In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Catholic Historical Review 92.4 (2006) 669-670

Reviewed by
J. Michael Hayden
University of Saskatchewan
Le Nain de Tillemont et l'historiographie de l'Antiquité romaine: Actes de Colloque international organisé par le Centre Le Nain de Tillemont et tenu à la Fondation Singer-Polignac présidée par Monsieur Édouard Bonnefous les 19 et 20 novembre 1998 et à l'Institut de France le 21 novembre 1998. Edited by Stan-Michel Pellistrandi. [Colloques, congrès et conferences sur le Classicisme, 3.] (Paris: Honoré Champion. 2002. Pp. 540 €75.00.)

The contributions of thirty scholars, almost all from Paris (though one, Jean Laporte, is identified as coming from Université catholique d'Indiana rather than Notre Dame), are gathered in this book which commemorates the 300th anniversary of the death of the French scholar Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont (1637-1698). The papers discuss aspects of the life of Le Nain (or Lenain—the contributors do not agree on the spelling), critique his publications concerning the ecclesiastical and political history of the first through the sixth centuries, or describe his contributions to historiography. The variety of topics is so great that it would be impossible to discuss them adequately in the space allotted for this review. It is possible, however, to describe succinctly the purpose of the conference from which the papers originated, placing Le Nain in the context of his time and place in order to understand his achievements better.

Bruno Neveu, well known for his work on both le Nain and early modern religious history, especially Franco-Papal relations, contributed the introduction, a biographical sketch, and an account of Le Nain's treatment of the papacy. Together, Neveu's contributions show clearly that Le Nain was a serious scholar, but was strongly influenced by his beliefs and his milieu. He was a Jansenist and a Gallican who favored St. Augustine among theologians and did not accept papal infallibility.

The authors of the papers show that Le Nain's time, place, training, and beliefs influenced him. But, as Neveu notes, that is true of all of us, despite our [End Page 669] modern pretensions. Perhaps the most striking instances of Le Nain's blind spots or myopia are seen in the fact that his Jansenism kept him from serious investigation of pagan religiosity and from appreciating the reasons behind the development of religious ideas that were eventually declared heretical by the Church.

Le Nain maintained contact with many scholars throughout Europe. One of the most interesting contributions, provided by Jean-Louis Quantin, describes Le Nain's contacts with Anglican scholarship.

Le Nain's interests spanned many fields including epigraphy, numismatics, classics, patristics, prosopography, hagiography, theology, and apologetics. His real expertise was as a historian—one of the best of his time whose works are still useful to scholars in a variety of disciplines today.

Le Nain's usefulness for the present is addressed in several essays. Several of the contributors express surprise at how "modern" some of Le Nain's insights were and how well some of his conclusions have stood the test of time. One aspect of his work that stands out is his realization of the importance of understanding and explaining degrees of probability.

The theme of modern relevance is taken up most strikingly in the Conclusion of the book provided by Jacques Fontaine, a Latin scholar. He praises Le Nain for his realization that the histories of Christianity and Rome are inseparable, for his attention to present reality, and for establishing the critical bases for a new history of the Church. He also praises Le Nain's use of collaborative scholarship—the approach that Francophone historians in Europe and North America, in common with most other French scholars, have favored for many years.

pdf

Share