Veyne is great. I don’t know how his work is treated by nowadays historians, but it was a revelation for me. My passion is more medieval history, but we find the same kind of things: just read medieval bestiaries, you’ll find a lot of unbelievable things about very common animals like rabbits. People who wrote that knew that they were not real things, but they still thought that they were true. We lost a lot when we begun to think that real = true. It was the same things for mythologies, and biblical ones too: people knew they weren’t real things of the past, but they were true things of their present.
It’s more complicated than that of course (there are more than just two “modes of truth” to use Veyne’s terminology), and I’m sure most people believed that Moses actually existed (he probably didn’t). Moreover, an intellectual and a peasant probably didn’t judge these things in the same way. But the fact that truth ≠ reality for most people before the Enlightenment (and in fact, it’s still true today but in a hidden way) helps understand a lot of historical texts.
Veyne is great. I don’t know how his work is treated by nowadays historians, but it was a revelation for me. My passion is more medieval history, but we find the same kind of things: just read medieval bestiaries, you’ll find a lot of unbelievable things about very common animals like rabbits. People who wrote that knew that they were not real things, but they still thought that they were true. We lost a lot when we begun to think that real = true. It was the same things for mythologies, and biblical ones too: people knew they weren’t real things of the past, but they were true things of their present.
I haven’t read the book, but that seems a very curious assertion given the widespread expressed beliefs of medieval societies with regards to the fantastic creatures they recorded which would be very difficult to reconcile with the notion that their belief was purely a metaphorical truth.
Bestiaries didn’t propose fantastic creatures as something mixing metaphor and truth, but rather envisioned the natural order of the world as itself having heavy elements of symbolism. That is to say, metaphor was still separate from reality precisely because metaphor was acknowledged as an abstract, fictional, theoretical literary device.
The fantastic creatures described in medieval bestiaries are described in the same tones as verifiably true animals are - snakes and deer and rabbits having symbolism which reflects their (perceived) real existence, just as fantastic creatures are described with symbolism which reflects their (perceived) real existence. Fantastic creatures are not being put in a superposition between real and unreal; they are being described as real creatures in the same way that verifiably, modern real creatures are being described. It’s that the mode of description and view of an intrinsic ordering of the universe, as comprehensible to human values, being used is alien.
Medieval peoples often believed these creatures were real. That they had symbolism in their existence was reinforcement that they were real, not a separation from it, as all creatures had a natural, intrinsic reflection of a natural/divine order.
I wasn’t speaking about fantastic creatures. Your message is right, but it’s not complete. We could say that reality and truth are two extreme parts of a continuum, some things being only real, some other things being only true (we could say, metaphorical but it’s not exactly that, it exists but in an other way of existence, sorry my English is not good enough to be clear enough) but most things are in the middle, but not at the same place.
I’ll give an example: according to many bestiaries, weasels give birth through their ears. In the Middle Ages, as in ancient Rome, weasels were domesticated animals, much like cats in the countryside today. So there’s no chance that medieval people didn’t know how weasels gave birth… and yet they repeated this story without hesitation because reality (which they did know) was less important than the truth.
I’ll give an example: according to many bestiaries, weasels give birth through their ears. In the Middle Ages, as in ancient Rome, weasels were domesticated animals, much like cats in the countryside today. So there’s no chance that medieval people didn’t know how weasels gave birth… and yet they repeated this story without hesitation because reality (which they did know) was less important than the truth.
Except there are medieval writers who explicitly note that factoid as a common (and explicitly untrue) myth. Assuming reality is something that is easily verified and understood in an era long before our own period of rapid transfer of information is not a realistic position to take.
Fuck, I can name any number of incredibly bizarre and easily disproven misconceptions I have personally encountered in day-to-day life in the fucking information age, where textbooks abound, public education is mandatory, materialism is the norm, the voices of specialists are literal seconds away, and the total combined knowledge of humanity is literally at our fingertips. Yet people - even educated people sometimes - refuse to verify information, and pass it on anyway, because it suits their preconceptions about life.
How much worse is that, do you think, in a time when verification meant knowing, finding, and spending considerable time ensuring someone was credible? Across geographical barriers? Across language barriers? What about when it contradicts religious dogma, accepted cultural norms, or literary sources? What about when your own access to literary sources is restricted by the incredible expense and low volume of produced books?
Assuming reality is something that is easily verified and understood in an era long before our own period of rapid transfer of information is not a realistic position to take.
It is for something as evident as the fact that weasels don’t give birth by the ears. You don’t need Internet or materialism for that.
Veyne is great. I don’t know how his work is treated by nowadays historians, but it was a revelation for me. My passion is more medieval history, but we find the same kind of things: just read medieval bestiaries, you’ll find a lot of unbelievable things about very common animals like rabbits. People who wrote that knew that they were not real things, but they still thought that they were true. We lost a lot when we begun to think that real = true. It was the same things for mythologies, and biblical ones too: people knew they weren’t real things of the past, but they were true things of their present.
It’s more complicated than that of course (there are more than just two “modes of truth” to use Veyne’s terminology), and I’m sure most people believed that Moses actually existed (he probably didn’t). Moreover, an intellectual and a peasant probably didn’t judge these things in the same way. But the fact that truth ≠ reality for most people before the Enlightenment (and in fact, it’s still true today but in a hidden way) helps understand a lot of historical texts.
I haven’t read the book, but that seems a very curious assertion given the widespread expressed beliefs of medieval societies with regards to the fantastic creatures they recorded which would be very difficult to reconcile with the notion that their belief was purely a metaphorical truth.
No Veyne spoke only about Greek mythology. The part about bestiaries is influenced by an other historian, Michel Pastoureau.
Not purely metaphorical. The strict opposition between metaphor and real stories is modern.
That sounds like a leap to separate metaphor and the notion of an intrinsic natural order.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand.
Bestiaries didn’t propose fantastic creatures as something mixing metaphor and truth, but rather envisioned the natural order of the world as itself having heavy elements of symbolism. That is to say, metaphor was still separate from reality precisely because metaphor was acknowledged as an abstract, fictional, theoretical literary device.
The fantastic creatures described in medieval bestiaries are described in the same tones as verifiably true animals are - snakes and deer and rabbits having symbolism which reflects their (perceived) real existence, just as fantastic creatures are described with symbolism which reflects their (perceived) real existence. Fantastic creatures are not being put in a superposition between real and unreal; they are being described as real creatures in the same way that verifiably, modern real creatures are being described. It’s that the mode of description and view of an intrinsic ordering of the universe, as comprehensible to human values, being used is alien.
Medieval peoples often believed these creatures were real. That they had symbolism in their existence was reinforcement that they were real, not a separation from it, as all creatures had a natural, intrinsic reflection of a natural/divine order.
Thanks for your clarification.
I wasn’t speaking about fantastic creatures. Your message is right, but it’s not complete. We could say that reality and truth are two extreme parts of a continuum, some things being only real, some other things being only true (we could say, metaphorical but it’s not exactly that, it exists but in an other way of existence, sorry my English is not good enough to be clear enough) but most things are in the middle, but not at the same place.
I’ll give an example: according to many bestiaries, weasels give birth through their ears. In the Middle Ages, as in ancient Rome, weasels were domesticated animals, much like cats in the countryside today. So there’s no chance that medieval people didn’t know how weasels gave birth… and yet they repeated this story without hesitation because reality (which they did know) was less important than the truth.
Except there are medieval writers who explicitly note that factoid as a common (and explicitly untrue) myth. Assuming reality is something that is easily verified and understood in an era long before our own period of rapid transfer of information is not a realistic position to take.
Fuck, I can name any number of incredibly bizarre and easily disproven misconceptions I have personally encountered in day-to-day life in the fucking information age, where textbooks abound, public education is mandatory, materialism is the norm, the voices of specialists are literal seconds away, and the total combined knowledge of humanity is literally at our fingertips. Yet people - even educated people sometimes - refuse to verify information, and pass it on anyway, because it suits their preconceptions about life.
How much worse is that, do you think, in a time when verification meant knowing, finding, and spending considerable time ensuring someone was credible? Across geographical barriers? Across language barriers? What about when it contradicts religious dogma, accepted cultural norms, or literary sources? What about when your own access to literary sources is restricted by the incredible expense and low volume of produced books?
It is for something as evident as the fact that weasels don’t give birth by the ears. You don’t need Internet or materialism for that.