no the future doesn't.... etc.; this is boring dork shit
-
-
Even post-modernism really begins in struggle with the interpretative and philological challenges of getting at authentic core of antique texts. Getting at the ‘real antiquity’ is noble aim, but much easier said than done.
-
Hard to know what it means to engage with antiquity apart from Montesquieu or Gibbon. The very idea of history itself is modern creation of enlightenment that affects and orients our perspective whether we admit it or like it
-
There are two complementary threads: one is how to read and understand the texts, the other is their ultimate meaning and relevance
-
To some extent you can read and evaluate using 20th c scholarship, ignore Enlightenment (but Voltaire, etc still very important for stupid views - like most ancient texts spurious or medieval fakes - and as source of still-popular misconceptions)
-
but advantages of Enl interp of ancients is, where material is handled well, it is beautifully written and made very engaging more ppl have gotten gist of Livy, Plutarch from Rousseau than recent critical historians of Rome
-
Enl authors also v learned, embrace wider range of sources - they fought vicious battles over ancient writers literally no one reads today... 21st century gives skewed view of *which works* are important
-
idea of a “canon” is - i say often - petty bourgeois straitjacket was an attempt to portray understanding of antiquity as tho intelligible to ppl who don’t like to read too much... just 50 authors and you’re done! oh that’s too much? okay can you do 12
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.