Navigation – Plan du site
  • ENS Éditions
  • ENS de Lyon
Varia

Droysen's concept of Hellenism between philology and history

Le concept d’hellénisme de Droysen entre philologie et histoire
Il concetto di ellenismo in Droysen tra filologia e storia
Breno Battistin Sebastiani

Résumés

Cet article, en partant de deux conceptions erronées du concept d'hellénisme tel que Droysen l'a formulé, se pose deux questions : quelle était véritablement le concept d'hellénisme tel que Droysen l'avait formulé ? Est-il valide aujourd'hui de l'employer sinon comme but, du moins comme stimulus ? Cet essai s'emploie d'abord à rechercher les origines et les principes essentiels du concept de Droysen, puis envisage son emploi avec des qualifications et en fonction des méditations de Droysen qu'on trouve dans son Grundriß – comme méthode analogique de la connaissance de soi.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Parole Chiave :

Droysen, Ellenismo, autocoscienza
Haut de page

Texte intégral

I.

1In the introduction of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic age, Peter Green writes that

  • 1 Green P., Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic age. A short history. London, Weidenfeld & Nicol (...)

« [i]n his history of the Successors (Droysen, 1878) he [Droysen] promoted, as the key factor of the period, the adoption of the Greek language and Greek culture by non-Greeks in territories previously ruled by the Achaemenids. To express this concept, he used the term Hellenismus, based on the Greek term ἑλληνισμός (hellenismos), in its biblical sense of imitating or acquiring Greek language – specifically, the common Attic dialect adopted by Phillip II of Macedon for official use – and culture »1.

  • 2  Canfora L., Ellenismo. Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1995, p. 95-109.

2The statements above are perhaps the most recent expression of two recurrent misconceptions in the historiography about Droysen and his concept of Hellenism, despite their refutation by Luciano Canfora2.

  • 3 Droysen J. G., Geschichte des Hellenismus. Erster theil. Hamburg, Friedrich Perthes, 1836, p. vi; (...)

3The first misconception is the presupposition that Droysen's concept of Hellenism was rooted in the Bible, specifically in Acts.6.1, where hellenistaí are contrasted to hebraioí. This misconception arose in 1925 when Richard Laqueur published his Hellenismus. Laqueur assumed that Droysen missed the point when he wrote that « aus dem Alterthum überliefert, die Sprache jener westöstlicher Völkermischung mit den Namen der hellenistischen zu bezeichnen ». More: Laqueur supposed without any evidence that by « language of the mixture » Droysen had in mind exclusively the language of the New Testament. However, a) Droysen's premise was correct, because attested by ancient authors, as I show below; b) Droysen never attributed nor restricted the meaning of « language of the mixture » to the language of the New Testament; and c) Droysen actually forged his own concept of Hellenism in analogy with that of « Romanticism ». The concepts he then actually contrasted, Hellenism and Romanticism, are linguistic definitions used today but sprung up in the epochs they respectively design, to sum up the features – and among them the language – of the mixture of peoples and cultures they define3.

4The second misconception is the reason of the first: the edition of the Geschichte des Hellenismus quoted by P. Green is the second (issued in 1878), the most known and used also by Laqueur. From this edition, however, Droysen suppressed the Vorrede written to the first edition, published 42 years before (1836). In this Vorrede one can see a page wherein Droysen lengthily discussed the contents of his concept of Hellenism. In the brief « Vorwort sur zweiten Auflage », as discussed below, Droysen made just an allusion to a small extract of the Vorrede. Reading the allusion out of its original context was enough to induce Laqueur's first misconception.

  • 4  Green P., op. cit., p. xv.

5Two questions, therefore, are necessary to project some light upon these problems and improve our understanding of a capital point – the meaning of « Hellenism » and its viability as epistemological tool: which was Droysen's concept of Hellenism? Is it valid to employ it today if not as an aim, at least as a stimulus? In this text I discuss both questions specially because I disagree with another premise of P. Green, which says that « [t]he Hellenistic age has one great advantage for us: it is easily definable »4.

II.

  • 5 Droysen J. G., op. cit., p. v.

6The page from the Vorrede to the first edition wherein Droysen proposed a systematical definition of the contents and origins of his concept of Hellenism is as illuminating as problematic. Droysen enounced that « [d]ie Vermischung des abend und morgenländischen Lebens hat einen unendlichen Reichthum neuer Erscheinungen hervorgerufen »5, then unfolded the point:

  • 6 Ibidem, p. vi.

Aber so tief ist das von den Macedonien und Griechen vermittelte neue Wesen in das Leben der Völker hineingewachsen, das es seine Staatliche Existenz überlebt, um als Bildung und Mode, als Philosophie und Aufklärung, als Wissenschaft und Aberglaube, forzudauern und selbst die römische Welt zu beherschen, das es sein gottloses Heidenthum der Theokrasie überlebt, um das beginnende Christenthum durch endlosen Dogmenstreit und Häresie zu durcharbeiten, das es, endlich bis auf die Sprache todt, Jahrhunderte hindurch wie ein Gespenst umgeht, um dann in der neuen Zeit des Morgenlandes und dem Muhamedanismus ganz zu verschwinden. So die allgemeinem Umrisse eines geschichtlichen Verlaufs, der mit dem allgemeinem Namen des Hellenismus bezeichnet werden kann. Die Wissenschaft hat sich erlauben dürfen, der einzig ähnlichen Erscheinung, der Vermischung der germanischen und römischen Wesens einen Namen zu geben, welcher während des Mittelalters nur der Sprache dieser sogenannten römanischen Völker zukam; und eben so ist es aus dem Alterthum überliefert, die Sprache jener westöstlichen Völkermischung mit dem Namen der hellenistischen zu bezeichnen6.

  • 7 Momigliano A. D., « J. G. Droysen between Greeks and Jews », A. D. Momigliano. Studies on modern s (...)

7It may be helpful to track these concepts' background, as well as the way how Droysen arrived to this formulation. The publication of the Geschichte Alexanders des Großen (hereinafter GA) in 1833, then of the Geschichte des Hellenismus (hereinafter GH) – whose first volume, Geschichte der Nachfolger Alexanders, came to light three years later, and the second in 1843, the Geschichte der Bildung des hellenistischen Staatensystemes – reflect four kind of studies derived from Droysen's formative years, as well as his alignment to the the defense of the Prussian ascendancy as the only way to promote German unification7.

  • 8 Momigliano A.D., op. cit., p. 148.
  • 9  Ibidem, p. 148-9.
  • 10  Momigliano A. D., Contributo alla storia degli studi classici. Roma, Storia e Letteratura, 1955, p (...)

8In his doctoral dissertation De Lagidarum regno Ptolomaeo VI Philometore rege (1831) Droysen still felt « necessary to apologize for dealing with an age which “propter sterilitatem suam atque languorem negligi, a Romanarum rerum scriptoribus despici, a Christianarum deformari defamarique solet” »8. While a student of philology attending the courses of Böckh at the University of Berlin, the young Droysen got in touch with the then flourishing European interest in the Hellenistic period: Heyne's essay De genio saeculi Ptolomaeorum (1763) drew his attention to Alexandrian literature; the discovery of the Armenian Eusebius inspired Niebuhr's essay (1819) on the political and dynastic events of III BCE; and the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphics increased also the interest in the Greek inscriptions by which Champollion had started to work9. Böckh inherited from Wolf three fundamental tenets: a) the concept of national spirit; b) the conception of antiquity as a closed world; and c) the reduction of antiquity by two successive stages to Greeks and Romans, then to Greeks only10. Both the GA/GH actualize these concerns: by the end of the GA for instance Droysen wrote that

  • 11  Droysen J. G., Geschichte Alexanders des Großen. Hamburg, Friedrich Perthes, 1833, p. 548.

Attische Sprache und Sitte war die Richtschnur der Höfe von Alexandria und Babylon, von Baktra und Pergamum gewesen, und als der Hellenismus seine politische Selbstständigkeit der Römische Staate gegenüber verlor, begann er in Rom die Herrschaft der Mode und Bildung zu gewinnen. So darf man des Hellenismus mit Recht die erste Welteinheit nennen11.

  • 12  Momigliano A.D., op. cit. (1955), p. 177.
  • 13  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1833), p. v.

9In the 1836's Vorrede one may see another point dear to Böckh, whom the science of philology could not be sufficient in itself if not integrated into a larger theoretical perspective – Böckh did not dissociate philology from philosophy12; the Vorrede started by associating in the same critic two fields of research which Droysen also never conceived to be apart, as is clearly seen in his works: « [e]s ist auffalend, dass sich das Studium der Historiker und Philologen selten und wie es scheint ungern auf die merkwürdigen Entwickelungen wendet, die aus Alexanders des Grossen Eroberungen hervorgegangen sind »13.

  • 14  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 11-4 and 82.

10In 1828 Droysen attended Bernhardy's classes on Greek syntax, famous by then for the collection of Eratosthenes' fragments (1822). In these classes Droysen became acquainted with the fact that in the ancient sources Hellenism was already employed to refer to the « language of the mixture », the common Greek widespread in the hellenized world after Alexander. The passage which Bernhardy devoted more attention to along successive editions of his Compendium of Greek literature (1836, 1852, 1861) was probably the same Droysen had in mind when he wrote the Vorrede: the chapter of Sextus Empiricus (Aduersus mathematicos.1.176-240) entitled Εἰ ἔστι τις τέχνη περὶ ἑλληνισμοῦ14.

  • 15  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1836), p. x.
  • 16  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 24-5.
  • 17  Ibidem, p. 26-8.

11The third scholar to influence Droysen was Niebuhr, quoted with admiration in the Vorrede15. It was Niebuhr who, to clearly express the idea of the emergency of a new language in Ptolomaic Egypt, a languege hitherto treated as « Greek-Egyptian jargon », employed several analogies of which the most frequent dealt with the transformations suffered by Latin in countries of Romance languages: it was precisely the same argument Droysen would employ in 1836 to justify the adoption of Hellenism to refer now to its civilization as a whole, not only to language16. But Niebuhr's largest and most systematic contribution for the history of Hellenism, a contribution which Droysen called attention to in the Vorrede, was the series of lectures given by Niebuhr between 1825-6 at the University of Bonn on Greek history, from Alexander's death to the establishment of the Roman Empire and the end of Ptolemaic Egypt. The topics proposed by Niebuhr coincided with the structure adopted by Droysen, and form an account of the vicissitudes of Hellenistic kingdoms as increasingly linked to the history of the Roman expansion: the Macedonian kingdoms, the hellenization of the East, the decline of Greece, the Roman world dominance. Differently from Niebuhr, however, Droysen did not put Roman policy at the focus of his exposition. To no other scholar Droysen has given so much space in the preface as to Niebuhr; in both editions of the GH, he transcribed snippets of Niebuhr paraphrasing him as he would have done with an ancient source17.

  • 18  Herder quoted from ibidem, p. 37-9.

12Lastly, Droysen's appreciation of the idea that Hellenism would be the « mixture between East and West » had roots in Herder's enthusiasm (1773) by the Roman-Germanic mixture poetically portrayed as « the transplantation of young shoots full of sap to the exhausted, however beautiful, Mediterranean lands, which would have produced large harvests to the destiny of the world ». Hegel, also a former professor of Droysen, discussed the same subject but without so much enthusiasm; neither Herder nor Hegel, however, drew parallels between this mixture and the hellenistic one, a task up to Droysen18.

  • 19  Ibidem, p. 49 and 54.

13The peculiarity of Droysen's meditation was the counter-current choices he made, opposed to the vision about Hellenism sprung from the eighteenth century as a period of degeneration starting with language. The mixture of languages, civilizations and cultures occupied the central position and had for him a particular religious importance. Droysen was a faithful Lutheran to whom Hellenism represented the culmination of the ancient world, with the appearance of God made man foreshadowed since the deification of Alexander. Contradicting Bernhardy in his assessments of Alexandrian literature, Droysen also noted that at no other time so many people had improved on science as at that time, highlighting the works of Zenodotus, Euclid, Hypparchus and above all Eratosthenes19.

  • 20  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1836), p. vii.
  • 21  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 65.

14Droysen recognized that the novelty of his work was not to have firstly narrated the history of the period – Ludwig Flathe had already published a similar work in 1832 whose focus and starting point were though the history of Macedonia20. The new element, which would overlap marginal issues such as those relating to Macedonia, was the mixture of two specific components, Greek and Oriental21.

  • 22  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1836), p. xv.

15In 1877-8 Droysen refurbished and republished the original three volumes: the GA became the first volume of the Geschichte des Hellenismus (hereinafter GH2); volume 2, formerly GH's first, now became the Geschichte der Diadochen; volume 3, formerly GH's second, now became the Geschichte der Epigonen. In the original design, as foreseen in the 1836's Vorrede, the Battle of Sellasia (221 BCE) concluded only the first part of the work. The narrative of the volume 2 published in 1843 ends with this year. Droysen announced in the Vorrede that « ist für die zwei Bände des zweiten Theils der die politische Geschichte des Hellenismus bis zum Untergange seiner selbstständiger staatlichen Existenzen enthalten wird, bereits vorgearbeitet »22, that is, Droysen also foresaw other parts to extend the narrative until 30 BCE and beyond:

  • 23  Ibidem, p. xv-xvi.

Späteren Theilen ist es vorbehalten, die religiösen Zustände des Hellenismus, seine Verschmelzung der Religionen und Kulte, seine Theokrasie und Theosophie, seinen Unglauben und Aberglauben bis zum letzten Verschwinden des hellenistischen Heidenthums – die Umformung der allgemeinen Bildung und der speciellen Wissenschaften, der sittlichen Verhältnisse und des Völkerverkehrs bis zum Siege der östlichen Reaction im Sassanidenreich und im Muhamedanismus – endlich den weitläuftigen Verlaufe der lange nachwelkenden Literatur und Kunst bis zu den letzten byzantinischen Nachklängen ihrer grossen Vorzeig und dem vollendeten Triumph des Ostens über die Heimath des Hellenismus darzustellen23.

  • 24  Momigliano A.D., op. cit. (1994), p. 150.

16For obvious reasons Droysen excised this Vorrede from the GH2: the second edition compraised only the brief chronological period he considered to be the first part of Hellenism, and restricted only to its political aspects. The forty-year interval between both editions, marked by Droysen's extensive production about the history of Prussia, did not diminish his interest in Hellenism, but forced him to reflect on two problems which he would never reconcile adequately: the theoretical and practical difficulties inherent in conducting so vast a program chronologically and thematically; and the need for further investigations into the Jewish foundations of Christianity, an issue that interested him far less than its Hellenic aspects24.

  • 25  Droysen J. G., Geschichte des Hellenismus. Tübingen, 1952-3, p. 16. Available at <http://www.zeno. (...)

17In the brief Vorwort to the GH2 Droysen did not discuss the problem inherent to the incorporation of Hellenism in Alexander's career as presupposed by both the title and format of the new edition. Refusing also to justify why to keep a title previously assigned to other work, Droysen simply wrote that « [d]en Namen selbst zu erläutern, wiederhole ich eine Stelle aus der Vorrede von 1836 » and reproduced the passage which begins by « [d]ie Wissenschaft hat sich erlauben dürfen etc » and ends by « (...) die Sprache jener westöstlichen Völkermischung mit dem Namen der hellenistischen zu bezeichnen »25 – what makes Laqueur's misconception above discussed even more surprising.

  • 26  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 58-60.

18These and other problems inherent to the GH2 were quickly criticized. Wilamowitz, the most « droysenian » among Droysen's interpreters, did not recognize as legitimate any periodization of Hellenism that went beyond Augustus, despite Droysen's own words. Even more serious was the confusion caused by Droysen's double use of Hellenism, sometimes as a historical concept, sometimes as an artistic style: Droysen himself launched the transposition when describing as fanciful and monumental the architecture born in Persia at Alexander's time; even Wilamowitz could not escape vagueness when trying to define Hellenistic art in Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos (1924), and writing that it corresponded to the civilization of those centuries whose art is usually said « baroque or rococo ». Despite Droysen's own emphasis in the mixture of cultures, when applied to art the adjective « hellenistic » turned out to oppose « Oriental », « Roman », « Arab » or « Byzantine », that is, its use fluctuates between either something specific to an epoch or a recurring category in distinct civilizations26.

19More severe, however, was Julius Beloch, whose attack derived from a radically different conception of History and undermined the foundations of Droysen's work. While acknowledging Droysen's merits of having made a pioneer work in collecting for the first time the remains of vast traditions, and of having critically ordered and analyzed them, Beloch's divergencies from Droysen began by the minting itself of the concept of Hellenism:

  • 27 Beloch K. J., Griechische Geschichte. Band IV, abteilung 2. Berlin-Leipzig, De Gruyter, 1927, p. 1 (...)

Den Ausdruck 'Hellenismus' hat erst Droysen in die historische Terminologie eingeführt, nach Analogie von 'Romanismus', keineswegs zum Vorteil der Sache; denn die Analogie ist schief und nur geeignet, in unklaren Köpfen Verwirrung anzurichten. Hellenismus in Aegypten, Syrien, Italien, gewiß; aber Hellenismus in Hellas? Das Werk gibt in seinem ersten Teile einen Panegyrikus auf Alexander, in seinem zweiten Teil eine Paraphrase der Quellen zur Diadochengeschichte, in seinem dritten Teil einem Reihe willkürlicher Konstruktionen, oft mit souveräner Verachtung der Überlieferung; das ganze in blühender, hin und wieder bis zum phrasenhaften Bombast geschraubten Sprache27.

  • 28 Quoted from Canfora L., op. cit., p. 63.

20Even more corrosive was Wilamowitz in a letter addressed to Mommsen (1880): « Droysen's Epigoni are a bad novel, the Diadochi a good one! »28.

21In spite of, or due to, these criticisms, the instrumental meaning of Hellenism remains a valid one. Today it is suitable to mean by Hellenism the set of historical phenomena occurred between the period of about three centuries from the death of Alexander (323 BCE) to the submission of Egypt (30 BCE), and within the geographic area including all states aroused from the disintegration of the Persian empire, plus Macedonia and Greece. Extensions of the period until the foundation of Constantinople (330 AD), and of the geographic area to Rome, Carthage and Magna Graecia are also envisaged. Droysen's legacy remains alive and proved itself a helpful synchronic as well as diachronic reference.

III.

22Three problems, however, make patent the anachronism of using Droysen's concept of Hellenism without necessary qualifications.

  • 29 Green P., Alexander to Actium. The Hellenistic age. London, Thames & Hudson, 1990.

23First, the chronological amplitude dissolves instead of defining a thematic focus. Given the current number of discovered sources, accumulated studies and ongoing researches, works like P. Green's (1990)29 remain as admirable as increasing arguable, precisely because, or in spite of, the cuttings they presuppose and require, and the sort of totalizing ambition in any way achievable they nourish. The forcible reductions of scale and focus define by themselves universes of work today.

  • 30  Droysen J. G., Grundriß der Historik. 3. Auf. Berlin, Veit & Comp., 1882, p. 7.

24Second, and as a result of the first, the a priori and ambiguous conception of the nature of historical phenomena is a product of a too swift and sudden abstraction of multiple distinct objects in a unifying conception. The definition of Hellenism proposed in the 1836's Vorrede is called « das von den Macedonien und Griechen vermittelte neue Wesen », expressed through a scheme of biological matrix (birth-maturity-extinction). What exactly would be able to give coherence and unity to a phenomenon that is spreading, transmission, mix? Even if one understands the Greece of Alexander as a national state, would be « Hellenism » the same phenomenon in all parts which it spread to – as criticized by Beloch? Is it really necessary and/or possible that unification for understanding processes so diverse? How and in which grounds? In the Grundriß der Historik, a collection of class notes first published in 1867 although circulating in manuscript since 1858, Droysen described the object of history with less stiffness, as a « in stetem Werden » so seized as a result of « [d]ie rastlose Bewegung in der Welt der Erscheinungen »30. This may be a better definition if one intends to keep an instrumental and referential concept of Hellenism, especially when studying its different aspects (cultural, political, geographic etc) and their different derivatives.

  • 31 Highlighted in the original. Reprinted in the consulted edition (Droysen, op. cit., 1952-3). Also (...)

25Third, a theo-teleological justification as proposed by Droysen no longer holds. Religiosity, an aspect inseparable from his biography, both motivates and justifies his proposal. In the preface to GH's book 2 (1843), published in a few copies and not included in the GH2, Droysen stated that « [d]ie höchste Aufgabe unserer Wissenschaft ist ja die Theodizee »31. The first chapter of GH2's book 3 reproduces without changes a paragraph already seen in the GH, developing the thesis:

  • 32 Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1952-3), p. 6.

Wie weit entfernt sind diese Anfänge von der Vorstellung der einen Menschheit, die alle Völker umfaßt, des einen Reiches, das nicht von dieser Welt ist, – jener Vorstellung, die ihren vollendenden Ausdruck in der Erscheinung des Heilandes gewinnt! Das ist der Punkt, zu dem hin die Entwicklung der alten, der heidnischen Welt strebt, von dem aus ihre Geschichte begriffen werden muß32.

26Droysen's Hellenism still deserves to be object of reflection not because it is an ancillary basis for religiosity, but because it is still an epistemological stimulus. In the Grundriß's chapter entitled « Die geschichtliche Arbeit nach ihren Arbeitern », Droysen considered that

  • 33 Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1882), p. 33.

[...] das empirische, ephemere Ich [sich] zu dem Ich [verhält], in dem der Philosoph denkt, der Künstler schafft, der Richter richtet, der Historiker forscht. Dies allgemeine, das Ich der Menschheit, ist das Subject der Geschichte. Die Geschichte ist das γνῶθι σαυτὸν der Menschheit, ihr Gewissen33.

  • 34 Burger T., « Droysen and the idea of Verstehen », J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 14, 1978, p. 17.
  • 35 Endorsed by Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1882), p. 16.
  • 36  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 60-1.

27The topics and limitations of Droysen's conception are known and do not need further comments: they are grounded on false contrasts between history and natural sciences, as if there were sharp oppositions between theoretical and practical knowledge34. But when one sets aside divination as an heuristic method35 and any kind of superficial conceptions about his idealism, this quoted snippet can be read as an exhortation that the noble, ascending and aspiring element of human meditation be the guide to any effort. Canfora missed the point when he writes that « la rinuncia di Droysen alle prefazioni [to the GH2] era anche una rinuncia ad ulteriormente teorizzare sull'argomento »36. Droysen's books account for themselves: any attempt to reproduce past realities means to relive it in one's own intelligence forged by the present, that is, to see it within a theoretical perspective, or to take paragons. Like any intellectual construction – be it called fiction, hypothesis, history or whatever name – this perspective mirrors ideological choices and ethic grounds; and Droysen's, no matter their contents, aims at understanding, perhaps the highest and only path to transcendence both in historical and philological researches.

  • 37 Paper presented in Portuguese at Terceira Semana de Estudos sobre o Período Helenístico (USP, Braz (...)

28My aims in reflecting on the concept of Hellenism are evidently much more modest than were Droysen's. Although aware that to fill such kind of expectations is an dreamlike task, we nonetheless strive to retain and cultivate their most fertile seeds: if we conceive no more illusions about epistemological totalizations, we yearn, I think, by the γνῶθι σαυτὸν that meditations such as Droysen's grant us as methods to understand his thought, the ancients, our own work, maybe also ourselves37.

Haut de pageHaut de page

Notes

1 Green P., Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic age. A short history. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007, p. xiv.

2  Canfora L., Ellenismo. Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1995, p. 95-109.

3 Droysen J. G., Geschichte des Hellenismus. Erster theil. Hamburg, Friedrich Perthes, 1836, p. vi; Canfora, op. cit., p. 7 and 96.

4  Green P., op. cit., p. xv.

5 Droysen J. G., op. cit., p. v.

6 Ibidem, p. vi.

7 Momigliano A. D., « J. G. Droysen between Greeks and Jews », A. D. Momigliano. Studies on modern scholarship, Bowersock G. W. & Cornell T. J., Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, UCP, 1994, p. 151: « He discovered that what mattered in Hellenism was the power of the Macedonian army. Macedon beeing the Prussia of antiquity, he was consistent in proceeding from Macedon to Prussia. The history of Hellenism was a praeparatio euangelica to the history of Prussia ».

8 Momigliano A.D., op. cit., p. 148.

9  Ibidem, p. 148-9.

10  Momigliano A. D., Contributo alla storia degli studi classici. Roma, Storia e Letteratura, 1955, p. 178.

11  Droysen J. G., Geschichte Alexanders des Großen. Hamburg, Friedrich Perthes, 1833, p. 548.

12  Momigliano A.D., op. cit. (1955), p. 177.

13  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1833), p. v.

14  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 11-4 and 82.

15  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1836), p. x.

16  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 24-5.

17  Ibidem, p. 26-8.

18  Herder quoted from ibidem, p. 37-9.

19  Ibidem, p. 49 and 54.

20  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1836), p. vii.

21  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 65.

22  Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1836), p. xv.

23  Ibidem, p. xv-xvi.

24  Momigliano A.D., op. cit. (1994), p. 150.

25  Droysen J. G., Geschichte des Hellenismus. Tübingen, 1952-3, p. 16. Available at <http://www.zeno.org/nid/20002739038>.

26  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 58-60.

27 Beloch K. J., Griechische Geschichte. Band IV, abteilung 2. Berlin-Leipzig, De Gruyter, 1927, p. 13-4.

28 Quoted from Canfora L., op. cit., p. 63.

29 Green P., Alexander to Actium. The Hellenistic age. London, Thames & Hudson, 1990.

30  Droysen J. G., Grundriß der Historik. 3. Auf. Berlin, Veit & Comp., 1882, p. 7.

31 Highlighted in the original. Reprinted in the consulted edition (Droysen, op. cit., 1952-3). Also available in Droysen J. G. Kleine Schriften zur alten Geschichte. Leipzig, Veit & Comp., 1893, p. 298-313.

32 Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1952-3), p. 6.

33 Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1882), p. 33.

34 Burger T., « Droysen and the idea of Verstehen », J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 14, 1978, p. 17.

35 Endorsed by Droysen J. G., op. cit. (1882), p. 16.

36  Canfora L., op. cit., p. 60-1.

37 Paper presented in Portuguese at Terceira Semana de Estudos sobre o Período Helenístico (USP, Brazil, May 2013). This event was funded by FAPESP, to which I am grateful.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Breno Battistin Sebastiani, « Droysen's concept of Hellenism between philology and history », Aitia [En ligne], 5 | 2015, mis en ligne le 19 août 2015, consulté le 29 septembre 2016. URL : http://aitia.revues.org/1336 ; DOI : 10.4000/aitia.1336

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© ENS Éditions

Haut de page