Old Norse - New Philology
2016; University of Illinois Press; Volume: 65; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2163-8195
Autores Tópico(s)Linguistics and language evolution
ResumoTHE RECENT PUBLICATION of Evelyn Scherabon Firchow and Kaaren Grimstad's edition of the Old Norse-Icelandic translation of Honorius Augustodunensis's Elucidarius brings to the fore, and indeed into question, the often unstated assumptions and editorial procedures that underlie the presentation of texts. In providing readers with synoptically arranged, diplomatic editions of the eight surviving medieval manuscripts of the Elucidarius, the editors offer an implicit challenge to inherited editorial practice and, more fundamentally, to how modern readers view and understand texts, scribal transmission, and cultural milieu. At base, two positions--perhaps two fallacies--square off with one another in competition for ascendancy. The traditional practice among editors of Old Norse-Icelandic texts finds its most concise and eloquent statement in Paul Maas's Textkritik, originally published in 1927 as part VII of Gercke-Norden's Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft volume 1 and translated into English in 1958. Although Maas was concerned with Greek and Latin texts, the principles of editing he set forth generally represent the practice governing the editing of Old Norse-Icelandic texts. The thrust of Maas's argument moves toward the establishment of an uncorrupted archctype (constitutio); witnesses that do not assist in the reconstruction of the exemplar are eliminated (eliminatio codicum descriptorum), and any remaining witnesses are entered as evidence into a stemma, occupying a secondary position in relation to the archetype, which itself stands as a reflection of an Urtext. Where Maas moves backwards through a hierarchy towards an archetype, Firchow and Grimstad offer an implicitly linear model where all texts are accorded an equal voice as discreet units within a continuum of received texts, where emendations are not made, and where, as a consequence, the reconstruction of an archetype is of no real importance. Each step in the development of a text is viewed as evidence of its cultural milieu, as a historical document that deserves to be evaluated on its own premises. The tradition of optimus yields to textus multi, and the reconstruction of an Urtext becomes unwarranted. Firchow and Grimstad's edition thus comes within the arena of the so-called New Philology. The recent discussion of New Philology in Speculum,(1) however, offers little more than a fragmented survey of observations and concerns, with few judgments and even fewer criticisms: it is difficult, perhaps unwise, to take a firm stand on the issue of text editing in fight of recent trends in the critical debate. Yet, more focused discussion of specific problems in practical editing would seem to be appropriate at this juncture. It should come as no surprise, of course, that, while Old English was minimalized in the discussion of New Philology, Old Norse-Icelandic was entirely ignored. And yet, it is precisely the complexity of editing Old Norse-Icelandic texts that accords the field a unique position in being able to test the limitations of theory when brought to bear on the task of editing. Unlike Old English, which has its boundaries fairly clearly delineated by linguistic and historical change, Old Norse-Icelandic texts represent a continuous tradition, spanning at least from the mid-twelfth century (the earliest recorded evidence) to the present. So too, questions of scribal copying must be differently addressed: sagas, for instance, were not considered dead documents, relics of a past recorded for posterity by succeeding generations for the sake of preservation; rather, they were (and remain) living documents, and as such could be freely rewritten at any point within the manuscript transmission, or, as, for example, in the case of saga-material being fashioned into rimur, could take an entirely different course as an altogether new text. Theories of text editing must come to a screeching halt when, to take a random example, they are forced to contend with the fifty-seven manuscripts of Borings saga spanning the early fourteenth to the late nineteenth century, or the seventy-one manuscripts of Hermanns saga ok Jarhmanns spanning the late fifteenth to the early twentieth century. …
Referência(s)