Lecture
To answer the question posed, let us start from the definition of philology formulated at the turn of the 1960s—1970s by S.S. Averintsev. With some variations, it was published in the «Great Soviet Encyclopedia»
(3rd ed., Vol. 27), the «Concise Literary Encyclopedia» (Moscow, 1972, Vol. 7), the encyclopedia «The Russian Language» (Moscow, 1979), the «Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary» (Moscow, 1990), and others.
«PHILOLOGY (Greek philología, literally — love of the word, from philéō — I love and lógos — word) — a fellowship of humanities disciplines — linguistics, literary studies, textology, source studies, palaeography, and others — that study the spiritual culture of humankind through the linguistic and stylistic analysis of written texts. The text, in the full totality of its internal aspects and external connections, is the original reality of philology»
.
Let us comment on this definition. It
So the main question is: what does philology study — spiritual culture? The text? Or something else?
in court proceedings, «on occasion» (in situations of celebration, praise, and the like). The task of teaching citizens the art of eloquence
was undertaken by teachers of rhetoric, who also became the authors of treatises and textbooks on rhetoric. Among the earliest surviving
rhetorical works we may cite Plato's dialogues (427—347
B.C.) «Gorgias» and «Phaedrus» and Aristotle's treatise (384—322 B.C.
) «Rhetoric». Thus the ancient orator, too, works
with the word (only the spoken word!), and he needs encyclopedic
learning and knowledge of human nature in order to find arguments for
persuasion.
But in the ancient world philology («the grammatical art») and rhetoric («the art of persuasion») exist separately, as two distinct sciences of the word. One of them, philology, is the science of «the word as such» (Yu.S. Stepanov); the other,
rhetoric, is the science of the persuasive word.
In Ancient Rome a distinction arises between philology and
grammar; rhetoric continues to exist separately from
philology. In the first half of the 19th century philology takes shape
as a science. In the middle of the 20th century rhetoric is revived and takes its place in the system of philological disciplines.
The definition asserts that philology studies the spiritual culture of humankind. This assertion is fully consistent with the philological tradition (its examination will be the subject of the second chapter of the book). At the present stage of the development of
scholarship, spiritual culture, like other kinds of culture, has become
the object of a separate humanities discipline — culturology.
So what, then, does philology study, if culture is the object of culturology? Yu.S. Stepanov (b. 1930), in his own definition of philology, writes that philology studies the text: «PHILOLOGY
(Greek philología, literally — love of the word, from philéō — I love and lógos — word) — a field of humanities knowledge whose
direct object is the principal embodiment of the human word and spirit — t h e t e x t»7
. Let us agree with this: all present-day philological sciences — linguistics, literary studies,
folkloristics — deal with text, oral or written, printed or virtual.
At the same time, let us ask: does philology study only the text? The answer depends on what
is understood by the object of philology. Let us proceed from the assumption that the objects of
philology are those facts, aspects, facets, and the like of reality that are singled out and processed by the philological mind and with which all philological sciences and disciplines deal (cf. Late Latin objectum — object, from Latin
objicio — I throw forward, I set against). There exists a unique set of objects that
no branch of present-day scholarship other than philology deals with. This set includes natural language, text, and homo loquens (from Latin
homo — man, loquens — a participle from loquor — to speak, to talk, i.e., a person in his function as speaker and writer,
listener and reader; the Russian equivalent: «the speaking man» in the broad sense).
Indeed, homo loquens is not the object of any
science other than the philological ones. The philological sciences cannot
do without the figure of homo loquens: he appears in the guise of
storyteller and singer, author and reader, television-show host and radio journalist; he creates text and consumes it; he
«is present» in oral, written, and, naturally, electronic text...
In the texts given below, which are parodies
of the speeches of well-known politicians, the peculiarities of their speech are clearly discernible, and behind them the speaker is quite definitely recognizable. These texts were composed by the journalist Maria Vardenga (cited from: Chudinov A.P., Chudinova E.A. Rhetoric and Culture
of Speech: A Collection of Exercises. Yekaterinburg, 2001, p. 17).
The parody is of the opening sentence of «A Hero of Our Time»
by M.Yu. Lermontov: «I was travelling by post-chaise from Tiflis». Below
are the parody texts and the names of their «authors»:
V.V. Zhirinovsky: I was travelling by post-chaise from Tiflis. Tiflis is the capital of Georgia. Georgia is a country in the Caucasus. The Caucasus is
a hot spot. A spot is a mathematical concept. I
have two higher-education degrees, and I know mathematics.
I.V. Stalin: I was travelling, comrades, home. Home, comrades, I
was travelling by horses, which were changed at every station. That is
why, comrades, they are called post-horses. And I was travelling, comrades, from
Tiflis.
L.I. Brezhnev: Comrades! The multimillion-strong army of Soviet
communists and all progressive humanity watched with deep emotion as the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, departed on a
friendly visit from Tiflis. At the airport he was seen off by the leaders of sunny Soviet Georgia, representatives of the working
class and the peasantry.
(We invite the reader to determine for himself which peculiarities of the politicians' speech are being parodied by the journalist.)
Natural language is a purely human «instrument»: without it there is no human being, and hence no text either.
A text is a message that the speaker and writer creates by means of language for the listener and reader, even if
the listener and reader is the speaker and writer himself.
Such a «coincidence» occurs, for example, in notebooks, in situations of reasoning aloud...
Each of the philological sciences is directed at the entire set of objects. It is precisely these that belong among the philological ones.
The difference lies in the fact that each of them studies different aspects of these
objects.
Thus, linguistics studies language as a separate object of
reality in the full completeness of it (in its present state
and in its history, at rest and in action), as the material from
which texts are «woven», and the texts themselves in their diversity; finally, it is precisely linguistics that considers language as that without which
a human being is unthinkable, and the human being in his capacity for activity
by means of language, and that activity itself.
Literary studies examines that part of the totality of texts
«woven» by man by means of language that represent a unity of the art of fiction and the art of the word (this
part of texts constitutes fiction/belles-lettres); for
literary studies, language is of interest as the art of the word; while man
is both the subject of artistic inquiry and the inquirer himself, i.e., the writer, the author, and the one for whom this artistic
inquiry is carried out (the reader).
Let us return to culture. A question now arises: if culture is not an object of study for philology, what then is their relationship? The self-definition of culture as the subject of a special science,
culturology, in no way cancels the close interrelations of
culture and the objects of philology.
12 13
What is culture? If it is «a highly complex set of
notions organized into a code of relations and values: traditions, religion, laws, politics, ethics, art —
everything with which a person, wherever he was born, is imbued to the very
depths of his consciousness and which guides his behaviour in all
forms of activity»,8
then culture, together with nature and
society, constitutes the environment in which man, language, and text develop and function. «We live in a world of culture»
(Yu.M. Lotman). This means that the essence of natural language, of text, and
still more of homo loquens is in large measure conditioned by culture. In this
relationship there is one more side: text, language, and man
as a whole are each the principal embodiment of the human spirit (see the definition of philology given above by Yu.S. Stepanov).
A vivid illustration of the interaction of culture and language
is provided by the research of the outstanding contemporary linguist
Anna Wierzbicka (b. 1938). In her book «Language. Cognition. Culture» (Russian translation — Moscow, 1997, pp. 33—88), she shows that
«the distinctive features of the Russian national character are revealed
and reflected in three unique concepts of Russian culture».
These are — soul, fate, and toska [yearning/anguish]. They «constantly arise in everyday speech communication», «Russian literature returns to them again and again». The scholar identifies a number of semantic
properties that are especially noticeable in the analysis of these words.
One of these semantic properties is emotionality. Thus,
comparing Russian with English, one sees a wealth of «active» emotional verbs: to rejoice,
to yearn, to miss, to grieve, to worry, to fret, to be upset, to mope, to despond, to be proud, to be horrified, to be ashamed,
to admire, to be delighted, to exult, to be angry, to rage, to be anxious, to be indignant, to seethe, to languish, to be nervous, and
others. «...The notion that Russians actively and quite consciously «surrender themselves to» the elements of feeling often finds explicit (cf. English explicit — clearly, openly expressed — A.Ch.) confirmation in the language itself, as is clearly seen from
the following examples:
He often gives himself over to despondency, to indignation at what is happening in
the world (Tolstoy).
We must not give ourselves over to despondency at every sudden
loss... (Gogol).
Not to give oneself over to the feeling of vexation... (Tolstoy)».
So, contemporary philology studies three objects: natural language, text, and homo loquens as the principal embodiment
of the human spirit.
The written text as the material of philology. The definition of philology under consideration points to written texts
as the material of philology. This indication is directed above all at
the time when the interest of the philological sciences was concentrated on the study of «dead» languages — Ancient Greek,
Latin, Gothic, Old Turkic, Old Church Slavonic, and others.
The reason is that these can be studied only from the data of written texts. The same situation obtains in the study of the history
of «living» (= modern) languages and of the literary works of most
writers and storytellers.
The end of the 20th — beginning of the 21st century is a time when the relations of philology and text are radically changing. First, the philological sciences are no longer confined to the study only of written
texts: the 20th century brought methods of audio and video recording of oral
texts; a new kind of text — virtual — drew attention to «mixed» texts (such are most advertising
texts, texts of oral speech created and perceived in
connection with a situation, and many others).
Second, philology has turned to texts that are traditionally not recognized as «exemplars» of culture. Among the «exemplary» are usually counted, for instance, the works of literary
classics (but not local writers, still less beginning ones), the speeches of outstanding public and political figures (but not local politicians), and the like. Yet any text, to
repeat Yu.S. Stepanov once more, is an embodiment of the human
spirit. The human spirit is embodied in various forms and contains
various meanings, from the high to the low — manifesting itself both in
14 15
poetry, for example that of I. Brodsky, and in agitational slogans
written on the walls of buildings and garages; in texts posted
on the website of the President of Russia, existing in chats, in blogs, and
on Twitter...
Thus, the material of contemporary philology comprises all
kinds of texts regardless of their texture (Lat. factura — working, structure), and regardless of their relation to «high» culture. That is why
in contemporary philology the term message is used to denote texts of any texture. In this way the link between text and its belonging to the written
kind of texture is severed. That is why it can be said that the words of G.O. Vinokur:
«Everything written, printed, spoken is a subject of philological commentary»9
sound prophetic.
Research methods in philology. Among the methods of philology
S.S. Averintsev is not by chance singling out analysis.
Analysis (Ancient Greek analysis — decomposition, dissection) as a method of philology has as its aim to obtain an answer to the key question:
how is the «living meaning» (Gadamer) grasped, i.e., how does the process of understanding take place, and what is the result of this process? In other
words, analysis in philology is not simply the dissection, the decomposition of the object under study into its constituent parts, but also the determination of
their role (functions) in solving the task of grasping meaning. Thus,
analysis of reviews of works in the miniature genre (on the site
http: / / www.proza.ru / ) requires the search for those signals which
the reader (more precisely: the Internet user) discerns in the text being reviewed and which accordingly serve as the basis
of his review. They may
l lie in different planes of the miniature's text. These are
the linguistic and speech peculiarities of the text, the manner of its computer presentation, the meaning as
discerned by the reader:
Forgive me, O God, for all my past transgressions
For all the bad, before You, Jesus, I ask forgiveness.
For the pain and tears of loved ones and kin,
For lies, betrayal and misunderstanding of others.
For helping too little
Those who were in need and suffering.
For hatred, for lack of love,
I ask forgiveness again and again (Via Dolorosa).
Review: simply class!
everything fits in these lines...
I think this is the confession of every person in this
world... (Klik-Klik);
l lie hidden in the personality of the author, in his style, manner, techniques
of writing, and also in individual judgments:
I don't want to grow up. I'm scared. Really scared. Conversations about adult life, responsibility and decision-making
throw me off balance. I try to run away, to hide, to lie
low, but all my efforts are in vain. The burden of growing up follows
in my footsteps like a shadow. <...> (Penguinko Penguinko. I am searching.
And I don't want to grow up).
Review: Amusing. It's the first time I've met a person who did not
want to grow up as soon as possible (Ciao Bombino);
l proceed from life situations that lie behind the text:
<...> My knight, I will sing to you,
How I killed my dream.
I entered into battle with it long ago,
But the fighting was not easy...
So that the dream might find its end
I fetched the magic sword from the oak.
By night I guarded it with the blade...
I killed the thing I had cherished so.
I plunged my longing into the dream...
A blind bard now, I sing... (In Dream. A bylina).
Review: As for me, I didn't need to fight with my dream,
I simply slept through it, that's all,
I slept through the moment when it passed by my
house,
and that's all...
_________________________
Respectfully, Vyacheslav (Vyacheslav Cherkasov);
l be conditioned by the text as an undivided whole:
Once the Candlestick said to the Candle:
— Say what you will, but the master cannot do without me!
— Of course, — agreed the Candle, — if not for you, he would burn
his hand with my molten wax.
— That's true, that's true! — the Candlestick exclaimed proudly. —
My work is noble and deserves respect! But you... —
he sighed with bitter disappointment. — You just shed hot
tears and grow shorter. You'll burn out, and nothing of
you will remain. And your tears won't help either. Looking at your
short life, one wants to cry oneself. — He even sobbed. — What can you manage to do in so short a time? Consider it — a useless existence... <...>
(Elena Gorisvet. The Candlestick and the Candle).
Review: Magnificent, very beautiful (Merkhy).
(In the material quoted, the author's style, spelling and punctuation are preserved.)
Thus, in studying the text, we actually turn
to its author and reader — those figures who are generalized under the concept of homo loquens. However, in order to answer why one signal or another is chosen, how it may be used, one must apply, in addition to analysis, other
research methods (see chapter 6 of the textbook). Here
let us stress two points: in philology, analysis is the fundamental but not the sole method of research; in contemporary philological sciences analysis has become
more varied (there exists linguistic,
literary, philological, communicative,
rhetorical, semiotic, hermeneutic analysis, and a number of others).
Finally, let us consider the status of philology, its place in the system of sciences. It is important that contemporary philology has already freed
itself from the «captivity» of the other humanities and has become an independent
field of knowledge within the humanities. What, then, is its
status?
An interesting thought on this score was expressed by G.O. Vinokur: «p h i l o l o
g y i s n o t a s c i e n c e, or rather... there is no such science which, unlike others, could be designated by the word
“philology” as its name»10. The same position, only
expressed in different words, is contained also in the definition
of S.S. Averintsev. He qualifies philology not as a science
but as a fellowship of humanities disciplines. Thus there arises
the question of the nature of the relations among the philological
disciplines. What is philology:
a fellowship — a collection of sciences / scientific disciplines —
an «aggregate of information» (Hegel)? (Compared to sciences, scientific
disciplines solve more particular problems.)
The objectual unity of the philological sciences, the commonality of their methods and material of research, allows us to reject Hegel's thesis of philology as an aggregate of information (cf. Lat.
aggregatus — joined together), i.e., as a mechanical formation without internal connections among its constituent parts. The level of differentiation of the sciences and scientific disciplines at the
present stage of philology's development, and the degree of their independence, allow us to recognize contemporary philology as a collection of sciences and scientific disciplines. (Let us take into account that the notion collection is more neutral than fellowship.)
Thus, contemporary philology represents a collection of humanities sciences and scientific disciplines
that study, by means of analysis, natural language, text,
and homo loquens — «the principal embodiment of the human <...>
spirit» (Yu.S. Stepanov).
Philology, including at the present stage of its development,
is concentrated on the main problem of human existence — the problem of understanding. This idea was underscored
18 19
already by S.S. Averintsev (see the readings). At the turn of
the 20th—21st centuries the problem of understanding became still more significant,
since contemporary man is becoming ever more complex and individualized; it is not for nothing that the expression exists:
«the 20th century — a century of objections»
Comments