Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities

The William G. Bowen Series

by James Turner

A prehistory of today's humanities, from ancient Greece to the early twentieth centuryMany today do not recognize the word, but "philology" was for centuries nearly synonymous with humanistic intellectual life, encompassing not only the study of Greek and Roman literature and the Bible but also all other studies of language and literature, as well as history, culture, art, and more. In short, philology was the queen of the human sciences. How did it become little more than an archaic word?In Philology, the first history of Western humanistic learning as a connected whole ever published in English, James Turner tells the fascinating, forgotten story of how the study of languages and texts led to the modern humanities and the modern university. The humanities today face a crisis of relevance, if not of meaning and purpose. Understanding their common origins—and what they still share—has never been more urgent.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Linguistics, Humanities, Language, Philosophy, Education

568 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

There is more than one author in the Goodreads catalog with this name.

Reviews

[Andrew Higgins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did have a lot of hopes for this book. Last year I took a wonderful course from The Mythguard Institute on Tolkien and Philology which was taught by Tom Shippey (who I hope reviews this book as well!) and Nelson Goering. During this course we discussed the fact that, at that time, there is really no modern text that explores the history and theories of philology. Therefore, when I saw this book come up on Amazon pre-order i immediately ordered it. Upon a first read which is replete with many underlines and notes for further research, i would say that Turner's text delivers partly on this (especially in the first two sections) but then takes a rather more focused approach in the third part on how philology lost its identity in both the Europe and American education system with the wider grouping of disciplines which came to be called 'Modern Humanities' - as I read this part I especially was reminded of Tolkien's 'fighting the long defeat' in the battle of lit and lang (although it was interesting to have a book on Philology not mention Tolkien at all....) Turner's forensic treatment of 'Biblical Philology' is especially interesting and I had not realised the controversy that arose when philologists started looking at The Bible as a text to be philologically explored (and not just considered 'sacred' scripture). Turner's work on Max Mueller and the other 19th century philologists is also very good and certainly gave me more to think about and research. So is this the modern volume on Philology we would like to have? I would say it certainly has elements of it but does not deliver all that we should see in this type of book. But I would recommend it to anyone interested in philology and language (real and invented) and it also paints a very interesting and somewhat depressing picture of how a discipline that underpinned much of the critical investigation of what has become 'the humanities' has now been subsumed and in many cases taken over by the other disciplines that philologic investigation developed. Tolkien's long defeat is still in play and hopefully texts like this will motivate a return to teaching the roots of these humanities. Andy Higgins

[N Perrin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I admit, I came into this book expecting to not like it. A tour-de-force treatment of philology is a daunting task. The accidental neglect of some unheard of scholar along the line could easily become a glaring omission of the highest embarrassment.

Turner does it well though, as only a senior scholar can.

But I think this book is improperly marketed. It is not merely a history of philology but a vast genealogy of humanistic disciplines. Turner broadly documents founding figures, institutions, and periodicals for modern disciplines ranging from biblical studies to comparative anthropology to art history to literary studies to history to Sanskrit studies. Each of which traces their roots from the movement of philology, each of whom has a history of cross-pollination with its sister disciplines.

It is a metanarrative of disciplinarity, the superficial boundaries erected between zones of learning to form departments. Specialization at the cost of breadth and wide learning. The loss scholarship finds itself in the more it snuggles into its individuated cell.

There are many valuable ways to read this book. A history of philology. A history of scholarship in general. A reference for major figures and locations involved in the gestation and birth of modern disciplines. A philosophy of the humanities. A new taxonomy of knowledge, juxtaposing philology and philosophy as the two main rivals of discursive learning.

It is an excellent capstone to Turner's career.

Here is a fitting paragraph from the close of the book:

"Today’s humanities disciplines are not ancient, integral modes of knowledge. They are modern, artificial creations—where made-up lines pretend to divide the single sandbox in which we all play into each boy’s or girl’s own inviolable kingdom. It is a sham. Students of early America freely mingle history, archaeology, and anthropology; literary scholars write history, and historians study literature; a political historian of the pre–Civil War South publishes a book on American art history. If the lines were real, disciplines would not need so relentlessly to police their borders within colleges and universities."

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m starting off with a bit of a digression here, but I think it’s valid since I primarily came to this book, and knew anything at all about philology, based on my love of all things Tolkien it is perhaps not surprising that one of its primary benefits for me has been a deeper insight into his methods, as well as a much deeper understanding of the oft quoted chestnut that all of the Middle-earth stories were primarily composed on a linguistic basis. Despite many readers’ surprise and disbelief in this statement I think it's quite simply nothing but the literal truth. Seeing all of the varied 'side' elements that Tolkien labored on in the Middle Earth project, starting with languages and etymologies, calendars of Shire reckoning, veering for a significant portion of his work on the Silmarillion narrative into the seemingly odd genre of annals and chronologies, and his constant and fundamental concern over the means and methods of the transmission of the fictional text through the ages makes complete and utter sense from a philological perspective. His literary work wasn't just informed by philology, it *was* philology.

What is philology? Well, as James Turner has admirably shown it could take several hundred pages to go into that question, but in a nutshell its simplest meaning holds the key: the love of words. Of course, this is too simplistic an answer to give much insight, so let’s just say that it is the study of human culture as seen most often through the lens of language. Beginning in antiquity as scholars desired to learn of their ancestors through the study of the texts they left behind, it came to include textual analysis and criticism (always searching for the underlying ur-text and, even more broadly speaking, the ur-language as revealed in this hypothetical text), and eventually came to include the study of physical artifacts of the past. Turner argues in his book, and I tend to agree, that philology, for us, is nothing other than the root study from which sprang the modern concept (and eventual varied disciplines) of the humanities.

A book such as this, which takes as its topic the complex history of several branches of academic learning could easily be dry as dust, but Turner is an entertaining writer and leavens his scholarly text with humour and an enjoyable style. After giving a general precis of the birth and development of philology in the ancient world Turner concentrates his study on the growth and development of the humanities as they grew from the study of philology. He places his focus primarily in the English-speaking parts of Europe and the new world (though with an obviously necessary diversion into other linguistic centers, especially German ones that heavily influenced the development of philology, especially in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries).

I think I enjoyed the first parts of the book the most, as Turner delves into the misty origins of philology in the ancient and pre-modern world, but even though subsequent sections could become a bit tangled with the greater details and varied individuals who were key in the emergence of the multiple branches of study that would become the humanities it was still a fascinating read. I found Turner’s argument regarding the central place of philology in the ultimate creation of the humanities to be compelling as well as his concern that the siloed nature of our modern academic disciplines is problematic, to say the least. A very good read for anyone interested in intellectual history.

[Grant Geiger · Rating 1 out of 5]

gave up 100 pages in because it sucked!

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philology is defined as "the multifaceted study of texts, languages, and the phenomenon of language itself". According to this book, it's also the parent of disciplines such as history, literature, and basically most of the humanities (except Philosophy).

Personally, I've never heard of Philology before this book. But after reading it, I can say that... Oxford's Philosophy, Politics and Economics course sounds absolutely fascinating. It's not covered in the book (it's only mentioned at the end), but I took a look at the course on the website and it looks good.

Now back to the book. This book is a survey of the history of philology. It doesn't try to go in-depth, which seeing as its 576 pages in total, might be a good thing. Philology has had a really long and interesting history, but it has always been a broad-ranging subject. It was only when philologists began to specialise in areas such as History and Archaeology and so on that it started to be forgotten.

But think about it, do we need a Jack or all trades or a master of one? It's not a simple question (for example, I want my doctor to be a master of the field of medicine, not a Jack of all trades), but I would say that with the internet connecting us, a broad base of knowledge is beginning to become essential. Sure, we'll need (and we should) specialise in one thing, if only because it'll give us something unique to brag about in our resumes, but it's only smart to know about a lot of other things as well. Like Philology (although that does restrict things, albeit a broader base of things).

So that means, perhaps in 20 years time, the norm for humanities students would be to have a minor in philology, as well as an area of specialisation. I mean, I think it would really help a literature student if she knew the history of the time period of the piece she's analysing, and a history student could always use literature sources as a secondary source. It's all interconnected.

The writing in this book is a bit dense, and since it's a technical subject, is a little hard to read. However, there were times where I chuckled, as the author occasionally tried to inject some light-heartedness into the book. For example, I love this description of Athanasius Kircher:

"Take Alexander Pope's dictum, "a little learning is a dangerous thing"; imagine it walking on two legs and you have Kircher in his wilder moments."

And of course, this bit of information is going to be useful to know in the future (when talking to friends about their coffee addiction):

"Oxford's Arabist, Rev. Edward Pococke, protege of John Selden, set the model for the modern scholar by downing endless cups of coffee."

So while the subject matter might be heavy, this book isn't as unreadable as you'd expect. If you have an interest in the humanities and its origins, you should definitely pick up this book.

Disclaimer: I got a free copy of this book from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review.

This review was first posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile

[Alex Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Turner has outlined a really ambitious project. He cuts it short by going for the main trunks. His point is to examine how philology emerged from philosophy to lead to the development of the different humanities disciplines. His account is meant to be factual. His agenda in this is to show that the different disciplines influence each other despite their rigid present day divisions. In fact, the humanities are bound to change radically in the near future as well, as political trends always inform the shifting boundaries. This is one area that Turner might fall short, although admittedly his book would probably be twice as large if he pursued such an examination.

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book interesting because I am interested in the subject and all it encompasses, yet the book lacked the readability I was hoping for. Nevertheless I will receive my new pair of glasses with the 2x4 inch thick lenses. I would recommend it as a reference guide for further reading as a substantial portion of the book is bibliography. It comes with the territory with what this book sets out to achieve and turns out there is a lot of history mapped out. Very academic.

[Edward Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed, thoughtful study of the historical foundations in philology of most of the modern humanistic disciplines that makes for an interesting intellectual genealogical study.

[Roman Clodia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Higher education and, specifically, the humanities are under unprecedented pressure in the US and UK both in terms of funding and as cultural capital: one unexpected spin-off has been a turn towards self-analysis and a productive social defence. This book, a history of the humanities, contributes to that project.

Turner traces, in broad terms, the way in which the humanities, now fragmented into constructed disciplines (English, History, Classics, European Literature, Philosophy, Linguistics etc.), were once collected under the broad term of Philology. Only in the nineteenth century do what we recognise as separate disciplines evolve, a division which foregrounds difference rather than the common roots of the humanities.

This is written for a non-academic audience and is generalist in tone, and readers may be surprised at how recently, for example, English Literature became a recognised academic subject (nineteenth century).

This is an interesting and entertaining history of intellectual endeavour, but is also one which looks to the future. Many more doctoral students and scholars are doing interdisciplinary work than Turner perhaps acknowledges – but he’s right that universities (and the all-important recruitment and promotion systems) are still based around adherence to disciplines. As someone who works across classical Latin, Renaissance French and English, I agree wholeheartedly with his emphasis on what the individual disciplines share in terms of methodology and philosophical orientation – but we’re all still waiting for this to be recognised within the academe more broadly.

A lucid and entertaining read.

(This review is from an ARC courtesy of the publisher)

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how academic specialisations developed in the humanities ! Further I think this would be a very necessary introduction to all those who take humanities programs at universities so that they could see where their particular program fits into the whole.

[Lois · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fluent and highly accessible way in which James Turner, Cavanaugh Professor of Humanities at the University of Notre Dame, recounts the evolution of the science of philology makes for relatively easy reading, which is especially exceptional when one considers the complexity of the subject matter of this 550-page book.

Attention-grabbing from the start, Prof. James Turner begins his prologue by discussing a highly apposite adage of the leading humanistic scholar, Erasmus of Rotterdam, namely: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog [knows] one big thing.” He explains the importance and relevance of the adage to a central issue of this work: whether humanistic scholarship in the West consists of many disciplines, or of just one, overarching, discipline. Clearly, Prof. Turner is a dab hand at unpacking multidimensional and intertwined concepts that might otherwise leave the reader floundering in the midst of an academic maze.

His competence and ease in exploring a subject to which he has devoted much of his own academic career instils a sense of trust in the reader that this is an expert who is not only on intimate terms with his material, but who is also vitally concerned with conveying his understanding of the matter to his readers, no matter how new they are to the field. While in no way being condescending towards his audience, Prof. Turner explains even the most fundamental of ideas and practices in a pragmatic and fulsome way that gives heart and feeling to Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities. Making no undue assumptions as to the pre-existing level of understanding among his audience, he animates and informs all aspects of the evolution of philology, leaving no stone unturned in his portrayal of the history of the discipline, from the time of the ancient Greeks to the modern day.

Prof. Turner has a delightful sense of humor—he manifests none of the academic stuffiness that is typically associated with the science of philology, and is, in fact, prone to take the mickey out of pedantic claptrap. For instance, he personifies the appearance of philology in academic circles in North America and the British Isles as tottering “along with arthritic creakiness. One would not be startled to see its gaunt torso clad in a frock coat.” The author traces the development of the science from its once “chic” and “dashing” form to its present state of apparent decrepitude with the ease and fluency of a skilled rhetorician who is a master of his art.

Prof. Turner shows how, from philology’s once all-embracing encompassment of the study of all language and languages, as well as of all texts, the seeming deterioration of the discipline into its present attenuated state came about through its birthing of the many disciplines that currently comprise not only the humanities, but also the social sciences. By giving rise to a plethora of children, as many parents have done since time immemorial, it can clearly be seen to have sacrificed some of its own integrity, so that it could give life to a host of new entities, each strong and growing by leaps and bounds in its own right.

In addition to the present volume, Prof. Turner has also authored The Liberal Education of Charles Eliot Norton and Religion Enters the Academy, as well as coauthored The Sacred and the Secular University. He is well-known for the depth of his professional insight and for the fluency and accessibility of his writing, of which the present volume is yet another memorable instance.

[versarbre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vastly erudite scholar immersed in the Republic of Letters. Good to know how anthropology, by being in the family of philology, gets connected with, say, art history, etc. But the author is too erudite that how philological comparative method isn't always clear highlighted because there are too many interesting details. In Confucian terms, the books explores Wen and its many branches.

[Joel Zartman · Rating 5 out of 5]

He worms his way through history, stitching many things together like a needle. It is an interesting argument, what I got of it. The book is so long, and I took so long, that I lost the thread on the way, but it is full of so much useful information nevertheless.

[Daniel Klawitter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vastly erudite scholarship.

[William Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating whilst exploring the structure, development and relationships of language for my book on names and naming.

[GONZA · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book about the history of philology: Philology is the study of language in written historical sources; it is a combination of literary criticism, history, and linguistics. It is more commonly defined as the study of literary texts and written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning.
Classical philology is the philology of Classical Sanskrit, Greek and Classical Latin. Classical philology is historically primary, originating in Pergamum and Alexandria around the 4th century BCE, continued by Greeks and Romans throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and eventually taken up by European scholars of the Renaissance, where it was soon joined by philologies of other languages both European (Germanic, Celtic, Slavistics, etc.) and non-European (Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Chinese, etc.). Indo-European studies involves the comparative philology of all Indo-European languages.
Any classical language can be studied philologically, and indeed describing a language as "classical" is to imply the existence of a philological tradition associated with it.
Because of its focus on historical development (diachronic analysis), philology came to be used as a term contrasting with linguistics. This is due to a 20th-century development triggered by Ferdinand de Saussure's insistence on the importance of synchronic analysis, and the later emergence of structuralism and Chomskyan linguistics with its emphasis on syntax. [Wikipedia]

Manuale storico sulla filologia: La filologia (dal greco φιλoλογία, composto da φίλος (philos) "amante, amico" e λόγος (logos) "parola, discorso": "interesse per lo studio delle parole"), secondo l'accezione comune attuale, è un insieme di discipline che studia i testi letterari al fine della ricostruzione della loro forma originaria attraverso l'analisi critica e comparativa delle fonti che li testimoniano, e con lo scopo di pervenire, mediante varie metodologie di indagine, ad una interpretazione che sia la più corretta possibile. In questo caso si tratta della cosiddetta critica del testo.Tuttavia il termine è attualmente utilizzato per indicare indagini anche relative ad altri ambiti, ad esempio alla musica e all'arte.Di fatto, non è facile dare una definizione univoca di ciò che è la filologia, perché è una disciplina dai molteplici aspetti in quanto ha assunto significati e scopi differenti presso i singoli studiosi dall'antichità ad oggi. La filologia è stata, e può essere, intesa anche come:
gli studi letterari ed eruditi, nel loro complesso;
gli studi storici, in senso lato, in contrapposizione al pensiero filosofico;
l'insieme degli studi e delle ricerche che, basandosi sull'analisi dei testi, dei documenti e delle varie testimonianze, si propone di fornire una corretta interpretazione e sistemazione di un problema critico e storico;
la scienza che studia l'origine e la struttura di una lingua; in questo significato viene a coincidere con alcuni settori della linguistica;
in senso esteso: l'insieme delle discipline che si propongono la conoscenza, la ricostruzione e la corretta trattazione sotto ogni aspetto di una o di più civiltà antiche e meno antiche;
la parte della critica artistica che, mediante questa metodologia di indagine, ha come fine la comprensione e l'attribuzione di un'opera d'arte, la sua datazione e la conoscenza della sua genesi e delle intenzioni dell'artista nel produrla;
gli studi filologici fioriti in una certa epoca, in una certa cultura, presso una certa scuola filologica;
l'insieme dei filologi che rappresentano una determinata scuola filologica. [Wikipedia]

THANKS TO NETGALLEY AND PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE PREVIEW!

[Humphrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book within its own terms. It is less a history of philology than a historical argument about the development of disciplines within the humanities and social sciences out of the history of philology and antiquarianism.

N.b. the footnotes are a bit confusing.

[Rob Townsend · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite good. A masterful survey of a vast intellectual panorama, though the ultimate definition of the field seemed so loose by the end that it could encompass any number of disciplinary progeny.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A massive, monumental, and magisterial work. Does what it says on the tin.

[Taryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Turner created a book that absolutely captured my attention.
I loved reading about the start of the Humanities in Ancient Greece.