Introduction: What is a Text? .edu

Introduction: What is a Text? Author(s): Seth Lerer and Joseph A. Dane Source: Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1, Reading from the Margins: Textual Studies, Chaucer, and Medieval Literature (1995), pp. 1-10 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: Accessed: 11/12/2010 11:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Huntington Library Quarterly.



Introduction What Is a Text?

SETH LERER AND JOSEPH A. DANE

We are all now for "bibliographical"methods, keenly on the watch for every least indication of disturbancein the accuratetransmissionof a text, sorting out by many subtle and ingenious methods the first, second, or third stage of the composition, the original draft, the first completedform, the revisionof this, that, and the otherpurpose,and so on. But there is much more in these modern methods of researchthan

used to be understood by "bibliography,"and I am not sure that the recent extensions of the term have been altogether justifiable. The virtuesof bibliographyas we used to call it were its definiteness,that it gave little scope for differencesof opinion, that two personsof reasonable intelligence following the same line of bibliographicalargument would inevitably arrive at the same conclusion, and that it therefore offereda verypleasantrelieffrom criticalinvestigationsof the more "literary"kind.1

n,R>

B. McKerrow'rsemarkosf sixtyyearsagomaywellstandas an epi-

graphfor this special issue of HuntingtonLibraryQuarterlyW. e are

o now,too, allfor "bibliographicalm" ethods:advancesin computersci-

ence and the attendant technologies of collation, ideological critiques of the

presuppositionsof textualcriticismitself, and the sheervolume of newly discov-

eredmanuscriptsand earlyprintedvolumes have all made bibliographya central

topic of academicdebate.Few might still claim that the provinceof bibliography

lies with the unarticulatedintuitions of "personsof reasonableintelligence,"but

manywould likelyagreethatwhatwe meanby "textualscholarship"necessitatesa

knowledge of the historicityof texts and readersand that such scholarshipcan

only benefit from the communicationamong criticsof many and variousfields.2

1. R. B. McKerrow,An Introductionto Bibliography(New York, 1927), 2. 2. See D. C. Greetham, TextualScholarship:An Introduction (New York, 1992), 2.

HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY - 58:1

2 -",

SETH LERER AND JOSEPH A. DANE

Nonetheless, although "textuality"has become something of a term to conjure with-and disciplinesas diverseas film studies, culturalanthropology,and the historyof scienceimaginethemselvesworkingwith the meaningand the mode of "texts"-the processesof transcribingc, ollating,describing,andeditingbooksand manuscriptsof earlierhistoricalperiodsremain,forthe most part,relativelyfamiliar.Editionsfromthe ageof McKerrowmayseem, at firstglance,prettymuch the sameas those from the atelierof JeromeMcGann.And, to a largedegree,debates framed by the Bedieristsand Lachmanniansof nearly a century ago still find themselvesplayedout in the prefacesand articlesof professionaleditors.3

The questionstill evadesus:What is a text?Or, to askit moreprecisely,what arethe relationshipsbetween the methods of textualstudy and the privilegingof a classof objectscalledtexts?How does an artifactbecome a text?Does it become one only when subjectedto the inquiriesof textualanalysis?Forthat matter,can a text lose its statusand revertto the merelyartifactual?

Such questionsguide our inquiriesinto the elements of textualityitself.Are pictures-illustrations, marginalia,historiatedinitials-texts, and how can the editor incorporatesuch informationin the making of the modern edition? For example,no modernscholarlyedition of TheCanterburyTales(excluding,for the moment, facsimiles)prints the pilgrim portraitswith the GeneralPrologue.Yet FredericFurnivall'slate-nineteenth-centuryedition of Hoccleve's Regimentof Princesprints a facsimile of Hoccleve'sportrait of Chaucer preciselywhere it appearsin one of the earliest manuscriptsof the poem (British Library,MS. Harley 4866).4 We may ask the question more radically:Can texts themselves function as pictures?Can, in other words, displaysof writing function not as stringsof wordsto be conveyedand edited but ratheras icons of something else? The verynotion of "facsimile"impliesa transformationof text backinto picture. And, as currentphotographictechnologiesimprove,the spate of new facsimiles may come to stand as virtual (in both senses of the word) replacementsof old texts.The facsimileof the famousEllesmeremanuscript,recentlycopublishedby the Huntington LibraryandYushodoCo., Ltd., is no simple reproduction,how-

3. Witness,for example,the exchangesin the essayscollectedin StephenG. Nichols,ed., TheNewPhilology, a specialissueof Speculum60 (1990); andseeTim WilliamMachan,TextuaCl riticismandMiddleEnglish Literatur(eCharlottesvilleV, a., 1994).

4. F.J. Furnivalle, d., TheRegimenot fPrincesA.D. 1411-12, fromtheHarleianMS 4866, EarlyEnglishText Society,extraseries,72 (London,1897). Of the forty-threemanuscriptsof thiswork,only a few contain,or everdid contain,a Chaucerportraitwherethe textseemsto demandone. SeeM. C. Seymour,"The Manuscriptsof Hoccleve'sRegimenot fPrinces", EdinburghBibliographicaSlocietyTransaction4s, pt. 7 (1974): 253-97.

WHAT Is A TEXT?

s 3

ever;anda numberof textualscholarshaveargueddirectlythattheentireenterpriseof facsimileproductionis editorialfrombeginningto end.5In the "Notes andDocuments"sectionof thisissue,AnthonyG. Cainsdescribetsherebinding andconservationof the Ellesmeremanuscriptthatwasundertakenasa component of the recentfacsimilepublicationH. e revealsthe waysin whichbinding affectsthe productionof a facsimile-whatone canseeof thepage,bothgenerally and in detail.Morebroadly,his analysissuggeststhe difficultboundary betweenthetextualandtheartifactuanl;ot onlynaturadl egradatiobnutalsothe variousbindingsandrepairhs aveinterferedwiththepigmentsandinks,thedecorationof the manuscriptin particularw, hich,as otheressaysin the volume show,is increasingltyhesubjectof textualinquiry.

In whatwaysdoesthe availabilitoyf facsimileeditionsalterthecharacteorf textualquestions?Forthe EllesmereChaucert,he answerliesin the future.But for,say,BeowulftheevidencehasbeenaroundforcenturiesO. neneedonlyrecall the readingwundinigold-a phraselong thoughtto evidencethe linguistic archaismof thepoem-to reflecton howeditorsworkingfroma transcriptio(nin this casethe Thorkelintranscriptosf the Beowulfmanuscriptc)oulddiscerna pieceof textnot to be foundin theactualmanuscripatndthenincorporattehat textin publishedfacsimileandcriticaleditions.6

What,then,arethe elementsof textualityA? t the locallevel,wheredo we drawthe line betweena "varianta"nd an "error"I?n the vicissitudesof scribal

copying,howcanwe distinguishbetweena lapseandan intrusion-and, in the caseof whatappearto be intelligentandmeaningfuilntrusionsh, owdo we distinguishbetweenthe variantand wholesalerewriting?T7he transmissionof

5, See,for example,T. H. Howard-Hill,reviewof MichaelWarren,TheCompletKe ingLear(1608-1623) (BerkeleyandLosAngeles,1989), ReviewofEnglishStudiesn, .s., 43 (1992):420-22.

6. The phrasewundinigoldin Beowulfhad beenunderstoodto be a survivalof an earlyOld Englishinstru mentalform,and thuswasvaluedas evidenceforan earlydate(seventhor eighthcentury)of compositionof the poem. KevinKiernandemonstratedthatthis readingappearsasan editorialconjecturein the transcript of the poem madeby G. J. Thorkelinin the lateeighteenthcentury.It wasthen reproducedin Julius Zupitza'stransliterationof the textin his publishedfacsimile(BeowulfR, eproduceidn Facsimile[London, 1882]) andwasmaintainedby twentieth-centuryeditors(notablyC. L.Wrenn),who hadnot consultedthe originalmanuscriptK. iernan'esxaminationof thatmanuscriptshowsthatthe readingshould,in fact,be wundmigold-scribal nonsense,but one thatmaybe moreconservativelyeditedas wundumgold,not an archaicphraseat all andone consistentwith the datec. 1000 for the manuscriptS. ee Kiernan,Beowulfand theBeowulfManuscrip(Nt ew BrunswickN, .J., 1980), 30-37.

7. This questionhasbeenexploredfora varietyof vernacularliteraturesin suchrecentstudiesas SylviaHout, FromSongto Book:ThePoeticsof Writingin OldFrenchLyricandLyricaNl arrativePoetry(Ithaca,N.Y., 1987);SethLerer,ChaucerandHis ReadersI:maginingtheAuthorin LateMedievalEngland(Princeton,N.J., 1993);andJohnDagenais,TheEthicsofReadingin a ManuscripCt ulture:Glossingthe "Librode beunamor"

(Princeton,N.J., 1994).

4 '

SETH LERER AND JOSEPH A. DANE

medievalliterarydocumentshas been an obvioussite for such reflectionsT. o some, variationis the markof unreliability,the distinctivemanifestationsof what Chaucerwouldlamentasthemiswritingandmismetering"fordefauteof tonge" thathe imaginesasthescribaal fterlifeof TroiluasndCriseydTe.oothers,variation offerstestimonyto the creativelyfluid natureof the medievaland the earlymodern text. BarryWindeatt incorporatessuch miswritingsinto his edition of Troilus and CriseydeH. e presentsChaucer'psoem"inthe contextof the corpusof variants drawnfrom the extant manuscripts,not only becausethose variantscan be of editoriavl alue,butalsobecausetheyareheldto be of a positiveliteraryvalue, to embodyin themselveas formof commentaryr,ecordingtheresponseosf nearcontemporarryeaderosf thepoetry."B8 utvariationdidnot endwiththeadvent of print.In a curioustropingon Chaucer'esnvoy,StephenHawesconcludedthe PastimeofPleasure(firstpublishedbyWynkyndeWordein 1509)withhis fears not of scribalbutof typographicaelrror:

Go lytellbokeI praygod thesaue Frommyssemetrynge/ bywrongeImpressyon.9

And it went on. Phenomenarecordedas variantsby modern editorsmay all too oftenbethemeremistakesof thecompositorS. irThomasWyatt's"SatirteoJohn Poynz"condemns the courtiers,"Of them that list all vice for to retain,"a line mangledinTottel'sMiscellantyo "Ofthemthatlistallniceforto retain"(areading, by the way,correctedbackto "vice"in the firstthreereprintingsof the volume,yet againtransformetdo "vile"in laterones).10Andmoresignificantly, many Shakespeareanvariantshave recentlybeen revealedto be not witnessesto competingversionsof theplaysbutsimilarmistakesattheprintshop.Somedif-

8. B. A. Windeatt,ed., ChaucerT: roiluasnd Criseyd(eLondon,1984), 25.

9. W. E. Mead,ed., ThePastimeofPleasurebyStephenHawes,EarlyEnglishTextSociety,originalseries,173

(London,1928), lines 5803-4. Fora discussionof thispassagein the contextof a largerargumenton Hawes'sthematicattentionsto printcultureand literaryfame,see Lerer,ChaucerandHis Readers1, 76-93.

10. Tottel'sreadingis recordedas a variantin the editionby KennethMuirand PatriciaThompson,Collected Poemsof Sir ThomasWyatt(Liverpool,1969), 88; and in the studyby RichardHarrier,TheCanonofSir ThomasWyattsPoetry(Cambridge,1975), 171;thoughnot in the editionby RonaldA. Rebholz,Sir ThomasWyatt,TheCompletPe oems(HarmondsworthE, ngland,1978). It is likelythathis readingis not a truevariantbut rathera compositor'smistake:perhapsnot the printingof an n but of a turnedu (wherethe compositormisreadviceand uice).Suchturnedlettersarecommonplacein the printingsof the Miscellany; see the list of variantreadingsand misprintsin HyderE. Rollins,TottelsMiscellany(1557-1587), 2 vols. (1928-29; reprint,Cambridge,1965), 1:263-326. The specificsof the line in the "Satireto Poynz"are recordedon 283 (keyedto 1:85, line 41).

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download