NIO. - He is the father of Italian historiography. N. was born in Vignola (Modena) on 21 Oct. 1672 into a modest peasant family, and died in Modena on 23 Jan. 1750. His desire to dedicate himself to ecclesiastical life and studies led him, while still a youth (1685), to the schools of the Jesuits in Modena, where in 1694 he obtained a law degree. The influence of the Benedictine B. Bacchini, who was reorganizing the ducal library, kindled in him a passion for scholarly research. In 1695 Bacchini and other esteemed men recommended him to the Borromei of Milan as a doctor of the Ambrosian Library. He remained there until 1700, when Duke Rinaldo d'Este offered him the directorship of the Archive and ducal library in Modena. He held this office until his death, rejecting any other offers, such as that from Vittorio Amadeo II of Savoy, who wished to appoint him as a professor at the University of Turin.
Endowed with a solid humanistic education—he had added to the Latin of his Jesuit schooling a knowledge of Greek acquired on his own initiative—he found, first at the Ambrosiana and then at the Estense, the greatest opportunity to satisfy his ever-growing scholarly curiosity, directing his research in various directions. As early as 1697–98 he published in Milan the two volumes of *Anedota latina*; with another volume published the following year he made known some unpublished poems by St. Paulinus of Nola, and in the *Commentarium de Corona Ferrea* he resolutely challenged the tradition circulating in Milan regarding that Lombard crown.
In these years he devoted much attention to literature: he wrote verse, composed novellas, and in 1700 dedicated a volume to the *Rime* of C. M. Maggi; in 1706 he published the treatise *Della perfetta poesia italiana*. Disgusted by the emptiness of the Arcadia movement, in 1703 under the pseudonym Lamindo Britanio he published the *Primi disegni della repubblica letteraria d'Italia*, i.e., the project for a society of scholars devoted to serious and learned pursuits. In 1709 a volume of *Anedota graeca* appeared, and in 1713 he completed the *Anedota latina* with two further volumes.
Soon, however, his activity in Modena took another direction. The dispute between the Este family, the Empire, and the Holy See over rights to the Comacchio Valleys led him to investigate the origins of the Este dynasty. In 1708 he published *Osservazioni sul dominio temporale della Sede Apostolica sopra la città di Comacchio*; in 1712 *Piena esposizione dei diritti imperiali ed estensi sopra la città di Comacchio*, and a new treatise appeared in 1720. The origins of the Este family were thoroughly elucidated in the *Anedota estensi* of 1717, whose first volume firmly established M.'s reputation as a historian. The second volume of the *Anedota estensi* was not published until 1740.
Meanwhile, he had been contemplating a project for a collection of medieval Italian historians, long cherished by Apostolo Zeno since 1699. When Zeno moved to the court of Vienna, M. took up the project with enthusiasm. He succeeded in enlisting a group of Milanese patricians who agreed to form the Palatine Society to provide financial support for the enterprise; on 23 Dec. 1721 M. signed the contract with Prince Teodoro Alessandro Trivulzio for the printing of the *Corpo delle antichità d'Italia*. Among M.'s zealous collaborators were Sassi, prefect of the Ambrosiana, and Argellati, a Bolognese scholar; by 1723 the first volume of the *Rerum Italicarum Scriptores*, covering historians from 500 to 1500, had already appeared. The enterprise encountered many obstacles. More than one owner of manuscripts refused to lend them or even allow them to be seen; several governments closed their archives for fear that their rights might be compromised: such were the Holy See, the Republics of Genoa, Lucca, and Venice, and the Duchy of Parma. The Savoyard government in Turin initially resisted but eventually supported M.'s research. These difficulties and oppositions were not without consequences for M.'s project, though he found support from many scholars who became his collaborators. Thus the *Scriptores* were brought to completion: between 1723 and 1738, 27 volumes in folio appeared; Volume XXVIII was published posthumously in 1751. With the publication of the *Scriptores*, M. laid the foundations of modern Italian historiography. Certainly, Muratorian scholarship displays notable defects when measured against modern critical standards. M.'s aim was to represent Italian history in its continuity through a series of chronicles arranged as far as possible in chronological and geographical order. That one should not be too demanding of M. is evident from the fact that the reprint of the *Scriptores*, begun by G. Carducci and V. Fiorini around 1900, is still not complete after half a century, and reveals methodological failings even more serious than those demanded by historical criticism, both for the differences in methods adopted by the various scholars involved and for the uncertainties and modifications introduced by the editors during the course of the reprint.
While preparing the *Scriptores*, M. had amassed a large quantity of medieval documents with a view to illuminating particular questions and various problems, and he used them to write 75 dissertations that appeared in the 6 volumes of the *Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi*, published between 1738 and 1743. The *Antiquitates* are a precious mine of documents and information on paleography, diplomatics, numismatics, and legal matters; much is also devoted to popular life and customs.
At the same time, between 1738 and 1743, the 6 volumes of the *Novus Thesaurus veterum inscriptionum* also appeared, likewise of great importance. Now M. felt himself capable of compiling an inventory of all the information his researches had yielded on Italian history: the result was his great work, the *Annali d'Italia*, from the beginning of the Christian era to his own day. He began printing it in 1743 and completed it in 1749, bringing the narrative up to that year, in 12 quarto volumes. The *Annali* recount the events of Italian history year by year in chronological order, without seeking to investigate the causes of events or establish their connections, but the work is of great interest for the objectivity of its narrative, the clarity, precision, and sobriety of its style. It was the first attempt at a comprehensive Italian history that transcended the particular interests of individual states: it was a factual demonstration of the substantial unity of Italian history.
referred to the mosaic of the *Castagno* in the Mascoli Chapel in St. Mark’s, Venice. By a BERnardi
Around this vast activity, Muratori, over the fifty years of his scholarly work, examined a great many particular historical questions. After his early biographies of Maggi and Da Lemene (1708), he wrote lives of Petrarch (1711), the younger Father Segneri (1720), Castelvetro (1727), Signio (1732), Marchese Orsi (1735), Tassoni (1738), Torti (1743), and Benedetto Giacobino, the holy provost of Varallo Sesia (1747). In the field of letters, after abandoning poetry, he continued to take an interest in aesthetic problems: in the treatise *Della perfetta poesia italiana* (1706), then in the *Annotazioni al Petrarca*, the *Riflessioni sopra il buon gusto*, and finally in the treatise *Della forza della fantasia* (1745), he investigated the nature of beauty, established that artistic truth is the plausible, contrasted good taste with bad taste, rejected Cartesian rationalism, but subordinated art to morality.
Muratori devoted greater care to studies in philosophy and morality. Notable is the treatise *La filosofia morale esposta e proposta ai giovani* (1735): rigorously faithful to Christian orthodoxy, it presents a serenely optimistic view of life and urges young people to dedicate their energies to social life. In the treatise *Delle forze dell’intendimento umano*, he battled against Locke and sensism. In *Della pubblica felicità*, his last important work (1749), he instructed princes on their duty to secure the well-being of their peoples through wise reforms (as he had already taught in the *Rudimenti di filosofia morale* written for Prince Francesco d’Este). In *Difetti della giurisprudenza* (1742), he criticized modern legislation, showing the necessity of reform—undertaken by princes—for the general welfare. In these writings, Muratori appears as the exponent of enlightened absolutism.
Ordained a priest in Milan in 1695, Muratori was a model of priestly virtue. In 1716 he happily became provost of Santa Maria della Pomposa in Modena, a church he restored, adorned, and in which he wished to be buried (a wish fulfilled only in 1922). He exercised his ministry with deep devotion, regularly celebrating Mass, zealously attending to the confessional and catechism. He was not a mystical spirit; calm and composed, he valued and defended the merits of active life. He eagerly collaborated in the missions of the younger Father Segneri in the Modenese region, organized spiritual exercises for priests, and took pleasure in visiting and assisting prisoners. To care for the sick and unfortunate, he founded in Modena the Compagnia della Carità. His piety is evidenced by several highly regarded devotional works, such as the treatise *Della regolata divisione de’ cristiani* (1747) and *Della carità cristiana* (1723). Very widely read in the eighteenth century was *Il Cristianesimo felice nelle missioni dei Padri della Compagnia di Gesù nel Paraguay* (1743–49), in which, drawing on the missionaries’ reports, he reconstructed and extolled the Jesuit “communitarian” work of Christianization in South America. In the treatise *De ingeniorum moderatione in religionis negotio* (1714), he examined contemporary historical-religious controversies, criticized opinions and beliefs lacking historical foundation, condemned exaggerated popular cults of the Virgin and the saints, yet declared his belief in the possibility of a dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Virgin (I. I, cap. 17). The treatise *De superstitione vitanda*, published under the pseudonym Antonio Lampridio (1742), aimed to combat all forms of superstition, false ecstasies and revelations, and spurious miracles.
His profound religious sentiment—simple, modest, and marked by obedience to the Roman Church—did not stifle in Muratori the critical sense of the rigorous and impartial historian. He judged Church history as a historian; he stigmatized the corrupt morals of some popes, observing that criticism did no injury to the Church. In a letter to Tanucci, he acknowledged the need to limit the number of ecclesiastics and monks; he noted the decline of the mendicant orders, toward which he felt little sympathy, while he held the Jesuits in high regard. His tendencies toward Church reform were very moderate: he knew human weakness, feared overly radical reforms, and was never deceived by the illusion of a return to origins. Though on occasion his requests coincided with Jansenist demands, he had nothing in common with Jansenism, whose doctrines he rejected.
His works show how Muratori was always prudent in his expressions and not obstinate in his judgments; often he submitted his writings to the judgment of friends, accepting their corrections while maintaining his independence and impartiality. Thus, in the matter of the Iron Crown of Monza, he maintained his negative stance despite Rome’s favorable opinion; in the question of the “blood vow” for the Immaculate Conception, he declared the practice superstitious and incurred the displeasure of some clergy; he clashed with Cardinal Querini over the reduction of holy days of obligation; and cautiously criticized the theatrical excesses of contemporary religious preaching. Yet he was not a polemical spirit; he wished to agree with everyone, provided that truth was respected. His personal qualities, his great prestige, his strict orthodoxy, and his irreproachable conduct soon placed him in a position such that, though attacked from various quarters, he was never subject to ecclesiastical censure. Pope Benedict XIV held him in the highest reverence. Indeed, Muratori may be considered the foremost among the encyclopedic scholars of eighteenth-century Italy. Yet all his varied activities were always in the service of his mission as a historian. He felt that the true historian, to grasp the true nature of historical reality, must master all knowledge. Muratori saw history as the unfolding of a design established by Divine Providence. Hence the optimism that pervades all his work: all things happen for the best; even evil has its historical function—the punishment of the wicked and the purification of peoples from evil. It is useless to debate human events, which find their explanation only in the mind of God. From this springs the sense of great modesty, deep humanity, and tolerance that shines through all Muratori’s work. He condemned war when provoked by ambition, pride, or caprice; he admitted it only for reasons of defense. He trusted in civic education, demanded
Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan (I 101 sup.), and published by him in *Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi* (III, Milan 1740, pp. 851–54). It contains a list of the books of the New Testament (v. Bibbia). The opening lines, now missing, must have dealt with the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. This is followed by information on Luke (called the third Gospel), John, Acts, the Epistles I–II Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, I–II Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, I–II Timothy, Jude, I–II (III?) John, Revelation, and I Peter (?). Missing are the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, and II Peter.
The private reading of the Shepherd is permitted, of which it says: “Nuperrime, temporibus nostris, in Urbe Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae Ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius” (ll. 74–76). From this chronological reference it follows that the document was written toward the end of the second century A.D., probably in Rome (called simply “urbe” in ll. 35–36) or in its vicinity (P. Baffi, O. Bardenhewer, R. Cornely-A. Merk, P. H. Höpf-B. Gut). It does not, however, follow that it is an official document of the Roman Church, as A. Harnack thinks. According to many scholars (J.-B. Lighthoet, T. H. Robinson, Th. Zahn, S. Ritter, M.-J. Lagrange, etc.) its author would be St. Hippolytus of Rome (v.), while others (L. A. Muratori) propose Caius Romanus. Others suggest Melito of Sardis (v. Bartlet), or Polycrates of Ephesus (G. Kuhn), or Clement of Alexandria (J. Chapman). C. Erbes (Die Zeit des Muratorischen Fragmentes, in Zeitschr. für Kirchengeschichte, 35 [1914], pp. 331–62) maintains that its author is Rhodon the anti-Gnostic (ca. 220), of whom Eusebius speaks (Hist. eccl., V. 13: PG 20, 460 sg.).
The original language would have been Greek, according to A. Hilgenfeld, S. P. Tregelles, Th. Zahn, M. Schanz, A. Merk;
