Intertextuality

We have been talking about texts, manuscripts, inscriptions and other sources a lot. But I want to take it a step further still. Critical evaluation is one of the most important skills to master, and I'd argue that it gets more important by the day, seeing how all those Nigerian princes just Need your help to Transfer Money and holy crap do you really believe that?!

I've already touched on the Problem of trusting sources. Our main concern is the intent of the author. What was his Agenda, who was his superior, and how intimately acquainted was he with the subject he wrote about? History is written by the winners, and many texts serve only the purpose of degrading the opposing side. Many things we believe we know with absolute certainty don't hold up on closer scrutiny.

We all know the Story of emperor Nero and how he burnt down Rome and made a horse his adviser.

Also famous for sporting a rather ill-advised neck beard

The only Problem with that is that the accounts concerning him we have were based on a source not available to us anymore. The three main sources are Tacitus, Suetonio and Cassio Dio. Two of the accounts were written 50 years after Nero's death, and one 150 years later. There are sources portraying him in a better light, but they haven't gained the same widespread attention, and that's how his legacy was formed. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying we can't be sure.

Just for s*** and giggles, here is an excerpt of what Suetonis wrote about the guy in his book "the 12 Caesars": "about the average height, his body marked with spots and malodorous, his hair light blond, his features regular rather than attractive, his eyes blue and somewhat weak, his neck over thick, his belly prominent, and his legs very slender."

I mean, really, you guys? That would make him a troll. Is it actually genetically feasible for one person to be that fugly? Sorry for the language, but that sounds really gross, and consequently I have a hard time believing that Suetonius was unbiased. We don't know exactly when Suetonius was born, but it's rather improbable he ever met Nero...and that renders his descriptions of his physical appearance moot. He simply couldn't know what poor Nero smelled like. And if he believed others that only proves the point: He didn't check his facts properly.

Nero is alleged of doing all kinds of strange stuff: It is said (and by said I mean written in the Tora) he wanted to tear down the temple in Jerusalem, but was afraid of doing so himself, and although he believed god wanted him to do this he also thought that god would punish everyone actually following through with that. So he made a complicated plan which went like this and oh my god the whole story is so convoluted and mired in symbolism, I honestly don't get what he intended to do.

The point is that it's catchy, it resonates with what we know, namely that rich, powerful people sometimes are funny in the head. We don't understand them, and therefore it is easy to picture them doing all sorts of weird stuff.

Turns out you can't buy dignity

The Point is that while few sources survived he is still not exactly elusive by the standards of historical scholarship, and his life is rather well documented. He's never been to Jerusalem. The actual Point is that I should stop to belabour the phrase 'the point is', but the point is that at this point that's neither here nor there.

When evaluating a source you first need to look for other sources that support your primary source. You need to be sure neither one is forged. If you want to knwo wether Darwin ever visited the west Indies you could go though all the passenger lists of ships sailing there looking for his name. It's astounding what's available in this regard. Ususally minor differences can be reconciled, after all, people make mistakes. But overall a picture should emerge, and if it's not internally consistent, you  might have to try again.
Another criteria: Does the spelling fit the period of it's alleged creation? Are there words that should not have been available at the time of writing, and how are all the words spelled? In medieval Germany for a time every u was to be followed by an O which has sort of survived until today, leading to some People drawing a short line above their Us. If a text written during a period when this was common doesn't feature that oddity chances are something's wrong. Very easy example: A printed book dated to before when the printing press was invented.
 It is also possible to relate sources to each other through their writer. There might have been a guy always drawing hearts above his Is, and if that's a rare habit (it should be!) then texts containing that attribute are likely written by the same author. Also, if it's a rare Hobbit and you're troll don't try to cook it unless you are absolutely certain when the sun will rise.

Wow, what a Tangent. Not the Hobbit Thing, the whole article. But I think it's fun, although I may have gone overboard a few times. But I like it, and I think I'm actually hitting my stride the longer I write. The Goal of this blog is to write as much text as possible, and if it's fun that's the icing on the cake.