For many years I have loved the word “provenance”. The first time I ever heard it, its meaning was clear from context, and it has given me a reassuring feeling ever since.
The provenance of any historical object (whether a book, a painting, or a piece of furniture) is the verifiable history of the chain of custody of that object. But I’ve also seen it used in slightly more abstract ways.
For example, we can talk about the provenance of a famous quote. Are we talking about the original quote by its proper author, or was its text or attribution altered somewhere along the way when nobody was paying attention?
I also like the way “provenance” sounds like “providence”. So there is that subtle association with the idea of a divine being or beings in a well-ordered Universe looking out for us. Reassuring indeed.
So I was delighted this week to see the following headline in an article in The New York Times: “Are These Artifacts Plundered or Proven?”
Aha, I thought, it turns out that the verb corresponding to “provenance” is “to prove”. An historical artifact has been “proven” if you can reliably trace its historical chain of custody.
The word “proven” is not used anywhere else in the Times article, but that one use makes the point. I guess it makes sense. I had just never noticed it before.
You learn something new every day!