ABSTRACT
For all that has been said recently, someone could truly raise an objection with regard to meaning and significance. Meaning certainly is a value assigned to an historical phenomenon that is not considered in isolation per se, but, according to the mentioned hermeneutical canon of totality in interpreting, it deserved it only in a meaningful concatenation of its consequential and remote effects, in the measure in which it is possible to discover them. Properly, the concatenation would be a concatenation of meaning. This meaning is anyway a meaning that, because of the necessary temporal distance separating the phenomenon from the historian, is like something in itself concluded, and that must be primarily rediscovered. The dialog that should be established between the historian and the spirit of the past objectified in the sources will be missing completely and would be altered into a monolog, a soliloquy.
