PHILOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH METHODS OF CLASSICAL STUDIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24919/2519-058x.13.188648Keywords:
classical studies, philological research method, historical research method.Abstract
The aim of the research is to consider the characteristics of “philological” and “historical” research methods in classical studies. The methodology of the research of the study is based on the principles of science, historicism, objectivity, system analysis, etc., as well as on the use of general scientific methods, special-historical and source study methods. The scientific novelty is that for the first time in Ukrainian historiography the question of “philological” and “historical” research methods in classical studies has been investigated. The Conclusions. At the end of the 19th century, the disadvantages of the philological method of studying the ancient texts became obvious. Where the investigated ancient author referred to the names of his predecessors or at least pointed to them, it was easy to find the «main core» or the main author. But when such links or hints were completely absent, difficulties arose, and sometimes they were simply insurmountable. The philological method which was based on an unrestrained desire to find the original core of the source under study was reduced to «plus ultra», i.e. was carried to the point of absurdity.One must fully agree that in one aspect historians were in a better position than philologists, in particular: a historian, in order to explain the facts of ancient historiography, has a greater opportunity to use appropriate phenomena in the historical literature of different times and places. Historians and philologists have different goals in the study of the primary source of ancient literature, so they cannot replace each other. Both classical philology and ancient history have their own subject and study methodology and both have reasons to work in an area that we call classical studies. Classical philology and history use a particular research method according to their own subject, goals and objectives which is consistent with the research method of a particular scholar.
References
Andreev, J.V. (1990). Poesiya mifa i proza istorii [Poetry of myth and prose of history]. Leningrad: Lenizdat, 223 p. [in Russian]
Bachtin, M.M. (2000) Avtor I geroy: k folofskim osnovam gumanitarnych nauk [Author and hero: to the philosophical foundations of the humanities]. St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 336 p. [in Russian]
Belousov, А.V. (2016) Nucho Ordine o polse bespolesnogo: “nenauchnaya” rezensya [Nuccio Ordine about the benefits of useless: “unscientific” review]. Тrudy kafedr drevnich jazikov moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. M.V.Lomonosova – Proceedings of the Department of Ancient Languages of Lomonosov Moscow State University, 83, 9–16 [in Russian]
Frolov, E.D. (1999). Russkaya nauka ob antichnosti [Russian science of antiquity]. St. Petersburg: izd-vo SPbGU, 544 p. [in Russian]
Frolov, E.D. (2004). Paradoksy istorii – paradoksi antichnosti [Paradoxes of history – the paradoxes of Science about the Ancient History]. St. Petersburg: izd-vo SPbGU, 420 p. [in Russian]
Gale, X. (2000). Historical Studies and Postmodernism: Rereading Aspasia of Miletus. College English, 62(3), 361–386. doi:10.2307/378936 [in English]
Hamburger, O. (1927). Untersuchungen uber den Pyrrhischen Krieg [The studies on the Pyrrhic War]. Wurzburg: Kurt Wolff Verlag, 101 p. [in German].
Ivanchik, A. (2014). Antikovedenie v Rossii: problemy razvitiya v sovremennych usloviyach [Science about the Ancient History in Russia: problems of development in modern conditions]. Trudy otdeleniya istoriko-filologicheskich nauk RAN – Proceedings of the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences. Moskwa: Nauka, 229–237 [in Russian].
Kazarov, S.S. (1997). Teodor Mommzen: ucheniy, politik, pedagog [Theodor Mommsen: scientist, politician, teacher]. Mommzen T. Istoriya Rima – Mommsen T. The History of Rome (Vol. 1) (pp. 3–16). Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks [in Russian].
Kazarov, S.S. (2008). Istoriya zariya Pirra Epirsckogo [The story of the Epirian King Pyrrhus]. St. Petersburg: izd-vo SPbGU, 521 p. [in Russia].
Kaerst, J. (1894). Schubert R. Geschichte des Pyrrhus [Schubert R. History of Pyrrhus]. Book review in: Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie – Weekly for classical philology, 14, p. 1032–1033 [in German].
Kulakovsky, Y. (1904). Pamyati T. Mommzena [In memory of Mommsen] Zurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveschenya – Journal of the Ministry of Education, 2, 39–61 [in Russian].
Leveque, P. (1957). Pyrrhos [Pyrrhus]. Paris: De Boccard, 735 p. [in French].
Mandes, M.I. (1898). О filologicheskom metode izuchenya istochnikov [About the philological method of studying sources]. Odessa: Ekonomicheskaya tipografiya, 10 p. [in Russian].
Nauert, C. (1998). Humanism as Method: Roots of Conflict with the Scholastics. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 29 (2), 427–438. doi:10.2307/2544524
Scala, R. (1884). Der pyrrhische Krieg [The Pyrrhic War]. Berlin: Parrisius, 184 p. [in German].
Schubert, R. (1894). Geschichte des Pyrrhus [History of Pyrrhus]. Konigsberg: W. Koch, 288 p. [in German]
Vechov, S.I. (1888). Оb issledovanii istochnikov drevnich istoricheskich proizvedenii voobsche i biografii XII cesarei Svetoniya v chastnosti [On the study of sources of ancient historical works in general and the biography of XII Caesars Suetonius’s XII Caesars in particular]. Reprint. Varschava, 12 p. [in Russian] .
