... connecting their ideas to the empty theoretical apparatus of Saidian Orientalism or whatever. One night after we both had a lot of scotch, he confided that he only ever had a few semesters of the language he supposedly worked in and still "struggled" with it.
-
Show this thread
-
He was hired by my Uni *because of his expertise in this field*, which at the level of language did not exceed that of many second- or third-year undergraduates.
2 replies 4 retweets 145 likesShow this thread -
There are many entirely fake historical events based on smooth-brained misreadings of straightforward statements. For 30 years people in my field have been writing about the supposed exile of this figure - we will call him a theologian - which never happened.
1 reply 10 retweets 172 likesShow this thread -
You have to read all about the supposed political significance of his exile & what it means for this or that, on and on. In fact, the only source for this 'exile' are a few of his own remarks in a prologue to one of his tracts.
1 reply 4 retweets 127 likesShow this thread -
The passage, in the edition everyone uses, is poorly punctuated at this key moment and everyone has just misunderstood what he is saying.
1 reply 3 retweets 118 likesShow this thread -
Likewise, real events are surely suppressed or ignored, down to equally astounding stupidity. Early in my career I came upon the work of some august wahmen, whose well-received thesis was flatly contradicted by a key historical document.
1 reply 10 retweets 162 likesShow this thread -
What did she & her students do? They decided this document was an old forgery. No arguments or anything. Just: "It's fake." She says it, her students say it, now everyone says it.
3 replies 9 retweets 174 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @eugyppius1
wait, there wasn't even any professional discussion? identifying inconsistencies, running chemical and material tests? I mean 'forgery' is sometimes an arbitrary thing based on context, but calling it like that?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MencianLegalism
as in many things in this field, it’s only preserved in later copies. so (like anything else) it could be an ancient forgery. to prove as much, you’d have to mount philological or historical arguments, none of which these people are capable of
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eugyppius1
shouldn't works be grouped by the source documents that contain them? i thought the forgery problem was about documents, not the works themselves. literary methods (like the ones folklorists use) to determine antiquity would be more appropriate in that case.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I’m at the edge of revealing my field, here. for me, a forgery is something that misrepresents its authorship or origins, with the intention to deceive readers (rather than to entertain or intrigue). there are ancient texts that do that, even if the originals don’t survive.
-
-
Replying to @eugyppius1 @MencianLegalism
there are modern forgeries too, of course. but a lot survives only via much later copies.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.