Philology Today: Select Secondary Bibliography

I’m five years into my doctorate at NYU and have gathered up quite a bit of the secondary literature on philology in the English-speaking world. Here are some of the central texts.

A good overview of the entire contemporary discourse on philology can be read in Hui, Andrew. ‘The Many Returns of Philology: A State of the Field Report’. Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 78, no. 1, 2017, pp. 137–56, doi:10/gf2vt8.

Interesting reflections on methodology and conceptualisation within the history of philology can be found in Daston, Lorraine, and Glenn W. Most. ‘History of Science and History of Philologies’. Isis, vol. 106, no. 2, June 2015, pp. 378–90. doi:10/gfc4wx.

World philology

World philology is about the histories of philological practices around the globe.

Holquist, Michael. ‘The Place of Philology in an Age of World Literature’. Neohelicon, vol. 38, no. 2, Dec. 2011, pp. 267–87. doi:10/czqs35.

Pollock, Sheldon, et al., editors. World Philology. Harvard UP, 2015.
Pollock’s Introduction to this volume is the seminal framing of the ‘world philology’ concept.

(See also Anthony T. Grafton and Glenn W. Most, eds. Canonical Texts and Scholarly Practices: A Global Comparative Approach. Cambridge UP, 2015.)

Philological Encounters.
A journal: 3 volumes since 2016.

Cox, Whitney. Modes of Philology in Medieval South India. Brill, 2017.

Ahmed, Siraj. Archaeology of Babel: The Colonial Foundation of the Humanities. Stanford UP, 2018.

Philology as humanities disciplines’ origin

Was philology the ancestor of the humanities?

Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. ‘History of Literature, Fragment of a Vanished Totality?’ New Literary History, translated by Peter Heath, vol. 16, no. 3, 1985, pp. 467–79. doi:10/d7mmq9.

Ziolkowski, Jan. ‘What Is Philology’, Introduction. Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 27, no. 1, 1990, pp. 1–12.
The rest of Comparative Literature 27.1 is also relevant.

Guillory, John. ‘Literary Study and the Modern System of the Disciplines’. Disciplinarity at the Fin de Siècle, edited by Amanda Anderson and Joseph Valente, Princeton UP, 2002, pp. 19–43.

Momma, Haruko. From Philology to English Studies: Language and Culture in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge UP, 2013.

Turner, James. Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities. Princeton UP, 2014.

New philology

There are two ‘new’ philologies: one reconsiders MSS treatment in medieval studies, aiming to de-centre the ‘original’ and treat textual copying as worth studying in itself; the other names a linguistic orientation in Mexican ethnohistory.

Nichols, Stephen G. ‘Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture’. Speculum, vol. 65, no. 1, 1990, pp. 1–10. doi:10/dpgwmj.
The rest of Speculum 65.1 is comprised of articles on the medievalist new philology.

Restall, Matthew. ‘A History of the New Philology and the New Philology in History’. Latin American Research Review, vol. 38, no. 1, 2003, pp. 113–34. doi:10/fhg2xd.

Digital philology

The fitness of textual-philological practices for digital and digitally-mediated texts.

McGann, Jerome. ‘Philology in a New Key’. Critical Inquiry, vol. 39, no. 2, 2013, pp. 327–46. doi:10/gf2xxv.
And more in McGann, Jerome. A New Republic of Letters. Harvard UP, 2014.

Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. ‘Philology and the Complex Present’. Florilegium, vol. 32, Jan. 2015, pp. 273–81, doi:10/gf2xxs.

Philology's Formal Function in Modernist Verse and in Academe

This week I’m trying to figure out why remediation of philology in verse exploded right when philology’s academic fortunes fizzled out.

From 1900 to 1920, philology went into steep decline in the English-speaking world. But during that time, and the decade or two right after, the presence of philology in poetry exploded. Think of all the philology in the works of Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, Hugh MacDiarmid, David Jones, James Joyce, etc., etc., etc., which has been covered more admirably by other scholars than I could ever hope to do.

I’ve gestured at this topic before, and offered a genre called ‘philological poetry’. But that name doesn’t explain why that discrepancy happened, it only describes it—and only one half of it. That was a much easier thing to do.

But, foolishly, I submitted to BAMS 2019 an abstract which promised to finally solve that puzzle. Worse, my abstract was accepted. The title is ‘Why Did Philological Poetry Take Off as Philology Declined in the Academy?’ The conference is next week. Never submit a title that promises to answer a question. It will be accepted, and you will have to make good on your promise.

I have a few half-baked ideas so far.

1. Genres condition the kinds of knowledge expressible

If one genre (academic philology) is going down, while another (philological poetry) is coming up, the differing outcomes may lie in how the genres themselves differ. Texts don’t just represent the world; they stand in between the world and the reader. And the particular way a text does that is affected by its particular genre. 

Complicating, however, is that philological poetry doesn’t just stand between the reader and the world; it also stands between the reader and philology. There are two layers of mediation to think of. What could poetry do with philological knowledge that academic philology could not (or could no longer) do itself?

2. Philology bound knowledge and language together

There is something in philology’s content—what philology is at this time—that kills it in an academic sense. Philology gave form to the relation between knowledge and language. It did that for as long as such a relation was intellectually viable (until 1916, if you want to know).

That very quality of philology—how it gives form to the knowledge–language relation—may make it poetically fertile. The formal disconnection of knowledge and language after the early twentieth century was something of a modernist poetic cause célèbre. As W. H. Auden wrote, ‘the most poetical of all scholastic disciplines is, surely, Philology’. He goes on to say that language is poetic to the degree that the specific forms of words (their sounds and shapes) matter. When that form doesn’t matter, poetry is impossible, it becomes prose.

3. Philology’s forming function

If there is that formal function in philology which makes it academically dead after 1916, that formal condition may still be operable in poetry, which is not subject to the same strictures as academic truth-claiming; or, better stated, is subject to other strictures than those.

The paper will probably be a synthesis of these three ideas.

But what remains to be explained is the rise. The above may be sufficient conditions, but are they a sufficient cause?

(Note: the Auden quotations are from ‘Making, Knowing, and Judging’.)