364
fields – is an illustration of the fact that, in recent decades, history has become a
narrative open to anyone, even to those without any particular skill who are only
motivated to promote their alleged ‘historical truth’ for many different purposes –
not the least, for political purposes (Canfora 2010). In addition, history may also be
considered as an opportunity to reduce the complexity that has constantly grown up
during modern times as a consequence of the increase of contingency. In this situation, the work of the historian is challenged, following an era in which the positivist
assumption seemed to have elevated history to the rank of a science and the historian to that of a ‘scientist of the past’. What made history a ‘science’ was the idea
that documents of the past were carriers of truth. This view was called into question
decades ago (Le Goff 1978) and is even more in crisis now, because today, the very
possibility of the existence of archives – containers of the documents – may be
challenged.
The Historical Archives of the Pontifical Gregorian University (APUG) can be
taken as example. Here most of the Angelo Secchi personal archive is preserved. In
1878, after his death, this archive and part of Secchi’s scientific instruments were
moved by Father Gaspare Stanislao Ferrari from the Roman College – which had
become the property of the Italian State in 1873 – to a Jesuit house, Villa Cecchina.
After several vicissitudes, today, almost all the papers are kept at the APUG, while
the instruments are held by other institutions within and outside Rome. Secchi’s
archive is filed under about 50 call numbers, containing very different materials:
draft copies of his printed works, manuscripts of conference presentations, administration papers of the Roman College observatory, travel diaries and a huge correspondence containing about 8000 letters, mostly sent to Secchi by relatives, other
Jesuits and colleagues from all over the world. Since 2001, these documents have
been accessible, thanks to the preparation of a guide published in a well-known
international journal specializing in history of science (Chinnici and
Gramatowski 2001).
Despite the availability of this useful tool, during the last 10 years, these documents have only been consulted occasionally by a few researchers. Among other
factors, this arises from the difficulty of adapting the slow response time of the
archives with the speed of our modern times. Unlike the society of the ancien régime
that praised the art of prudence, which presupposed a slow and active perception of
time, our highly complex society has a growing desire for acceleration. This speeding- up, while generating shock and stress, is often seen as a value (and thus a necessity) of decision-making processes, in the establishment of diagnoses, in obtaining
results and in getting things done. Given the long times required for an archive to
achieve results and to produce new information, the chance for an archive to play a
role in our times, to make a ‘difference which makes a difference’, is diminishing
(Bateson 1972, p. 453).
Besides the aforementioned conditions of our times, in the case of Angelo
Secchi’s papers, there is a huge amount of documentation that requires a process of
information selection in order to be fully understood. For example, consider the
‘Science/Religion’ debate (sometimes wrongly described as ‘Faith/Science’) not as
L. Mancini and M. M. Morales
fields – is an illustration of the fact that, in recent decades, history has become a
narrative open to anyone, even to those without any particular skill who are only
motivated to promote their alleged ‘historical truth’ for many different purposes –
not the least, for political purposes (Canfora 2010). In addition, history may also be
considered as an opportunity to reduce the complexity that has constantly grown up
during modern times as a consequence of the increase of contingency. In this situation, the work of the historian is challenged, following an era in which the positivist
assumption seemed to have elevated history to the rank of a science and the historian to that of a ‘scientist of the past’. What made history a ‘science’ was the idea
that documents of the past were carriers of truth. This view was called into question
decades ago (Le Goff 1978) and is even more in crisis now, because today, the very
possibility of the existence of archives – containers of the documents – may be
challenged.
The Historical Archives of the Pontifical Gregorian University (APUG) can be
taken as example. Here most of the Angelo Secchi personal archive is preserved. In
1878, after his death, this archive and part of Secchi’s scientific instruments were
moved by Father Gaspare Stanislao Ferrari from the Roman College – which had
become the property of the Italian State in 1873 – to a Jesuit house, Villa Cecchina.
After several vicissitudes, today, almost all the papers are kept at the APUG, while
the instruments are held by other institutions within and outside Rome. Secchi’s
archive is filed under about 50 call numbers, containing very different materials:
draft copies of his printed works, manuscripts of conference presentations, administration papers of the Roman College observatory, travel diaries and a huge correspondence containing about 8000 letters, mostly sent to Secchi by relatives, other
Jesuits and colleagues from all over the world. Since 2001, these documents have
been accessible, thanks to the preparation of a guide published in a well-known
international journal specializing in history of science (Chinnici and
Gramatowski 2001).
Despite the availability of this useful tool, during the last 10 years, these documents have only been consulted occasionally by a few researchers. Among other
factors, this arises from the difficulty of adapting the slow response time of the
archives with the speed of our modern times. Unlike the society of the ancien régime
that praised the art of prudence, which presupposed a slow and active perception of
time, our highly complex society has a growing desire for acceleration. This speeding- up, while generating shock and stress, is often seen as a value (and thus a necessity) of decision-making processes, in the establishment of diagnoses, in obtaining
results and in getting things done. Given the long times required for an archive to
achieve results and to produce new information, the chance for an archive to play a
role in our times, to make a ‘difference which makes a difference’, is diminishing
(Bateson 1972, p. 453).
Besides the aforementioned conditions of our times, in the case of Angelo
Secchi’s papers, there is a huge amount of documentation that requires a process of
information selection in order to be fully understood. For example, consider the
‘Science/Religion’ debate (sometimes wrongly described as ‘Faith/Science’) not as
L. Mancini and M. M. Morales