¡Descarga textual criticism y más Apuntes en PDF de Literatura inglesa solo en Docsity!
TEXTUAL CRITICISM – A SHORT INTRODUCTION [ 2013 ]
Jesús Tronch Universitat de València Let’s start with F. W. Bateson’s famous question: If Leonardo’s Mona Lisa is in the Louvre, where is Shakespeare’s Hamlet? Why cannot we state that Hamlet is in a specific place, just as we can with respect to a painting? Because “The medium of literature is language, which is abstract, not paper and ink, which merely serve as one vehicle for transmitting language. Therefore works of literature do not exist on paper, and the texts that appear there are only texts of physical documents” (Tanselle, “Textual criticism”, pp. 1273 -‐4) We should therefore distinguish between Hamlet as a work, and the text of Hamlet. Often critics use the term “text” to refer to a literary work, but from the perspective of textual scholarship we should make a distinction: “A text is a particular arrangement of words and marks of punctuation; a literary work, a verbal construct, consists of a text (or succession of texts), but its text cannot be assumed to coincide with any written or printed text purporting to be the text of that work.” (Tanselle, “Textual criticism”, p. 1273 ) A literary work is an intangible, abstract construct that needs a “text” (an arrangement of signs or instructions to reconstruct the work) to be transmitted, and this “text” needs a physical, tangible document (manuscript, printed, electronic) to contain or support it. Furthermore, the text in this document needs to be copied (transferred onto another document) in order to disseminate the work, and in that process of transmission alterations (accidental or deliberate) are likely to occur. How successfully the texts contained in documents represent the literary work is a key question any reader and any critic should ask. As Tanselle explains, “the reason for questioning the texts of documents is that they are not the texts of works and that they may be faulty witnesses to those texts” (“Varieties” p. 12). Take two or more editions of Hamlet , and compare Hamlet’s speech in Act 5, scene 2, replying to Horatio’s attempt to stop the duel because Hamlet seems not to be fit. (Line numbers are 5.2. 219 -‐ 24 in the edition listed below as EVNS 1. The text reproduced here is the one edited by David Bevington for the Internet Shakespeare Editions ). HAMLET... There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. [Commentary notes from ARD3Q2 : If it be It is Hamlet’s moment of death, predetermined by God like ‘the fall of a sparrow’ since... betimes ‘Since no one has any knowledge of the life he leaves behind him, what does it matter if one dies early [ betimes ]?’ (Edwards) Let be leave it alone; say no more. ]
It is possible to find more than ten different “texts” for this fragment! (see examples from different modern critical editions below) Which is is the “correct” text, the most accurate text? Which one did Shakespeare write? Textual criticism is the scholarly discipline that seeks to answer these questions. Textual criticism “is the term traditionally used to refer to the scholarly activity of analyzing the relationships among the surviving texts of a work so as to assess their relative authority and accuracy. It is also often taken, more broadly, to encompass the activity of scholarly editing, in which the conclusions drawn from such examination are embodied in the text or annotation (or both) of a new edition.” (Tanselle, “Textual criticism”, p. 1273) Why is it possible that we have texts of Hamlet with such a number and quality of differences? As Tanselle points out, “Textual criticism is a historical undertaking” since its aim is “to elucidate the textual history of individual works and to attempt to reconstruct the precise forms taken by the texts of those works at particular moments in the past. Like all efforts to recover the past, it depends on judgment at every turn, and the word ‘criticism’ is therefore an appropriate element in the standard term” of textual criticism (“Textual criticism”, p. 1273 ). As the text produced by a critic depends on her or his judgement, not two critics may coincide in their conclusions as to the history of the text, in their decisions to judge a segment of text as error, to emend an error by substituting the same emendation, or to modernize the words and punctuation according to the same criteria. Let’s consider Hamlet’s speech in 5.2. 219 -‐ 24 and trace the steps followed until the text is established in any of the editions sampled below. The activity of textual criticism usually consists of two phases:
- analysis of the texts and their history (their relationships, relative authority and accuracy);
- the establishment or editing of a new text.
- In order to elucidate the textual history of the literary work ( Hamlet ) we first need to identify and examine the historical documents containing the texts (also called ‘witnesses’) of the work. In the case of Hamlet, no manuscript, either by Shakespeare or a scribe, survives; only texts in printed editions in quarto and folio format issued since 1603. We compare these texts (word by word, punctuation mark by punctuation mark), keep record of their variants and examine how the documents were produced. We analyze the variants readings in order to discern the relationships among the texts by identifying which derive from which (usually because they show common errors or unusual features that could not be made independently). We may then draw a kind of genealogical tree showing which are the earliest texts that cannot descend from a previous one, how descendants can be arranged in “branches” or collateral lines of descent, and whether these lines converge because certain texts have combined readings different lines. In the case of Hamlet there are three ancestors or independents texts: chronologically, -‐ the first one was printed in quarto format in 1603 (Q1); -‐ the second one, also a quarto edition, has some copies dated 1604 and others 1605 (Q2); -‐ the third one is the text included in the collection, in folio format, of Shakespeare’s plays published in 1623 and usually referred to as the First Folio (F1).
For accounts of how these three early texts came about, see introductions or “textual analysis” sections in editions such as EVNS 1 , ARD 2 , CAM 4 , OXF 4 , ARD3Q2, and Taylor and Wells.
- Having analyzed the relevant early texts and concluded on an account of their transmission, the textual critic then needs to consider what kind of edition her or his readers will be best served with. She or he may decide to reproduce one of the early texts without any alteration by means of a facsimile or an accurate (also called diplomatic) transcription or reprinting (with errors being even reproduced). Alternatively, she or he may decide that readers will be given better access to the literary work by means of a new text that alters one or various of the early texts with a view to reconstruct the text that existed or was intended at a given moment. In this case the new text is termed “critical” because the editor’s critical judgement is exercised in emending errors or selecting among variants. In contrast, facsimiles and diplomatic transcriptions are called “noncritical”. Here the role of judgement is restricted to choosing the early text to be reproduced and perhaps to discerning difficult readings (in an illegible handwriting or with typographical problems). In critical editing, a first decision is whether to reconstruct the text either as intended by its author(s) (in their original, intermediate or final intentions), or as made available to readers by publisher(s) and/or other agents at given times. The latter decision assumes that literary works are not only products of individuals but also collaborative and social products. Moreover, two basic positions or attitudes can be adopted in relation to the base text(s): conservative or eclectic (as defined by Greg, p. xxvi-‐xxviii). Conservative editing keeps the critical text as closely as possible to the base text, emending only when there are manifest errors. Eclectic editing corrects the base text not only when there are obvious errors but also when the editor finds probable errors, that is, when a given reading, compared to its variants or to editorial emendations, is judged less plausible to correspond to any intended reading than its alternatives. In all cases, noncritical and critical editors, conservative and eclectic editors, are expected to provide an account of their decisions, by means of an introduction and of annotations. In a critical edition , the editor is expected to offer an account of how the new text has been established by means of a textual apparatus or collation. This consists of a series of textual notes on segments of the new text that provide information on how the latter deviates from the base text as well as on variants from collateral, derivative and/or other critical texts. Most textual collations have the following format: 166 There’s a] FQ1; there is Q First comes the number of the line in the new text containing the reading in question (“166”); then the lemma or reading in question exactly as it appears in the new text (“There’s a”); the lemma is followed by a closing square bracket; then the sigla indicating the text(s) that is/are the source of the lemma (“FQ1”, in this case both the First Folio and the First Quarto print “There’s a” – actually F prints “there’s a” but this difference is not substantial); this is followed by a semi-‐colon; then by information of alternatives in other texts using the same reading+siglum format (“there is” is the variant that appears in “Q2”, the Second Quarto). Let’s look at the critical text and collation of Hibbard’s Oxford edition (OXF 4 ) in the 5.2. 219 -‐ 2 4 passage and compare it with the facsimiles of the First Folio and the Second Quarto shown above.
HAMLET... There's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man knows aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. 170 Hibbard’s is a critical, eclectic edition that takes the First Folio as basis. His textual notes are here transcribed (with an explanation on the right hand side): 166 There’s a] FQ1; there is Q2 (explained above) 167 now] FQ1; not in Q2 Hibbard indicates that “now” in his text comes from the First Folio (coinciding again with the First Quarto) and that the Second Quarto omits this reading 169 -‐70 knows aught of what he leaves,] JOHNSON; ha’s ought of what he leaues. F; of ought he leaues, knows^Q2; owes aught of what he leaves, HANMER; knows of aught he leaves, SPENCER; of aught he leaves knows aught, JENKINS Here Hibbard indicates that he has emended his base text by replacing the First Folio reading “ ha’s ought of what he leaues.” with Johnson’s emendation “knows aught of what he leaves,”. Then he adds information about alternative readings from the Second Quarto and from other moder editions by Hanmer, Spencer and Jenkins. 170 Let be] Q2; not in F Hibbard may have overlooked, or judged unnecessary to indicate, the fact that “all.” (with a full stop separating “The readiness is all” from the next phrase) deviates from F1’s “all,” (an alteration made by Rowe in 1709). Examples of Hamlet’s speech 5.2. 222 -‐4 in different modern editions. (editions are indicated by abbreviations listed below) ARD3Q If it be, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all, since no man of aught he leaves knows what is’t to leave betimes. Let be. EVNS 1 If it be [now], ’tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it [will] come
- the readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows what is’t to leave betimes, let be. ARD 2 If it be now, ’tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows aught, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be.
PEN 1 ] it will come; the readiness is all, since no man has aught of what he leaves. What is’t to leave betimes? ROWE1] it will come; the readiness is all; since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? POPE] it will come: the readiness is all; since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? OXF 2 ] it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? OXF 1 ] it will come – the readiness is all. Since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. HAN 1 ] it will come: the readiness is all. Since no man owes aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. ALEX] it will come: the readiness is all. Since no man owes of aught he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. CAM 4 ] it will come – the readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. PEN 2 ] it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man knows of aught he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. OXF 4 ] it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man knows aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. ARD 2 ] it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows aught, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. ARD3Q2] it will come. The readiness is all, since no man of aught he leaves knows what is’t to leave betimes. Let be. SYN] it will come; the readiness is all, since no man, of aught he leaves, knows what is’t to leave betimes. Let be EVNS 1 ] it [will] come – the readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows what is’t to leave betimes, let be. List of works cited Bateson, F. W. , “Modern Bibliography and the Literary Artifact,” English Studies Today , 2nd series (1961): 66-‐77; reprinted in Essays in Critical Dissent (1972): 7-‐ 10. Greg, W. W., “Prolegomena. -‐ On Editing Shakespeare,” The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1942), vii-‐ lv, esp. xxvi-‐xxviii. Tanselle, George T. “Textual Criticism”, in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics , ed. by A. Preminger and T. F. V. Brogan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1993), 1273 -‐276. Tanselle, George T. “The Varieties of Scholarly Editing”, in Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research , ed. By D. C. Greetham (New York: MLA, 1995), 1-‐32. Taylor, Gary and Stanley Wells. “ Hamlet ”, in William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor with John Jowett and William Montgomery (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 396-‐420. Editions of Hamlet (Abbreviations before a closing square bracket are from the “ Hamlet bibliographies” section in Kliman et al., eds., hamletworks.org < http://triggs.djvu.org/global-‐language.com/ENFOLDED/edbib2.html>) ALEX] Alexander, Peter, ed. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works. London and Glasgow: Collins, 1951. 1 vol. ARD 2 ] Jenkins, Harold, ed. Hamlet. The New Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1982.
ARD3Q2] Thompson, Ann, and Neil Taylor ed. Hamlet. The New Arden Shakespeare. London: Thomson Learning, 2006. Bevington, David, ed. Hamlet. Internet Shakespeare Editions, University of Victoria, 2011.
CAM 4 ] Edwards, Philip, ed. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. New York: Cambridge UP, 1985. EVNS 1 ] The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans et al. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
- Illustrated. Hamlet , ed. Frank Kermode. Intro. pp. 1135 -‐40. Text, pp. 1141 -‐86. Note on the text and textual notes, pp. 1186 -‐97. F1] The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, in Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies. London. Printed by Isaac Iaggard, and Ed. Blount. 1623. pp. 152-‐280. HAN 1 ] Hanmer, Thomas, ed. The Works of Mr William Shakespear. Hamlet in vol. 6. Oxford: Printed at the Theatre. 1744. Kliman, Bernice W., ed. The Enfolded Hamlet. In B. W. Kliman et al., eds., hamletworks.org
Kliman, Bernice W., and Paul Bertram, eds. The Three Text Hamlet : Parallel Texts of the First and Second Quartos and First Folio. Ed. 2nd ed. New York: AMS Press, 2003. OXF 1 ] Craig, W. J., ed. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914. New York: Bartleby.com, 2000.
OXF 2 ] Wells, Stanley, and Gary Taylor, gen. eds. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. OXF 4 ] Hibbard, G.R., ed. Hamlet: Prince of Denmark. Oxford Shakespeare Series. New York: Oxford UP, 1987. PEN 1 ] Harrison, G.B., ed. The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark. The Penguin Shakespeare. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1937. PEN 2 ] Spencer, T.J.B., ed. Hamlet. The Penguin Shakespeare. Introduction Anne Barton. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1980. POPE 1 ] Pope, Alexander, ed. The Works of Mr. William Shakespear. Hamlet in vol. 6. London: Jacob Tonson, 1723. Q1] The tragicall historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke by William Shake-‐speare. As it hath beene diuerse times acted by his Highnesse seruants in the Cittie of London: as also in the two Vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford, and else-‐where. At London. printed [by Valentine Simmes] for N[icholas] L[ing] and Iohn Trundell, 1603. Q2] The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. By William Shakespeare. Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and percet Coppie. At London, Printed by I. R. for N. L. and are to be sold at his shoppe vnder Saint Dunstons Church in Fleetstreet. 1605 [some copies 1604 ]. ROWE 1 ] [Rowe, Nicholas], ed. The Works of Mr. William Shakespear. London: Jacob Tonson,
SYN] Tronch-‐ Pérez, Jesús, ed. A Synoptic Hamlet: A Critical Synoptic Edition of the Second Quarto/ and First Folio texts of Hamlet. València: Sederi: Univeritat de Valècia, 2002.
