Here's a link to the introductory chapter of Erick Kelemen's Textual Editing and Criticism, pp. 3-23 (ignore the rest in the pdf). It gives quick answer to why we're doing all this, and I'd like you to be familiar with it.
I am deeply affected by this material. I guess that I just did not realize the complexities and range of issues involved in textual criticism. The discussion of how one comma in a Frost poem changes its meaning is an effective and rather haunting example. I end up wondering if we are ever reading anything close to what the author intended when editorial decisions can waylay those meanings so easily. How do we ever know that we are reading effectively? For anyone interested in the Bible verses discussed in the opening of the preface, you might want to look at Stephen Mitchell's The Gospel According to Jesus, as it includes some annotations on many of the details of the story. The mysterious image of Jesus drawing with his finger in the dust is a confusing and beguiling image. I have always wondered in something got lost in the translation or in the editing along the way.
First of all, I love this stuff. Though we're not particularly concerned with the troubles of translation, I couldn't help but be reminded of this fabulous article I read sometime last summer. It's all about the mistranslation of the very first line of Camus' The Stranger.
Also-- I encourage you to read the comments. One of the translators cited in the article actually comments back and convincingly fights for his translation.
Thanks, Michelle, for pointing us to this article. It nicely answers the questions that Dr. Irmscher keeps asking us: Why should we take the time to do textual criticism? Why does it matter? Even the comments add to the discourse. When people care enough to write in the comments that they strongly disagree with the conclusions of the writer of the article, they show how much they care to find the best sense of Camus' meaning that can be found.
I am deeply affected by this material. I guess that I just did not realize the complexities and range of issues involved in textual criticism. The discussion of how one comma in a Frost poem changes its meaning is an effective and rather haunting example. I end up wondering if we are ever reading anything close to what the author intended when editorial decisions can waylay those meanings so easily. How do we ever know that we are reading effectively?
ReplyDeleteFor anyone interested in the Bible verses discussed in the opening of the preface, you might want to look at Stephen Mitchell's The Gospel According to Jesus, as it includes some annotations on many of the details of the story. The mysterious image of Jesus drawing with his finger in the dust is a confusing and beguiling image. I have always wondered in something got lost in the translation or in the editing along the way.
A quick, casual comment and reading suggestion--
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I love this stuff. Though we're not particularly concerned with the troubles of translation, I couldn't help but be reminded of this fabulous article I read sometime last summer. It's all about the mistranslation of the very first line of Camus' The Stranger.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/05/camus-translation.html
Also-- I encourage you to read the comments. One of the translators cited in the article actually comments back and convincingly fights for his translation.
DeleteSadly, the link did not work for me. It took me to the New Yorker, but said that the page was being updated. I'll try again in a while.
DeleteThanks, Michelle, for pointing us to this article. It nicely answers the questions that Dr. Irmscher keeps asking us: Why should we take the time to do textual criticism? Why does it matter? Even the comments add to the discourse. When people care enough to write in the comments that they strongly disagree with the conclusions of the writer of the article, they show how much they care to find the best sense of Camus' meaning that can be found.
Delete