LINGUIST List 25.1141
Fri
Mar 07 2014
Review: Discourse
Analysis; Historical Linguistics: Greußlich
(2012)
Editor for this issue:
Monica Macaulay <monicalinguistlist.org>
Date: 06-Sep-2013
From: Mariana España Rivera
<marianaespana
yahoo.es>
Subject: Text, Autor und
Wissen in der 'historiografía indiana' der
Frühen Neuzeit
E-mail this message to a
friend
Discuss this
message
Book announced at
http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-4941.html
AUTHOR: Sebastian Greußlich
TITLE: Text, Autor und Wissen in der
'historiografía indiana' der Frühen Neuzeit
[Text, Author, and Knowledge in the
"Historiografía Indiana" of the Early Modern
Era]
SUBTITLE: Die Décadas von Antonio de Herrera y
Tordesillas
SERIES TITLE: De Gruyter Pluralisierung &
Autorität 33
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2012
REVIEWER: Mariana España Rivera, Universität
Bonn
SUMMARY
Sebastian Greußlich offers a
historically-oriented linguistic and textual
analysis of the “Historia general de los hechos
de los Castellanos en las islas i tierra-firme
del mar oceano” (“History of the Castilian
people on the island and on the mainland”; also
called “Décadas”), written by Antonio de
Herrera y Tordesillas, a court chronicler
(Cuellar, 1549--Madrid, 1625).
This historiographical work consists of eight
'Décadas', or books, published in Madrid
between 1601 and 1615 during the reign of
Philip III. The work was intended as a source
of information for the king and his court. The
'Décadas' deal with the history of the New
World ('las Indias Occidentales') from the time
of its discovery in 1492, to 1554. Originally
written in Spanish, it was so successful that
shortly after its publication it was translated
into Latin (Amsterdam, 1622) as well as into
other European languages: French (Amsterdam,
1622), German (Frankfurt, 1623), Dutch (1706),
and English (London, 1724).
As the main source for his study, Herrera used
material and information from other authors'
works. He selected, ordered and/or
linguistically adapted it -- lexically,
morphologically or syntactically -- utilising
his own system. Quoting or even taking long
passages from other authors was a common
historiographical practice that lost favour
with the advent of positivist science and lost
its validity with the birth of modern
historical science in the 19th century. Thus,
in the compiling/preparation of this extensive
work, Herrera followed a discourse tradition of
his time.
Greußlich’s intention is to address certain
questions that have until now not been
adequately answered; for example, the question
of just how many historical references Herrera
took from other authors and what criteria he
used to make his decisions. Greußlich's
starting point is the reconstruction of what
Herrera's historical knowledge might have been.
In a “hermeneutical approach to the pragmatics
of a discourse tradition” (p. 10), the author
brings together two perspectives, the textual
and the epistemological. His linguistic
analysis results in a qualitative
reconstruction of Herrera's historiographical
practices.
The book is divided into an introduction, seven
chapters, an index and bibliographical
references.
Chapter 1 is a four-page “Introduction”. The
author explains that his linguistic analysis is
carried out on a corpus that is comprised of
two components: on the one hand, he examines
sections from the 'Décadas' that deal with
events in the Viceroyalties of New Spain and
Peru, while on the other hand, those sections
are compared with Herrera's sources.
Chapter 2 is entitled “Historical linguistics,
historiography and the textuality of history”.
In essence, the chapter deals with the
“problematization of historical tradition” (p.
4) and focuses on a postmodernist debate around
the interrelation between historicity (of
texts) and textuality (of history). It also
provides us with information about the
methodological orientation of the work.
The author argues that the present work is
“basically oriented towards variationist
linguistics” (p. 8). He explains its
theoretical background/framework using
Coseriu's “three-level schema”:
Universal level: Speech activity
Historical level: Concrete language / discourse
tradition (abstract language)
Individual level: Discourse/Text
(quoted from Oesterreicher, 2009a; in
Greußlich, p. 9; Oesterreicher 2005, p. 9)
The model helps us distinguish between
questions that relate to a “concrete particular
language from those questioning the language at
its universal level” and to differentiate
“linguistically relevant from
non-linguistically relevant issues” (p. 9).
Thus, a variationist perspective allows us to
“exactly historically contextualize a discourse
tradition” (p. 10).
The “recontextualization” (or the
“hermeneutical reconstruction of the pragmatics
of the discourse tradition”, p. 10) makes up
the major part of this work (Chapter 3: 83
pages; Chapter 4: 104 pages). Greußlich
justifies this by explaining that it is
necessary “in order to communicate the relevant
research from history and historical law within
linguistics” (p. 11). This is the task the
author takes on here, while also stating that
“hardly any of the discussed evidence is new of
itself” (p. 10).
Chapter 3 is entitled “The functionalization of
the 'official historiography' in early modern
Castile”. In this chapter the author summarizes
the main findings from the historical North
American research in order to contextualize the
status of the 'Décadas'. He comments on the
resulting paradigms and findings so that the
reader is informed about the valid arguments
that grounded historical knowledge of that
period.
For example, he writes about the “political and
religious organizations and their
institutionalization in Castile and the New
World” (section 3.2.1), about the “Council of
Indies” (“Consejo de Indias”) and the
“Audiencias” as discourse regulators (section
3.3) and presents the “Major Chronicle of the
Indies” as an early modern institution (section
3.4 “Die 'Crónica Mayor de Indias - ein
frühneuzeitliches Fachreferat”, p. 107).
Chapter 4, “Texts and authors”, presents the
authors that Herrera used as his source
material. This chapter is divided into 12 parts
and each one is dedicated to an individual
author. These include: Francisco de Xerez,
Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, Bartolomé de las
Casas, Pedro Cieza de León, Pascual de
Andagoya, Francisco López de Gómara, Diego de
Landa, Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Diego
Fernández de Palencia, Francisco Cervantes de
Salazar, and José de Acosta. Part 4.12 deals
with the works of anonymous authors and
marginal texts.
For the analysis, the structure of the texts
(“Textgestalt”, p. 131) as well as the context
of the authors' personal lives (“Autorfigur”,
p. 131) are both of equal importance: the text
because it had to fulfil certain formal
criteria in order to be accepted into the royal
archive and the authors' lives because through
their oeuvre they established themselves as
loyal servants, and also in order to integrate
themselves into the colonial administrative
system. Each author had a different role to
play and participated differently
(“Partizipationsmodi”, p. 132). Greußlich
focuses on the relationship between norms at
the institutional level and the
personal/individual practical level.
After reconstructing Herrera's point of
departure Greußlich presents each author
chronologically instead of sorting them by
textual typology. This allows him to follow up
“the concrete institutional conditions for each
and every case” (footnote 415, p. 133). At the
same time, this allows the reader to understand
the criteria determining Herrera’s choice of
source material.
Chapter 5 is called “Antonio de Herrera and the
‘History of the Castilian people on the island
and on the mainland’ -- the textuality of
history and its interpretation”.
Some of the results from the qualitative
reconstruction of Herrera's historiographical
practice are as follows: The work is structured
(macro-structure) along the same lines as works
of previous chroniclers -- such as Pedro Mártir
de Anglería and Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo.
These authors from the 16th century followed a
humanistic tradition, and remained in the genre
“of their contemporaries and their position
went unquestioned” (p. 259). Greußlich
recognizes the fact that Herrera one hundred
years later likewise followed this tradition as
a sign of the “legal relevance of
historiography in the context of the imperial
expansion of Castile” (p. 259).
The linguistic-discursive structure of the
'Décadas' reflects the administrative division
of the space which replicates the historical
progress of the conquests. Herrera reports on
events from the stages “discovery”, “conquest”
and “submission” (“Pacificación”). From a legal
perspective this organization is a projection
of the “dependency of these territories on the
Crown of Castile” (p. 260). The consistent
chronological arrangement of the 'Décadas'
emphasizes the relevance of the work as a
reference book for the policy-makers because
this system made it possible for the reader “to
quickly find the most relevant material for
them” (p. 261).
Herrera worked through only a fraction of the
historical archive that was available to him.
However, his selection of reference texts
follows clear rules that correlated ''with the
historical and institutional settings'' (p.
281). The chapters dedicated to New Spain and
Peru are both structured in the same way with
respect to the compiled corpora, the
distribution of the sources following the
pattern: ''Descubrimiento - Conquista -
Pacificación''. For each of these geographical
regions Herrera considered several texts. He
grouped different text types together to form
their own sections, but did not mix them up.
Herrera chose to use ''historias'' and
''crónicas'' as well as ''relaciones
geográficas'' and ''documentos jurídicos''
(“juridical texts”, p. 279), which represented
an innovation in historiographical practice.
Greußlich finds his discourse is based on
authoritative criteria with the exception of
the juridical text types that appear relatively
anonymous and professionalized. With regard to
the time-frame of Herrera's 'sources' there is
a clear and pronounced progression from the
oral to the written.
With regard to the thematic level Herrera
manages to use his sources in a practical way
that leads us to think that he probably had a
''clear concept of the changing requirements
[...] which historiography in Castile was
confronted by during the 16th century'' (p.
280) and ''the urgent need to conceptually bind
the alterity of the 'Indies' in order to enable
them to rule there ...'' (p. 279).
Consequently, he meticulously seeks to fulfil
what Greußlich calls “these primary legal
expectations” (p. 280).
In chapter 6, ''Linguistic Text Analysis'',
Greußlich analyses the ‘Décadas’ in relation to
their source texts. He offers a systematic
description of the “discourse transformation”
(''Transformaciones discursivas'', p. 288),
with the aim of ''characterising the quality of
difference inherent in linguistic
contextualization'' (p. 300). The analysis is
performed at the following levels:
macro-structural (i.e. the relationship between
the macro-structure of a 'source' with the
respective parallel passage in the 'Décadas'),
incorporating syntax, morphosyntax, morphology
and lexicon.
Herrera uses 'estilo llano' ('plain language')
for his historiography, which is ''a
norm-referenced standard that requires a
moderate level of literacy'' (p. 290).
Herrera's style is characterized by his
avoidance of features of orality (close to
spoken language), by which, according to
Greußlich, he aims to liberate the discourse of
“complexity-increasing redundancy of all kinds”
(p. 290) on the levels of syntax, morphology
and lexis. At the macro-structural level, he
endeavours to eliminate what he considers to be
inappropriate or unnecessary parts of the text.
Herrera’s adaptations are based upon the
content itself.
Chapter 7 is called ''The linguistic
regularities in the compilation of the
'Décadas.''' In the context of the
'historiografia indiana' Herrera establishes
the 'estilo llano' as the standard. Greußlich
adds, “However, Herrera did not succeed in
establishing a stable tradition, as he only
managed to produce an individual relevancy of
the 'estilo llano' for the historiographical
discourse in Castile” (p. 356).
EVALUATION
The term 'historiografia indiana' describes a
diverse and complex subject. From the diversity
of authors, works and periods Greußlich focuses
on the special case of an official chronicler
of the early 17th century, who writes about the
events of the 16th century, compiling reports
from the works of other authors. The post of
official chronicler in the 17th century was a
very desirable position and the future
chronicler, besides having to have influential
recommendations, also had to be able to
demonstrate excellent linguistic skills in
order to gain the favour of the King and be
selected for the post (García Hernán 2006, p.
126, 132 et seq.).
In his work Greußlich provides the reader with
a wide range of information and historical
facts. He comments on these in his own voice,
but his main intention remains to highlight,
''the political and legal tendencies of the
16th century'' (p. 87) in order to reveal the
context of the institutionalization of the
'historiografia indiana'. The 17th century is
not addressed in detail, as is exemplified by
the next sentence: ''At the beginning of 17th
century, when the 'Décadas' were first
published, this process of degeneration of the
[economic and political] system was in full
swing'' (p. 87). Given that the 'Décadas' is a
defining work from the 17th century, the author
leaves us somewhat disappointed because he
omits the historical, political and economic
dimensions of the 17th century (cf. González
Enciso 1986, pp. 153-155).
Some of Greußlich’s conclusions about known
historical facts may mislead the reader. For
example, in chapter 5 Greußlich raises the
question ''why did Mártir de Anglería, a native
of Arona, Piemont [Italy], write in Latin?'',
given the fact that ''in Castile from the
Middle Ages there was a well-established
tradition of writing historiography in the
native language.'' He answers the question: ''A
probable answer is that the author's origin is
the reason'' (p. 259, footnote 738). However,
the book by Mártir de Anglería, also called
'Décadas', stems from daily reports and lengthy
letters that were addressed to the Pope and his
court. That is, the 'Décadas' by Pedro Mártir
de Anglería were written contextually in a
completely different historiographical
tradition, and not in the way that Greußlich
suggests (O'Gorman, 1972, p. 13; Salas, 1959,
p. 25).
The formal and stylistic linguistic adaptations
that Greußlich highlights in his linguistic
analysis notes confirm the connotations of the
term 'Cronista oficial': a language variety
characterized by certain features of literacy
as markers. He formulates his interpretations
using a specific knowledge framework which he
imposes upon Herrera in order to evaluate the
linguistic adaptations.
Greußlich achieves a consistency in his
analysis by projecting an ''identity of
reference'' (p. 300) which he assumes Herrera
had in mind while he was compiling his source
material. In explaining the methodological
orientation in detail, Greußlich overwhelms the
reader by adding new aspects to each chapter
that have little or no relevance to his
analysis (e.g., 'spatial turn', p. 263). His
analysis sometimes lacks structure, so that the
''synchronization'' between source materials
and historical background is cumbersome and
results in the reader not always being aware of
what the author intends.
This is illustrated by example 17 (p. 311)
where Herrera removes 'mañas' from Las Casas's
''segunsus 'astucias' y 'mañas''', giving
''segun sus 'astucias.''' Greußlich explains
this lexical cut of 'maña' first by
interpreting the word based upon its current
meaning. He then goes on to discuss whether
this word has a positive or negative meaning:
''The removal of this positively connoted
synonym suggests that Herrera is keen to
characterize the behaviour of Cortés as clearly
disobedient'' (p. 312). However Greußlich later
adds that the lemma 'astucia' in documents of
the era (Corpus del Español diacrónico) often
has positive connotations too ''in connection
with the representation of relevant military
facts [...]” (p. 312, footnote 821), and this
leaves the reader a little confused.
Greußlich recognizes that another problematic
area is that these results provide qualitative
rather than quantitative data (p. 294).
Consequently, his interpretation occasionally
suffers from a subjective slant (p. 342) and
hardly ever goes beyond a description of
Herrera's personal language style. Greußlich
would like to provide material for
''interdisciplinary debates'' (p. 2), but
because his work remains descriptive, it may
not be as useful to other academics in other
fields as a quantitative study might be. In
order to overcome this problem it would be
desirable to compare his results with those of
other contemporary chroniclers from the time of
Herrera, to support a possible
interpretation.
At first sight the book’s title seems to offer
the reader an interesting and insightful
treatise, but unfortunately the book does not
live up to this initial impression. The reader
is confronted by Greußlich's academic German
writing style and has to struggle to make sense
of what the author really wants to convey. The
author also breaks with academic tradition when
evaluating the work of other academics, for
example by describing Carbia as a ''fascist''
(p. 237) and Bosch García as being ''no less
tendentious'' (p. 236). He also praises his own
linguistic theoretical framework and says he
attempts to avoid ''destructive
misunderstandings'' of others (p. 9). These
subjective biases come across as unnecessarily
defensive and may confuse the reader.
Admittedly, Greußlich's subject matter is broad
and covers a variety of themes but
unfortunately this is at the expense of
structure and conciseness. The book's
reader-friendliness is often hindered by
quotations and cross references. This gives the
impression that the author has not been able to
precisely delimit the theme and find a
straightforward path for his argument.
REFERENCES
Bosch García, Carlos. 1945. La conquista de la
Nueva España en las Décadas de Antonio de
Herrera y Tordesillas. In Díaz Thomé, Hugo
(Hg.). “Estudios de historiografía de la Nueva
España”. México: El Colegio de México,
145-202.
García Hernán, Enrique. 2006. La España de los
cronistas reales en los siglos XVI y XVII. In
“Norba. Revista de Historia”, Vol. 19,
125-150.
González Enciso, Agustín. 1986. La economía. In
Andrés-Gallego, José (Coord.). “Historia
General de España y América. La crisis de la
hegemonía española. Siglo XVII”. Tomo VIII.
Madrid: Rialp. 153-185.
Oesterreicher, Wulf. 2005. Über die
Geschichtlichkeit der Sprache. In Trabant,
Jürgen (Hg.) “Sprache der Geschichte”.
(Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien
62.) 3-26. München: R. Oldenbourg.
O'Gorman, Edmundo. 1972. “Cuatro historiadores
de Indias. Siglo XVI. México: Conaculta.
Salas, Alberto Mario. 1959. Tres cronistas de
Indias. Pedro Mártir de Anglería; Gonzalo
Fernández de Oviedo; Fray Bartolomé de las
Casas. México: FCE.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Mariana España is a lecturer at the Department
of Romance Languages and Literatures at the
University of Bonn. She earned a M.A. in
Romance Linguistics, Musicology and European
and Latin American Art History from the
University of Heidelberg. Her teaching and
research interests include Spanish as a Second
Language, German-Spanish Translation,
Historical Linguistics and Latin American
Cultural Studies. She teaches both
undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
Page Updated: 07-Mar-2014