Historiographical Reading and Theoretical Reworking. An Underestimated Distinction

Norberto Bobbio,G. Sartori
Abstract:The writer of this article has been working for years in the field of History of Ancient Philosophy; he applied his efforts on a very selected field, using the professional tools required by his discipline. He has, therefore, experienced the transformations that have happened over the last decades. Scholars of his generation used to undertake their labours under the delusion that one could not write one book on history of philosophy without having read everything: this was what a Master expected when the typescript of the thesis or of the book was handed over for supervision and (at times) publication. That world is over, and no one nowadays can work by such standards unless they focus on an extremely narrow and unexplored field. On October 5, 2004 the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported a conference held in Turin by Giovanni Sartori1 about Norberto Bobbio and the theoretic reasons of the crisis of democracy. Sartori ended by stating that in the last 30 years he has witnessed with horror – and he insists: “yes, horror” – the decay of theoretic research: «Bobbio and I are among the last few scholars that believed and still believe in the transmission of knowledge (which is for me the first mission of the educated man) and that, before they write, read those who wrote before them. Younger authors, on the contrary, have a growing tendency to write books with no bibliography, spontaneous offspring of their own genius. Their (scarce) readings are, with few exceptions, from 20 years before, and they mostly quote coetaneous peers and jolly fellows as inexperienced as themselves». Decay is obviously not only quantitative. The “fundamentals” or ABCs of a discipline – may it be etiquette or sports – can be lost this way. 1.
History,Philosophy
What problem does this paper attempt to address?