In the latest issue:

In Quarantine

Erin Maglaque

Après Brexit

Ferdinand Mount

Short Cuts: Springtime for Donald

David Bromwich

Meetings with their Gods

Claire Hall

‘Generation Left’

William Davies

At the North Miami Museum: Alice Paalen Rahon

Mary Ann Caws

Buchan’s Banter

Christopher Tayler

‘American Dirt’

Christian Lorentzen

Fiction and the Age of Lies

Colin Burrow

In Lahore

Tariq Ali

GOD HATES YOUR FEELINGS

James Lasdun

Rereading Bowen

Tessa Hadley

At the Corner House

Rosemary Hill

William Gibson

Thomas Jones

Poem: ‘Murph & Me’

August Kleinzahler

The Stud File

Kevin Brazil

John Boorman’s Quiet Ending

David Thomson

In Shanghai: The West Bund Museum

John-Paul Stonard

Diary: The Deborah Orr I Knew

Jenny Turner

Qui êtes-vous, Sir Moses?C.R. Whittaker
Close
Close
Vol. 8 No. 4 · 6 March 1986

Qui êtes-vous, Sir Moses?

C.R. Whittaker

3791 words
Ancient History: Evidence and Models 
by M.I. Finley.
Chatto, 131 pp., £12.95, September 1985, 0 7011 3003 2
Show More
Show More

Julian Barnes’s recent best-seller, Flaubert’s Parrot, quotes a letter from Flaubert to Feydeau: ‘When you write the biography of a friend you must do it as if you were taking revenge for him.’ Sir Moses Finley has been my teacher, colleague and friend for close on twenty years, and while I am not intent on taking revenge on his behalf, I can’t claim to be able to write dispassionately about his work, on the occasion of the publication of his new book, Ancient History: Evidence and Models, and of the republication in paperback (with additions) of Democracy Ancient and Modern and The Ancient Economy. 1985 has been something of an annus mirabilis for Finley. Not only has Evidence and Models brought his total number of books to a round dozen (not counting books of collected articles and edited papers), but the year has seen translations of Politics in the Ancient World flamboyantly launched in France and Italy, where he was fêted by academics and the popular press in a manner normally reserved for politicians or pop stars. This brings the number of translations of Politics in the Ancient World to about ten, including one in Catalan. Full-page, sober interviews in Le Monde and La Repubblica might have been expected; the interest shown by Rinascita and La Révolution, given Finley’s radical credentials, is not so surprising; but there aren’t many scholars who receive the accolade of being quoted by Elle. Qui êtes-vous, Sir Moses? demanded the headline of Valeurs Actuelles. Can we imagine such an interest in an academic historian being voiced in Britain?

The answer to this question seems to me far more interesting than trying to write the sort of conventional review for which I am palpably the wrong person. I prefer to enquire why such differences between the Continent and this country exist and to examine the work of Finley against the historiographic backcloth which forms much of the subject-matter of his latest book. In France at least, the reason for these differences is not hard to seek, given the dominance of the Annales school in post-war French historiography. For them, the aim was une histoire à part entière – embracing all human activity – as Lucien Febvre expressed it: the duty of the historian was to record ‘the total social fact’ – a phrase from Marcel Mauss which reflects the anthropological influence of Durkheim with its special emphasis on structures. Both Raymond Aron and more recently Paul Veyne admit the influence of the sociological methods of Dilthey, Simmel and Weber in underscoring the specificity of historical events. In De la Connaissance Historique H.-I. Marrou attacks the narrow concept of what constitutes historical evidence, stressing that in history the initiative does not belong to the document but to the questions posed by the historian. ‘A document,’ he says, ‘is any source of information from which the mind of the historian is able to draw something concerning the knowledge of man’s past.’

In Evidence and Models the rapprochement between Finley and the Annales school is evident. The chapter on ‘Progress in Historiography’ engages in a debate with Veyne. Other chapters concern use and abuse of sources in ancient history and come close to Marrou’s concept of the equivalence of sources against the philologist’s narrow preference for Classical texts. The chapter entitled ‘How it really was’ is as explicit a polemic against l’histoire événementielle and German historicism as any Annaliste could demand. The final chapter on ‘Max Weber and the Greek City-State’ is one more demonstration of the abiding importance of Weber in the formation of Finley’s historical sensibility, while also, perhaps, a declaration of independence.

The Annales historians gave respectability to the pre-modern past and established it in the centre of the French intellectual stage. ‘Tradition,’ said de Certeau, ‘survives in the practices and ideologies of the present.’ The movement was given birth by Medieval historians, such as Bloch, Febvre and Braudel. It reached its climax in the ‘Braudelian empire’ of the VIe Section of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, producing such towering figures as Labrousse, Duby and Le Roy Ladurie. Ancient history has been carried along in the nouvelle vague of Medieval history – not surprisingly, as Momigliano recognised in 1961, given the seminal influence of Fustel de Coulanges, who admitted no such periodisation in French historiography. Of the ten or so most prominent contemporary exponents of Nouvelle Histoire listed by Jean Glénisson, two are ancient historians: Veyne and H.-I. Marrou.

But there is also the role played by French Classical scholars in the development of Durk-heimian sociology which underpinned the movement towards structural history. Louis Gernet, editor for many years of L’Année Sociologique, colleague of Marc Bloch at the Fondation Thiers and associate of Mauss, Halbwachs and Lèvy-Bruhl of the Cahiers du Socialiste, was also the pioneer of ancient Greek social-anthropological studies while holding various university posts in Classical philology. Finley’s first two books, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens (1952) and The World of Odysseus (1954), were both favourably reviewed by Gernet in L’Année Sociologique. The second book, woven around a theme of Marcel Mauss, won wider public recognition through an article of 1963 published by Vidal-Naquet in Annales.

Since then, one of the major themes of the New Historians, several of whom, like Vidal-Naquet himself, were involved in and perhaps disillusioned by the événements of the Sixties, has been a firm rejection of Marxist determinism and of the facile projection of past models into present economics and politics. In the Seventies the search was on to comprehend mentalités, and with this Finley’s most influential and most controversial book, The Ancient Economy, first published in 1971, struck a chord. Constructed on models derived from Karl Polanyi and Max Weber, both of whom had exercised a strong influence on Finley in his early career, the book aimed to demonstrate that the economic behaviour of the ancient Greeks and Romans was determined not, as we instinctively assume, by concepts derived from 19th-century laissez-faire economics but by the social attitudes prevailing in those societies. It is this theme of the specificity, la radicale altérité, of the Greeks and Romans which the French press has seized on as a catchword to epitomise the central motif of Finley’s Democracy Ancient and Modern and Politics in the Ancient World. The same phrase, la radicale altérité, is used by François Hartog, in the introduction to his recent edition of La Cité Antique, to describe the aims of Fustel de Coulanges. Finley’s undisguised admiration for Fustel de Coulanges – though he savaged some of Fustel’s ideas in an influential article – was bound to attract the French.

Historiography in Italy is altogether more complex and it is difficult, despite the marvellous clarity of Arnaldo Momigliano’s studies, to trace the subtle, often bitter undercurrents of rivalries left swirling in the wake of the assassination of Benedetto Croce, ‘secular pope’ of Italian culture, at the posthumous hand of Gramsci when the prison notebooks were published in the late Forties and Fifties. The student revolts, Red Brigades and neo-Fascist movements of the Sixties and Seventies have given Italian historical writing a ‘presentism’ even more immediate than that of France during the événements: they have also given it an appeal outside the confines of the lecture theatre. Many historians, including ancient historians like de Martino, have played an active, sometimes a leading political role. The scholarly historical journal Quaderni di Storia sells an astonishing 5000 copies. As in France, ancient historians like Cicotti have edited specialist monographs for non-Classicists, like the remarkable series of translations in the Biblioteca della Storia Economica – almost unimaginable in Britain. Despite the stern trench warfare and intellectual thuggery between Left and Right vividly described by A.W. Salamone, the Istituto Gramsci has played an enlightened role, on the instructions of the Communist Party, in encouraging an open, non-ideological tradition of scholarship, which includes running a special section on ancient history under Andrea Giardina, as well as liberally sponsoring a remarkable series of seminars. No doubt one reason for the central role of ancient history, or more properly of Roman history, is that it fits easily into the powerfully nationalistic character of Italian historiography, evident in the Storia d’Italia project of Einaudi and in plans for a multi-volumed history of ancient Rome.

Finley’s reception in Italy, possibly because of his predominantly Greek interests, has been relatively cool compared to that in France, and it was not really until the publication of his book on ancient Sicily in 1968, part of a three-volume history initiated by Denis Mack Smith, that he attracted much attention and won the support of the publishing house of Laterza. Finley was one of the first English-speaking historians to be aware of the importance of the works of Ettore Cicotti, to whom he returns in Evidence and Models for his study of ‘War and Empire’. While rejecting the historicism of Croce, Finley’s refusal to accept the text of Marx as inviolate, and his preference for some Weberian models, have made him a figure of suspicion among the Marxist colonels of ancient history – in Italy and elsewhere.

To understand his repudiation of those whom we might consider to be his natural allies we have to understand something of Finley’s background. Whether or not Martin Jay is correct in The Dialectical Imagination in crediting the Frankfurt Institut für Sozialforschung with such an influential part in the revitalisation of Marxism in the Thirties and Forties through the development of what they called Critical Theory (so named for a sensitive American public), they were certainly part of a more general European movement, exemplified in the writings of Lukacs, Gramsci and Ernst Bloch, which saved Marxism from the deadening effect of Soviet-style historical materialism by a more imaginative and selective reading of the texts: this was the milieu in which Finley received his early training, when employed at Columbia from 1937 to 1939 by the Institut in exile. This eclecticism of his has since led him into fierce controversies with orthodox Marxists in Italy and France.

There is a paradox here. What attracted the younger generations of the Sixties and Seventies to Finley, in both France and Italy, was his stress on political commitment and his articulate opposition to élitist theories of democracy advanced by Pareto, Michels and Mosca (and still fashionable in the work of Hannah Arendt). These theories are based on the assumption of apathetic masses who allow themselves to be led by experts. Here, his own credentials to speak were impeccable. The active part he had played when forming and organising the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom had produced his explusion from Rutgers University ten years later, when he refused to answer questions before the Senate Committee on Internal Security, having been denounced by Karl Wittfogel. Yet, as Momigliano recalled in 1975, in a review of Democracy Ancient and Modern for the New York Review of Books, Finley disappointed Italian Marxists like Di Benedetto, Lanza, and those looking for a ‘historian of revolutions’. He determinedly opposed the notion that there were quick and facile lessons to be applied from Athens or Rome in support of modern causes. More recently, his challenge to the relevance of the Marxist concept of classes for an understanding of the logic of ancient slavery and economic change has aroused the fury of the old-fashioned French Marxists of Besançon and a younger generation of Italian Marxist archaeologists led by Andrea Carandini.

But at least Finley was talking the same language as the French and the Italians, and making friends as well as enemies. In Germany there were few friends to be made. Nazism had purged German historiography, along with the other arts, of the political radicalism inspired by the ideas of Marx and of the sociological sensibility created by Weber. Post-war German historiography was monopolised by the scientific historicism associated with the name of Von Ranke, and was obsessed, as Georg Iggers describes it, with the uniqueness of German national phenomena. The ‘poverty’ of historicism, if we follow Karl Popper, lies in its scepticism of all theories of history. Confusing theory with interpretation, historicists have rejected subjective selection of the evidence and prefer the positivist view that it is possible to distill pure, value-free facts of ‘how it really happened.’ Even today it is neo-Rankean figures, such as Gadamer, who hold the centre ground, not those, like Wolfgang Mommsen, Dieter Groh or Hans-Ulrich Wehler, who have challenged the possibility of Wertfreiheit in history. Groh himself is deeply suspicious of Annales-type structural history and returns as so many Germans do, to the theme of Absicht – the intentions of men as an explanation of historical behaviour.

Germany’s loss was America’s gain, since so many brilliant scholars, like those of the Frankfurt Institute or the Vienna Circle, found refuge from Hitler’s Germany in the universities of the United States – over fifty of them according to Jay, including such towering figures as Herbert Marcuse and Franz Neumann, by whom Finley was influenced at Columbia. Several years later another exile from Nazi Europe, the Austrian Karl Polanyi, who had served as a WEA lecturer in Britain during the war, came as visiting professor to Columbia and ran a series of seminars on economic history and anthropology.

We should not be surprised, therefore, at the mutual lack of enthusiasm and sympathy between Finley and many older German ancient historians. We can see his impatience with the Verstehen school in his abrupt dismissal of elaborate theories to prove that the paths to Athenian and Roman imperialism were paved with good intentions. His first foray onto the international history conference circuit – at Stockholm in 1960, where he had been introduced by the Cambridge Medieval historian Michael Postan, another Eastern European and the man who discovered Marc Bloch for English-speaking historians – ended in open conflict on the congress floor when the West Germans, led by Vittinghoff with Joseph Vogt in the background, made a ruthless attempt to suppress any Marxist commentary on ancient slavery by pamphleteering the delegates in advance. Fifteen years later Finley made his position clear with a devastating critique of Vogt’s pet project on ancient slavery, which was being carried out at the Mainz Academy: this was ‘scholarship in its narrowest, positivist version’, ‘mechanical fact-grubbing’. He condemned the warped conception of Marxist theory in Vogt’s Humanismus und Menschenbild as a fantasy of the pro-Nazi Classicists of the Twenties.

The attacks on some of the heroes, past and present, of German ancient historical writing – Eduard Meyer and Hans Delbruck among them – which one can see in Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology and in Evidence and Models, together with Finley’s preference for Karl Marx, Karl Bucher, Werner Sombart and Max Weber, were not likely to endear him to the German academies of the Sixties and Seventies. It is especially ironic when one thinks that, although Theodore Mommsen is said to have forecast that the young Weber would be the man to succeed him as the doyen of Roman history, it is Finley, according to Wilfried Nippel, one of the new generation of German scholars, who has revived interest in Weber among ancient historians in Germany. Karl Christ’s Von Gibbon zu Rostovtzeff, published in 1972, contains no index entry for Weber.

Britain stands somewhere between France and Germany. The relationship between Finley and the ancient history establishment has been uneasy and slow to develop. One reason for this was the isolation of ancient history from the rest of historiography through its traditional attachment to faculties of Classics, which created an ambience wholly alien to what had stimulated the formation of his own historical consciousness. In the TLS, in 1966, he pilloried the omission of ancient history from the syllabus of the History Faculty and from virtually all the mainstream historical journals. Momigliano was making the same complaint in London, where he had taken up the chair in University College in 1962. The fault, however, was not one-sided. Ancient historians, said Finley, instead of engaging in fundamental debates about the nature of, say, Athenian imperialism, were writing ‘sentimental piffle’ or battling over obscurantist issues like the date of a stone cutter.

The unwillingness of the majority of English-speaking ancient historians to abandon positivism and historicism – the process Carl Becker has described as ‘hoping to find something without looking for it ... the oddest attempt to get something for nothing’ – is the inevitable consequence of a philological and text-bound training. But it is only one step behind the traditional conservatism of British historiography as a whole. While Momigliano in 1961 was forecasting that the Annales school would be ‘the central forge of future historians’, E.H. Carr’s lectures in the same year on ‘What is history?’ failed to mention the name of a single Annales historian. Since then, and despite the achievements of Hobsbawm, Hilton, Hill, Keith Thomas and E.P. Thompson, it has still been possible for Geoffrey Barraclough in Main Trends in History to surmise that ‘if a consensus were taken today it would almost certainly show that the majority of professional historians is sceptical of, if not positively hostile to, the more recent trends.’

There has, of course, been a shift towards infrastructural history in the past two decades, a movement away from the history of politics and institutions towards the investigation of latent forces submerged beneath the surface of society, partly under the influence of American sociology. And Finley has undoubtedly put ancient history on the map for modern historians, however cautious his Classical colleagues may be. But a good deal of the New History – particularly in the field of urban or regional history, for all the marvels of such tours de force as the two volumes on Birmingham by C. Gill and Asa Briggs – is strongly empirical and conforms more closely to Trevelyan’s concept of ‘history with the politics left out’ than to the totalising history demanded by Marc Bloch. With it has come the computer and cliometrics, quantification and statistics. But initial enthusiasm among Modern and Medieval historians has become tempered with prudence since the discovery, as Le Roy Ladurie puts it, that ‘a huge supplementary brain within reach of the first imbecile ... would end up multiplying idiocies.’ Obviously this is not to write off the achievements of teams like the Cambridge Group for the study of population history, or historians of the family like Laurence Stone. But there is a sense in which social and economic historians have driven themselves into a corner and destroyed the coherence of history by the increasing fragmentation of their specialisms, as contributors to the Belagio Conference on the New History recognised. The need, as Peter Temin said on that occasion, is to get economics to take account of the diversity of human behaviour.

It was the integration of the history of social behaviour and economics which Finley aimed to achieve in The Ancient Economy, and the same goal now leads him, in Evidence and Models, to condemn the current fashion for phoney statistics in ancient history. This is only the opening salvo in a bombardment of those sheltering in the fool’s haven of new quantitative or serial history – concerned with the price of slaves, the productivity of labour or the levels of trade. Regional and pseudourban histories like Frazer’s massive Ptolemaic Alexandria earn equal contempt. The irony is that, while a new generation of ancient historians – many of them his pupils – are waking up to the existence of New History, the usual twenty years or so after their modern colleagues, they are falling into the same traps. Between ancient history and other later periods, Finley claims, is an ‘unbridgeable divide’, since ‘the necessary data are unavailable except in a small number of situations.’

It would be wrong to give the impression that ancient history in Britain has moved very far. It is not yet engagé and does not rouse passions as it does in France and Italy. The objects of Finley’s special ire in Evidence and Models are those ancient historians – all too many, still – who persist in historicist or antiquarian ways, ‘creating a morass of unintelligible, meaningless, unrelated “facts” ’. The suspicion remains that Finley, while respected and honoured outside for his power as a communicator, is still regarded as not quite pucka by the grand masters of British ancient history. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology was not reviewed in the TLS. The Ancient Economy was lambasted by the late Martin Frederiksen in the Journal of Roman Studies on the positivistic grounds of insufficient facts. The two most hostile reviews I have seen of Politics in the Ancient World came from English historians, who attacked Finley for his failure to account for this or that Roman political institution, or for his unwillingness to agree with Hannah Arendt’s romantic view of the innate sense of the Athenian demos in permitting themselves to be led by experts.

It is not so much whether these criticisms are valid but whether they are contributing to the same debate. Surely what deserves discussion is the central idea of Politics in the Ancient World: that of l’invention de la politique (the French title for the translation) by the Greeks and Romans. The problem for New History is that, since literary sources are mainly about dominant personalities and events, the social historian has to generate his own evidence, a daunting labour which cannot be achieved by relying on common sense or by assuming that human beings have always reacted identically in every society. It is here that the Weberian concept of ideal types, to which Finley owes so much, comes into its own, in going beyond the empirical data to abstract models of behaviour in order to establish the specificity of each case in history. Unless the models are addressed, the contestants pass each other by in the fog.

Among the books referred to in this article are:

Democracy Ancient and Modern by M.I. Finley, Hogareth Press, second edition, 208 pp., £4.95, September 1985, 0 7012 0663 2.

The Ancient Economy by M.I. Finley, Hogarth Press, second edition, 272 pp., £4.95, April 1985, 0 7012 0625 X.

Politics in the Ancient World by M.I. Finley, Cambridge, 1983.

Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology by M.I. Finley, Chatto, 1980.

International Handbook of Historical Studies, edited by G.G. Iggers and H.T. Parker with contributions by J. Glénisson and A.W. Salamone, Methuen, 1980.

The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950 by Martin Jay, Heinemann, 1973.

The New History: The 1980s and Beyond, edited by T.K. Rabb and R.I. Rolburg, Princeton University Press, 1982.

Main Trends in History by Geoffrey Barraclough, Holmes and Meier, 1979.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 8 No. 6 · 3 April 1986

SIR: I’m sure many will applaud C.R. Whittaker’s stirring appreciation of Professor Sir Moses Finley, clearly one of Britain and Europe’s foremost historians (LRB, 6 March). In these post-Westland times, it is refreshing to recognise the positive value over many years of one enduring example of British ‘inward investment’ from across the Atlantic, in the shape of a scholar who has immensely enriched the study of ancient history in these islands. But I fear Whittaker says more than he intended, when he slipped so effortlessly from ‘English-speaking’ to ‘British’ historians. Except in the obvious case of the history of Great Britain, whatever is meant by British historiography (does one have to be a British passport-holder?) unless work funded, directly or indirectly, by the Government? If so, why does he skate so breathlessly over the real ‘historical backcloth’, which he describes so carefully in France, Italy and Germany? It is false to blame the practitioners for a failure of nerve, when in recent years they have been starved of the resources and officially discouraged by Sir Keith Joseph from doing their job in the imaginative manner that Whittaker desires. The promise of the Sixties and Seventies has not simply evaporated: it has been ruthlessly suppressed.

And Whittaker is less than generous, as well as rash, in speaking of the late Martin Frederiksen’s review of Finley’s The Ancient Economy as if it were some reactionary’s manifesto ‘lambasting’ Finley’s own. Finley has himself often advised caution and commented upon the difficulties in the evidence available to the economic historian of antiquity. Frederiksen’s enthusiasm for new ideas in ancient history, whether from historians of other eras and places, from sociology or the vastly increased bulk of new archaeological research, will be remembered by all who knew him. He certain encouraged my own developing interest in Finely’s historical oeuvre in my years as a pupil of his at Oxford, and was fully supportive of my eagerness to pursue that interest further by moving over to work with Finley’s himself from 1974. That was the very moment when he was engaged on writing the review in question. Frederiksen was wholly sympathetic and admirably open towards Finley’s approach, especially as far as it concerned Greek society and economy: his doubts involved particular aspects of interpretation in Roman history, in which he himself was an expert. The quarrel was never over theory as such, but over its application in specified instances. Surely historians are entitled to disagree?

There has always been a depressingly predictable state of open hostility between the Oxbridge universities in the matter of ancient history. Oxford has tended to value traditional scholarly excellence, while Cambridge has stressed innovation, imagination and flair since the Sixties. But ancient history is fortunate to have both (and many other major departments up and down the UK). I can see no value in the outmoded perpetuation of what I can only describe as Oxbridge sectarianism. Historians should be attempting to explain to public opinion why their subject, like the other humanities, deserves its fair share of public support, in the universities and elsewhere. That can be best done by allowing each to do the sort of history to which they are best suited. In the longer term, if one wishes a future Secretary of State for Education, and the UGC as his or her agent, to fund new avenues in history (including the history of the ethnic minorities in Britain?), then Whittaker should be making out that case to his MP (or his potential MP). Waging guerrilla war with his historical colleagues is counter-productive.

Whittaker speaks wistfully of the engagé historian: but there is no shortage of those at the moment, most of them once firm supporters of the present government. Sometimes one wishes that historians could keep their politics out of their methodologies. I say that as one who is not ashamed to admit being a democratic socialist, but I am a professional historian too. Other countries have different traditions, but I don’t think I would wish England different in this respect. The spectre of Oxbridge tribalism is distasteful, just as much so as that of Belfast or Liverpool or Grantham. Can we allow politics to get back to the real issues that are affecting ordinary citizens’ lives today?

That was the principal theme of Finley’s Politics in the Ancient World – and I feel sure he would agree, if asked to comment on modern British/Irish politics directly.

Philip Lomas
Department of Ancient History, Queen’s University, Belfast

SIR: For some inexplicable reason most historians these days, but not Sir Moses Finley, have a kind of death wish by which, if presented with a little space and a wider audience, they do everything possible to alienate their readers. C.R. Whittaker did have the grace to admit that what he wrote had very little to do with the book by Finley which he was ostensibly meant to review, and about which the reader will learn only that at one point Sir Moses gets a little angry with some of his fellow historians. Instead he set himself the task of explaining why it is that Finley is revered on the Continent but not in England. Four thousand words later, I was not much the wiser. I did learn for the first time that ‘Karl Christ’s Von Gibbon zu Rostovtzeff, published in 1972, contains no index entry to Weber.’ I also learnt that there is something called ‘New History’ for which apparently one has to invent one’s evidence: this is called by Whittaker ‘a daunting labour’, though on the face of it I would have thought it less daunting than the ‘Old History’ in which one actually had to discover the evidence and then go through the troublesome process of trying to evaluate it. No doubt much would have become clearer to me if I had attended the Belagio conference and had listened there to the important words of Peter Temin. Unfortunately, I did not have the privilege of attending, so that a passing reference to that conference does not do much to illuminate for me the subject of Finley and his works. Nor, indeed, does the reference to Mr Temin, or to Mr Simmel, or to Mr Marrou, or to Mr Glénisson, or to Mr Veyne, or to Mr Mauss, or to Mr Lévy-Bruhel, or to Mr Nippel, or to Mr Christ, or to any of the other 76 names, by my reckoning, that Whittaker drops in the course of his article.

To throw in the names of Marx and Weber, or whoever, in the way that Whittaker does, advances neither argument nor understanding. They might just as well be part of some kind of code, understood, I hope, by Whittaker, and perhaps by one or two other ‘New Historians’, but only by them. Not only is the article pretentious, and boring, but it is also incredibly lazy. What the code does is to allow Whittaker to avoid the more difficult task of actually providing us with a comprehensible and, with a bit of luck, perhaps even stimulating answer to the question that he himself posed. This kind of academese is of no service to Sir Moses, who, whether he be ‘New’ or ‘Old’, never goes in for it. It is also no service to history at a time when it needs all the friends that it can get.

Peter Gwyn
Westerham, Kent

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Read More

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences