Division of history
Stacey Dodd
result we divide it up into different eras and sections eg ancient,
medieval, chinese etc.
What would you say is the main criteria used in assigning a peoples
history to a particular era? I would say that one of the main criteria
is what makes it easier for the historian. What do you think!
Tiglath
"Stacey Dodd" <Stace...@e-mailanywhere.com> wrote in message
news:261b113a.02050...@posting.google.com...
> History is such a large field that no one can master it all. As a
> result we divide it up into different eras and sections eg ancient,
> medieval, chinese etc.
This is very true but we soon realize that this division is only useful when
we approach history at a survey level, like most of the history we discuss
in s.h.m; although we dash into some depth here and there. The
requirements to read and enjoy history are not very demanding but it all
changes suddenly when we think of putting down the book, getting up, and
actually doing some history. The historian must be a veritable Swiss
knife -- all blades sharp. Apart from a good knowledge of world history,
and a specialized knowledge of his areas of interest, the historian needs
knowledge in an astounding array of ancillary fields if he is to think in a
sophisticated way about historical problems. This stems from the fact that
history is the synthesis of all knowledge, and seeks to explain everything
that has occurred.
Anyone who can even think of calling himself a historian, say a medieval
historian, must have a reading knowledge of Latin, Gothic, and Arabic to
understand the primary sources, and of French, German, Italian, Spanish, and
Portuguese to become familiar with the most important scholarship.
According to his specialty he may need also a reading knowledge of Old
Norse, Icelandic, Welsh, Old Irish, Old French, Scriptural and Medieval
Greek, Old Church Slavonic, Anglo-Norman French, and Catalan.
A historian has to have knowledge of geography, not just physical geography,
but of the demographics, migrations, and economies of the peoples of his
period of study associated to the relevant geography. To understand the
medieval mind he needs a profound knowledge of the bible, theology,
philosophy, liturgy, Plato's, Aristotle's and Hellenistic philosophy, an the
history of science. Other ancillary knowledge will include rudiments of
psychology, cultural anthropology, archeology, art history, musicology,
literature, iconography, paleography, epigraphy, numismatics, and diplomatic
(the understanding of standard forms of public documents and abbreviations
in writs, charters, wills, etc.).
When all this bears fruit he'll need the skills of literary exposition to
write clearly and logically his historical interpretations of the sources in
a coherent thesis properly supported in great detail in a combination of
narrative and topical treatment.
Feel like going back to that chair yet?
Heather Jones
There are a lot of criteria used, but one of the ones that I tend to
deal with a lot as a linguist derives from discontinuities in the source
materials. Cultures, languages, etc. typically (although not always)
are changing gradually all the time, which doesn't lend itself to
identifying distinct "eras". But from our point of view as students of
the past, there will often be gaps in the available record -- or, in
linguistics, points at which there is a relatively sudden shift from a
more to less conservative type of record -- that produce the illusion of
discrete eras and distinct change-points. There's always a tension
between making use of these discontinuities to chop time up into
manageable chunks, and remembering that history itself is not similarly discontinuous.
Heather
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Michael W Cook
wrote on 7/5/02 6:23 pm:
Now this to an extent is very true, but it all boils down to what level you
study History. It's like medicine, nobody can study every single discipline.
You start off with a basic grounding covering a whole swathe of subjects,
then as your career progresses, you specialise.
Having worked with many medical/surgical academics, it always interests me
what their reasons were for choosing their specialisation. Those who are
interested in money become Plastic Surgeons, those who wanted an easy life
15-20 years ago studied Genitourinary medicine, nowadays those with ambition
study it.
It's swings and roundabouts, like history, many choose to follow the
in-vogue discipline, those who want to try and make a name for themselves
choose something more obscure with scope for new research, in the case of
surgery, new technique.
Take Anglo-Norman Studies for an example.
As you mentioned on another post, it is easy to become very well read on the
subject, because there are English translations widely available on just
about every important source available. There is no need to be able to speak
the languages or be able to translate.
However, if one wants to make a name for oneself in this discipline, then I
would agree and say it is essential to be able to read these sources and
make your own interpretations, independently form any previous research.
Many of the sources were translated over 100 years ago, yet they have been
re-translated again since, and new details have come to light which open
completely new avenues of research.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
-
Dalton Dietz
"Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B90497C3.4CB0%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> Take Anglo-Norman Studies for an example.
> As you mentioned on another post, it is easy to become very well read on
the
> subject, because there are English translations widely available on just
> about every important source available. There is no need to be able to
speak
> the languages or be able to translate.
> However, if one wants to make a name for oneself in this discipline, then
I
> would agree and say it is essential to be able to read these sources and
> make your own interpretations, independently form any previous research.
Precisely!
And he or she here who has done such -- "made a name for oneself" -- by
reading and independently interpreting primary sources, please say aye.
Dalton
Inger E
"Dalton Dietz" <vdi...@prodigy.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:7cBD8.889$qj4.9...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> news:B90497C3.4CB0%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>
>
> > Take Anglo-Norman Studies for an example.
> > As you mentioned on another post, it is easy to become very well read on
> the
> > subject, because there are English translations widely available on just
> > about every important source available. There is no need to be able to
> speak
> > the languages or be able to translate.
Oh yes it is. If you compare two translations for example an English
translation and a German translation with the original Latin text of let's
say Cassiodorus Variae or for that matter compare the last three edited
transcription of Bede with a pholioversion of the original text you will
find that there are hugh differences which makes it almost impossible to
work with the so called available English translations without comparing
them at least to other translations and a transcription of the original
textlanguage!
If you believe that you can do a good day's work only reading edited
translations, than you are fooling yourself that's one thing the problem is
that you also will be fooling your students or readers if you teach or write
about the content.
> > However, if one wants to make a name for oneself in this discipline,
then I would agree and say it is essential to be able to read these sources
and
> > make your own interpretations, independently form any previous research.
>
>
> Precisely!
This type of statement is typical from those who never ever have had a
handwritten text in Latin to transcribe oneself in order to make own
valuation of assumed value of words and sentence used from a time which
passed long ago and in an other country with other idioms and other grammar
syntax which hardly ever is shown in edited English translations no matter
how good linguist the translator is he is rarely a good History scholar as
well and that he need to be in order for his text to be used the way you two
seem to think is correct.
Inger E
Stacey Dodd
> then I would agree and say it is essential to be able to read these sources
> and
> > > make your own interpretations, independently form any previous research.
> >
> >
> > Precisely!
>
> This type of statement is typical from those who never ever have had a
> handwritten text in Latin to transcribe oneself in order to make own
> valuation of assumed value of words and sentence used from a time which
> passed long ago and in an other country with other idioms and other grammar
> syntax which hardly ever is shown in edited English translations no matter
> how good linguist the translator is he is rarely a good History scholar as
> well and that he need to be in order for his text to be used the way you two
> seem to think is correct.
Could you please explain what sort of variations do occur? Say a
letter was sent by the pope to a prince.
Also would the medievalist archivist take the actual text and modified
it for reasons eg not to mislead someone but just to make it clear
what they think it was is meant to mean.
Inger E
this question will be a long one answered seperately, thus I am opening an
other title in front and this i - do you mind if I ask you to start by
printing out a copy of a Diploma from Diplomatarium Norwegicum. I will use
that compared with originaltext A and a vidimated dated copy B in order to
make you understand the importance of being able to read at least Latin
instead of using a translation no matter how good the translator is as a
linguist experienced to translate Latin texts.
This is the URL I suggest you to print:
<http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=15358&s=2
0&str=
The other article will follow within two hours. During those hours please
try to read the text if you are familiar with Latin.
Inger E
"Stacey Dodd" <Stace...@e-mailanywhere.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:261b113a.02051...@posting.google.com...
Inger E
"Stacey Dodd" wrote:
>
> Could you please explain what sort of variations do occur? Say a
> letter was sent by the pope to a prince.
I am sorry but I don't have that example at hand.
>
> Also would the medievalist archivist take the actual text and modified
> it for reasons eg not to mislead someone but just to make it clear
> what they think it was is meant to mean.
The questions above is answered in the article below:
WHY IT'S NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO READ PRIME SOURCES IN ORIGIN TEXT.
© Johansson Inger, Gothenburg May 2002.
Let's start by looking at two different situations we might have when an old
handwritten document is the target to be read, valuated, transcribed and
comprehended:
SITUATION 1:
The Prime source still exist in origin. and either a, b or c also is true.
a) at least one contemporary copy
b) at least one later but dated and verified copy is preserved
c) at least one later copy exist but it is either not dated or not verified
or neither dated or verified.
Example from situation 1 will be discussed in the end of this article.
SITUATION 2:
The Prime source was written long ago and the original aren't known to exist
but
either:
a) more handwritten copies exists
b) only one handwritten copy exists.
Example of "a" is Tacitus' Germania for the moment I can't think of any
example of "b".
When you know that there are several handwritten copies you need to know
which of those who are closest related to the original text. That's a
special procedure you have to perform in order to establish this. It's to
complicated to be described even in this long article. Needless to say that
in the end you will have one or two of these types
A1 - a copy which is written close in time of the original and which have
had access to the original Prime source text - It's more than once the case
that a book written in the past was written in more than one example this is
the situation I try to describe here nothing else.
B1- n and or C1 - n
one or more copies which you can say
a)for sure are independent of each other (incorrect spellings, missed or
misinterpreted word/-s etc aren't the same so you have no reason to believe
that one is written from the other)
b) the texts can be linked in groups which as far as today's methods is
concerned each group seem to have been written from one and the same copy of
the original text.
I guess you all understand that this is "lucky" situations. Regarding many
of the old handwritten texts we have to accept that what we in many cases
have are several copies written during the early Medieval Age at one or
several monasteries in Europe(including in Iceland and Greenland) and that
the monk /-s who copied the book /-s didn't have access to the original text
but at best had access to a copy copied from the originaltext. More often
the text have been copied more than once over the year thus it's essential
to valuate the different copies in order to arrive as close as possible to
the original text.
There are many procedures used to transcribe handwritten texts from
different ages. Tacitus Germania was written around 100 AD. When the
transcrition is done out of the existing hand-written exemplars of Germania
that still are available, next thing isn't to start translating into English
from these copies but to try to establish what the text actually say if
there are any different interpretation of the text. Next you need to check
if it's likely that Tacitus had access to the knowledge needed or if he had
his information from other sources. This means that for every part of the
work Germania you need to check the information given with older sources and
contemporary sources but that's not enough you need to find out as much as
you can regarding Tacitus as well. Same procedure for every source you are
to use in your paper, article, essay or Dissertation.
Stop here for a minute. Don't forget that all these steps down the line from
you start your analyse to the moment you present your finally
result/conclusion/transcription etc. must be written down one way or an
other in order for the reader to be able to follow your thoughts. For
example you need to tell way you use that an that type of material(book,
handwritten text etc.). Medieval history isn't a question of opinion it's a
question of if the reader can follow the Scholar's steps and whether you
agree with him/her or not, it's essential that reference given is correct
used for the situation. You will always need to take into consideration that
each interpreter of a text only can do his/her work from the knowledge of
his/her time. This means that old sources needs to be checked and rechecked,
new questions have to be asked to the sources due to new knowledge gained in
other studies from the time in question or from other texts written by the
same Historian.
Then finally we find a text edited in the original language.
This text can be edited as the Diplomas in Diplomatarium Norwegicum, Svenskt
Diplomatarium or other edition of Official texts or larger transcription
editions(ex. King Alfred's Orosius edition /-s). That type of edited text
present the original Prime source with all known spelling(including spelling
errors) and all razurs(erased text with or without new text/new letter
inserted) and all differences in spellings, lines etc. found in the existing
copies carefully noted.
Or
The text can be edited in a "modern" transcription of the original Prime
source text. This means that a word-analyse have been made in order to make
it easier to read the text. Can't say I like this the later type of edition
but you see it from time to time and when it happens one need to look for an
edition where the Prime source still is presented as close to original text
as possible.
If you read an English translation, or translation into other language than
Latin the translator rarely have had time to do all this analyse themselves.
This means that added to the usual problems when old texts are at hand:
Words have lost their old value, sometimes means the opposite today; Idioms
that once were known by all aren't known or hardly known at all today;
misinterpretation of a transcribed text due to the problem that old texts in
many cases don't have our way of showing an end of a sentence etc.; not to
mention the worst crime of all the translator aren't familiar with texts
from the period and thus he/she miss to understand what each line is all
about.. the list can be long.
THE ORIGINAL STILL EXIST.
First of all there is one simple question to be asked to the original:
Is the original text in the Prime source authentic and genuine. The second
doesn't always follow the former. A Prime source can be authentic = from the
time in question, written by one or more persons with an ink that are
correct of the time etc. That doesn't mean that it couldn't have been
tempted with nor that it couldn't have been misinterpreted by earlier
scholars who have worked with it. If there are a razur you better know what'
s written before the letter or the word was erased. There are numerous of
steps needed to be taken. Other persons in this group far better than me in
this respect can tell you about these steps.
Here in Sweden we do have scholars of history and linguistic working at the
Riksarkivet doing the test and study needed re. each diploma in a much more
complex situation and study than mentioned above. I will use a diploma from
Svenskt Diplomatarium, sjunde bandet, tredje häftet, 1358 edited by
Riksarkivet Stockholm 1982 and compare that with the same diploma presented
in the Diplomatarium Norwegicum bind 18 nr 20.
I guess it's fair to tell all who aren't scholars of history that a diploma
can as text "belong" to more than one country's historic papers even if the
original text can't be in more place than one. I will not go into every
situation that might be at hand due to lack of original text, it's more or
less alike the one situation described above.
The text in Diplomatarium Norwegicum can be found in:
http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=15358&s=2
The diploma was written in Skänninge 5th February 1358.
The original on parchment is 22,5 x 11 cm Swedish Riksarkiv (RPB 345)
An vidimated copy from 10th May 1442 can be found in Swedish Riksarkiv as
well.
The text have been edited in Dipl. Norw XVIII:1 nr 20 and in Dipl. Dan.
III:5, nr 93.
An edition with Modern Danish translation exist: Danmarks Riges Breve III:5
nr 93
The originaltext is refered to in a Royal edict 1st August 1364 and can be
compared with a legal document from 26th August 1399(RPB nr 3012).
All this information from the Swedish Diplomatarium.
Let's look at the text.(Due to the problem of using cursive letters
respective uplifted letters the text presented here lack some essential
information. I regret this). Please print the text from the Norwegian URL in
order to compare the texts better. That will help you a lot.
SWEDISH REGEST: (SWEDISH TEXT)
Hertiginnan Ingeborg(Håkansdotter) skänker, med samtycke av sin förstfödde,
konung Magnus, sin egendom i Bjälbo i Linköpings stift till
dominikannunnekonvetet i Skänninge. Systrarna skall vara skyldiga att
årligen hålla själamässor för hennes fader konung Håkan, hennes moder
drottning Eufemia, hennes makar hertigarna Erik och Knut, hennes söner
junkrarna Håkan och Knut och för hennes son Magnus och henne själv när de är
döda, samt dessutom för alla, till vilka hon häftar i skuld. Vid var och en
av dessa 9 årsmässor skall 2 mark svenska penningar delas lika mellan
systrarna. Ytterligare skall dessa årligen utge 6 skilling gros tournois
till dominikankonventet i Roskilde för underhåll av lampan i dess kor. All
övrig avkastning skall gå till systrarna i Skänninge.
Hertiginnan beseglar tillsammans med sin son Konung Magnus.
Text: quotation from Svenskt Diplomatarium
Omnibus presens scriptum cernentibus / Jngeburgis Dei gracia ducissa Swecie
/ salutem in Domino sempiternam / Constare volumus euidenter · vniuersis ·
nos in remedium animarum / nostre et omnium nobis attinencium / monasterio
sororum Skeningie ordinis predicatorum bona nostra in Byælbo(note a)
dyocesis Lincopensis · cum agris / pratis / pascuis / siluis / infra sepem
uel extra/ longe uel prope sitis / predictis bonis Byælbo ab antiquo
attinentibus in sicco uel humido/ colonis / jnquilinis / molendinis et
molendinorum locis de consensu et voluntate karissimi primogeniti nostri
(note b) / Magni Regis / dedisse legasse iure perpetuo possidenda et
scotasse / Quapropter easdem sorores incorporamus in predicta bona et ipsis
eadem secundum leges et consuetudines patrie appropriamus / ablata nobis
nostrisque heredibus in perpetuum qualibet facultate nominata bona unquam
repetendi seu quomodolibet impetend / Sorores insuper ad infrascripta erunt
obligate / videlicet / ad tenendum vnum aniuersarium pro singulis personis
infrascriptis / singulis annis / videlicet / patre nostro Haquino rege /
matre nostra Eufemia regina / maritis nostris Erico et Kanuto ducibus /
filiis nostris Haquino et Kanuto domicellis / (c-) primogeniti nostri Magni
/ et nostro (-c) / quando mortui fuerimus / atque vno (note d) pro omnibus
quibus obligate sumus / in quorum nomine quolibet debent inter sorores
equaliter diuidi due marche monete Sweuicalis / et conuentui Roskildensi
ordinis predicatorum singulis annis sex solidos grossorum Turonensium pro
lampade eorum in choro sustentando soluere perpetuo teneantur / Reliquos
uero dictorum bonorum in Byælbo redditus communitati et vtilitati conuentus
dictarum sororum perpetuo deputamus. Jn cuius rei testimonium sigillum
nostrum vna cum sigillo karissimi primogeniti nostri domini regis Magni
supradicti presentibus est appensum / Datum Skæningie(note e) anno domini.
Mo · ccco · lo · octauo die beate Agathe virginis gloriose
a) Letter y on razur A. b) Added above the line c-c) In A and B instead
of expected primogenito nostro magno et nobis. d) In A and B instead of
expected vnum. E) Skeningie B
end of quotation.
Above text may look almost alike the text in Diplomatarium Norwegicum, but
that's not the case. OK, the context in this diplomas haven't been
"changed", but it's essential to present the original text as it actually is
written on the origin source in question.
[Btw. I guess I have to tell you that I have looked at the original and the
B-text myself. The editor of that Diplomatarie volume was a teacher of mine
at Linköping's University. She thought it necessary for me to check it for
myself. I had to go to Riksarkivet in Stockholm in order to do so. Due to
this I know firsthanded that the Swedish transcription is as close to the
original as can be and with all essential needed information there is.}
In the Norwegian text(which is from the edited Diplomatarium Norwegicum)
they used Majuscule instead of minuscle letter in many cases. In this
example this doesn't interfear so much with the context of the text, but in
many other handwritten text the Majuscule/minuscle can be the only way of
knowing where a sentence ends and the new one starts. If you are trying to
comprehend a Latin texts, as all who tried to translate from Latin knows,
this might lead to a totally different interpretation of the sentence..
Worse is that in the Norwegian edition a "quando" have been edited as "qum"
the later isn't correct interpreted neither from the original of 5th
February 1358 or from the vidimated copy from 10th May 1442. The same
situation occurs once more in the Norwegian edition: "nomine" is written
instead of the original and the copy's "nouem".
The usual reader might never observe this differences. A good Medieval
Scholar should.
That's one reason why it's essential to be able to read or at least have
knowledge enough to check any edited version of an old text, Medieval or
Ancient instead of leaning to the English translator/-s and their checking,
valuation etc. of the texts.
In the diploma above these minor discrepancies in interpretation make no
major differences for the context. In texts where you don't have the
original Prime source text preserved same type of discrepancies from one
interpreter/writer of a copy to the next might make all the difference in
the world if you have to use a quotation of the text. If it's translated
into an other language than the original one the gap between the original
text and the edited version grow, sometimes to a width Ocean... This is the
reason why I don't like to send short quotations taken out of their context
and especially not translated quotations which hardly ever can be used
without sending at least the paragraph or page where the quotations from +
the reason why it should be interpreted that or that way. The later can
rarely be found in a translated text from a non-preserved Ancient text.
© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg May 2002
Inger E Johansson
.