University of Virginia Library

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.