Quote: “Accordingly, when we read an ancient poem, we have to remember the vast amount of cultural activity over the centuries which has made it possible for us to do so, including such material and institutional factors as scriptoria, publishing houses and the whole apparatus of scholarship, together with countless acts of appropriation by readers” (page 8).
Comment: There is this sentiment that nothing we read exists in a vacuum and failure to recognize that erases history.
Question: In a society that moves closer and closer to screens and digital media, how does one preserve the cultural significance of print text?
Things to grab from Martindale:
1. What does it mean to take a positivist approach to history?
The positivist approach to history utilizes the idea of observable facts. If something has occurred in history but there is no “qualified” person to verify what happened then the significance of that event loses all meaning. It's very aligned with the saying ‘if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it actually fall?’.
2. Is the past recoverable, according to Martindale? Yes? No? Both? Why?
I feel like the past is not discoverable to Martindale because when we observe history we view it through a very specific cultural lens that I feel like impacts how we receive information. With that in mind I feel like that can subsequently leaves pieces of the past left behind due to the lack to contextual understanding.
3. What are some critiques of canonicity, according to Martindale?
One of the main critiques is that the canon upholds certain outdated, often racist hierarchies. The belief that the canon “created itself” is false and is misleading. The canon was created for and chosen by a bunch of old rich white men who felt like the texts they chose properly reflected the cultural ideals of that subgroup at any given time.
4. Is Martindale pro or contra having a canon?
I think he sits on the fence. He acknowledges the ways that the canon is harmful to culture and society but simultaneously highlights how the cultural interpretations of the texts change as culture is dynamic.
5. Can you detect what the difference is between a subjectivist and objectivist approach to meaning? (pp. 29-32). Try to parse them out.
I think the main difference between the two is the reaction to external stimuli. The subjectivist approach takes all the information they receive in their world and then reacts and makes decisions based on those facts. An objectvist is a person who views their thoughts as independent of what they experience in the world and believes that their self governance is strictly from within.