Alfred von Reumont (1808-1887): A Catholic diplomat in the service of Prussia and of German-Italian historiography

本研究以阿尔弗雷德·冯·鲁蒙(Alfred von Reumont，1808-1887)为研究对象，他是一位为普鲁士和意大利-德国史学服务的天主教外交官。冯·雷蒙特是一位涉足历史的外交官，他参与了19世纪最相关的德国-意大利研究项目，有时作为中间人，有时作为顾问。尽管他的同代人和当前的研究人员都认识到了他的巨大影响，但对他信件的分析，可以在波恩大学图书馆的手稿部门找到，在意德研究中仍然是一个空白领域。这可能会让一些人感到惊讶，因为这种通信可能对理解19世纪的史学起到关键作用，而19世纪的史学反过来又产生了中世纪资料的版本，如德国历史纪念碑(MGH)，这些版本直到今天仍然有意义。由于保存了冯·鲁蒙的信件，他在佛罗伦萨、罗马和都灵的通讯员中最重要的人已经被确定。考察他书信的对应者，有望揭示这位主人公的自我中心网络，揭示由此引发的文化流动和转移的各种形式和影响。基于这样的分析，我们努力展示一种历史学的结构和机制，当时它正在重新定义自己，其政治工具引发了一场嫉妒的获取档案的斗争。现在，我们希望第一次审查这位代理人的行为，他参与了谁应该书写历史，谁不应该书写历史的决定。

This research project focuses onAlfred von Reumont (1808-1887): a Catholic diplomat in the service of Prussia and of Italo-German historiography. Von Reumont, a diplomat dabbling in History, was involved in the most relevant German-Italian research projects of the 19th century, at times as a go-between, at others as counsellor. Though both his contemporaries and current researchers have recognised his considerable influence, an analysis of his letters, available at the manuscript department of the university library in Bonn, is still a blank area in Italo-German research. This may come as a surprise to some, given the key role this correspondence might play to understanding 19th century historiography, which in turn produced editions of medieval sources, such as the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), which have remained relevant until today. Thanks to the conservation of the correspondence of von Reumont , the most significant among his correspondents in Florence, Rome and Turin have been identified. Examining their counterparts to his letters promises to reveal the egocentric network of this protagonist, disclosing the various forms and effects of the thus initiated cultural flows and transfers. Based on such an analysis, we strive to show structures and mechanisms of a historiography which at the time was redefining itself, and the political instrumentation of which gave rise to a jealous struggle for access to archives. We now hope, for the first time, to examine the actions of this agent, who partook in the decision of who was to write history, and who was not.