Philology

Rosetta Stone, a stela written in three languages, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic, demotic and Greek, which served the egyptologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphical writing.

The philology (from the Latin philologĭa, and this from the Greek φιλολογία philología, 'love or interest in words') is the study of written texts, through which an attempt is made to reconstruct, as faithfully as possible, the original meaning of these with the support of the culture that underlies them.

Philological work is close to hermeneutics, at least to the extent that it interprets meaning, and therefore makes use of the study of language, literature and other idiomatic manifestations, insofar as they constitute the expression of a cultural community certain or of several, or of mere individuals. Philology is usually understood as either the study of languages and literatures, as well as the corresponding culture of their speakers, or the diachronic or eidetic study of literary texts or even of any vestige of written language or language in general.

In its broadest and fullest sense, especially in the modern Romanesque and Germanic traditions, philology is the general term that designates the study of natural languages and thus encompasses both the disciplinary series of the science of language or linguistics (historical linguistics, theoretical-descriptive linguistics, and applied linguistics), one of the two great philological series, like the other formed by the science of literature (that is, the history of literature, literary theory, and literary criticism), according to come to symmetrically establish the development of the criteria of "real science". Consequently, this represents not only the integration of classical rhetoric and poetics (something evident since Antiquity), and also modern ones, but also the complete integration of all those internal methodologies, already strongly transversal and shared, such as, above all, comparatistic, comparative grammar or comparative literature, already technically restrictive and particularizing such as ecdotics or textual criticism.

In this last aspect, moreover, philology, technically founded for the West in the Museum of Alexandria, has gradually taken over during the second half of the century XX the instruments provided by the digital media, which have transformed the applicability and even the results (in the case of hypertext) of textual critical work and text editing in general.

Philology, within which a distinction is usually made between general philology and particular philologies (approximately corresponding to languages or language families or cultural regions) together constitutes the thousand-year-old, most extensive, foundational and multipliedly cultivated disciplinary sector of the sciences human.

Greek and Hellenistic Philology

Among several considerations, the one that conceived the work of someone dedicated to the explanation of texts from the different possible points of view was gaining ground, an activity that began as a noble hobby cultivated with more or less success and, to a certain extent, in an unprofessional way. Both grammar (grammatiké) and philology are related disciplines to no small extent, although each one will acquire degrees of specialization and the latter denomination will end up enjoying the more comprehensive and inclusive defining capacity of the former. Although to a different degree, the same thing happens with respect to Rhetoric, to a lesser extent with respect to Poetics.

Sometimes "Hellenistic philology" wanting to designate "Greek philology" in its broadest sense, but the qualification of "Hellenistic" it is preferable to be restricted to the certain late period and culture of the classical Greek language, otherwise scattered and often intermingled with Christianity. Authors as eminent as Longinus, Philo of Alexandria or Plotinus correspond to this period.

The first philologists in the restrictive sense were the Alexandrians (III century BC), disciples of the sophists, whose most outstanding representative is Aristophanes of Byzantium (III century BC), founder of a method that his disciple Aristarchus of Samothrace, director of the Library of Alexandria, later applied to the study of Homer's poems. These first philologists developed, in the Library of Alexandria, an important editorial activity, focused on copying the manuscripts of the most important and representative authors of the past, whose texts were cleaned of errors and interpreted in accordance with certain rules. In the hands of the Alexandrians, philology thus became a set of systematic and ordered knowledge, although broad and shallow, since the philologist had to possess not only linguistic and literary knowledge, but also historical, geographical, artistic, rhetorical knowledge., etc. That is why he was considered the ideal person both to explain the texts and to reconstruct, modernize and restore them.

The first Grammar (Techne Grammatiké), that of Dionysus of Thrace, is an excellent example of the breadth and diversity of philological tasks, whether grammatical if we take this word in its limited contemporary sense, or critical and literary What would end up being generically called "philology" He began by dealing, on the one hand, with the correct reading of the texts and, on the other, with the fixation, purification and exegesis of them. The experiences acquired and the materials used in this activity would be collected in lexicons, repertoires, inventories, etc. Philology thus becomes, in the Alexandrian era, an encyclopedic discipline that covers teachings of grammar, rhetoric, history, epigraphy, numismatics, bibliography, metrics, etc. The philologists trained in this way are, par excellence, cultured men who bring together, even in a schematic way, the knowledge of their time.

Latin Classical Period

Rome assimilated the methods of the Caesarians and continued the work undertaken by them; This was the case with Varro (I century BC), for example. In imperial times, those who study, criticize and comment on the masterpieces of Latin culture proliferate, calling themselves philologists or grammarians, a voice that will gradually supplant the first until it disappears. Indeed, the term philology will be used little in the Late Empire, coinciding with the decline of studies of this type, which almost completely disappear from this moment and throughout the Middle Ages. Despite this, it is important to remember the figures of the Latin Servius Macrobius (IV century) and, much later, the Byzantine Photius (IX century); The edition of the Suidas (X century) Byzantine following Alexandrian methods can also be highlighted.

The Latin era built the great synthesis of disciplines with philological roots through Rhetoric, as it could not be otherwise, that is, thanks to Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria at the end of the century I. This powerful construction, which also fused humanistic culture and therefore education, would determine the medieval course, grammaticalized and rhetorized poetics, a process that will only be dismembered after the end of the traditionalist and dialectical currents, so to speak intricately medieval, in virtue of the new vision of the Poetrias, already emancipated from the persistent grammatical survival of Donato and Prisciano. Dante's De Vulgari Eloquentia , unpublished at his time, was a glimpse that was slow to locate his own path. Patristics, especially Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine, must be recognized not only for the integration of Greco-Latin culture and philological knowledge in the new Christianized world, but for the creation by it of a rhetoric, a philology and translation studies that they would come together in the work of Erasmus of Rotterdam. On the other hand, the updating of Cicero will represent the new Renaissance Rhetoric or Eloquentia.

Humanism

The culture of the Renaissance and, above all, of Humanism, constitutes, whether in its more civic (Eugenio Garin) or more philological (Kristeller) interpretation, the great establishment of modern philology and the first great domain and collection of classical sources. Much has been discussed about the medieval importance of the so-called Proto-Renaissance, or the distinction between several Pre-Renaissances, one of which could be understood as specifically philological. The importance of the academic operation carried out by Charlemagne is beyond doubt and relative to what we call the history and creation of the cathedral schools and the universities themselves.

As is well known, the creation of the printing press and the publication of classic texts in this new medium meant something similar to a cultural revolution extended to all areas of knowledge and the possibilities of its diffusion. If the Four Hundred was the prodigious age of art and its theory, the Five Hundred was that of Poetics and Criticism (Minturno, Escaligero, Castelvetro), but all this time was generally that of philological knowledge, at least since the masters of Petrarch. It can be said that the bibliographical passion was established in the destination sought to restore the Greco-Latin classics and the scriptural texts. During the XV century, characters as important and disparate as Aldo Manuzio or Angelo Poliziano had pointed the way of dedication to the study of the classics, whose style they imitate and whose texts they edit. The recovery of classical texts was possible because during the Middle Ages, European monasteries dedicated themselves to studying and archiving them. The 16th century is for philological studies in a broad sense, the time perhaps above all of Julius Caesar Escaliger, who continues among other things the "paragon" (original basis of Comparatistic or Comparative Literature) in the virtuoso tradition of Dionysus of Halicarnassus. It is an enormous philological course that crosses from Salutati to Pontano, from Bracciolini and Valla to Bocaccio, Plethón or Ficino. And this is also demonstrated by Henri Estienne, or Erasmus of Rotterdam, who takes up and elevates the Jeronimian tradition, or Nebrija and the foundation of the new language of America.

18th century

In the 18th century, the Enlightenment and the renewed interest in science in general revive or establish a new stage for philological interest. Richard Bentley establishes classical studies at the University of Cambridge, giving a definitive boost to philological studies; For the first time, it can be said, Alexandrian philology is surpassed through the theorization of the existence of the digamma in the Homeric texts. It is a stage of correction of deteriorated or distorted texts, accommodating them to the style of their authors (usus scribendi) and to the circumstances of their time of origin.

In the last quarter of the 18th century, the term "philology" it is rescued by Friedrich August Wolf, considered in this sense the father of modern philology. Wolf, in effect, opens an important new period for the history of linguistic disciplines in a broad sense. Ferdinand de Saussure, considered Wolf's philology as a "scientific movement", whose object of study is not only the language but also the fixation, interpretation and commentary of texts, which leads him to deal with literary history, customs, institutions, etc., using their own method: criticism. These philological investigations, according to Saussure, would have the merit of having paved the way for historical linguistics.

But the last quarter of the seventeenth century is markedly the moment of creation, by the "Escuela Universalista Española del siglo XVIII", this is Lorenzo Hervás (Catálogo de las Lenguas) and Juan Andrés (Origin, progress and current state of all literature), from Comparative Linguistics and Universal Literary History and Comparative or Comparative Literature, respectively. It is the great modern impulse of a tradition that in different ways comes directly from Dionysus of Halicarnassus, Scaliger and Erasmus.

19th century

German philology of the XIX century, together with Aesthetics and Philosophy in general, represents one of the greatest moments of the culture of humanity. After Wilhelm von Humboldt, the zenith of Linguistics, the XIX century will shape the development of comparative philology within the framework of New German Humanism. The publication, in the middle of the century, of the first Comparative Grammar by Franz Bopp, served to demonstrate that an advanced process of comparison between languages could be carried out. Comparative philology can be considered to a large extent a direct consequence of the romantic movement. The desire for knowledge of the past, so typical of Romanticism, contributed to creating the historicist mentality that was necessary for it, while the desire to know the soul of the people, on the other hand, also typically romantic, led to historiographical evolution, philosophical and philological applied to a new study of their languages and literatures. Thanks to such conditioning, the romantics looked towards the classical languages and literatures. And, in the study of classical languages, the historical-comparative method gave excellent results in the reconstruction of a language of which no written texts were preserved, but which could be presupposed by the comparison of various European and Asian languages, especially Sanskrit.: Proto-Indo-European. Romantic exoticism also meant the first great opening to East Asia, which was to be so important for the great philology contained in Max Müller's Comparative Mythology. Very soon, the evolution of the new romantic philology, supported by an exemplary solid tradition in Germany itself since the time of Lessing, had been incorporated into the nascent scientific epistemology. Nineteenth-century philology determined one of its centers of interest in the languages and literatures of the Romance peoples, to whose study it applied the methods of classical philology. This gave rise to the actual birth of Romance philology. In ecdotics, the philologist Karl Lachmann devised and applied a procedure to scientifically reconstruct lost texts through the comparison or collation of common errors, which in his honor will be called the Lachmanian method.

20th century

The 20th century saw the birth and strong development of radically neo-neopositivist formal and structural linguistics, especially from from the Course transmitted by Ferdinand de Saussure. In this sense, it would probably be necessary to distinguish between philology and this type of technologically inclined linguistics and the wide range of their schools and models. It is not necessary to forget, however, the subsistence of a dispersed idealistic linguistics, like the eminent case of Karl Vossler, a disciple of Benedetto Croce, just as it is necessary to remember regarding the fields of Literary Science. But the fact, however, is that the last quarter of the XX century showed signs of a clear shift from the formalist schools towards pragmatic domain and, on the other hand, made clear the already undeniable vanishing of such technological projects. In any case, philology had continued its work, perhaps somewhat self-absorbed or closed, centered on written texts, but also definitely open to the more synchronous aspects of the oral tradition as well as to new circumstances, both theoretical and critical as well as instrumental. brought about by digital media.

Methodological fields of application of philology

Philology, in its most characteristic or restricted sense, but within the scope of general philology, has had and has various tasks:

• Comparison of languages and literature. Since the centuryXVIII, and as a disciplinary establishment from the 19th, the comparative philology sought to study the relationship between different languages. Thus, the similarities between the Sanskrit and the European languages (observed for the first time at the beginning of the centuryXVI) led to speculation about the possibility of the existence of a common previous language from which all proceeded, the proto-indoeuropeo. For its part, literary comparison, which was born as a method thanks to Dionisio de Halicarnaso, the father of the literary Criticism, unfolds along the humanistic tradition and initiates its modern era, as well as the comparative linguistics, immediately defined as comparative philology, also in the Seven hundred, especially as a consequence of the realizations of the Spanish Universalist School of the eighteenth century.
• Text reconstruction. Philological science, as "Contextual Criticism" (sometimes also called Textology), deals with the reconstruction of the original texts (constitutio) of an author, based on the study of the different copies (examination) or transmission of preserved manuscripts, in order to determine variants or errors and their classes and proceed to correct them (emendatio). It also deals with determining the literary paternity of a text (authorship), its date of composition (datation, either by language or not), its complete genealogy (stemetc. It is the eminent and complex case, for example, of the reconstruction of the first versions of the Christian Gospels and, in general, of the Bible, and also with notable preference the medieval texts.
• Echotic or textual edition. Ecdotic actually comes usually to integrate or confuse in the process of the Textual Criticism. The philological activity also focuses relevantly on the editing of the texts of classic and modern authors, accompanying these of the corresponding critical apparatus (anotations and variants), which aims to determine and offer the reader with strict rigor the textual reality of the works and even, accessing the field of the Literary Criticism or interpretation, the cultural and vital background that subdues the text.

The disciplinary field of philology

Historically, philology, rather than being related or confused with other disciplines, has been underlined in the preference of some of its parts, which in the end are only part of its own configuration and therefore of its fuller identity. horizon and meaning. It is worth noting the difficult relationship during the XX century of the more characteristically philological sphere with a certain structural and formalist Linguistics. But it is also worth emphasizing, and now in a more stable way, the philological relationship with Hermeneutics and with History and, evidently, the History of Literature (and in general the Science of Literature: together with literary historiography, Theory and Literary Criticism, disciplines through which philology reaches its full-length status, but which, similarly to Linguistics, also suffered during the XX, in large sectors, of a complicated formalist technical situation and consequently also of difficult philological neighbourhood).

The following are some aspects in which the fields of Philology and Linguistics differ, in order to establish their main differences and more easily recognize their areas of research:

Both philology and linguistics are sciences responsible for the study of language and the different (con)texts in which it is manifested. As language sciences, one relies on the other to study phenomena present in a textual discourse, just as the linguistic field draws on knowledge of the philological discipline to fulfill specific purposes. For example, Linguistics is based on elements of philological research related to language, such as the study of the historical character and sociocultural context of a certain people to address the linguistic-grammatical configuration that concerns the language and cultural expressions of said population.

Now, the points of contact and the dividing lines between the disciplinary fields of Linguistics and Philology have been a topic of debate since the last century as both sciences monopolized certain areas of knowledge. On the one hand, a sector of the academy has considered Linguistics and Philology as autonomous sciences; while, on the other, the difficulty in determining the limits and relationships that exist between the two has been manifested. Given the situation, this section expands the main differences between the two sciences.

Philology, seen as the science that studies the oral and written manifestations of a people in a historical-cultural framework, is related to other disciplines from which it draws; for example, with history, since the inputs that it provides are essential to understand social, political, economic and cultural aspects of a people that used a certain language and that produced cultural manifestations from it. So, the work of the professional in philology not only covers knowledge about letters and literature, but also about geography, culture, sociology, humanities, among many others. Quirós (2001) defines philology as "the capture-understanding of the content of a text, through linguistic-grammatical analysis, tending towards its historical, cultural and, mainly, literary interpretation" (p. 232).

Despite the fact that linguistics and philology converge in various ways such as the study of language, the approach to texts and the approach to auxiliary disciplines such as grammar, in the current debate both are autonomous sciences with defined objects of study, different working methods and specific areas of specialization. In any case, from the academy it is proposed that both sciences collaborate with each other and that they contribute knowledge to humanistic development in general.

Dissimilarities between linguistics and philology

• Criticism

The critical aspect is one of the main differences established by theorists between linguistics and philology. Already from the approaches of Saussure (1945) it was specified that the philological intention to interpret and comment on the works oriented this science towards a method that was its own: criticism. In this way, the need to explain a text and conceive it as a whole that would account for particular aspects of a people motivated the appearance of textual criticism, a tool that made possible the reconversion of the writings to the closest state of their original and ensured their validity. veracity (González, 2003).

While in philology criticism constitutes a core element by allowing the establishment of the multiple meanings of a text (Quirós, 2001), in Linguistics this aspect occurs to a lesser extent, since its main occupation is the systematic study of human language and the specific ways in which it is carried out (Coseriu, 1986). To carry out this task, this science is in charge of assessing linguistic facts as phenomena that can be described and analyzed, not from a critical approach, but oriented towards the global understanding of both oral and written linguistic manifestations.

• The normative nature

Another dissimilarity that is related to criticality is the treatment of the normative nature of language in both sciences. On the one hand, philology focuses on the normatively correct use of language by trying to establish the most prestigious way to express itself in written and oral records. This responds to the principle of functionality proposed by Andrés Bello (quoted in Cartagena, 2014) who postulates language as a system that operates from the sum and relationship of its components. In this sense, the philological task seeks to know the appropriate way to use language and thus establish a normative use.

On the other hand, normativity is not an essential criterion for Linguistics, since its greatest interest lies in studying language as the realization of language. For example, the International Phonetic Alphabet makes it possible to record the different sounds from which phonological words are formed, and even the various allophones of the same phoneme. The motivation, then, does not deal with the normatively correct way of making a certain word, but with understanding it as part of a phenomenon, phonetic-phonological in this case, that can be described. For Saussure (1945) it is clear that "the matter of linguistics is constituted in the first place by all the manifestations of human language (...)." (p. 34), which is why this science, far from providing guidelines for the proper use of a language, is inclined to recognize and investigate the various achievements at all levels of the language (morphosyntax, phonetics, phonology and lexicon) as a product of linguistic diversity.

• The object of study

Likewise, and according to what has been proposed by some theorists, linguistics and philology differ in the means in which their object of study is manifested. Hjelmslev (quoted in González, 2003) affirms in his glossematic theory that although both sciences study language, philology is interested in studying it in texts as a form of historical and literary knowledge; while Linguistics is dedicated to analyzing it from a structural or systematic level. In addition to this, Lausberg (quoted in González, 2003) postulates that the work of the philologist focuses on the writings themselves and that of the linguist on the language or a certain language as an instrument for use by the human being.

In these terms, both linguistics and philology contribute knowledge to society from various fields of study. On the one hand, through branches of applied linguistics, it is possible to establish relationships between society and language, establish sound patterns that provide data for the resolution of judicial cases, and study the connections that exist between language and the brain. On the other hand, the criticism and textual analysis carried out by philology contribute inputs to the investigations of some social sciences, but also establish normative uses of the language and thus facilitate communication processes and contribute to the interaction between the linguistic context and readers social.

Likewise, it is worth noting the approach to language carried out by both sciences, not only in strictly linguistic terms, but also in social, cultural and historical terms. Beyond being a distinctive ability, language constitutes a core element to establish communication processes, structure thought and build learning in people. In a society that privileges the development of pure sciences over the human ones, Linguistics and Philology become crucial disciplines in the defense of language and its artistic-cultural manifestations as those instruments of use that have accompanied humanity since its origins..

Regarding hermeneutics, philology is confused with it to the extent that both seek the meaning of texts or their interpretation. But in this the Literary Criticism has to be understood as well as a hermeneutic particularization. Both philology and its linguistic type specification deal with the same object of study: human language. But the basic difference consists in the textual critic's preference frequently assigned to the philological, its more particular and reconstructive inquiry, fixation of texts, which becomes ecdotic, as opposed to the linguistic interest in language itself and the use of texts solely as one more means of knowledge of this.

For their part, history and philology collaborate in the reconstruction of historical facts, but while the former deals, effectively, with the reconstruction of facts, aiding, in this case, the philological method and other media and disciplines, the second tries to situate the specific texts at a certain time, using, in this case, historical knowledge.

In reality, Philology, both in its general sense relative to natural language texts and in its particularized diachronic and ecdotic sense, shares its object with the disciplinary series of Literary Science, which is primarily Literature as that texts constituted in units or groups of textual units "highly elaborated".

Classification

In the full field of the discipline, of the set of disciplinary fields and above the methodology, it is necessary to distinguish between general philology and particular philologies. It could be said that there are as many philologies as there are cultures, or as languages, but these are not corresponding magnitudes, nor are they sometimes independent. It is necessary to underline, apart from the Egyptian world (Egyptology), above all the two great Asian philological cultures, Hindu and Chinese, and from the latter all the range that derives from it (Korean, Japanese...). Both Indology and Sinology are generally conceived as philology in a broad sense. The same should be said of Koreanology and Japanology or Japanology. On the other hand, apart from Arabic philology, with respect to the sub-Saharan African world, it is necessary to underline that Africanism is based on originally oral languages and cultural areas, without writing, that is to say, its philological configuration can only be conceived from the application modern, whether from the autochthonous languages or from the imported or colonial European ones.

In the European tradition there are several major fundamental philological fields, some of which, as will be indicated later, have had a very important extra-European projection:

• Ancient classical or Greek and Latin Philology and Survivals, the foundation of Western culture and their respective philological fields.
• Biblical or escritistic philology, partly associated with classical philology, but also to Hebrew philology (in itself part of the larger branch of semitic philology) by virtue of the history of the sacred text, of which the new Testament derives the qualification of Neotestamentary philology next to that of veterotestamentary. These distinctions, historically and conceptually, are linked to Hermeneutic discipline.
• German or germanistic philology, which also concerns several Central European regions, especially Austria.
• English philology, sometimes called Anglistics, later Anglo-American by intercontinental geographical expansion.
• Slavic or Slavic Philology, formed by all the languages of this field, from Russian, Polish and Ukrainian to Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak or Croatian.
• Romanesque or Romantic philology, formed by the entire family of neo-Latin or Romanesque languages. This and the European aforesaids have often received the denomination of modern philology, by obvious opposition to the classic, constituted by the dead languages.

Within the great Romanesque family, Italian philology and French philology have a great national dimension. Unlike these, and others of a smaller scope such as Romanian philology, Portuguese philology, which has become inseparable from Galaica as Galician-Portuguese philology, has a great Brazilian American and to some extent Mozambican African projection. Even more than the latter, Spanish philology as Hispanic has had and configures a very extensive American or Hispano-American projection. For this reason, the name Hispanic is more appropriate for Spanish philology, since it directly concerns the heritage and living reality of more than five hundred million speakers around the world.

• Hispanic or hispanic philology is the designation that takes as a log the Spanish language, projection of the Castilian, has its great dimension in the Hispanic America. Hispanic philology has an earlier basis represented by iberistics and is intimately linked to the Portuguese by Galician and modern Galician or Galician philology, as well as the Catalan Romanesque variant and its modern Catalan philology. Linguistically much more particularized, important for iberistics, even in isolation, is the Basque language (or Basque, Basque, Basque, Basque), not Romanesque and of undetermined origin, whose cooficiality in the corresponding peninsular region has led to a Basque philology. In broad sense of culture, the Hispanic designation covers the above and other medieval elements, also neo-Latin and, as hispanic philology, it should be observed its rigorous relevance, even current, with respect to the Sefardí language, some peculiar and interesting derivations, as well as the African equatorial Guinean, the Saharawi and, on the other hand geographically very distant, Asian, the base of the Tachola language, or Thus, Philippism, at least in part, can be considered a branch of hispanism. But of course, the great conformation of Hispanic philology is the consequence of America and, in any case, is complemented or coincided with Hispanism studies.

General bibliography

• Andrés, J., (1782-1799), Origin, progress and current status of all literature, Madrid, Verbum, 1997-2002, 6 vols.
• Haro Aullion, P. (ed.), Theory of the Literary Criticism, Madrid, Trotta, 1994.
• Bernabé Pajares, A., Manual of textual critique and edition of Greek textsMadrid, Coloquio, 1992.
• Blecua, A., Textual Criticism Manual, Madrid, Castalia,1983.
• Cartagena, N. (2014). Don Andrés Bello's contribution to modern linguistics and philology. Philology Bulletin, 49(1), 135-148. https://scielo.conicyt.cl/
• Cavallo, G., (1975), Books, publishers and public in the ancient world, Madrid, Alianza, 1995.
• Coseriu, E. (1986). Introduction to linguistics. https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/academicos/Introduccion%20a%20la%20linguistica.pdf
• Crespillo, M. The idea of the limit in PhilologyMalaga, Analecta Malacitana, 1999.
• Curtius, E. R. (1948), European Literature and Latin Middle AgesMexico, FCE, 1955, 2 vols.
• Fuhrmann, M. (1973-1992), The poetic theory of Antiquity. Aristotle-Horacio-'Longino', Madrid, Dykinson, 2011.
• Gelb, I. J. (1952), History of Writing, Madrid, Alianza, 1976, 1.a ed.
• Graf, F. (ed.), Introduzione alla filologia latina, Rome, Salerno, 2003.
• González, R. (2003). Ancient History and Philology. Digital Tones, No. 6. https://digitum.um.es/digitum/handle/10201/50363
• Gumbrecht, H. U. (2003), The Powers of Philology, Mexico, Universidad Iberoamericana, 2007.
• Henríquez Ureña, P. (1945), Cultural and literary history of Hispanic America, Madrid, Verbum, 2007.
• Hervás, L. (1800-1805). Catalogue of Languages, Madrid, Atlas, 1979, 5 vols.
• Kroll, W., History of Classical Philology, Barcelona, Labor, 1953.
• Macías Villalobos, C.; Ortega Vera, J. M.; Jiménez Muñoz, J. L., Current Overview of Hispanic and Classical Philology in the Network, Seville, Alfar, 2006.
• Marcos Marín, F.A., Computers and HumanitiesMadrid, Gredos, 1994.
• Milá and Fontanals, M. (1857-1868), Aesthetics and Literary Theory, Madrid, Verbum, 2002.
• Millares Carlo, A., Introduction to the History of Book and LibrariesMexico, FCE, 1971, 1.a ed.
• Moorhouse, A., History of the alphabetMexico, FCE, 1961.
• Numerous, T. and Vespignani, A. (eds.), Informatica per le scienze umanisticheBologna, Il Mulino, 2003.
• Orduña, G., Echotic. Problem of editing textsKassel, Reichenberger, 2000.
• Pasquali, G. (1934), Storia della tradizione e crítica del testoFlorence, Sansoni, 1974.
• Pfeiffer, R. (1968), History of Classical Philology, Madrid, Gredos, 1981, 2 vols.
• Quirós, M. A. (2001). The Philology - The Philologist I The παιδεία (Paideia) – Humanitas. Revista de Filología y Lingüística, 27(2), 231-253. https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/filyling/article/view/21029
• Reyes, A., (1941-1942), Criticism in the Athenian Age. The Ancient RhetoricMexico, FCE, 1961 (O.C., XIII).
• Reynolds, L.D. and Wilson, N.G., Copists and philologists. The Ways of Transmission of Greek and Latin Literatures, Madrid, Gredos, 1986.
• Righi, G., History of Classical Philology, Barcelona, Labor, 1967.
• Roberts, C.H. - Skeat, T. C., The Birth of the CodexLondon, Oxford U. P., 1987.
• Saussure, F. (1945). General language course. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v strangerpid=sites strangersrcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxwc2ljb2VzY2FsYW50ZXxneDoxOTU2NjhlYzg2NTI3MDEw
• Thompson, E. M., A Handbook of Greek and Latin PalaeographyChicago, Ares Publishers, 1975.
• Timpanaro, S. (1963), The genesi of the Lachmann MethodTurin, UTET, 2004.
• Wilson, N., Byzantine philosophers. Intellectual life and education in Byzantium, Madrid, Alianza,1994.