Are the Works of Ancient Historians Extant?
Asking ChatGPT some questions about history
As a student of history these past few years, I started noticing what seemed to be a peculiar obfuscation of the meaning of words such as “original”, “fragment” and “extant”. As I continued to dig deeper into history, I realized these words did not mean what I thought they meant. By “original” one would normally assume this means exactly that… the original writings on the original paper by the original author. By “fragment” one might assume that this means that there are bits of surviving paper in the original author’s hand. By “extant” one might assume that means an “original” still in existence. However I often could not find images of any “original” books, papers or fragments anywhere on the internet.
I decided to ask ChatGPT for clarification. After questioning the AI, it started off listing “extant” works. I asked for clarification of the word “extant” and ChatGPT stated that it could mean either originals or later copies and editions. Then I asked for a list of only the “originals” not later copies or editions. By the end of the chat, I finally got this:
“In summary, for all these ancient historians, their original manuscripts have not survived to the present day. What we have are later copies and editions made by medieval and Renaissance scribes and scholars. These copies and editions are crucial for our understanding of their works, but they are not the original manuscripts penned by the historians themselves. Thus, when historians refer to these works as "extant," they mean that later copies and editions are available, rather than the original manuscripts.”
Here is the discussion:
This is interesting. I like the observation and research about the detail of what we think of as 'historical', and how we can re-think the idea of how 'original' any books or documents might actually be. There seems to be several factors to be alert to as one researches anything 'old'. It seems that now with digital information, it is even more difficult to have 'original' documents; as things come and go 'digitally', are often poorly referenced, or not referenced at all, and many items simply are 'taken off the internet' never to be found again -even after having been bookmarked. I feel our digital format can make one appreciate the existence of a library with actual printed books -originals or not. In the case of books that are printed and 'old', (and not necessarily originals) at least the 'copy' of printed book information cannot be digitally removed 'overnight'. Of course there was the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Maybe in the digital world, at least copies can be disseminated 'far and wide' and then optionally printed by many users. In this way, no single 'central library' holds the 'only' copy or 'original', (that is if we bother to print copies of anything we read on line). Then there is oral tradition which is passed on such as from indigenous lore and languages, and now we have video blogging by 'grassroots' and researchers alike. It will be interesting to witness where all these 'unwritten' story tellings and 'histories' end up going forward. Sometimes I wonder when it is said 'life is an illusion', it in fact is, in the case that nothing is 'for sure', past, present or future unless it is documented. In that case, it also matters who the documenter is, as every story has many sides to tell. In addition, much like the game of telephone, any history or story can change over time as new referencing and new research comes about, and/or things are 'accidentally altered' by misguided research or alternative points of view. In quantum physics reality changes by 'who is observing', well, that is another topic for another day. Currently, it seems History is being reinvented by new political/social standards and observations, and is not always true to the way it was presented 'originally'. So, maybe it does not really matter what 'original' is, when every story must be looked at as the perspective of the writer at the time it is written. How is one to know 'ever' what really happened in real time to real people? As it is said, something like: "history is written by the victors", we need a perspective of open minded inquiry to delve further into what 'really happened'. I enjoyed this study of what the term "original" means, and I learned a new word: "extant". Any-which-way, another interesting topic to ponder.