Bookbag (0)
Search:
2014::01 in date [X]
Path::StudiesInBiblio::uvaBook::tei::sibv058.xml in subject [X]
University of Virginia Library, Text collection in subject [X]
Modify Search | New Search
Results:  1 ItemBrowse by Facet | Title | Author
Sorted by:  
Page: 1
Subject
collapsePath
Studies in Bibliography (1)
UVA-LIB-Text (1)
University of Virginia Library, Text collection[X]
Date
collapse2014
collapse01
01 (1)
1Author:  Edited by DAVID L. VANDER MEULENAdd
 Title:  Studies in Bibliography, Volume 58 (2007/2008)  
 Published:  2014 
 Subjects:  University of Virginia Library, Text collection | UVA-LIB-Text | Studies in Bibliography 
 Description: "The things which the textual critic has to talk about are not things which present themselves clearly and sharply to the mind.… Mistakes are therefore made which could not be made if the matter under discussion were any corpo- real object, having qualities perceptible to the senses." This remark, made nearly ninety years ago by A. E. Housman in his well-known address "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," suggests the crux of many recent editorial discussions, in which some of editing's most basic humanistic assumptions have been challenged with arguments influenced by the movement sometimes called "postmodern" literary theory.1 1. Housman's address to the Classical Association was made at Cambridge on 4 August 1921, and printed in the proceedings of the Association the following year. The quotation is taken from the text as reprinted in Housman, Selected Prose, ed. John Carter (Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press, 1961), p. 136. Many of the challengers are themselves editors, and were motivated at least in part by a sense that textual criticism was both technically overdeveloped as a field and falsely estranged from literary criticism. An expressed inter- est in drawing textual and literary criticism nearer to one another (as if they were not already interpenetrated dimensions of the same discipline) was thus a prominent feature of many of the discussions. A second inter- est, also of an integrating character, was in surmounting the perceived national or linguistic isolation of Anglo-American editorial scholarship through an engagement with editorial traditions of other countries, espe- cially Germany and France. Movements to open intellectual horizons in this age of overly determined specialization are to be welcomed, and this one has had its benefits, as readers of Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research can attest.2 2. New York: Modern Language Association, 1995. Many of the two dozen scholars whom David Greetham as- sembled for this unusual project exhibited a felt sense of responsibility in their contributions, which taken together provide Anglophone students with a useful history of textual criticism across several periods of time and many languages.
 Similar Items:  Find