**Briefing Document: Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities** At its heart, James Turner's book explores a really big question: are the many different fields we call 'humanities' today ultimately separate things, or do they share a common ancestor? The answer, according to the book, is very much the latter! While today we have distinct departments for history, literature, classics, philosophy, and so on, the trail for many of these disciplines leads back to one "big, old thing": philology. **So, What Exactly _Is_ Philology?** Now, the word 'philology' itself might sound a bit dusty to modern English speakers. Some might think it's just about painstakingly studying ancient Greek or Roman texts, or maybe only very technical language research. But, as the book reveals, especially in its heyday in the 19th century, philology was much grander and more influential. It was truly the "king of the sciences" in the great German universities of the 18th and 19th centuries, inspiring humanistic studies across Europe and America. In the 19th century, 'philology' generally covered three main areas of research: 1. **Textual Philology:** This involved the study of texts themselves, including classical works, the Bible, texts from places like India and the Middle East (often called 'oriental' literatures at the time), and medieval and modern European writings. It's about understanding, interpreting, and often trying to restore these texts to their original form. 2. **Theories of the Origin and Nature of Language:** Scholars pondered big questions about where language came from and what its fundamental nature is. 3. **Comparative Study of Languages:** This looked at the structures and historical development of different languages and language families. This area had some truly stunning results, like uncovering the existence of a vanished parent language for most European, northern Indian, and Iranian tongues. **Shared Methods: History, Comparison, and Genealogy** Despite the diverse subjects they studied, these three areas of philological scholarship shared a common approach that distinguished them from, say, the natural sciences modeled after Newton. Philologists believed that **history** was the key to understanding their subjects. To truly grasp a text, a language, or language itself, you needed to understand its historical origins. Their historical research wasn't just about putting things in chronological order, though. It was deeply **comparative**. To understand a classical text, you'd compare it with other manuscripts of the same work, with other texts from the same era, and with the historical evidence surrounding them. To understand Sanskrit grammar, you'd compare it to similar grammars from other Indo-European languages, and maybe even implicitly contrast it with grammars from very different language families. Furthermore, this historical understanding was often **genealogical**. Philologists aimed to trace lines of descent, showing how an ancestral form evolved through intermediate stages to its modern form. This way of thinking about history—insisting on comparison and genealogy—became deeply embedded in the DNA of the modern humanities. **From Ancient Roots to Polymathic Flourishing** Our story of philology really begins way back in ancient Greece. The Greeks started speculating systematically about language, invented rhetoric (the art of speaking or writing expressively), and began methodical scrutiny of texts. Out of these efforts, they created 'grammar,' which encompassed much of this study. The very word 'philology' comes from Greek (philologia), initially meaning something like "love of talking, argument, or reason," but it quickly became linked to the study of language, reading, rhetoric, literature, and textual scholarship. Think of scholars in places like the Library of Alexandria, meticulously studying and preserving texts. The Romans eagerly adopted and adapted Greek learning. Figures like Marcus Terentius Varro were learned polymaths, interested in everything from literature and language to antiquities and agriculture. Roman scholars systematized Greek rhetoric and developed a more detailed vocabulary for it, producing manuals that would be studied for centuries. They also applied Greek methods to Roman subjects, like compiling chronologies of Roman history or creating glossaries of Latin words. Through the Middle Ages, Roman texts and the tradition of grammar persisted, but the comprehensive approach of ancient 'grammar' largely faded. Greek scholarship became rare in the Latin West, though not entirely lost. The Renaissance saw a revival, particularly in Italy, spurred by figures like Francesco Petrarch. Petrarch himself was a philologist, seeking out, editing, and annotating ancient Latin texts, restoring fragmented works, and deeply engaging with Roman history and antiquarianism. He became a model for later humanists, who focused on the purity of contemporary writing (based on ancient usage), finding and editing old texts, and historical/antiquarian research. These humanists weren't just studying texts; they were also exploring physical relics of the past, like buildings, inscriptions, and coins, reviving a "Varronian" program of collecting "all the relics of the past" to recover a civilization. Northern humanism, influenced by its Italian parent, expanded the scope, making greater use of Greek and Hebrew and applying philological methods to biblical texts. Scholars like Lorenzo Valla and later Erasmus of Rotterdam used textual collation to examine Greek New Testament manuscripts, even if initially to emend the Latin Vulgate. Hebrew became important not just for theological reasons but also for interpreting the Old Testament and understanding figures like Jerome, who translated the Bible. The Reformation, while disruptive, pushed humanism in new directions. As theological disputes became prominent and violence tore Europe apart, scholars often retreated from civic life into studies and universities. This era saw the rise of the "Republic of Letters," an international community of scholars connected by correspondence, focused on learning for its own sake. While rhetorical humanism retreated, scholarship diversified. Philological energy turned away from solely classical and biblical texts as church authorities sometimes suppressed historical biblical criticism. The definition of 'philology' itself broadened significantly in this post-Reformation period. By the late 16th century, a German physician considered the study of history, chronology, people, places, cultures, religions, and much more, all found in "good authors," to be part of philology's scope. This intellectual expansion, sometimes called 'polymathy,' embraced nearly all knowledge created by human thought and action, leaving primarily the natural world to others. This polymathic approach even temporarily bridged the gap between philosophy and philology, as 'grammar' (in this broad sense) claimed all realms of the human mind. **Refinement and Broadening: 17th and 18th Centuries** The 17th and 18th centuries saw further development. Scholars like Jean Le Clerc worked to make the rules of textual criticism explicit, developing a deeper sense of the historical distance between ancient texts and modern readers. He insisted that understanding a text required knowing the author's aim, the occasion for writing, and the specific historical context, not just relying on tradition or abstract reason. This "historically grounded philological criticism" was seen as the proper road to interpretation, for the Bible and other texts. Jacob Perizonius showed how to apply these principles, even to fables like the story of Romulus, using source reliability, possibility, and contradiction to try and extract historical kernels. This showed how "historicized" philology had become, though the limits of this historical consciousness were also apparent (like assuming ancient Romans shared modern Dutch values). Another significant shift was the slow move towards writing scholarly works in vernacular languages rather than solely Latin. Figures like Richard Simon publishing in French helped pave the way for national scholarly cultures, which would eventually lead to divergences between, for example, English-speaking and German scholars. Richard Bentley stands out as a prime example of British erudition spanning the old and the new in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. He was a brilliant classicist known for his extensive knowledge of Greek and Latin literature across all periods, his ability to ferret out manuscripts, and his imaginative (sometimes controversial) textual emendations. He applied his philological skills not just to classical authors like Horace and Terence but also to the New Testament and even modern texts like Milton's _Paradise Lost_. Bentley was also a polymath, applying Newton's theory to prove God's existence in his Boyle Lectures, showing that learned figures could still hop between diverse fields. Beyond just textual work, philology began to inform new ways of understanding antiquity. Thomas Blackwell, a Scottish philologist, linked the form and content of Homer's epics to their specific historical, social, and cultural environment. He pioneered a "stadial theory" suggesting societies evolve through defined stages, an idea that became core to the Scottish Enlightenment and later influenced German classical philology. Robert Wood, through his travels and observations of ruins in the Middle East, brought a new element – material evidence – to Homeric studies. By suggesting Homer was illiterate and came from an early, "rude, simple, and confined" stage of society, Wood helped introduce the idea of oral epic and gave early antiquity a distinct cultural identity, highlighting how different it was from the modern world. By the mid-18th century, philology in Britain had a wider scope and a deeper historical consciousness. Philological methods were being applied to new areas, like studying classic English texts (recognizing they too had degraded textually and become difficult to read) and Anglo-Saxon language and literature. Antiquarians and philologists, often indistinguishable, were pioneering systematic study of the English past, its language, and literature. Theories about language itself began to break free from older frameworks, becoming more attuned to historical shaping. A key characteristic of this era was the lack of strict walls between fields of learning; scholars like Bentley and Le Clerc moved freely between classical, biblical, linguistic, and even scientific or historical pursuits. This ease of applying existing tools to new materials was a crucial mode of innovation. **The Rise of Disciplines and Fragmentation** The 19th century brought about a major change: the rise of modern academic disciplines and the principle of disciplinarity. This meant that tasks previously seen as interconnected facets of a single enterprise began to separate into distinct areas of scholarship. While frontiers remained somewhat porous for a time, they became increasingly genuine. For example, classicists might still dabble in Sanskrit, and biblical scholars used Greek, but the fields began to pull apart. The sheer growth of knowledge might be one factor, but the book suggests disciplines were also a new kind of "filter" and a "cramping" one compared to the earlier polymathy. This fragmentation meant that the vast landscape once covered by 'philology' began to break down into the familiar departments of the modern university. **Philology's Offspring: The Modern Humanities** Many of today's humanities disciplines grew directly out of this process, evolving from or heavily influenced by philology: - **Classics:** This is perhaps the most direct descendant. Evolving from classical philology (the study of Greek and Latin texts), 'classics' absorbed related areas like archaeology, numismatics, epigraphy, and the study of ancient art. While classicists initially focused heavily on texts (as seen at Oxford and Cambridge), figures like Charles Norton in the US treated buildings and paintings as 'texts' to be interpreted using philological methods. Archaeology, though distinct from textual study, was deeply shaped by textual and linguistic philology, with scholars using ancient authors like Pausanias, Herodotus, and Homer, and deciphering inscriptions to understand material remains. 'Classics' today, while perhaps narrowly defined as a university department, still covers a remarkably broad range of evidence and technical practices inherited from early modern philology and antiquarianism. - **Literary Studies:** The scholarly study of vernacular literature, like English, emerged after 1800. It applied philological methods developed for classical and biblical texts, including textual criticism (editing and emending works), evaluative criticism (judging a work's merit, derived from rhetoric), and literary history (tracing the evolution of genres and placing authors in historical context). Figures like Richard Bentley applied his methods to Milton. Later, scholars like Frederick James Furnivall, despite sometimes lacking rigor, played a key role in editing and making available vast numbers of early English texts, applying methods borrowed from biblical philology like printing multiple manuscripts in parallel. The field of literary studies, initially seen as a branch of philology, thus combined these philologically-rooted approaches to become a distinct academic endeavor. - **Archaeology:** As mentioned under Classics, archaeology as the specialized study of physical remains evolved from older antiquarianism in the 19th century. While distinguishing itself by focusing on material culture, it remained heavily reliant on textual and linguistic philology. Early archaeologists used ancient texts as guides to sites (like Leake using Pausanias), relied on inscriptions to understand languages and history (like Charles Fellows), and benefited hugely from the decipherment of ancient scripts by philologists (making Egyptology possible). Biblical philology also sparked interest in and provided frameworks for studying sites in the Holy Land or Mesopotamia (like Edward Robinson and Henry Layard). Even when studying physical objects, the umbilical cord to philology was strong. - **History:** The discipline of history, particularly the scholarly, document-based history we recognize today, was profoundly shaped by textual philology. Edward Gibbon, whose _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (late 18th century) is a landmark work, merged the narrative style of "philosophic history" with the rigorous source methods of philological antiquarianism. Though not a philologist himself, Gibbon deeply respected philological achievements and insisted on controlling pertinent sources, paying attention to conflicts between them, and documenting his claims extensively (hence the thousands of footnotes). This union fostered the belief that history is reliable only when based on "balanced research into a comprehensive scope of sources," typically contemporary documents found in archives. The philologist's habit of scrutinizing texts and cross-checking evidence translated directly into the historian's concept of 'evidence' and how to use it properly. - **Anthropology:** While seemingly focused on cultures and societies rather than texts, early anthropology in the English-speaking world was heavily influenced by philology, particularly through its adoption of the **comparative method**. Scholars like E. B. Tylor, Henry Sumner Maine, and Lewis Henry Morgan, key figures in establishing the discipline, took the comparative approach developed in comparative philology and applied it to institutions, beliefs, and customs across different societies. Max Müller, a leading comparative philologist and early figure in comparative religion, was a significant influence, both positively (providing the model of language family comparison) and negatively (provoking reactions against his theories). Early anthropology, like the Scottish Enlightenment stadial theory it inherited, often saw contemporary "primitive" societies as living examples of earlier human stages, and comparison was the tool to trace this supposed evolution. Even as anthropology later moved away from this early comparative method, the footprints of philology remained. Figures like Alfred Kroeber, a key US anthropologist, came to the field with a background in linguistics and literature, finding in linguistic studies a model for understanding culture. Comparative religion itself, as a distinct field, also has deep roots in philology, particularly through scholars like Max Müller who approached it through the study and translation of sacred texts. **The Legacy of Philology** So, while scholars today inhabit distinct disciplinary homes, the book makes a compelling case that these homes were built on the same foundation: philology. The rigorous study of texts, languages, and the historical contexts that produced them provided methods, conceptual frameworks, and a shared intellectual inheritance that shaped much of what we now call the humanities. The fragmentation into disciplines in the 19th century marked a significant shift away from the polymathic ideal of earlier philologists, leading to hyperspecialization, though calls for 'interdisciplinary' work quickly followed, perhaps recognizing the underlying unity. **Further Ideas and Questions to Explore** This journey through the origins of the humanities opens up many avenues for further thought! - **The "Forgotten" Aspect:** Why did philology fall on hard times in the English-speaking world, becoming "abused, and snickered at," perceived as dry and boring? What happened to its high status as "king of the sciences"? The book hints that natural science usurped its throne, but what other factors were involved in its decline in public and academic perception? - **Philology's Global Reach:** The book primarily focuses on the Western tradition stemming from the Mediterranean, though it nods to earlier work in Mesopotamia, India (Pāṇini), and China (Xu Shen). How did philological traditions outside the West develop, and were there points of significant exchange or influence? The mention of 'oriental' literatures as part of 19th-century philology suggests some engagement, but how deep was it? - **The Impact of Disciplinarity:** The book views modern disciplinarity somewhat critically, seeing it as "cramping" compared to earlier polymathy. Are there ways in which disciplinary boundaries have been productive for scholarship? Or are they primarily limitations that hinder broader understanding and collaboration? - **The Future of the Humanities:** Given their shared origins, how might a renewed understanding of philology inform discussions about the future of the humanities and potential paths for integration or new forms of scholarship? - **Methods Across Fields:** The book emphasizes shared methods like historicism, comparison, and genealogy. Can you identify other methods or intellectual habits that originated in philology and continue to be used (perhaps under different names) in humanities fields today?