|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 24, 2010 18:33:17 GMT -1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2010 11:15:56 GMT -1
As they say on my side of the water, that's old school  At first, I thought that this might be a modern essay but the language, and the references ("Why is Rhys being cited so much? Constant Guest translation referencing?"), eventually made me hit the previous page button. I would have to cross reference, and thus read more carefully, to actually critique the linguistics and draw from more recent sources on archaeological data - I'm not one of the fortunate with an encyclopedic retention of what I've read (truth be told, the more I read the less I know). I stumble over etymological data, like the language pieces in the 1991 Celts exhibition book that made my head spin (I really need to keep working on my language skills, as this edge fascinates me and makes me feel ignorant all at the same time). It's nonetheless fascinating to me to read early works formed with a scholarly tone, and realize just how much "popular" works on the subject haven't really moved very far beyond the basic premises that existed 100 years ago. The Matthews, for instance, seem to have this sort of dated analysis surrounding their work - which I suspect is part of their charm for many. Put down your throwing stones, I wasn't endorsing them! I will try to find time to read the material again over the next day and cross reference with my more recent stuff - more for my own amusement, as I need to be doing this sort of work. Honestly, it was my own fear (err, laziness) of this process that stalled my studies years ago. I have indeed said very little here, but I want to start contributing - so I'll make an exercise of exploring this... given a bit of time D. Randolph Caulkins |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 25, 2010 13:13:28 GMT -1
I will be honest, I flipped to www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac00.htm and saw 1911 and read no further... at a brief glance it looks scholarly enough for its period, but I agree... it is the sort of source material drawn upon now not by scholars but by new age authors and fantasist. How does one summon a megli? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jun 26, 2010 4:07:35 GMT -1
As soon as I saw the references to the infamous (and imaginary) 'celts' I must admit to losing interest, but in the pursuit of scholarly enlightenment and sheer bloody-mindedness I persisted until about halfway down before losing the will to live.
I have no problem with those who feel they must spend years with their noses in books but this author really needed to get out a bit and sit under a tree, rather than just rework the scholarship of others.
It reminded me of a degree thesis by someone with no insight of their own, and thus who prefers to stuff their work with far too many references and too few original analyses.
Am I a bad man?
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 26, 2010 6:25:33 GMT -1
As they say on my side of the water, that's old school Yes, it is. Does that mean therefore that this sort of literature has no place in modern thought? RR |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 26, 2010 6:27:27 GMT -1
At what sort of age does material therefore become irrelevent? RR |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 26, 2010 6:48:48 GMT -1
As soon as I saw the references to the infamous (and imaginary) 'celts' I must admit to losing interest, but in the pursuit of scholarly enlightenment and sheer bloody-mindedness I persisted until about halfway down before losing the will to live. To be fair, "Celts" would have been an appropriate title at the time of writing. I have no problem with those who feel they must spend years with their noses in books but this author really needed to get out a bit and sit under a tree, rather than just rework the scholarship of others. There does appear to be a somewhat insular feel to it, but this does give it a "flavour" of the early 20th century scholarship, whether that be a good thing or a bad thing. No more than the Craig who used to frequent here and it appears he's returning back to form, which as far as I'm concerned is a welcome return! I may appear to be somewhat irritated by some of the posts I have replied to here, I am not. However, I find it somewhat bizarre that a piece appears to have no relevance because of it's age. Not being of an academic background, it's possible I may not possess the critique demonstrated by others here and therefore may place myself in a position of being more open to reading such things, with the dangers of associations being made based upon failed hypotheses, yet I cannot help but think that if such a piece has one piece of forgotten lore, ideas or evidence that may help move things forward, then I for one, will read it. On the whole, I agree with the points raised about the styling, however, it was the content I was interested in. This piece is quite long (I'm referring to the whole text and not just this page) and I have been struck by some of the ideas raised elsewhere in the piece. A element of truth is still truth, even if it is immersed in a sea of garbage. RR |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 26, 2010 8:05:19 GMT -1
At what sort of age does material therefore become irrelevent? I think you need to qualify the context of the usage to which you want to put that material. In terms of academic research, fairly quickly. Unless you have fairly good reasoning for it, (scarcity of material, recognised authority of the source etc) a thesis or research article wouldn't reference many articles much older than 10 years (depending on the discipline I guess), and even that could be pushing it. Academic disciplines move pretty quickly... the purpose of such articles, theses etc is to push back the boundaries of knowledge and understanding. The academic thinking expressed in that 100 year old article will have been superseded many times**... one thing it will absolutely not do is give you any idea whatsoever of what modern historians think on such matters, and is likely to be very misleading as to the current state of knowledge and research. Pretty much every misconception and false assumption I've had to unlearn has come from taking old research popularised by modern writers seriously :-) **this is not to be taken to say that being old it is poor... just that it is of its time, rooted in a set of assumptions and methodologies no longer current |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 26, 2010 9:03:55 GMT -1
I have been struck by some of the ideas raised elsewhere in the piece. A element of truth is still truth, even if it is immersed in a sea of garbage. My instinct then, would be to identify the nuggets that interest you, bring them forward and say "Hey guys, I find these ideas in a 100 year old book... They stood out for me because x,y,z... any reason why they shouldn't be pertinent today?"... THEN you'll get a discussion rollin'  |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 26, 2010 9:16:40 GMT -1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2010 11:24:58 GMT -1
As they say on my side of the water, that's old school Yes, it is. Does that mean therefore that this sort of literature has no place in modern thought? RR I wouldn't go so far as to say I entirely discredit earlier analysis of material, as modern research was built off groundwork laid by others. I own a good number of "dated" books, and whereas I don't reference them heavily - I have been known to read them (I have one of Rhys' books on my shelves, albeit one that I haven't done more than gloss over). It's the changing face of etymology and archeological data that makes it difficult to assess exactly what isn't accepted anymore - and without cross-referencing it's hard to tell which piece is still acceptable deduction and which have become quaint remembrances of a different time and place in scholarship. I actually especially enjoy works on oral tradition that were written decades ago, including the often lauded "Celtic Heritage" (ok, so 1961 is much later than 1911). Anything that includes first hand accounts of possibly traditional memory survival is of great value to me, if only from a "poetic inspiration" view. It is too easy to discount the work done before the modern, and imminently more vibrant, studies. This particular piece, for me, has little beyond generalized information and some interesting hypotheses - which I can find more modern equivalents without much trouble. All this said, I will now follow the link you posted! D. Randolph Caulkins |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 26, 2010 15:53:44 GMT -1
Man, where are the classicists when you need them!! That is intriguing, particularly since it is from a commentary by Marcus Valerius Probus (during the first century AD) of Virgil's Georgics, of which I know nothing. But the point of interest is that the reference would be the same 100 years ago as to now... what I would be interested in asking is what do modern classicists make of the reference and would they ascribe the same sort of meaning to it that MacCulloch does in 1911? I actually especially enjoy works on oral tradition that were written decades ago, including the often lauded "Celtic Heritage" (ok, so 1961 is much later than 1911). Anything that includes first hand accounts of possibly traditional memory survival is of great value to me, if only from a "poetic inspiration" view. It is too easy to discount the work done before the modern, and imminently more vibrant, studies. I would agree (within the context of understanding possible political or social motivation for recording same, and methodologies used at the time). It doesn't matter how long ago such a record was made, it becomes (with the limitations noted above) as close to original source for folk traditions (not just oral... music song and dance) with possible echoes of earlier themes than any other. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 9:31:06 GMT -1
I concur with Adam. Academic stuff becomes outdated fairly rapidly, though some things more than others; a scholarly edition or facsimile of a text/manuscript can remain valuable for a hundred years, but a scholar's opinions on a text tend to have a sell-by date. (However, those of a very great scholar can remain valuable even when wrong.) This is because the field moves on, new things are discovered, or are reconsidered; we come to look at things differently and question old assumptions. And, basically, knowledge increases. A scientific parallel: something written by an eminent physician on, say, hysteria in 1911 may have been the cutting edge for its time, but no psychiatrist would turn to it now for insight on how to treat a psychologically troubled patient in 2010. We just know more (about the brain, about trauma, about drug and talking therapies)----the hundred-years old material is obsolete and misleading.
It's the same with this piece. Things move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 9:38:33 GMT -1
Also, in this particular case, this material has been worked over thoroughly---by Miranda Green, Proinsias Mac Cana, John Carey, Patrick Ford, and M-L Sjoestedt among many others---who have come to more up-to-date conclusions, so if you want to know about the source-material (textual and archaeological) read them, not this hoary old stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 27, 2010 11:00:47 GMT -1
That is intriguing, particularly since it is from a commentary by Marcus Valerius Probus (during the first century AD) of Virgil's Georgics, of which I know nothing. This is encouraging if accurate... www.enotes.com/marcus-valerius-probus-salem/marcus-valerius-probusBut the point of interest is that the reference would be the same 100 years ago as to now... what I would be interested in asking is what do modern classicists make of the reference and would they ascribe the same sort of meaning to it that MacCulloch does in 1911? Taking the quote used as accurate, if the link is to be believed, it doesn't appear to leave too much room for differences in interpretation, to my eyes at least (always happy to be corrected). RR |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 27, 2010 12:26:19 GMT -1
Taking the quote used as accurate, if the link is to be believed, it doesn't appear to leave too much room for differences in interpretation, to my eyes at least (always happy to be corrected). RR That, for me, is the difficulty. The quote is translated and then offered as an interpretation (we don't even have the translation) and I do not have the knowledge, skill or access to the original (assumed) latin to judge whether it is a fair interpretation... we only have to look to some of megli's discussions on older and more modern translation of Y Mabinogi to see how understanding of a dead language can change over time and impact significantly on translation. And then I have to ask where Marcus Valerius Probus obtained the information that " S. Martin of Tours was allowed to destroy a temple, but the people would not permit him to attack a much venerated pine-tree which stood beside it"... is this folk knowledge? History? Documented elsewhere? The statement at face value is fascinating, but I need a lot more than I have got to and that the author gives me to elevate it from fascinating to plausibility. The author does not give me enough to concur with his conclusion that the statement is " an excellent example of the way in which the more official paganism fell before Christianity, while the older religion of the soil, from which it sprang, could not be entirely eradicated", though I would love it to be so. And that, for me, is the trap. My desire to be convinced. And that is why I need more |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 12:47:25 GMT -1
bit worried about this probus 'quote': he died in the 1st century AD, and Martin of Tours is a 4th AD C saint....a bit of enquiry reveals that the commentary of the Georgics ascribed to him may not (indeed, clearly is not) entirely by him, but is a patchwork of authorities from the climax to the end of antiquity. Thus the historicity of the anecdote is very difficult to recount without another source. The major one is Sulpicius Severus' Life of St Martin of Tours, written a few decades after the saint's death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 27, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -1
bit worried about this probus 'quote': he died in the 1st century AD, and Martin of Tours is a 4th AD C saint....a bit of enquiry reveals that the commentary of the Georgics ascribed to him may not (indeed, clearly is not) entirely by him, but is a patchwork of authorities from the climax to the end of antiquity. Thus the historicity of the anecdote is very difficult to recount without another source. The major one is Sulpicius Severus' Life of St Martin of Tours, written a few decades after the saint's death. To use wikipedia for brevity then, it would appear to confirm that Severus did indeed recount this story in his Life of... odd that the author didn't use *this* as his source as if wikipedia is accurate in this regard it would seem to add far mare credibility than the reference he *did* use A little more digging finds this www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.ii.ii.xiv.html which does support the story *as far as it goes*... but disingenuously, all previous users of the anecdote fail to point out that the point of the anecdote is to emphasise the conversion of the "heathens" through Martin's demonstration of miracles and sanctity. The tale has all the usual components of such tales, which would lead me to believe that it is not hugely creditable when trying to support the contention that "the older religion of the soil" persisted beyond the demise of pre-christian paganism. Such stories *have* to emphasise the "lost" and "depraved" nature of those who were subsequently converted. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 13:05:01 GMT -1
Does he actually chop it down in the end?
|
|
