In interpreting the mind of another, the scholar also always interprets
his own; and the history of ideas is shaped by ideas as much as by their
interpretation. Do these familiar insights, essential for a theoretic foundation
of the humanities, also apply to textual scholars? In their endeavour for
accuracy in editions, they are said to be more concerned with the letter than
the spirit. Normally their "higher criticism" is only conveyed indirectly
through editorial technique and in formulaic conclusions. This proper mode
of editorial reticence to explicate an understanding of an author and an
oeuvre, of literature and literary genre, may easily give an impression that,
witnessing to self-imposed pedantry, the editor's work is merely
mechanical. But appearances are deceptive. The study of opposing positions
in the history of classical and modern textual scholarship teaches a different
lesson. The most distinctive standpoints within textual criticism
express—amongst other
things—the philologist's varying conception of the author, and of his
own
role as interpreter. This is not surprising. In his task to establish a version
of the text which is as authentic as possible, the textual critic often finds
himself faced with complex situations holding a multi-valent potential for
decision. This gives rise to the question whether and to what extent the
individual scholar's faculty of judgement—that is: his perception of
the
author applied to concrete source situations—may or should be
involved
in the acts of decision. Positions are divided on this matter between those
who fundamentally assent to conjecture and emendation, and thereby
indirectly to a realisation of
their role as editors in terms of their image of the author; and those who,
basically sceptical about textual interference, also consciously refrain from
forming a particular image of the author, valuing instead an openness of
approach to the author as to their own work. The question which of these
attitudes is the correct one can never be answered conclusively. But
exploring their grounds can secure a vital interest for the history of textual
criticism, provided that this is seen as itself part of a history of ideas and
not merely as a record of sample cases to guide editorial decisions. In the
field of classical philology, Rudolf Pfeiffer has made a contribution to this
manner of historical approach in his
History of Classical
Scholarship.
[1] In the modern
languages, where textual scholarship must generally deal with more
complex transmissional situations, often incorporating, too, a genetic
dimension, there have as yet been only isolated
attempts of a similar kind.
[2]
Along with textual criticism, there are two other areas of
responsibility within editorial philology in which it is impossible to work
profitably without a conception of the implications of the philological task
in question. Firstly: the arrangement of texts and choice of versions;
secondly: the evaluation and the presentation of an author's work process.
Here, too, the editor confronts the question of his attitude to the author and
to himself. The less he commits himself, and thus the more he keeps aloof
from forming a consistent understanding of the author and of himself, the
closer he may in fact come to the oeuvre and the work process as
such—the author's as well as the editor's.
The following is an attempt to investigate the ways editors see their
role, by analysing their conceptualisations of authorial writing. Instead of
the usual pragmatic approach to editors' interpretations (are their
text-genetical presentations in keeping with the evidence from extant
sources? are they readable and illustrative?) we shall be concerned with the
editor's work in the context of a history of ideas. The editorial enterprise
is not seen instrumentally, as a means to an end, but as a form of
expression meaningful in itself. The authorial work processes, in their turn,
will be considered from the same angle, with a view to finding new keys
to understanding them.
