General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Could you tell me your opinion about the following quote of one of Carroll Quigley's works?

Asked by luigirovatti (2950points) February 3rd, 2022

I’ll quote one of his books directly. I’ll cite below the source. Here is the text:

My doctoral dissertation The Public Administration of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (Harvard, 1938) was never published because over-specialized experts who read the version revised for publication persisted in rejecting the aspects of the book in which they were not specialists. The only man who read it and had the slightest idea what it was all about was Gaetano Salvemini (1873–1957), the great historian from the University of Florence, who was a refugee in this country at the time. The book’s message could be understood only by an historian who knew the history of Italy, France, and Austria, and was equally familiar with events before the French Revolution and afterwards. But these national and chronological boundaries are exactly the ones that recent historians hesitate to cross, for the French were reluctant to admit that the late revolutionary and Napoleonic reforms in French government had been anticipated in Italy, while many Italian historians knew nothing about French government before 1789 and wanted to concentrate only on the Risorgimento after 1814. No one was much interested in my discovery that the French state as it developed under Napoleon was based largely on Italian precedents. For example, while the French state before 1789 had no budgets or accounts, Napoleon’s budgets in both France and Italy were strikingly similar to the budgets of the Duchy of Milan in the sixteenth century. Similarly, the unified educational system established by Napoleon in France in 1808 was anticipated in the Kingdom of Sardinia (Piedmont) in the 1720’s. Such discoveries form part of the history of the growth of the European state, but are not of much interest to the narrow and overspecialized controversies of the last half century. So instead of writing the history of public authority, I got into what was, I suppose, my much stronger activity: the creation of the necessary conceptual paradigms, structures, and frameworks for understanding historical processes.

- Carroll Quigley, The 1st Oscar Iden Lecture, October 13, 1976

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

rebbel's avatar

Great quote, bit long.

HP's avatar

Reading the paragraph leads me to believe that the actual reason the dissertation languished unpublished may well have been because the author’s writing is tedious to decipher. This very paragraph contains enough propositions and themes to feather a dissertation on its own.

gondwanalon's avatar

Far to long for a quote.
Rather than copying that huge paragraph quote it’s better to paraphrase it down. By simply copying it word for word in a massive block quote you appear to not fully understand the material that you are citing.

JLoon's avatar

Paradigms.

Yeah… I really love paradigms o_0

Jeruba's avatar

Did he not include any paragraph breaks? A wall of text in italics is too hard on my eyes, sorry.

@HP, “feather a dissertation”? Is that a real expression?

HP's avatar

I have no idea. Does it matter? Is fledge preferable?

elbanditoroso's avatar

He is long winded. The way I read it, the quote is sort of a long whine about how his scholarship was misunderstood and sort of a rationalization or apology of why he is (was) the intellectual he turned out to be.

@luigirovatti why are you interested in a professor who has been dead since 1977?

Mimishu1995's avatar

@elbanditoroso This OP has a long history of posting borderline conspiracy-looking things. I read the thing fully expect it to be one of those things, and I wasn’t disappointed. I think you already have the answer along the line of your post: the author was going against the common conception and thought he had the ultimate answer that everyone seemed to deny.

Jeruba's avatar

@HP, my interest in language is part of any discourse I engage in. But no, it doesn’t matter. You can forget I asked.

snowberry's avatar

I don’t have an opinion, really (I stopped reading half way through, then went back and re-read after looking at answers here). Obviously the subject was of great importance to the author.

Zaku's avatar

Sounds interesting, and makes me want to read the actual work . . . in theory, sometime when it would rise to the top of my endless list of books I’d like to read some time.

flutherother's avatar

It comes across as the complaints of a crank though the author seems to have been a serious scholar. The work was written for his dissertation at Harvard rather than for publication and it served its purpose, so I don’t think he has grounds for complaint. Publishers publish what they want to publish and that is really the end of it. How many dissertations are ever published commercially anyway?

The original typescript with amendments in the author’s own hand is available online and is surprisingly readable.

zenvelo's avatar

Maybe the reason the dissertation wasn’t published is because it was full of hogwash stating Napoleonic Code was essentially Italian.

Ikara's avatar

It means he was bad at explaining things, so only an expert in the subject could understand what he was saying. So, ironically, rather than continuing to try to explain history, he decided to write about HOW to explain history.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther