The second statement, written by William Proctor Williams and Craig S. The goal of a critical edition, Tanselle writes, should be 'fidelity to what the editor understands to be the author's intention' (Tanselle, 37). Thomas Tanselle's 1981 essay 'Textual Scholarship.' In this essay, Tanselle reiterates Bowers's position, although Bowers has since modified his view (see, for example, Essays in Bibliography, Text and Editing ).
Greg's 'The Rationale of Copy-Text' (1950-1), James Thorpe's Principles of Textual Criticism (1972), or, more recently, G. McKerrow's An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students (1928), W.W. NADEL accorded such standard discussions as R.B. seen in the status UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY, VOLUME 58, NUMBER 2, WINTER 1988/9 264 IRA B. However, the importance of this method can be. Bowers's authorial approach also negates the contribution of textual transmission to the authenticity of a text. This effort to reclaim the innocence of a text ignores the historical development oftextual studies in which the biblical and classical model, driven by philological concerns, dominated any other interest. (Bowers, 24) Here, Bowers emphasizes the retrieval element of textual criticism, the restoration of a text to its original state before its 'fall' into the corrupting hands of republication and transmission. The first, by Fredson Bowers, appeared in 1963 and identifies the primary goal of textual criticism as the recovery of the initial purity of an author's text and of its revision (insofar as this is possible from the preserved documents), and the preservation of this purity despite the usual corrupting process of reprint transmission. Two statements on the nature of textual criticism dramatize the issues of copy-text, textual authority, and editorial practice now under review. The consequences of these changes for the editing of Matthew Arnold's prose are the specific concern of this paper but of equal importance is the impact of such revisions on the general study of Victorian non-fictional writing. For McGann, the textual critic becomes an archaeologist because he must reconstruct an entire literary past through the recovery of a literary text (McGann, 2,41,81,68,89,93). In addition, he noted that an author's intentions towards his manuscript may differ from his intentions towards his published text. McGann further argued that the social dynamic between an individual author, his work, and the method of literary production was crucial for a printed text, and should be studied more closely by textual critics. (Matthew Arnold, cancelled passage, Culture and Anarchy) In 1983 Jerome McGann declared that 'textual criticism is in the process of reconceiving its discipline' and cited revisionist views of copy-text, authorial intention, and textual authority to support his claims. NADEL Textual Criticism and Non-Fictional Prose: The Case of Matthew Arnold We see threatenings of confusion, and we want a clue to some firm order and authority. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
0 kommentar(er)
