Historical Accounts in Relation to Philology
Philology – and interesting study, to say the least. It seems that philologists (according to Conway’s comments) are forever an archaic scholar that is in search of one and true thing – authentic texts. In Mann’s The origins of humanism philology is an important and necessary evil in the creation, manifestation, and ‘historization” of autentic texts originating from ancient times. In p. 9, we see that Petrarch spent some time in Avignon in the 1330s questing to restore and “re-piece” Livy’s History of Rome. Upon receicpt of an incomplete version of the text, Petrarch spent the next few years piecing together partial texts, other writings, and variations of the manuscripts. Petrarch was able to re-create the manuscript.
WOW….I see a correlation between our first week’s readings of The Historical Texas as Literary Artifact by Hayden White and Origins!
Actually, I see a correlation amongst our class conversation on the search of a a “true history” in place of a subjective account of a “true history”. It seems that as we as a people search for the true accounts of what actually happened in history, and surrounding historical texts, that we are, in essence, our own Petrarch in the world.
Petrarch was in search of the TRUEST account of an ancient text by using, measuring, and evaluating every account of the text. He spent years and numerous sources to come up with the final “truest” account of what he believed to be the actual text.
But…my question is: “How can it be the truest account of the text?” Isn’t there some liberty taken when re-writing the text? Isn’t there some discrepancy in any translation done? Liberties are taken all the time by historians. For example: We discussed the Bible in class last week. Is there really a TRUE account of what happend? Or, did people take the freedom to re-create this document to fit their needs in their own historical timeframe for their own purposes in life?
What if…..philologists take that same liberty? Whew….maybe there is no such thing as a true, authentic text….unless you have the most ORIGNIAL copy. Even then, unless you witness the actual writing (or historical event surrounding a writing) who can be sure that this orginality is set in stone?
Fortunatly for Petrarch, he was so “zealous” and “enthusiastic” in his quest for classical literautre, that his philological advances set him apart from the phonies in my opinion. Just the same with historians….some may take history as an objective telling of the past. However, in reality, it takes multiple accounts of historical past to get a true feel for its authenticity.
on February 2nd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I agree that it is at first eye opening if not disheartening to listen and understand the subjectivity in writing history, but there still is some objectivity. Yes, a person is self-deceived to say he/she has written a text without error which reflects the absolute truth about past events, but the struggle of the historian is to take into account as many sources as possible and try to work them together into some understanding. This may mean purposefully leaving gaps in the construction or presenting the various perspectives on an event without passing judgment, but the historian attempts to bring to light the past in the most objective way he/she can.
on February 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 am
Interesting observations. The world certainly owes Petrarch a debt of gratitude for his scrupulous research into classic Latin texts. I wonder, however, if he did not get a little too caught up in his own importance in later years, perhaps interpreting certain characteristics of these texts in a slightly narrower vein when it was necessary to uphold his established work in the field. The mistakes he made (see p. 11) lead me to think that the “absolute truth” of his philology might have a few holes in it. That said, I believe his greatest contribution to posterity was, as you have said, his unswerving dedication to the constant retrieval and revival of these classics which clearly had a monumental impact on future generations.
on February 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
Language is a dynamic process. Of course, translators of the Bible insert words or small sentences while translating Scriptures. They do it to make their translation more readable to the readers of their generation. However, they do not delete the idea that was expressed in the original source. They use the preface and footnotes to explain anything that they add to the text and why they do it. Therefore, it is extremely important to read the introduction and the footnotes or endnotes of any Bible translation.
on February 4th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Hi Amy,
How did you personally answer the question about the Bible? Do you think there’s something wrong with the book itself or should man be blamed for the way he applies its content? Do you think a ‘good’ history book may be misinterpreted?
VJ