[HN Gopher] The 'Epic of Gilgamesh' is not the oldest surviving ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The 'Epic of Gilgamesh' is not the oldest surviving work of
       literature
        
       Author : dbrereton
       Score  : 24 points
       Date   : 2022-09-28 16:10 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (talesoftimesforgotten.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (talesoftimesforgotten.com)
        
       | bananarchist wrote:
       | It sounds like the disagreement here is over the definition of
       | literature. I generally regard wiktionary's fourth entry (high
       | fiction) to be its definition, whereas this seems somewhere
       | between that and the second (collected creative writing of a
       | culture). I was shaking my head at most of the examples given.
       | Now I see we are operating from two different foundations.
       | 
       | Maybe this is why so many arguments open with the cliche "Webster
       | defines..."
        
         | shireboy wrote:
         | If you want to converse with me, first define your terms -
         | Voltaire
         | 
         | I was taught that Gilgamesh wasn't the first written work of
         | literature, but the first written work of epic story. I don't
         | know if this is true, but many of the other works cited are
         | biographies, proverbs, etc.
        
         | faeriechangling wrote:
         | I don't mind that cliche at all, it's far less painful for
         | people to give a definition of a word than to witness a painful
         | argument where two people define a word in a different way and
         | then criticise the incoherence of the other's argument.
        
         | nottorp wrote:
         | Yeah, most of that list is life advice and religious texts.
         | Then what comes is ... proto Ghilgamesh.
         | 
         | On the other hand, apparently self improvement books are older
         | than the first fiction :)
        
         | forbiddenvoid wrote:
         | It's hard to separate "I think your definition of literature is
         | wrong" and "I think your application of that definition is
         | wrong."
        
         | Maursault wrote:
         | > the disagreement here is over the definition of literature
         | 
         | Deeply, but though we can make distinction between a modern
         | best seller and Brian's grammatically incorrect graffiti,
         | "Romanes eunt domus,"[1], in essence they are both literature,
         | even if the latter is fictional and framed within the larger
         | contemporary story, because Brian _wrote_ a message
         | representative of some language.
         | 
         | Literature is defined by writing, and writing is defined by
         | symbols representing language. Always given less emphasis than
         | the ancient cave art found in caves all over the world are the
         | abstract symbols that very often accompany the graphic
         | depictions of animals. For all we know some of those symbols
         | may mean, "this tastes good," and regardless of being unable to
         | decipher them, they could still be the oldest extant
         | literature[2] so long as they could represent language and tell
         | a story, no matter how primitive a story.
         | 
         | Before the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mayan pictographs were
         | deciphered, there was no question that they had specific
         | meaning behind them. Though in the strictest sense, pictography
         | is not an alphabet, it still conveys specific messages in some
         | once spoken language. In my opinion, if there are any abstract
         | symbols that represent even the most primitive message, if it's
         | clear there is even some vague attempt at communication, then
         | it will still broadly fall under the category of literature,
         | regardless of ever being deciphered.
         | 
         | While ultimately I agree that the epic of Gilgamesh is the
         | earliest _extant_ high, advanced, or complex literature, I
         | think whether a written story still exists or not is an
         | arbitrary distinction. The fact that Gilgamesh exists in the
         | literary form that it does necessarily means earlier examples
         | of high literature once existed but are unknown and likely
         | lost. Between Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides there were
         | over 300 plays written of which 33 survive. That the missing
         | plays no longer exist should not diminish the fact that these
         | were, in fact, written and were undoubtedly literature.
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_ite_domum
         | 
         | [2] https://www.openculture.com/2019/03/40000-year-old-
         | symbols-f... note: Though von Petzinger herself clarifies in
         | her TED Talk that the common ancient symbols are not writing, I
         | think she's hedging for some reason (probably professional
         | caution) contradicting what her own research shows and
         | statements she makes immediately previously.
        
           | jdmichal wrote:
           | From wiktionary:
           | 
           | > 1. The body of all written works.
           | 
           | > 2. The collected creative writing of a nation, people,
           | group or culture.
           | 
           | > 3. (usually preceded by the) All the papers, treatises etc.
           | published in academic journals on a particular subject.
           | 
           | > 4. Written fiction of a high standard.
           | 
           | So it sounds like you're basically describing definition (1).
           | I make this judgement because "this tastes good" is not
           | _creative_ or _fictional_ writing, which are key points in
           | definitions (2) and (4).
        
             | not2b wrote:
             | So if 4. is the definition, the Epic of Gilgamesh is first,
             | because it's in a different class than what came before.
             | But if 1. is the definition, the article is clearly right
             | as there are older works.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-09-28 23:00 UTC)