sci-
entific ally and correspondent of Isaac Newton. Their attitude
27. See in general H. Stang, Ein/eitung-Fussnote-Kommentar (Bielefeld,
1992).
28. See R. C. Darnton, The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France
(New York, 1995), 76-77,115-136,139, 337-389(wherepartsoftheAnecdotes
are translated [for the preface, see 337-338]); for specimens of Mercier's work
in English translation, see ibid., 30o-336.
112 * FootnoteJ and Philosophie
toward traditional texts was anything but reverential. Bentley
professed that "reason and the case in point," not the wording
of older printed editions or even that of manuscripts, should
determine how one printed and explained the text of an ancient
writer. He sec out, accordingly, co rewrite the Latin poems of
Horace and Manitius to meet his own standards of logic and
consistency. He planned to do the same, more shockingly still,
to the Greek text of the New Testament, which he claimed he
could rescore to the state it had been in at the time of the
Council of Nicea, in the fourth century c.E. And he took even
more radical steps with a modern classic of the English lan-
guage, Milton's ParadiJe LoJt. This, he insisted, the blind poet's
amanuensis had corrupted as he took it down, while a later
"editor" had added further mistakes and interpolated foolish
verses of his own composition. Milton, unable to check their
work, had never been read as he had meant to be-until Bent-
ley's critical edition of his work restored the lost, never-written
original text.
29
Bentley's lordly approach to literary classics won him some
splendid enemies-notably the amiably vicious wits who
briefly came together in 17 14 in the Scriblerus Club, and who
for years before and after had fun turning Bentley's own meth-
ods against him. Jonathan Swift, who took the side of the An-
cients against the Modern Bentley, ridiculed his opponent in
29. For this version of the context I am most indebted to]. Levine, Doctor
Woodward's Shield(Berkeley, 1977), and Humanism and History (Ithaca, N.Y., and
London, 1987). R. C. )ebb's Bentley (London, 1882) remains an excellent intro-
duction to Bentley's scholarship; see also S. Timpanaro, La genesi del metodo del
Lachmann, 3rd ed. (Padua, I 985), C. 0. Brink, English Classical Scholarship (Cam-
bridge, 1986), and L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, 3rd
ed. (Oxford, 1991).
his Battle of the Books in 1710. Swift wielded a varied set of
weapons, including the satirical view of modern science that
would also inspire Gulliver's Travels. He represented Bentley as
the quintessence of modern folly, unable to treat the new ideas
he espoused with critical distance: when Bentley tries, in the
Battle, to attack two ancient chiefs, he is "cruelly obstructed by
his own unhappy Weight, and tendency towards his Center; a
Quality, to which, those of the Modern Party are extreme sub-
ject; For, being lightheaded, they have in Speculation, a won-
derful Agility, and conceive nothing too high for them to
mount; but in reducing to Practice, discover a mighty Pressure
about their Posteriors and their Heels. "
30
But Swift also showed
his mastery of the details of Bentley's philological career when
he mocked "THE Guardian of the Regal Library" for his "Hu-
manity" (Bentley refused to let a young man, Charles Boyle,
keep a manuscript from the Royal Library, of which he was
keeper, as long as he wished. The young man in turn mentioned
in print that Bentley had refused his request "pro singulari sua
humanitate")_31 And Swift showed that he knew the minutiae
of philological technique when he left gaps in his own text,
filling them with asterisks and describing them, in the mar-
gins, as "hiatus in MS. "
32
But Bentley's effective assailant and was Al-
exander Pope, whose translation of Homer he mocked. As a
committed neoclassicist, Pope resented the belief of Bentley
and his friends that the moderns knew better than the ancients
30. J. Swift, A Tale of a Tub. To which is added The Battle of the Books and the
Mechanical Operation of the Spirit, ed. A. C. Guthkelch and D. Nichol Smith, 2nd
ed. (Oxford, 1958), 225.
31. Ibid., 224 and n. 2.
32. Ibid., 244, 247, 248, 250.
on many points. As an English poet, he was infuriated by a
mere scholar's daring ro rewrite the central poetic text of the
English canon. As an editor of Shakespeare, he was enraged
that more modern, professional editors, like Lewis Theobald,
who rook Bentley as their model, questioned his competence
to establish and explicate rhe text. Pope was appalled by the
rise of Grub Street and rhe fact that so many pretenders to
learning had ventured to comment on and criticize his work.
A scholar in his own right, Pope nor only mocked the anti-
quaries bur mastered some of their skills. Though he ridiculed
rhe critics who spent dusty hours in libraries collaring variant
versions of texts, he also argued in some detail that their emen-
dations could nor improve the irremediably corrupt transmit-
ted text of Shakesoea_re.
33
P o n e ' ~ furv apainst both real and
pseudo-scholars expressed itself in many forms-but above all,
and most memorably, in footnotes. In his epic attack on the
monstrous Dullness of his age, the Variorum Dunciad, Pope
commented at length on both the excellences of his own works
and rhe immense, irremediable stupidity of his opponents. He
used the footnote throughout as the hockey-masked villain in
an American horror film uses a chain saw: to dismember his
opponents, leaving their gory limbs scattered across the land-
scape.
The particular sort of footnote Pope chose as his favorite
satirical medium had been fashionable just before his day. Be-
tween the fifteenth and rhe seventeenth centuries, classical
scholars bent on correcting every error, explicating every lit-
erary device, and identifying every thing or custom that
cropped up in a classical text had mounted every major piece
of Greek or Latin prose or verse in a baroque setting of exegesis
33 S. Jarvis, Scho/an and Gentlemen (Oxford, 1995), 51-62.
and debate. Polemics raged, glosses spread, a thick moss of
modern, secondary literature grew over the broken columns of
Greek and Roman literature. It rapidly became hard for a single
scholar to find-let alone afford-the main commentaries on
the central texts. By the late fifteenth century the poems of
Virgil were already ringed with a band of text wider than the
original, printed in illegibly small type, in which commenta-
tors ancient and modern, literal and allegorical debated the
meaning and application of his texts. Propertius, Martial, Ovid,
and Livy soon had their multiple commentaries and handy,
large-sized editions to read them in as well. These sixteenth-
and early seventeenth-century editions "with the commentaries
of various critics"-"cum notis variorum"-became the model,
between I 6so and I 7 30, for a raft of editions of lesser authors,
from Petronius to Phaedrus, in all of which the voices of the
arguing commentators threatened to drown the thin classic
monotone of the original text.
34
This model of literary scholarship Pope employed not to
imitate but to demolish his opponents. From the start of the
Dunciad every feature of the work and its supposed author be-
comes the object of a heavily documented debate: "We pur-
posed," says Martin Scriblerus in his preface to the reader,
to begin with his [Pope's} Life, Parentage and Education: But
as to these, even his contemporaries do exceedingly differ. One
saith, he was educated at home; another, that he was bred at
St. Omer's by Jesuits; a third, not at St. Omer's, but at Ox/fWd; a
fourth, that he had no University education at all. Those who
allow him to be bred at home, differ as much concerning his
Tutor Nor has an author been wanting to give our Poet
34 For a case study see A. Grafton, and Neo-I.atin Satire: The
Reception of the Cma Trimalchionii, "Journal of the Warburg and Courtau/d ln.rti-
tuteJ, 53 (!990), II7-I29.
such a father as Apuleius hath to Plato, lamblicus to Pythagoras,
and divers to Homer, namely a Daemon: For thus Mr. Gildon:
"Certain it is, that his original is not from Adam, but the devil:
and that he wanteth nothing but horns and tail to be the exact
resemblance of his infernal Father. "
3
S
Every statement has its footnote to the work of one of Pope's
opponents; just as almost every line of Pope's text has its note,
in which information is supplied, the dull scribblers of Lon-
don's Grub Street are ridiculed, or-best of all-Pope's enemy
Bentley appears, idiotically trying to rewrite Pope's own poetry
by conjectural emendation. In a curious way, the book even
turned into a variorum edition in the normal sense. Pope in-
vited friends to contribute their own parodies of learning to
the commentary. These became as staccato in form and riven
with contradictions in content as any real anthology of com-
mentaries on Petroni us or Virgil.
36
The very title of Pope's poem, Dunciad, becomes the first
pretext for a debate, the fictional participants in which range
themselves, naturally, as commentators, on the bottom of the
page. "It may be well disputed," remarks Theobald, "whether
this be a right Reading? Ought it not rather to be spelled
Dunceiad, as the Etymology evidently demands?" "I have a just
value," replies Scriblerus, "for the Letter E, and the same affec-
tion for the Name of this Poem, as the forecited Critic for that
3 5. Pope, The Dunciad Variorum, with the Prolegomena of Scriblerus. Reproduced
in Facsimile from the First Issue of the Original Edition of 1729, ed. R. K. Root
(Princeton, 1929), 2.
36. On 28 June 1728 Pope wrote to Swift that the poem "will be attended
with Proeme, Prolegomena, Testimonia Scriptorum, Index Authorum, and Notes Var-
iorum. As to the latter, I desire you to read over the text, and make a few in any
way you like best." Quoted in Root's Introduction, ibid., 12.
of his Author; yet cannot it induce me to agree with those who
would add yet another e to it; and call it the Dunceiade; which
being a French and foreign Termination, is no way proper to a
word entirely English, and Vernacular." The pedantry of critics
comes in for mockery at once: if Bentley had cited ratio, "rea-
son," as his authority for emending Horace, Scriblerus insisted
on following what he described as the manuscript of the Dun-
dad, "mov'd thereto by Authority, at all times with Criticks
equal if not superior to Reason. In which method of proceeding,
I can never enough praise my very good Friend, the exact Mr.
Tho. Hearne; who, if any word occur which to him and all
mankind is evidently wrong, yet keeps he it in the Text with
due reverence, and only remarks in the Margin, sic M.S. "
37
Para-
doxically, the learned textual critic thus found himself playing
the role of an ignorant dunce, which academic satirists of an
earlier age had reserved for the opponents of humanistic learn-
ing and textual criticism-like the priest described by Eras-
mus, who insisted on saying "mumpsimus" instead of the cor-
rect "sumpsimus" because he had said it that way for twenty
years.
38
When Pope invited Swift to add some of his own notes to
the Variorum, he wrote that these might take a variety of forms,
"whether dry raillery, upon the style and way of commenting
of trivial critics; or humorous, upon the authors in the poem;
or historical, of persons, places, times; or explanatory; or col-
lecting the parallel passsages of the ancients. "
39
In fact the notes
range in content from the myths and classical parallels to which
37- The Dunciad Variorum, pt. II, r.
38. OpuJ Epirtolarum De.r. Ermmi Roterodami, ed. P. S. Allen et al. (Oxford,
1906-1958), II, 323; cf. Jarvis, chap. I.
39 Pope to Swift, 28 June 1728, quoted by Root, Introduction, 12.
Pope alluded to the London literary scene he savaged. But ha-
tred of pedantry regularly appears as a central theme. Displays
of unnecessary antiquarian learning identify such actors as the
well-named Cloacina: "The Roman Goddess of the Common-
shores."40 A whole appendix, "Virgilius restauratus," is given
over to a ludicrous series of notes in Latin, evidently written
some years before by Pope's friend Dr. John Arbuthnot. These
show Bentley arbitrarily altering the most familiar lines in Vir-
gil. Aeneas ,Jato profugus, "exiled by fate," becomes flatu profugus,
"exiled by the blowing of the winds of Aeolus, as follows."
41
Clearly, not only Pope and his collaborators but their intended
readers knew the procedures and paraphernalia of scholarly an-
notation well enough to savor detailed, technically adept par-
odies of them. By 1729, then, when the first version of the
Dunciad variorum appeared, the footnote had become a Eu-
rope-wide fashion, as likely to appeal to a wit in a London
coffee-house as to a subrektor in a Wittenberg Gymnasium. A
large and appreciative public could decode its learned symbols.
German readers seem to have found footnotes particularly
appealing. The universities and learned academies, courts and
schools of the Holy Roman Empire offered shelter throughout
the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries to a lumbering,
ultimately doomed breed of learned dinosaurs, the polyhistors.
These men insisted, in the teeth of the Cartesian and Baconian
modernism that flourished in France and England, that the
cosmopolitan scholar must still take all knowledge as his uni-
40. The Dunciad Variorum, pt. II, 30.
41. Ibid., 99: "Flatu, ventorum Aeoli, ut sequitur." On the date and au-
thorship of these notes see A. Pope et al., Memoirs of the Extraordinary Lift, Works,
and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus, ed. C. Kerby-Miller (New Haven and Lon-
don, 1950), 267-269.
versal province. The polyhistors' ideal of universal learning was
both mocked and pursued in the age of Enlightenment. At the
beginning of the century the modernist scholar Johann Burck-
hard Mencke, editor of the Leipzig Acta eruditorum, a pioneering
scientific journal, mercilessly displayed and satirized their so-
cial ineptitude and scholarly credulousness in his orations On
the Charlatanry of the Learned.
42
At the other end of the Enlight-
enment, the popular writer Jean Paul Richter made his own
work of the r78os and after into a tapestry of divertingly varied
erudition. He devoted a life of hard work to excerpting, re-
telling, citing and alluding to the most bizarre details he could
find in the most bizarre collections he could turn up. His fa-
vorite books bore titles which sound like baroque self-parodies:
Pancirolli's De rebus inventis et deperditis, Happel's Relationes cu-
riosae, Hofmann's Mikroskopische Belustigungen, and Vulpius' Cu-
riositaten der physisch-artistisch-historischen Vor- und Nachwelt.
43
Jean Paul claimed to be so proud of the notebooks and indexes
that filled his library that he would not exchange them for a
collection of 200,000 volumes; Ranke probably recognized him
as an older soul brother.
44
He recycled this material endlessly,
parodying it, alluding to it, both enjoying and satirizing learn-
ing, in work after work. Thus the footnote came, not for the
last time, to play a comic role, and at the heart of the work of
a major writer.
No wonder, then, that footnotes not only enabled German
42. J. B. Mencke, De charlataneria eruditorum declamationes duae (Leipzig,
I7 I 5) = On the Charlatanry of the Learned, tr. F. E. Litz, ed. H. L. Mencken
(New York, I937).
43 Rehm, 43
44 Ibid., 5 I. See also W. Schmidt-Biggemann, Maschine und Teufel (Freiburg
and Munich, I975), I04-I I I.
writers to produce satires, but became the object of them in
their own right-as when Gottlieb Wilhelm Rabener, in 1743,
published Hinkmars von Repkow Noten ohne Text.
45
This disser-
tation, which consists entirely of footnotes, begins with the
aurhor's frank confession that he is out for fame and fortune.
Nowadays, he argues, one wins these not by writing one's own
text but by commenting on those of others. Hence he has set
out to eliminate the middleman: to write his own footnotes,
and become famous through them, without waiting for a text
to tie them to. After all, the footnote had clearly become the
royal road to fame, even for those who did not deserve it: "Peo-
ple, of whom one would swear, that Nature had made them fit
for any calling other than that of the scholar; people who, with-
our thinking themselves, explicate the thoughts of the ancients
and other famous men; such people make themselves great and
fearful, and with what? With notes!"
46
The book amused its
readers, yet reality surpassed fantasy, as Lichtenberg remarked:
"Rabener's Notes without a Text arouse laughter, but Lavater
went much further. He gave us notes to which the text must
serve as a commentary. That is the real language of seers, which
one understands only after the events they announce have taken
place."
47
45 See in general W. Martens, "Von Thomasius bis Lichtenberg: Zur Ge-
lehrtensatire der AufkHirung," Leising Yearbook, 10 (1978) 7-34.
46. G. W. Rabener, Satiren, III (Bern, 1776), 6: "Leute, von denen man
schwiiren sollce, class sie Narur zu niches weniger, als zu Gelehrten, geschaffen
harte; Leure, welche, ohne selbst zu denken, die Gedanken der Aleen und an-
derer beriihmren Manner erkHiren; solche Leute sind es, die sich gross und
furchtbar machen; und wodurch? Durch Noren!" Rabener also remarks: "hin-
gegen gerraue ich mir, durch hunderc Exempel zu behaupten, class man durch
kein Mittel in der Welc Ieichter zur gehiirigen Aurorgriisse gelangen kann, als
durch die Beschiiffcigung, die Schrifren anderer Manner durch Noren zu ver-
mehren, und zu verbessern."
47 Rehm, 12 and n. T "Man Iache iiber Rabeners Noren ohne Text, aber
Footnotes, in short, spread rapidly in eighteenth-century his-
toriography in part because they were already trendy in fiction.
The literary food chain already included prominent, sharp-
toothed annotators as well as soft, juicy authors, and commen-
tary was already seen as an established literary genre susceptible
of artistic effort and comic effect. But history is not only lit-
erature-as Wachler already emphasized, almost two centuries
ago, when he called his work a Geschichte der historischen For-
schung und Kunst (History of Historical Research and of the Historical
Art). The rise of the footnote in the age of Gibbon and Moser
must have something to do with developments inside the his-
torical tradition as well as with a fondness for them outside it:
with the rise, or acceptance, or revival of the view that histo-
rians not only tell stories but cite evidence. The trail from
Ranke leads still fanher back: into the stately urban palaces of
great Renaissance lawyers and collectors, and perhaps all the
way to the ancient world itself. Though distinctively modern
in its final form, the footnote-as we shall see-has some sur-
prisingly ancient prototypes.
Lavater ist in der That noch viel weiter gegangen, der hat uns Noten gegeben,
wozu der Text der Commentar seyn muss. Dass ist die wahre Sprache der Seher,
die man erst versteht, wenn sich die Begebenheiten ereignet haben, die sie
verkiindigen." One satire on footnotes and much else that provoked discussion
in Lichtenberg's circle (cf. letter 2452 in his correspondence) was J. F. Lam-
precht's wildly funny Der Stundenrufer zu Ternate (1739). For the later history of
the footnote in literature see Stang.
CHAPTER FIVE
Back to the Future, 1:
De Thou Documents the Details
*One commonly received tenet about the history of his-
toriography has remained basically unquestioned in chis inves-
tigation. Most students of historiography have agreed with
Ranke and his followers, assuming chat historians who wrote
in the grand narrative tradition did not carry out research,
much less base their narratives on systematically chosen and
analyzed sources. Gibbon, Moser, von Miiller, and other eigh-
teenth-century writers formed a partial exception to this rule,
to be sure. But they violated the old rules of historical writing
in many other ways as well. They insisted on the need to com-
bine systematic, extended analysis of social, political, and re-
ligious conditions with the narrative of high events. They
considered demographic growth and economic well-being as
significant as battles and more so than speeches. They even took
a strong interest in the low details of private life. It is tempting
simply to assume that they invented critical as well as cultural
history and leave the matter at that.
One could, of course, criticize Ranke and his followers for
appropriating and taking credit for this segment of their crit-
ical method, as other nineteenth-century intellectuals did for
De Thou Documents the Details * 123
so many other eighteenth-century discoveries and principles.
Or one could defend the founder of Ranke & Company at the
expense of later generations of managers. The old master, unlike
some of his disciples, admitted that ancient history had been
carried on in a critical way throughout the eighteenth century.
He admired the Dutch savant Louis de Beaufort, who demol-
ished the traditional story of Rome's origins, as well as Gibbon,
who created the first modem story of Rome's fall.
1
In fact, however, the historical tradition developed on lines
considerably more twisted and complex than these simple for-
mulas would suggest. The Historical School itself was not of
one mind about the historical tradition. Unlike his followers,
Ranke did not argue, even when in the radically critical mood
that accompanied his debut, that all premodern historians had
been uncritical. As we have already seen, he acknowledged Gib-
bon as a More . .be also acknowledp;e,9-
even insisted-that some Renaissance writers had been what
Guicciardini so decidedly was not: "urkundlich" (historians
who worked from eyewitness testimony or documentary evi-
dence, and thus could serve as reliable sources for a critical later
historian to draw on). Ranke attacked Guicciardini, but he
praised another Italian historian of the first half of the sixteenth
century, Paolo Giovio--once again arguing against Jean Bodin
as he did so. Giovio's Latin rhetoric had been all too polished,
1. L. von Ranke, Aus Werke und Nachlass, ed. W. P. Fuchs et al. (Munich and
Vienna, 1964-197:5), IV, 226-231 ("Einleitung: Die Historiographie seit Ma-
chiavelli," from Ranke's course on Romische Geschichte in the Sommersemester
1852; cf. 300, 365). The "Einleitung" reveals nicely that Ranke already saw
how hard it would be to make the development of the discipline of ancient
history follow the normal scheme, in which the Historical School triumphantly
emerged from the Napoleonic Wars.
124 * Back to the Future, 1
and he had passed over in silence the bad deeds of his friends.
But he had had a remarkable knowledge of topography. More-
over, he had lived in the Vatican itself, a prominent node on
every political network of his time; and he had taken the op-
portunity to intercept and interpret hundreds of messages.
Giovio had thus had access to much first-hand reportage, oral
and written, about the events he described.
2
Even more enthu-
siastic was Ranke's analysis of the Milanese historian Bernar-
dino Corio.
3
Ranke could not believe the story that the sev-
enteenth-century German editor Johannes Georgius Graevius
had refused to include Corio's work in his enormous Thesaurus
of writings on Italian history because it swarmed with errors:
"Graevius cannot possibly have meant to condemn the last
books. In them he is a splendid source for important historical
events; he includes many documents, word for word."
4
Here--
in contrast to his treatment of Guicciardini-Ranke closely
followed the older standard treatment of historiography by
Ludwig Wachler, who had already noted that Corio worked
extensively in archives and that in the latter part of his work,
"he reports the most insignificant circumstances with extreme
precision and the all-embracing conscientiousness of a serious
researcher. Many reports are produced here from sources for the
first time, and many narratives of others are carefully cor-
rected."5
2. Ranke, Zur Kritik neuerer GeJchichtJchreiber (Leipzig and Berlin, I 824), 68-
78. On Giovio's use of first-hand information in his histories, see T. C. Price
Zimmermann, Paolo Giovio (Princeton, I995).
3 On Corio see E. Cochrane, HiJtoriam and HiJtoriography in the Italian Re-
naiuance (Chicago and London, I98I), I 17-I I8.
4 Ranke, Zur Kritik, 94: "Urimoglich aber kann Gravius hiemit die letzten
Bucher gemeint haben, wo er die vorziiglichste U rkunde wichtiger Geschichten
ist, wo er viele Denkmale wortlich aufnimmt."
5 L. Wachler, GeJchichte der hiJtoriJchen ForJChung und Kumt, I, pt. I (GOttin-
In fact, the latin-writing humanist historians of Renaissance
Italy used procedures that varied from context to context and
developed, to some extent, over time. Leonardo Bruni, for ex-
ample, derived most of the narrative in his massive Histories of
the Florentine People from the Italian chroniclers of the fourteenth
century, whose works he rewrote in classical form. He removed
much of their glittering local color and violent detail as he
subjected their sometimes chaotic stories of riot and assassi-
nation to the aesthetic discipline of classical Latin. As chan-
cellor of the Florentine Republic Bruni had full access to the
city's archives, but he cited relatively few identifiable docu-
ments from them.
6
In the later fifteenth century, however, as
Gary Ianziti has shown, the same officials who compiled official
correspondence often wrote, or assembled the materials for, of-
ficial histories. Giovanni Simonetta's history of the Sforzas, for
example, amounted to "a creative act of reelaboration and syn-
thesis," based on the archival files he tended.
7
Historians who
came from outside their subject's bureacracy depended on the
services of an "instructor"-a local official who would assemble
the relevant documents for them, either in their original form
or woven into a bare factual narrative.
8
The influential historian
gen, 1812), 135-136 at 136: "Die kleinlichsten Umstande sind auf das gen-
aueste und mit der Alles untersuchenden Gewissenhaftigkeit eines ernsten
Forschers angegeben; viele Nachrichten sind hier zuerst aus Urkunden beyge-
bracht, viele Erziihlungen Anderer mit Sorgfalt berichtigt."
6. See E. Santini, "Leonardo Bruni Aretino e i suoi 'Historiarurn Florentini
Populi Libri XII,' " Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, cl. di filosofia
e filologia, 22 (1910); Cochrane, 5; and above all M. Phillips, "Machiavelli,
Guicciardini, and the Tradition of Vernacular Historiography in Florence,"
American Histrwical Review, 84 (1979) 86-105.
7 G. Ianziti, "A Humanist Historian and His Sources: Giovanni Simonetta,
Secretary to the Sforzas," Renaissance Quarterly, 34 (1981), 491-5 r6 at 515.
8. R. Valentini, "De gestis et vita di A. Campano. A proposito di storia della
storiografia," Boliettino della R. Deputazione di Strwia patria per /'Umbria, 27
Giannantonio Campano, who broke the restraints of Latinity
to produce a dazzlingly colorful account of the brilliant deeds
and terrifying death of the condottiere Fonebraccio Baglioni,
cited both the public archives of Perugia and the family ar-
chives of the Baglioni to prove his hero's noble descent. He
introduced a letter of Fonebraccio's into his text, translated
from the original Italian. And he regularly registered the points
where his sources or informants disagreed on a given point.
9
References to archival documents, as Ianziti has shown, often
reveal less a disinterested search for truth than a deliberate
effort to create a favorable impression about the historian's
employer. The documents themselves embodied elements of
propaganda and ideology, and the "commentaries" based on
them often manipulated men and events as willfully as had
their ancient model, Caesar's CommentarieJ.
1
Campano, how-
ever, clearly saw the historian's duty to repon fully and honestly
(1924), 153-196 at 165-176; G. Ianziti, Humanistic Historiography under the
Sforzas: Politics and Propaganda in Fifteenth-Century Milan (Oxford, 1988). For
examples of the sort of rough '"commentary'' that humanist historians often
relied on, see P. Paltroni, C01ll111mtari della tJita et gesti de/l'i//ustrissimo Federico
Dura d'Urbino, ed. W. Tommasoli (Urbina, 1966). See further Valentini and a
much more famous work, Vespasiano da Bisticci, Vile di uomini illustri del secolo
XtJ (Florence, 1938). In his preliminary "discorso'' Vespasiano said that he wrote
"in the form of a short commentary" ("per via d'uno breve commentario"). He
hoped that his work would preserve the fame of the virtuous men it commem-
orated, but also suggested that it could provide the necessary material for anyone
who might care to write the same lives in Latin (I I).
9 G. Campana, Braccii Perusini Vita et gesta, ed. R. Valentini, Rerum italicarum
scriptores, n.s. 19.4 (Bologna, 1929), 5-6, 24, 68, 77, 139, 140, 193. He rec-
ognized that not all such disagreements could be resolved: see e.g. 75: "Utra
fama sit verior, ne illi quidem saris conveniunt, qui interfuere" ("Not even those
who were present entirely agree as to which report is truer than the other").
10. lanziti, Humanistic Historiography.
as more than a Ciceronian commonplace to be rehearsed in a
grandiose preface and ignored thereafter.
11
When Campano set
out to correct the text of the Roman historian Livy for the
Roman printer Ulrich Han, for example, he made clear that
the errors that disfigured the text resulted from the malpractice
of the scribes "who think that what they do not understand is
excessive, or what they do not clearly perceive is obscure, or
that what the author deliberately inverted is a corruption.
Turning themselves from scribes to correctors, the less they
understand, the more they apply their own judgment. "
12
Cam-
pano, in short, knew all the forms of havoc that ignorance and
presumption could wreak with a historical tradition. It seems
only reasonable to accept that he was s i n c e r ~ when he said that
he could not write the life of the commander Piccinino because
"I would have to address all my inquiries to those who followed
that leader as they took pan in war and peace alike. You can
hardly doubt that they would want to direct their efforts chiefly
to praising his victories and excusing his defeats. This was the
chief reason that restrained me from trying to write any-
thing."13 Under some of the smoothly classical texts of human-
11. G. Campano, Opera (Venice, 1495), II, fol. xxxvi verso = Epistolae et
poemata, ed. J. B. Mencke (Leipzig, 1707), 251-253.
12. Ibid., I, fol. lxiii verso = 549: "Inde librariorum coorti errores, dum
aut, quod ipsi non capiunt, nimium esse, aut quod non cemunt, obscurum, aut
quod inversum est srudio auctoris, depravatum putant, et de librariis emenda-
tores facti ibi plus adhibent iudicii, ubi minus intelligunt." Campano's edition
of Livy, with this prefatory letter to lacopo Ammannati, was first published in
summer 1470 (GoffL-237).
13. Ibid., II, fol. xxiiii recto = 163: "Sed erant omnia ab iis perquirenda,
qui Ducem ilium secuti pace belloque interfuissent, quorum studia non dubitas
fuisse futura et ad extollendas victorias et extenuandas calamitates propensiora.
Haec ratio maxime omnium me, ut nihil susciperem scribendum, detinuit." Cf.
his repeated claim that he could not make progress with his life of Federico da
12 8 * Back to the Future, 1
ist history, with their gleaming marble facades of unfootnoted
Latin and their elegantly arched niches in which medieval
Italian and modern French orators incongruously spouted Ci-
ceronian periods, lay massive foundations carved from the
historical granite of archival documentation and detailed, per-
tinacious interviewing. The Renaissance even saw some antic-
ipations of the nineteenth-century historians' excessive faith in
documents. Tristano Calco, a Milanese historian who loved to
explore archives, believed everything he found there, including
such spurious sources as the confessions extracted from the
Templars by torture.
14
Some Renaissance historians even anticipated the provision
of footnotes for historical narratives-though their example, if
Ranke knew them, could hardly have reassured him. Between
I 5 97 and I 6o7, for example, the English Catholic Richard
White ofBasingstoke published his eleven books of Historiarum
libri cum notis antiquitatum Britannicarum at Douai. In the
dedicatory letter to Archduke Albert of Austria that led off his
first volume, White made clear that his country's history-at
least in its early centuries-was a special case that required
special literary measures to be taken. Ancient writers, like the
elder Pliny, had celebrated ancient Britain. But they had not
provided a continuous narrative of its history. "Therefore,"
White explained,
Montefeltre until he received information from "instructores" at the Urbino
court, "sine quibus historia nulla, auctor vanus esset" ("without which the his-
tory would be nonexistent and its author unreliable") (ibid., II, fol. lxx recto
= 497; cf. fol. II, lxx verso = soo-so1). On this point I follow Valentini
rather than the important revisionist account by Ianziti, Humanistic Historiog-
raphy, 5 4 - ~ 8 : his emphasis on propaganda, though undoubtedly well-taken in
general, seems exaggerated in Campano's case, and he takes no account of the
rich collateral documentation on Campanos sense of history.
14. F. Chabod, Lezioni di metodo storiro (Bari, 1969), chap. 3
as bees take honey from different flowers, so we must take
materials from all sorts of different authors and, once they have
been systematically collected, store them away, as it were, in
the proper combs. It is easy to see how hard this job of selecting
a few bits from the many sources carefully read was for a man
who is immensely busy with both private and public tasks.
15
White acknowledged the technical difficulties involved in es-
tablishing by conjecture the truth about events that had taken
place so long ago.
16
But his ingenuity and learning did not fail
him at this literary impasse. Instead, he devised a form of his-
torical narrative that enabled him to acknowledge the diversity
of the sources he had used, to quote them for the reader's ben-
efit, and to refute his critics: a text with endnotes. Book r of
his history, for example, extends from page 7 to page 26 of his
first volume: just 20 pages of exposition about England's ori-
gins. The 38 endnotes-printed cues to which occur both in
the margins and within the text of White's work-fill almost
five times as much space, from page 27 to page 124, and offer
a flood of primary sources to support the florid and unconvinc-
ing narrative in the text.
Unfortunately, White's choice of sources to cite sheds little
credit on his historical insight. As he told the reader, England's
origins had become the object of a heated debate some gener-
ations before his own time. The Italian humanist Polydore Vir-
gil had audaciously (and correctly) demolished the medieval
15. R. White, Historiarum libri. . cum notis antiquitatum Britarmicarum("Ar-
ras" {Douai), 1 597), 3-4: "satis admirari nequeo, Princeps illustrissime, nullum
extare librum antiquitus ea de re scriptum; sed oportere nos, tanquam apes ex
variis floribus mel carpunt, ita de diversis auctoribus carpere [ed. capere) passim
sententias easque simul ad unum collectas velut in alveos recondere. Qui labor
admodum pauca seligendi ex multis perlectis, quantus fuerit homini publicis
privatisque negotiis occupatissimo, intelligi facile potest."
16. Ibid., 5
legendary history of England, which made the Britons descend
from the Trojan prince Brutus, who fled his city after it fell to
the Greeks. English scholars sprang up at once, of course, to
defend the honor of such standard accounts of national origins
as the fantastic histories of Geoffrey of Monmouth. And they
found support above all in one particularly elaborate and pro-
vocative set of ancient works: the twenty-four ancient histories
and related t ~ x t s published by the Dominican Annius of Vi-
terbo in 1498, with an elaborate commentary. These texts bore
the names of exotic and venerable authors like the Babylonian
priest Berosus and the Egyptian priest Manetho. They and their
commentator supported one another's credibility with an elab-
orate network of interlocking cross references. They attacked
the histories of the ancient Greeks, like that of Herodotus, with
well-aimed scorn and a mass of conflicting, precise details. And
they incorporated, as the Greeks did not, the twisted tendrils
of medieval genealogical legend that traced the nations and
royal families of northern Europe back to aristocratic Trojan
ancestors sent into exile by the Greeks. These were essential to
English (and French) national pride-as well as to the iconog-
raphy of court festivals and public pageants. Annius' book
reached an immense public and remained standard for a century
and more.
17
White, in particular, found in it both the source
for many of his notes and the model for his presentation of his
results. Like the friar, White used an intolerable deal of com-
17. See T. D. Kendrick, British Antiquity (London, 1950),). D. Alsop, "Wil-
liam Fleetwood and Elizabethan Historical Scholarship," Sixtunth Century jour-
nal, 2 5 ( 1994), 15 5-176 at 15 7-169, and, for another case of northern reception
of Annius' texts and ideas, M. Wifstrand Schiebe, Annius von Viterbo und die
schwedische Historiographie des r6. und I7.]ahrhunderts (Uppsala, 1992). See more
generally M. Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas (New Haven and London,
1993). On Annius himself see above all W. Stephens, Jr., Giants in Those Days
(Lincoln, 1989).
mentary to support a shilling's worth of text. His work had
only one defect-but a fatal one. Annius had in fact forged his
most alluring histories: paradoxically, his edition of these pur-
portedly ancient texts, rather than White's re-use of them a
century later, represents the first historical narrative by a mod-
ern writer to support its assertions with a separate commentary.
And White's apparently sober, critical history and antiquities
of England, his elegant, modern-looking concoction, sinks on
inspection into nothing more than a reheated version of Annius'
casserole, in which a few new ingredients made no fundamental
difference to the taste and certainly could not extend the long-
expired sell-by date. Though White admitted that many schol-
ars of high reputation had attacked Annius' texts as forgeries,
he made no serious effort to examine their arguments. Instead
he emphasized the large number of Annius' defenders and bor-
rowed a half-hearted refutation of the critics from one of
them.
18
I 8. See White, I05-106, at 106: "[many cite and praise Berosus (e.g. John
Caius, a famous medical man and philologist who had used the text in the
course of his effort to prove Cambridge University older than Oxford)) et ceteri
numero plures, quam sunt ii, qui reprehendunt. ltaque Jacobus Middendorpius
lib. 1. Academiarum. Et si non mediocrem, inquit, controversiam esse scio inter
scriptores de illo Beroso, qui nunc circumfertur, dum quidam eum non modo
recipiunt, sed tuentur etiam atque propugnanc, quidam vero gravissimis ar-
gumentis refellunt, ego ramen mediam viam puto seligendam, ut Berosus de
rebus indifferentibus loquens toleretur. Quia enim fuit olim ille tiber in omnium
fere gentium doctorumque hominum bibliothecis: et superioribus temporibus,
quando passim omnes bibliothecae a viris litterarum studiosissimis excussae
fuerunc; neque tamen usque alius, quam iste repertus est, nee adhuc verior
aliquis, quod mihi quidem constare potuit, Berosus produccus: videtur hie fer-
endus esse donee incegritati pristinae restituacur" (" . and ochers, more nu-
merous than those who criticize him. Therefore Jacob Middendorp said, in book
I of his book on Academies: 'I know that writers disagree about the Berosus
now in circulation. Some not only accept him, but defend him in a powerful
and polemical way, while ochers use vety serious arguments co refute him. I,
Even as some of the English were trying to fill modern foot-
notes with old stories, however, French historians were trying
to write a genuinely new kind of history--one that really did
rest on a sound, critical foundation. As we have already seen,
the avalanche of printed historical and ethnographic publica-
tions that sent the readers and librarians of the fifteenth and
early sixteenth centuries skidding into abysses of confusion and
despair also stimulated a considerable amount of thought about
how to read history selectively and critically. By the middle
years of the sixteenth century, philologically-trained jurists like
Baudouin and Jean Bodin, whom we have already met,
had learned to reflect on the sources and methods of the writers
they studied. Their works remained central to the culture of
erudition, and continued to be epitomized and contested until
deep into the eighteenth century. Writers of history--especially
the great humanist historians, who often had a legal training
and sometimes enjoyed direct access to historical actors and
from the same world as these readers. Not
surprisingly, their practices as researchers became increasingly
systematic and self-critical; they tried to write the sort of his-
tory that they knew they should prefer to read.
19
however, think one should choose a middle way, so that Berosus may be tolerated
when speaking of things indifferent. That book was at one time to be found in
the libraries of almost all races and scholars. And in earlier times, when scholars
examined all libraries everywhere, they found no other Berosus but this one. So
far as I have been able to establish, no other or truer Berosus has been brought
to light. I think that this one should be accepted until he is restored to his
original purity"). White here paraphrased J. Middendorpius, Academiarum orbis
ChristiaTii libri duo (Cologne, 1572), 14-18 at 16. Middendorpius, who empha-
sized that he had cited the "nomina et libros" ("names and books") of all his
sources (sig. *8 recto), may well have served White as a partial model.
19. On the theorists see e.g. J. Franklin,jeaTI BodiTI aTid the Sixteenth-Cmtury
Revolution in the Methodology of Law aTid History (New York and London, 1963);
U. Muhlack, Geschichtswissenschaft im Humanismus und in der Aufkliirung (Munich,
Consider the case of Jacques-Auguste de Thou, the brilliant
lawyer and Latinist who wrote what may be the longest his-
torical narrative ever undertaken-at least before the 1930s,
when a famous Harvard graduate and beggar named Joe Gould,
who became something of a celebrity in the old Greenwich
Village, undertook a still longer Oral History of the World.
20
De
Thou prepared himself for the task of writing the history of
Europe in his own day, from 1544 to r6o7, with study in
France and Italy, travel to foreign courts, and long years of
intense work in the Parisian Parlement, or sovereign court. He
produced an admirable piece of Latin prose--one so pute and
eloquent that German visitors to Paris were astonished to find
that its creator could only write Latin, not speak it as they did.
But he did far more. From when de Thou started compiling
information-perhaps as early as r 57 2-he set himself to pro-
duce a history as accurate as it was eloquent. The task mattered
deeply. Like Bodin, de Thou had watched the French polity
fall apart in the Wars of Religion. Unlike Bodin, he continued
to believe that French Catholics bore as much of the blame as
the Protestants, or more, for the religious wars-not to men-
tion the massacre of St Bartholomew. An honest, impartial nar-
rative, de Thou decided, would serve as a foundation for social
and political peace. It would demonstrate the guilt of powerful
Catholic malefactors like the Guise and the innocence and no-
bility of scholarly Protestants like his close friend Joseph Scal-
iger. More to the point, it would prove that religious tolerance
and austerity in public life could bring together what intoler-
1991). On one late Renaissance reader who applied their prescriptions, see L.
Jardine and A. Grafton," 'Studied for Action': How Gabriel Harvey Read His
Livy," Past and Present, 129 (1990), 3o-78.
20. Sadly, Gould's work existed only in his own imagination: J. Mitchell,
Up in the Old Hotel (New York, 1992), 52-70, 623-716.
ance and venality had torn apart. De Thou, like many high
French lawyers, was a Gallican, who firmly believed in Ca-
tholicism, but also in the general autonomy of the French
church. He felt certain that the truth, fairly presented, would
prove impossible to deny, and would both heal the state and
save the church. He was wrong, of course; his book did not
unite France, create tolerance, or eliminate the sale of office to
incompetents, and in the seventeenth century the Jesuits and
devots he loathed would dominate the French church. But the
book did win him a reputation for strenuous honesty and heroic
independence, which lasted deep into the Enlightenment-
when his Latin historical works received the exceptional com-
pliment of a monumental entombment in seven volumes, each
of them too heavy to lift.
21
The historical de Thou was far more flexible than the mon-
umental hero of stone that his panegyrists liked to sculpt. Sam-
uel Kinser and Alfred Soman have shown, in complementary
ways, that the content of his massive, stately, solid-looking
Latin books was in fact unstable. De Thou's works perpetually
changed shape and tone, not as a whole but in almost every
detail. The author, for all his high position, had a raw youth's
sensitivity to every blast of cold political or intellectual air, and
many of these came his way. From Rome the mails brought
private assurance of several cardinals' good will-and public
denunciations of his freedom of speech, his attacks on immoral
popes and praises of moral Protestants (one of whom he had
described not as dying, but as "passing into a better life"). The
Congregation of the Index threatened condemnation. From
2 1. On the larger context of de Thou's enterprise see above all C. Vivanti,
Lotta politica e pace religio1a in Francia fra CinqUl e Seicento (Turin, 1963).
England, the unsinkable aircraft carrier of European Protes-
tantism, the airwaves crackled with hostile messages. James VI
and I took sharp exception to de Thou's treatment of his
mother, Mary Queen of Scots--especially since it seemed to
depend on the earlier narrative by James's boyhood nemesis,
the Scottish humanist George Buchanan, who had succeeded
in making him swallow a great deal of Latin but had failed to
force down more unpalatable lessons about the limits on royal
power and the rights of subjects. Caught in the liberal's ever
uncomfortable via media, de Thou temporized and trimmed,
excising potentially offensive passages and changing verbs and
adjectives that might offend. He gratefully accepted and drew
on materials compiled by Robert Cotton to modify his treat-
ment of events in England. Later he used William Camden's
Annals of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth in the same way. He even
tried to placate the Roman censors. De Thou was no Giordano
Bruno, willing to burn to preserve his right to say what he
liked about life, the universe, and everything.
22
Yet one should not exaggerate de Thou's wilHngness to com-
promise. He was not a modern academic, tenured and safe,
writing for a public that could be numbered on the fingers of
one hand, but a statesman exposed to everything from invective
to assassination. Nonetheless he stuck to what he considered
his most important guns. His changes did not alter the basic
character of his text-which was indeed honored in 1609, five
22. SeeS. Kinser, The Wrwkr of ]acquu-Auguste de Thou (The Hague, 1966);
A. Soman, "The London Edition of de Thou's History: A Critique of Some Well-
Documented Legends," Renaissance Quarterly, 24 (1971), 1-12; A. Soman, De
Thou and the Index (Geneva, 1972). For de Thou's relations with Cotton and
Camden, see H. R. Trevor-Roper, Queen Elizabeth's First Historian (Neale Lecture,
1971), and K. Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 1586-I631 (Oxford, 1979), chap. 3
years after its first appearance, by being placed on the Index,
and never won James's full approval. De Thou's Histories were
a social as well as an individual product, the result of collabo-
rative effort and multiple pressures rather than a reproduction
of the author's original manuscript (which remains in parr un-
published). But de Thou's participation in a literary system of
challenge and response should hardly be held against him by
those who inhabit a very different one. Though he was no mar-
tyr, he was also no traitor to his principles. Every edition of his
book continued his fight against religious intolerance, arguing
in the teeth of many higher authorities that forcible conversion
could not produce good Catholics (or Christians of any sort).
De Thou retained confidence in his material, moreover, not
only because it marched his prejudices but also because he had
obtained it in a particular way. As soon as the first part of his
book appeared in a tentative edition, de Thou sent copies of it
across Latin Europe, to scholars everywhere from Prague to
Edinburgh. He did so in the hope of confirming and supple-
menting the facts he had already assembled. Where he had left
holes in his narrative or saw the prospect of new ones, he begged
for help; where he had made mistakes, he asked for correction.
Scholars of every party weighed in.
23
Henry Sa vile sent a life of
the Hungarian scholar and bishop Andreas Dudith, with whom
he had lived for six months as a young man. Christophe Dupuy
and Paolo Sarpi filled in the lives and works of Italian human-
ists for whom de Thou lacked information. Just about everyone
forwarded corrections of details, ranging from names and dares
23. Much of the relevant correspondence is preserved in the Bibliotheque
Nationale (hereafter BN), Paris; here I use MS Dupuy 632, the materials in
which were published in J.-A. de Thou, HiJtoriarum JUi temporiJ libri cxxxviii, 7
vols. (London, 1733), VII.
to major points of interpretation.
24
Joseph Scaliger, who had
traveled in Scotland in the r 5 6os, redated the death of Rizzio
and the birth of James Vl.
25
The famous botanist Charles de
l'Escluse, who found de Thou's "lovely present" so thrilling that
he could not wait to have it bound before reading it, corrected
his underestimate of the scientific prowess of the naturalist
Guillaume Rondelet. Camden forwarded not only corrections
of topographical details but a draft of his Annals, avowedly
based on state p a p e r ~ , as the solidest of all supports for de
Thou's treatment of English history. Others suggested changes
in everything from de Thou's account of the laws of the Holy
Roman Empire to his discussion of the love lives of the Haps-
burg kings of Spain.
26
The dossier, much of which survives in manuscript, shows
that de Thou and his correspondents shared a belief in the
authority of first-hand testimony. When de l'Escluse corrected
de Thou on Rondelet, for example, he explained that he had
worked with the man for more than two years, collecting spec-
imens of marine life for him on the shore after storms and
watching him dissect them; when he did the same about Haps-
burg hanky-panky, he argued that he had seen the little spiral
stairway down which a Habsburg prince had fallen on the way
to visit a young woman.
27
And when de Thou refused to accept
24. For Savile on Dudith see BN, Paris, MS Dupuy 632, fol. 105 recto-
verso, and R. Goulding, "Henry Savile and the Tychonic World System,"]ournal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 58 (1995) 152-179
25. BN, Paris, MS Dupuy 632, fol. 57 recto.
26. Cf. Trevor-Roper, 12, who eloquently evokes de Thou's "seminar": "he
drew the whole Republic of Letters into his orbit. But what professor has ever
ruled such a seminar as his? Hugo Grotius and Paolo Sarpi and Francis Bacon
were all members of it."
27. BN, Paris, MS Dupuy 632, fols. 78 verso, 82 verso-83 recto.
corrections, he did so on the same grounds. He could not accept
James's version of the death of Darnley, for example, precisely
because he had eyewitness reports that contradicted it. So far
as possible, de Thou placed no obstacles except his Latin style
between his evidence and his reader. When he received detailed
lives of scholars from his friends, for example, he simply in-
corporated them into his text. He thus made the book a re-
pository of reliable evidence about the history of culture.
In a contemporary history, first-hand testimony naturally
predominated. Bur de Thou had other resources as well. He
built his vast library, for example, as a public basis for his own
and others' research.
28
And he used the state papers to which
his official positions gave him access. Long before Ranke or
Gibbon, critical history-the sort of history whose author ag-
onized about a mistake of a few months in chronology, as well
as about the ascription of motives and the identification of
causes-had come into being. De Thou was not the only writer
of this kind: Camden, who relied on Robert Cotton's great
collections of manuscripts as well as eyewitness testimony for
his own history of England in the age of Elizabeth, provides a
remarkable parallel.
29
De Thou did not convince everyone that his enterprise made
sense. The Augsburg patrician and polymath Markus (or Marx)
Welser, a stalwart Catholic, wrote to refuse help, using terms
that sound as strikingly modern as de Thou's own practice:
28. SeeK. Garber, "Paris, die Hauptstadt des europaischen Spathumanismus.
Jacques Auguste de Thou und das Cabinet Dupuy," Res publica litteraria. Die
lnstitutionen der Gelehnamkeit in der friihen Neuzeit, ed. S. Neumeister and C.
Wiedemann (Wiesbaden, 1987), I, 71-92; A. Coron," 'Ut prosint aliis':Jacques
Auguste de Thou et sa bibliotheque," Histoire tks bibliotheques franfaises, II: Les
bibliotheques sous /'Ancien Regime, ed. C. Jolly (Paris, 1988), 101-125.
29. See Trevor-Roper and, for Cotton's library, Sharpe, chap. 2, and C. G. C.
Tite, The Manuscript Library of Sir Robert Cotton (London, 1994).
As to the censure you request: your text will certainly enjoy a
magnificent reputation with posterity. So far as the events are
concerned, I shall not serve as your editor. It's far too hard for
any human being to rid himself of passions and keep the truth
always in his sights. Take the history of Charles V and Francis
1-a Frenchman and a German will always tell it differently.
And the one will never persuade the other of what he himself
thinks is true and would guarantee at any price. The same holds
true for the rest--especially when you're concerned with coun-
sels, with the rights of provinces, with the causes of wars, with
the private lives of princes, and above all with the problem of
religion. Truth lies at the bottom of the well; we drink water
from the surface in its place, especially when relying on the
testimony of others to scoop it up.
30
The indictment sounds plausible enough-as do the similar
ones of Ranke. In fact, however, it was motivated by religious
prejudice, not methodological sophistication. In private Welser
railed against what he saw as de Thou's preference for the
French over the Germans and for Protestants over CatholicsY
30. Welser to de Thou, 23 October 1604, BN, Paris, MS Dupuy 632, fol.
74 recto: "De censura quod petis: magna est futura scriptionis ad omnem pos-
teritatem sine controversia commendatio: de rebus, Palaemon ego non sedeo.
Nimis quam difficile homini nato affectus exuere et semper recte ad veritatis
scopum collineare. Caroli et Francisci exempli caussa historiam, qui non aliter
Gallus aliter Germanus narret? Nee unquam alter alteri quod verissimum esse
ipse credat et quovis pignore contendat, ramen persuadeat. lam in ceteris eadem
est ratio, ubi praesertim ad consilia, ad iura provinciarum, ad bellorum caussas,
ad privatam principum vitam et multo maxime ad caussam religionis ventum.
Veritas fere imo puteo latet, nos summam saepe pro ea aquam libamus, aliena
praesertim fide, tanquam haustris usi." On Welser's own scholarship see P.
Joachimsen, "Marx Welser als bayerischer Geschichtschreiber [1904/05}," Ge-
samme/te Aufsatze, ed. N. Hammerstein (Aalen, 1970-1983), II, 577-612;
R.J. W. Evans, "Rantzau and Welser: Aspects of Later German Humanism,"
History of European Ideas, 5 (1984), 257-272.
31. See the evidence in de Thou, Historiarium sui temporis libri cxxxviii, VII,
pt. 6, 9-11.
Most scholars who lacked an institutional or denominational
impetus to attack de Thou, Catholics as well as Protestants,
accepted his good faith and praised his objectivity.
The reason is simple enough. De Thou did not annotate his
history. But he made his correspondence-which reached across
the learned Latin world-into a running collaborative com-
mentary on his text. He repeatedly proved his earnest desire
for authoritative information, his willingness to accept (polite)
correction, and his unwillingness to suppress inconvenient
facts. Rather like the modern scholar who addresses the limited
audience that really matters in a code that the larger public
cannot break, de Thou provided the Republic of Letters with
a critical apparatus that proved the reliability, the fides, of his
unannotated text. Moreover, his library became a way station
where all the vastly erudite travelers of the Republic of Letters
stopped on their way from Hamburg to Madrid or London to
Rome in order to read the newest books and swap the newest
gossip. In this museum created to show how late Renaissance
history at its best had been written, where the librarians, the
learned brothers Dupuy, pointed morals and adorned tales
about scholars and scholarship, everyone could see how de Thou
had worked. It was only natural, then, that when Thomas Carte
and Samuel Buckley printed what remains the best edition of
the Histories in 1733, they added what survived of the corre-
spondence that had accompanied its creation. These files of
letters supplied the gloss with which de Thou had refused to
encrust his eloquent prose. The presence of this apparatus-as
well as de Thou's evident independence, good faith, and sym-
pathy for Protestants--ensured his reputation deep into the
nineteenth century.
32
Wachler, in his history of historiography,
32. See Soman, '"The London Edition," who shows that this apparatus does
treated de Thou as an incomparable master, whose careful use
of authentic materials he celebrated.
33
Ranke admired him un-
reservedly.
34
A model for self-critical narrative history, for a
story about high politics based on archive-grubbing and source-
criticism, existed before Ranke or Gibbon was born or thought
of. Neither de Thou's methods nor his dilemmas, moreover,
were unique. Half a century before him, Giovio sent draft books
of his histories to the imperial court for correction--only to
find that the entourage of Charles V considered him a Fran-
cophile, while the French saw him as an imperialist. Only the
patronage of an exceptionally intelligent and enlightened ruler,
Cosima I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, enabled him to try in prac-
tice for the dangerous impartiality he and other historians
prized in theory.
35
De Thou, in short, had solid resources to
draw on in the existing traditions of historical practice.
The only thing de Thou refused to do was, quite simply, to
add the notes that would have given all contemporary readers
access to the information he stored up for later visitors to his
workshop. In fact, he fulminated, in untranslatable Latin,
against Melchior Goldast, who festooned a pirated edition of
the Histories with "political" glosses. And his reasons are not
far to seek. For all the critical effort that went into the foun-
dations of de Thou's work, he wanted its superstructure to re-
main classical. He must have thought that footnotes would
spoil its crisp Greco-Roman colonnades and roofline. But he
may also have had more in mind. For both the literary and the
not straightforwardly present all of the texts, but alters the documents to create
a particular picture of de Thou.
33 L. Wachler, Geschichte dw historischen Forschung und Kunst, I, pt. 2 (Got-
tingen, 1813), 6 7 ~ 8 5 at 682-683.
34 See Ranke, Aus Werk und Nachlass, 4, 112 and n. b.
35 Zimmermann, 238-243.
intellectual problems associated with footnotes were much dis-
cussed in de Thou's immediate circle--which consisted, after
all, of Roman lawyers, practitioners of a discipline in which
the tradition of full and precise citation, or "allegation," came
into being in the ancient world itself.
Another erudite lawyer, Etienne Pasquier, who did pioneer-
ing work on the history of the French language and of legal
and political institutions, published as his summa a great set of
Recherches de Ia France. Pasquier wrote in French, not Latin, and
compiled a miscellany rather than a narrative. Nevertheless, he
admitted in the revised edition of 1596 that friends to whom
he had shown the text complained "that at every turn I used
some old author to confirm my statement." Some pointed out
that earlier writers had copied their sources "without wasting
time on such confirmations, which somehow reveal more of the
shadowy life of the schools than of the light of history." In the
course of time, they argued, which "refined works, like gold,"
his writings would "supply their own authority," as those of
the ancients had. Others praised his precise references but found
his habit of full citation at once pedantic and bordering on
plagiarism: "but they thought it too pernickety to insert these
passages in full; this was to swell my own work at the expense
of others. Doing this involved a combination of superstition
and superfluity; the best solution would have been to remove
this excess matter."
36
36. E. Pasquier, LeJ Recherche.r tk Ia France (Paris, 1 596), fol. 2 recto: "Mais
estimoient chose d'une curiosite trop grande, d'inserer tout au long les passages,
et que c'estoit enfier mon oeuvre mal a propos aux despens d'autruy; Qu'en ce
faisant il y avoit de Ia superstition et superfluite tout ensemble, et que le plus
expedient eust este de retrancher cest excez." For Pasquier see G. Huppert, The
Idea of Perfect History (Urbana, Chicago, and London, 1970); D. Kelley, Foun-
dations of Modern Historical Scholarship (New York and London, 1970); N.
A second set of critics were cleverer than the first: they iden-
tified a genuine paradox in the modern routine of documen-
tation, which claims to require that one prove both that each
sentence is original and that it has a source. But the first set
impressed Pasquier even more, especially since-as he pointed
out in a proleptic use of the terminology of Asterix and Obe-
lix-"our ancestors the Gauls did it this way." He had to agree
that the provision of documentation was more likely to provoke
dissent than assent from a modern reader. Cited documents
necessarily suggested that a problem could be solved in ways
other than that chosen by the historian.
37
Pasquier still felt
proud that he had brought many French antiquities to light
for the first time in the Recherches. But he found it depressing
that so many of his readers had cited the texts he discovered
without giving him any credit.
38
Not for the last time, foot-
notes and plagiarism embraced one another uneasily. Nonethe-
less, Pasquier decided to keep his "proofs," and even to translate
the Latin ones into French, since "otherwise anyone who read
these antiquities and did not know Latin would have been a
second Tantalus, standing in the midst of water but unable to
drink from it. "
39
Struever, "Pasquier's Recherches de Ia France: The Exemplarity of His Medieval
Sources," History and Theory, 27 (1988), 51-59; and Etienne Pasquier et ses Re-
cherches de Ia France, Cahiers V.-L. Saulnier, 8 (Paris, 1991). On this passage see
Huppert, 33-34, and S. Bann, The Invention of History (Manchester and New
York, 1990).
37 Pasquier, Recherches, fol. 2 recto-verso. "Aussi discourant avec un stile
nud et simple, l'anciennete, le lecteur en croiroit ce qu'il voudroit: au contraire
alleguant les passages, c'estoit apprester matiere a un esprit de contradiction,
de les induire d'autre ~ o n que vous ne faicres, et par ce moyen vous exposer a
Ia reformation, voire aux calomnies d'autruy."
38. Ibid., fol. 2 verso.
39- Ibid., fol. 3 recto: "Autremenr celuy qui n'eust sceu le latin, lisant ces
Neither Pasquier's problem nor his solution to it was unique.
Across the channel, in England, the playwright Ben Jonson
also faced problems of historical authority in 1605 when he
published the quarto edition of his play about the fall of Ti-
berius' onetime favorite, Sejanus. Jonson's work dealt with a
subject that was politically dangerous, especially since it was
first performed in 1603, only two years after the Earl of Essex
made his abortive attempt at a coup d'etat. The style and even
the factual content of his play, which drew heavily on the An-
nals of Tacitus, probably also seemed suspicious. The followers
of Essex, like other political adventurers of the late Renaissance,
had quoted Tacitus to justify their manipulations and rebel-
lion.40 More generally, for at least a generation, many European
intellectuals had agreed with the arguments forcefully ad-
vanced by Marc-Antoine Muret and Justus Lipsius: the impe-
rial court portrayed by Tacitus, that Caligari-like hall of shad-
ows, where informers overheard every honorable word and
brave rebels fell under the sawtoothed wheels of the imperial
machine, resembled the dangerous courts of their own time.
41
Two decades later, when the Dutchman Isaac Dorislaus lectured
on Tacitus at Cambridge, a number of his remarks were taken
down and formally reported to Archbishop Laud, and he him-
anciennetez eust este un autre Tantale, au meilieu des eaues sans en pouvoir
boire.'"
40. See in general A. Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation (Madison, 1984),
49-58, as well as]. Barish"s introduction to his edition of Sejanus (New Haven
and London, 1965).
4 I. See e.g. G. Oestreich, Geist und GeJtalt deJ friilmwdernen StaateJ (Berlin,
1969), chaps. 2-3; P. Burke, "Tacitism," Tacitw, ed. T. A. Dorey (New York,
1969), 149-17I;]. H. M. Salmon, "Cicero and Tacitus in Sixteenth-Century
France,"" American Historical Review, 85 (1980) 307-331; M. Stolleis, Arcana
imperii und Ratio status (Gottingen, 1980); W. Kuhlmann, Gelehrtenrepublik und
Fiimenstaat (Tiibingen, 1982).
self was silenced.
42
No wonder that the Privy Council found it
necessary to examine Jonson in 1603, or that he found it nec-
essary to defend his work when he printed it two years later.
Jonson built a sturdy fence of authorities to protect his vul-
nerable text. He wreathed its margins with long lists of precise
references to classical histories and modern treatises. In these
he had found not only the details of Sejanus' career, but also
the wording of many of the political speeches and religious
rituals he depicted.
43
Jonson's extremely precise references to
"Tacit. Lips. edit. 4" and "Bar. Brisson de form. lib. I" showed,
he thought, that he had not invented anything seditious in
composing his work.
44
So seriously did Jonson take his anno-
tations that he defended them in detail in his preface against
the charge of "affectation." He pointed out that he had gone
so far as "to name what Edition I follow'd" for Tacitus and Dio,
in citing both of whom he had used page numbers: "For the
rest, as Sueton. Seneca &c. the Chapter doth sufficiently direct,
or the Edition is not varied. "
45
Modern scholars have speculated about Jonson's intentions
in glossing his own play. Some have argued that in supplying
ancient authorities for statements that might seem politically
dangerous, he hoped to allay the authorities' suspicions.
46
But
this seems unlikely. As Annabel Patterson rightly points out,
42. Tacitus: The Classical Heritage, ed. R. Mellor (New York and London,
1995), IIB-121.
43 See E. B. Tribble, Margins and Marginality (Charlottesville and London,
1993), 146-157. Plate 20, on p. 153, reproduces a page from the quarto edition.
44 The marginalia are reproduced in Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford and P.
Simpson (Oxford, 1925-1952), IV, 472-485; for a comment on their accuracy
seep. 273. Barish shows that Jonson, quite naturally, imposed a highly personal
interpretation on his sources.
45 Ben Jonson, ed. Herford and Simpson, IV, 351.
46. Patterson, 51; Tribble, 154-155
Jonson made clear at every point the relation between his own
text and the charged, complex, and notoriously obscure ancient
model. References to Tacitus, however precise, could hardly
deflect the idea that Jonson had current conditions in mind-
especially since his preface and his very first marginal gloss
referred explicitly to Lipsius' edition of Tacitus, which in turn
began with a vigorous argument for the Roman historian's im-
mediacy and relevanceY
If Jonson's political motives remain elusive, it does seem
possible to locate the technical models for his scholarly practice.
In Sejanus as in some of his masques, Jonson filled his text with
the details of Roman rituals and customs. These he took, often
word for word, from the heavily documented treatises of con-
tinental humanists like Lipsius and Bartolome Brisson. His
versions of Roman history, similarly, often amounted to trans-
lations not of the original Roman texts, but of Lipsius' notes
4 7. For some of Lipsius' writing on Tacitus see Tacitus: The Classical Heritage,
ed. Mellor, 41-50. On Lipsius' Tacitean scholarship seeM. W. Croll, Style, Rheto-
ric, and Rhythm, ed.]. M. Patrick et al. (Princeton, 1966); A. D. Momigliano,
"The First Political Commentary on Tacitus," journal of Roman Studies, 37 (1947)
91-101 = Contributo alia storia degli studi classici (Rome, 1955), 38-59; ].
Ruysschaecr,juste Lipse et le.r Annale.r de Tacite (Louvain, 1949); A. D. Momig-
liano, review of Ruysschaecr, journal of Roman Studies, 39 (1949), 19o-192;
C. 0. Brink, "Justus Lipsius and the Text ofTacitus," ibid., 41 (1951), 32-51;
F. R. D. Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus, I ((:ambridge, 1972), 8-10; J. Ruys-
schaert, "Juste Lipse, editeur de Tacite," Studi urbinati, 53 (1979), 47-61; M.
Morford, Stoics and Neostoics (Princeton, 1991); Morford, "Tacitean Prudentia in
the Doctrines of Justus Lipsius," in Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, ed. T.].
Luce and A.J. Woodman (Princeton, 1993), 129-151. On irs reception and
amplification by others see]. H. M. Salmon, "Stoicism and Roman Example:
Seneca and Tacitus in Jacobean England," journal of the History of Ideas, 50
(1989), 199-225, and D. Womersley, "Sir Henry Savile's Translation of Tacitus
and the Political Interpretation of Elizabethan Texts," Review of English Studies,
42 (1991), 313-342
on and summaries of them.
48
Perhaps Jonson hoped to produce
a critical history play by uniting narrative with the philological
and antiquarian scholarship on which he drew so heavily.
Both Pasquier and Jonson recorded and answered powerful
literary objections to precise citation of the sources of their
histories. Their shared difficulty shows that historians had to
leap a high literary hurdle in order to create a modern form for
their work, but the way both writers solved it also suggests an
explanation for their new ability to do so. Writing a self-con-
sciously critical narrative, as de Thou already did, is not the
same as letting the reader have a look through one's study
window and a dig in one's filing cabinets, which de Thou re-
fused to do. Pasquier and Jonson, by contrast, insisted that they
had a duty to cite their sources. And they wrote within, or in
response to, a different historiographical tradition-a learned,
rather than an eloquent tradition, usually known as "antiquar-
ianism." Did this other form of"precritical" history have some-
thing to offer to the "critical" history that took root and flour-
ished in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Did the
antiquaries also play a part in the coming of the footnote?
48. For Jonson's use of Lipsius see E. M. T. Duffy, "Ben Jonson's Debt to
Renaissance Scholarship in SejanRS and Catiline," Modern Language Review, 42
(1947), 24-30; D. Boughner, 'Jonson's Use ofLipsius in SejanRS," Motkrn Lan-
guage Note.r, 73 (1958), 247-255; A. A. N. McCrea, "Neostoicism in England:
The Impact of Justus Lipsius' Neostoic Synthesis on English Political Thinking,
1586-1652" (Ph.D. diss., Queen's University, Ontario), esp. II, chap. 5; R. C.
Evans, Habits of Mind: Evidence and E.fficts of Ben Jonson's Reading (Lewisburg,
London, and Cranbury, 1995). Foe Jonson's use of the antiquarian tradition more
generally see the classic studies of D. ]. Gordon, collected in The Renaissance
Imagination, ed. S. Orgel (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1975).
CHAPTER SIX
Back to the Future, 2:
The Ant/ike Industry of Ecclesiastical
Historians and Antiquaries
*History, as should by now be dear, has taken many
forms for a long time. In the ancient world a variety of historical
genres took shape, in some of which methods of research and
discussions of evidence played prominent roles. Some of these
lasted over the centuries, finding new practitioners and new life
in early modern Europe. A number of clues connect these forms
of argument and exposition, which took place in the text, with
those that later took place underneath it. Some French histo-
rians of the nineteenth century, for example, claimed as heat-
edly as any German that they practiced a science. But they
insisted that its intellectual roots lay not in the new universities
across the Rhine but in the Renaissance law school of Jacques
Cujas at Valence and in the St. Germain des Pres of the Ben-
edictine antiquaries Jean Mabillon and Bernard de Montfaucon,
which had been active centers of critical source study in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries respectively.
1
This tradition
I. See Fustel de Coulanges" presentation of the Revue hiJtorique, in F. Hartog,
Le xixe siec/e et /'histoire (Paris, I 988), 3 59= "L' erudition n'est pas a creer en France;
Ecclesiastical Historians and Antiquaries * 149
must also have its place in any history of the origins of modern
history.
Consider, for example, the German Jesuit Athanasius Kircher,
who adorned his order's central college in Rome for decades
and who, like so many seventeenth-century scholars, wrote
more books than his modern counterparts can hope to read. He
lived in an age of polymaths whose literary works filled mul-
tivolumed Latin folios truffled with quotations in Greek, Ar-
abic, Hebrew, and Aramaic; whose preferred language for writ-
ing occasional poetry was as likely to be biblical Hebrew as
classical Greek; and whose favorite subject was in many cases
a frighteningly complex combination of classical philology and
mathematical astronomy.
2
Still, Kircher stood out for the mul-
tiplicity of his interests. As a young man he taught mathe-
matics, ethics, and Oriental languages at Wi.irzburg: as a mid-
dle-aged one he excavated obelisks, explored volcanoes, and
reconstructed the voyage of Noah's Ark. Throughout his life,
as Thomas Leinkauf has shown, he treated all of these pursuits
as integrally related parts of a single effort to understand the
physical and human history of the world.
3
elle y existe et depuis longtemps"' ("'Learning does not need to be created in
France; it has existed here for a very long time").
2. A. Grafton, '"The World of the Polyhistors: Humanism and Erudition,"
Central European History, 18 (1985) 31-47.
3 T. Leinkaufs Mundus combinatus (Berlin, 1993) is the first systematic (and
largely successful) analysis of Kircher's thought. For his career and context see
also the survey by D. Pastine, La narcita tk/l'idolatria (Florence, 1978), Atha-
narius Kircher und seine Beziehungen zum gelehrten Europa seiner Zeit, ed. J. Fletcher
(Wiesbaden, 1988), P. Findlen, Possessing Nature (Chicago and London, 1994),
and, above all, R. J. W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 155o-
noo (Oxford, 1979).
In r677 Kircher brought out at Amsterdam a magnificently
illustrated work on the sacred and profane antiquities, natural
and human wonders of China.
4
The book covered many sub-
jects, from comparative religion to physical geography. But it
started with a historical essay and ended with a fold-out plate
different from anything we have seen so far. Kircher began the
work by publishing, in facsimile and in translations into more
than one European language, an inscription from a ninth-cen-
tury stone monument which had turned up in r 62 5 in a Chris-
tian graveyard in Sian. The bilingual text of the stele explained
in Chinese and in Syriac the theology and the history of the
Nestorian Christians-Christians who had scattered through
Asia in the fifth century C.E. and after, and whose existence
Western scholars and churchmen had generally forgotten
(though their predecessors had known about them in the Mid-
dle Ages). The new text created a sensation, provoking wide-
spread controversy when Kircher discussed it in his Prodromus
coptus of r636. Protestant critics like Georg Hornius dismissed
the stele as "a pure invention of the
Kircher found himself confronted, in other words, by a doc-
ument whose historical solidity he thought incontestable, but
which he could not see, and by bitter opponents, whose carping
voices he wanted to silence. He attacked the problem system-
atically. In a long chapter, he reproduced, one after another, the
4 A. Kircher, China monumentis qua sacris qua profanis necnon variis naturae et
artis spectaculis aliarumque rerum memorabilium argumentis il/ustrata (Amsterdam,
r677; repr. Frankfurt a. M., 1966).
5 Ibid., r. For the context and the debate see the useful account in D.
Mungello, Curious La11d, Srudia Leibnitiana, Supplementband 25 (Wiesbaden
and Stuttgart, 1985), r64-172.
accounts in which the Jesuits Alvaro Semedo and Martinus
Martini had already discussed the stone. Then he printed a long
letter from another Jesuit, Michael Boim, with a long intro-
duction:
In addition to these texts [wrote Kircher] Father Michael Boim
provided me with an account of this monument more precise
than the rest. He corrected all its defects in copying it from a
Chinese manuscript in my collection. Then he completed, in
my presence, a new and meticulous translation of the whole
inscription, word by word, beginning from the work of his
colleague Andreas Don Sin, who was born in China and knows
the language extremely well. He wished to attest to all this in
the following letter to the reader, in which he described pre-
cisely the whole sequence of events and everything of impor-
tance connected with this sort of monument. I decided, with
his assent, to place this text before the translation, as a splendid
testimony to the true history, to preserve the memory of the
matter forever. And I had the stone monument engraved, fol-
lowing the "autographum" brought from China, which is pre-
served to this day in my museum, with all its true marks and
letters, both Chinese and Chaldean [Syriac], and a commen-
tary.6
6. Kircher, China, 7= "His demum accessit P. Michael Boimm, qui exactam
prae omnibus huius Monumenti relationem mihi attulit, omnes defectus in eo
describendo, ex manuscripto Sinensi, quod penes me habeo, emendavit, novam
denuo minutamque totius Tabulae interpretationem verbotenus factam opera
socii sui Andreae Don Sin ex ipsa China oriundi, nee non linguae nacivae per-
itissimi orditus, me praesenre confecit; quae quidem omnia testata voluit, se-
quenti epistola ad Jectorem data, qua totius rei seriem et quicquid tandem circa
huiusmodi Monumentum consideratione dignum occurrit, exacte descripsit,
quamque veluti luculentum veritatis testimonium huic inteCpretationi, ipso
annuenre, ad aeternam rei memoriam praefigendam censui; lapideum vero Mon-
umentum iuxta Autographum ex China allarum, quod in Musaeo meo in hunc
Boim's letter was signed at the end by its author and by two
Chinese associates, whom Kircher described as "both eyewit-
nesses of the monument and the ones who copied this inscrip-
tion from the original. "
7
Much more detail and much more
corroboration followed, including a word-for-word Latin trans-
lation of the text, with annotation. At all points Kircher took
special care to establish locations, identities, and provenances.
The facsimile of the inscription that appeared at the end of the
book, for example, gave the place and date of the stele's dis-
covery and stated explicitly that Matthaeus the Chinese "copied
this inscription from the original with his own hand at
Rome in 1664."
8
Kircher did not subject his material to a
completely systematic critical examination. Even when the pri-
mary sources he reproduced contradicted each other, he simply
copied them and left his reader to worry about the discrepan-
cies.9 But he took care to document everything as best he could.
The discovery, the transcription, and the translation of the
monument were all recorded, not in his words but in those of
his sources, even though that resulted in a text constantly in-
terrupted by section breaks and pocked throughout with dif-
usque diem superstes est, genuinis suis notis et characteribus {tam} Sinicis,
quam Chaldaeis, Scholiis etiam additis, incidendum curavi. EpiJtola dicta P.
Michaelis Boimi sequitur." The "'autographum" brought from China was presum-
ably a rubbing like or identical to Vatican Library Borg. or. I 5 I, fasc. 2d, for
which see H. Goodman, ''Paper Obelisks: East Asia in the Vatican Vaults," in
Rome Reborn, ed. A. Grafton (Washington, D.C., Vatican City, New Haven, and
London, 1993), plate 186.
7 Kircher, China, ro: "'Oculaci inspectores Monumenti nee non huius Ta-
bulae ex Prototypo descriptores."
8. "'Hanc Tabulam propria manu ex autographo descripsit Matthaeus Sina
Oriundus ex Siganfu Romae A" 1664."
9 Mungello, Curiou.s Land, I7 1-172-but he exaggerates, and sometimes
misinterprets Kircher's text.
ferenc languages and alphabets. Kircher offered a model of his-
torical work very different from de Thou's--one characterized
by an encyclopedic willingness to accommodate the incongru-
ous and the alien, one that allowed many voices to speak, and
many alphabets to appear, on the same page. Above all, he
showed more interest in establishing the facts than in weaving
them into an eloquent story. The hospitable smile of the south
German churchman replaced the steely, cold correctness of the
French lawyer. Just as Kircher's museum gave traveling gen-
tlemen and intellectuals the chance to experience, at a safe dis-
tance, the wonders of nature he himself glimpsed close up in
the volcanoes he explored, so his books gave his readers a chance
to experience-almost at first hand-the shock of direct con-
tact with the physically solid evidence of distant stone inscrip-
tions.
Kircher's ability to collect and edit this material-like his
ability to read and explicate the Syriac part of the monument's
text-reflected his position as a member of an aggressive, mod-
ern, worldwide religious order. The Jesuits boasted a uniquely
cosmopolitan range of skills and experience and a highly de-
veloped system of communication. Kircher stood waist-deep in
the rapidly moving river of systematic reportage about foreign
lands and languages that ran through the colleges and libraries
of his order. He enjoyed a level of information about other
societies that no one in Europe--even the well-traveled and
omnivorous Poggio Bracciolini or Pope Pius 11-could have
imagined a century before.
10
10. On Kircher's museum see P. Findlen, Posseuing Nature (Chicago and
London, 1994). For his larger intellectual position see Goodman and U. Eco,
The Search for the Perfect L a n g ~ ~ a g e , tr. J. Fentress (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.,
1995), 158-159
Yet Kircher's spectacularly modern book on China belonged
to a traditional historical genre. In form, in concern for docu-
mentation and provenance, and-it must be admitted-in cre-
dulity, the China closely resembled many older and now better-
known compilations, like the classic history of the early church
by the learned, uncritical Eusebius (fourth century C.E.) or
the enormous, erudite Annates of the late sixteenth-century
scholar Cesare Baronio. Throughout the history of the Christian
church, scholars had compiled documents of diverse kinds, anx-
iously offered guarantees of their authenticity, and woven what
were called "ecclesiastical histories" from them. The age-old
rules of this well-established scholarly game dictated the form
that Kircher's China took. Even Kircher's vivid plates had their
counterpart in the physically magnificent study of the early
Christian monuments of the catacombs that Antonio Bosio, the
"Columbus of the Catacombs," had published, some years be-
fore Kircher's China came out, under the title Roma sotterra-
nea-Underground Rome.ll In trying to come to terms with a
brand-new document, in short, Kircher could fall back on an
existing, well-established historical genre, with its own norms
and practices.
The heavily documented form of history to which Kircher's
work belonged predates the origins of Christianity, and should
probably be referred to by a less restrictive term than "eccle-
siastical." Its origins are old enough to be obscure. They may
lie in the Persian Empire, whose rulers liked to publish edicts,
some of which were reproduced in historical works by their
I I. G. Wataghin Cantino, "Roma Sotterranea: Appunti sulle ongm1
deli'Archeologia Crisriana," Ricerche di Itoria del/'arte, 10 (1980), 5-14; H. Gam-
rath, Roma Jancta renovata (Rome, 1987).
subjects-such as the Jews. The tradition took on its first clear
shape in the Hellenistic world during the third and second
centuries B.C.E., when the intellectuals of Mesopotamia, Egypt,
and Israel found themselves the subjects of Greek-speaking,
foreign powers-first Alexander of Macedon and his succes-
sors, then the Romans. The shared language of empire under
Alexander's successors and of culture under the Romans-
Greek-enabled representatives of many religions and tradi-
tions to speak to one another directly for the first time. They
naturally saw one another as rivals, and those who had lost the
wars hoped (like their academic counterparts today) to avenge
in the archive their defeats on the battlefield. It became a mat-
ter of urgency to show that one came from an old state, which
possessed a venerable religion, as well as a long-standing po-
litical, social, and scholarly tradition, its history duly recorded
on a long series of documents, preferably inscribed in stone. In
the third century B.C.E., the Egyptian priest Manetho and the
Chaldean priest Berossus translated into Greek accounts of
Egyptian history and Babylonian myth and history as well.
These accounts emphasized the antiquity of their races and
traditions.
By the second century B.C.E. at the latest, the Jews had
followed suit. The first full-scale specimen of this genre to sur-
vive is perhaps the so-called Letter of Aristeas, a text which
explained the origins of the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible, the Septuagint. The author inserted directly into the
narrative a number of what look like official documents-for
example, the memorandums in which the librarian of Alex-
andria, Demetrius of Phalerum, and the king of Egypt, Ptol-
emy Philadelphus, discussed the need to acquire a Greek text
of the Hebrew Bible for their great library. This fascinating
book-like the docwnents it inch.1des-has the defect of being
a forgery, but also the compensating virtues of brevity and clar-
ity.
12
It exemplifies the main lines along which the genre would
grow.
From the first, ecclesiastical historians wrote as controver-
sialists and believers: as Jews seeking to prove the Torah older
than Homer or as Christians determined to prove the priority
of a doctrine or an institution. The genre's ends determined its
form: not the neat, classical prose of the political historians,
but a mixture of technical arguments and supporting docu-
ments, the latter quoted verbatim in the text proper. Docu-
ments performed two functions, each vital: they supported the
theses put forward by the author and they gave the reader a
distinct, vivid sense of what it had meant to be a faithful Jew
or a Christian in a distant and more difficult world.
Ecclesiastical history on the grand scale-like that produced
by Eusebius-required new working conditions. The historian,
instead of traveling the Mediterranean world to interview par-
ticipants in a great war, had to scour the world of books for
accounts of martyrs' deaths and heretics' ideas. Eusebius him-
self worked in the largest of early Christian libraries, in Cae-
sarea. Here he drew on thousands of well-catalogued volumes
collected by the earlier Christian scholar Origen and his own
teacher Pamphilus, who energetically developed the library. He
also made his own collections of the letters of Origen and the
"martyrdoms of the ancients."
13
Eusebius excerpted these ma-
terials lavishly, and for the most part accurately, in his Ecclesi-
12. See Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate, ed. A. Pelletier (Paris, 1962); W. Speyer,
Die literarische Falschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum (Munich, 1971).
13. H. Y. Gamble, Book.r and Reackrs in the Early Church (New Haven and
London, 1995), 154-160.
Ecclesiastical H istoriam and Antiquaries * 15 7
astical History.
14
But disagreements between Eusebius' prelim-
inary paraphrases of the texts he cited and the actual documents
suggest that secretaries played a major part in the day-to-day
work of compilation and composition.
15
A new form of history
had taken shape--Qne avowedly based on erudite research, and
sometimes so large in scale as to require collaboration.
This sort of history was preserved by Bede and others in the
Middle Ages. It revived in the Renaissance, when Lorenzo Valla
gave it a characteristically individual turn in his Declamation on
the Donation of Constantine. This diatribe explicitly quoted any
number of documents, if only in order to show how ridiculous
they were. Valla grafted the ecclesiastical historian's careful ci-
tation of documents onto the classical form of a polemical ora-
tion, with riotous results.
16
The methods of church historians
varied radically from period to period. Eugene Rice has shown,
in an exemplary study, how the life and works of St. Jerome
were treated over the centuries. In late antiquity and the Mid-
dle Ages, admirers equipped the saint with a pet lion, a won-
der-working name and relics, and a host of spurious works.
History served and supported spiritual needs. In the Renais-
sance, Trithemius, Erasmus, and others suppressed the lion,
14. See F. Winkelmann, "Probleme dec Zitate in den Werken dec ostrom-
ischen Kirchenhistoriker," Das Korpus dw Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller:
Historie, Gegenwart, Zukunft, ed. J. Irmscher and K. Treu, Texte und Untersu-
chungen I20 (Berlin, 1977), I95-207, summarized (so far as Eusebius is con-
cerned) in Winkelmann, Euseb von Kaisarea (Berlin, I991), I I I-I I2.
I5. T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., and London,
I98I), I4I. Cf. also B. Gustafsson, "Eusebius' Principles in Handling His
Sources, as Found in His 'Church History,' Books I-VII," Studia Patristica, IV,
Texte und Untersuchungen, 79 (Berlin, 196I), 429-441.
I6. On Valla's use of rhetorical categories for analytical purposes see C.
Ginzburg, "Aristotele, la scoria, la prova," Quaderni storici, 29 (I994), 5-17 at
12-I4; cf. Chapter 3 above.
exposed the fakes, and tried to set Jerome back into a richly
reconstructed historical context-though most of the artists of
the time, and many others, ignored them, seeing no need "to
distinguish respect for the scholar from veneration for the
saint."
17
In all its forms, however, ecclesiastical history re-
mained large in scale and tightly connected to the compiling
and study of documents.
The Reformation, finally, transformed church history, vastly
increasing the scale of intellectual and financial investment in
the discipline. This movement confronted the Catholic church
with a radical challenge, as historical as it was theological in
nature. From Luther on, Protestant theologians and polemicists
charged that the church had become corrupt in head and mem-
bers d u r i n ~ r tht, Middle A12:es. !,n doctrines and institutions.
laws and customs, rituals and prayers, they argued, the au--
thorities had eliminated or distorted the heritage of the early
church in order to exploit for profit the superstitious mass of
the !airy. One of the Reformers' early sympathizers, Ulrich
von Hutten, printed an edition of Valla's Declamation. Luther,
though himself less concerned with history than with theology,
read the treatise with fascinated incredulity, horrified that the
church had replaced the articles of the true Christian faith with
lies. Valla's attack on tradition helped to inspire Luther's radical
appeal To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.
18
Luther's
friend and partner Philipp Melanchthon gave their views new
currency in the heavily documented captions he wrote for Lucas
Cranach's Passional Christi und Antichristi, a short picture book
17. E. F. Rice, Jr., Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore and London,
198s), quotation at II3.
18. See G. Antonazzi, Lorenzo Valla e Ia polemica sulla donazione di Costantino
(Rome, 1985), 16I-164, I89-190.
which juxtaposed the life of Christ with that of Antichrist (the
pope). This graphic exposure of the conflicts between the Word
of God and the canon law, which included the Donation of
Constantine, went through many editions and inspired a vast
range of antipapal images.
19
In it the footnote melded with the
comic book, to the temporary enrichment of both.
Catholic intellectuals and reformers also turned to history.
Leo X and Clement VII replied to Hutten's edition ofValla by
commissioning Giulio Romano to paint spectacular frescoes of
the baptism and Donation of Constantine for the Sala di Cos-
tantino in the Vatican. These made full use of the most up-
to-date archaeological information of the period to confirm the
historical reality of Constantine's gift of lands and power to the
church.
20
Ignatius Loyola enjoined on his followers in the Jesuit
order the duty to defend the innovations of the medieval
church, from invocation of saints to creation of images, as ev-
idence of the continued intervention of God in the history of
His people. The past had become polemic. And the polemic
involved more than the truth about events in the distant past.
It also involved every aspect of the daily life of Christians in
the present. Catholic scholars, as Simon Ditchfield has shown,
devoted themselves to minute investigation of the lives of in-
dividual saints on a scale never seen before. They did so not
from abstract curiosity but in order to solve concrete problems
of liturgical practice. They had to verify-or falsify-the ex-
istence and deeds of saints who had been venerated for decades
19. L. Cranach and P. Melanchthon, Passional Christi und Antichristi (Wit-
tenberg, 152 1); see B. Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk (Cambridge, 1981;
rev. ed. Cambridge, 1994), 149-157
20. See Anronazzi, 161-162, and A. Chaste!, The Sack of Rome, 1527, tr. B.
Archer Brombert (Princeton, 1983).
or centuries in particular communities. By doing so they could
produce reliable breviaries and liturgies for priests in every di-
ocese. Local traditions were sometimes destroyed, but more of-
ten supported, by this exacting process of research and criti-
cism. Like the Protestant turn to the past, in short, Catholic
historiography of the church was motivated by powerful and
precise religious needs.
21
Vast learned compilations-above all the full-scale Protes-
tant treatment given in the Magdeburg Centuries of church his-
tory by Melanchthon's irritable enemy Flacius Illyricus, and
the Annates of the Catholic Cesare Baronio--joined Eusebius'
Church History on the dark oak shelves of scholarly libraries.
22
True, Flacius condemned Eusebius' church history, and those
of all Eusebius' imitators.
23
They concentrated on the wonder-
2 r. S. Ditchfield, Liturgy, Sanctity, and History in Tridmtine Italy (Cambridge,
1995).
22. The importance of ecclesiastical history as a mode of scholarly research
and writing was established by A. Momigliano, in "Pagan and Christian His-
toriography in the Fourth Century A.D.," Terzo contributo alia storia degli studi
classici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1966), I, 87-109 at 99-101; Momigliano em-
phasized the differences, as well as the similarities, between Christian ecclesi-
astical historiography and the Hellenistic-Jewish literature that preceded it. For
further discussion of the development of church history see H. Zimmermann,
E,lesia als Objekt der Historiographie, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten, Phil.-hist, Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 235,4 (Vienna, 196o); HistorischeKritik
in der Theologie, ed. G. Schwaiger (Gottingen, I 979); E. Cochrane, Historians and
Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago and London, 1981), chap. r6;
Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Berkeley, 1990),
chap. 6; B. Neveu, Erudition et religion aux xviie et xviiie siecles (Paris, 1994).
2 3 On Flacius' work see above all H. Scheible, Die Entstehung der Magdeburger
Zmturien, Schriften des Vereins fiir Reformationsgeschichte 183 (Giitersloh,
1966); a useful short account in English, with good documentation, is given
by 0. K. Olson, "Matthias Flacius Illyricus," Shapers of ReligioUJ Tradition in
Switzerland, and Poland, 1 56o-16oo, ed. ). Raitt (New Haven and
London, 1981), 1-17.
ful deeds of individuals instead of reconstructing the history of
church doctrines and institutions. By contrast, Flacius proposed
to show "not only what doctrines existed in the church in par-
ticular centuries, but also what ceremonies and songs, though
briefly, for all of these things are closely connected to one an-
other. "
24
In method, however, Flacius followed Eusebius closely,
envisioning his task, as his ancient predecessor had, as one of
research in written documents. By the early rssos, when he
began collecting texts written by the Waldensians and other
pre-Reformation heretics, he saw that a full history of the
church would require the work of a whole historical institute.
At first he hoped to find funding for a group of four: two readers
who would collect, excerpt, and organize the sources, a writer
who could put the results into eloquent Latin, and a

24. Flacius Illyricus to Philo Lotharius, 9 September 1555; Vienna, 6ster-
reichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 9737b, fols. 14 verso-15 recto: "Scribis cer-
emonialia et cantiones Ecclesiasticas nihil ad nos. Nos vero omnino cupimus
ostendere non tantum qualis doctrina singulis seculis in Ecclesia fuerit, sed
etiam quales ceremoniae et cantiones, tametsi breviter, nam ilia omnia inter sese
cohaerent connexaque sunt."
25. Flacius to Schuibermair, 1 October 1553, Vienna, 6sterreichische Na-
tionalbibliothek, MS 9737b, fol. 3 recto: "Erunt enim necessarii ut minimum
floreni vel taleri 500 annuatim in sexennium, quibus alantur quatuor homines,
unus qui style valeat et ea, quae scribenda erunt, scriptione complecratur, duo,
qui tanrum in inquisitione materiarum seu lectione occupentur, illique scriptori
materias iam paratas suppeditent, et quarcus, qui in describendo aliisque vi-
lioribus ministeriis huic conatui inserviat" ("We will need at least 500 florens
or talers a year for six years, to support four men. One of them must be a good
stylist, who will set down in prose what needs to be written. Two will concern
themselves only with the investigation or reading of the sources, and will supply
the writer with his materials, all prepared for him. And the fourth will serve
the project as a copyist and by carrying out other casks of little importance").
See also Flacius' Consultatio de conscribenda accurata historia ecdesitU, inK. Schot-
tenloher, PfalzgrafOttheinrich und das Buch (Munster i. W., 1927), 147-157 at
154
But over time Flacius came to see that many kinds of evidence
were directly relevant to his project. With his assistants, he
collected and catalogued trial records and oral testimonies, pop-
ular prophecies and printed broadsheets, as well as theological
treatises and histories.
26
By the time Flacius' team had actually
assembled the first weighty volume of the Centuries foe publi-
cation, seven young students were at work making the notes
for the two young Masters of Arts and the scribe who produced
the final text. A group of "inspectors" then checked every pas-
sage systematically. This enterprise proved costly-suspiciously
costly. Flacius and his friends soon found themselves fully oc-
cupied defending themselves against attacks from their fellow
Protestants. Justus Menius and others claimed that Flacius had
kept most of the money he collected for the work for himself,
paying the collaborators starvation wages, and that his proce-
dures for collecting sources included not only note-taking of
the normal kind, but also cutting pages from manuscripts with
the legendary culter flacianuJ (the "Flacian knife" became pro-
verbial).
27
Church history, in other words, spawned the first
26. For one study in Flacius" research methods, see K. Schottenloher, "Hand-
schriftenschiitze zu Regensburg im Dienste der Zenturiatoren,'" Zentralblatt fiir
Bibliothekswesen, 34 (1917), 65-82. Flacius and his secretary Marx Wagner com-
piled a very detailed guide to the sources, the Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel,
1566). On this see now T. Haye, "Der Catalogus testium veritatis des Matthias
Flacius Illyricus-Eine Einfiihrung in die Literatur des Mittelalters," Archiv fiir
Reformationsgeschichte, 8 3 ( 1992 ), 3 1-4 7, emphasizing Flacius' efforts to rely on
the oldest available sources and to pose and solve questions of authorship and
authenticity.
27. See De ecclesiastica historia quae Magdeburgi contexitur na"atio, contra Men-
ium et scholasticorum Wittebergensium epistolas. A gubernatoribus et operariis eius his-
toriae edita Magdeburgi. Cum responsione scholasticorum Witebergensium ad eandem
(Wittenberg, 1558) and Flacius Illyricus et al., Ecclesiastica historia (Basel, r 56o-
74), I, sig. P2 recto.
grant-supported historical research institute-and the first
charges that the grant money had been wasted. Through the
r 56os, as historians set out to produce polemical histories of
the Reformation in France, England, and elsewhere, formal and
informal networks carried the details of contemporary martyrs'
lives, views, and doctrines to the writers, like John Foxe, who
shaped them into modern equivalents of the acts of the ancient
martyrs.
28
Catholic church historians also collaborated to collect and
exchange the masses of information they needed. Masses of data
were gathered for the canonization proceedings, which began
again in 1588 after a lapse of sixty-three years, as the Catholic
church set out to mobilize its spiritual forces to combat Prot-
estantism and convert the heathen. By canon law, these pro-
ceedings required the mobilization and scrutiny of vast quan-
tities of eyewitness information. So did many other forms of
inquiry about the past-especially the large-scale research in
church history undertaken to refute Flacius, whose anti-Cath-
olic Centuries urgently required refutation.
29
Baronio, though
he liked to emphasize how hard he worked and to claim sole
authorship for his Annates, drew help from networks of scholars
in Rome and elsewhere. By the middle of the seventeenth cen-
tury, the Italian members of one order, the Oratory, had created
something like a peninsula-wide research institute for church
history.
30
Political historians prized pragmatic insight and high style
28. See B. Gregory, "The Anathema of Compromise: Christian Martyrdom
in Early Modem Europe" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1996).
29. J. L. de Orella y Unzue, Rerpuestas catfflicas a las Centurias de Magedeburgo
(1559-1588) (Madrid, 1976).
30. Ditchfield, chaps. 1o-12.
above all, even when they insisted on systematic collection and
collation of all the evidence. Ecclesiastical historians prized
learning. Janus Nicius Erythraeus shuddered, as he wrote his
life of Baronio, in awe not at Baronio's piety but at the sheer
excess of energy with which he had "collected an immense and
varied mass of materials, scattered through an almost infinite
number of books, mastered it all mentally, arrived at a judg-
ment about each point and finally committed it to writing in
a learned and precise way."
31
This assessment accurately re-
flected Baronio's view of his own work. In the preface to his
Annates he insisted that he had spent thirty years on research,
beginning as a mere youth, in the Vatican and other libraries.
He assured the reader that he had quoted the exact words of
his sources, however unattractive, rather than paraphrase them,
and that he had named them explicitly in marginal glosses.
32
Protestant scholars expended comparable energy on the gi-
gantic tasks of searching for and publishing the sources that
could prove that their supposed innovations were in fact res-
torations. Matthew Parker, an erudite Anglican Archbishop of
Canterbury, sent agents up and down the British Isles in search
of the manuscript remains of the medieval English church, in
Anglo-Saxon and in Latin: this head of the Church of England
pillaged cathedral libraries as ruthlessly as any invader. Unlike
many great patrons and collectors, Parker evidently read
through the treasures he assembled, marking his progress
31.]. N. Erythraeus, Pinacotheca imagirmm i//aJtrium (Leipzig, 1692), I, 88-
89: "ut infinitam vim rerum ac varietatem, per infinitos pene libros dissipatam
atque dispersam, colligeret, intelligentia comprehenderet, de unaquaque earum
judicaret, ac denique literis docte accurateque mandarit."'
32. C. Baronio, Annates I (Antwerp, 1589), Praefatio, 1-7 at 4
and 6. See S. Zen, Baronio Jtorico (Naples, 1994), esp. chaps. I-II.
through the margins of his precious manuscripts with his leg-
endary red chalk. He printed some of the new texts, and saw
to it that many other manuscripts were lodged in the library
of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Parker's secretary, John
Joscelyn, described his program eloquently:
Besides he was verie carefull and not without some charges to
seeke out the monumentes off foremer tymes to knowe the
religion off thancient fatheres and those especiallye which were
off the Englishe churche. Therfore in seekinge vpp the cronicles
off the Brittones and Inglishe Saxons which laye hidden euery
wheare contemned and buried in forgetfullnes and throwgh the
ignoraunce off the Languages not wei understanded, his owen
especially and his mens diligence wanted not. And to the ende
that these antiquities might last Ionge and be carefullye kept
he caused them being broughte into one place to be well
bounde and trymly couered. And yet not so contented he in-
deuored to sett out in printe certaine off those aunciente mon-
umentes whearoff he knew very fewe examples to be extante
and which he thoughte woulde be most profitable for the pos-
teryrye to instructe them in the faythe and religion off the
elders.
33
Complex, delicate networks of annotation identified matters of
historical or theological interest in Parker's manuscripts, and
later supplied the matter for the long printed glosses that
adorned the works he wrote or "inspired." These documents
amply confirm Joscelyn's account.
34
33 J. Joscelyn, The Life off the 70. Archbishopp of Canterbury prnentlye Sittinge
(London, 1574), sig. C1, quoted in M. McKisack, Medieval History in the Tlllior
Age (Oxford, 1971), 39 For Parker's program see in general ibid., chap. 2, and
A. J. Frantzen, Desire for Origins (New Brunswick and London, 1990), 43-46.
34 See the erudite if sometimes ill-tempered Sandars Lectures of R. I. Page,
Matthew Paf'ker and His Books (Kalamazoo, 1993).
Heavy documentation did nor confer--or imply-srricr ob-
jectivity. Parker, for example, employed expert scribes ro "im-
prove" his manuscripts by filling in their lacunae with new
leaves, their conrencs written in facsimiles of rhe original script.
When he published Bishop Asser's ninrh-cenrury life of King
Alfred, he tacitly changed rhe spelling and even rhe nonclass-
ical wording of rhe manuscript, now lost. He interpolated pas-
sages from another source, which he wrongly ascribed ro Asser,
into rhe rexr. And he actually had the whole work printed in
Anglo-Saxon rather rhan Larin rype, in homage ro "rhe ven-
erable antiquity of rhe original manuscript" --even though rhe
manuscript itself was written in a normal Larin book-hand,
Carolingian minuscule, while the special type he used imitated
a script used only for rhe vernacular language. He rhus suc-
ceeded in creating what looked and felt like a genuine an-
rique-bur only ar the expense of misrepresenting his actual
source.
35
Other Protestant scholars working on more recent ma-
terials performed similar forms of cosmetic surgery-as Foxe
did, for example, when he omitted evidence rhar might reveal
rhar rhe martyrs he celebrated had held views which did nor
accord with Protestant doctrine.
36
Catholic scholars also manipulated their evidence-some-
3 5. S. Hagedorn, "Matthew Parker and Asser's Aelfredi Regis Res Gestae,"
Princeton University Library Chronicle, 5 I (I989), 74-90.
36. Much work remains to be done on Foxe's use of his sources. For varying
perspectives see). A. F. Thomson, "John Foxe and Some Sources for l.ollard
History: Notes for a Critical Appraisal," Studies in Chuf'C"h History, II, ed. G.).
Cuming (Edinburgh, I965), 25I-257; P. Collinson, "Truth and Legend: The
Veracity of John Foxe's Book of Marryrs," Britain and the Netherlands, VIII, ed.
A. C. Duke and C. A. Tamse (Zutphen, I985), 3I-54; T. Freeman, "Notes on
a Source for John Foxe's Account of the Marian Persecution in Kent and Sussex,"
Historical Reseaf'C"h, 67 (I994), 203-2 I I; Gregory.
times very forcibly. The opening of the Roman catacombs, for
example, created not only new views of early Christian life and
art, but a spiritual gold rush. Powerful rulers and rich cities
throughout the Catholic world competed to obtain the bones
of martyrs for their churches. The Roman scholars in charge of
the catacombs complied. They assembled bones into skeletons
and assigned them names, assuming without much argument
that the inscriptions found near them confirmed their status as
martyrs as well as their identities. Official documents, adorned
with seals, confirmed each find. Retired officers of the pope's
Swiss Guard made a profession of obtaining these. Triumphal
processions, staged with vast pomp and great expense, installed
the tangible relics of early Christianity in churches throughout
the Catholic world. Church history came alive, after a fashion,
in a Dance of Death, inspiring worshippers and scholars every-
where-at some expense in standards of verification.
37
The con-
nection between the recovery of primary evidence about the
early church and the reform of devotional life in modern times
could hardly have been clearer.
In the seventeenth century, finally, the age of primitive ac-
cumulation of ecclesiastical learning gradually gave way to one
of analysis and investment. Catholic scholars waged bella di-
plomatica-"wars over documents"--as Bollandists and Bene-
dictines systematically debated about which archival docu-
ments were genuine, which Catholic institutions had a
historical foundation, and which saints had actually lived.
37 H. A.chermann, Die Katakombenhei/igen und ihre Tramlationen in der
schweizeri.rchen Quart rkr Bistums Komtanz, Beirrage zur Geschichte Nidwaldens
38 (Stans, 1979); T. Johnson, "Holy Fabrications: The Catacomb Saints and the
Counter-Reformation in Bavaria," journal of Ecclesiastical History, 47 (1996),
274-297
These conflicts spawned a whole range of modern technical
disciplines, from paleography to

Gibbon knew
this world of modern monastic learning intimately, contentedly
relying upon its products even though he did not try to emulate
the deep original documentary research of its creators. He re-
called with characteristic irony that in the r76os, when he
worked in the great Parisian libraries,
the view of so many Manuscripts of different ages and charac-
ters induced me to consult the two great Benedictine Works,
the Diplomatica of Mabillon, and the Palaeographica of Mont-
faucon. I studied the theory, without attaining the practise of
the art: nor should I complain of the intricacy of Greek abbre-
viations and Gothic alphabets since every day, in a familiar
language, I am at a loss to decypher the Hieroglyphics of a
female note. '
9
Ecclesiastical history, in other words, provided much of the
substance and the model of learned research which the Enlight-
ened historians fused with elegant narrative. Whether they
learned from the great Catholic editor and compiler Ludovico
Antonio Muratori or the Protestant historian of the early
church J. L. Mosheim, enlightened historians like Gibbon re-
vealed themselves as the incongruous disciples of the very holy
fathers whom they loved to mock. No one did more than Se-
bastian le Nain de Tillemont-the seventeenth-century Jan-
senist who piled up and analyzed all the documents that shed
38. See D. Knowles, Great Historical Enterprises: Problems in Monastic History
(Edinburgh, 1963), chaps. 1-2; G. Schwaiger, ed., Historische Kritik in tier Theo-
logie (Gottingen, 1980); B. Barret-Kriegel, Les historiens et Ia monarchie (Paris,
1988), II, pt. 2, and III, pt. 1.
39 E. Gibbon, Memoirs of My Life, ed. G. A. Bonnard (New York,
I 31.
EcclesiaJtical HiJtoriam and Antiquaries * 169
light on the history of the Roman Empire and the church-to
assemble the raw materials from which Gibbon reared the great
neoclassical country house and witty gazebos of the Decline and
Fall.
40
Gibbon found it "much better" to study the history of
the later emperors "in so learned and exact a compilation than
in the originals, who have neither method, acuracy, eloquence,
or Chronology. "
41
Even Eusebius, for whom he had little re-
spect, provided him with such vital materials as the list of all
the inhabitants of Alexandria "entitled to receive the distri-
bution of com"-as well as with his famous joke about Origen
and literal interpretation.
42
The literature of ecclesiastical history had more to teach than
the simple need for documentation, moreover: it explicitly in-
sisted on the importance of repositories and the supreme value
of the primary source. Already in antiquity some historians had
discovered the pleasures of the archive.
43
Josephus, the Jewish
leader who went over to the Romans during the terrible Ro-
man-Jewish war of C.E. 70 and spent the rest of his life writing
40. On the Jansenist erudition of the seventeenth century see Neveu; on
Tillemont see Neveu's classic earlier study, U n histurien a I' kole de Pm-Royal (The
Hague, 1966).
41. Gibbon's journal to january 28th, 1763, ed. D. M. Low (New York, n.d.),
163.
42. E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chap. xo; ed. D. Womersley (London, 1994), I, 294; chap. 15, n. 96: "Eusebius,
- LvUI. Before the tame ofOrigen hiu:l excited envy arid persecution," this extraor-
dinary action was rather admired than censured." Gibbon refers to Eusebius,
Histuria ecclesiastica 6.8.1-2, where Origen is censured for taking Jesus in too
literal a sense. Cf. Chapter I above, n. 7.
43 For a useful review of the development and use of ancient archives see
Reallexikon fiir Antike und Christentum, s. v. Archiv, by K. Gross; on Greek archives
cf., however, R. Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge,
I 992), chap. 7. On Roman archives see La mbmJire perdue: a Ia recherche de.r archives
oubliles, publiques et privies, de Rome, ed. C. Nicolet (Paris, 1994).
the history of his people, used numerous archival documents
to show that the Greek scholar Apion and the Egyptian Ma-
netho had slandered the Jews. Some of these texts Josephus
simply read, already translated, in earlier Greek works now lost.
Others, however, he claimed to have found in the archives of
real cities. More than once he cited Tyrian documents which
reached back a thousand years before his time.
44
Josephus made
clear to every reader that these documents deserved belief be-
cause they were preserved by priests, rather than mere histo-
rians, in public places. He also argued, cleverly, that a docu-
ment written by an enemy of the Jews which nonetheless
sustained Jewish claims deserved particular credence and re-
spect.45 The Christian Eusebius, though less articulate about
his method, also claimed to use materials from official collec-
tions and in foreign languages-like the notorious correspon-
dence between Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa, which he sup-
posedly found in the archives of that city}
6
The power of these
claims-and the scholarly reasoning that underpinned them-
should not be underestimated, even if the curious nature of the
documents that Jewish and Christian scholars cited so profusely
has sometimes made their discipline seem a source of critical
problems rather than of methods for solving them. Annius of
Viterbo--whom we met in the last chapter, happily forging
the lost historians of the ancient world-learned from Josephus
to claim that his writers deserved more credence than the
44 See Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.73, ro6-r27, and Antiq11itates 8.5o-55
and elsewhere. The nature of these archives has been much discussed: see e.g.
F. Millar, "The Phoenician Cities: A Case Study in Hellenization," Proceedings of

of History (New Haven and London, 1983), 195-199
45 Josephus, Contra Apionem r.6-18, 28-29, 69-74, 143
46. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.135-21. Eusebius remarks that "there
is nothing like hearing" the original texts themselves.
Greeks because they were priests who had kept official records
over the centuries. Kircher's bravura publication of new Chi-
nese documents fits cosily into this millennia! tradition-and
illustrates its weaknesses as well as its strengths. Chapters I 5
and I 6 of the Decline and Fall show how intimately Gibbon
knew both-the former as embodied in Eusebius, the latter in
Mosheim.
Kircher also worked within a second learned tradition that
emphasized the explicit citation and analysis of historical evi-
dence. In the I 64os, he excavated a fallen obelisk in the Appian
Way outside Rome. This, he held, was only one of many Egyp-
tian relics that contained the traces of an ancient natural phi-
losophy and metaphysics. These still had profound truths to
offer the modern, Christian intellectual. He devised an elabo-
rate interpretation of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the ob-
elisk, one largely based on his reading of the forged Egyptian
dialogues in Greek ascribed to the legendary Hermes Trisme-
gistus. The references to these and other texts Kircher supplied,
in precise, clipped marginal glosses (he quoted works in many
languages within the text as well)Y Kircher insisted that he
had used only the oldest and most genuine sources to recon-
struct and reconnect the links of the broken chain of Egyptian
wisdom.
48
In practice, Kircher did not cite all relevant ancient texts or
47 A. Kircher, Oheliscus Pamphilius (Rome, r65o), esp. book V, 391-56o;
cf. his Prodromus Coptus sive Aegyptiacus (Rome, 1 636), Oedipus Aegyptiacus (Rome,
1652-54), and Sphinx Mystagoga (Amsterdam, 1676).
48. Kircher, Oheliscus Pamphilius, 391: ''Lector vero ipso facto comperiet: Non
me solis coniecturis, ut quidam sibi imaginari possent, indulsisse, sed ex ve-
terum probatissimorum authorum monumentis, doctrinam hanc Aegyptiorum
depromptam, ita, ni fallor, me feliciter combinasse, ita successu temporum dis-
sipatam connexuisse; ut vel inde catenam illam hieroglyphici contextus hue-
usque desideratam restituisse videamur."
give full accounts of all the modern arguments he denied. To
use the dialogues of Hermes Trismegistus as sources for the
wisdom of ancient Egypt, he had to refute the thesis of the
Calvinist scholar Isaac Casaubon and others that the texts in
question were late Greek forgeries. The chapter Kircher dedi-
cated to this question began with a powerful defense of tradi-
tion against certain iconoclasts who, he said, hoped to build
themselves great reputations by destroying the credit of texts
long considered genuine. But he neither presented Casaubon's
argument in detail nor dealt with the massive linguistic docu-
mentation Casaubon had compiled to show that the texts in
question could not be the antiques Kircher thought them.
49
But Kircher produced an apparatus more dramatic than any
imaginable set of glosses. He reassembled the obelisk's shat-
tered inscriptions, determining that not a single piece had been
49 Ibid., 3 5-44. See esp. 3 5: "Ita quibusdam ingeniis a natura com para rum
est, ut iis potissimum rebus, quae Iongo secuJocum ordine a quibusvis doctis-
simis authoribus in pretio et aestimatione fuerunt, suamque authoritatem so-
lidissima doctrina hucusque sine violentia sustinuerunt, expungendis, infrin-
gendis, penitusque abolendis operam impendant; quo quidem nihil aliud pro
scopo habere videntur, nisi ut doccrinam tot insignium graviumque virocum
aestimatione partam prorsus aboleant, aliosque hoc pacto omnium praeterito-
rum temporum scriptores coecos fuisse, severo solos Aristarchos illud autos epha
sollicitius ambiences, insolenti sane et intolerabili ostentatione, mundo vendi-
tent" ("Some minds are so constituted by nature that they spend all their efforts
on expunging, attacking, and wholly abolishing the very things which all the
most learned authors have esteemed from time immemorial, and whose au-
thority they have supported with wholesome learning, and up to now without
violence. They seem to have no other goal in this than to abolish entirely a
doctrine supported by so many outstanding and serious men. And they convince
the world that other writers were blind with regard to past time, and they are
the only Aristarchuses. They make heavy use of that well-known phrase 'he said
it,' showing an arrogant and unbearable ostentation"). For the criticisms Kircher
did not rebut see A. Grafton, Defenders of the Text (Cambridge, Mass., and Lon-
don, I99I), chaps. 5-6. .
Ecclesiastical Historians and Antiquaries * 17 3
lost, and had them reproduced in whole and in part in his book.
Unfonunately, Kircher, like many antiquaries, saw visual evi-
dence through a veil of verbal testimonies. The artists he used
found it impossible to reproduce Egyptian images without in-
troducing Western conventions that distoned them. Worse
still, Kircher himself sometimes based his interpretations on
faulty older images of Roman obelisks, rather than on the
monuments themselves. His quotations of visual evidence, ac-
cordingly, hardly served as a preventive against errors in re-
porting the data-much less against errors in analyzing them.
50
Nonetheless, Kircher's books were always visually stunning;
and this time he managed to place the monument itself on
public view. In the center of that elliptical symphony in orange
and yellow, the Piazza Navona, the Roman crowds still swirl
around Bernini's fountain, with its statues of the four rivers of
the world. The figures bear the obelisk Kircher had dug up.
Inscriptions below the shaft in elegantly cut Latin make clear
how erudite passers-by should interpret this "Hermetic obe-
lisk." Even Kircher's splendid Egyptological folios must yield
in beauty to the setting he helped to create for the original
document: it makes perhaps the most impressive, and cenainly
the most bewitching, piece justificative placed on display to sup-
pon the bold theses of Renaissance archaeology.
51
Like Kircher's Sinology, his Egyptology fell within the
50. See H. Whitehouse, "Towards a Kind of Egyptology: The Graphic Docu-
mentation of Ancient Egypt, 1587-1666," in Documentary Culture: Florence and
Rome from Grand-Duke Ferdinand I to Pope Alexander VII, ed. E. Cropper et al.
(Bologna, 1992), 62-79; for the context see F. Haskell, History and Its Images
(New Haven and London, 1994).
5 r. See E. Iversen, The Myth of Egypt and Its Hieroglyphs in European Tradition
(Copenhagen, 1963; repr. Princeton, 1993) and Obelisks in Exile, 1: The Obelisks
of Rome (Copenhagen, 1 968).
boundaries of a recognizable historical tradition. For critical,
document-based history was by no means confined to the world
of Jewish and Christian polemicists, Benedictines and Jesuits.
By the fifth century B.C.E. at the latest, Greek intellectuals had
begun not only to write narrative histories of great events, but
also to produce historical monographs in which they discussed
technical problems. Roman scholars followed suit in the first
century B.C.E. and after. Such scholars, traditionally known as
antiquaries, attacked an immense range of subjects. They tried
to establish the precise dates on which major historical events
had happened. They reconstructed the religious practices and
political institutions, public rituals and private lives of their
ancestors. Men like Varro, who wrote on the whole Life of the
Roman People he belonged to, were the intellectual ancestors of
those legendarily broad-gauged social and cultural historians
who flourished in twentieth-century Strasbourg and Paris, Marc
Bloch and Lucien Febvre.
52
It is not easy to say what ancient antiquarian books looked
52. The classic survey of this literature is still A. Momigliano, "Ancient
History and the Antiquarian," Contributo alia storia degli studi classici (Rome,
1955); see also his treatment of this material in his ClaJJical Foundations of
Modern Historiography (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1990), chap. 3 For
recent discussions see Cochrane, Historiam and Historiography, chap. 1 5; H.
Wrede, "Die Entstehung der Archiiologie und das Einsetzen der neuzeitlichen
Geschichtsbetrachtung,"' Geschichtsdiskurs, ed. W. Kiittler, ]. Riisen, and E.
Schulin, II: Anfange modernen historischen Denken.r (Frankfurt a. M., 1994), 95-
1 19; W. Weber, "Zur Bedeutung des Antiquarianismus fUr die Entwicklung
der modernen Geschichtswissenschaft," ibid., 12o-135; M. Daly Davis, Ar-
chiiologie tier Antike (Wolfenbiittel, 1992); L'Anticomanie: La collection d'antiquitiJ
aux rBe et 19e si<es, ed. A.-F. Laurens and K. Pomian (Paris, 1992); Ancient
History and the Antiquarian: Essays in Memory of Arna/do Momigliano, ed. M. H.
Crawford and C. R. Ligota (London, 1995).
Ecclesiastical Historians and Antiquaries * 17 5
like, since very little of this learned literature has survived ex-
cept in the form of quotations or epitomes. But it seems almost
certain that it included not only coherent texts, but also con-
siderable amounts of primary source material. A direct interest
in documentary sources did not establish itself at once. Herod-
otus saw oral testimony rather than written documents as the
core of the traditions he reported--an attitude which helps to
explain the numerous errors and inconsistencies in his accounts
of the inscriptions and objects he supposedly saw in Greece and
Egypt. H Thucydides also saw no reason to report the exact
wording of the treaties and other documents he cited. He may
well have regarded his quotations of them as summaries, not
meant to be more literally accurate than the speeches he ret-
rospectively composed for his

By the fourth cen-
tury B.C.E. at the latest, however, scholars began to work sys-
tematically on written records. One example is provided by the
work, now largely lost, of Krateros of Macedon, a student of
Athenian history who probably had connections with Aristotle.
The great philosopher was also, as is well known, a great
scholar. He collected historical and legal texts from the whole
Greek world in order to carry out his comparative studies of
societies and constitutions. Krateros, seemingly, applied a simi-
lar empirical method to the study of Athenian history. In order
to establish the truth about debated points of history and chro-
nology, he went to the Athenian archives in the Metroon and
53 S. West, "'Herodotus' Epigraphical Interests," Classical Quarterly, n.s. 35
(1985), 278-305: "His epigraphical studies apppear to have been more for
ornament than for use" (303).
54 See 0. Luschnat in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, RE, Supplementband 12
(Stuttgart, 1970), 1 124-32.
copied out the inscriptions recording the public decisions of
the Athenian people and other texts.
55
Plutarch, who wrote his
lives of the great Athenian leaders some centuries after Kra-
teros, cited him twice. Once he drew a document "from among
the decrees that Krateros collected" to refute another historian,
Kallisthenes; once he attacked an assertion of Krateros himself,
remarking that the earlier historian had cited no "written
evidence, though he usually records such things with the
proper fullness and cites those who support his account. "
56
The
two citations differ in tone but coincide in suggesting that
Krateros wrote something like a document-based, meticulously
detailed work of history, unlike any of the surviving texts-
though precise conclusions can hardly be drawn, given the frag-
mentary nature of the texts and the fact that Plutarch may not
have used Krateros directly. For the same reason, debate con-
tinues to swirl about the local historians of Athens, or Atthi-
dographers, who may have carried out research on similar lines.
The antiquarian genre sprouted new buds in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries and bloomed outrageously in the six-
teenth and seventeenth. Scholars scoured the cities and coun-
tryside of Europe for Greek and Roman inscriptions, which
they assembled in notebooks and, from the early sixteenth cen-
tury on, published in more or less faithfully printed collections.
Carlo Sigonio, Onofrio Panvinio, and others restructured the
whole chronological spine of Roman history on the basis of the
55 The texts are collected and discussed by F. Jacoby in FtGrHist 342; cf.
M. Chambers in CiaJsical Philology, 52 (1957), 130-132.
56. The passages are respectively Kimon 13.5 (FrGrHist 342 F 13) and Ar-
istide.r 26.4 (FtGrHist 342 F 12). Jacoby understands Plutarch as saying that
Krateros normally cited previous authors-not rhe stone. monuments them-
selves.
Jasti, or inscriptions, found in the r 540s in the Roman Forum.
These were reassembled, by no less an artist than Michelangelo,
in the Palazzo dei Conservatori.
57
The Roman constitution and
the Athenian calendar, Roman wedding ceremonies and Byz-
antine military customs, became the subject of detailed, sys-
tematic analysis. The calipers and the engraver's burin joined
the pen in the scholar's toolbox. Antiquaries not only read texts
but weighed and measured ancient coins, excavated and illus-
trated ancient buildings and statues, and tried to recover the
look of ancient objects, from arms and armor to the cross on
which Jesus had died. The most adventurous of them followed
the example set by Cristoforo Buondelmonti and Cyriac of An-
cona, braving the pirates of the Mediterranean and the diffi-
culties of living in Muslim regions to explore Greek ruins in
Athens and elsewhere.
58
Others reconstructed the history of
medieval Europe, editing and assessing chronicles and begin-
ning to sound the depths of national and local archives. 5
9
Cab-
'57 See R. Weiss, The Renaissance Discrwery of Classical Antiquity (Oxford,
1988); E. Mandowsky and C. Mitchell, Pi"o Ligorio's Roman Antiquities (London,
1963); PimJ Ligorio, ed. R. W. Gaston (Florence, 1988); W. McCuaig, Carlo
Sigonio (Princeton, 1989); McCuaig, "The Fasti Capitolini and the Study of Ro-
man Chronology in the Sixteenth Century," Athenaeum, 79 (1991), 141-159;
Antonio Agustin between Renaissance and Counter-Reform, ed. M. H. Crawford (Lon-
don, 1993); J.-L. Ferracy, Onofrio Panvinio et les antiquitls romaines (Rome, 1996).
58. See C. Bodnar, Cyriacus of Ancona and Athens (Brussels/Berchem, 196o);
P. W. Lehmann and K. Lehmann, Samothracian Refkctions (Princeton, r 97 3);
P. W. Lehm.ann, Cyriacus of Ancona's Egyptian Visit and Its Rejkctions in Gentile
Bellini and Hieronymus Bosch (Locust Valley, N.Y., 1977).
'59 For a particularly elaborate example of critical use of sources see A. de
Valois, Rerum Francicarum usque ad Clotharii Senioris mortem libri viii (Paris, 1646-
1658); de Valois emphasizes that he has preferred older sources to new, and
multiple witnesses to isolated ones (1, sig. e ii verso); also that he has tried to
read all relevant sources and cite by name all those on which he has drawn ([e
iv verso}). In volume II, he explained why his ~ o r k had taken so long-and in
inets of antiquities and Kunst- und Wunderkammern offered their
learned visitors neat assortments of coins and long rows of an-
cient statues and inscriptions. Their habitues often developed
visual sensibilities as acute as their formidable verbal learning.
The Mediterranean academies and palaces where French and
Italian antiquaries compiled and debated became the setting
for an intellectual adventure. The interdisciplinary and collab-
orative methods of antiquarianism enlivened the curricula of
many universities, especially in the Holy Roman Empire and
Scandinavia.
60
doing so offered what might serve as the antiquaries' credo: "Caussa morae
diligentia fuit. Statueram enim auctoribus quam emendatissimis uti. Quare
undique exemplaria scripta et antiquos codices membranasque conquisivi: qua
ratione plurima me observaturum incognita maioribus nostris, plurimos errores
vitaturum videbam" ("Diligence was the cause of my delay. For I had decided
to use the authors in as correct as possible a state. Therefore I searched every-
where for manuscripts and ancient codices and parchments. By doing so I saw
that I would both notice many points unknown to our predecessors and avoid
many errors") (II, a iii verso). For the rise of archival scholarship in England,
see esp. English Historical Scholarship in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed.
L. Fox (London and New York, 1956).
6o. On antiquarian practice see further M. Wegner, A/tertum.rkunde(Freiburg
and Munich, 1951); A. Ellenius, De arte pingendi (Uppsala and Stockholm,
196o); P. Fuchs, Palatinatus illustratus (Mannheim, 1963); Barret-Kriegel, III,
pt. 2; Medals and Coins from Budl to Momm.ren, ed. M. H. Crawford, C. R. Ligota,
and J. B. Trapp (London, 1990); Documentary Culture, ed. Cropper et al. On the
teaching of antiquities see the case studies of H. Kappner, Die Geschichtswissen-
schaft an der Universitiit Jena vom Humanismus bis zur Aufk/iirung, Zeitschrift des
Vereins fiir Thuringische Geschichte und Altertum.rkunde, Neue Folge, Supplement 14:
Beitriige zur Geschichte der Universitiit Jena, 3 ( J ~ n a , 1931); L. Hiller, Die Ges-
chichtswissenschaft an der Universitiit jena in der Zeit der Polyhistorie (I 67 4-176 3),
Zeitschrift des Vereins fiir Thuringische Geschichte und Altertum.rkunde, Neue Folge,
Supplement 14: Beitriige zur Geschichte der Universitiit jena, 6 (Jena, 1937); G.
Wirrh, Die Entwicklung der A/ten Geschichte an der Philipps-Universitiit Marburg,
Academia Marburgensis, vol. II (Marburg, 1977); 0. Klindt-Jensen, A History
of Scandinavian Archaeology (London, 1975), chaps. 2-3; G. Parry, The Trophies
of Time (Oxford, 1995). .
Most of the crucial works in this tradition-like Justus Lip-
sius' brilliant manual De militia Romana, which played a central
role not only in the study of Roman history but also in the
creation of the first modern armies-were more systematic than
chronological in organization. All of them cited their author-
ities lavishly. Lipsius, for example, built his account of the Ro-
man army around the relevant sections of the Greek text of
book VI of Polybius' history of Rome, which he translated and
analyzed in an extensive commentary.
61
He thus taught a for-
midable lesson in the importance of using primary sources. So,
even more directly, did the seventeenth- and eighteenth-cen-
tury antiquaries who collected medieval historical and legal
texts in vast folios that remain essential parts of any working
though most of these editors found the
texts themselves, considered as literature, impoverished. Most
excused, rather than praised, themselves for printing such un-
pleasant but indispensable sources.
Many antiquaries insisted on the importance of full bibli-
ographies, precise citations, and exact transcripts (often their
practices did not quite live up to their precepts).
62
The basic
tools of their trade, moreover, made them highly conscious of
the importance of seeing their evidence at first hand. Collectors
of Greek and Roman inscriptions took care to tell their readers
who had seen a particular object, and in what conditions. This
61. J. Lipsius, De militia Romana libri sex (Leiden, 1596). See A. Momigliano,
"Polybius between the English and the Turks,'" Sesto Contf'ibuto alia stOf'ia degli
studi classici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1980), I, 125-141.
62. See e.g. C. R. Cheney, "Introduction: The Dugdale Tercentenary,'" English
Historical Scho/a,.ship, ed. Fox, 1-9 at 8; H. A. Cronne, "The Study and Use of
Charters by English Scholars in the Seventeenth Century: Sir Henry Spelman
and Sir William Dugdale," ibid., 73-91 at 89-90. For similar statements in a
German context, see W. Ernst, "Antiquarianismus und Modemirat: eine histo-
rische Verlustbilanz," GeschichtsdiskNf's, ed. Kuttler et al., II, 136-147 at 140.
practice became normal in the fifteenth century, when human-
ist collectors of inscriptions gave precise indications of where
they had found each stone. These romantic archaeologists in-
cluded Mt. Olympus among the sites they had supposedly vis-
ited, and some of them freely supplemented the headless statues
and incomplete inscriptions that they
Over
time, however, epigraphy lost most of its imaginative element.
Registration of sites and conditions became increasingly pre-
cise--even to the point where archaeologists recorded uncer-
tainties when necessary. Janus Gruter, the German antiquary
who produced the seventeenth century's standard epigraphic
corpus, reported that his predecessor Henricus Smetius had ex-
amined a set of ancient weights in the collection of Achille
Maffei at Rome in I 5 62. In many other cases, Gruter could
state only that Smetius had "seen" a given object himself, no
one knew where. Where possible, documents were simply re-
produced. To clarify the nature and use of a bronze abacus from
Markus Welser's collection, Gruter wrote, "nothing prevents
us from hearing his own clear words"-which he promptly
quoted.
64
Like natural historians, antiquaries eagerly assembled
specimens: many prominent intellectuals, like Ulisse Aldro-
vandi of Bologna and Kircher, practised both disciplines, col-
lecting ancient weapons and inscriptions as well as narwhal
horns and curious flowers in their museums. Like the natural
historians, the antiquaries assembled albums of drawings and
arranged for the creation of elaborate series of prints to preserve
uncollectable details like the arrangement of outdoor sites.
65
A
63. See C. Mitchell, "Archaeology and Romance in Renaissance Italy," Italian
Renaissance Studies, ed. E. F. Jacob (London, 1960), 455-483.
64. lnscriptionum Romanarum corpus absolutissimum, ed.). Gruter (Heidelberg,
r6r6), ccxxi, ccxxiv.
65. G. Olmi, L'inventario del mondo (Bologna, 1992); I. Herklotz, "Das Museo
profusion of evidence and a clear set of standards for using it
gave antiquaries across Europe a basis for precise discussion of
a vast range of problems in ancient history.
Antiquarian controversy was not eliminated by these meth-
odological refinements. Instead it came to revolve around an
interestingly sophisticated version of the old question "Button,
button, who's got the button?"-"Evidence, evidence, who can
cite the first-hand evidence?" When Ralph Brooke, York Her-
ald and antiquary, set out to discredit his new colleague Wil-
liam Camden, formerly the headmaster of Winchester School,
he quoted both documents and monuments in order to show
that Camden should have remained in his "inferior province of
boy-beating." Camden, who used the material evidence of
Queen Philippa's tomb in his defense of his Britannia, retorted
that this primary source provided ocular proof of his theory:
"Let him goe to the tombe," he urged his adversary, "lett him
looke upon it." "I have been to see," Brooke replied, and noted
that Camden had "untruly reported" the arms he claimed to
have found.
66
For all his learning, Camden was not above citing
the occasional dubious text-like the passage, supposedly from
Asser, describing the early history of Oxford, which he printed
in r6o3 even though he knew that the antiquary Henry ("Long
Harry") Savile of Banke had very likely forged it.
67
Similar
cartacefJ des Cassiano dal Pozzo und seine Stellung in dec antiquarischen Wis-
senschaft des q. Jahrhunderts," Documentary Culture: Florence and ROf!U from
Grand-Duke Ferdinand I to Pope Alexander VII, ed. E. Cropper et al. (Bologna,
1992), 81-125; and Findlen.
66. T. D. Kendrick, British Antiquity (London, 1950), 152-155.
67. See]. Parker, The Early History of Oxford, 727-IIOO (Oxford, r885), 4o-
47; S. Gibson, "Brian Twyne," Oxrmiensia, 5 (1940), 94-114 at 98---99. Cf. the
case of John Selden, whose erudite and polemical antiquarian works swarmed
with quotations from documents, and who reacted with special fury to the
suggestion that he had misquoted or misrepresented documents (as he some-
controversies and arguments filled the Latinate pages of con-
tinental antiquarian literature.
68
No one negotiated the biblio-
graphical and moral minefields of this brand of scholarship
more expertly than the great philosopher Leibniz-who not
only proved by metaphysical argument that he was living in
the best of all possible worlds, but also proved by extensive
archival research and the publication of any number of texts
that his patrons, the house of Braunschweig-Liineburg, could
boast of the best of all possible genealogies.
69
Gibbon and his colleagues could thus draw, for models of
source-criticism and source-citation, on a tradition of secular
scholarship that ran back to the Renaissance and before.
70
True,
Gibbon did not accord all antiquarians equal respect. The fan-
tastic speculations of carnivalesque chronologists like Kircher,
who rewrote the entire history of the ancient world to suit their
neo-Platonic or patriotic tastes, left him as cold as the fanati-
cism and credulity of hagiographers. He withered the bright
buds of their imaginative recreations of the past with one Arctic
blast of neoclassical contempt:
The last century abounded with antiquarians of profound learn-
ing and easy faith, who, by the dim light of legends and
traditions, of conjectures and etymologies, conducted the great
grandchildren of Noah from the Tower of Babel to the extrem-
rimes had). He too sometimes relied on forgeries, or took !are sources as au-
thoritative for periods long before their own dates. See D. Woolf, The Idea of
HiJtory in Early Stuart England (Toronto, Buffalo, and London, 1990), chap. 7
68. For a particularly rich case study see J. Levine, Dr. Woodwards Shield
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1977).
69. H. Eckert, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz' ScriptoreJ Rerum Brumvicemium. Ent-
Jtehung und hiJtoriographiJche Bedeutung (Frankfurt a. M., 197 I).
70. Momigliano, ClaJJical Foundatiom of Modern HiJtoriography, chap. 3 See
also Fuchs, PalatinatuJ illuJtratuJ.
EcclesiaJtical HiJtoriam and Antiquaries * 183
ities of the globe. Of these judicious critics, one of the most
entertaining was Olaus Rudbeck, professor in the university of
Upsal. Whatever is celebrated either in history or fable, this
zealous patriot ascribes to his country. From Sweden (which
formed so considerable a part of ancient Germany) the Greeks
themselves derived their alphabetical characters, their astron-
omy, and their religion. Of that delightful region (for such it
appeared to the eye of a native) the Atlantis of Plato, the coun-
try of the Hyperboreans, the gardens of the Hesperides, the
Fortunate Islands, and even the Elysian Fields, were all but
faint and imperfect transcripts. A dime so profusely favoured
by Nature, could not long remain desert after the flood. The
learned Rudbeck allows the family of Noah a few years to mul-
tiply from eight to about twenty thou,sand persons. He then
disperses them into small colonies to replenish the earth, and
to propagate the human species. The German or Swedish de-
tachment (which marched, if I am not mistaken, under the
command of Askenaz the son of Gomer, the son of Japhet)
distinguished itself by a more than common diligence in the
prosecution of this great work. The northern hive cast its
swarms over the greatest part of Europe, Mrica, and Asia; and
(to use the author's metaphor) the blood circulated from the
extremities to the heart.
71
Contempt oozes from every sentence of this paraphrase: no
reader will be brought up short by Gibbon's caustic comment
that "all this well-laboured system of German antiquities is
annihilated by a single fact." Gibbon felt amused, not stimu-
lated, when contemplating the wild efforts of the too learned
71. Gibbon, History, chap. 9; ed. Womersley, I, 234. For modern treatments
of Rudbeck's theory see P. Vidal-Naquet, 'TAdantide et les nations," La di-
mocratie grecque vue d'ail/eurs (Paris, 1990), 139-161, esp. 152-154, and G. Er-
iksson, The Atlantic Vision: 0/aus Rudbeck and Baroque Science (Canton, Mass.,
1994).
Jesuit Jean Hardouin to prove, on the basis of the incontestable
evidence of coins, that virtually the entire corpus of classical
literature consisted of forgeries. In his discussion of whether St.
Peter actually visited Rome, Gibbon listed opinions pro and
contra in a footnote. He made his own view clear by the simple
expedient of summarizing Hardouin's theory: "According to
father Hardouin, the monks of the thirteenth century, who
composed the Aeneid, represented St. Peter under the allegor-
ical character of the Trojan hero. "
72
In general, moreover, Gibbon showed little tolerance for
many of the most characteristic features of antiquarian litera-
ture. He ridiculed efforts to tie the histories of divergent
nations together by identifying common cultural and religious
traits. Comparative ethnology could explain such evidence far
more plausibly than speculative philology: "Much learned tri-
fling might be spared, if our antiquarians would condescend to
reflect, that similar manners will naturally be produced by
similar situations. "
73
Pedantry always repelled Gibbon--espe-
cially when exhibited in support of what he saw as wild hy-
potheses. He deplored the tendency of even the most learned
antiquarians to enter into far more detail than their readers
could desire or their sources could supply. Scholarly efforts to
reconstruct "the religious system of the Germans (if the wild
opinions of savages can deserve that name)" he dismissed with
a characteristically cutting parallel sentence: "Tacitus has em-
ployed a few lines, and Cluverius one hundred and twenty-four
pages, on this obscure subject."
74
These and other critical re-
72. Gibbon, HiJtory, chap. 15, n. 122; eel. Womersley, I, 489.
73 Ibid., chap. 9, n. 71; I, 247.
74 Ibid., chap. 9, n. 62, I, 245.
Ecclesiastical Historiam and Antiquaries * 185
marks make clear that Gibbon regarded the older, Latin
literature of antiquarianism with considerable ambivalence.
Still, the antiquaries taught Gibbon much. Their minute
care in citation gave him a model of careful scholarship and
close attention to the location and quality of sources. A habitue
not only of libraries but of the antiquarian collections of the
Continent, he knew their precision and erudition at first hand.
In May 1764, the learned savant Giuseppe Bartoli, a model of
orderliness and "politesse," showed Gibbon through the royal
Cabinet of Antiquities at Turin. Though "un peu Charlatan,"
he proved able to use monuments and texts in conjunction with
a deftness which impressed his visitor. Gibbon took a special
interest in the thirty-volume collection of antiquities on paper
assembled by the sixteenth-century Roman antiquary Pirro Li-
gorio. He knew that many scholars had criticized Ligorio, an
artist and architect rather than a humanist, "for a lack of faith-
fulness, and for inventing monuments that he did not know."
But as Gibbon read, he found in the manuscripts
evidences of candor, which predispose me to view him with
some favor. I see a man who often doubts if he has read correctly,
who leaves gross errors in the monuments, only using a sic to
show that he had noticed them, and who leaves blank spaces
which he could easily have filled in. I may also add that he was
only a compiler and had no system, the interests of which he
had to serve. He often cites the city, the house and the cabinet
from which he took a given piece.
7'5 Gibbon's journey from Gemva to Rome. His journal from 20 April to 2 October
1764, ed. G. A. Bonnard (Edinburgh, 1961), 21-31 at 29: "I.e reproche qu"on
a toujours fait a Ligorio c'est le defaut de et d'avoir des mon-
umens qu'il ne connoissoit point. Cependant j'y ai V1l des traits de candeur qui
me previennent en sa faveur. Je vois un homme qui doute souvent s'il a bien
More erudite antiquaries showed Gibbon how to cut up clas-
sical texts, turning them into collections of facts about social
and cultural history. He acted as their faithful disciple, not their
scathing critic, when he remarked that "Ovid employs two
hundred lines in the research of places the most favourable to
love. Above all, he considers the theatre as the best adapted to
collect the beauties of Rome, and to melt them into tenderness
and sensuality."
76
And in the antiquarian collections of the
eighteenth century, mostly written in French and usually char-
acterized by an elegant economy of intellectual and scholarly
means not visible in the older treatises he ridiculed, Gibbon
discovered a model for his own ability co muster humanist
erudition and philosophical irony together. In the essays pub-
lished by the members of the Academie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, whose twenty volumes of memoires formed the
foundation of Gibbon's professional library, he found what he
had looked for in vain in Rudbeck and Cluverius: sensible treat-
ments of such obscure topics as the origins and migrations of
peoples. "It is seldom," he observed of one such essay, "that the
antiquarian and the philosopher are so happily blended."
77
In this updated form, Gibbon gained access to and appre-
ciation for the results of the antiquarian enterprise of the last
two centuries. The members of the Academie, as he knew, sub-
jected ancient and modern reports on the foundation of Rome
Iii, qui laisse des fauces grossieres dans les monumens, en avertissant seulement
par un sic qu'illes avoit remarquees, et qui laisse des endroits en blanc qu'illui
eroit cres facile de remplir. }'ajoute encore qu'il n'etoit que Compilateur et qu'il
n'avoit aucun sysceme done il falloit servir les interets. II cite souvent Ia ville,
la maison ec Je cabinet done il a tire telle ou telle piece." On the vexed question
of Ligorio's accuracy as a scholar see above all the essays edited by R. Gaston.
76. Gibbon, History, chap. 9, n. 57; ed. Womersley, I, 244
77. Ibid., chap. 9, n. 86; I, 2 5 I.
Ecclesiastical Historiam and Antiquaries * 187
to a corrosive bath of historical skepticism. In doing so, they
sometimes went over ground already cleared in earlier treat-
ments by Renaissance scholars-Johannes Temporarius, Philip
Cluverius, Joseph Scaliger-who had not only sorted out the
real sources from the fakes of Annius of Viterbo, but had also
shown that Roman accounts of the dates and details of the city's
early history rested only on late reports. Since the Gauls had
burned the city and its records, moreover, these must have been
transmitted orally for some time-perhaps in the form of ban-
quet songs-and no doubt changed in the course of transmis-
sion. H. J. Erasmus showed decades ago that De Beaufort and
Niebuhr had little to teach the humanists of the Renaissance
and their baroque successors about historical criticism.
78
By
steeping himself in the. precocious and elegant essays of the
French scholars, Gibbon learned to appreciate the antiquarian
tradition, even if he showed little sympathy for individual an-
tiquaries.
79
The ecclesiastical historians and secular antiquaries often col-
laborated, and individual scholars, like Kircher, often practiced
both forms of history. Their compilations of sources provided
the raw materials that Enlightenment historians sawed, turned,
and polished; their methodical criticism provided the model
for the analytical, though not the narrative, procedures that
Robertson and Moser used. Yet the antiquaries did not provide
anything like a full literary model for their secular successors.
When thev, wrore_about historicaLqrohlems. fouhe most qart.,
they produced not annotated narratives but unannotated ar-
78. H. J. Erasmus, The Origins of Rrmu in Historiography from Petrarch to Per-
izonius (Assen, 1962); cf. C. Grell, L'histoire entre erudition et phi/osophie (Paris,
1993), 8rff.
79 On Wolf and earlier scholarship see Grafton, Defendl!rs of the Text, chap. 9
guments. The sources to be discussed and the alternate theses
to be refuted were quoted and analyzed in the text proper. And
even the occasional presence of footnotes or glosses-as in
Kircher's works, with their marginal apparatus of references in
small print--did not stem from a clear separation between text
and apparatus. One can read through most of the classics of
seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century erudition, from Ma-
billon's De re diplomatica to Muratori's Anna/i d'Italia to Jean
LeClerc's Ars Critica, without encountering a double narrative
in the Gibbonian style.
Gibbon, who regularly confessed his debt to these traditions,
made clear that he found in such works not a model but a
foundation for his narrative. Of Muratori, for example, he
wrote:
His Antiquities, both in the vulgar and the Latin tongue, ex-
hibit a curious picture of the laws and manners of the middle
age; and a correct text is justified by a copious Appendix of
authentic documents. His Annals are a faithful abstract of the
twenty-eight folio volumes of original historians; and whatso-
ever faults may be noticed in this great collection, our censure
is disarmed by the remark, that it was undertaken and finished
by a single man. Muratori will not aspire to the fame of his-
torical genius: his modesty may be content with the solid,
though humble praise of an impartial critic and indefatigable
compiler.
80
The verdict was not idiosyncratic. In 1747 the German trans-
lator of the Annali praised Muratori's systematic use of original
sources, which gave his crowded work "das eigentliche Le-
So. E. Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, ed. John, Lord Sheffield (London, 1814),
III, 367.
ben"-"its genuine life." But he hoped that his version might
gain preference over the original, precisely because he had
tested Muratori's sources and added "Anmerckungen." These
footnotes identified the Catholic opponents Muratori had not
wished to attack explicitly and modified, qualified, or enhanced
his theses with new evidence from the sources. The translator
had, in short, turned a deeply worthy but deeply traditional
compilation into an up-to-date, critical piece of history-at the
price of radical alterations in its form.
81
Ecclesiastical history and antiquarianism-like the critical
history of de Thou and his contemporaries-form necessary
parts of the story of the footnote.
82
But they are insufficient,
either together or separately, to explain its creation. To under-
stand how the historical tradition mutated, we must examine
one more of the strands that formed its intellectual gene pool.
81. L. von Muratori, Geschichte von ltalien, pt. V (Leipzig, 1747), Vorrede.
82. Here I disagree, mildly, with Woolf, who convincingly argues that sys-
tematic use of documentation in historical texts was normally the result of
"virulent historical controversy," but oddly concludes that Selden and his other
protagonists did not adumbrate "the enterprises of Enlightenment and nine-
teenth-century historiography" (22 1). These enterprises too, after aJI, had their
origins as much in polemic as in the disinterested, unemotional search for the
truth.
CHAPTER SEVEN
Clarity and Distinctness in the Abysses
of Erudition: The Cartesian Origins
of the Modern Footnote
*One prominent but neglected piece of evidence makes
it possible to narrow the chronological focus of this inquiry
further. In writing to Walpole to apologize for "my negligence
in not quoting my authorities," Hume took care to point out
that he had done his research systematically and could perfectly
well have annotated his text: "I own that I was so much the
less excusable for not taking this precaution, that such an ex-
actness would have cost no trouble; and it wou' d have been
easy for me, after I had noted and markd all the passages, on
which I founded my narration, to write the references on the
margin." The problem was one of style, not of research. Hume
confessed that "I was seduc'd by the example of all the best of
the historians even among the modems, such as Matchiavel,
Fra paolo, Davila, Bentivoglio"-or, in other words, that he
had followed the high political historians of the Renaissance,
writing, as they did, in the classical tradition. He now thought,
however, that he had quite simply missed the central point in
making them his models and avoiding the use of footnotes:
"that practice was more modem than their time, and having
The Cartesian Origins of the Modern Footnote * 191
been once introduc'd, ought to be follow'd by every writer."'
This clue, the most precise we have yet turned up, indicates
that we should look for the origins of the historical footnote a
generation or two before Hume-sometime around r 700, or
just before. And in fact, as Lionel Gossman and Lawrence Lipk-
ing have pointed out, one of the grandest and most influential
works of late seventeenth-century historiography not only has
footnotes, but largely consists of footnotes, and even footnotes
to footnotes. The vast pages of that unlikely best-seller, Pierre
Bayle's Historical and Critical Dictionary, offer the reader only a
thin and fragile crust of text on which to cross the deep, dark
swamp of commentary.
2
Bayle was a characteristic as well as a dominant figure of the
French Calvinist emigration of the late seventeenth century-
the wave of Huguenots, which included thousands of artisans
as well as dozens of leading intellectuals, who were driven from
France by religious persecution under Louis XIV.
3
A student
of the new philosophy of Descartes and an amateur, but expert,
connoisseur of Protestant theology and exegesis, Bayle taught
at the Protestant Academy of Sedan and, after it was closed, at
the Gymnasium Illustre in Rotterdam. But above all he made
his way as an editor and writer. His monthly journal of ex-
tended reviews, the Nouvelles de Ia Repub/ique des Lettres, reached
r. D. Hume, Letters, ed. J. Y. T. Greig (Oxford, 1932), I, 284.
2. See the concise treatments in L. Gossman, Between History and Literature
(Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1990), 29o-291, and L. Lipking, "The Mar-
ginal Gloss," Critical Inquiry, 3 (1976-77), 009-655 at 625-626; cf. also Lipk-
ing, The Ordering of the Arts in Eighteenth-Century England (Princeton, 1970).
3 See in general E. Haase, Einfiihrung in die Literatur des Rifuge (Berlin, 1959),
and A. Goldgar, Impolite Learning (New Haven and London, 1995).
192 * Clarity and Distinctness in the Abysses of Erudition
a wide public soon after it started publication in r684. Bayle
soon found himself in possession of a well-known name and a
European network of correspondents. At the same time, how-
ever, he found himself more and more in difficulties. The
French authorities, who detested the ironic brilliance of this
Protestant critic whom they could not reach, arrested his
brother, who refused to convert. The severity of his imprison-
ment proved fatal. Meanwhile Bayle's political tolerance and
certain personal loyalties brought him into sharp conflict with
his former friend, the Calvinist theologian Pierre Jurieu. Bayle
lost his teaching post and came under sharp literary assault.
4
Despite these pressures, Bayle maintained his personal and
intellectual independence and went on fighting smug ortho-
doxies on all sides (he described himself, wonderfully, as a real
protestant-the sort who on principle protests against every-
thing).
5
But he saw that he would have to make his way by
writing. Amazingly enough, a vast, unruly reference work that
took him years to complete also earned him a living. Bayle set
out, early in the r69os, to provide a dictionary of all the mis-
takes in other works of reference, above all those in the vastly
popular Grand dictionnaire historique of Louis Moreri (Paris,
r674), which would reach its twentieth(!) edition, despite
Bayle's criticisms, in 1759.
6
In a sketch that Bayle circulated
4 For a fully documented and excellent recent account of Bayle's life and
works, see E. Labrousse, "Pierre Bayle," in Grundriss der Geschichte tier Philosophie,
Die Philosophie des I 7. ]ahrhrmderts, II: Frankreich und Niederlande, ed. J.-P. Schab-
inger (Basel, 1993), 1025-1043. Her now generation-old biography and anal-
ysis of his thought, Pierre Bayle (The Hague, 1963-64), remains standard.
5 E. Gibbon, Memoirs of My Life, ed. G. A. Bannard (New York, 1 9 ~ ) , 65:
" 'I am most truly (said Bayle) a protestant; for I protest indifferently against
all Systems, and all Sects.' "
6. A manuscript in the Royal Library, Copenhagen, preserves part of Bayle's
to test market and reader response he described the task with
characteristic modesty: "It's worse than setting out to fight
monsters. It's trying to wipe out the Hydra's heads: at the least
it's trying to clean the Augean Stables."
7
His basic idea was as
simple as it was ambitious. In collecting material about the
Roman philosopher Seneca, for example, Bayle would list all
the omissions and errors in existing reference books. Anything
the reader learned elsewhere and did not find contradicted in
Bayle would be true.
8
Bayle was anything but naive. He knew
that controversies raged about many facts, that the reader could
not always determine where truth lay. Even the harshest and
apparently most credible critics committed dozens of errors.
The greatest scholars of the previous two centuries--even Jo-
seph Scaliger and Claude Saumaise-had not only discovered
others' mistakes but made their own. In the course of the bitter
controversies that continually broke out between historians and
philologists, the truth bounced and flew as hard, and at times
as wildly, as a tennis ball at Wimbledon.
9
Only a dictionary of
errors, Bayle held, could give readers an Ariadne's thread to
preparatory work from as early as 1689: see L. Nedergaard-Hansen, "La genese
du 'Dictionaire historique et critique' de Pierre Bayle," Orbis litterarum, 13
(1958), 210-227 (my thanks to E. Petersen for examining the manuscript in
question at my request). See also S. Neumeister's fine essay "Pierre Bayle oder
die Lust der Aufkliirung," in Welt der lnfurmation, ed. H.-A. Koch and A. Krup-
Ebert (Stuttgart, 1990), 62-78, to which I am niuch indebted.
7 P. Bayle, "Projet d'un Dictionaire critique," in Projet et fragmens d'un Dic-
tionaire critique (Rotterdam, 1692; repr. Geneva, 1970), sig. *2 verso: "c'est pis
qu'aller combattre les monstres; c'est vouloir extirper les tetes de l'Hydre; c'est
du moins vouloir nectoyer les d'Augia5."
8. Ibid., sig. {*8] recto-verso: uCar si une elle seroit marquee
dans le recueil, et des qu'on ne verroit pas dans ce recueil un fait sur le pied de
faussete, on le pourroit tenir pour veritable."
9 Ibid., sigs. *4 recto.
lead them through the labyrinthine scholarly polemics of the
last two hundred years. Hurling all his metaphors, traditional
and modern, into one basket, he suggested that one might call
his projected book "the touchstone for all other books" and
"the insurance exchange of the Republic ofLetters."
10
The public response to Bayle's proposal took two forms: crit-
icism from readers he respected, like Leibniz, and a vast, col-
lective yawn from the rest. Even the immensely erudite Gilles
Menage, for example, found the proposal for a dictionary of
errors unappealing, much though he respected Bayle's talent
and hoped he could succeed.
11
Accordingly, Bayle set out to
produce something even grander: a historical dictionary of per-
sons (and a few places) ancient, medieval, and modern, all of it
supported by a vast apparatus of references and citations. The
Dictionary appeared in December 1696; was enlarged in 1702;
and formed the favorite reading matter of just about every lit-
erate European for much of the next century. Students queued
up to use it in the Bibliotheque Mazarine; aU serious collectors
bought it. Voltaire devoted an immense amount of time to
reaatng, annorattng, ada reat'nng tonnayJe S a:int1es; tO WDltn
he owed endless stimulation and productive irritation.
12
Those
who tried to combine erudition and philosophy found the book
especially fascinating. The pioneering historian of art J. J.
Winckelmann, another of the eighteenth-century writers who
10. Ibid., sig. [*8} recto.
II. Menagiana, 2nd. ed. (Paris, 1694), I, uB: "II paroit queM. Bayle a
dessein de faire un ouvrage touchant les fautes que les Biographes ont fait en
parlant de Ia mort et de Ia naissance des Savans; mais c'est une matiere que est
bien seche, cependant comme il a de !'esprit elle peut devenir riche entre ses
mains. Je meurs d'envie de voir I' essay de son Dictionaire critique qu'il nous a
promis."
I 2. H. T. Mason, Pierre Bayle and Voltaire (Oxford, 1963).
The Cartesian Origim of the Modern Footnote * 195
transformed the tradition of antiquarian scholarship into some-
thing rich and strange, read the Dictionary twice and copied
from it what he called a "iustum volumen," 1300 pages'
worth of articles, written out in a minute hand.
13
It may seem odd to identify Bayle, a thinker usually regarded
as the one who taught the intellectuals of the Enlightenment
to doubt everything, as a founder of historical learning. Many
readers have found the Dictionary a vast subversive engine, de-
signed to undermine the Bible, Protestant orthodoxy, the very
notion of exact knowledge.
14
And certainly the man who saw
history as "nothing but the crimes and misfortunes of the hu-
man race" did not share de Thou's--or Gibbon's--optimism.
Bayle repeatedly exposed errors and contradictions: between
the despised Moreri, his predecessor in the dictionary-making
game, and the sources; between the sources themselves; be-
tween the sources and common sense. He insisted that massive
falsification had interfered with the historical record. All writ-
ers, pagans and Christians alike, distorted in order to condemn:
"This method has been used in all times and places. Men have
always tried, and still try, to ridicule the doctrine and the per-
son of their adversaries: to achieve this they invent thousands
of stories. "U In the dour footnote D to his account of Giacomo
13. A. Tibal, Inventaire des manuscrits de Wincke/mann dlposl.r a Ia Bib/iotheque
Nationa/e (Paris, 191 1), 12: "Baylii Dictionarium bis perlegi et iustum inde
volumen miscellaneorum conscripsi."
14. See Gibbon, Memoit'J of My Life, 64-65: "His critical Dictionary is a vast
repository of facts and opinions; and he balances the false Religions in his scep-
tical scales, till the opposite quantities, (if I may use the language of Algebra)
annihilate each other . in a conversation with the ingenious Abbe, (afterwards
Cardinal) de Polignac, he freely disclosed his universal Pyrrhonism."
15. Bayle, Dictionaire historique et critique (Rotterdam, 1697, 3rd ed., Rot-
terdam, 1720, 4th ed., Amsterdam, 1730), Lacyde, footnote F (1720, II, 1638,
Bonfadius-a historian whose enemies arranged his condem-
nation and execution for sodomy-Bayle ridiculed the Cicer-
onian notion that historians should and could tell the whole
truth:
Nothing is finer in theory than the ideas of the lawgiver of
historians. He commands them not to dare to say anything that
is false, and to dare to say everything that is true. But these
are impractical laws, like those of the Decalogue, given the
condition in which the human race finds itself In addition,
let us observe a great difference between such similar laws.
Only a perfect wisdom can live according to the Decalogue;
and it would be a complete folly to carry out the laws of history.
Eternal life is the fruit of obedience to the Decalogue; but
temporal death is the almost inevitable consequence of obedi-
ence to the lawgiver of historians.
16
Many readers, accordingly, have seen Bayle as the sworn enemy
of the notion that history could ever recover solid facts-and
have interpreted the swarming irreverences of his footnotes as
a massive effort to subvert all certainties.
1730, III, 31): "Cette methode est de tousles terns, et de tousles lieux: on a
toujours cherche, et !'on cherche encore a tourner en ridicule Ia doctrine, et Ia
personne de ses Adversaires; et afin d'en venir a bout on supose mille fables."
Here and elsewhere, I use where possible the modern partial rendering by R.
Popkin, wirh C. Brush (Indianapolis, 1965). My interpretation of Bayle owes
much to Popkin's introduction; cf. also Mason, 128-133.
16. Bayle, Dictionaire, Bonfadius, footnote D (not in 1 ~ 7 , 1720, I, 596,
1730, I, 6o2): "Rien n'est plus beau dans Ia theorie, que les idees du Ugislateur
des Historiens: illeur commande de n'oser dire rien qui soit faux, et d'oser dire
tout ce qui est vrai; mais ce sont des loix impraticables, tout comme celles du
Decalogue dans l'etat oil le genre humain se trouve Remarquons d'ailleurs
une grande difference entre des loix si semblables. Il n'y a qu'une parfaite sa-
gesse, qui puisse accomplir le Decalogue; et il faudroit etre d'une folie achevee,
pour accomplir les loix de l'Histoire. La vie eternelle est le fruit de l'ob6ssance
au Decalogue, mais Ia mort temporelle est Ia suite presque inevitable de
l'obeissance au Ugislateur des Historiens."
Yet Bayle's readers could-and can-learn many lessons
from him, some of which apparently contradict others. Bayle
emphasized the rules of good scholarship as well as the defects
of bad. And in doing so he stated, formally, rules of scholarly
procedure-the very rules that Gibbon and Davis, a century
later, took for granted. In his article on David, for example,
Bayle writes that
The life of this great prince, published by the Abbe de Choisi,
is a very good book, and would have been much better if some-
one had taken the trouble to set down in the margin the years
of each action and the passages from the Bible or Josephus that
furnished him his data. A reader is not pleased to be left ig-
norant about whether what he reads comes from a sacred source
or a profane oneY
Citation, evidently, must be full and precise. So must the col-
lection of testimonies. Bayle's footnotes buzz with the salacious
twaddle of the Republic of Letters, with every pornographic
interpretation of a biblical passage and every sexual anecdote
about a philosopher or a scholar. We owe to him the preser-
vation of Caspar Scioppius' description of the sparrow he
watched, from his student lodgings at Ingolstadt, having in-
tercourse twenty times and then dying-as well as Scioppius'
reflection, "0 unfair lot. Is this to be granted to sparrows and
denied to men?"
18
Readers have often wondered if Bayle hoped
to hide the most scandalous and irreverent bits of his work
17. Ibid., David (1730, II, 254; different in wording, but not in substance,
in 1 ~ 7 , I, pt. 2, 930, and 1720, II, 967*): "La Vie de ce grand Prince public'!e
par Mr. !'Abbe'! de Choisi est un bon Livre, et seroit beaucoup meilleur, si l'on
avoit pris Ia peine de marquee en marge les annc'!es de chaque fait, et les endroits
de Ia Bible ou de Josephe qui ont fourni ce que l'on avance. Un Lecteur n'est
pas bien aise d'ignorer si ce qu'illir vienr d'une source sacrc'!e, ou d'une source
profane."
18. Ibid., Scioppius (1720, III, 2551, 1730, IV, 173).
from censorship by placing them in his apparatus rather than
in the text. But it seems certain, as Walter Rex argued a gen-
eration ago, that Bayle did not try to evade detection. His most
hostile readers, after all, were also habitues of works of erudi-
tion, expert explorers of scholarly apparatus. No nook or cranny
in a suspect commentary could escape their attention.
19
When wicked passages in Bayle's notes attracted flak from
orthodox batteries, Catholic and Calvinist, he not only refused
to take evasive action but also deployed a powerful defense:
This is a historical dictionary, with commentary. "lai"s" ought
to have its place in it as well as "Lucretia" It is necessary
to give in it not only a recital of the best known events, but
also an exact account of the least known ones, and a collection
of what has been dispersed in various places. It is necessary to
bring to bear proofs, to examine them, confirm them, and clar-
ify them. In a word, this is a work of compilation.
20
The claim to be a compiler, however, amounted to more than
a defense of the naughty bits of the footnotes. Bayle made com-
pilation into a term of pride. More elegant writers, who refused
19. W. Rex, ErsayJ on Pierre Bayle and ReligiouJ Controvmy (The Hague, 1965).
Rex also offers a provocative analysis of the sources and structure of Bayle's
article "David."
20. Bayle, Dictionaire, Eclaircissements (1720, IV, 3021, 1730, IV, 651):
"C'est un Dictionaire Historique commente. LAIS y doit avoir sa place aussi bien
que LUCRECE II faut y donner non seulement un Recit des actions les plus
conues, mais aussi un detail exact des actions les moins conues; et un Recueil
de ce qui est disperse en divers endroits. II faut aporter des preuves, les examiner,
les confirmer, les eclaircir. C'est en un mot un Ouvrage de Compilation." Cf.
Gibbon'Jjournal to january 28th, 1763, ed. D. M. Low (New York, n.d.), IIO:
"If Bayle wrote his Dictionary to empty the various collections he had made,
without any particular design, he could not have chose a better plan. It per-
mitted him everything, and obliged him to nothing. By the double freedom of
a Dictionary and of notes, he could pitch on what ankles he pleased, and say
what he pleased on those articles."
to provide the evidence in full, had brought scholarship into
discredit. Bayle's vast accumulation of passages from other
texts, of exegesis, summary, and rebuttal, was a profound ex-
ercise in truth-seeking-the only one, indeed, that could allay
the fears of readers rightly discouraged by the usual methods
of uncritical scholarship. Historians of the normal kind dis-
torted; but the "compiler," who necessarily preserved even what
was distasteful, offered the critical reader as much truth as hu-
man effort could attain. Bayle described such obsessive re-
searchers, who insisted on checking every fact, with eloquence,
even fire: "They try to verify everything, they always go to the
source, they examine the author's intent, they do not stop at
the passage they need, but examine closely what precedes and
what follows it. They try to make suitable applications, and to
link their authorities well. They compare them with one an-
other--or, indeed, they show that they conflict. Moreover, they
are people who make it their religion, when points of fact are
concerned, to make no assertion that has no proof."
21
Bayle, in
short, filled his dictionary not only with random, entertaining
facts, but also with crisp, explicit, persuasive statements of the
previously developed forms of antiquarian practice. At the
touch of his philosopher's stone, the lead of practice was trans-
muted into the gold of precepts.
Bayle clearly thought that the redoubled form of his work
21. Bayle, Dictionaire, Epicure, footnoteD (1697, I, pt. 2, 1046) = footnote
E, n. a (1720, II, 1077, 17 30, II, 367): "lis veulent tout verifier, ils vont
toujours a Ia source, ils examinent quel a ere le but de !'Auteur, ils ne s'arretent
pas au Passage dont ils ont besoin, ils considerent avec attention ce qui le
precede, ce qui le suit. lis tachent de faire de belles aplications, et de bien lier
leurs Autoritez: ils les comparent entre elles, ils les concilient, ou bien ils moo-
trent qu'elles se combatent. D'ailleurs ce peuvent etre des gens qui se font une
religion, dans les matieres de fait, de n'avancer rien sans preuve." This passage
is cited and discussed by Neumeister, 71.
200 * Clarity a11d Distinctnm in the Abysses of Erudition
made it radically new; he believed that he had depaned from
the literary rules of the game. He explained that he had had to
sustain "in this mass of all sorts of things a dual personality,
that of historian and that of commentator." As the historian he
recounted in the text his countless odd, ill-chosen stories of the
lives and deaths, the views and bizarreries of thousands of in-
dividuals. "In his commentary," he told his readers, he had tried

the impartiality of a faithful reporter. "
22
Bayle devised and de-
fended a double form of narrative: one which both stated final
results and explained the journey necessary to reach them.
Pressed by a thousand enemies, Catholic and Protestant, en-
raged at the reign of error in a thousand books, and unsup-
ported by any institution, Bayle had only the authority of his
own scholarly workmanship to rely on. The format he chose
reinforced his criticisms of error as nothing else could have-
and gave him, as it would Gibbon, endless space as well for
subversive ironies.
23
Bayle was not, of course, the only scholar of his day to use
footnotes. The Protestant polymaths of the Holy Roman Em-
pire matched him, note for note. J. F. Buddeus used detailed
source-notes to support his remarkable History of the Philosophy
of the Hebrews, published by the Halle Orphanage in 1702; so
did Christian Thomasius, in the sharp treatise of 17 r2 in which
22. Bayle, Dictionaire, Eclaircissements (1720, IV, 2986, 1730, IV, 616): "il
a falu que dans cet amas de routes sortes de matieres je soutinsse deux person-
nages, celui d'Historien et celui de Commentateur discuter les choses, et
comparee ensemble les Raisons du pour et du contre avec tout le desinteresse-
ment d'un fidelle Raponeur."
23. For this analysis see the classic works of E. Cassirer, Die Philosophie der
Aufklanmg, 2nd ed. (Tiibingen, 1932), 269-279; Haase, 418-454.
he demolished the legend of the Witches' Sabbath, and Fried-
rich Otto Mencke, in his vastly erudite life of the fifteenth-
century scholar and poet Angelo Poliziano, which built on the
heavily documented article on Poliziano in Bayle's Dictionary.
24
Catholic scholars searched at least as passionately as Protes-
tants for documentation. French and Italian Jansenists, in
particular, anticipated Bayle's effort to provide a theoretical
grounding for documentary research, and matched or exceeded
the precision of his practices. ~ Pascal, after all, made the Pro-
vincial Letters, in which he denounced the Jesuit casuists who
excused priestly lust and mercantile usury, into a tissue of quo-
tations from his enemies' manuals. He insisted, over and over
again, on his bibliographical probity: "I keep forgetting to tell
you," he informed his correspondent at one point, "that there
are Escobars of different impression. If you buy any, get those
printed at Lyons, which have at the beginning a picture of a
lamb standing on a book sealed with seven seals, or the Brussels
ones of 165 r."
26
He argued that the Jesuits who retaliated,
24. C. Thomasius, Vom Laster der Zauberei. Ober die Hexmprozesse, ed. R. Lie-
berwirth (Weimar, 1963; repr. Munich, 1986); F. 0. Mencke, Historia vitae et
in literas meritorum Angeli Politiani (Leipzig, 1736), sigs. [)()(4} verso-)()()( recto,
esp. )()()(recto: "maximi nominis Criticus et Philologus, felicissimusque rerum
historicarum indagator, PETRUS BAELIUS, cui us amplissimam rebusque optimis
et doctrina multiplici refertam de Vita et moribus Politiani Commentationem
habemus in Lexici, quod stupendo Iabore emisit vir incomparabilis, Historici
atque c,.itici editione altera" ("that famous critic and philologist and very effec-
tive historical researcher, Pierre Bayle, whose very informative and erudite treat-
ment of the life and character of Poliziano appears in the second edition of the
Dictionary, to the publication of which that incomparable man devoted incred-
ible effort"). Mencke cites other sources as well, but with less sumptuous ad-
jectives.
25. A. Momigliano, "La formazione della storiografia modema sull'impero
romano," Cont,.ibuto alia storia degli studi classici (Rome, 1955), I ro-r r6.
26. B. Pascal, The p,.Otlincia/ Letters, tr. A.]. Krailsheimer (Harmondsworth,
dismissing him as a heretical Jansenist or complaining that he
had misquoted the casuits, themselves distorted the sources
they relied on: "Find some other way then of proving me a
heretic, or everyone will recognize how feeble you are. Prove
from my writings that I do not accept the Constitution; they
are not so very numerous. There are only sixteen Letters to look
at, and I defy you, or anyone else, to produce from them the
slightest sign of such a thing."
27
In the preface to his Treatise
on the Vacuum he argued, more generally, for the validity and
autonomy of historical research based on precise use of sources,
so long as it concerned itself only with questions of what par-
ticular authors had written.
28
Dogged, black-wearing, straight-
forward Jansenists like le Nain de Tillemont followed Pascal's
precept and example, producing some of the most exhaustive
and influential learned compendia of the Enlightenment.
As savage pruning makes hedges bloom and flourish, so sav-
age polemics produced the richest growths of source-notes. The
Catholic biblical scholar Richard Simon enraged both Catholic
authorities and Protestant divines with his Critical History of
1967), 131 = Pascal, Oeuvres completes, ed. L. Lafuma (Paris, 1963), 407: '"]'ai
toujours oublie a VOUS dire qu'il y a des Escobars de differences impressions. Si
vous en achetez, prenez de ceux de Lyon, ou a l'entree il y a une image d'un
agneau qui est sur un livre scelle de sept sceaux, ou de ceux de Bruxelles de
165 r."
27. Pascal, Letters, 26o = Oeuvres, 454: "Prouvez done d'une autre maniere
que je suis heretique, ou toutle monde reconnaitra votre impuissance. Prouvez
que je ne r e ~ o i s pas la Constitution par mes ecrits. lis ne sont pas en si grand
nombre. II n'y a que 16 Lettres a examiner, ou je vous Mfie, et vous et route la
terre, d'en produire la moindre marque." Pascal's citation practices, were, as
usual, not so precise and scrupulous as he claimed. See Krailsheimer's intro-
duction, 22.
28. Pascal, "Preface sur le Traite du Vide," Oeuvres, ed. Lafuma, 23o-233 at
230.
the Old Testament. Here he argued that the Pentateuch repre-
sented not the literally inspired words of Moses but a selection
made by public scribes from what had originally been a much
larger set of documents. Simon not only repeated the dangerous
suggestion, already ventured by many others, that Moses could
not have written the whole Bible, but offered an alternate the-
ory of the text's development. This he supported with rich
documentation, quoted liberally in his text.
29
Scandalized crit-
ics on both sides of the religious divide claimed that Simon
had cited his sources incorrectly or imprecisely. The accusation
infuriated him, especially since the critics themselves copied
one another's false accusations and failed to check the original
sources that Simon supposedly misused.
30
29. R. Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Suivam Ia Copie, imprimee
a Paris, t68o}: brief marginal glosses name the authors and sometimes give the
titles of Simon's later sources and identify biblical verses cited. On Simon's Old
Testament scholarship see H. Graf Reventlow, "Richard Simon und seine Be-
deutung fiir die kritische Erforschung der Bibel," Historische Kritik in der Theo-
logie. Beitriige zu ihrer Geschichte, ed. G. Schwaiger (Gottingen, 1980}, I 1-36;
W. McKane, Selected Christian Hebraists (Cambridge, 1989}, chap. 4
30. {R. Simon], Apologie pour /'Auteur de I'Histoire Critiqll$ du Vieux Testament
(Rotterdam, 1689; repr. Frankfurt, 1973}, 94--95: ''L'erudition de notre copiste
{Pere le Vassor] paroit encore mieux lorsqu'it copie au meme endroit jusquaux
fautes des Theologiens de Hollande. Ces Messieurs dont it admire Ia capacite, parce
qu'il n'en a aucune, avoient objecte a M. Simon, que lorsqu'il a cite Josephe il
n'a pas ere exact a marquee le Livre et le Chapitre. Mais comme it s'agissoit de
l'Apologie de cet Historien contre Apion, laquelle ne contient que deux Livres
forts petits sans aucuoe distinction de Chapitres, on leur avoit repondu, que
c'etoit assez d'avoir cite le livre. Le P. le Vassor qui est bien autrement exact
repetant Ia meme objection marque Ia page. Le malheur est que ce qu'it cite de
!'edition Greque Larine de Josephe ne s'y trouvve point, bien qu'il ait marque
Ia page avec grande soin; mais seulement dans le Livre Fran!;ois des Theologiens
de Hollande qui ont mal traduit cet endroit de Josephe, comme M. Simon leur
a fait voir dans sa reponse" ("Our copyist's learning appears still better when he
copies even the errors of the 'Theologians of Holland' in the same passage. He
To defend both his honor and his arguments, Simon devised
what he described as a new form of documentation for his Crit-
ical History of the Text of the New Testament, which appeared in
1689. In the text, he explained in his preface, he normally cited
his sources "in abridged form, and following only the sense."
But to satisfy readers who wanted to know the exact wording
of his sources, he placed full texts "at the bottom of each page,
where everyone will be able to read them at full length and in
the language of the authors."
31
In fact, Simon was better than
his word. He normally indicated the precise source of every
quotation or paraphrase in his text with a marginal gloss, and
then provided the whole text in question, and a second indi-
cation of its origin, in a footnote. Critics, if not disarmed, were
certainly wrong-footed by this preemptive strike.
All authors who addressed controversial questions in the
admires these gentlemen's capacities, having none himself. They had objected
toM. Simon that he did not note the book and chapter when he cited Josephus.
But the text in question was the historian's apology Against Apion, which con-
tains only two short books not divided into chapters, and in reply to them it
was explained that it sufficed to cite the book. Father le Vassor, whose accuracy
is of quite a different kind, repeats the same criticism and notes the page. Sadly,
the passage he quotes from the edition of Josephus in Greek and Latin is not
in fact there, though he cites the page with great care. It is only in the French
book of the 'Theologians of Holland,' who mistranslated this passage in Jose-
phus, as M. Simon has shown them in his reply").
3 1. R. Simon, H istoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam,
1689), sig. **2 recto: "on a tache de les satisfaire la-dessus, sans neanmoins
changer rien de notre premiere methode. On les a mis au bas des pages, ou
chacun pourra les lire dans route leur etendue et dans Ia langue des Auteurs."
The great paleographer Jean Mabillon, whose criticism of traditions about me-
dieval saints won him much enmity, also showed a sharp sensitivity to the
importance of sources and citation procedures, which he saw as crucial to the
interpretation and evaluation of historical sources. See his Breves rif/exions sur
quelques Regles de /'histoire, ed. B. Barret-Kriegel (Paris, 1990).
years around r 700 knew that they were entering minefields:
footnotes naturally appealed to many of those who discussed
historical and philological topics as the best way to protect
themselves against hidden and overt attack. But other social
and cultural conditions also helped to make intellectuals self-
conscious about the problem of authority in writing about the
past-and, in Bayle's case, sharply articulate about the way to
avoid disaster. The seventeenth century, after all, saw the sci-
entific authority of the ancients deconstructed by Bacon, Des-
cartes, Boyle, and Pascal; the political authority of kings de-
constructed by French Frondeurs and English Puritans; and the
historical authority of the Bible deconstructed by La Peyrere
and Spinoza. Questions of authority and evidence posed them-
selves on every side. Whose descriptions of the behavior of a
barometer or a comet, a new substance or a new island, deserved
belief? What made one account authoritative and another im-
plausible? Any intellectual of the late seventeenth century nec-
essarily confronted these and other questions of intellectual au-
thority-and had to devise protocols for providing assurances
that could quell the doubts of skeptical readers.
32
Students of the past, however, faced special problems. Bayle,
as Carlo Borghero has shown, was one of dozens of European
scholars who were forced in the course of the later seventeenth
century to resist not only the normal forms of clerical intoler-
ance, but also a far more fundamental attack on their whole
32. See B. J. Shapiro, Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth-Century England
(Princeton, 1983); P. Dear, "Totius in verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early
Royal Society," Isis, 76 (1985), 145-161; S. Shapin, A Social History of Truth
(Chicago and London, 1994); P. Dear, Discipline and Experience (Chicago and
London, 1995); Q. Skinner, Rea.ron and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cam-
bridge, 1996).
discipline. Descartes's vasdy influential Discourse on the Method
included a withering critique of historical knowledge as well
as a program for a new philosophy. Descartes dismissed history
and the humanities as a pastime no more informative or rig-
orous than travel (both showed only that human opinions and
customs diverged endlessly). But he also supplied his oppo-
nents with weapons that could be used against him. In both
his mathematical and his philosophical works, Descartes made
clear that the formal qualities of mathematical arguments lent
them the rigor and generality that humanistic ones lacked.
Some defenders of historical knowledge, like Pierre-Daniel
Huet and John Craig, applied this argument direcdy to their
work. They tried to make their historical criticism proof against
skeptical attack by casting it in the Cartesian or Newtonian
form of quasi-geometrical chains of deductions. Craig, for ex-
ample, went so far as to devise formulas for measuring the
decrease of authority over time that the testimony of any wit-
ness must undergo. He even computed the date at which the
witnesses to the life of Christ himself would lose their credi-
bility.33
Bayle and his fellow footnoters responded to Descartes in a
more constructive way. They not only applied but stated the
rules that verified or falsified historical propositions. And they
created the double form of the double narrative, as one that
would make explicit, just as the Cartesian Regulae did, that
each argument followed from all the relevant evidence.
34
Schol-
ars who lacked their inspiration-like Jacob Thomasius-
33 C. Borghero, La certezza e Ia storia (Milan, 1983).
34 See also J. Sole, "Religion et methode critique dans le 'Dictiona.ire de
Bayle," Religion, erudition et critique a Ia fin du xviie siecle et au rUbut du xviiie (Paris,
1968), 70-II7 at 104-106.
might emphasize the ethical importance of honest source-ci-
tation. But Thomasius did not anticipate the characteristic for-
malism of Bayle and his contemporaries, their insistence on
frequent, precise references cast in a particular form.
35
To be-
come modern, philology needed the unkind assistance of phi-
losophy. Bayle needed Descartes.
The early history of Bayle's project for his dictionary supports
this analysis. In his "Projet" Bayle insisted that his work would
find many readers, precisely because the sciences of historical
and philological criticism were flourishing as never before:
I do not wish to be told that our century, which has been
restored and cured from the critical spirit that reigned in the
preceding one, regards as mere pedantry the writings of those
who correct errors of fact, with regard either co the individual
lives of great men or the names of cities or similar points. For
it is certain, on the whole, that this sort of enlightenment has
never found more support than it does at present. For every
investigator of physical experiments and every mathematician
you will find a hundred profound students of history and all
its subdisciplines. The science of antiquities, by which I mean
35 See]. Thomasius, jwaeses, Dissertatio philosophica de plagio literario, resp.
Joh. Michael Reinelius (Leipzig, 1 ~ 2 ) , 249, 106: "Quod si e variis autoribus
librum colligas, non multwn referee, sive sub exordium operis universi, quod
Plinius fecit historiae naturalis scriptor, sive principio singulorum librorum,
quod Thuanus in Historia sui temporis, Catalogum eorum ponas, quorum opera
es usus; qui nee male finem, quod solent alias indices, occupabit. Verum nee in
titulo dedecebit aut praefatione apem profiteri, quae non ex unius horto flores
delibaverit" ("If you compile a book from several authors, it will not matter
much whether you put a list of them at the start of the whole work, as Pliny,
the author of the Natural History, did, or at the start of each book, as de Thou
did in his history of his own time. This can also perfectly well come at the end,
where in other cases the indices normally stand. But it will also be quite suitable
to profess in your tide or preface that you are a bee that took flowers from more
than one person's garden").
the study of medals, inscriptions, bas-reliefs, and so on, has
never been cultivated as it is now.
36
Bayle's voice sounds proud and positive here. Bur he introduced
this passage, revealingly, as a response to a hypothetical objec-
tion. He knew perfectly well that popular opinion was against
him. Many dedicated scholars had already despaired of regain-
ing a central place in the curriculum, given the vogue for Car-
tesian philosophy and experimental science. That, in turn, ex-
plains why Bayle felt it necessary to argue, at length, against
the fashionable view that mathematics had an advantage over
historical knowledge, in that it "leads us to truths not suscep-
tible of doubt." On the contrary, Bayle insisted, the "certitudes"
of history, though different from those of mathematics, were
far more concrete, more applicable to human life, and even
"more certain, in a metaphysical sense," than "the profound
abstractions of mathematics."
37
In this same sketch, but in another context, Bayle acknowl-
edged that problems of citation played an important role in
making history seem less certain than it was:
If an author asserts things without citing his source, the reader
has occasion to believe that he speaks only on the basis of hear-
36. Bayle, "Projet," Projet, sig. [**6} verso: "Et qu'on ne me dise pas que
n8tre revenu et gueri de I' esprit Critique qui regnoit dans le precedent,
ne regarde que comme des pedanteries, les Ecrits de ceux qui corrigent les
faussetez de fait, concernant ou l'Histoire paniculiere des grands hommes, ou
le nom des villes, ou relies autres choses; car il est certain a tout prendre, qu'on
n'a jamais eu plus d'atrachement qu'au'jourdhuy aces sortes
Pour un chercheur d'experiences Physiques, pour un Mathematicien, vous trou-
vez cent personnes qui etudient a fond l'Histoire avec routes ses dependances;
et jamais la science de l'Antiquariat, je veux dire l'etude des medailles, des
inscriptions, des bas-reliefs etc. n'avoit ete cultivee comme elle l'est presente-
ment."
37 Ibid., sigs. *** recco--***3 recto.
say. If he does cite, the reader fears that he quotes the passage
wrongly or misunderstands it What, then, is to be done in
order to remove these reasons for mistrust? There are a great
many books that have never been refuted, and a great many
readers who do not possess the books that contain the full series
of literary disputations.
38
The last of the draft dictionary entries that Bayle printed with
his Projet was the hilarious "Zeuxis," with its brilliantly ironic
account of the difficulties that had confronted the great Greek
artist when he asked to see his models naked. In footnote A,
Bayle insisted on the positive importance of proper citation. As
usual, Moreri had gone about the matter in exactly the wrong
way: "He piles up all his citations at the end of each article,
without informing us that a particular author said one thing,
and a second author another. He thus gives his reader a great
deal of trouble: one must sometimes knock at five or six doors
before finding someone with whom one may speak." The same
point, Bayle noted with pleasure, had already been made by
the ecclesiastical historian le Nain de Tillemont, a favorite
source of Gibbon's, whose own works, as we have seen, con-
sisted for the most part of extracts from the sources. Bayle
praised Tillemont's "method of citation" as "of the utmost ex-
actness. "
39
38. Ibid., sig. [*8} recto: "Si un Auteur avance des choses sans citer d'ou il
les prend, on a lieu a croire qu'il n'en parle que par oui-dire; s'il cite, on craint
qu'il ne raporte malle passage, ou qu'il ne l'entende mal Que faire done,
Monsieur, pour oter tous ces sujets de defiance, y ayant un si grand nombre de
livres qui n'ont jamais ere refutez, et un si grand nombre de lecteurs, qui n'ont
pas les livres ou est contenue Ia suitte des disputes literaires?"
39 Ibid., 387: "II entasse routes ses citations a Ia lin de chaque article, sans
faire savoir qu'une telle chose a ete dire par celuy-cy, et une telle autre par celuy-
la: il laisse done a son lecteur une grande peine, puis qu'il faut quelquefois
heurter a plus de cinq ou six portes, avant que de trouver a qui parler."
210 * Clarity and DiJtinctnesJ in the AhymJ of Erudition
Evidently, Bayle saw his dictionary as connected with the
defense of the historical sciences, and the proper mode of ci-
tation as vital to that enterprise. But the full connection ap-
parently did not become clear even to him until the most er-
udite and brilliant of his critics tied these threads of argument
and practice together. Leibniz, in his response to Bayle's "Pro-
jet," discouraged his erudite correspondent from compiling a
list of errors or a doxography of scholarly debates. But he agreed
with Bayle "that those pure mathematicians and physicists,
who are ignorant of and despise all other forms of knowledge,
are wrong."
40
And he insisted that a trimmed-down and reo-
riented version of the project, one that addressed itself to truths
rather than errors, would be very useful. Vital to this reference
work would be a form of citation designed not to confuse the
reader further but to demonstrate, conclusively, where the truth
lay. Leibniz was an experienced editor (and entrepreneur for
editions that lesser men carried out). He gave Bayle crisp, spe-
cific advice:
I suppose that the best way to attain this end would be to speak
about the subject in question, and generally to quote the pas-
sages from texts, on which one relies, often giving the authors'
exact words, in imitation of M. Ducange's excellent work. It
will be possible to put these words in the margin, since gen-
erally there seems to be some reluctance about putting Greek
or Latin directly into the French text. If you had set out to
produce a work in Latin, you would have more freedom in this
respect, for in points of fact there is nothing like seeing the
authors' own wordsY
40. G. W. Leibniz, Die philosophischen Schriften, ed. C. J. Gerhardt, VI (Berlin,
I885; repr. Hildesheim and New York, I978), I9: "que des mathematiciens ou
physiciens purs qui ignorent et meprisent routes les autres connoissances, ont
tort." On the imponance of this text see Neumeister.
4 I. Leibniz, Philosophische Schriften, ed. Gerhardt, VI, I 6-IT "Pour cet effect
The Cartesian Origins of the Mockrn Footnote * 211
The close connections between philosophy and philology
emerge clearly here, as Leibniz and Bayle cast about for models
of accurate citation in the philological literature of their time.
So does the high quality of Catholic learning, as evidenced both
by Bayle's reference co the Jansenist church historian Tillemont
and Leibniz's to the huge dictionaries of Byzantine Greek and
medieval Latin by Charles Ducange.
Most important, Bayle arrived at his new method of citation
after engaging in sustained reflection and debate. Footnotes
mattered to him-mattered enough not only to be compiled
with endless energy and laced with sardonic humor, but also
to be the object of serious epistemological effort. Whatever his
ultimate intentions, then, Bayle shored up the very historical
discipline that many have seen him as challenging. True, his
practice did not live up to his principles. Bayle, like his ene-
mies, silently abridged and consciously or unconsciously mis-
read the texts he instructed his printers to excerpt (Bayle tried
to avoid copying out long extracts, which he saw as a waste of
time, even though he thus apparently violated his own strict
principles for the critical use of sources). Though he insisted
that scholars should give the exact titles and editions of the
works they cited, he often gave incomplete bibliographical de-
tails in his own references. He regularly found himself forced
to cite books no longer in his hands from memory or from
notes that he could not verify. Worse still, he cited sources that
je m'imagine que le meilleur seroit de parler de Ia matiere en elle meme, de
rappotter le plus souvent les passages des auteurs, sur lesquels on s'appuye, et
de donner souvent leur propres paroles a !'imitation de !'excellent ouvrage de
Mons. du Cange. On pourra mettre ces paroles a Ia marge, parcequ'on fera
scrupule apparement d'inserer souvent le grec ou le latin dans le corps du texte
Si l'ouvrage avoit entrepris en Latin, on auroit eu plus de
Ia dessus, car en matiere de faits il n'y a rien de tel que de voir les propres
paroles des auteurs."
he had not read at all, drawing his information from summaries
and reviews.
42
But the novelty and utility of the model he
offered are now clear.
So is the stimulus that Bayle offered to younger intellectuals
who wished to preserve the possibility of attaining historical
knowledge while developing a critical and modern epistemol-
ogy and practice as well. Writers on the credibility of historical
testimony (de fide historica) like the German F. W. Bierling fol-
lowed Bayle's hints as they explicitly addressed the wider prob-
lem of establishing rules for the criticism of sources. Long be-
fore Ranke made archive-diving fashioQable, Bierling had
pointed out in a book festooned with footnotes that archives
can mislead. He admitted that many of his contemporaries
thought this impossible, but a careful analysis of their content
proved his point. Archives consisted, he argued, chiefly of doc-
uments created by ambassadors and other public officials. But
such men normally had to report on deliberations to which
they did not have direct access and the intentions of monarchs
who did not speak frankly. Their reports, in short, contained
"what the ambassador guesses to be true or considers to be
memorable, not always what is true." A neat footnote drove
the point home: .Hugo Grotius, while serving as ambassador in
the Swedish service, spent the whole day and much of the night
writing theology, and satisfied his employer, the statesman Axel
Oxenstierna, with the gossip he picked up in the streets ("des
42. For a close analysis of some of Bayle's errors seeR. Whelan, The Anat()f1ly
of Superstition, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 259 (Oxford,
1989). Still more enlightening, however, is H. H. M. van Lieshout, "Van boek
tot bibliotheek" (Diss., Nijmegen, 1992), which describes Bayle's methods of
citation, sets them into their historical context, and builds from them a detailed
analysis of his library and his practices as reader, scholar, and writer.
nouvelles du Pont-neuf en beau latin"). An archive constituted
of such reports-and a narrative derived from them-might
yield the right names and dates but would hardly provide the
inner history of events. Hence archives and narratives kept and
compiled in good faith contradicted each other.
43
Bierling did
not take this as reason to despair; but he, like the contemporary
Dutch scholar Jacob Perizonius, argued coherently for a miti-
gated, rather than excessive, faith in historical research.
44
They,
in turn, were only two of the best known among the many
writers who took part in the sophisticated debates of the late
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on the reasons for histor-
ical Pyrrhonism and the conditions of historical credibility.
45
These writers, as Markus Volkel has shown, did not always
arrive at new results or rigorous formulations. But they high-
lighted both the problems connected with establishing histor-
ical facts and the accomplishments of scholars who had attacked
particular problems, like the dating of manuscripts.
Bayle's expository model, however, still lacked one vital fea-
ture, as Gibbon pointed out long ago, and Lipking more re-
cently agreed: economy. Bayle wrote his articles rapidly, and in
later versions of them added new information not to the text
43 F. W. Bierling, de Py"honismo historico (Leipzig, 1724), chap.
IV ("De fide monumentorum"), 225-249; see L. Gossman, Mediwalism and the
Ideologies of the Enlightenment (Baltimore, 1968), and Borghero. A segment of
Bierling's work is now available, with facing German translation and notes, in
Theoretiker der deutschen Aufkliirungshistorie, ed. H. W. Blanke and D. Fleischer
(Stuttgan and Bad Cannstatt, 1990), I, 154-169.
44 On Perizonius see Erasmus, The Origim of Rome in Historiography from
Petrarch to Perizonius (Assen, 1962), and Th. J. Meijer, Kritiek als Herwaardering
(Leiden, 197 r).
45 M. Volkel, "Py"honismus historicus" und "fides historica" (Frankfurt a.M.
I987).
214 * Clarity and DistinctneJJ in the Abysses of Erudition
but to the commentary. This became so complex-and some-
times so self-contradictory-that readers found themselves
trapped in a sort of morass of erudition. Often the text confined
itself to providing a few anecddotes, rather than offering readers
clear guidance or a discernible story. In particular, as Markus
Volkel and Helmut Zedelmaier have pointed out, Bayle did
not firmly distinguish between a text which offered a clear
narrative and the footnotes which supported it.
46
The mecha-
nism was simply too haphazard and complex: with its slender,
lightweight text hovering over a staggeringly learned and pro-
found commentary, rather like a mayfly hovering over a swamp,
it offered a wonderful model of critical reflection but a poor
one of historical narrative. Even Bayle's pointed theoretical dis-
cussions, for the most pan scattered and inaccessible, could
easily escape the notice of his readers.
Fonunately, many scholars were at work on the same expos-
itory problems that Bayle attacked: their eventual solution,
which took many years, engaged the efforts of scholars from
any number of intellectual camps. For example, one of Bayle's
enemies, his fellow Huguenot and refugee intellectual Jean Le
Clerc, devised a theory of the footnote that took more account
of the reader than Bayle had managed toY Born in Geneva, Le
46. For Bayle's method of composition see van Lieshout, chap. 2. For an
elegant analysis and defense of his method of presenting "a choir of voices" on
each page, seeM. Volkel, "Zur Text-logik im Dictirmnaire von Pierre Bayle. Eine
historisch-kritische Untersuchung des Artikels LipsiiiJ (Lipse, ]uste)," Lias, 20
(1993), 193-226. Cf. also H. Zedelmaier, "Fussnotengeschichte(n) und andere
Marginalien: Anthony Grafton tiber die Ursprilnge der modemen Historiogra-
phie aus dem Geist der Fussnote," Storia della storiografoz, 30 (1996), 151-159
at 155-156.
47 Cf. Gibbon's journal, ed. Low, 105: "I read the articles of Jupiter and
Juno, in Bayle's dictionary. That of Jupiter is very superficial. Juno takes up
Clerc came to the Low Countries after studying there and trav-
eling to Grenoble and Saumur. Like Bayle, he taught at Rot-
terdam, not at the Gymnasium Illustre but in the theological
seminary of the Remonstrants (relatively liberal Calvinists who
had broken with the main Dutch Calvinist church). Like Bayle,
he became a brilliant journalist, filling the mailboxes of the
citizens of the Republic of Letters with a whole series of peri-
odicals in which he reviewed the newest novelties in scholarship
and science. Like Bayle, he knew the modern philosophy of the
time-above all that of Locke, which he encountered during a
stay in England-and spun a web of correspondence that spread
across Europe.
48
Le Clerc had a gift for lucid, rapid synthetic formulations of
complex problems and procedures. His Ars critica, for example,
summed up two centuries of work on textual and historical
criticism with authority and elegance.
49
LeClerc published his
Parrhasiana, or mock table talk, himself (the usual practice was
to die and leave the agreeably scandalous task to a disciple),
and in it he analyzed both the scholarly function and the lit-
seventeen pages; but great part of it, as usual, very foreign to the purpose. A
long inquiry when horns began to be an emblem of cuckoldom; numberless
reflexions, some original, and some very trivial; and a learning chiefly confined
to the Latin Writers Upon the whole, I believe that Bayle had more of a
certain multifarious reading, than a real erudition. LeClerc, his great antagonist,
was as superior to him in that respect, as inferior in every other."
48. See J. Le Brun, "Jean Le Clerc," in the new Gudemann's Grundriss, Die
Philosophie des I?. jahrhunderts, II, 1018-1024; Goldgar.
49 See M. Sina, Vico e-Lii:lerc (Naples, 1978); S. Timpanaro, La genesi del
metodo del Lachmann (Padua, 1985), 2o-22; M. C. Pitassi, Entre croire et savoir
(Leiden, 1987); P. Lombardi, "Die intentio auctoris und die Streit tiber das Buch
der Psalmen. Einige Themen der Aufklarungshermeneutik in Frankreich und
ltalien," Unzeitgemiisse Hermeneutik, ed. A. Biihler (Frankfurt, 1994), 43-68 at
52-6o; H. Jaumann, Critica (Leiden, 1995), 176-180.
erary form of the footnote. Many critics, he admitted, held that
one should follow the example of the ancients, "who only rarely
cited the authors they used: for example, when they showed
some disagreement. "'
0
But Le Clerc insisted that mere age did
not lend authority to a bad practice. In history as in science,
moderns had the right to improve on classical forms and ideas.
The historian's willingness to use footnotes became, for Le
Clerc, a sign of critical rationality:
In fact, if a thing is bad in itself, the example of the ancients
does not make it better. Nothing should stop us from improv-
ing on them. The Republic of Letters has finally become a land
of reason and light, and nor of authority and blind faith, as it
was for all too long a rime. Nowadays numbers prove nothing,
and there are no more cabals. No divine or human law forbids
us to perfect the art of writing history, as others have tried to
perfect the other arts and sciences.
51
Le Clerc did not condemn all historians who wrote without
notes. Typically, he had more than one good word to say for de
Thou.'
2
But he made clear that, in his time, only a historian
who wished his assertions to go unchecked could refuse to cite
50.). LeClerc, Parrhasiana (Amsterdam, I, 144: "'qui ne citent
que tres-rarement les Auteurs, dont ils se sont servis; comme lors qu"il y a entre
eux quelque diversite de sentimens."'
51. Ibid., 145: "'En effet, si Ia chose est mauvaise en soi, J'exemple des
Anciens ne Ia rend pas meilleure, et rien ne nous doit emp&her de faire mieux
qu'eux. La Republique des Lettres est enfin devenue un pais de raison et de
lumiere, et non d'autorite et de foi aveugle, comme elle ne I' a ete que trop long-
temps. La mulcitude n'y prouve plus rien, et les cabales n'y ont plus de lieu. II
n'y a aucune Loi divine, ni humaine, qui nous defende de perfectionner I' Art
d 'ecrire l'Histoire; comme on a tache de perfeccionner les autres Arts et les autres
Sciences."
52. Ibid., 148-149; cf. 193-194.
his sources.H The intellectual modernity of the footnote-the
novelty and rationality of the device, which Hume both ap-
preciated and deprecated-was dramatically emphasized by Le
Clerc.
So, too, was a modern practical requirement to which Bayle
had been at best inattentive. Bayle's literary practice, as more
than one modern scholar has noted, is typical of the scholars of
the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Many of them
preferred synthesis to analysis and the making of massive com-
pilations to the drawing of minute distinctions. Among their
typical products were the huge variorum editions that Pope
and his friends found so laughable-anthologies of learned ex-
egesis in which notes, or whole commentaries, by a troupe of
scholars clustered around a single classical text. Such an ap-
paratus preserved a wonderful cacophony of scholarly voices,
but also threatened to obscure both the text to be explained
and the methods and interests of each individual commentator.
Le Clerc, an experienced and attentive reviewer of learned
works of every sort, explained not only what services notes
should provide but also what form they should take. He argued
that one should divide variorum commentaries into their com-
ponents, reorganizing these for the reader's benefit. Under the
text, the editor should provide something quite specific, which
combined Bayle's care for authenticity of sources with an eye
to the reader's convenience:
Notes expressed in good terms, in few words, and where one
asserts nothing without proving it, or without at least citing
53 Ibid., 146: "On soutient done que l'on n'evite de citer, qu'alin que
personne ne puisse examiner l'Hisroire, que I' on racconre, en comparant Ia nar-
ration avec celles des Historiens, qui ont ecrit auparavant."
some good author where one can see the assertion verified, in-
dicating the passage in question so well that the reader can
easily find it, if necessary: most readers, I say, will find notes
like this of the greatest value.H
At the end of the book should go full commentaries by indi-
viduals and excursuses on points of detail. Readers were, Le
Clerc admitted, delighted to have at their disposal all the ma-
terial that the variorums provided.
55
But the full commentary
that experts might look for at the end of an edition should be
firmly distinguished from the brief, but well-documented,
guidance that the notes beneath the text should provide. Even
the more extensive notes should also be set out line by line,
not commentary by commentary, as some editors had done.
Otherwise the flood of information would become too over,..
whelming to be useful. Gottfried Jungermann's edition of the
works of Caesar, for example, confronted the reader with a series
of discrete commentaries, written by more than twenty authors
and totalling more than r roo double-columned pages, rather
than a single coherent exposition of the text. 5
6
Le Clerc con-
54 Ibid., 229: "Des Notes c o n ~ u e s en bons termes, en peu de mots, et oil
!"on n'avance rien sans le prouver, ou sans indiquer au moins quelque bon Au-
teur, oil l'on puisse voir Ia verification de ce qu'on die; en marquant si bien
l'endroit, qu'il soit facile au Lecteur dele crouver, si il a besoin dele chercher;
des Notes, dis-je, de cette sorte, sont un thresor pour la plupact des Lecteurs."
55 Ibid., 230.
56. c. ]ulii Ctli!Saris Quae exstant (Frankfurt, I669). Jungermann explained
that the chief merit of his variorum commentary was that it enabled readers to
work out "what each of them {the commentators} derived from the others, and
what he contributed of his own: this will be of no little help in understanding
and explicating Caesac" ("quid alter ab alcero derivasset, quid de suo conrulisset:
quod Caesari intelligendo et illusrrando non parum futurum fore") (II, sig. a2
recto). The editor, typically, had more precise ideas about how he should present
demned it. In no circumstances, he explained, muse a reader of
a well-made edition be forced "co leaf through a whole volume
co find out what each critic said. That is coo long and boring."
57
Le Clerc, in ocher words, not only underlined the need for
the incelleccual support footnotes could provide but outlined a
program for their composition-one on which, as he well knew,
scholars and printers would have to collaborate. Naturally it
took time for anything resembling a uniform citation practice
to establish itself in the varied ecologies where Europe's scholars
fought with note and claw for intellectual space. Even within
a single province of the Republic of Letters, moreover, one
writer's citation practices often provided ammunition for an-
ocher's polemical broadsides. When the erudite cure Jean-Bap-
tiste Thiers set out to excoriate Jacques Boileau's critical history
of the place of flagellation within the Christian tradition, he
flailed his opponent, who had denied the antiquity of the prac-
tice, for swelling his book by including irrelevant details about
his sources: "Often he cites the year and place of publication
of books, the names of the printers or publishers, the pages and
leaves in the books, and sometimes even the capital letters
found at the margins and the lines on the pages. "
58
Boileau,
the history of scholarship on Caesar than he did on how this would help readers
to master the texts themselves.
57 I.e Clerc, Parrhasiana, 231: "feuilleter tout un Volume, pour trouver ce
que chacun a dit, ce qui est long et ennuieux."
58. J .-B. Thiers, Critique de /'Histoire des F/agel/ans (Paris, 1703), 29: "Souvent
il cite l'annee et le lieu de l'Edition des Livres, le nom des Imprimeurs ou
Libraires, les pages et les feilillets des Livres, et quelquefois meme les letres
majuscules qui sont awe marges et les lignes des pages. En void la preuve ..
{which takes up two pages, 29-3 r}." (Early printed books in large formats often
used capital letters in the margins to divide the text into sections for easy and
Thiers complained, filled his work with such unnecessary
bibliographical facts, such "bookseller's learning," even when
only one edition of the work in question existed. Sometimes
Boileau reached a level of pedantry not seen in the whole period
since the invention of printing. Yet in other cases he had omit-
ted all details. "What purpose," Thiers demanded, "do all these
meticulous and affected citations serve, except to enlarge his
history?"
59
Even in the erudite precincts of the French clergy,
evidently, too much learning could prove a passport to dis-
missal as the social inferior of those who wore their documen-
tation more lightly.
In the course of the later seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
turies, however, a long series of debates and discussions among
writers, translators, and printers gradually yielded something
like the modem system of documentation--even if the process
did not then reach, and still has not reached, completion.
Across Europe, writers and publishers collaborated more inten-
sively than ever before, trying to make every aspect of the physi-
cal presentation of text mirror and guide the reader through its
content.
60
A revolution in book design took place, as those
concerned with authorship and publication carried out exper-
precise citation.) Boileau had indeed incorporated some quite detailed indica-
tions of his sources, as well as long quotations from them, in his Historia fla-
ge/lantill11l (Paris, I700). On this controversy and its protagonists see B. Neveu,
Erudition et religion aux xviie et xviiie s i ~ c / e s (Paris, 1994), esp. 201-202.
59 Thiers, Critique, 33: "A quoi bon routes ces citations si scrupuleuses et
si afectees, sinon pour grossir son Histoire qui n'eilt pas laisse d'etre trop grosse
sans routes ces minuties?"
6o. N. Barker, "Typography and the Meaning of Words: The Revolution in
the Layout of Books in the Eighteenth Century," Buch und Buchhande/ in Europa
im achtzehntenjahrhundert, ed. G. Barber and B. Fabian, Wolfenbiitteler Schriften
zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 4 (Hamburg, 1981), 127-165.
iments in layout and design, trying to make books physically
as well as intellectually accessible. In this period, for example,
classical scholars and printers first collaborated to establish the
custom that the lines of each book or section of a classical text
should be numbered sequentially throughout. Thus critics all
over Europe could discuss a common problem without assum-
ing that all participants knew the texts by heart or having to
refer to pages and lines in a single edition-the practices that
had remained standard since the invention of printing.
61
The
combination of practical and aesthetic considerations that
moved the classicists to depart from immemorial procedures
also affected historical practice. As footnotes came to be not
only intellectually fashionable but also typographically prac-
tical, they came to be found in the historian's normal literary
toolbox. Through the eighteenth century new standards for
precision gradually infected historical exposition, in a process
the details of which remain to be established. Historians con-
tinued to believe in the moral and literary virtue of a clear,
instructive narrative, but also cherished a newer desire for crit-
ical discussion of the sources. Publishers needed to reach large
markets, but also wanted to work with authors. An intermi-
nable struggle resulted, one sometimes fought out to the tune
of "two steps forward, one step back." But in the end, thanks
as much to wider developments in publishing and education
as to the achievements of brilliant individuals, the footnote won
its place on the historian's page.
62
One last time, David Hume offers crucial testimony. He
directed the letter in which he insisted that Gibbon make his
61. E. J. Kenney, The Classical Text (Berkeley, 1974).
62. See Zedelmaier.
endnotes into footnotes not to Gibbon him:selfbut to their joint
publisher, William Strahan. As he said, "I intended to have
given him (Gibbon} my Advice with regard to the manner of
printing it; but as I am now writing to you, it is the same
thing. "
63
Hume's new sense of how history should be read went
together with a new sense of how it should be written-and
that, in turn, with a new sense of what the author could ex-
pect of his publisher. For all of this, he-like Gibbon and
Moser--owed a considerable debt to those French thinkers of
the late seventeenth century who found in Holland a refuge
from the religious intolerance of Louis XIV, in learning a refuge
from the oppression of theological orthodoxies, and in footnotes
a refuge from the intellectual dogmatism of Descartes.
63. Hume, utters, ed. Greig, II, 313.
EPILOGUE
Some Concluding Footnotes
*Gibbon and MOser, Robenson and Wolf replicated in
full-length narratives the structures that Bayle had erected on
a small scale in each article, bearing in mind Le Clerc's direc-
tions for users of erudite compilations as well as the practices
of generations of historians and antiquaries. So critical history
of the modern sort became possible. Ranke had only two in-
gredients to add-but both proved crucial. Almost against his
own will, he gave a new literary life to the process of research
and criticism, making the footnote and the critical appendix a
source of pleasure rather than an occasion for apology. The scru-
pulous scholars of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe
created many features of modern historical practice. But they
rarely anticipated Ranke's glow of enthusiasm, his ability to
end a day's immersion in the dust of decaying records with his
heart still throbbing with the excitement of discovery and in-
terpretation.
Leibniz, a habitue of archives and an industrial-strength
publisher of sources, complained bitterly about the damage
deciphering illegible manuscripts had done to his eyes. He
showed little interest in the minutiae of the manuscripts whose
224 * Epilogue
contents he made accessible to a wide public.
1
Gibbon, for all
his mastery of the footnote as a literary form, long felt ambiv-
alent about the relation between scholarship and narrative. He
retained a tendency to denigrate what he described as "the
dusty parchments and barbarous style of the records of the mid-
dle age. "
2
In his Memoirs, he expressed his regret that he had
allowed himself to be persuaded to disfigure his narrative with
footnotes. Discussing the two Basel editions of the Decline, Gib-
bon wrote: "Of their fourteen octavo Volumes, the two last
include the whole body of the notes. The public importunity
had forced me to remove them from the end of the Volume to
the bottom of the page: but I have often repented of my com-
plyance."3 It seems characteristically ironic that Gibbon de-
scribed the advice of David Hume as "the ouf?lic imoor:_tunitv."
Ranke, however, made research and criticism glamorous and
attractive.
At the same time, Ranke created, informally at first, a central
institution of the new historiography: the nineteenth-century
historical seminar, in which young students learned the tools
of their trade by attacking technical problems selected by their
teacher, under his guidance and with the help of his continual
criticism. Most of the early historical seminars resembled
Ranke's. Small in scale, not always supported by state grants,
they were poorer and less ambitious than eighteenth-century
1. H. Eckert, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz' Scriptores Rerum Brunsvicensium. Ent-
stehung und historiographische Bedeutung (Frankfurt a.M., 1971), brings out the
contrast between the sophisticated principles ofl.eibniz's historical research and
the sloppy teamwork by which they were imperfectly applied to the sources.
2. E. Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, ed. John, Lord Sheffield (London, 1814),
III, 362.
3 E. Gibbon, Memoirs of My Life, ed. G. A. Bonnard (London, 1966), 194,
n. 64 to chap. VIII.
Some Concluding Footnotes * 225
Gottingen's stately Historical Institute. Gradually they won
modest official funds for scholarships and prizes. A mid-nine-
teenth-century historian counted himselflucky if he could con-
vince the state minister responsible for education to buy one
bookcase full of primary sources and reference works for the
students in his seminar. Students who did not come-as many,
naturally, did-from professional and academic families had to
depend on the kindness of librarians. Otherwise they could not
develop the technical and bibliographical competence needed
to produce acceptable seminar reports and dissertations.
Nonetheless, the nineteenth-century seminars achieved
something new. The forum for technical discussion that they
offered and the short, precise dissertations on source-criticism
on which their members concentrated eventually created a new
disciplinary style and atmosphere. Only a proven ability to
wield the tools and techniques of scholarship with dexterity
and enthusiasm could open the doors to professional advance-
ment.4 In the Renaissance, when gentlemen wrote rhetorical
history to be read by younger gentlemen, one's scholarship un-
derpinned the utility of one's text. Still, excessive display of
learning could only impair, not enhance, the moral and prag-
matic impact of a history. Gentlemen must write as they
rode-with great skill but no apparent effort. In the seven-
teenth- and eighteenth-century Republic of Letters, Bayle's and
4 For the development of professional history in Germany see W. Hardtwig,
Geschichtskultur und Wissemchaft (Munich, 1990), 13-102. On the growth of the
seminar, see H. Heimpel, "Uber Organisationsformen historischer Forschung in
Deutschland,"' Hundert jahre Historische Zeitschrift, r859-1959, ed. T. Schieder
(Munich, 1959), 139-222. The seminars for classical philology which grew up
before and alongside those for history fostered similar developments.
226 * Epilogue
Gibbon's footnotes could win them a reputation for both im-
pudence and erudition. Their apparatus proved that they had
used their private libraries well and inspired some others to
work and write in similar ways. But in the new university
system of nineteenth-century Germany, which rewarded origi-
nal hypotheses more lavishly than eloquent narratives, foot-
notes and documentary appendices could make one more fa-
mous than one's text, and critical arguments could win more
imitators than the constructive ones. No wonder that so many
bright young men, like Heinrich Nissen, chose problems of
source-criticism as the subjects for their well-annotated doc-
toral dissertations: content and form matched each other at
last.
5
In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, finally, the
sources needed to produce footnotes became readily accessible
to young men-and women-who did not come from families
rich enough to provide them with private research libraries.
The archives of the major European states opened reading
rooms where scholars could work regularly, making aU--oral-
most all--of their documents available to accredited readers.
National libraries, similarly, made the published collections of
primary sources available in their domed, public reading rooms
to men and women of letters who would never have had the
money or the social credentials to use them in the private li-
braries of previous centuries. Eminent professors used persua-
sion, blackmail, and offers of positions elsewhere to make their
governments cough up the money for working collections where
:;. See H. W. Blanke, "'AufkHirungshistorie, Historismus, and historische
Kritik. Eine Skizze,'" in Von der Aufkliirung zum Historismm. Zum Strukttlf'Wandel
des historischen Denkens, ed. H. W. Blanke and]. Riisen (Paderbom, 1984), 167-
186, with the comment by W. Weber, IBB--189, and Blanke's reply, 189-190.
their students could read the printed sources, primary and sec-
ondary, in one place. The Berlin rooms of the Monumenta Ger-
maniae Historica, for example, with their elaborate collections
of reference works and primary texts, became a historical lab-
oratory, the counterpart, for the human sciences, of the Cav-
endish. The low salaries paid to the young collaborators in this
project caused endless anguish. Nonetheless, those who could
make their way through the stone jungles of Berlin to the
Preussische Staatsbibliothek mastered literature and technique
with a new ease.
6
After World War II, the vast budgets of the
West German universities enabled historical institutes across
the country to establish similar collections for their students.
Slowly but inevitably, similar resources became available to
young historians throughout the West. One story may stand
for many. The English medievalist F. M. Powicke came to study
history at Owen's College in Manchester, later the University
of Manchester, in 1896. Soon after he arrived, the enormous
library of the historian E. A. Freeman, which had been pre-
sented to the university some years before, was made available
to students:
Then, in 1898 a new library, the Christie library, was opened
and a room in it was set apart as a study and classroom, with
Freeman's books all round it, accessible. There, in that room,
the student, now in his third and last year, was guided into the
mysteries of two special subjects, by Tout on Italy in the fif-
teenth century, by Tait on the Roman Republic in the time of
Cicero. He read many books and realized what original au-
thorities were and how they should be used. He discovered
what it meant to handle the folios of Muratori, to study the
6. H. Fuhrmann, with M. Wesche, "Sind eben a/les Memchm gewesm." Gelehr-
tmleben im 19. und 20. ]ahrhumkrt (Munich, 1996).
228 * Epilogue
Venetian ambassadors, and read Machiavelli and Guicciardini
and Comines in the original. It was a bewildering, but also a
wonderful experience.
7
The excitements of the footnote had reached industrial Man-
chester; two generations later, they would even capture indus-
trializing Oxford.
No amount of access to sources, published or unpublished,
has proved capable of settling all of history's unanswered ques-
tions. Neither the publication of massive series of diplomatic
and political records about the origins of World War I nor that
of vast quantities of information about the course of World War
II has prevented historians from arguing without end. Docu-
mentation, moreover, never reaches completeness. Even modern
archives seek to protect their users--or at least the less privi-
leged ones-from certain forms of document. Still, anyone who
attends a modern university in the West can learn, as easily as
Powicke did, to handle the basic primary and secondary sources
and cite them wherever apposite. The routines of advanced stu-
dent life described in Chapter 1 ensure as much, despite the
differences between national styles of research and training.
Footnotes no longer hold much mystery for those determined
to learn how to produce them.
Sadly, the footnote's rise to the status of a standard scholarly
tool has been accompanied-in many cases-by its stylistic
decline to a list of highly abbreviated archival citations. Ranke,
supposedly the alchemist who created the modern historical
apparatus, in fact disliked footnotes and did not compose them
7 F. M. Powicke, Modern Historians and the Study of History (London, 1955),
2o-2 1. In the same book, Powicke offers detailed profiles of his teachers, T. F.
Tout and J. Tait.
with the care and ingenuity that went into his original research
or the writing of the appendices to his books. Footnotes flour-
ished most brightly in the eighteenth century, when they
served to comment ironically on the narrative in the text as
well as to support its veracity. In the nineteenth century, they
lost the prominent role of the tragic chorus. Like so many Car-
mens, they found themselves reduced to laborers and confined
to a vast, dirty factory. What began as art became, inevitably,
routine.
In a brilliant passage, Gibbon dissects the five volumes of
the Origines Gue/ficae, the collection of documents which Leibniz
undertook for the Dukes of Hanover: "The hands of the several
workmen are apparent; the bold and original spirit ofLeibnitz,
the crude erudition and hasty conjectures of Eccard, the useful
annotations of Gruber, and the critical disquisitions ofScheid."
8
One could say much the same-if one could write such sen-
tences--of the footnote. A palimpsest, it reveals on examina-
tion research techniques framed in the Renaissance, critical
rules first stated during the Scientific Revolution, the irony of
Gibbon, the empathy of Ranke, and the savagery of a s
well as the slow growth of publishing conventions, educational
institutions, and professional structures which reshaped histo-
rians' lives and work.
Ranke's history of research practices and their exposition in
historical writing has turned out to be self-justification rather
than accurate description. That should not occasion surprise;
in a Protestant culture virtue naturally associates itself with
claims of novelty and reform. But the story also has a number
of larger morals. Considered at the level of practice, rather than
8. Gibbon, Miscel/aneom Works, Ill, 36,.
230 * Epilogue
theory, the development of history looks gradual rather than
legato, more evolutionary than revolutionary. Part of the story
is certainly recognizable. Historians picked up their tech-
niques, then as now, in smash-and-grab raids on the glittering
shop-windows of other disciplines, and continued to employ
these long after they had forgotten the theoretical reasons for
doing so. They also managed to forget well-founded objections
and qualifications; without oblivion, history could not continue
to be written. But the glacial history of practice challenges the
dramatic tale of seismic disciplinary changes traditionally pro-
claimed in prefaces and manifestoes and later retold in many
histories of historiography. No accumulation of footnotes will
necessarily make it possible to bring the two stories together.
9
The story of the footnote also underlines the fact that not all
significant changes in modern intellectual disciplines result
from the search for personal or institutional power so often
invoked to explain, for example, the rise of modern science.
Certainly, some distinct stages in the rise of historical. culture
reflect power struggles. For example, a passion for documentary
evidence and rigorous proof characterized both the historical
scholarship of the later sixteenth and that of the early nine-
teenth century. Each period witnessed a massive confrontation
between long-standing institutions and radical attackers. In the
sixteenth century, defenders of the old practices of the medieval
church, sanctioned by tradition rather than texts, and of old
social forms, protected by memory and tradition rather than
written history and law, confronted innovative Reformers of
the church and aggressive reformers of the state. In the early
9 Cf. J. Levine, Doctor Woodward's Shield (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London,
1977>
nineteenth century, lovers of the Ancien Regime confronted
votaries of the Revolution that had shattered it. In each case
both attackers and defenders of entrenched practices tried to
find evidence for their positions in the past. The rapid devel-
opment of new techniques in research and argumentation was
directly connected with the wider world of struggle over land
and belief. But the story of the footnote also had many partic-
ipants whose private wealth and personal independence freed
them from the need to attack or defend institutions, to find
disciples or organize against enemies. Personal quirks and id-
iosyncrasies as well as larger social formations helped to bring
about what was, in the end, a shift of form and practice within
a literary genre.
The story of the footnote, finally, sheds a new light on the
nature of history as a literary enterprise. In recent years, some
scholars have argued, influentially, that history is nothing more
than a form of imaginative literature-a narrative like a novel.
Others have contradicted them, insisting that historians not
only write elegant paragraphs but pursue erudite research.
10
Neither side, however, has answered what seems an essential
question: what role does research play in the writing of histor-
ical narratives? Leon Goldstein argues, in his well-informed and
provocative study Historical Knowing, that history consists of a
superstructure and an infrastructure. The former consists of
"that part of the historical enterprise which is visible to non-
historian consumers of what historians produce," the latter of
"that range of intellectual activities whereby the historical past
10. See e.g. A. Momigliano, ''The Rhetoric of History and the History of
Rhetoric: On Hayden White's Tropes," Settiffl() contributo alia storia deg/i studi
classici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1984), 4 ~ 5 9
232 * Epilogue
is constituted in historical research." Goldstein rightly points
out that most work on the ohilosoohv of historv J;tas conc;erped
LCtive model itself with the superstructure, and he offers an a t t r ~
LII first-hand of how to analyze the infrastructure as well. Helpf
in how seri- analyses of historians' citation practices make pia
listory is an ously Goldstein takes the task of showing that l
elling.
11
investigative discipline as well as a form of story-t
torical point But even Goldstein fails to make the central rhe
cory is mod- that emerges from the present inquiry: modern his
rary form to ern precisely because it tries to give a coherent lite
argues that both parts of the historical enterprise. Goldstein
lOt developed history's superstructure, its narrative form, has r
er-expanding in any vital way over the centuries; only the ev
Is, new ques- infrastructure, with its burgeoning new methoc
vith time. In tions, and new sources, has changed radically '
that the form fact, however, the history of the footnote shows
again in the of historical narrative has mutated over and ovel
,ecause histo-
>tory of their
ace levels and
iearch cannot
Dric: even the
,istort the de-
re not simply
ns of research
only the lit-
~ historian co
1976), esp. 140-
, Mass., and Lon-
:haft im Medium
last several centuries. It has done so, moreover, l
rians have tried to find new ways to tell the 1
research as well as those of their subjects, on sepal
at different tempos. The history of historical re:
usefully be separated from that of historical rhet,
best-informed efforts to achieve that separation d
velopments they seek to clarify. Historical texts a
narratives like any other; they result from the fon
and critical argument that footnotes record. But
erary work of composing such notes enables tht
11. L. Goldstein, HiJtfWical Kn()Wing (.Austin and London,
143; cf. L. Gossman, Between HiJtory and Literature (Cambridge
don, 1990), chap. 9 Cf. M. Cahn, "Die Rhetorik der Wissensc
der Typographie: zum Beispiel die Fussnote" (forthcoming).
represent, imperfectly, the research that underpins the text. To
study the footnote is to see that strict efforts to distinguish
history as art from history as science have only their neatness
to recommend them. In the end, they shed little light on the
actual development of modem historiography. A full literary
analysis of modem historical writing would have to include a
rhetoric of annotation as well as some version of the existing
rhetorics of narration.
Historians' practices of citation and quotation have rarely
lived up to their precepts; footnotes have never supponed, and
can never support, every statement of fact in a given work. No
apparatus can prevent all mistakes or eliminate all disagree-
ments. Wise historians know that their craft resembles Penel-
ope's an of weaving: footnotes and text will come together
again and again, in ever-changing combinations of patterns and
colors. Stability is not to be reached.U Nonetheless, the cul-
turally contingent and eminently fallible footnote offers the
only guarantee we have that statements about the past derive
from identifiable sources. And that is the only ground we have
to trust them.
13
Only the use of footnotes and the research techniques asso-
ciated with them makes it possible to resist the efforts of mod-
ern governments, tyrannical and democratic alike, to conceal
the compromises they have made, the deaths they have caused,
the tortures they or their allies have inflicted. It is no coinci-
12. Cf. N. Z. Davis, "On the lame," American HiJtorica/ Review, 93 (1988),
572-6o3.
I 3 I agree strongly with the discussion of problems of historical knowledge
offered by R. Chartier, "Zeit der Zweifel," Neue Rumhchau, 105 (1994), 9-20
at 17-19. Cf. also A. B. Spitzer, Hi.rtorica/ Truth and LieJ about the PaJt (Chapel
Hill and London, 1 9).
234 * Epilogue
dence that Cardinal Evaristo Ams, the protector of the lawyers
who exposed the use of torture against the citizens of Brazil,
had learned the historian's craft at a high level in Paris in the
1950s.
14
Only the use of footnotes enables historians to make
their texts not monologues but conversations, in which modem
scholars, their predecessors, and their subjects all take part. It
is, again, no coincidence that the most elaborate set of historical
footnotes ever written-a set of four layers, footnotes to foot-
notes to footnotes to footnotes--occurs in an early publication
of the Warburg lnstitute.
15
The luxuriant thickets of annota-
tion characteristically planted by the Institute's first members
were no routine assemblage of the relevant and the irrelevant,
the essential and the trivial. They provided a written counter-
part to the experience of working in the Warburg library itself,
where the encounter with traditions juxtaposed in radically new
ways was meant to shock readers into creativity.
16
Many kinds of footnotes, in many kinds of histories, admin-
ister the same salutary lessons. No one has described the way
that footnotes educate better than Harry Belafonte, who re-
14. E. Arns, O.F.M., La technique du liflf'e d'apres Saintjlr6me (Paris, 1953) (a
dissertation supervised by P. Courcelle). See L. Weschler, A Miracle, a Univem
(New York, 1990).
15. H. Junker, "Ueber iranische Quellen der hellenistischen Aion-Vorstel-
lung," Bibliothek Warburg. Vortrage, 1921-1922 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1923),
125-178 at 165-171.
16. See E. W{ind], "Introduction," A Bibliography on the S ~ m ~ i v a l of the C/aJ-
JicJ, I (London, 1934), v-xii. The historian's apparatus also protects the results
of his or her original research against the all-encompassing thesis arrived at
much later. It retains obdurate nuggets of source material that refuse to be
refined down-and whose presence forces the historian to reconsider or modify
conclusions or even to undertake new investigations. Cf. C. Wright Mills, "On
Intellectual Craftsmanship," The Sociological Imagination (New York, 1959), 195-
226.
Some Concluding FootnoteJ * 235
cendy told the story of his early reading of W. E. B. Du Bois:
"I discovered that at the end of some sentences there was a
number, and if you looked at the foot of the page the reference
was to what it was all about-what source Du Bois gleaned his
information from." Footnotes first inspired the young West In-
dian sailor to read criticallyY
Footnotes guarantee nothing, in themselves. The enemies of
truth-and truth has enemies--can use them to deny the same
facts that honest historians use them to assert.
18
The enemies
of ideas-and they have enemies as well--can use them to
amass citations and quotations of no interest to any reader, or
to attack anything that resembles a new thesis. Yet footnotes
form an indispensable if messy part of that indispensable, messy
mixture of art and science: modern history.
17. H. L. Gates, Jr., "Belafonte's Balancing Act," New Yorker, 26 August and
2 September 1996, 135 Belafonte also recalls how the citation codes DuBois
used stimied his first efforts at self-education: "So when I was on leave, going
into Chicago, I went to a library with a long list of books. The librarian said,
'That's too many, young man. You're going to have to cut it down.' I said, 'I
can make it very easy. Just give me everything you got by Ibid.' She said, 'There's
no such writer.' I called her a racist. I said, 'Are you trying to keep me in
darkness?' And I walked out of there angry."
18. SeeP. Vidal-Naquet, Les aSJassins de Ia mlmoire (Paris, 1987).
INDEX
Abraham, David, 17-18
Accursius, 27
Acton, Lord, 12, 60
Aeschylus, Persae, 88
Aldrovandi, Ulisse, 180
Anecdote.r about Mme. Ia comte.rse du
Barry, 111
Annius of Viterbo, 130, 131, 170-
171, 187
Arbuthnot, John, 118
Atistarchus, 89-90
Aristophanes of Byzantium, 90
Aristotle, 175
Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, 29
Baronio, Cesare, Annale.r, 154, 160,
163, 164
Bartoli, Giuseppe, 185
Baudouin, 7'5-77, 132
Bayle, Pierre: Historical and Critical
Dictionary, 191-200, 201, 205-
206,207-212,213-214,217,
225-226; Nouwlle.r tk Ia
Rlpublique des Lettres, 191-192
Bede, Venerable, 157
Bentley, Richard, 111-113, 116,
117
Bernays, Jacob, 4, 109
Bernays, Michael, 4, 67
Be ross us, 1 55
Bierling, F. W., 212
Bloch, Marc, 174
Bik:kh, August, 91-92
Bodin,Jean, 75,76-77, 123, 132,
133; Methodus ad facilem
historiarum cognitionem, 77-78
Boileau, Jacques, 219-220
Boim, Michael, 151, 152
Bosio, Antonio, Underground Rome
( Roma sotterranea), 1 54
Brackmann, Albert, 20-21
Braudel, Fernand, 55
Brooke, Ralph, 181
Bruni, Leonardo, Historie.r of the
Florentine People, 125
Buckley, Samuel, 140
Buddeus, J. F., His tory of the
Philosophy of the Hebrews, 200
238 * Index
Buondelmonti, Cristofaro, 177
Burckhardt, Jacob, 42
Bury, J. B., 59
Butterfield, Herbert, 60
Calco, Tristano, 128
Camden, William, 137, 138, 181;
Annals of the Reign of Queen
Elizabeth, 13 5
Campano, Giannantonio, 126-127
Carte, Thomas, 140
Casaubon,Isaac, 172
Cervantes, Miguel de, 110
Clement VII, 159
Cluverius, Philip, 187
Collatio legum Romanorum et
Mosaicarum, 30
Corio, Bernardino, 124
Cotton, Robert, 135, 138
Coulanges, Fustel de, 70
Craig, John, 206
Cranach, Lucas, Passional Christi
and Antichristi, 158-159
Cujas, Jacques, 148
Cyriac of Ancona, 177
Dante Alighieri, 28
De Beaufort, Louis, 123, 187
De l'Escluse, Charles, 13 7
Descartes, Rene, 207, 222;
Discourse on the Meti!od, 206
De Thou, Jacques-Auguste, 133-
142, 147, 153, 195, 216
Dickens, A. G., 61
Dorislaus, Isaac, 144-145
Ducange, Charles, 210, 211
Dupuy, Christophe, 136
Eliot, T. S., The Waste Land, 28
Erasmus, Desiderius, 157
Erasmus, H. )., 187
Erythraeus, Janus Nicius, 164
Eusebius, 24, 169, 170, 171;
Ecclesiastical History, 156-157,
160
Fabroni, Angelo, 82
Febvre, Lucien, 174
Flacius Illyricus, Matthias,
Centuries, 160-162, 163
Foxe,John, 163, 166
Froude, James Anthony, 56
Fueter, Eduard, 107
Gatterer, Christoph, 79
George, Stefan, 19
Gibbon, Edward, 97-104; and
antiquarian literature, 182-187,
188; and Bayle, 195, 197, 200,
213, 223, 226; and de Thou,
138, 141; and ecclesiastical
history, 168; History of the Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1-
4,97-98, 102-104, 169, 171,
224; and Hume, 221-222;
Memoirs, 224; and Origines
Gueljicae, 229; and Ranke, 72,
122, 123; reputation of, 226;
and scholarship, 224; and
Tillemont, 209; A Vindication of
Some Passages in the Fifteenth and
Index * 239
Sixteenth Chapters of the History of
the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, 99-10 1
Giovio, Paolo, 81, 123-124, 141
Glossa ordinaria, 27
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 85
Graevius, Johannes Georgius,
Thesaurus, 124
Gruter, Janus, 180
Gryphius, Andreas, 28
Guicciardini, Francesco, 40, 41,
42-44,45,77,80,123
Hardouin, Jean, 184
Heeren, Arnold, 47
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich,
34, 107-108
Herbert of Bosham, 31
Herder, Johann Gotrfried von, 85
Hermann, Gottfried, 3 7, 72, 86,
87-92
Hercxlotus, 88, 175
Heyne, Christian Gottlob, 84
Hobbes, Thomas, 77
Homius, Georg, 150
Huet, Pierre-Daniel, 206
Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 34, 85
Hume, David, 102-103, 1 9 ~ 1 9 1 ,
217, 221-222; History of
England, 103
Jahn, Otto, 109
James I, 135, 136, 138
Joinville, Jean, 24
Jonson, Ben, 144-147; Sejanw,
144, 145-146
Joscelyn, John, 165
Josephus, 169-170
Julius Caesar, Commentaries, 28,
126
Jungermann, Gottfried, 218-219
Jurieu, Pierre, 192
Kant, Immanuel, 108
Kantorowicz, Ernst, 19-22, 7 ~ 7 1 ;
Kaiser Friedrich II, 71
Kepler, Johannes, Mysterium
cosmographimm, 29
Kircher, Athanasius, 149-154,
171-173, 180, 182, 187, 188;
China, 150, 154; Prodromus
coptus, 150
Krateros of Macedon, 175-176
Langlois, Ch.-V., 26
LeClerc, Jean, 214-219, 223; Ars
critica, 215; Parrhasiana, 215-
219
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von,
182,194,210,223-224
Leo X, 159
Leo, Heinrich, 65-67, 229
Ligorio, Pirro, 185
Lipsius, Justus, 98, 144; De militia
Romana, 179
Loyola, Ignatius, 159
Luther, Martin, To the Christian
Nobility of the German Nation,
158
Mabillon, Jean, 148
Macrobius, Saturnalia, 29
240 * Index
Maffei, Scipione, 98
Mane tho, 15 5
Melanchthon, Philipp, 158
Menage, Gilles, 194
Mencke, Friedrich Otto, 201
Mencke, Johann Burckhard, On the
Charlatanry of the Learned, 119
Menius, Justus, 162
Mercier, Louis-5ebastien, The Year
2440, 111
Michelangelo, 177
Mommsen, Theodor, 109
Montaigne, Michel de, 78; Essays,
28
Montesquieu, Baron, 105
Montfaucon, Bernard de, 148
Moreri, Louis, 195; Grand
diaionnaire his tori que, 192, 209
Moser,Justus, 104-107, 122, 187,
222, 223; Osnabriickische
Geschichte, 1 07
Mosheim, J. L., 98, 168, 171.
Muller, Johannes von, 81, 122
Muratori, Ludovico Antonio, 98,
168, 188-189
Muret, Marc-Antoine, 144
Nicholas of Cusa, 75
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg, 37, 49,
67-68,72,85,86-87,187
Nissen, Heinrich, 58-59, 226
Origen, 156
Ovid, 29
Pamphilus, 156
Panvinio, Onofrio, 176-177
Paris, Matthew, 24
Parker, Matthew, 164-165, 166
Parkes, Malcolm, 30
Pascal, Blaise, Letters,
201-202; Treatise on the Vacuum,
202
Pasquier, Etienne, 142-144, 147
Perizonius, Jacob, 213
Perez, Georg Heinrich, 49, 87
Peter Lombard, 30-31
Petrarch, 28, 29
Pindar, 89-90
Pliny, Natural History, 29
Plutarch, 176
Pope, Alexander, 113-114, 217;
Variorum Dunciad, 114, 115-
118
Powicke, F. M., 227-228
Rabelais, 110
Rabener, Gottlieb Wilhelm,
Hinkmars von Repkow Noten ohne
Texte, 120
Ranke, Leopold von, 34-61, 62-
93, 94, 96, 110, 122-124, 128,
138,141,212,223,224,228-
229; Histories of the Latin and
German Peoples (Geschichten der
romanischen und germanischen
Votker), 38-39, 65-67, 72; On
the Criticism of Modern Historians
( Zur Kritik neuerer
Geschichtsschreiber), 39, 48
Index * 241
Robertson, William, 97, 104, 187,
223
Roscoe, William, 82-83
Saint-Evremond, Seigneur de, 105
Sarpi, Paolo, 136
Saumaise, Claude, 193
Savile, Henry, 136
Scaliger,Joseph, 137, 187, 193
Schlegel, Auguste Wilhelm von,
85
Schlegel, Friedrich von, 85
Schlozer, August Ludwig von, 79
Scott, Sir Walter, 37-38, 91
Seignobos, Charles, 26
Semedo, Alvaro, 151
Semler, Johann Salomo, 79
Sigonio, Carlo, 176-177
Simon, Richard, Critical History of
the Old TeJtament, 202-204
Simonetta, Giovanni, 125
Sismondi, Sismonde de, 40-41, 44
Smetius, Henricus, 180
Stenzel, Gustav, 45, 47
Swift, Jonathan, 112-113, 117;
Battle of the Books, 113
Tacitus, Annals, 144
Temporarius, Johannes, 187
Tennemann, Wilhelm Gottlieb,
107
Theobald, Lewis, 114
Thiers, Jean-Baptiste, 219-220
Thomasius, Christian, 200-201
Thomasius, Jacob, 13-14, 206-
207
Thucydides, 24, 175
Tiedemann, Dietrich, 107
Tillemont, Sebastian le Nain de,
98,168-169,202,209,211
Tissot, S. A., The Health of Scholars,
95-96
Trithemius, Johannes, 157
Turner, Henry, 17 -18; German Big
Businm and the Rise of Hitler, 18
Valla, Lorenzo, 73-75; Declamation
on the Donation of Constantine,
157, 158
Varro, Marcus Terentius, 174
Vico, Giambattista, Scienza nuova,
81
Vincent of Beauvais, 31
Virgil, Polydore, 129-130
Voigt, Johannes, 57
Voltaire, 194, Age of Louis XIV, 94
Wachler, Ludwig, 79-80, 121,
124, 140-141
Welser, Markus, 138-139
White, Richard, 130-131;
Historiarum libri. . cum notis
antiquitatum Britannicarum, 128-
129
Winckelmann, ]. ]., 194-195
Wolf, Friedrich August, 84-85,
223; Prolegomena ad Homerum, 92
Xenophon, 88

Grafton, A - Footnote, A Curious History (Harvard, 1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grafton, A - Footnote, A Curious History (Harvard, 1999)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grafton, A - Footnote, A Curious History (Harvard, 1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FOOTNOTE

Practitioners of quite dif-

Hume did not

You might also like