The author's intention
The author's intention, as is well known, is a fundamental concept
much debated in editorial theory.[29]
By and large it seems that, despite the problems involved, it cannot be
relinquished without negative consequences for critical editing. If it were
renounced, if editors were to declare the very concept of authorial intention
on principle to be outside their province, discernible expression of such
intention would be entirely subject to editorial discretion, if not indeed
arbitrariness.[30] Too little
consideration however has usually been given to the fact that the notion of
authorial intention can be applied in two different ways: as intentio
recta (author in the 2nd person) and as intentio
obliqua
(author
in the 3rd person). It is the second way which is relevant to textual
criticism. The question here is, whether a text or textual part or particle as
transmitted is, or may be considered, intended (meant) by the author.
Editorially, the predicate "intended" may on principle be attributed
to a specific textual finding or its emendation only when modified as
"possibly intended".[31] Yet the
"possibility" is subject to many degrees of certainty and probability or
uncertainty and improbability, in much the same way as what a third party
intends (or means) can only be known on the basis of everyday
suppositions. The editor assumes responsibility for adjudicating intention in
a manner different from that for his making descriptive statements which
can be verified or falsified from the extant textual materials. Whereas the
reasoning behind descriptive statements can be completely objectified, if
need be with the help of explicit conceptual definitions and rules of
procedure, this is not the case with assertions of textual criticism
concerning the degree to which a transmitted text can be intended (meant).
These are always only partly objectifiable, and the editor can only
vouch for them on the basis of an understanding and knowledge which he
has gained in his role as reader, interpreter and textual critic. Hence they
always hold good only in relation to the editor's familiarity with the
author's voluntative and linguistic behaviour.[32]
Whereas editorial theory has hitherto been dominated by the
reciprocal editor/author relationship in the 1st and 2nd person—the
reception-oriented editorial concept—or the one-directional
editor/author
relationship in the 1st and 3rd person—the production-oriented
concept—the implications of the notion of authorial intention may be
clarified from a perspective in which the author occupies the 2nd and 3rd
person. The author's literary activity displays two sides: on the one hand
it fulfills a specific purpose, the production of texts, and on the other hand
it is a form of expression, a way of articulating the self in the text. The
concept of authorial intention may be differentiated accordingly.
