Diplomatics
Frontispiece of *De re diplomatica* by GIOVANNI MABILLON, Paris 1681 — Vatican Library, Barberini collection.
Mabillon’s work did not merely refute the negative stance of polemicists; it laid the foundations of diplomatic science from the ground up, drawing even from contemporary scholars (such as ANTONIO MAGLIABECHI), yet with such brilliant insights that many of his assertions remain substantially valid even today. His work immediately met with some envy and detractors, but it was embraced by the general consensus of scholars and even by PAPENBROECK himself (cf. letter to Mabillon, 20 July 1683: *«Tu porro quoties res tulerit, audacter testare, quam totus in tuam sententiam iverim»*).
Only a few Jesuits and one Protestant, the Englishman HICKS (1703), dared to challenge it; against them wrote several Italians, including GIUSTO FONTANINI, DOMENICO LAZZARINI, and others. Meanwhile, Mabillon was preparing a second edition, which appeared posthumously in 1709. Today it can be said that for general diplomatics (intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of documents, the importance of chanceries, principles of criticism, value of copies and originals), Mabillon sets the standard, while he has been surpassed in special diplomatics.
Between 1750 and 1765, two other Maurist Fathers, R.-P. TASSIN and C. TOUSAIN, published the *Nouveau traité de diplomatique* in six volumes, expanding and deepening the work of their master. From Mabillon and the *Nouveau traité*, all diplomatic treatises published in France, Germany, and Italy up to the mid-19th century derived.
In Italy, SCIPIONE MAFFEI, in 1727, noting the excessive repetition of already published material, proposed a collection of documents from various origins and regions, giving special prominence to private charters; he thus envisaged an attempt at special diplomatics. LUDOVICO ANTONIO MURATORI, in Dissertation XXXIV of the *Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi: De diplomatibus et chartis antiquis dubiis aut falsis*, provided several examples of false documents, indicating the criteria scholars should follow and showing how even a series of forgeries can constitute historical documentation if the reasons behind the falsification are investigated. In Italy, chairs of diplomatics were also established at the universities of Bologna (1765), Naples, and Milan; among those who taught there was ANGELO FUMAGALLI (v.), author of two volumes of *Istituzioni diplomatiche* (1796, published in 1802), still derived from the *Nouveau traité* but enriched with personal contributions regarding Italian documents, of which Fumagalli demonstrated an excellent knowledge in his *Antichità longobardiche milanesi* (Milan 1792–93) and in the *Codice diplomatico ambrosiano* (ibid. 1805).
In Germany, CHRISTOPH GATTERER, in his *Elementa artis diplomaticae universalis* (Göttingen 1765), attempted to classify scripts using a system similar to that introduced by LINNAEUS in the natural sciences, calling *ciceronium* the uncial script, *svetonium* the cursive, and so on; this strange attempt proved fruitless, but the University of Göttingen, where Gatterer taught, became a seedbed of excellent diplomatic scholars, securing for Germany a true primacy in this field.
The French Revolution interrupted studies on ancient documents; even Napoleon himself conflated diplomatics with diplomacy. A great revival came after the Restoration, with a new direction in diplomatics, shifting from general to special. This was particularly advanced by historical institutes and historical deputations and societies founded across Europe, foremost among them the *École des Chartes* in Paris (1821). In France, notable figures included L. DELISLE, N. DE VAILLY, MAS-LATRIE, and A. GIRY; in Italy, G. MARINI, C. PAOLI, P. TORELLI, G. VITTANI, N. BARONE, L. SCHIAPARELLI, GARUFI, BRANDILEONE, DATTA, and RUSSI; in Germany, BRESSLAU, MEISTER, BÖHMLER, POTTHAST, PERTZ, JAFFÉ, KEHR, VOLTOLINI, PFLUGK-HARTTUNG, SICKEL, and BRUNNER.
Today, the era of general diplomatics can be said to have passed; it now serves only as a basis and precedent for special diplomatics, which tends to «consider documents in light of our knowledge of the legal, administrative, and economic state of the country and period, and to study them in relation to intellectual culture and civilization» (DE BOUDARD).