Textual Criticism at the Millennium

at theMillennium TextualCriticism by G. THOMAS TANSELLE CRITICISM IS ONE OF THE FEW SCHOLARLY FIELDS THAT forit has be...

Author: Thomas Tanselle

158 downloads 1089 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

at theMillennium TextualCriticism by G. THOMAS TANSELLE

CRITICISM IS ONE OF THE FEW SCHOLARLY FIELDS THAT

forit has been can be talkedaboutin termsof millennia, in an organizedfashionforat leasttwenty-three practiced hundred yearis a naturalpointforretroyears.A millennial and and the recent most theturnto one,marking stock-taking, spection a thetwenty-first at came moment unlikeany century, fundamentally ofthefield.Although otherin thelonghistory to differing approaches in at issues have been the ascendent mowhatever might perennial past beforethelastdecade mentsonechoosestolookat,all thosemomentsortwoofthetwentieth wouldhaveshareda dominant concern centuryas thebasisforediting.Duringthelastpartof forauthorialintention came thetwentieth a focuson textsas socialproducts however, century, oftextualtheory, ifnoteditions tocharacterize thebulkofthediscussion ofwritings on textualmatters themselves. Forthefirst time,themajority lack a interest and often active of in, of,approachdisapproval expressed andit promoted instead ofindividual creators; ingtextsas theproducts to theforms oftextsthatemerged fromthesocialprocess leading public forms accessible toreaders. thatweretherefore distribution, butit hasnotbeen shifthasproducedsomebenefits, This dramatic Boththeturnawayfromtheauthorand theeman unmixedblessing. and culturalcritireflect trendsin literary phasison textualinstability between cismand thusare evidenceof thegrowinginterconnections on eachother.Furthermore, fieldsthatfortoolonghadlittleinfluence contowardthenonauthorial thathasnowbeendirected theattention of hence toward the effect totextualconstitution tributions design (and is longoverdue.That authorsdo not features on readers'responses) actalonetobringtheirworkstothepublichasofcoursealways generally beenunderstood, as hasthefactthatpubliclyavailabletexts-however are the muchtheymayhavedepartedfromtheirauthors'intentionson influential. Butfarlesshadbeenwritten textsthatwerehistorically and it thanon theimportance ofwhatauthorsintended, thesematters be redressed. washightimethatthisimbalance

2

STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHY

cameat a price.One is that Thesewelcomedevelopments, however, withthefashionable infiltrated been of textual critics has theprose many thatoftensubof and with of buzz-words literary a style writing theory of Another is the forcarefulthought. stitutes complexity expression of sociallyproducedtextsintheimportance notionthatrecognizing Thosewho,quitecorvolvesrejecting thestudyofauthorial intentions. socialtextshaveuntothevalueofstudying havecalledattention rectly, thehistorioftenundercut theiraccomplishment bydenying fortunately ofeverytextand by oftheearlieststagesin thehistory cal significance "Romantic" in thebeliefthatlabelingauthorialintention persisting Still another and "idealistic" its unworthiness. effectively suggests probtextshasled toa considerable lemis thattheemphasis on documentary oftheactivity ofcriticaleditingandthe amountofunfounded criticism I thesepoints illustrate editors. shall "mediation" byscholarly practiced on herebyexamining in somedetailmanyof thetheoretical writings in the textualcriticism andscholarly Englishlanguage editing published that centurywritings duringthelastfiveyearsor so of thetwentieth at themillennium.1 forman indextothestateoftextualcriticism ofbooks ofmaterial tolookat,forthequantity Thereisno shortage thehighlevelitreached inthisfieldhasshownnodeclinefrom andessays severaldecades.Bookshaveof courseappeared duringthepreceding worthsingling effort but one publishing of publishers, froma variety of MichiganPressseries"EditorialTheoryand out is theUniversity of begunin 1993underthe generaleditorship LiteraryCriticism," it inmorethana dozenvolumes, Now numbering GeorgeBornstein. booksin thefieldduringthisperiod, cludessomeofthemostimportant suchas JosephGrigely'sTextualterity (1995) and PeterL. Shillingsalsocomeout Texts(1997).2Essayson textualcriticism burg'sResisting Asalways, inanthologies. bothinperiodicals and,increasingly, regularly thebibliographical-society journalsare a morelikelyoutletthanthe and theory;and since 1984the annual criticism journalsof literary volumeoftheSocietyforTextualScholarship, Text,hasbeena major fromthe triedto be interdisciplinary venue.Althoughit hasusefully 1. This is the sixth in a series of essaysI have writtencoveringthe second half of the twentiethcentury;it, like the others,is limited to general theoreticalwritingsin English and does not attempt to deal with textual studies of particular authors or individual editions. The firstthree essays,published in Studies in Bibliography [SB] in 1975, 1981, and 1986,were broughtout in book formin 1987 as Textual Criticismsince Greg: A Chronicle, 1950-1985. The fourthand fifthappeared in SB as follows: "Textual Criticismand Literary Sociology,"S\B,44 (1991), 83-143; and "Textual Instabilityand Editorial Idealism," SB, revised form,was published as "Reflections 49 0996)! 1-60. (A portion of the last, in slightly, on ScholarlyEditing" in Raritan, 16.2 [Fall 1996],52-64.) 2. W. Speed Hill has discussedsevenof the firsteight volumes in the seriesin "Editorial Theory and LiteraryCriticism:Lamb and Wolf?",Review, 19 (1997), 37-64.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AT THE MILLENNIUM

3

itsimportance withthesixthvolume(1994), increased start, markedly Peter L. Shillingsburg, whena book-review edited wasintrosection, by matches booksand reviewers withskill duced.Shillingsburg generally and allowsreviewers to writesubstantial essays;theresultis thatText mediumin the is now the premierEnglish-language book-reviewing textualfield.3 in anthologies Therewereprobably, moreessays however, published thanin periodicals. The explosionofanthologies of originalessaysin thisfieldin theearly1990sdidnotabatein thelaterpartofthedecade, eachyear,someofthemderiving withanaverageofaboutfiveappearing durThe Michigan fromconferences.4 seriesaloneaddedsixanthologies of Toronto "Conference this the University ing period;5 long-running serieswasalsoaugmented on EditorialProblems" bysix;6andtheseries Editio the German includedone anofBeihefte journal publishedby was created in Another series byW. Speed thology entirely English.7 at the in 1998ofa secondvolumeofpapersdelivered Hill'spublication who had Two other scholars Text Renaissance Society meetings. English and Paul Cohen textual on edited matters, anthologies Philip previously wasresponsible out secondones,and D. C. Greetham brought Eggert, on A few were focused this volumes fortwoduring period.8 areas, specific 3. It mustalso be said thatTrevor Howard-Hill, as editorof Papers of the Bibliographical Societyof America,has done an excellentjob with reviews(especially,one is temptedto say,when he writesthem himself);but he cannot concentrateon textual matters,since the scope of his journal is much broader.Lengthyreviewsof documentaryeditionsalso regularly appear in DocumentaryEditing. 4. Several are entirelydevoted to individual authors and thus are outside the scope of the present essay. Many of the 1995-2000 volumes are recorded in notes 5-12 below, and some of themare taken up again at various later points in the essay. In the previous (1996) essayin thisseries(see note 1 above), I commentedon the anthologyphenomenonon pp. 18iq and discussedsome of the volumes fromthe early 1990son pp. 19-33. 5. ContemporaryGermanEditorial Theory,ed. Hans Walter Gabler, George Bornstein, and Gillian Borland Pierce (1995); Editing D. H. Lawrence: New Versionsof a Modern Author, ed. Charles L. Ross and Dennis Jackson (1995); The Literary Text in the Digital Age, ed. Richard J. Finneran (1996); The Margins of the Text, ed. D. C. Greetham(1997); A Poem ContainingHistory: Textual Studies in "The Cantos" ed. Lawrence S. Rainey (1997); and The Iconic Page in Manuscript,Print, and Digital Culture, ed. George Bornsteinand Theresa Tinkle (1998). 6. CriticalIssues in Editing Exploration Texts, ed. Germaine Warkentin(1995); Editing Early and Historical Atlases,ed. Joan Winearls (1995); Editing Texts fromthe Age of Erasmus, ed. Erika Rummel (1996); Music Discourse from Classical to Early Modern Times: Editing and TranslatingTexts, ed. Maria Rika Maniates (1997); Editing Women,ed. Ann M. Hutchison (1998); and Talking on the Page: Editing Aboriginal Texts, ed. Laura J. Murray and Keren D. Rice (1999). 7. Problems of Editing, ed. Christa Tansohn (Beihefte zu Editio 14, 1999). 8. New Ways of Looking at Old Texts, II: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society,1992-1996, ed. W. Speed Hill (1998); Texts and Textuality: Textual Instability, Theory,and Interpretation,ed. Philip Cohen (1997); The Editorial Gaze: Mediating Texts in Literature and the Arts,ed. Paul Eggertand Margaret Sankey (1998); ScholarlyEditing:

4


such as classics,Old and Middle English,Shakespeare,stemmatics, and electroniceditions.9But mosthad a vaguerkindof unity,withthecontributionsbeing related more or less directlyto a broad conceptual title.10Severalanthologieswere publishedas special numbersof jourthatformeddesignated nals,11and severalothersweremini-anthologies groupingswithinnumbersofjournals.12 A Guide to Research, ed. D. C. Greetham (1995); and The Margins of the Textt ed. Greetham (1997). (George Bornstein,however,holds the record, having edited two anthologies before 1995 an(^ two *n tne 1995~2oooperiod [see note 5 above].) 9. Editing Texts, Texte edieren,ed. Glenn W. Most (1998); New Approaches to Editing Old English Verse,ed. Sarah LarrattKeeferand KatherineO'Brien O'Keeffe(1998); Reading fromthe Margins: Textual Studies, Chaucer,and Medieval Literature,ed. Seth Lerer (1996; also published as a separate number of Huntington Library Quarterly,58.1); A Guide to Editing Middle English, ed. Vincent McCarren and Douglas Moffat(1998); Reading Readings: Essays on Shakespeare Editing in the Eighteenth Century,ed. Joanna Gondris (1998); Studies in Stemmatology,ed. Pieter van Reenen and Margot van Mulken, with Janet Dyk (1996); The Literary Text in the Digital Age, ed. Richard J. Finneran (1996); Electronic Text: Investigationsin Method and Theory,ed. KathrynSutherland (1997). 10. Such as Biographies of Books: The Compositional Histories of Notable American Writings,ed. JamesBarbour and Tom Quirk (1996); Essays on the Material Text and Literature in America,ed. Michele Moylan and Lane Stiles (1996); Editing the Text, ed. Marysa Demoor, Geert Lernout,and Sylviavan Peteghem(1998); Textual Formationsand Reformations,ed. Laurie E. Maguire and Thomas L. Berger(1998); Ma(r)king the Text: The Presentation of Meaning on the LiteraryPage, ed. Joe Bray,Miriam Handley, and Anne C. Henry (2000); and Textual Studies and the Common Reader: Essays on Editing Novels and Novelists,ed. Alexander Pettit (2000). 11. Textual Scholarship and American Literature," ed. Philip Cohen, Resources for AmericanLiteraryStudy,20.2 (1994 [but published later]), 133-263,a collectionincorporated in Cohen's 1997 anthology (see note 8 above); "Editing Novels and Novelists, Now," ed. Alexander Pettit, Studies in the Novel, 27.3 (Fall 1995), 251-450, four essays from which were included (some with revisions)in his 2000 anthologymentioned in the precedingnote; [special issue on genetic criticism],ed. Michael Riffaterreand Antoine Compagnon, Romanic Review, 86.3 (May 1995), 391-598; "Textual Shakespeare," ed. Graham Holderness and AndrewMurphy,CriticalSurvey,7.3 (1995),239-379; "Editing the LiteraryImagination," ed. Tom Quirk, Studies in the LiteraryImagination, 29.2 (Fall 1996), 1-107; "Genetic Criticism," ed. Claire Bustarret,Word & Image, 13.2 (April-June 1997), 103-222; "The Text as Evidence: Revising Editorial Principles," ed. Andrew Gurr et al., Yearbook of English Studies,29 (1999), 1-261; and "Making Texts forthe Next Century,"ed. Peter M. W. Robinson and Hans W. Gabler, Literary& Linguistic Computing,15.1 (2000), 1-120. 12. "A Force in His Field: Fredson Bowers's Wider Influence,"ed. Jo Ann Boydston et al., Text, 8 (1995), 25-100; "Teaching Textual Criticism,"ed. D. C. Greetham and W. Speed Hill, Text, 9 (1996), 135-174; "Forum: Editing Early Modern Texts," ed. Susan Zimmerman,Shakespeare Studies, 24 (1996), 19-78; and "Medieval Studies at the Millennium," Studies in Medievalism,9 (1997; "Medievalism and the Academy,I," ed. Leslie J. Workman, Kathleen Verduin, and David D. Metzger,1999), 228-261 (on electroniceditions). (On the subject of teaching,see also J. Paul Hunter, "Editing for the Classroom: Texts in Contexts," Studies in the Novel, 27 [1995], 284-294; C. W. Griffin,"Textual Studies and Teaching Shakespeare," in Teaching Shakespeare into the Twenty-FirstCentury,ed. Ronald E. Salomone [1997],pp. 104-111; and Bodo Plachta, "Teaching Editing- Learning Editing," and Rex Gibson, "Editing Shakespeare forSchool Students,"both in the 1999 Problems of Editing [see note 7 above], pp. 18-32, 180-199.)


5

It alsohappensthatduringthesecondhalfofthe1990sseveralcontributions weremadetothreebasicgenresofscholarly that publication textual Oneintroductory textbook wasbrought out support scholarship. in a revisededition;13fourcumulated checklists ofscholarspecialized 14and fourguidesto the of manushipwerepublished; transcription Another feature ofthisperiodwasthemounting critiscripts appeared.15 at librarians cismdirected fortheirwillingness to allowmicrofilms and tobesubstituted fororiginals. isvitaltotextual Thismatter digitizations whomusthaveaccessto originalphysical evidenceno matter scholars, 13. William ProctorWilliams and Craig S. Abbott'sAn Introductionto Bibliographical and Textual Studies,originallypublished in 1985,came out in a third edition in 1999. (An essay-lengthintroductionalso appeared during this time: W. R. Owens's "Editing Literary Texts," in A Handbook to LiteraryResearch, ed. Simon Eliot and W. R. Owens [1998],pp. 63-81, which uses mostof its briefspace for two extended examples.) 14. Of the four checklists,one is an expansion of a previouslypublished work: T. H. Howard-Hill's marvelouslythorough and admirably indexed Shakespearian Bibliography and Textual Criticism:A Bibliography(2000), an updated revisionof his 1971 volume (with coverageextended to 1995). (Among his other publications during this period was the 198089 volume [1999]of his Index to BritishLiteraryBibliography.)A related checklistis Jeremy Lopez's "An Annotated Bibliographyof Textual Scholarship in [non-Shakespearean]Elizabethan Drama, 1973-1998,"Research Opportunitiesin Renaissance Drama, 29 (2000), 17-76. The other two workshave a broader scope, and the more comprehensiveof the two is my Introduction to Scholarly Editing: Seminar Syllabus (1998), which attempts to provide basic reading lists for beginnersas well as an extensiverecord of the literatureof the field, including analytical bibliography.(I should note that a revised edition, expanded to 257 pages, was published in 2002; its listingof books and articlesfromthe 1995-2000period includes more items than are mentioned in the present essay.) The other checklistis clearly the least valuable of the four: William Baker and Kenneth Womack's Twentieth-Century Bibliography and Textual Criticism: An Annotated Bibliography (2000), containing 769 entriesdivided into six sections,in each of which the ploddingly annotated items are arranged alphabetically by author. It is hard to know who will findthis volume helpful: the - especiallyarranged and annotated as theyare- will 225 entriesunder "Textual Criticism" not readily guide a beginner into the field,and an advanced scholar will not wish to use such a restrictedlist to search forrelevant scholarship. 15. Michael Hunter, "How to Edit a Seventeenth-Century Manuscript: Principles and Practice," The SeventeenthCentury,10 (1995), 277-310; Michael E. Stevens and Steven B. Burg, Editing Historical Documents: A Handbook of Practice (1997); Mary-JoKline, A Guide to DocumentaryEditing (originallypublished in 1987 and revisedin 1998); and David L. Vander Meulen and G. Thomas Tanselle, "A Systemof Manuscript Transcription,"SB, 52 (1999), 201-212. The last of these criticizesthe other threefornot adequately distinguishing transcriptionfromemendation,since all threeallow the task of transcriptionto include the alteration of certain featuresof the manuscript texts. (The Vander Meulen-Tanselle piece also presentsa new formof inclusivenotation that avoids symbolsand permitsreaders easily to recognizethe finalreading at each point of revision.)I should perhaps call attention to another guide to transcription,even though it appeared after 2000: P. D. A. Harvey's Editing Historical Records (2001), which- despite being sensible in general and recognizing the dangers of normalization- does not entirelyavoid the problem of those three earlier works(allowing,forexample,categoriesof silentalterations).(Luciana Duranti's Diplomatics: New Uses foran Old Science [1998] deals exclusivelywith the archival managementand authenticationof documentsand does not take up so-called diplomatic transcription.)

6


whatapproach toeditingtheytake,sinceitisnecessary forstudying both A and audience wide became history. production reception acquainted whenthenovelist NicholsonBakerpublished an artiwiththeproblem British of the clein TheNewYorker detailing Library's disposal thelast of American surviving 1850 greatcollection postnewspapers ("Deadthat line,"24 July2000,pp. 42-61).16(One maynoteparenthetically textualcriticism itselfreacheda largeraudiencethanusualin thelate 1990sthroughthe stagingand publicationof Tom Stoppard'sThe Invention ofLove[1998],inwhichA. E. Housmanappearsas a character and speakssomeof thewittiest passagesfromhis editorialprefaces.)17 Threeoftherecurring themesduringthisperiodweretheapplication oftextualcriticism tononverbal theeditorialtraditions ofnonworks, I of the role in and the countries, editing. English-speaking computer shalltakeup eachofthesebeforeturning to someofthemoregeneral studiesoftextualissues. 16. I have writtenabout theeventssurrounding thispublicationin "The Librarians' Double-Cross," Raritan,21.4 (Spring2002),245-263,whichalso reviewsBaker'simportant relatedbook,Double Fold: Librariansand theAssaulton Paper (2001).Someof theearlier and Artifacts piecesin mycampaignto saveoriginalsare collectedin myLiterature (1998); thosefromtheperiodunderreviewhereare "The Futureof Primary Records,"pp. 96-123, and "Statement on theSignificance of Primary Records[forthe ModernLanguageAssocion theFutureof thePrintRecord!,"pp. 335-337. ation'sAd Hoc Committee ofattention to thehistory ofediting,such 17. Therewereother,iflesspublic,instances as Tim WilliamMachan,"Speght'sWorksand the Inventionof Chaucer,"Text,8 (1995), & Eighteenth145-170;JeanI. Marsden,The Re-ImaginedText: Shakespeare, Adaptation, Brewer, Literary Theory(1995);Charlotte Century Editing"PiersPlowman":The Evolution and Writer,"in Medievalof theText (1996);Alain Corbellari, "JosephBedier,Philologist ismand theModernistTemper,ed. R. HowardBlochand StephenG. Nichols(1996),pp. 269-285;MaryB. Speer,"ExhumingtheFirstGuide to EditingOld FrenchTexts: Prompsault'sDiscourssur les publicationslitteraires du moyen-dge and theControversy of 1835," Text,10 (1997),181-201;MarcelDe Smedt,"W. Bang Kaup,W. W. Greg,R. B. McKerrow and the Editionof EnglishDramaticWorks(1902-1914)," SB, 50 (1997),213-223;Carol Percy,"EarlierEditorialPracticevs. Later LinguisticPrecept:Some Eighteenth-Century Illustrations," EnglishLanguage Notes,34.3 (1997),23-39; MarcusWalsh, Shakespeare, ScholarMilton,and Eighteenth-Century ofInterpretative Literary Editing:The Beginnings of Virginia:The FirstFiftyYears, ship(1997);The Bibliographical Societyof theUniversity ed. David L. VanderMeulen(1998);ReadingReadings:Essayson Shakespeare Editingin the EighteenthCentury, ed. JoannaGondris(1998); MichaelE. Stevens,"'The MostImon TwentyYears of Changein HistoricalEditing," portantScholarlyWork':Reflections Editors, Documentary Editing,20 (1998),81-84,97; David George,"Eighteenth-Century n.s. 10 of Coriolanus,'* Critics,and Performers Analytical& Enumerative Bibliography, (1999),63-71;David L. VanderMeulen,"The EditorialPrinciplesof MartinusScriblerus," in The Cultureof theBook: EssaysfromTwo Hemispheres in Honourof WallaceKirsop, ed. David Garrioch,Harold Love,Brian McMullin,Ian Morrison, and MeredithSherlock (1999), pp. 173-181;Steven Escar Smith,"'The Eternal Verified':CharltonHinman and the Rootsof MechanicalCollation,"SB, 53 (2000),129-161;and Carlo M. Bajetta's editionof McKerrow's 1928SandarsLecturesin SB, 53 (2000),1-65.Alsoduringthisperiod JosephRosenblumeditedSir WalterWilsonGreg:A Collectionof His Writings (1998).


7

I hashistorically on textualcriticism thebulkofthewriting Although and one characfromthefieldsofclassics, religion, literature, emerged wasa broaderawareness ofthelastyearsofthetwentieth teristic century of thetextualproblemsthatexistin otherareasand a greaterinterThis disciplines. changeof ideasamongtextualscholarsin different in criticaleditingof the trendbeganconsiderably earlier,forinterest oftheCenter intheearlydevelopment wasreflected workofphilosophers volumeof theJohn Authors(withthefirst forEditionsofAmerican oftheAssociation in 1967),and thefounding Deweyeditionappearing betweenediout of discussions in forDocumentary Editing 1978grew More worksandthoseofthepapersofhistorical torsofliterary figures. for Textual of Association the the establishment recently, (in 1993) of the thegrowing in ArtHistorysymbolized recognition Scholarship And the texts. that use verbal all fields in of work textual importance overthe has madethispointrepeatedly Torontoseriesofanthologies on science,ecovolumesto theeditingof writings yearsbydevoting and music.18 nomics, exploration, areofcoursepartly Worksfromoraltraditions verbal,buttheyconand and setting; as such intonation, tainmanyotherelements, gesture, been an texts has to recapture suchworksfromtangible theattempt activefieldin thelatetwentieth owingmuchto theexcellent century, vision ofJohnMilesFoley,whosesubtleand comprehensive writings In thetextualstudyof in diversetraditions.19 efforts linksthescholarly 18. Editing Texts in the Historyof Science and Medicine, ed. Trevor H. Levere (1982); Editing Modern Ecotiomists,ed. D. E. Moggridge(1988); Critical Issues in Editing Exploration Texts (see note 6 above); Music Discourse from Classical to Early Modern Times (see note 6 above). The partially verbal genre of atlases has also been treated in Editing Early and Historical Atlases (see note 6 above). (On atlases, see also Mary Sponberg Pedley, "Atlas Editing in EnlightenmentFrance," Scholarly Publishing, 27 [1995-96], 100-117.) 19. His 1997 essay "Oral Tradition into lextuality," in lexts ana 1 extuanty (see note 8 above), pp. 1-24, is both a concise surveyof scholarlytrendsand also a manifestofor a way of reading that recognizesperformanceclues in the tangible text,allowing the text to "teach us to read it" (p. 15). (As the title of the essay suggests,he uses "text" only to refer to tangible texts. In my view, it would be preferable to regard the elements of the oral performanceas constitutinga text also; editors interestedin the oral work could then be described as attemptingto reconstructthe text of a performancefrom the text of a document. But my point is not a crucial one, since it only involves a matterof definition,and Foley's discussion is not affectedadverselyby his use of a differentdefinition.)The essay draws on his fullerargumentin The Singer of Tales in Performance(1995); see chapter 3, "The Rhetorical Persistenceof Traditional Forms,"pp. 60-98, where he speaks of the physical textas a "librettoforthe reader's performance"(p. 97), once one learns that "traditional formsand strategiespersistin texts as rhetoricallyactive signals" (p. 95). Foley also wrote the chapter on "Folk Literature,"a historicalaccount of editing in the field,for the 1995 anthologyScholarlyEditing (see note 8 above), pp. 600-626. For other recent instancesof linking oral and writtentraditions,see Margaret Clunies Ross, "Editing the Oral Text:

8

STUDIESIN BIBLIOGRAPHY

therehasbeen another verbalperformance works, drama, genreofpartly thevalueoftangibletextsthatreflect a similartrendto recognize perdominated In a fieldpreviously and a formance. bya literary emphasis thisshifthas beenpartof thelarger concernforauthorialintention, 20but as socially culturalproducts movement tounderstand constructed; to learnfromthemethodology of dramahavesomething of students thathavinga performance text whounderstand oral-tradition scholars, of theprocessof recovering thework, on paperis onlythebeginning ofmuchmorethanwords. whichconsists withthedrama,neverThe cinema,whichhasobvioussimilarities textualsituation, a verydifferent sincefilmrecordsthe thelessoffers nonverbal as wellas theverbalaspectsofthework,whichthusdo not froma script.21 haveto be reconstructed Partlyforthisreason,textual ofcinematic workshasnotinvolvedextensive debate(unlike criticism theverbalpartsshouldbe treatedas thefieldofdrama)overwhether and cinemado sharemanytextualissues,and literature. Yetliterature the textualcriticwhohasbrought oneexampleofa (primarily literary) theinterest whoin 1995contrasted of is HershelParker, twotogether intentions with the thwarted filmcritics in thesearchfordirectors' precritics ingoingbehindpublishedtexts byliterary vailinglackofinterest verbalelements, intentions.22 toauthorial Music,thoughoftenwithout onpaper,andtherehasbeena long initsuseofnotation islikeliterature workin music.A signofthegrowing ofeditorial tradition interchange of ideasbetweenthetwofieldswas theelectionof PhilipGossett(in of the Societyfor chargeof theVerdieditorialproject)as president ofhispresidential for1993-95andthepublication TextualScholarship in Text.23 address Medieval and Modern Transformations,"in The Editorial Gaze (see note 8 above), pp. 173192,and the 1999 Toronto volume, Talking on the Page (see note 6 above). 20. See my 1991 essay in this series (see note 1 above), pp. 122-128. In Shakespeare and the Authorityof Performance(1997), W. B. Worthen has offereda thoroughdiscussion of "basic questions about the page, the stage, and the acting of authority" (p. 4), drawing heavily on recenteditorial theory("Authorityand Performance,"pp. 1-43). 21. Of course, stage productions that have been filmedfall into the same categoryas cinematicworks(as far as this one point is concerned); but the number of such filmsis tiny in comparison to all the dramatic performancesthat could not have been, or were not, filmed.(And of course such a filmmay not show everynonverbal detail that would have been visible to a theateraudience, whereas in cinematicworks the nonverbal elements that are visible in a given version are by definitionthe only ones that exist in that particular versionof the work.) 22. "The Auteur-AuthorParadox: How Criticsof the Cinema and the Novel Talk about Flawed or Even 'Mutilated' Texts," Studies in the Novel (see note 11 above), 27 (1995), 413426. 23. "Knowing the Score: Italian Opera as Work and Play," Text, 8 (1995), 1-24. The same volume of Text also containsEllen J. Burns,"Opera as Heard: A Libretto Edition for Phenomenological Study," pp. 185-216. Other similar signs are Catherine Coppola, "The


9

to learn,fromRolfE. Du Rietz'sautobiographical It is interesting of the as he seesit) of his defiaccount development (or "discovery," nitionof"text,"thathe wasfirst inspired(somefifty yearsago) to think abouttextualmatters byhisloveofmusicand cinema.Sincethen,as has encompassed his manypublications all fields, attest,his thinking of "text"is restricted to worksthatuse intangible but his definition In hisview,to media:"A textis thesequencein a sequentialwork."24 "text" or to works like paintings nonsequential, "stationary," apply orat anyrateuseless,turn"makesthetextconceptnexttomeaningless intosheermockery" ingtheconceptof'textualcriticism' (pp.53-54).It one should exclude from textual is notclear,however, criticism why draftsor versionsof paintings(including as studying suchactivities ofa fresco thoseuncovered byX-ray)anddecidingwhattherestoration termforthis shouldinvolve.One couldofcoursethinkup a different buttodo so wouldobscuretheessential ofthesepuridentity purpose, and those called textual of thescholarstraditionally suits critics.Acby thepresenceofJamesBeck (a ceptanceof thispointis illustrated on theboardoftheSocietyfor criticoftheSistineChapelrestoration) TextualScholarship in the1990sand indeedbytheSociety's inclusion ofthefieldwithinitsinterdisciplinary mandate.25 Working Relationship between Elliot Carter and Bernard Greenhouse: Implications RegardingIssues of Text and Performance,"Text, 9 (1996), 315-325 (which cites as an analogy Philip Gaskell's discussionof Tom Stoppard in From Writerto Reader [1978]); and Robyn Holmes, "Australian Music Editing and Authenticity:'Would the Real Mrs Monk please stand up?'," in The Editorial Gaze (see note 8 above), pp. 209-226. The issues raised by recordingsand player-pianorolls have also been discussed in recent years: JeffBrownrigg, "The Art of Audio-Editing: Re-PresentingEarly Australian Vocal Recordings," in The Editorial Gaze (see note 8 above), pp. 193-208; Kenneth Womack, "Editing the Beatles: Addressingthe Roles of Authorityand Editorial Theory in the Creation of Popular Music's Most Valuable Canon," Text, 11 (1998), 189-205; and Andrew Durkin, "The Self-Playing Piano as a Site forTextual Criticism,"Text, 12 (1999), 167-188. 24. "The Definitionof 'Text,'" Text [Uppsala], 5.2 (1998), 50-69 (quotation frompp. 57 and 67). To him, thisdefinitionentails distinguishingtextsof documentsfromtextsin documents.The latter is the text that is part of a physical object; the formeris the same "sequence" (of wordsand punctuation) whereverit appears (this is what to him is a "real text" because if "text" means "sequence," and sequence is an abstract concept, a physical text cannot "belong to the textconcept proper" [p. 67].) I do not findthis elaboration necessary, forI see nothingillogical in speakingof (forexample) the identityof two textsin two documents. Sequence is simply the abstractconcept used to analyze a combination of elements, and it applies equally to tangibleand intangibleexpressionsof that combination. 25. The editors of Text saw fit,for example, to publish Jams C. Bell s The Critical Reception of Raphael's Coloring in the Sixteenthand Early SeventeenthCenturies," Text, 9 (199^)» 199-215.The Societyhad been founded in 1979 as "an organizationdevoted to the discussionof textual theoryand practice" (as explained in the firstvolume interdisciplinary of Text [1984 for 1981]). The "plastic arts" are also included in Pierre-Marcde Biasi's survey of the extensionof genetic criticismto nonliteraryand nonverbal works; see "Horizons forGenetic Studies," Word 6- Image (see note 11 above), 13 (1997), 124-134 (commentedon verybrieflyin the treatmentof critique genetique in part II below).

1O


oftextualmatters in As a wayofrepresenting therecentdiscussion I here on books nonverbal two about music and works,shallconcentrate one on visualart.The earlierof thebookson music,JohnCaldwell's such topractical matters, EditingEarlyMusic,isdevotedalmostentirely and presentation. as transcription Its "secondedition"of 1995differs from ofsomeminorcortheoriginal1985textonlyin theincorporation and theadditionofan eight-page rections, postscript, theupdatingof the"SelectBibliography." thenoAlthoughtheadviceon translating tationsystems of earlierperiodsintoa modernone willbe helpfulto issuesthatunderliemodsucha task,thetheoretical anyoneundertaking well as all as other of are ernizing, aspects editing, givenscantattention, to confined the first fivepagesoftheopeningchapter(andnot largely in In thesepages,Caldwelloffers the significantly amplified postscript). forexample,thedangersofmicrofilm somesoundadvice,recognizing, forexamining editions andthenecessity (p.3); multiple copiesofprinted ofan ediandhe understands, as manyeditorsdo not,thatthepresence "willnotautomatiin one ofthesourcedocuments torialemendation invalidate will nor its absence elsewhere validate it, automatically cally as a whole it" (p. 5). Despitetheseencouraging discussion his glimmers, hasnotbeencarefully out. the untheoretical Even on thought relatively is matter ofmodernizing forinstance, thebasisforhisposition notation, notclear.He insistson modernized notation("Thereis no place for editionswhichusebarelylegibleforms ofnotation"[p. 1]),26 'scholarly* and yethe believesthatthe"requirements of performers and scholars are-orshouldbe- identical"(p. v). He focuses on whathe callsa "schoedition"(p. 2)- "performable as it stands"(p. 1)- but larlyperforming admitsa "bias"toward"forms ofnotation closerto theoriginalthanis sometimes favoured"(p. 12); he presumably approvesthe"increasing tooriginalforms an approachjustified, ofnotation," torevert tendency he believes, ofperformers" by"theincreasing literacy (p. 44). He never Nordoeshe-on themorecentralquesgetsto theheartofthematter. tionoftheevaluationofvariantssee thefallacyofthe"best-text" apWhen there is "insufficient evidence"to reconstruct an archeproach. a preferable typefromstemmatic relationships, way is "to selecta source and emend it to where single necessary" (p. 4); thisis "themost method of conflaobjective presentation" (p. 5), avoiding"a haphazard tionbasedon pragmatic orsubjective criteria" Of no one course, (p. 4). woulddefenda "haphazard" what is a here is approach; missing recognitionoftheroleofinformed in reducing thehaphazardness judgment ofindividual texts. documentary 26. Strangelyenough, he considersmodernizingto be a part of the processof transcription (as on p. 2). (Cf. note 15 above.)


11

The otherbook,JamesGrier'sThe CriticalEditingofMusic(1996), in manyrespects. workandis admirable isa morethoughtful Amongits that a virtues its is recognition comprehensive introductory primary oftextualtheory discussion and therationale guiderequiresthorough ofsuggestions ofediting andneedstobe morethana compendium about and textual evidence thepresentation oftexts sensible generally (though ofthesematters thateveryareincluded).Grierunderstands discussions thatgoesintothedefinition of thingdependson thequalityofthought Andheis tobe applauded ofevidence. a textualgoalandtheassessment andjudgment tothe ofinterpretation on thecentrality forhisemphasis howmanypeoplein all fields Whenoneconsiders editorialenterprise. a mechani(bynomeansmusicalone)stillthinkofeditingas essentially of cal task,one canhardlycomplainaboutGrier'sinsistent repetitions and ends He thepointthatitisa critical begins activity. (p.xiii) (p. 183) thateditingis "an actofcriticism," andthe thebookwiththestatement Norcana readeravoidconfronting it.27 readerisneverallowedtoforget thefactthateditingis a formofhistorical studyandthata prerequisite in thehistorical contextof theworkto be edited. forit is immersion ofthe tohisdiscussion a thorough Grierbrings Furthermore, knowledge and has about he of of music clearly it), editing(and writing history ofverbalworks. readwidelyin thetextualcriticism aboutGrier'sgeneralapproach, Withso muchthatis praiseworthy somelapsesthatwillexasperate his book that contains is it regrettable a focus is the the one readers. careful wayinwhichherejects Perhaps key social favor of in McGann's on authorialintention approach, Jerome thatI believeholdspromise forediting whichis,hesays,"theonetheory or music"(p. 108).His argument eitherliterature simplyrepeatswhat themcritically are bynowstandard examining enough points,without He says,forexample,thatby "rejecting to exposetheirfallaciousness. itwithhistheory andreplacing theconceptoffinalauthorial intention, theprocess of ofthesocialnatureoftheworkofart,McGanntransforms . . . a into historical undertakendeavour a from editing psychological is thatit triesto ing"(p. 17).The troublewiththiskindofstatement In the first outofoverlapping makepairings pair("authorial concepts. intention' 7 "socialnature"),intentionis commonto both elements, Grieron occasionundercutsthiswelcomepoint,as when however, 27. Unfortunately, can be done to a piece,performance, he allowshimselfto say,"Beforeanything analysis, historical studies,itstextmustbe madeknownto thosewhowouldpursuetheseundertakof thetextis theeditor'sjob" (p. 37). This soundssurprisingly ings.And thepresentation - a notionnot entirely like theold notionof editorsprovidingtextsforcriticsto analyze whichcallsan edition"not so mucha tool,leadingto overturned byGrier'snextsentence, in thoseends."For thesplithas alreadybeen higherends,as an active,criticalparticipant ratherthanan emphasison the editorialelementin everyreader'sresponseand asserted, thesameas thatof all otherreaders. thuson theeditor'staskas essentially

12


sincea sociallyconstructed textcan containunintended errorsjustas can a as text constructed Unless one wishesto reone easily by person. frainfromall emendation of documentary the one is texts, admitting of intention. The real with distinction here has to do concept nothing intention: it is simplywhether thefocusis on theproductofa single authoror on a collaboratively constructed product.The secondpair * endeavour' thesame ("psychological undertaking") '/ 'historical displays nota partofhistory? The attempt to reproblem:is humanthinking coverwhatonepersonthought in thepastis no different fromtheeffort to knowwhata groupof peoplethought. Mentalstatesare historical in different situations. facts,whichmaybe more,or less,recoverable is theunsupportable idea thata text LurkingbehindGrier'ssentence on paperis more"historical" thanone thatmustbe reconsurviving structed. Buttheconceptofcriticaleditingin thefirst placearisesfrom therecognition thatsurviving is and potenevidence random physical and that historical tiallymisleading knowledge requiresextrapolation fromit. That intentions or anyoneelse)are (ofauthorsor diplomats, neverfullyknowabledoesnotdistinguish themfromtheotherhistorical factsthatwewishtopursue. It is strange thatGrierdoesnotmakethispointhimself, sincehe the of understands historical reconstruction certainly indeterminacy and makessomeexcellentcomments on it. Neartheend,forinstance, he saysthatsometimes "thetruthis simplynotascertainable" butthat nevertheless a hypothetical reconstruction who can drawon a by person andextensive "intensive of work the and context" its historical is study valuable(p. 182).If,instead, he hadseenthathisownthinking doesnot ofintention, he wouldalsohaveunderstood that supporttherejection an interest in thesocialconstruction ofartis notincompatible withan interest intheinitialcreators ofartworks, forthelattersimply represent theearliestofthesuccessive involvedin theevolutionofa individuals work.Grier'sconcernforaccommodating changing performance practicesleadshimto say,rightly, that"formanyworks,eachsourceis a viablerecordof one formof thework"(p. 109).The authorially intendedtextor textsareothersuchforms, andthejob ofreconstructing themis notdifferent in kindfromthetask(recognized byGrierin the samepassage)of locatingerrorsin thesurviving textsof sociallyproducedforms. The factthatmusicis a performing artunderstandably causesGrier tobe interested in textualvariations thatresultfromtheconventions of at different as of drama students have times, performance just properly thesameconcern. Butheisonshaky groundwhenhetriestoplacea firm linebetweenmusicand nondramatic verbalworks.He arguesthat,in


13

textofa [musical]work,itsscore,is "thewritten toliterature, contrast and and "that text are notsynonynotself-sufficient" work,therefore, he "text and work" means is of course"textof mous"(p. 21).What by and textofa work";but evenwiththatclarification, one a document in literature. Sincebothlitercannotagreethatthetwoaresynonymous atureand musicuse intangible media,tangibletextsin bothcasesare ofworks.Readersofverbalworks fortherecreation setsofinstructions and to someoftheirperformances are clues arenecessarily performers, new editions or critical The fact form of in the commentary. preserved froma written textdoes removed tomusicmaybe further thatlisteners evenifitdoescomplicate theactof notalterthefundamental situation, oftheresponses ofthe theworks, bymakingita combination recreating the is listener and theso-calledlistener. so-calledperformer Actually in musical traditions reflected and theperformance also a performer; butofperformers-asof"performers" theproduct scoresarenotmerely are communiwhoseperformances and ofaudiencemembers listeners fortha text, which sets catedin essaysand conversation. (An edition, difto a text-impliesa somewhat and an essay,which-byresponding It not does serve distinct as is often are not so ferentone, thought.) literature: musicfrom a fuller toseparate welltoattempt Grier'spurpose to a subtler decouldhaveled oftheiressential elaboration similarity thereare.28 tailingofwhatdifferences is Grier'srepeatedassertion Another thinking exampleofconfused tooneofthreecategories: thatreadings canbe assigned "goodreadings, clear and errors" reasonable 30; cf.p. 98). p. (e.g., readings, competing thatare "deemedimposdefined as readings The thirdis appropriately of thepiece"(p. 31)-a definition boundaries siblewithinthestylistic thebook)thedeon it throughout thatmakesclear(asdo thevariations of individual editors.But on the of the judgment concept pendence namedand at worstmiscontheothertwoare at bestinappropriately ceived.The choiceofthetwowords"good"and "reasonable" suggests thata distinction is beingmade,and "good"wouldseemto conveya Buta plausiblereadingthat than"reasonable." higherlevelofcertainty variantin the doesnothavea plausible(or "reasonable")competing more certain a not is documents extant readingthanonethat necessarily out. tired of Housman never doeshave,as pointing Indeed,twoplausbe variants couldboth right(forexample,eachcould ible competing ata different havebeentheauthor's time),andtheplausibleuncontested 28. Grier'saccountsofthe"semioticnatureofmusicnotation"(as on pp. 25-27),which musicscoresfromverbaltextson paper,do not in fact meantto distinguish are apparently and punctuation, like thoseof musicnotation, do so: are not themeaningsof letterforms and convention" on "context 67)? (p. dependent

14


or imreadingcouldbe unauthentic (and couldperhapsbe corrected In it shrewd what is sense,then, "good*? emendation). provedthrough ofstemmata basedon sharederrors The construction mayindeedsometimeshelp to decidebetweencompeting plausiblereadings(the"exmethodexists,he assertson presspurpose"forwhichthestemmatic intotwocategories, accordp. 36); andthedivisionofplausiblereadings hassome withinthedocuments, ornottheyarecontested ingtowhether in relevanceforthislimitedpurpose.But to maintainthedistinction isineffect onstemmatic broader notexplicitly focused contexts, analysis, forwhenone takesinto todowngrade theroleofeditorialemendation; of by theeditor(thatis, nonaccountanyplausiblereadingsthought someof the "good" readingsmaybe just as documentary readings), contested as To call them"good"is seriously anyin theothercategory. to further not onlyillogicalin itselfbut also potentially inhibiting and I have various the mentioned, However, thought. despite problems likethem,29 thereis enoughsoundadvicein Grier'sbooktomake others on musicediting. influence it capableofhavinga beneficial Whenwe turntovisualart,we encounter remarkJosephGrigely's ablebookTextualterity: and Textual Criticism Art,Theory, (1995),and weareon a verydifferent level.This bookdoesnotsimplytryto apply tovisualartbutrather textualcriticism buildsonwhathasbeen literary saidin theliterary fieldin ordertotaketextualcriticism a stepforward, and thusto makea contribution to thinking aboutall culturalproduchad beenpreviTwo chapters tions,notjustvisualartand literature. and readers of have beenprepared thoseessayswould ouslypublished, fortheintelligence andclarity ofthebook,whichaffords therarepleasureofsustained thatconstantly itssubject-partly illuminates argument itswonderful itssensithrough arrayof examplesand partlythrough One mightthinkthatanybookwitha titlelike tivityto language.30 couldnotreflect muchlinguistic taste,and I mustadmit Textualterity thatthetitleis oneofGrigely's forit suggests a flashiness and mistakes, trendiness thatI do notfindin theworkitself. To be sure,somefashionable jargondoesoccurin thebook,but generally it is employed in a matter-of-fact a as of means he it uses way, precise sayingsomething: 29. To name one more: Grier says that Greg's copy-textapproach "fails as a theory forone simple reason: the difficulty in creatingan unequivocal definitionof substantiveand accidental" (p. 107). This remarkreflectsa failure not only to understand the firmdistinction Greg actuallymade but also to comprehendthat the distinctionis ultimatelynot central to the theory.Furthermore,to add that "the physical presentation... of the work and text can carrysignificantmeaning" does not in any way contradictGreg's theory. 30. He is also a visual artisthimself,and anyone who saw his installation"White Noise" at the WhitneyMuseum in August 2001 knowshow elegant and movinghis work can be.


15

to showoffor link whenhe needsit. One neverfeelsthathe is trying In how critics. he knows towrite.31 other certain with himself short, not mean what one does His coinagetextualterity mighthaveexit that refers to theotherness of pectedit to mean.One mightthink texts,to thefactthattextsare not(at leastliterally) livingorganisms. tothewaysin which meansalmosttheopposite, Butitactually referring in life,changing overtimebothin themselves and in textsparticipate oftheintroductherolestheyaremadeto play.The openingsentence announcement of thesubject:"This bookis tionis a straightforward works ofcultural andabouthowindividual aboutthetransmission texts, in of artundergochangeas partof theprocessof beingdisseminated " textransformations and "textual culture. Textualterity encompasses His "underlying tual difference." premise"is that"theuniquenessof textisconstantly continuous theuniqueartobjectorliterary undergoing transience as it ages,is alteredbyeditorsandconserand discontinuous and in different orreterritorialized andisresituated vators, publications the textual an of It that exhibition is inevitable investigation spaces." thework, ofvisualartshouldfocuson changing criticism appearances: human do whether as it beings anything changes ages beingphysical, in thetexttheiractionis irreto it ornot,andwhentheydo intervene versible. Thosedealingwithliterature do notfacequitethesameconsincein mostcasestheagingofa bookdoesnotaltertheverbal ditions, textwithinitandsincean editorwhoaltersa verbaltextbyproducing the a neweditiondoesnotthereby anyonefromexperiencing prevent and visual betweenliterature previoustext.If thisessentialdifference artdictates makesclearthathe does thedirection ofthebook,Grigely Of coursewe have notregardit in anysenseas a burdenor a liability. in visualartwhether we like it or not,but to acceptimpermanence it,and he turnsthis Grigelyshowswhywe shouldrelishand celebrate attitudebackon literature. worksofverbaland visualart To Grigely, book arealikein beingaffected contexts bytheirphysical (a particular in variant texts or exhibition and in disseminated design being gallery) or artbooks and (editions postcards). Thathe regards forexample,as one ofthe ofa painting, a postcard traditional showstheextentto whichhe bypasses textsofthatpainting as of art in order to texts illuminate theymake ontological conceptions 31. The lucidity of Grigely'slanguage stands out sharply in contrast to the prose of Nicole Fugman, who also examines art works in her attempt "to reconceptualize textual criticismand situate it in the ensemble of critique which encompassesphilology,historiography, and aesthetics"; see "ContemporaryEditorial Theory and the Transvaluation of PostmodernCritique," Text, 10 (1997), 15-29 (quotation fromp. 19).

16


we createfora work show"howthemeanings theirwayin society-to ofartorliterature are(toa largeextent)a productofthetextualspaces admirableaspectof his we enterand engagein" (p. 3). An especially in the"veryparticuboth interested he is is its inclusiveness: conception andin "the has lartext"thatsomeoneis encountering (or encountered) to the has conditions underwhichthistext transpired acquire form"it to himis "notthe Whatis important nowdisplays (oroncedisplayed). historical contextof theworkalone,or thesocialcontextof thecritic of textual alone,butthewaythesecontexts overlapwiththecontexts thehisto call accurate is not it strictly Although 4). reproduction" (p. that one understands andreadership toriesofauthorship "synchronic," withthediachronic limitedpurviews theirrelatively he is contrasting he recognizes, Textualcriticism, "histories oftextualtransformation." texts;and is a formofhistorical among relationships uncovering study, ofmultipletexts"takesus thattheexamination hewishestoemphasize or thework'smeanings, closernotjust to theprocessof composition, thatbroughtthese of culturalactivity" but closerto thevicissitudes all theseinteractions textsabout(p.7). Contemplating givesone"textual one can learn whichamountsto bringing consciousness"everything theworkin forexperiencing ofa workintothecontext aboutthehistory that for this claims no thepresent. asserting novelty approach, Grigely been has textual criticism" of the"oneenduring traditionally "to goal ... a partofall criticalactivity" maketextualconsciousness (p. 8). His contribution is toextendthisapproachtoworksofvisualart,andbyimis introduction plicationtoworksin all media,and hisbrief(ten-page) ofthisvision. a masterly andeloquentexpression will be in a pointroduction Grigely's Anyonewhoreadsthrough is on textual focus is that One sitiontomaketwoobservations. Grigely's rather situations textual onunderstanding thanediting, rather criticism actionsbasedon thatunderstanding. thanon takingparticular Second, sinceit is not hasno favored authorialintention statusin histhinking ofculturally in theproduction thanmanyotherfactors moreimportant That Grigelydoes not explicitly textualtransformations. influential ofhisessay:he isnot,in otherwords, makethesetwopointsisa strength thereasonsfortakinga particular but is expressing againstsomething in of false One the few steps theseearlypagesis hisstatement approach. or cona certainintention thatart"doesnotdependon maintaining withrecenttextualdebateswillhearthis dition"(p. 1).Readersfamiliar behindthescenes-thoughtheadvocates as a response to an adversary ofauthorialintention wouldnotin factclaimthatworks"depend"on ofthepowerofuninsinceweareall surrounded intention, byinstances and tendedforms. Thisuseof"depend"is a minor-a veryminor-flaw,


17

to onlybecauseit helpsto makeclearhow it is worthcallingattention is.He hashiseyeonsomething attitude Grigely's remarkably unpartisan critical than infighting. higher All of thisbookexemplifies thispointexceptforone chapterthe his admirableintroduction. He had the first, following immediately butnotnecessarily notion-notunreasonably thathe should correctlyoffer literature-based textualcriticism as someaccountof traditional, forhisdiscussion ofvisualartin thelaterchapters. the"groundwork" thistask,it is notsurprising thathe woulddo it in Havingsethimself an originalway;whatis surprising is thathis treatment, fascinating his it so The entitled "Textual serves is, though purpose poorly. chapter, first a and of succinct, Eugenics," provides interesting, intensely history movement and then examines twentieththeAnglo-American eugenics textualcriticism and editingin termsof "parallelsbetween century and editorial eugenicideology practices" (p. 11).EvenwhenhisargubetweenHitlerand FredsonBowers,it is mentinvolvesa comparison two in thewayonemightthink.Thereare,however, notobjectionable I between euthat would it. the lodgeagainst First, analogy objections name of aims to texts the the kind that and of editing purify genics (in to be carried out exact is authorial productively intention) insufficiently thattextsare not people to thelengthit is here.Grigelyrecognizes thattherelationbetweenpeopleand the (pp.30-31), buthe maintains of otherpeople)validates actionstheytaketowardtexts(theproducts itishardtogetaroundthefactthateugenicists hisanalogy. Nevertheless, whowishto whereas editors wouldliketoeradicate theimpure, literary theimpuretextsthatformed construct puretextsdo nottrytodestroy or indeedto prohibit thebasisoftheirhistorical research, anyonefrom to elaborateis not readingthem.The analogythatGrigelyattempts andifitspurposeis to promote disdainforinilluminating; ultimately of it is tentionalist editing, unworthyGrigely. analogyis that,as executedhere, Myotherobjectiontotheeugenics a blurring betweentextual oftheimportant distinction it encourages Andyet the distinction. andediting. understands criticism Grigely fully is not,as somewould likethis:"Textualcriticism he makesstatements haveit,aboutUtopias; itisaboutrealtextsina realworld"(p. 32).There in haveofcoursebeenmanyscholars whoengagedin textualcriticism nonauthorial readorderto use theresultsas thebasisforeliminating thatthiseditorialactivity wasnot ingsfromtexts,buttheyrecognized thattheirintheonlyactionthatcouldbe basedon thepriorresearchof"realtexts"didnotdictatethekindofeditingtheychose vestigation involvescriticismto engagein. (The factthattextualcriticism judgofhistorical itfrom ment-doesnotdistinguish all otherforms research.)

18


Near the end of the chapter,Grigelysaysthat"Textual criticismand could therefore be redefined as disciplinesthatstudymanibibliography festationsof difference in culturaltexts,wherein'difference' does not presupposea genreor a systemof values." And two sentenceslater,he urgestheabandonmentof the"either/orparadigmsupon whichcritical editinghas based itself (p. 48). But textualcriticismand bibliography are alreadyconceivedof as history,and thereforeas the studyof the eternal panorama of difference;the either/or paradigms,when they exist,come fromeditors,not fromthe textualcriticismthatunderlies theirwork.Criticaleditorsdo sometimesfollowan either/orapproach in makingemendations, but thebestofthemneverbelievethatthetexts are theonlyresponsibleones.It is hardto understandwhy theyconstruct Grigelyshould want to suggestthattextualcriticism(which,afterall, offersessentiallythe outlookhe advocates)is somehowcausallylinked witha styleofeditinghe deemsundesirable. Indeed, it is a puzzle thathe shouldregardintentionalist editingas undesirablein the firstplace. His generalattitude,as expressedelsewherein thebook,is an opennesstowhateverhappensto texts,recognizreflecta particularset of cultural ing thatall textualtransformations forcesoperatingat a givenmoment.Yet here he complainsabout "textual critics"(i.e., criticaleditors),who- he says-have "historically stigthat matizedthisinevitabletransience"(p. 28) insteadofunderstanding the "pluralityofreadings"is a "normativecondition"(p. 29). He seems is also a normativeconwillfullyto ignorethefactthata desireforfixity dition and thatthe intentionalist urge is just as naturalas the various othermotivationsfortextualalteration.Whydoes he not regardintentionalisteditingby professionalscholarsas an inevitable,and underand thusas a phenomenonthatcan standable,culturalmanifestation, be productively studied?He complainsthatthe "elisionsconcomitant with eclecticediting,while makinghypotheticaltextsreal, also make real textshypothetical theirpresenceand, by default,their by effacing historicaldrift"(p. 30). This statementis of coursenot literallytrue, but themoreimportantpointto be made about it is thatintentionalist of thehistoricaldriftof texts.(How eclecticismis itselfa manifestation could it failto be? It is not outsideof history.)Grigely,quite properly, does notdeploretheReader'sDigestcondensedversionof Tom Sawyer, forexample,but ratherexaminesit forits culturalimplications(pp. 39-46). To criticizeintentionalistscholarlyactivityas "institutionally sanctionedforgetting" (p. 30) simplydoes not fitwiththe pointof view of the restof the book. Everytextualtransformation effacesthe in its own and is sanctioned one another. institution or way by past on textual contains AlthoughGrigely'schapter eugenics many valu-


19

itstoneandorientation able points, injecta jarringnoteintothebook. readers woulddo bettertoskip iswritten, Giventhewaythechapter from the introduction move the it and to over chapterentitled"TextuIf of book. and on to end the the theydo so,theywillfinda alterity," of how textual culconsciousness enriches account wiseandpenetrating His focuson visualart,withitsphysicalbasis,leads turalexperience. as weexperience a work,ofthevariant therelevance, himtoemphasize or imagesofit thatwe havein our minds(arisingfromreproductions can On this basis he in different settings). viewings, perhaps previous ordestruction doesnot ofa painting claimthatthealteration plausibly because the "meto those actions the text that existed efface prior really He is existence morialtext"willhavea continuing obviously (p. 64). worksofartandtherestoflife. between downtheboundaries breaking discussion and fascinating, Indeed,hisextended, (pp. 157-177)ofJacksonPollock'sNumber1, 1950(LavenderMist)is entitled"Outsideyet Inside"and examineshowtheNationalGalleryspacewhereit is disthetitle themovingcrowdsofobservers, played,theadjacentpaintings, and thebugcaughtin thepaint on themuseumlabel,thelabel itself, (withtheS-shapedpathit left)are relatedto,or becomepartof,the work.32 whenpointingout thatClement In thecourseofhiscommentary, that Lavender title the contributed Mist,Grigely recognizes Greenberg understood need to be differences "textual isa partofhistory: intention one "wouldbe unmaking in relationto theirsources,"forotherwise ofhistorical tomaketherecovery culturalhistory" (p. 173).He is trying and tothatofa literary work, stagesinthetextofanartwork comparable In both,"intenhisapproachtoartcanin turnbe appliedtoliterature. tionsareinevitably sharedandcontested" (p. 174),and the"inside"of 32. Even a label on the reverse,once one knows about it, plays its role: the reverse"is a still life because this is the location where the transienceof the artworkis documented, where tracesare accumulated of its passage throughparticular places at particular times" (p. 177). In an impressivelywide-rangingbook about the role of memoryin culture (Cultural Selection, 1996), Gary Taylor offerssimilar observations on a painting, Velazquez's Las Meninas, noting that its position in the "edited collection" of the Prado affectsits meaning and that works are inevitably subject to "transformations"(such as the photograph of Las Meninas in his book) as theybecome "dispersedamong many membersof a society."The (includgenerallyunrememberedor "invisible" personswho performthese transformations ing "reproducers,restorers,curators")may all be called "editors," and "the editorial process fundamentallyaffectseverythingwe rememberabout the achievementsof the past" (pp. 122-125,in the chapter entitled "Invisible Man," pp. 121-142). (He had made some of the same points in an earlier essay,"What Is an Author [Not]?", Critical Survey [see note 11 above], 7 [1995],241-254.) Paul Eggerthas also discussed the role of the viewer and restorer in the constructionof worksof visual art, in the third section of his "Where Are We Now with Authorshipand the Work?",Yearbook of English Studies (see note 11 above), 29 (1999), 88-102.

SO


a work,whethervisual or verbal,is "alwaysrealigningitselfand being realigned"(p. 179),accordingto theverbaland nonverbalinformation (suchas museumlabelsor bookbindings)used bythoseexperiencingthe work.All textualtransformations are to be respectedas expressionsof culture,which"dependson remakingtextsin orderto exist" (p. 179); and textualcriticismtherefore enables us to discoverthat"the history of culturalobjects... is not linear but discursive"(p. 180). Grigely's brilliantaccountof the social construction of textssurpassesin insight and eloquence the morefamoustreatments thatare generallycited. II of writingon textualcriticismin Englishin Anothercharacteristic the last yearsof the twentiethcenturywas an increasein awarenessof editorial traditionsin non-English-speaking countries.Within those countries-especiallyFrance,Germany,and Italy-editorialtheoryhas been a flourishing area of discussion,and numerousbooks,anthologies, and articles,as well as editions,have resulted.But knowledgeof the positionstakenin thesevoluminouspublicationshas been slow in coming to English-speaking scholars.Studies in Bibliographytook the lead in an 1975 by publishing essayby Hans Zeller explainingthe Germaninterestin versions;but thena dozenyearspassedbeforeEnglish-speaking readersweregivenmuchmoreinformation. The 1987volumeof Text and the 1988 volume of Studies in Bibliographyeach containedfour essaysin Englishby prominentFrenchand Germantextualtheorists.33 And it was also in 1987 thatthe Germanjournal Editio began publication,carryingtheword"Internationales"in itssubtitle;althoughmost ofitscontentshavebeen in German,it hasalso publishedarticlesin English and has even includedin its seriesof Beiheftea largeanthologyof essaysin Englishon problemsencounteredby "editorsor criticalusers of Englisheditions"(Problemsof Editing,edited by ChristaJansohn, 1999).The elaboratelyproducedFrenchjournal Genesis(1992- ), being the organ of a single school of editing,critique genetique, has been moreparochial;but English-speaking readerscan gain an idea of its aims fromGrahamFalconer'sassessmentof the firstsix numbers.34 33. The writersin Text were Hans Walter Gabler, Louis Hay, Jean-Louis Lebrave, and Klaus Hurlebusch; those in SB were Hay, Gerhard Neumann, Hurlebusch, and Siegfried Scheibe. I have discussed these pieces in the 1991 essay in this series (see note 1 above), pp. 112-118,and in the 1975 article cited there in note 37. (See also the 1996 essay in the series, note 85.) 34. "Towards a New Manuscriptology:Ginisis, Volumes 1-6," Text, 10 (1997), 362-368. Falconer notes the emphasis on "the inner dynamicsof writing,the poetics of composition rather than the context and circumstancesin which that composition occurred" (which


21

During the 1995-2000period,severalconcise(and generallyexcellent) accountsof foreigntraditionswerepublishedin English,bothin ScholarlyEditing:A Guide to Research(editedby D. C. Greethamin 1995) and, thesameyear,in a collectionof pieceson theinfluenceof Fredson Bowersabroad.35For moreexpansivetreatments duringtheseyears,one mustturnto threelarge Americananthologies(one on the dominant Germanemphasisand two-one of themnot primarilyin English-on theFrench),alongwithseveralarticlesin Text and Editio.36 The anthologyon German editing-ContemporaryGerman EditorialTheory(1995),editedby Hans WalterGabler,GeorgeBornstein, and GillianBorlandPierce-containstranslations, publishedforthefirst time,of ten essaysoriginallypublishedin Germanfrom1971 to 1991. Three (by Hans Zeller, Miroslav Cervenka,and Elisabeth HopkerHersberg)are fromthe historic1971 anthologyTexte und Varianten and three(by Zeller, Gunter Martens,and Henning Boetius) froma special 1975numberof LiLi, and the finalfourare essaysby Siegfried Scheibe (1982, 1990-91), Martens(1989), and GerhardSeidel (1982). Thus the threemajor figures-Martens,Scheibe,and Zeller-are representedby twoessaysapiece,and thewhole selectionserveswell enough readerssomesenseof thedevelopmentof Gerto giveEnglish-speaking causes him to say that historyis "singularlyabsent fromthese pages"); and he praises the journal's "openness to discussionsof non-literaryart forms"(p. 267). 35. The Greetham volume deals with traditionsin German (by Bodo Plachta), Italian (Paolo Cherchi), Russian (Edward Kasinec and Robert Whittaker),Old and early modern French (Mary B. Speer, Edmund Campion), and medieval Spanish (Alberto Blecua and German Orduna), as well as Greek (Bruce M. Metzger,Mervin R. Dilts), Latin (R. J. Tarrant), Hebrew (Francis I. Andersen),Arabic (M. G. Carter),and Sanskrit(Ludo Rocher). (See also Edwin Rabbie, "Editing Neo-Latin Texts," Editio, 10 [1996],25-48.) The Bowers assemblage (see note 12 above) includes commentson work in Italy (Conor Fahy), France (Wallace Kirsop), Spain (David R. Whitesell),and Japan (Hiroshi Yamashita). (For those who read German and French,currentchecklistsof scholarshipare published in Editio and Ginesis',and see Jacques Neefs, "A Select Bibliography of Genetic Criticism,"Yale French Studies, 89 [1996],265-267. 36. An anthologylargelyon classical literature,Glenn W. Most's Editing l exts, l exte edieren (1998), has the laudable aim of helping to bridge the editorial "theorygap" between classicistsand scholarsof the modernliteratures.As Most says,textual theoryhas been much more discussedin recentyearsby the lattergroup than by the former,which has "neglected or downplayed,forthe most part, the thornytheoreticalquestions raised by the practice of textual editing" (p. viii). The contributions,however,will do more to give the modernliteratureeditorssome examples of the work of classiciststhan it will to acquaint classicists with recent thinkingamong modern-literatureeditors. An effortwith a somewhat similar aim in the biblical field is Ferdinand E. Deist's brief piece on "Texts, Textuality, and Textual Criticism,"Journalof NorthwestSemiticLanguages, 21.2 (1995), 59-67; he wishes to acquaint biblical scholarswith the ways in which textual criticismis affectedby such movements as poststructuralism and deconstruction(which have "much in common with rabbinistic interpretations"[p. 66]), as well as to show the assumptionsthat underlie traditional textual criticism(but unfortunatelyhe does not point out what is wrong with thinkingof it as "preparatorytextrestoration"[p. 60]).

22


mantextualtheory in the1970sand 1980s.Butwhether thevolumeis If theeditorsexpectedthese usefulin anyotherwayseemsdoubtful. tohavea current toanvalue,theyshouldat leasthaveattempted essays in swerthecriticisms set forth thathavesincebeenmadeoftheposition theessays. ButGabler'sintroduction doesnotevenrecognize thosecritiitsimply thelogicalflaws sumsup theposition, cisms;instead, repeating inherent in it withoutseemingto noticethem.The resultis notconducivetowinning overnewadmirers oftheapproach. of his introduction, forexample,Gablersays Near thebeginning thatthe"salientpoints"of current textualcriticism Anglo-American wereanticipatedby Germantheory, which"radicallyholds. . . that is uneclecticism is unsoundas a method, and thatauthorialintention forcriticalediting"(p. 2). knowableor unstableas a guidingprinciple A valueofthenewlytranslated he believes,is to showthesepoessays, sitions"arguedin theiroriginalintellectual That is a environment." historical in thepresent stateof aim,butiftheessaysaretobe relevant thediscussion, Gablercannotignoretherepliesthathavebeenmadeto of eclecticism criticisms and intention; he doesnot of coursehaveto those must but he them intothediscussion and,if bring accept replies, that he rejectsthem,showwhytheyarefaulty. Thus thetwoadjectives he appliesto intention, raisequestions "unknowable" and "unstable," thatcannotbe avoided.To call intention "unknowable" usuallymeans thatit cannotbe foundconcretely a and thatit in document expressed word "the "ahistoric" to is therefore Gabler idealityof the applies (a other notlimitedto in is author"[p.4]). Buthistorical areas scholarship in like intended the"knowable" thissense;mosthistorical events, texts, and we can neverbe certainaboutall theirdemustbe reconstructed, unhistoritails.To attempt suchreconstructions is nottobe ahistorical, It is hardto imagineanyhistorian, outsideofthe cal,oranti-historical. fieldoftextualstudies, whowouldwishtoclaimthatevery extrapolation fromtangible Andthepointaboutintention evidence isunsound. being "unstable"is inappropriate in twoways:the implication thatintentionalist editorsdo notrecognize natureofauthors'intentheshifting tionsis incorrect; and theinstability ofintentions, whichis a primary reasonforthevariation textual in is factat theheartof versions, among theapproachGableradvocates. His beliefthateclecticism is "unsound"stemsfrom thesameillogical notionthattheonlyhistorical textsare thosethatexistin surviving AndtheGermanfocuson thosetangibletextsleadshimto documents.37 neednotbe associatedonlywithan interest in authorialintention, for 37. Eclecticism thereare othergoalsthatemendation can support.But thatis a separatepoint.


23

endeavor hastendedto editthe "WheretheAnglo-American maintain, over German the concern central the author, pastdecadeshas increasWhat renders nonthe text" thisstatement to edit inglybecome (p. 2). "text." between "author" and isofcoursethelackofparallelism sensical andthusboth Onecannoteditan authorbutonlythetextofan author, notmerelytheGerman,are editingtexts.His stategroupsofeditors, meansto place in opposition"textsof authors"and mentobviously he admitsthatthe A fewpageslater,surprisingly, "textsofdocuments." thelegitimacy hasa value:a sentence former begins,"Withoutdenying with this consistent is ofeditingwhattheauthorintended" (p. 6). (How If a crititounderstand.) ofintention is difficult hisearlierdenigration one stageof the author's callyemendedtextaimedat reconstructing such afterall,thenwhatis wrongwithprinting is legitimate, intention in thesurwithan appendedrecordofthevariants a textin an edition, done? editorshave regularly just as intentionalist vivingdocuments, would answer view he of the those and advocates, Gabler, holding point reconthecritically or "privileges," thatsuchan editionemphasizes, latter the texts the text over structed onlyin documentary byoffering to the subordinated form an thecompressed of apparatus fullypresented doesnotmake ofGermaneditions criticaltext.YetGabler'sdescription German of a "aim The themseemverydifferent. edition,"he says,is to "an historically or slicefromthe text'shistory"provide"a segment the defined versionofthework"-aroundwhich"theeditionorganizes form" inapparatus entiretextualhistory (p. 3). Ifthiswerethefullstory, results liketheintentionalist, onecouldsaythattheGermanapproach, ofa workin apthebulkofthetextualhistory in editionsthatpresent thetwowouldthenbe thatthe between theonlydifference paratusform; textandin reconstructed in fullis in onecasea critically textpresented text. theothera documentary in fullas an to thetextpresented But Gablersaysmore:he refers to "editedtext,"with"emendation exclusively removethe functioning ofemendation textualerror."How canhe notsee thatthisacceptance in fullisno longerthe The textpresented hiswholeposition? undercuts itandan intenbetween andthedifference textofa material document, in kind:anycorrection editor'scriticaltextis nota difference tionalist oneselftoonly oflimiting andthefallacy of"error"involves intention, a difficult course is of which of one kind error(however defined, probthis times. hasbeenexposedmany lemin itself) Underlying wholejumisan untenable abouteclecticism, equation ble,as withmostcomplaints whenan editoremendsthetextof an of "version"and "document": in a laterone,theresult withcertainvariants earlierdocument present

24


in thelater becausesomevariants a mixingofversions, isnotnecessarily in the earlier corrections of errors document be document, may merely ofa newversion. notevidence ofeclectofcorrections is in factan acceptance Gabler'sacceptance ofdocumentary icism.Whyhe is willingtocountenance anyalteration as a comsincehe viewsan editionstrictly textsis incomprehensible, The "Germanscholarlyediinformation. pendiumof documentary tion,"he claims,"is aimedlessat thereaderthanat theuserof the edition";thetestofitssuccessis "howwellit encodesthetextin the and and transmission ofitsmaterialwriting byan appropriate history between distinction format" The shocking (p. 7). adequateapparatus "reader"and"user"suggests thatreadingandtextualstudyareseparate in truththeyareinextricable: textualscholarship dewhereas activities, a of out and the kind of on richest close readinggrows reading, pends editions a textual of and variation. work's Scholarly knowledge history in theintentionalist thisconnection tradition recognize by including oftheeditors'reading) reconstructed critically readingtexts(theresults in thesamevolumesas thehistorical critidataneededfortheinformed andthe cal reading ofthosetexts.The difference between theseeditions German thatthelatterdo nottake editions described byGablerissimply of the thisadditionalstep;bothare in agreement on theimportance to historical record.Gabler'sincoherent with its discussion, eagerness no sense findfaultwiththeso-calledAnglo-American approach,gives oftherealrelationship betweenthesetwotraditions. the oftheessaysin thevolumeis accurate, SinceGabler'ssummary are unfortunately as fullof problems as Gabler'sinessaysthemselves Zeller's1971essayis translated as saying that is.Forexample, troduction "shouldbe replacedby theconceptof authorizaauthorialintention verand reproduce authorized tion";the"editor'sdutyis to determine is binding"can be resions"(p. 25). Yet therulethat"authorization laxed "in thecase of certaininstances termedtextualfaults,"which "entitleand obligethe editorto textualintervention (emendation)" thatauthorized textsas theystandin recognizes (p. 28).This concession documents do notalwaysreflect whattheauthorsmeantto authorize do not but if an reflect theauthors'intentions); is, always (that they editoris allowedtomakeanyemendations forthepurposeofrestoring theauthor's therewouldseemtobe no logicalwayofarguing intention, thatonlyobviouserrors canbe corrected in effect, thatone orofsaying, shouldtakeonlya first text toward an and intended reconstructing step notgoas faras onecantobringit about.Certainly thetextZellersanctionsis no longera "reproduction" ofa documentary text.In Zeller's


25

1975essay,thesamepointis made,andin a mannerthatsoundslikean andmusteditevery editor:"onemusteditversions, "Anglo-American" andpassages extenso its eitherin orbyrecording variants"; with version an "textualfaults"notonly"allow"but "demand intervention bythe criticaleditor"(p. 107).38 Zeller,unawarethathe hasthusabolishedthe withdocumentary failsto see thatintentiontexts, equationofversions thathe has havecarriedtoitslogicalconclusion theinsight alisteditors as an ediintroduced intohis argument againstintention falteringly torialgoal. was pointedout by Bodo has its limitations That thisanthology Plachta(authorofEditionswissenschaft, 1997)in an essayforthe1999 he saysthatthecollection volumeofText:29 givesa "one-sided impresin Germany thatis in factofa muchbroaderand sionofa discussion he examines nature"(p. 36).To helpfilloutthepicture, moreflexible varies howtheselectionofa "base-text" severaleditionsthatillustrate He the also on work. comments of textual each to the history according and of of facsimiles manuscripts usefully points increasing production oftextualcriticism"outthatcriticaleditions"basedon theprinciples of are "stillthemaincharacteristic whathe calls"'classical'editions"the But if his Germaneditorialpractice"(p. 43). essaysuggests variety oftheissues tofurther itdoesnothing ofGerman understanding editing, and theoretical between involved.It exhibitsthecommonconfusion ofdiscussing thepointlessness matters and doesnotrecognize practical facsimiles canstandon theirown.40 whether \ieemphasizes Throughout text(e.g.,pp. authentic" thatGermaneditorsfocuson the"historically with of that term the but he never something questions equation 35,40); nordoeshe askwhyan in a singlesurviving like"present document," textsrequiresone notto be interested in sociallyconstructed interest texts. intended inauthorially camefrom totheGermananthology A farmorepenetrating response at aboutthesametime,in the 1998volumeof PeterL. Shillingsburg 38. I do not understand how Zeller got the idea that Anglo-Americaneditors do not record documentaryvariants,including those in manuscripts.He even claims, incredibly, that the bias of Anglo-Americaneditors has prevented them "from devoting the same attention to manuscriptversionsas ... to the printed ones" (p. 97). Zeller's two essays commented on here are "Record and Interpretation:Analysisand Documentation as Goal and Method of Editing/' pp. 17-58; and "Structureand Genesis in Editing: On German and Anglo-AmericanTextual Criticism,"pp. 95-123. 39. "In Between the 'Royal Way' of Philology and 'Occult Science': Some Remarks about German Discussion on Text Constitutionin the Last Ten Years," trans.Dieter Neiteler, Tex«,i2 (i999)» 31-4740. It is not clear what he means (especially in this context) when he says, To my mind, ... the edited text,and not the text reproduced in facsimile,must remain 'the main reader" part of an edition',because it is the edited textalone that enables the responseof the

(P-47)-

26


hisessayreachesan outspoken After an overly concessive Editio.41 start, "themainissueofdifference He identifies betweenAngloconclusion. of individual as "the role American and Germanic editing" judgment inscholarly andofemendation editing"(p. 138).Another wayofputting thepoint,asthelastpartoftheessaymakesclear,istosaythatthecentral to the questionconcernsthe"stage"of textualworkto be presented at public:theGermanapproach"cutsofftheexerciseofinterpretation addsa "critically an earlystage"(p. 148),whereastheAnglo-American edited,eclectictext"to "thearchivalrecord"(p. 149).Usingtwoexhe showsthat amples,onefromGoetheand theotherfromThackeray, "the texts"sometimes such"non-extant onlywayto seea work provide for oftextualdevelopment," as theproductoftheauthorialtrajectory thatdo notreflect theauthor's textsoftencontainrevisions "authorized" He is notsayingthat ofdelegated intention authority"). ("miscarriages that itself but is text one taking"a stepbeyondthe adequateby any more emended or one edition," texts,is important adding documentary from not available a historical forshowing stage (or easilyextractable) made The could have even an exclusively documentary apparatus. essay that its the German in clearera contradiction emphasison approach: and in thesocialproduction reception an interest textssuggests existing in an interest reflects of texts,whereasitsconcernwithauthorization whichis notservedwellbya prohibition authors, againstmostemendatexts.42 AsShillingsburg tionsofdocumentary saysat theend,"whenthe individual inhibitions judgment]becomeso draconian [surrounding and undifferthattheonlyallowablebehavioris to publishundigested be well One would entiateddata,it is timefora revolution" (p. 149). and read advisedto skipthe Germananthology Shillingsaltogether burg'sessayinstead. in calledcritiquegenetiquehasbeentreated The Frenchmovement Review Romanic American of two numbers substantial journals, special theMay1995numberofRomanic ofthese, andWord& Image.The first and AntoineCompagnon), Review(86.3,editedbyMichaelRiffaterre from an of most the organized April 1994symposium papers prints withthepurAlmuthGr&illon,and HenriMitterand byCompagnon, and of theAnglo-American together representatives pose of bringing in French, The volumeislargely totextualstudy. theFrench approaches 41. "A Resistence to ContemporaryGerman Editorial Theory and Practice," Editio, 12 (1998), 138-150. 42. Another way in which the essay could have been improved is that the distinction between "version" and "document" could have been made explicit. Near the beginning, Shillingsburgsaysthat manyof the essaysin the German anthologystate that reportsof the historicalrecord"take precedenceover any attemptsto meld versionsinto an eclectic text" (p. 141) as if that is indeed how eclectic textsare constructed.


27

theonlyEnglishcontributions inhowever, beingpartofCompagnon's a paperofminecalled"Crition troduction (thepart geneticcriticism), andGeneticCriticism" cal Editions, (pp.581-593),andfour Hypertexts, authors.43 AlofEnglishandAmerican casestudieson themanuscripts not serveas a basicsourcefor will therefore thoughthispublication introduction readers,Compagnon's (pp. 393-401)is English-speaking notonlyforitsconciseaccountof critique wellworththeirattention, questionsthatit asksaboutthis genetiquebutalsoforthepenetrating approach. because It beginsbynotingthattheapproach"claimstobe criticism, and genetic, becauseits overediting, to interpretation it givesprimacy ultimategoal is ... to elucidatethestagesof thecreativeprocess"(p. whether toprobetheseclaims.He wonders critique 394),andheproceeds for criticism or new "justhelpfuladparadigm genetiqueis actuallya ofmanuscript to theimportance vice"(p. 395)thatcallsourattention theavant-texte He askswhether variants. preced(thetextofthedrafts a "new critics' is of these are the which study) object ingpublication, some and finds "old the not justi396), manuscript" (p. object," simply doesfocuson a newly fortheideathatFrenchgeneticcriticism fication classofobjects,sinceit doesnotseetextualstatesin termsof conceived or teleological a hierarchical relationship. (One hasto be carefulwhen butthe does since this geneticstudy involvean ordering; making point, is torememberit is important andchronologyorderis chronological, withprogress.) notsynonymous also explainsthatFrenchgeneticcriticsare generally Compagnon on thegroundsthatan appaof editions, construction the to opposed are modelin whichvariants the classical from derived ratusofvariants, an for authorial is final froman author's text, inappropriate departures of it. He properly and impliesa subordination avant-texte pointsout French conditioned ispartly thatthisattitude bythefactthattraditional andheaskswhether finaltexts, onauthors' havefocused editions genetic to criticswouldhavefeltthesamewayif theyhad been responding Since such rationale. followed that editions Greg's Anglo-American itis truethattheirapparatuses haveoftenusedearlycopy-texts, editions tothoseof tohavea similarity be variants ofpost-copy-text may thought from recordnonauthorial whentheylargely classicaleditions departures have been more texts.ButCompagnon authors'finished might explicit texts arejustas rifein thelifetime innotingthatnonauthorial readings and authors ofmodern revisions, alterations, publishers' (scribes' typists' 43. Among the French contributionsare essaysby Graham Falconer, Almuth Gr£sillon, Louis Hay, Jean-LouisLebrave, and Jacques Neefs,names that will be familiarto those who have read in thisarea.

28


compositors'errors)as theyare in the posthumoustextsof ancientauthors;geneticcriticismmustdeal withsuchvariations,both beforeand afterthepointofpublication,ifit is trulyto delineateauthors'revisional processes.And Compagnonmightalso have noted that an interestin discussingrevisionsdoesnotruleout listingthemin apparatusformand thatthe Anglo-American traditionhas certainlynot been inimicalto discursivetreatments of variants,both withineditionsand as separate articlesand books. It is hardto see critiquegenetiqueas a distinctive approach,and perhapsCompagnonis rightto askwhetherit maybe only"theinstitutional definition and legitimationof a researchgroup[ITEM, the Institutdes Textes et ManuscritsModernes]at the CNRS [CentreNational de la RechercheScientifique]"(p. 394). As with the German emphasison a limitedfocusthatis in factsubsumedunder versions,it seemsto reflect themorecomprehensive Anglo-American approach.Indeed, in mycontributionto thecollection,I pointout thatcriticallyeditedtextsfocuswiththeaims of critiquegenetiing on authorialintentionfitperfectly for in their critics, que, genetic analysesof thecreativeprocess,are concernedwithwhatauthorsintendedat each stage.A seriesofcriticaltexts in fullor in apparatusform,or in a combinationofthe (whetheroffered two approaches)would seem the naturalaccompanimentto essaysdisat particularmocussingtheevidenceforwhatauthorswereattempting ments.That evidence,as Compagnonrecognizes,is neveras ample as one would wish,and thefullstoryof anyact of creativity will neverbe told.But self-styled geneticcriticshaveno monopolyon beinginterested in makingtheattemptto tell thestoryas thoroughly as possible. The otherspecialnumber,theApril-June1997numberof Word& Image (13.2),entitled"GeneticCriticism/'is almostentirelyin English, but it containsno contributionthatdisplaysthe criticalindependence of Compagnon'sintroduction. the factthatit offers transNevertheless, lationsof essaysby prominentmembersof the ITEM group-Almuth Gr&illon, Pierre-Marcde Biasi, Jacques Neefs,and Claire Bustarret readersa fuller (theguesteditor)-meansthatit givesEnglish-speaking introductionto theITEM pointofview thantheothercollectiondoes. Indeed,the openingpiece,by Gresillon(formerdirectorof ITEM and authorof Elementsde critiquegenetique,1994), is a convenientsummaryofthebasicposition.Entitled"Slow- Workin Progress"(pp. 106123)it makestheclaimthat"geneticcriticismestablisheda newperspectiveon literature," withits"vision"ofliterature"as an activity"(p. 106), a visionthat"goes hand in hand witha desireto de-sacralizeand detheso-called'definitive' text"(p. 107).As thiscommentsuggests, mythify the articlerepeatsthe superficialpointsabout scholarlyeditionsregur


29

ofcritiquegenetique:the"pre-text," Gr&illon larlymadebyexponents . . . from theroleofappendixthatVariations' says,playsa role"different oftenplayincritical wheretheyareremoved fromtheirgenetic editions, ' addedonattheendofthebookasa critical context, simply afterthought* herealmostseemswillful, and it is cer(p. 117).The misunderstanding The mostsubstantial othergeneralessayin tainlycounterproductive. thecollection is Pierre-Marc de Biasi's"HorizonsforGeneticStudies" translated A. Jones), whichsystematically byJennifer (pp. 124-134; goes all the verbal and outhowthe"model arts, nonverbal, through pointing forgeneticanalysisthatemergesfromthe studyof modernliterary tootherfields can,without manuscripts anypossibledoubt,be extended of creation"(p. 124).That "thearchivesof creation"in all fieldsare worthstudying is an important hashardly point,thoughitsrecognition on depended critiquegenetique. In an articlein the1999volumeofText,de Biasiattempts, lesssuca "typology" of Frenchgeneticeditions,usingtheimageof cessfully, ordered"stack"ofdocuments, "layers"thatmakeup a chronologically ofthearchivefora particular theentirety work.44 He diconstituting videsgeneticeditionsintotwotypes,the"horizontal," whichconcentrateon one layeror "phase,"and the"vertical," whichattempt as far thewriting from as possibleto "reconstitute the to beginning process theend" (p. 26); the"horizontal" is subdivided to category according ornottheworkwasfinally the"vertical" whether published, according theeditionis "unabridged" to whether or "partial."Becausehe gives ofactualeditionsthatillustrate thesecategories, somereaders examples the to will findhis articleusefulas an introductory guide varietyof On has been undertaken. the that theoretical level, geneticscholarship hisarticleleavesmuchto be desired.Forexample,it doesnot however, withthedistinction betweenphysical document and deal satisfactorily than one of which mayoccupya singledocument, stageofrevision (more theproblembeginswiththelayer as de Biasirecognizes); /stackmetanotconobjectsandwhichis therefore physical phor,whichemphasizes aboutentitiesthatmaysharea singleobject.45 His duciveto thinking fromlackofparallelism in itsconstrucschemealsosuffers classification and thepractical tion,illogically mixingtheconceptual (as in thesub44. "Editing Manuscripts: Towards a Typology of Recent French Genetic Editions, 1980-1995,"trans.Helene Erlichson,Text, 12 (1999), 1-30. Cf. his "What Is a LiteraryDraft? Toward a Functional Typology of Genetic Documentation," Yale French Studies, 89 (1996), 26-58. 45. The use of "text" to referprimarilyto the final text of a work (as when a vertical edition "reaches the textual stage itself" [p. 26]) is a furtherdrawback. The fact that every stagehas a textis glimpsedonly sporadicallyhere, as in the phrase "the textual text" (p. 20). (Surely the problem is not entirelyattributable to the translator.)

30


to mentioned divisions above).Andwhen,amonghisvariousattempts he saysthat"thelayer theinfinity ofpossiblesituations, accommodate onebeginstowonderhow isitself a stack"(placedwithina largerstack), a horizontal editionofsucha different is are: how realthedistinctions andverThis edition"? stacked a "partialvertical pretentious layerfrom introduction bosearticleisnotan effective toitssubject. Another overblown KlausHurlebusch's effort, longessayin the2000 "a morecomprehenaimofproviding volumeof Text,hastheworthy of a combination siveunderstanding of literary through production" on the withtheFrenchemphasis theGermanemphasis on authorship It beginswithwhatwouldseeman unnecessary itself.46 question writing an unsurprising answer:thequestionaskswhatrelevance and provides and theanswer haveto literary drafts studyas opposedto psychology, that is in obvious if not worded an obvious one, theyarereleway) (an vantif "regardedas witnessdocuments onlymaterially distinguished ofa work-andifthey fromotherwitness suchas printings documentsas 'preliminary' or 'deareaccordeda mediatehermeneutic significance than More text" valid of the achieved, thirty stages' velopmental (p. 67). concludes byarguingthatgenetic pagesofsuchproselater,Hurlebusch from contents shouldserve"tocullnotonlythedocument representation their buttorecover fromthedocuments' the'witnesses/ iconicity paratextualnature"(p. 99).In otherwords, oneshouldstudyall thephysical and imporevidencein thedocuments. This pointis ofcoursecorrect not hereis thefailuretorecognize tant,butwhatisalarming adequately is betweenthetextualand the"paratextual" onlythatthedistinction denota simpleone butalso thatthetranscription of the"contents" If Hurlebusch pendson theanalysisof everydetailof thedocument. had fullyunderstood or paleocodicology, analytical bibliography (or wouldhavebeen orwhatever onewishestocallit),hisdiscussion graphy, helaborsoverwouldhavebeen andsomeoftheproblems verydifferent, clarified. in othercountries, Someglimpsesof the activity especiallyItaly, and offered in the are Netherlands, byseveraladditionalarticles Spain, notonlysurveys Text.The 1998piecebyPaola Pugliatti47 thedevelopthe Author'sCompositional Method:Prolegomenon to a Herme46. "Understanding neuticsof GeneticWriting," trans.Uta Nitschke-Stumpf and Hans WalterGabler,Text,13 (2000),55-101 (quotationfromp. 64). Anotherunusefulattemptto crossgeographical is thesuperficial boundaries and uncritical ofnationaltraditions survey byMaritaMathijsen to the 1998anthologyEditingthe Text ("The Futureof Textual Editing")contributed witha notablycarelessand unperceptive in(see note 10 above),pp. 45-54- an anthology whichfindsan editorial"crisis"in "all threegreattraditions" troduction, (English,French, and German). in Italy: FromPasquali's Historicism to the Challengeof 47. "Textual Perspectives •Variantistica' (and Beyond),"Text,11 (1998),155-188.


31

in Italybut also comparesthatapproach,which mentofvariantistica in theirdevelopmental context("a setofstepsaimingat studiesvariants withcritiquegenetique, whichlooksat drafts someformoffinality"), idea of 'achieveesthetic as separateentities(without "any progressive thattheyarelinkedbya similar ment'"). Butshequiteproperly observes forboth-in spiteoftheiravowedfocus"aporia"or "contradiction," fromsynchrony to diachrony, from haveto deal "withthetransition fromtheeventtoitshistory" toprocess, structure (p. 186).Sheis in fact thateachapproachinsists ofthelimitation theartificiality recognizing articlebyAlbertoVarvaroin thenextvolume on.A lesscomprehensive oftextualcritibetweenthegreatprestige ofText48findsa connection of dealingwithmodernliterature. cismin Italyand itslongtradition at times, as in sayingthatAmeritoobroadly Varvarogeneralizes rather unliketheItalians,havebeen "blindedby deconcan textualcritics, for"we Italians")is wisein the structionism" (p. 57); buthe (speaking holdthatthestudyofvariants which direction of his remarks, general textsas the neednotlead one to regard"databanks"ofdocumentary of editorial activity. goal principal showa lessclearly in TextonSpanishandDutchediting Fouressays bothinthe1995volume, onSpanish, Ofthetwoessays situation.49 defined has greaterdepththanCarol BinghamKirby's, David R. Whitesell's method thestemmatic of butbothmakemany thesamepoints. Although much used for been has editing (ofwhichKirbyis an activeproponent) ofkindsofeditionshas in factappeared GoldenAgedrama,a variety verthesameissuesconcerning sincethe1960s-reflecting performance thathaveunderlainthedebatesamong sionsand authorialintentions of condrama.Despitethiscongruence editorsofEnglishRenaissance that"Hispanists haveresponded observes cerns,Whitesell slowlyto admadein otherfields"(p. 84). The Dutch vancesin textualcriticism tothe in some ischaracterized similar bytwocontributors ways, picture, H. van M. case T. studies. 2000volumeofText,largely Vliet, through in Instituut oftheConstantijn thenthedirector Huygens (founded 1983 thehissketches bureauforeditingDutchliterature), as a government 48. "The 'New Philology' from an Italian Perspective," Text, 12 (1999), 49-58; this article,translatedby Marcello Cherchi,was originallypublished in Italian in a 1997 German anthology,Alte und neue Philologie, ed. Martin-DietrichGlessgenand Franz Lebsanft,pp. 35-42. 49. David R. Whitesell,"Fredson Bowersand the Editingof Spanish Golden Age Drama," Text (see note 12 above), 8 (1995), 67-84; Carol Bingham Kirby,"Editing Spanish Golden Age Dramatic Texts: Past, Present,and Future Models," Text, 8 (1995), 171-184; H. T. M. van Vliet, "Scholarly Editing in the Netherlands," Text, 13 (2000), 103-129; Annemarie Kets-Vree,"Dutch ScholarlyEditing: The Historical-CriticalEdition in Practice," Text, 13 (2000), 131-149.Cf. van Vliet and Kets-Vree,"ScholarlyEditing in the Netherlands,"Literary 6 Linguistic Computing (see note 11 above), 15 (2000), 65-72.

32


and itsfailtoryofDutch editing:itsgreatRenaissanceaccomplishment ure beforethemid-1970sto thinkabout methodsfordealingwithvernacular literature.The resultingneed to catchup withdevelopmentsin othercountriescaused post-1975 Dutch editorsto draw as needed on different and the German. traditions,especiallythe Anglo-American Both van Vliet and AnnemarieKets-Vree,the other author (another editor at the Huygens Instituut),commenton the "methodological eclecticism"(to use Kets-Vree'sphrase)of Dutch editing.This eclecticismsuggestswhatthoughtful readersofall theseessaysmustconclude: thateach of theseapproaches-theGerman,the French,and theItalian, to theextentthatit is fairto identify nationaltraditions-has important observationsto contributebut thateach one by itselfdeals onlywitha limitedaspectof textualhistory. We shouldbe gratefulthataccountsof thesenationalapproachesare increasingly beingmade available in English,but theyserveto underscorethe dangersof all positionsthatlack comprehensiveness. Ill It is not surprisingthata considerablebody of writingin the last centurywas devotedto electroniceditions,just as yearsof thetwentieth theroleand effect ofcomputersin otherareasof lifehave been thesubject of ubiquitousdiscussion.The firstbook thatcomesto mind when one thinksof theuse ofcomputersin editingis PeterL. Shillingsburg's ScholarlyEditing in the ComputerAge, a thirdedition of whichappeared in 1996.This book, since its firstappearancein 1984,50has become establishedas a basic guide, and it deservesits successnot only becauseit is well-informed and sensiblebutalso becauseit dealswiththe of electronic complexities publicationin the contextof the issuesthat informall scholarlyediting.As the titlesuggests, thebook is essentially an introductionto scholarlyediting,one thattakesinto particularaccounttheadvantagesofelectronicpresentation; it recognizesthateditors who wishto make the mosteffective use of electroniccapabilitiesmust be thoroughly cognizantof thevariousgoals of scholarlyeditingand of thedivergentbutcomplementary viewsofliteraturethatunderliethem. Electronicpublication,in otherwords,is onlya meansto theends that scholarlyeditionshave alwayshad. For the 1996editionofhisbook,Shillingsburg (besidesmakinglocal revisionsthroughout)51 hasadded twonewchapters:"CriticalEditions," editionin the 1986essayin thisseries(see note 1 above), 50. I havediscussedthefirst sinceGreg). pp. 39-45(pp. 147-153in TextualCriticism 51. Suchas thenewopeningof"Ideal Texts"(p. 75) or thenewsecondand thirdpara-


33

sectionofthebook("Theory"), and"Eleccomingat theendofthefirst at end the final tronicEditions/' of the section placed ("Practicalities"). basicstatements, Bothareexcellent conciseand lucid,and constitute a familiar reason readers with for this book to look at it already good outlinesthebasesforauthorialand again."CriticalEditions"skillfully andwhyargusociological editingandexplainswhybotharenecessary ments oneortheotherarenotproductive.52 AsShillingsburg denigrating intoauthorsand works"witha variety says,we can gainmoreinsights of toolsthanwithjustone" (p. 100).His chapteron "Electronic Editions"isimportant forstating thatscholarly editors"bring emphatically all theconcerns to electronic oftextualcriticism thatoccupublishing in us the first of book" In this other an elecwords, pied part (p. 163). troniceditionisa formofpresentation and,as such,doesnotposea different setoftheoretical issuesfromtheonefacedbyeditors whopresent theirworkin a different form.NotethatShillingsburg usesthephrase "electronic here,justas he doesin theopeningofthefirst publishing" of thischapter, sentence belowthetitle"Electronic Ediimmediately tions."Despitethefalseparallelism ofthetwonewchaptertitles,reinEdioftheirplacement, theoneon "Electronic forced bythesymmetry tions"doescomein thesectioncalled"Practicalities," andShillingsburg thatan electronic editioncan also be a critical clearlyunderstands edition. criticalas wellas docuIndeed,it willbe moreusefulifit contains "archive"as an electronic collectionof texts.An electronic mentary formand in image texts,bothin transcribed documentary (searchable) chaosofmaterial is oftencalled-is likelyto seem"an undigested form, mustbecomean editorbeforeproceeding" in whicheveryone (p. 165). withcross-references conIt shouldat leastbe "webbedor networked contextual and variant notes, materials, texts, necting explanatory parand variorum But allel texts,"alongwithintroductions commentary. . . . as the electronic edition in editors in "authorial will, that, beyond eclectictextrepresenting theprintedition,providean edited,critical, theirnotionofwhatthetextshouldhavebeen-thenewtextwebbed graphsof "Economicsand EditorialGoals" (pp. 123-124).One substantialinsertionis a discussion ofHans W. Gabler'sand JohnKidd'sdiffering approachesto editgoodfive-page have a highconcening Ulysses(pp. 109-114);and the chapterson the use of computers intoaccount. thattaketechnicaldevelopments trationofrevisions thanit does: (1) alhad coveredthreepointsmoreexplicitly 52. I wishhis discussion of thework" of theworkwithdocuments to equateversions thoughhe notes"thetendency thata document on thepossibility maycontainmorethanone (p. 97),he doesnotcomment in version;(2) hisclaimthat"authorscannotsayin textsthingsthatcannotbe represented hisneglectoforal texts;and (3) he does or iconicsignson paper"(p. 96) illustrates linguistic in additionto authorial to collaborative or socialintention, notgiveveryclearrecognition as a possiblegoalofcriticalediting. intention,

34


intothearchive"(p. 166).Sucha textis unquestionand cross-referenced ablyan appropriatepartof an electronicedition-thoughShillingsburg mighthave made clearerthe desirabilityof multiplecriticaltexts,restagesof authorialintentionas well as one or more flectingdifferent stagesof collaborativeintention(since scribalor printedtextsdo not necessarilyreflecttheirmakers'intentionsfully).Afterall, the space available forpresentingmultipletextsin full is the basis forthe many advantagesthatelectroniceditionsoffer;and justas a widearrayofdocumentarytextsshould be made available, so should a seriesof critical texts. treatment of electronicmattersas "practiAlthoughShillingsburg's calities"is one of the mostvaluable aspectsof his discussion,he does sometimesvergeon assertingthekindofexcessiveconceptualclaimsfor writersoftenmake.For example,he electronictextsthatlessthoughtful medium that the electronic givesscholarlyeditors"opportunities says to extendtheirnotionsof whatconstitutesthe workof art and how it can be read" (p. 163). Or again: "The electronicmediumhas extended the textualworld;... it has added dimensionsand ease of mobilityto our conceptsof textuality"(p. 164). Ease of mobility,yes,forthe most part; but "dimensions"added to our "conceptsof textuality"?Our "notionsof what constitutesthe workof art" are not limitedor impoverishedby the codex form;whatis oftenhamperedby thatformis the facilitywithwhichwe can read variantsin contextand move back texts.We could and forthbetweencorresponding passagesof different to do so. alwaysdo thesethings,but oftenit tooka greatdeal of effort When Shillingsburg saysthat"studentsofa textwill morereadilythan was everthecase in printeditionsbe able to confronttextualcruxesfor themselves"(p. 166), he comes nearerthe point,since studentscould cruxesin printededitionsalso; but I would delete"be able to" confront fromhissentence,becauseone is able to studycruxes"readily"in either case,and thereal pointis thatin manyinstancesone can probablystudy them"morereadily"in electronictexts.53 thinksthattheelectroniceditionis "a toolforstudents Shillingsburg ofa work"and "not primarily... a place to sit [sic]and read througha novelor poemfora first-time experienceof theworkor forthepleasure ofa goodread" (p. 165).The samecould be said forscholarlyeditionsin printedform,whichare oftenread in nonlinearfashion.But of course themain textin a printededition,especiallyif it is freeof symbols,can be read forpleasure,simplybecause it is in the familiarcodex form. And we mayconfidently say thatebooks,whichare improvingrapidly, 53. Whetherthisis thecaseofcoursedependson therelativeskillwithwhichthetexts havebeensuppliedwithcross-references and listsof variants.

TEXTUAL CRITICISMAT THE MILLENNIUM

35

will eventuallybe acceptedas a pleasantformin whichto read the texts ofan electronicedition.They mayevenhelp to breakdownthedistinctionbetween"a toolforstudents"and a vehiclefor"a good read,"bringing to more people the pleasuresof textual awareness.Even though Shillingsburg's chapterwould have benefitedfromgreaterattentiontoi a sensibleoutsuch points,it remainsa fineintroduction, manifesting look and offering in conciseand readable forma considerableamount of adviceon technicalmatters. Shillingsburghas writtenabout electroniceditionsin otherplaces as well,such as his shortarticleentitled"PrinciplesforElectronicArchives,ScholarlyEditions,and Tutorials" (on pages23-35 °* ^e Finneran anthologyto be discussedbelow). Althoughhe givesfarmoreattention to the "archives"of his title than to the "editions,"his phrase "archiveof editions" (p. 24) showsthat his conceptof the archiveis broadenoughto encompasscriticaleditions.(Criticaleditions,afterall, even thosenewlyproduced,are documentsin the historyof a work.) Shillingburg's piece is essentiallyan outlineof desirable"industrystandards"foreditions(capabilityof handlingmultimediaand accessibility and of "ideal goals" (includingsearchhardwareplatforms) on different with able textsalong images,linkagesamongtexts,and appropriateena list of "generalprinciples"regardingusability, with coding); it ends archivespecifications, integrity, expandability, security, transportability, and convenience(largelyreprintedfroma documentof his printability, thatwas distributedat the 1993meetingofthe ModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica,one thatbecamepartofthebackgroundforthedraft guidelinesissued in 1997 by the MLA's Committeeon ScholarlyEditions).He is concernedherewithtechnical,noteditorial,considerations; thereis clearlya value and althoughthepointshe makesare elementary, in havinga concisestatementof basic pointsfroma personwithShillingsburg'sextensiveexperiencewithelectroniceditions. themostprominentwriteron electronicediting AfterShillingsburg, is JeromeMcGann, whose "The Rationale of HyperText" has been made available in severalplaces.54That title,withits definitearticle,is whereit is available(in a textdated6 May 1995, 54. It first appearedon theinternet, as of this writing)at . formin EuropeanEnglishMessenger, Its firstprintedappearancewas in a shortened 4.2 on the examplesand leavesout the introduc(Autumn1995),34-40 (whichconcentrates and Hypermedia"and "Coda," and the torysection,the sectionsentitled"Hyperediting shorter notes,as wellas scattered passages).The fullversionhas beenpublishedwithmodifithe additionof severalparagraphsto the discussionof ExampleD) in cations(primarily Text,9 (1996),11-32(thetextcitedhere)and in ElectronicText,ed. KathrynSutherland and (1997),pp. 19-46.(In thetitle,"HyperText"has a capitalmiddle"T" in the internet Textappearances butnotin theothertwo.)

36


an obviousallusion to Greg's"The Rationale of Copy-Text,"and McGann explicitlystatesthathe wrotethepiece "in a consciousrevisionary relationto W. W. Greg'sgreatessay"(p. 32). McGann'sreputationand whichthepiece ofhis titlearousegreatexpectations, theportentousness well he aware of the does not fulfill.Although is itselfunfortunately of on theculturalsignificance information plethoraof"Loftyreflections technology"(p. 11),he comesclose to supplyinganotherone, forhe tries to endow a simplepracticalpointwithunwarrantedphilosophicalsigThe simple point is this: electronictextsand hypermedia nificance.55 archivesoftenallow one to do manydesirablethingsmore easilythan one could accomplishthemusing the codex form.Linkages between textsare obviouslyfacilitatedbytheelectronicmedium,and it is clearly betterto haveoral texts(whentheyare relevant)embeddedin thesame framework as visibletexts,ratherthanfurnishedin the formof recordingsslippedintoa pocketat theback of a book. No one needsa "ratiotool should replace a less efnale" to understandwhya more efficient ficientone. on practicaladvice,whichis whattheessayis When he concentrates he makes good sense.For example,he wiselydistinguishes reallyabout, textand a hyperedited a between word-processed one, forthe formeris in a what is encountered from notgreatlydifferent printedbook,wheremeans to securefreedomfrom a as as hyper editinguses"computerization And his advice to use a the analyticlimitsof hard copy text" (p. 15). project,in orderto accommodate programin a hyperediting hypermedia auditoryand visibledocuments,is obviouslysound,sincedoingso takes As he repeatedly fullestadvantageofwhattheelectronicmediumoffers. asks,in one formoranother,"Whywouldanyonewishto do withoutit?" Two otherpiecesofadviceare to designa projectin termsof its"largest and mostambitiousgoals," not in termsof "immediatehardwareor softwareoptions,"and to structurethe programin the "mostmodular and flexibleway,"so thattechnicaladvancescan be importedintoitwith as littledisruptionas possible(p. 16). This is just commonsense,and not partofa "rationale,"but I would not wishto object to theuttering ofcommonsense. is the philoWhat I do findobjectionable,and indeed unnecessary, set. He framework into advice is which his sensible beginsby sophical betweenworksof the literaryimaginationand "textual distinguishing worksthatare instruments ofscientific knowledge"(p. 12). It is surpriswould notion that still take this seriously.The construction ing anyone of everyworkmade of words(as of othermedia) involvesrhetorical 55. As he himself says later, "Enthusiasts for hypertextsometimesmake extravagant philosophical claims" p. 28).


37

choices,and thus artistry;and the presentationof everysuch work, whetherin oral or tangibleform,affectsits meaningas taken in by listenersor readers.To drawa fixedline betweenworksof the imagination and worksof scientific knowledgeis impossiblebecause all works are combinationsof bothkindsof understanding (if indeed theyreally are twokinds).Yet McGann is willingto sayflatly, "To theimagination of text(oral,written,printed,electronic)are incarnathe materialities tional not vehicularforms.But forthe scientistand scholar,the media ofexpressionare primarily conceptualutilities,meansratherthanends" as McGannwell knows,do not exclude critics, however, (p. 12). Literary fromtheirinvestigative domain worksof expositoryprose,even when the authorsare scholarsand scientists.In any case, debatingthe point (which has itselfbeen the subject of a considerableliterature)is irrelevantto a discussionofscholarlyediting,forall verbalworks,regardlessofhow one classifiesthem,are equally in need of theapplicationof textualscholarship.56 It is nevertheless easyto see whyMcGann feltit necessaryto go into the thismatter.Since positionforwhichhe is well knownholdsthatthe textsof literaryworksinclude theirvisible (and oral) presentations, he has to regardscholarlyeditionsas beingtreatisesabout thetextsof literof thosetexts,in orderto justifythe use, aryworks,not presentations in an edition,of a different physicalmedium (such as the electronic, whichit is the purposeof the essayto advocate)fromthe one in which the workfirstappeared. Thereforehe saysat the outset,"My remarks ofscientific hereapplyonlyto textualworksthatare instruments knowlcaveat would have been of course, edge" (p. 12). (This logically required, even if he were writingabout scholarlyprintededitions,since those editionscannoteverbe the equivalentof the originalprintingsof the worksconcerned.)The pricehe paysfortryingto maintainhis position in thisfashionis an illogicalwaveringbetweena focuson authorialintentionand a focuson collaborativesocialresults.For ifmaterialmedia are "incarnational"(in the senseof being the oppositeof "vehicular") to creatorsofliteraryworks,thentheclaim thatscholarlyeditions,with theirdifferent works(no longerthe physicalincarnation,are scientific an emphasison authorialintention. originalimaginativeworks)reflects Yet McGann'sinterestin thevisible(or oral) productis in otherrespects text" in "Endnote: 56. McGannpersistsin distinguishing "poetry"and "expository WhatIs Text?",in Ma(r)kingthe Text (see note 10 above),pp. 329-333.In thispiece,he thelimitations criticizes in theconceptof textthatunderliesthe Text Enquite properly whichconcentrates on the "narrowly codingInitiative, 'linguistic'"elementsand neglects the"morebroadly'semiotic'"ones(p. 331);but thecriticism is relevantto theencodingof all texts,notjust thosethathe believescan be segregated as "'poetic'or non-informational forms of textuality" (p. 330).

$8_


an attempt to place intention within a social context, where nonauthorial intentionsin particular areas often outweigh the authorial ones. And in that case, later editions (including scholarlyones) ought also to be renditions of the work as it emerges fromdifferentsocial settings. This tangle could have been avoided if McGann had been willing to accept one simple point: that authors of verbal works do not always consider the physical presentationof their words (or some aspects of it) to be a part of the works themselves,even though it always (1) reflects to some extent the intentions of those responsible for the presentation and (2) affectsthe responses of those who experience the presentation. From the point of view of authorial intention, therefore,the physical formsof some verbal works are indeed only "vehicular," and scholarly editions using differentvehicles (whether differenttypefacesand paper, or a computer terminal instead of paper) can in those cases reproduce the texts of the works. This point in no way lessens the importance of studying the social forms of texts, which necessarily include physical components; but it eliminates the necessityfor claiming that scholarly editions cannot transmitthe texts of works but only informationabout those texts. Afterthis unfortunatebeginning, McGann weakens his essay further with another fallacious piece of theorizing. As a reason for preferring hypereditingto the editing that was presented in codex form,he asserts thatthereis somethingproblematical about using "books to studybooks, or hard copy texts to analyze other hard copy texts" (p. 12). At firstone may thinkhe is sayingsomethinganalogous to the often-madepoint that we end up analyzing worksof all media in the medium of language; but that point never carried the implication that therewas an inherentproblem in analyzing like with like- that, for instance, an effectivecriticism of a piece of music could not be a musical parody. McGann, however, believes that when one uses "books to analyze and study other books," "the scale of the tools seriously limits the possible results" (p. 12). He goes so faras to say that the problems with codex editions "arise because theydeploy a book formto studyanother book form" (p. 13). Because? How does the similarityin form cause the problems? (One might even thinkit an advantage, to the extent that the codex edition can reproduce more of the physical features of the original codex publication.) His point is pretentiousbecause it seems to adduce a theoretical principle,57 when in factno principle is required, other than the self-evidentdesira57. As an analogue,he citesthestudyof thephysicalworld,in which"it makesa great difference if the level of the analysisis experiential(direct)or mathematical (abstract)" (p. 12).But it is hardto see whatparallelismMcGannhas in mind,forboththecodexand in approach. theelectronic oftextualevidenceareempirical(or"experiential") presentations

TEXTUALCRITICISMAT THE MILLENNIUM

39

and certainly not a principle,like this bilityof increasedefficiencylimitations of the codexformare limitawithout substance. The one, with one codex.Andthat whether is another of tionsregardless dealing about:theincreased afforded is all McGannis talking maneuverability conveniences can be Whetherelectronic by electronic presentation.58 to a higherorder"(p. 12) said to "liftone'sgenerallevelofattention one is willingto letone'srhetoric beofhowinflated is reallya matter forhypertext. The "levelof one'senthusiasm comein ordertoregister ofthepastis notlikelyto be attention" bythebestscholars displayed reduces thedrudgery but involved unquestionably surpassed, hypertext in carrying outsomekindsofinvestigation.59 of toprovidea theoretical If McGann'sefforts depthtohisadvocacy that the case studies constitute the five brief are unsuccessful, hypertext andheendswithan important heartofhisessayareinformative,60 point text."This termdoesnotmeanwhatone might aboutthe"decentered thereisno needfor totheideathatin hypertext refers expect:itsimply thatthispoint focus.McGannsuggests onecentraltextas an organizing maintainthe how could I not do see but aroused has debate, anyone a structure have McGann as does says, contrary position.Hypertext, and searches fordirected analyticoperations" (p. 29), but "organized full numerous assisted becauseoneisfreetobrowse texts, bylinks, among 58. One rarelyhears the other side: the codex formhas its advantages,too, at least for some people. It is not necessarilythe case, for example, that turninga few leaves is more or time-consumingthan enteringa search command or pressinga key to move to a difficult variant text. But there is no doubt that many (if not all) people will findit easier in electronicformto do many (but not all) of the thingsone wishes to do in the course of careful reading. 59. In his 1998 presidential address to the Society for Textual Scholarship ("Hideous Progeny,Rough Beasts: Editing as a Theoretical Pursuit," Text, 11 [1998], 1-16), which includes an interestinghistoricalaccount of his RossettiHypermediaArchive,McGann repeats his baseless claim that "The value of computerizationfor the studyof books and texts lies exactlyin the fact that with computerizedtools we do not bring books to studybooks"; he adds, "when our tools functionat higher levels of abstraction from the materials we are studying,we create conditions for new orders of certainty"(p. 12). Another instance of his hyperbole in this piece: "Editing in paper-based formats,I came to understand,literally createsthe set of contradictionsthat mark the differencesbetween documentaryand critical approaches to editing" (p. 7). These differences(which are not "contradictions,"reflecting as theydo complementaryapproaches) obviously exist on a conceptual level and cannot be created by one formof implementation.Documentary and critical presentationsmay often be easier to use in electronicform,but the differencesbetween them obviouslyremain. Perhaps such misconceptionsare related to a more basic one: his naive belief that "the 'hypothesis' representedby an editorial undertakingis very differentfrom the hypothesisof a theoreticalor interpretivebook or essay" (pp. 7-8)- a strange point to make a few pages after the (correct) assertion that certain landmark editions "are polemical works bearing within themselvescomplex and far-reachingarguments"(p. 3). 60. Though theydo contain some questionable statements,as when he calls a particular edition "a reader's edition, not a criticaledition" (p. 18)- a problematical distinctionunder any circumstances,but especially so given his earlier comments.

40


in thesituation no onetextis requiredtoserveas a base,as is generally codexeditions,wherelack of spaceusuallynecessitates representing form. oftheorganization sometextsinapparatus McGann'scomparison ofhypertext docuisessentially withthatofa library rightin that"every the moment" in both "is with archive cases absolute to mentary respect on thearchival as a whole"(p. 31).61Butbecausehisfocusis primarily function of hypertext, he sayslittleaboutthevarioushelpsthatone to provide.Thesehelps,resultmightreasonably expecta hyperedition wouldprovidemuchmoreinformation ingfromtheeditor'sresearch, abouttherelationships does; but-and amongthetextsthana library thisis thecrucialpointhere-suchguidance, would however extensive, notaffect of thetextsand wouldleavereadersfree theindependence tochoosewhatever andsubsequent pointsofentry pathstheywished. Another of his concentration on is thathe does archives consequence notdistinguish twokindsofdecentering thatareworthdifferentiating. The decentering hedealswithison themechanical level:themechanics oftheelectronic in contrast tothatofthecodex,doesnotlead medium, to an apparent A second bydefaulton onetextoveranother. emphasis kindofdecentering to of In my the construction texts. critical applies on a without on the end of at essay "Editing Copy-Text" (commented V I a recommend for critical in which part below), editing procedure onedoesnotgiveanytextthecentrality ofa copy-text. Insteadofthinkof text as a critical emended form an of a oneconceives it ing copy-text, as a newtextin whicheachwordor punctuation markderivesfrom whatever source(including theeditor'smind)isjudgedto givethebest in the of goalchosen(author's orlast,orsomeotherfirstreading terms and so on). If thisapproachwereused intention, intention, publisher's foran editionpublishedas a codex,thenewlyconstructed criticaltext wouldstill(in mostcases)be a centered textin themechanical sense, withtheotherrelevant textsprovided as an apparatus keyedto it; but it wouldhavebeenformed byan editorialprocessthatdid notcenter can obviously be usedforan editionin elecanyone text.The process tronicformas well,withtheresultthatone or morecriticaltextsproducedbythisdecentered methodwouldbe a partof themechanically decentered collection oftextsforming a portion ofa hyperedition. One of the placeswhereMcGann'sessayhas been reprintedis in KathrynSutherland's anthologyElectronicText: Investigations 61. He speaks only of librariesin which the books themselvesare shelved according to a subject classification;but his basic point of course remains valid for those libraries where the books are arranged in accession order and where subject access is only through a catalogue.


41

Methodand Theory(1997),whichis basedin parton a 1993Oxford someotheressaysworthnoting.Sutherandwhichcontains conference as land'sintroduction aims, shesays(in characteristic prose)at theend and to of it,to link"technological fashioning change theculturaldevalidates further thattechnology modelsand,in modelling, velopments in herhands, as culturally significant" (p. 17).The caseforsuchlinkage, She is highly dubious,as oneor twoofherpointsmayserveto suggest. theideasof reinforces claims,forexample,thatelectronic technology in an environment and thateditorsare therefore Barthesand Kristeva offluidtext"wherethe"traditional of"permeable boundaries, assumptrue." hold to "no tions"ofscholarly editing longerappear (One may is whateditorshavealwaysconthattextualinstability pausetoreflect textualfluidity doesnot andrecognized fronted, theywereconfronting; for on the its existence.) computer depend to go is thework/text the"first Of those"traditional assumptions," the confined to work not "if is for the distinction," contingent historically textualform it is nevertheless and theparticular, onlyin itsexpressive determine conditions thatwe encounter it,andmaterial meanings" (p. concedesthenecesclause "if" by"nevertheless") (followed 5). Butthe thattextsofworkscan be abstractions (sequencesof sityofrecognizing of Barthes discussion and her words)as well as physicalrenderings; notreally does She pointsout thathe,too,madesucha distinction.62 and thereis no itselfhas been eliminated, meanthatthedistinction it in orderto makethepointthat"material foreliminating necessity All sheis trying to sayis thatmany determine conditions meanings." to now them, presumably) prefer readdocumentary people(sheamong emendedtexts(thoughshedoesnotconfront thancritically textsrather thefactthateverytextput intophysicalformby an editoris also a actorevent"[p.6]).Perhapsthatiswhyshesaysthatan edition "situated as an "archive," initselectronic described is"moreproperly assemblage" 'work'" 'texts'butnotthereassembled "thedisassembled whichcontains of texts emended that To (theproducts specialimply editorially (p. 9). ists'reading)are notvaluableis simplynotto believein scholarship. claimsmadefor theexaggerated Her tendency to acceptunthinkingly that"in makher comment illustrated is perfectly electronic editions by "makes theoutcome presentation ingcertainthingseasier"electronic 62. She quotes him as saying that "the work is held in the hand, the text is held in language" (p. 3). But the work/textdistinctionthat she believes has been undercut is the one more commonlymade by textual critics,in which the significationof the two termsis approximatelyreversed.She allows this switch in usage to distracther from looking into the conceptsthat the termsreferto in each case.

42


have different" ease,butseriousscholars (p. 9). We all welcomegreater to their in a it allowed labor involved task never the carrying prevent out. to the introduction doesnotlead one to lookforward Sutherland's andtheydo oftendisplaythesameloveofjargonand essaysthatfollow, of argument). even the same fuzziness exaggeration (and sometimes that Allen Renear,forinstance, outlinesthreetheoriesof textuality withoutrecognizing haveemergedfromthetext-encoding community thattheirphilosophical coherence is affected bythefactthattheyall debeliefthattextscanbe in subordination to a program requiring veloped And is weakened Flanders's throughout byits piece reproduced. Julia a ofthe"electronic text'slackof,or freedom initialassumption from, M. Robinson made. Peter W. But some useful do body." (who points get whenhe is of in editing, claimsto be talkingabout"newdirections" forhelpingus movein thedirections coursereferring to newmethods of we havealwaysfollowed)explains,withexamples,theimportance as do with editorial of texts archival collections aids, supplementing with PatrickW. Connerand PeterS. Donaldson-thelatterconcluding thatthe"digitalresearch observation thevaluable(ifrarelyexpressed) "so thatthepassagefromtexttodocuenvironment" mightbe designed to theoriginal mentextendsfromthecomputer screento thelibrary"Claire Lamont's best is the documents essay (p. 195).Possibly physical ofediting whichablyshowstheinterrelations ofannotation, discussion and annotationand whichrecognizes thatthe theoretical questions not raisedbyannotation "are removedin hypertext" (p. 61)- indeed, hassimply"produced another arenain whichthedebatemay hypertext continue"(p. 6g).63 a moresubscantial and The yearbeforetheSutherland anthology, ofMichiganPress hadappearedin theUniversity worthwhile anthology The Literary Textin theDigitalAge(1996), serieson editorial theoryeditedby RichardJ. Finneran.It beginswithusefulessaysby Susan thehistory ofusing Hockeyand PeterShillingsburg. Hockey'ssurveys foreditingand summarizes basicinformation abouttext thecomputer is the ofelectronic editions;Shillingsburg's encodingand thedelivery I on. on of that have commented editing already piece goals scholarly 63. The essaysalludedto in thisparagraphare: Renear,"Out of Praxis:Three (Meta)Theoriesof Textuality," pp. 107-126;Flanders,"The BodyEncoded:Questionsof Gender in CriticalEditing,"pp. and theElectronic Text,"pp. 127-144;Robinson,"New Directions 145-171;Conner,"Lightingout forthe Territory:Hypertext, Ideology,and Huckleberry Finn**pp. 67-106;Donaldson,"DigitalArchiveas ExpandedText: Shakespeare and ElectronicTextuality," a Text: LiteraryTheoryand Elecpp. 173-198;Lamont,"Annotating tronicHypertext," entitled"Trusting pp. 47-66.(Anotherarticleof Flanders's, misleadingly theElectronic discussion oftheroleofimagesin electronic Edition/'is a superficial editions; see Computers and theHumanities, 31 [1997-98], 301-310.)


43

The volumeendswithan essaybyJohnUnsworththatplaces"electronic an intelligent scholarshipin itslargerculturalcontext"(p. 233),offering criticismof thosewho are resistantto change(hereepitomizedby Sven about scholarlyediting,it Birkerts).Althoughtheessayis not primarily does suggestthatthe existenceof electroniceditionswill increasethe broaderscholarlyinterestin editingand bibliographicalscholarshipbecause "the new technologyopens up the possibilityof re-creating the basic resourcesofall our activitiesand providingus withrevolutionary toolsforworkingwiththoseresources"(p. 240). If he provesto be right, it will be because the toolsare indeed revolutionary, not because techa created new has the since old tools also allowed nology "possibility," forthe recreationof basic resources(in the formof facsimilesand new Althoughhe does notalwaysmanageto eschewhyperbolein editions).64 of hisessayis ultimately balancedand sensible, speaking newtechnology, that the deal issues we have to with will not change.65 concluding In betweentheseopeningand closingessays,thereare severaltechnicalarticlesand accountsofspecificprojects,alongwithsomeadditional of contentcan be illustratedby the essays generalpieces.The diversity of CharlesL. Ross and Phillip E. Doss.66For Ross, "Recent trendsin criticaledition editinghavesignaledthedemiseof theAnglo-American and the imminentbirthof electronicediting" (p. 227). Because this sentenceconfusestechnicaland theoreticalmatters,it is hard to know how to read it. Ross includes"codex book" (p. 225) in his definitionof a criticaledition,and one mightthinkat first thathe is simplypredicting 64. He quite rightlyimplies the continuing value of consultingoriginals, as when he says that "the availabilityof a digital reproductiondoes not in any way render the original any less available" (p. 241). I must note by the way that this point is applicable primarily to manuscriptsand pre-nineteenth -centuryprinted items; a great many post-1800 printed items have been, and continue to be, destroyedpreciselybecause some librarians believe that reproductionsrender the space-consumingoriginals unnecessary.(On this issue, see, among other essaysof mine, the ones cited in note 16 above.) 65. The volume should have ended with Unsworths thoughtfulessay, not with the "Afterword"(pp. 245-248) by A. Walton Litz, who simplyrepeats glib exaggerationsabout how "electronicresourceshave profoundlyaffectedmany of our conceptionsof the editor's function"(p. 245). (It must be noted that Finneran himself,in his preface,speaks of digital technologyproducing "a fundamentalparadigm shift.")Litz is right to thinkof "electronic editing as another formof criticism"(p. 246) but wrong to believe the word "electronic" is necessary,since editing has always been a formof criticism.And it is strange that he then insists on the electronic editor's "nonintervention"(p. 248)- the impossibilityand undesirabilityof which are recognized in several of the essays in the volume. (The titles of the essaysmentionedin this paragraph are as follows: Hockey, "Creating and Using Electronic Editions," pp. 1-21; Shillingsburg,"Principles for Electronic Archives,Scholarly Editions, and Tutorials," pp. 23-35; Unsworth,"Electronic Scholarship; or, ScholarlyPublishing and the Public," pp. 233-243.) 66. Ross, "The Electronic Text and the Death of the Critical Edition," pp. 225-231; Doss, "Traditional Theory and Innovative Practice: The Electronic Editor as PoststructuralistReader," pp. 213-224.

44

STUDIESIN BIBLIOGRAPHY

overanother(thecodex). thetriumph of one technology (electronic) an emendedtextsuppleof in the idea But "Anglo-American" brings a conceptthatis nottiedto anyone techmentedwithan apparatus, doesnotspell in otherwords, The "birthofelectronic editing," nology. that it doomsthe not one feels or whether thedeathofcriticalediting, codexformof presentation. No one wouldarguewithhis beliefthat and thuscreatea readersshouldbe able to "chooseamongvariants, thatmosteditors (neverthe)text"(p. 230),buthedoesnotacknowledge ofcritical codexeditions haveheldthesamebelieforthatcodexeditions It is certainly thesameoptionsforreaders. offer wrongtoclaimthatthe distinct": criticaleditions functions ofeditorandreaderwere"hitherto havealwaysmadeclearthattheactofreadinginvolves makingtextual occasional its decisions. The Dossarticle,in contrast, repetition despite of standardexaggerations,67 makessomevaluablepoints,and makes environthatin theelectronic themwell.Dossisconcerned, forexample, ment"weremainawareofcontinuities, notonlyinregardtothetelosof in regardto thewayin endeavor butspecifically intellectual generally, whichthetextualeditormightemployelectronic mediain thetasksbebe forehimor her"(p. 215).He also urgesthat"editorialinvisibility" be as editors a and that should electronic "straightrecognized pretense forward" in declaring embeddedin thelinkingstructheassumptions turestheyhavecreated(p. 218).68 andof ofelectronic Thisadviceis ofcourseequallyvalidforeditors aboutelectronic codexeditions.Indeed,writings editingare generally 67. As when he says that "hypertextallows a reader to escape the linearityimposed by printmedia" (p. 219). 68. This point is well taken even if one doubts Doss's notion that "the aestheticcharacter of the textual editor'sjob is more apparent in hypertextenvironmentsthan in print" (p. 217). Another anthologysubstantiallydevoted to the computer- but in this case to its role in analyzing textsrather than presentingthem- is Studies in Stemmatology(1996; see note 9 above), based on a series of colloquia at the Vrije Universiteitin Amsterdam,reflecting"the newly recovered field of stemmatology"(p. xii). The editors of the volume, Pieter van Reenen and Margot van Mulken, assert in their "Prologue" that the use of the computer for stemmaticanalysis of difficulttraditionshas resulted in "heightened awareness of the limitationsof the researcher'sown capacities and those of the computer." This development,if true,is obviouslyfor the good, as is the idea that the stemma"is no longer seen as an authoritativeprescriptivescheme which an editor should blindly apply to his manuscript tradition"- something it should never have been. That the computer may somehowhave helped to inject basic critical sense into the fieldis not, however,a reason to believe that "the implementationof the computer has fundamental theoretical implications" (p. ix). An example of the good sense that follows from regarding the stemma as "guiding and advisory,"not "prescriptive"(p. 99), is Peter M. W. Robinson's contribution, "Computer-Assisted Stemmatic Analysis and 'Best-Text' Historical Editing" (pp. 71-103). By "best text" he does not mean what that termhas historicallymeant but ratheruses it as a synonymfor"base text" (or, one mightadd, "copy-text"),which is subject to emendations througheditorial judgment.What he says,therefore,is not news to editorsof modern literature, but it is good to have this clear statementof it applied to medieval literature.


45

successfulto the extentthattheyrecognizecontinuities(to use Doss's word): the computer,thoughit createsstrongbreakswith the past in our methodsfordoingthings,does not alterthe thingsthatneed to be done,or theconcernsthatcause us to wantto do them.This pointis well understoodbyJohnLavagnino,who on morethanone occasionhas explainedwhysuchtraditionalactivitiesofscholarlyeditorsas annotation and emendationare just as importantin electroniceditionsas theywere to believe that"if we He calls it a professional before.69 "provinciality" of texts, could onlyremovetheeditorialpresencefromthetransmission readerswould thenhave a true and completeperceptionof texts"(p. setout: 121).70The fallacyofthisviewis forcefully This idea,thatwe requireno formofhelpwithoriginaldocuments, is not that from idea criticism the is different beliterary reallyvery unnecessary reactions toliterary worksaremoreauthentic, and those causeouruntutored or distorted ifwe hearanydiscussion reactions are likelyto be repressed of fromeditingis an easywayto alleviateour whatthetextsmean.To refrain worriesaboutbeingwrong;but it also meansthatwe naggingprofessional and togiveotherreadersthe tobe rightaboutanything, losetheopportunity ofourperceptions, benefit (p. 120) The morebasicproblem,he rightlybelieves,is thatmanyliteraryscholarsand otherreadersare not interestedin textualhistoryand therefore do not use the informationprovidedin editions.For those who do, or unusable (though scholarlycodex editionshave not seemedofficious manysuchreaderswill no doubtfindelectroniceditionseasierto use for some purposes);but the majorityof readersstillneed to learn thatthe mostrewarding readingrequires(in Lavagnino'swords)"a knowledgeof textualmatters, notjust unmediatedaccessto theoriginals(or ratherto facsimiles ofthem)"(p. 122). It is encouragingto note thata recentspecialnumberof Literaryif LinguisticComputing(15.1,2000),on "MakingTexts fortheNext Cen69. See his "Reading, Scholarship,and Hypertext Editions," Text, 8 (1995), 109-124; and "Electronic Editions and the Needs of Readers," in New Ways of Looking at Old Texts, II (see note 8 above), pp. 149-156.The quotations below are fromthe first. 70. A view that Germaine Warkentm has called the untethered utopianism or the new age of the computer" (in her review of The Margins of the Text, ed. D. C. Greetham [1997], in Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada, 36 [1998], 128-130). Ian Small, too, has writtenof the illusorynature of the freedomthat a hypertextarchive supposedly offers,since hypertextis structuredaccording to the values of the person(s) who set up the structure;his point is not to suggestthat such values should be eliminated but rather to recognize the inevitabilityof value judgments and to affirmthe importance of embracing them- "as editors,"he says,"we ought to be as evaluative as possible." See "Postmodernism and the End(s) of Editing," in the 1998 anthologyEditing the Text (see note 10 above), pp. 35-43 (quotation fromp. 43); and "IdentifyingText and PostmodernistEditorial Projects/' Yearbook of English Studies (see note 11 above), 29 (1999), 43-56 (which reuses in its last six pages a substantialportion of the earlier article- pp. 37-43- in somewhatrevised form).

46


tury,"opens withan essayin whichPeter Robinson (its co-editorwith and eclectic that"a single,reconstructed, Hans WalterGabler) affirms take to into the documents: for the reader text"maybe thebest"route" the best understand many."71 "Throughtheone text/'he says,"we can Kelvin Everest,in anotheressayof 2000, has made a particularlyelostatementof thisposition.Electronic quent and criticallysophisticated textsoverlooksthe need of archivingof a work'svariousdocumentary readersto have guidanceinto the "constantcore identity"of the work. of scholThis taskrequiresthe "editorialfunction,"whichis "an effort to a transmission of a textual that the specific "brings history arship" textualfocusforits period,and of its period."It "cannotabnegatethe to shapean imageofa bodyoftexts.This editorialimage responsibility is,indeed,at theheartofa livingcontemporary literaryculture,because it is thecoherentformin whicha literaryculturerenewsitsunderstanding ofthepast."72A similarrecognitionoftheneed forcriticaltextswas expressedthesameyearbyMichaelF. Suarezin one ofthemostbalanced writtenin resistanceto the"hypeabout hypertext" and effective essays73 as well as In pointingout the limitationsof text-encoding (p. 170). editions about he us backas electronic archiving, brings good writing had. to us the we have back-to always ought bring problems IV on textualmattersin thelastfive There wereofcoursemanywritings or sixyearsofthetwentieth centurythatdid notfocuson nonverbalarts, or foreigntraditionsof editing,or computers.What thesemoregeneral worksdid treat,however,wasoftennotso different in essentials, forsuch authorial intention as the of verbal the of role works, ontology questions in editorialthinking,and the relativedesirabilityof documentary and emendedtextsare basic to all textualdiscussion.Among the broader 71. "The One Text and the Many Texts," pp. 5-14 (quotation fromp. 13). In his abstractof the essay,he characterizesa reconstructedtextas "the text that best explains all the extant documents."In a similar vein, JesseD. Hurlbut has stated that "part of the editor's role is to recommendpossible directionsone may choose to follow" through the mass of linked materials,such guidance of course reflecting"the editor's expertiseand experience"; see "ShiftingParadigms and the Development of Hypermedia Editions," Studies in Medievalism (see note 12 above), 9 (1997), 228-238 (quotation fromp. 233). (Hurlbut's generally sound discussionhas its simplisticmoments,however,as in the passage that triesto elaborate how electronicediting leads to "reevaluation of the need to designate a base manuscript" [p. 231], withouttrulyseeing the issues or recognizingthat theyare independentof whether editions are published in codex or electronicform.) 72. "Historical Reading and Editorial Practice," in Ma(r)king the Text (see note 10 above), pp. 193-200 (quotations fromp. 199). 73. "In Dreams Begins Responsibility:Novels, Promises,and the Electronic Edition," in Textual Studies and the Common Reader (see note 10 above), pp. 160-179.


47

thereare someoutstanding but there theoretical contributions, writings, are also manypiecesthataccomplishlittlemorethanto repeatcurrently fashionablepointsin an uncriticalway. A primeexampleof the lattercategoryis W. Speed Hill's "Where which argues that analytical Are the Bibliographersof Yesteryear?", bibliographyhas become irrelevantto editingboth because it cannot uncoverprinters'copyand because editors'attentionhas turnedaway fromauthorialintention.But the article'stextureof unexaminedclithattheeffort to learn ches74disintegrates entirelywhenone remembers as muchas one can about the documentsthattransmittextsis a prima facieprerequisiteto editing,regardlessof the degreeof certaintyit attains in specificinstancesand regardlessof the editorial goal one is workingtoward.Hill is one of severalpeople who in recentyearshave attackedthe so-calledNew Bibliographyof Pollard, McKerrow,and Greg.What has put analyticalbibliographyout of favor(in spiteof its focus on the materialityof documents)is that much of the earlier workwas performedby scholarswho believed (in the wordsof Joseph Loewenstein'sessaymentionedbelow) that "textualityis ... regulated by originativepersonhood."75One of the most criticaltreatmentsis Laurie E. Maguire's"The Rise of the New Bibliography,"the second chapter(pp. 21-71) of her ShakespeareanSuspect Texts: The "Bad" Quartosand Their Contexts(1996). She claimsthat"Sentimental,latemuchNew Bibliographic Victorian,land-owning imperialisminfluences analysis,leadingto conclusionswhichare as outmodedas the historical whichcreatedthem" (p. 59). But the "conclusions"she circumstances refersto are textual,and she does not showhow physicalanalysisnecessarilyleads to thoseparticularconclusionsand thusdoes not presenta criticismof "New Bibliographicanalysis"itself.Maguire is also the coeditor(withThomas L. Berger)of Textual Formationsand Reformations(1998),an anthologythat(in thewordsofherintroduction)"stems froma reactionto the New Bibliography."76 In its openingessay,"Au74. Such as calling the search for authorial intention "romantic" (pp. 126, 127) and speakingof "the latent idealism of copy-textediting" (p. 130). The article appears in Pilgrimage for Love: Essays in Early Modern Literature in Honor of Josephine A. Roberts, ed. Sigrid King (1999), pp. 115-132 (the text cited here), and also in Problems of Editing (see note 7 above), pp. 96-112. 75. Another unfounded complaint is that analytical bibliographersrefuse to consider evidence external to the books under investigation.The irresponsiblerepetition of this criticismis symbolizedby the fact that Hugh Amory,in the opening chapter of the first volume of A Historyof the Book in America (The Colonial Book in the Atlantic World,ed. Amoryand David D. Hall, 2000), refersto "what bibliographerscasually dismissas 'external evidence'" (p. 43). Amoryknew better,and it is regrettablethat he allowed such a major work to be marred by his eagernessto criticizeanalytical bibliography. 76. The volume, she believes, not only "tackles textual issues in a new light" but also has a "readability" absent from the work of the New Bibliographers,whose writing she

48


thenticReproductions:The MaterialOriginsoftheNew Bibliography" (PP- 23~44)>JosephF. Loewensteinstrainsto showthat"determining" factorsforthe "project"of the New Bibliographywere "avarice,envy, the hoardinginperhapsanti-Semitism, certainlychauvinism,forgery, and sound stinct, recording"(p. 23).77 is also thoughtlessly criticizedbyseveralconAnalyticalbibliography tributorsto a "forum"organizedby Susan Zimmermanfor the 1996 volumeofShakespeareStudies("EditingEarlyModernTexts," 24: 19criticizesfor being "prosaic and straightforward"and eschewing "extended metaphor or creative play" (p. 13). (Anyone familiar with, for example, Pollard's style will find this a strangeassertion.)Even Barbara A. Mowat, in her contributionto the anthology,assumes "a post-New Bibliographyworld" (p. 144), though the New Bibliography remains crucial for her focus on the documentarytexts rather than on the attempt to reconstructauthorial manuscripts ("The Problem of Shakespeare's Text(s)," pp. 131-148- an earlier version of which appeared in Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 132 [1996], 26-43). (I should add that the Maguire-Bergeranthology,despite its introductionand opening essay,contains more essays of significancethan most anthologies,and some of them are commentedon below, notably a fine piece by Tom Davis.) Maguire was perhaps hoping to promote the kind of writing that appeared a few yearsearlier in an essay by Graham Holderness,Bryan Loughrey,and AndrewMurphy,"'What's the Matter?'Shakespeareand Textual Theory," Textual Practice, 9 (1995)» 93-119: it contains a particularlyextravagantpassage in which the New Bibliography is said to involve not only the mixtureof the "mechanisticlanguage of materialism" and "an effluxof Platonic idealism" (p. 96) but also "a patriarchal sexualization of the text," in which "the manuscriptis a versionof the female body" and the "printed text interposesan opaque and obstructive'veil*. . . between the male desire and its object" (p. 97). (Later on the same page the New Bibliographersare found participatingin a "re-enactment of the Christian myth,"since they arranged for the "incarnated text" to be assumed into "the heaven of authorial intention."Later still: "that virtuallyall-male club the New Bibliographers evidently cherished beneath their respectable tweed jackets a perverse desire to ravish the printed text in order to release the perfect female body enclosed within it" p. 101].) 77. A more valuable way of criticallyexamining the actual work of the New Bibliographers,and one of more direct usefulnessto textual criticism,is offeredby the two excellent essays that follow, by Paul Werstine and Michael Warren, which show the lack of foundation for Pollard's and Greg's arguments supporting the idea that certain quarto texts derived fromabridgmentsfor provincial use or frommemorial reconstruction(Werstine,"Touring and the Constructionof ShakespeareTextual Criticism,"pp. 45-66; Warren, "Greene's Orlando: W. W. Greg Furioso," pp. 67-91). Werstine,indeed, always writes cogentlyand intelligentlyon the historyof editorial thinkingabout Shakespeare; for another admirable example, see his "Editing Shakespeare and Editing without Shakespeare: Wilson, McKerrow,Greg, Bowers,Tanselle, and Copy-Text Editing," Text, 13 (2000), 27-53, which focuseson the disagreementsamong Wilson, McKerrow, and Greg and thus demonstrates "the enormouslydiverseprinciples for editing Shakespeareon offerin the early part of this century"(p. 46). (A somewhat less successfuleffortis his "Post-Theory Problems in Shakespeare Editing," Yearbook of English Studies (see note 11 above), 29 (1999), 103-117: although his point that play manuscriptstook many more varied formsthan simply "foul papers" and "prompt-book"is unquestionablyworth making,his argumentis less effective than it might be, owing to what comes across as an eagernessto criticizeGreg and his followers,reflectedin continual referenceto their "grand narrative" and in reductive summaries of theirposition.)


49

78).The openingpiece,StephenOrgel's"WhatIs an Editor?"(pp. 2329), containsa singleparagraph(the thirdone) thatis perhapsthe about analyticalbibliography of misstatements densestconcentration of thatI haveeverseen.He claimsone ofthe"traditional assumptions to be the "idea thatspellingand punctuation modernbibliography" ofthewhimofthecomhaveno rulesin theperiod,andarea function haseveruttered) bibliographer positor"(an opinionthatno analytical ormerely ofa textthatareinessential conandthat"thereareelements andwecantherefore themeaning which"don'taffect ventional," safely ofGreg's"accidentals" thatnotonlyis changethem"(an interpretation A "subto do withbibliography). buthasnothingwhatever incorrect so that is wecan text,"hesays,isthat"theprinting process transparent," is that"thetext seewhatlaybehindit; and"a stilldeeperassumption" of its materialembodiment" itselfis somehowindependent (twounIt to foran analytical assertions thinkable bibliographer make). is hard andequallyhardto believethat tobelievethatOrgelis so uninformed, Another ofthesebriefessays, his he is intentionally slanting argument. W. SpeedHill's"WhereWe Areand HowWe GotHere: Editingafter Poststructuralism" (pp. 38-46),is fullof his familiarbywords:he is for content, example,torepeatthenonsensical pointthat"theunderlyas an intention editorial goalwasneverwholly ingidealismofauthorial materialism of the analyticalbibliogcompatiblewiththe rigorous on later,ifanycomment rapher"(pp.41-42)-a pointI shallcomment to "Afterword" is needed.In Zimmerman's (pp. 71-74),herreference intentions thatShakespeare's "the New Bibliographer's presumption and to "theidealismof theNew Bibliography" can be recuperated" thefailureto distinflawin recentdiscussions: a basic to (p. 72) point Alfrom a editorial theory.78 particular bibliography guishanalytical in authorial interested were New the intention, Bibliographers though wasthat theessential insight theypublicized (butdidnotfullyoriginate) to find out what affect texts; printing processes attempting happened 78. Despite a number of unfortunatecommentssuch as these in Zimmerman's"Afterword/*it is for the most part a remarkable statementof points that are not usually made: see note 110 below. Paul Werstine,another contributorto the forum,certainlyknows that analytical bibliographyis independentof editing. However, his contribution,"Editing after the End of Editing" (pp. 47-54), is not up to his usual standard,though he is always worth reading. Here he seems to thinkone can criticizethe effortto segregatecompositorialand authorial characteristicsby saying that it offers"no way to break the hermeneuticcircle" (p. 49). There is nothingobjectionable about searchingprinted textsfor clues to the characteristicsof an author's manuscript,even when the characteristicsof such manuscriptsare unknown: the processreflectsthe nature of the world, the condition (in one degree or another) of all research.What would be objectionable would be not to attempt the search at all. Of course,one may evaluate the care with which it is conducted; but if that was what Werstinewas doing, there was no need to invoke the "hermeneuticcircle."

50


of editorialrationaleor a disparagement does notimplya particular of books. and thestudyofbookdesign thepost-production history numerous otherdiscussions, vitiates Failureto makethisdistinction suchas Leah S. Marcus'sin UneditingtheRenaissance:Shakespeare, that"ProMarlowe,andMilton(1996).WhenMarcussays,forinstance, . . . havetendedto locatethe'reality* ponentsoftheNewBibliography creationoutsideits extantmaterialembodiments" of a givenliterary insistence (p. 29),orwhenshespeaks(p. 30) of"theNewBibliography's thelatteris supposedto mean), on idealtextandidealcopy"(whatever twodistinct activiundertheterm"New Bibliography" she conflates to an on and evidence deciding approach editties-analyzing physical that from confusion is harm this The analyticalbibresulting ing. as an be whereas it should is recognized ignored, liography effectively to of toolforeveryone, essential literature, employ anytheory following David Holdeman,in theopening in examining documents. Similarly, tohisMuchLaboring:The TextsandAuthors pagesoftheintroduction Books(1997),seesnothing Yeats' s First Modernist of wrongwithsaying "the andbibliographical editorial that"muchcurrent challenges theory" fundamental well as "the as authorial intentions" of equally primacy textsareconstituted thatwritten andtraditional ontological assumptions were not But ideas these partof a previous onlybylanguage"(p. 4). chalnor current analytical bibliography theory," does "bibliographical not do does ofthefactthatthissummary juslengethem(tosaynothing to describe). of the "editorial"theoryit purports ticeto thesubtlety thenotionthatthe"Gregwithoutembarrassment, Holdemanrepeats, . . . registers Bowerseditorialtheory prevailingRomantic,modernist, works" abouttheorganicunityof literary and New Criticalpremises » (P. «> charges PhilipCohenhasalsobeenwillingtorecitecertainfamiliar the of tradition what as the he sees "stabilizing against Anglo-American Liter"Textual them His text"without Instability, examining carefully. is in Textual Scholarship"80 ary Studies,and RecentDevelopments 79. The shallownessof much of his discussionis epitomizedby his statementthat "editors must prepare a text,but interpretersand theoristsneed only articulate an argument" (p. 11). To his credit,however,he also says (ratherinconsistently)that "most cultural critics have not become aware that ontological assumptionsunderlie any attempt to constitute and thereforeto read or theorize- the textof a work" (p. 6). Still another example of a discussion guiltyof mergingNew Bibliographyand final authorial intentionis Andrew Murphy's "'Came errour here by mysse of man': Editing and the Metaphysicsof Presence," Yearbook of English Studies (see note 11 above), 29 (1999), 118-137 (see pp. 131-135), an essay that in many respectsis a thoughtfulmeditationon the "desire for direct individual connectionwiththe author" (p. 133)- thoughhe goes too farin suggestingthat intentionalist editors seek a "source of true, irrevocable,unitarymeaning" (p. 135). 80. This essay serves as the introductionto his 1997 anthology,Texts and Textuality


51

titledbutdisappointingly ofthe as an overview superficial promisingly shiftin textualscholarship" Intentionalist recent"paradigm (p. xiii). editingis linkedwith''themodernist questforpureform"(p. xxiii), form unified divorced from context "thedreamofa pureandorganically whichhashad "an especially seductive or meaning/* appealforartists alikeeversincetheRomanticperiod"(p. xxii).No thoughtandcritics fulwritercouldutterthesefallaciouspointsso unabashedly, or could editorseverbelievedin "theobjectiverecuimaginethat"traditional" of authorialintention" (p. xxiii).The levelof thepieceis perability reference to the outmoded its by convention-paper topicsof symbolized in one's in thedustyvolumesdeposited thepastthatare"dulyrecorded of the that theme the essay- textual campuslibrary" (p. xix).Although is it is not well affects literary instability interpretation-important, antithetical servedbybeingtreatedas a revelation to earliereditorial thinking.81 whohaveoftenrepeatedsuchclicheswithAmongtheotherwriters receivedis thescrutiny thatthoseclicheshad previously outreflecting commentators on textualmatoneofthemoreprolific D. C. Greetham, In theeightyearsfrom1992 tersat theend ofthetwentieth century. an introductory a five bookstextbook, through1999,he published two and of own a collection ofhis on theory, treatise anthologies essays, essaysbyothers.The mostvaluableof theseis one of theanthologies, bookinwhich (1995),a 740-page Editing:A GuidetoResearch Scholarly of in their the literatures summarize in various editing history specialists andbringing this ofthekindhadbeenattempted fields. before, Nothing (see note 8 above), pp. xi-xxxiv, and is a revised version of his introductionto a special 1994 numberof Resources forAmerican LiteraryStudy (see note 11 above), pp. 133-148. 81. Cohen even makes it appear that one or McGann's contributionsis to show "that the physicalformcontaininga linguistictextis also a text" (p. xvi). McGann would not wish to make this claim, worded in this way, for he knows that analytical bibliographershave long shownhow one reads physicalevidence to extracta narrative.But their narrativesdeal with printinghistory,whereas McGann's involve book design. Cohen compounds the problem: "Such a textualizingof what has traditionallybeen treated as the physical formcontaining a text rendersanalytical bibliographyan even more interpretivediscipline than it has been heretofore."How can it (or anything)be "more interpretive"?What he presumably means is that its scope is enlarged- which would be true if one calls the analysis of readers' responses to book design "analytical bibliography" (an extension I find unobjectionable). But the traditionalkind of analytical bibliographystill has its role to play, and the implication that intentionalisteditors ignored design features is not true- for they (quite properly,given their goal) paid attention to design whenever it seemed to be an authorially intended part of a work. (The ubiquity of this inaccurate notion is suggested by Karen Bjelland's offhandand nonsensicalremarkthat "even the bibliographicalcommunity has been slow to explore the meaning of its own codes given the continuinginfluenceof Greg"; see "The Editor as Theologian, Historian, and Archaeologist: ShiftingParadigms within Editorial Theory and Their Sociocultural Ramifications,"Analytical & Enumerative Bibliography,n.s., 11 [2000], 1-43 [quotation fromp. 20].)

52


on Greetham'spart.He should projectto fruitionrequiredgreateffort be warmlythankedforhis devotionto thecause; theresultis extremely useful.82His otheranthology,The Marginsof the Text (1997), stems fromhis suspicion(expressedin his introduction)thattheremayhave been "somethingpatriarchal,elitist,even racist,about the veryconstructionof the traditionalscholarlyedition." The book consistsof fourteenessays,halfdevotedto "thefunctionofdiscoursesnotpreviously to scholarlyediting" (given certainattitudes recognizedas significant toward"class,race,gender,and so on")83and halfdealingwiththe significanceof what appears in "the marginsof the book" ("marginalia, commentary,and apparatus"). Greetham'sown contribution,"The Resistanceto Philology"(pp. 9-24), discusses,ratherunproductively, "the currentmarginalizedconditionof textualstudyin the academy" (P. 10) .*

Textual Criticism at the Millennium

Textual and Literary Criticism

A Rationale of Textual Criticism

Introduction to Indian Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism & Editorial Technique

Marxism at the Millennium

Meteorology at the Millennium

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism

Fluorine Chemistry at the Millennium

Austin at Criticism

Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible

Contributions to the Textual Criticism of the Kathopanisad issue 100

Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism

The Calculus of Variants: An Essay on Textual Criticism

Late Postmodernism: American Fiction at the Millennium

Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium

Psychoanalysis and Culture at the Millennium

Introducing Criticism at the 21st Century

Millennium

Millennium

Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism: Collected Papers

Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962-2004

Millennium

Millennium

Millennium

MILLENNIUM

The Poets' Jesus: Representations at the End of a Millennium

Objecto textual

Textual Practice 10:3 (Textual Practice 103)

Textual Criticism at the Millennium

Textual and Literary Criticism

A Rationale of Textual Criticism

Introduction to Indian Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism & Editorial Technique

Marxism at the Millennium

Meteorology at the Millennium

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism

Fluorine Chemistry at the Millennium

Austin at Criticism

Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible

Contributions to the Textual Criticism of the Kathopanisad issue 100

Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism

The Calculus of Variants: An Essay on Textual Criticism

Late Postmodernism: American Fiction at the Millennium

Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium

Psychoanalysis and Culture at the Millennium

Introducing Criticism at the 21st Century

Millennium

Millennium

Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism: Collected Papers

Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962-2004

Millennium

Millennium

Millennium

MILLENNIUM

The Poets' Jesus: Representations at the End of a Millennium

Objecto textual

Textual Practice 10:3 (Textual Practice 103)

Recommend Documents