Abstract
One of Professor Zoe Petreʹs great talents has been to take up the topicality of Antiquity in a natural way. The double movement of alteration and identification with a historical period far removed from the present, from the contemporary, largely legitimizes its study as an academic practice of popular scope. In the twentieth century the situation is much less comfortable for the scholar of Antiquity. What sense does the study of Antiquity have in a regime of historicity which, according to François Hartog, is a ʺpresentistʺ one? Or, following the sociological approach of Max Weber, what is an interesting subject? Interesting individually, for the researcher himself, and also interesting through its societal collective scope. It seems to me that, for the post-war period up to the present day, three answers have been given to the question ʺwhy study the ancients?” and hence three historiographical proposals. I would describe these three professions of faith as ludic (Paul Veyne), comparatist (Marcel Detienne) and memorial (Jan Assmann).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.