More on Schalit's changing Josephus: The lost first stage

Abstract

Whether or not we often allow history to fulfill Cicero's characterization of it as a magistra vitae (De Oratore 2.36), the reverse of that dictum is always true. Our lives guide our historiography; all true history is contemporary history, as Croce put it,1 and so changing circumstances and interests require every generation to rewrite history. Hence, the historical study of the historiography of successive generations is a fascinating and well-established pursuit. Indeed, most historians would probably agree that it is not only interesting but also, both as a brand of history itself and as a disciplining mirror, indispensable. But what is true of historiography in general should be true of biography all the more. For biographers are individuals who spend their time and energy pondering what made other individuals tick. As such, they may be influenced led to make unjustified projections, but also to discover previously unnoticed truths by the changing interests and circumstances of their own lives even more than usual historians are, who study objects not so readily comparable to themselves. Hence, if we study how different biographers, or even the same biographers over time, see their subjects differently in accordance with their own changing circumstances and interests, our understanding of both the historical personalities, and of their biographers who too are often legitimate and fascinating objects of historical interest will be enriched and enhanced.