I was in that... place, once again enjoying the company of my most learned, well read, knowledgable and indeed wise colleagues. (Yeah *coughs*). Naturally, it was most tedious, incredibly busy, and, as per usual does not having anything of note to add to an intellectual's life diary. That is, except one thing. I was aware that both the older and younger thugs that run the show are conspiracy theorists, and, in keeping with their characters (the elder more Jovial, the younger: more Saturnian) I had not realised, until quite recently that the younger of these two hoodlums would side with the Chinese and the Russians over the Americans and their allies. Not, I feel, a wise move. The older of these two sprogs from this little domestic disaster has just returned from his native wasteland. (If I am honest, the land he hails from is actually quite sumptuous in places, and is one of the very old and famous states of Europe, particularly its capital - yet they hail from the provinces). Anyway, he says that "he saw no refugees from Ukraine" there. This may well be true, for although his native wasteland borders the Ukraine, his ancestral hearth is located far from the border. He did, however, see a great many refugees coming into fair England (greatest nation on the planet). Rather than being concerned with the plight of these poor people, he was much more concerned about how long it took to get through customs, and seemed aggravated at having to wait so long. He mentioned that he believed that all news is fake news. This is absolute nonsense. I lived with a die hard conspiracy theorist for a number of years (again, uneducated) and this forms part of a rather worrying trend. Take the BBC for example. Yes, it is a state owned service, and yes there may be a certain amount of propaganda in the way certain pieces are presented, but, for the most part, the BBC is an outstanding news service. It is certainly more impartial and less dogmatic than many other nations' news services. As evidence of this, there is the 'reality check' or fact check of politicians words in the Lower House. The BBC makes sure and looks into authoritative sources to discern what the actual facts of the matter are, and compares this with sweeping claims (often politically charged, full of sophistry and rhetoric) made by certain members of the Lower House. This is surely evidence of a newsworthy service, that seeks the truth, rather than simply toeing the government's line. Besides, even if there were elements of propaganda in a particular news piece by a certain service, each nation has its own kind of propaganda, so by following the sources and testimonies, tracing where a piece of evidence may have come from, and comparing it with similar reports, one can get a clearer picture of the truth. Not all news is fake.
Anyway. It is not often that I take a really prized possession with me to work, but today was one of those days. I decided, on a whim, to take a rather expensive book with me. This is a prized possession: William Harris Stahl's translation of Macrobius' De Somnio Scipionis, and besides a fair amount of digression by Macrobius, there are some especially noteworthy and most informative nuggets of information in this work. Not to mention that this is an absolutely outstanding translation, the scholarship in this work really is first rate.
Stahl wrote in the days before the internet, so this is a man that is extremely well read, as evidenced by the profound observations and acute footnotes contained within the work. While I studied my master's degree, as I was writing my final dissertation (which was on δαίμονες in Apuleius' De deo Socratis compared to the philosophical hermetica), my tutor advised me (rightly) to concentrate exclusively on contemporary or near contemporary sources. Other recent works on similar subjects often do this same thing, attempting to only ever cite contemporary or near contemporary sources. However, Stahl does not do this, and neither do I (unless I am told to by my tutor). Quite often, in the classical world, an ancient author will cite sources or sometime draw from sources which are not cited, that are very much more ancient than the time they were writing in. As such, it does not follow that only contemporary sources are relevant. Quite often, so long as an element of learning is directly relevant to the subject at hand, it is worth citing, even retrospectively. Take, for example, the conjectured etymology of the regular noun δαίμων. Seemingly Plato explored the etymology (Cratylus 397e-398c), but also, having read Macrobius, a much later writer, he too also explores its supposed etymology (Saturnalia 1.23.6-7). This is directly relevant to my translation of Apuleius' De deo Socratis, but is not relevant to a university dissertation (apparently). That both these supposed etymologies may well be incorrect is by the by.
Moreover, the translation I am currently reading by William Harris Stahl highlights a great many authors that a die-hard classicist and Christian (such as myself) may not be aware of. Many of them are from the Middle Ages. They are not the canonical Church Fathers or the most illustrious authors of the ancient world (though many of these get a mention as well), but are rather obscure or less well known, thus each and every one is of importance to me. The same will apply to my translation of Apuleius' De deo Socratis (to a lesser extent). The student reading it may not have heard of a certain author, thus, by not being restrictive in my use of sources, I will apply anything and everything that is directly relevant to the subject at hand sine ira et studio. In any case, it is a good Muse, Stahl's work, and certainly well worth every penny (dear though it was).
Max.
No comments:
Post a Comment