Week 4 Blog

Leah S. Marcus. Textual Scholarship.

Marcus uses the phrase ‘textual scholarship’ to refer to the different forms and mediums through which written texts reach readers. In spite of the fact that the article provides an historical account or overview of textual scholarship as a field, Marcus also provides an analysis of textual scholarship as interpretation. She sites particular cases of omissions and additions by authors and editors to texts and provokes a new awareness of the filtered nature of what and who we ‘read.’ Everything is open to interpretation. The question is, whose interpretation?

Referring back to Aristotle’s Topoi, it is advantageous for society (specifically scholarly society) to be aware of the numerous systems of filtration that are at play in every text we encounter. Much authority is given to our canonical texts without consideration for how they may have been manipulated to reflect the intentions of not only the authors and editors, but of the numerous other modes of filtration that exist naturally in any given time or place. This is part of the ‘catch 22’ that Marcus discussed. She said that while we must (as literary scholars) continue strive for objectivity and uniformity when working with texts, we must be aware that these states are truly unattainable. It is for this reason that we must analyze any text that we are working with through a variety of lenses in order to get a ‘fair’ reading- especially since ‘intent’ is impossible to discern. When I think of my own collection of ‘literary texts,’ and I look at some of the ornate covers and millennium editions, I am saddened by the reminder that, “the version of a literary work that command [s] the most respect (and price) among bibliographers and collectors was the last edition or the most elaborate one, not the first” (145). Oops.