Textual Studies

M. Byron
{"title":"Textual Studies","authors":"M. Byron","doi":"10.1093/sq/29.4.482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Textual studies describes a range of fields and methodologies that evaluate how texts are constituted both physically and conceptually, document how they are preserved, copied, and circulated, and propose ways in which they might be edited to minimize error and maximize the text’s integrity. The vast temporal reach of the history of textuality—from oral traditions spanning thousands of years and written forms dating from the 4th millenium bce to printed and digital text forms—is matched by its geographical range covering every linguistic community around the globe. Methods of evaluating material text-bearing documents and the reliability of their written or printed content stem from antiquity, often paying closest attention to sacred texts as well as to legal documents and literary works that helped form linguistic and social group identity. With the incarnation of the printing press in the early modern West, the rapid reproduction of text matter in large quantities had the effect of corrupting many texts with printing errors as well as providing the technical means of correcting such errors more cheaply and quickly than in the preceding scribal culture.\n From the 18th century, techniques of textual criticism were developed to attempt systematic correction of textual error, again with an emphasis on scriptural and classical texts. This “golden age of philology” slowly widened its range to consider such foundational medieval texts as Dante’s Commedia as well as, in time, modern vernacular literature. The technique of stemmatic analysis—the establishment of family relationships between existing documents of a text—provided the means for scholars to choose between copies of a work in the pursuit of accuracy. In the absence of original documents (manuscripts in the hand of Aristotle or the four Evangelists, for example) the choice between existing versions of a text were often made eclectically—that is, drawing on multiple versions—and thus were subject to such considerations as the historic range and geographical diffusion of documents, the systematic identification of common scribal errors, and matters of translation.\n As the study of modern languages and literatures consolidated into modern university departments in the later 19th century, new techniques emerged with the aim of providing reliable literary texts free from obvious error. This aim had in common with the preceding philological tradition the belief that what a text means—discovered in the practice of hermeneutics—was contingent on what the text states—established by an accurate textual record that eliminates error by means of textual criticism. The methods of textual criticism took several paths through the 20th century: the Anglophone tradition centered on editing Shakespeare’s works by drawing on the earliest available documents—the printed Quartos and Folios—developing into the Greg–Bowers–Tanselle copy-text “tradition” which was then deployed as a method by which to edit later texts. The status of variants in modern literary works with multiple authorial manuscripts—not to mention the existence of competing versions of several of Shakespeare’s plays—complicated matters sufficiently that editors looked to alternate editorial models. Genetic editorial methods draw in part on German editorial techniques, collating all existing manuscripts and printed texts of a work in order to provide a record of its composition process, including epigenetic processes following publication. The French methods of critique génétique also place the documentary record at the center, where the dossier is given priority over any one printed edition, and poststructuralist theory is used to examine the process of “textual invention.” The inherently social aspects of textual production—the author’s interaction with agents, censors, publishers, and printers and the way these interactions shape the content and presentation of the text—have reconceived how textual authority and variation are understood in the social and economic contexts of publication. And, finally, the advent of digital publication platforms has given rise to new developments in the presentation of textual editions and manuscript documents, displacing copy-text editing in some fields such as modernism studies in favor of genetic or synoptic models of composition and textual production.","PeriodicalId":207246,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/29.4.482","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Textual studies describes a range of fields and methodologies that evaluate how texts are constituted both physically and conceptually, document how they are preserved, copied, and circulated, and propose ways in which they might be edited to minimize error and maximize the text’s integrity. The vast temporal reach of the history of textuality—from oral traditions spanning thousands of years and written forms dating from the 4th millenium bce to printed and digital text forms—is matched by its geographical range covering every linguistic community around the globe. Methods of evaluating material text-bearing documents and the reliability of their written or printed content stem from antiquity, often paying closest attention to sacred texts as well as to legal documents and literary works that helped form linguistic and social group identity. With the incarnation of the printing press in the early modern West, the rapid reproduction of text matter in large quantities had the effect of corrupting many texts with printing errors as well as providing the technical means of correcting such errors more cheaply and quickly than in the preceding scribal culture. From the 18th century, techniques of textual criticism were developed to attempt systematic correction of textual error, again with an emphasis on scriptural and classical texts. This “golden age of philology” slowly widened its range to consider such foundational medieval texts as Dante’s Commedia as well as, in time, modern vernacular literature. The technique of stemmatic analysis—the establishment of family relationships between existing documents of a text—provided the means for scholars to choose between copies of a work in the pursuit of accuracy. In the absence of original documents (manuscripts in the hand of Aristotle or the four Evangelists, for example) the choice between existing versions of a text were often made eclectically—that is, drawing on multiple versions—and thus were subject to such considerations as the historic range and geographical diffusion of documents, the systematic identification of common scribal errors, and matters of translation. As the study of modern languages and literatures consolidated into modern university departments in the later 19th century, new techniques emerged with the aim of providing reliable literary texts free from obvious error. This aim had in common with the preceding philological tradition the belief that what a text means—discovered in the practice of hermeneutics—was contingent on what the text states—established by an accurate textual record that eliminates error by means of textual criticism. The methods of textual criticism took several paths through the 20th century: the Anglophone tradition centered on editing Shakespeare’s works by drawing on the earliest available documents—the printed Quartos and Folios—developing into the Greg–Bowers–Tanselle copy-text “tradition” which was then deployed as a method by which to edit later texts. The status of variants in modern literary works with multiple authorial manuscripts—not to mention the existence of competing versions of several of Shakespeare’s plays—complicated matters sufficiently that editors looked to alternate editorial models. Genetic editorial methods draw in part on German editorial techniques, collating all existing manuscripts and printed texts of a work in order to provide a record of its composition process, including epigenetic processes following publication. The French methods of critique génétique also place the documentary record at the center, where the dossier is given priority over any one printed edition, and poststructuralist theory is used to examine the process of “textual invention.” The inherently social aspects of textual production—the author’s interaction with agents, censors, publishers, and printers and the way these interactions shape the content and presentation of the text—have reconceived how textual authority and variation are understood in the social and economic contexts of publication. And, finally, the advent of digital publication platforms has given rise to new developments in the presentation of textual editions and manuscript documents, displacing copy-text editing in some fields such as modernism studies in favor of genetic or synoptic models of composition and textual production.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
文本的研究
文本研究描述了一系列领域和方法,这些领域和方法评估文本是如何在物理上和概念上构成的,记录它们是如何保存、复制和传播的,并提出了编辑文本的方法,以尽量减少错误,最大限度地提高文本的完整性。从跨越数千年的口头传统,到公元前4千年的书面形式,再到印刷和数字文本形式,文本历史的时间跨度之广,与其覆盖全球每一个语言社区的地理范围相匹配。评估材料文本文件及其书面或印刷内容的可靠性的方法源于古代,通常最关注神圣文本以及有助于形成语言和社会群体身份的法律文件和文学作品。随着现代西方早期印刷机的出现,大量文本的快速复制产生了印刷错误腐蚀了许多文本的效果,同时也提供了比以前的抄写文化更便宜、更快速地纠正这些错误的技术手段。从18世纪开始,文本批评技术被开发出来,试图系统地纠正文本错误,再次强调圣经和经典文本。这个“文献学的黄金时代”慢慢扩大了它的研究范围,开始研究像但丁的《喜剧》这样的中世纪基础文本,以及现代白话文学。系统化分析技术——在文本的现有文献之间建立家族关系——为学者们在追求准确性的作品副本之间进行选择提供了手段。在没有原始文献的情况下(例如,亚里士多德或四位福音传教士手中的手稿),在现有文本版本之间的选择通常是折衷的——也就是说,借鉴多个版本——因此,要考虑到文献的历史范围和地理传播,系统地识别常见的抄写错误,以及翻译问题。19世纪后期,随着现代语言和文学的研究并入现代大学院系,新的技术出现了,其目的是提供可靠的文学文本,没有明显的错误。这一目标与之前的语言学传统有共同之处,即认为文本的意义——在解释学实践中被发现——取决于文本所陈述的内容——通过准确的文本记录来建立,通过文本批评来消除错误。在整个20世纪,文本批评的方法有几种途径:以英语为中心的传统是通过借鉴最早的可获得的文献(印刷的四开本和对开本)来编辑莎士比亚的作品,然后发展成格雷格-鲍尔斯-坦塞尔的复制文本“传统”,然后作为编辑后来文本的一种方法。现代文学作品中有多个作者手稿的变体的地位——更不用说莎士比亚戏剧中存在的几个相互竞争的版本——使事情变得足够复杂,以至于编辑们不得不寻找替代的编辑模式。遗传编辑方法部分借鉴了德国的编辑技术,对作品的所有现有手稿和印刷文本进行整理,以便提供其创作过程的记录,包括出版后的表观遗传过程。法国的批评方法也将文献记录置于中心,其中档案比任何印刷版本都优先,后结构主义理论用于检查“文本发明”的过程。文本生产的内在社会方面——作者与代理人、审查员、出版商和印刷商的互动,以及这些互动塑造文本内容和呈现方式的方式——已经重新认识了如何在出版的社会和经济背景下理解文本的权威和变化。最后,数字出版平台的出现引起了文本版本和手稿文件呈现的新发展,取代了现代主义研究等某些领域的副本文本编辑,支持遗传或概要模式的组成和文本生产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Turkish Novel as Transnational Planetary Urbanization and Contemporary Fiction Ethology: The Narrative Turn The Reception of Ancient Greece and Rome in the Victorian Period Early Modern Literature and Food in Britain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1