The objective of the present volume is to put the connection between philology and textual criticism on the agenda once again. It addresses such questions as in what way philological study guides the textual critic and how textual criticism comes to the aid of the philologist; whether philology and textual criticism are necessarily linked, or the connections between them merely accidental; whether philology can justify conjectural emendations, and, if so, on what conditions; and inquires after the place of philological hypotheses in a text-critical apparatus or commentary. The contributors discuss these theoretical questions and analyze case studies illustrating the principles at issue.
There has never been any shortage of interest in philology, its status, its history, or its origins. Today, after more than twenty years of serial "returns to philology" under the banner of deconstruction, the new medieval studies, critical bibliography, and a particular kind of globally aware activist criticism, philology has again become available as a respectable posture for contemporary literary scholars. But what is "philology," and how can we attend to it, either as a contemporary practice or as an age-old object of endorsement and critique? In this volume, edited by Sean Gurd, noted scholars discuss the history of philology from antiquity to the present. This book addresses a wide variety of authors, documents, and movements, among them Greek papyri, Latin textual traditions, the Renaissance, eighteenth-century antiquarianism, and deconstruction. It is too easy to see philology as the bearer of an antiquated but forceful authority. When philologists take up the tools of textual criticism, they contribute to the very form of texts; seeking to articulate the protocols of correct interpretation, they aspire to be the legislators of reading practice. Nonetheless, Philology and Its Histories argues that philology is not a conservative or ideologically loaded master-discourse, but a tradition of searching, fundamentally ungrounded, dealing with the insecurity of questions rather than the safety of answers. For good or ill, philology is where literature happens; we do well to pay heed to it and to its changes over the course of millennia.
The Nay Science offers a new perspective on the problem of scientific method in the human sciences. Taking German Indological scholarship on the Mahabharata and the Bhagavadgita as their example, Adluri and Bagchee develop a critique of the modern valorization of method over truth in the humanities. The authors show how, from its origins in eighteenth-century Neo-Protestantism onwards, the critical method was used as a way of making theological claims against rival philosophical and/or religious traditions. Via discussions of German Romanticism, the pantheism controversy, scientific positivism, and empiricism, they show how theological concerns dominated German scholarship on the Indian texts. Indology functions as a test case for wider concerns: the rise of historicism, the displacement of philosophical concerns from thinking, and the belief in the ability of a technical method to produce truth. Based on the historical evidence of the first part of the book, Adluri and Bagchee make a case in the second part for going beyond both the critical pretensions of modern academic scholarship and the objections of its post-structuralist or post-Orientalist critics. By contrasting German Indology with Plato's concern for virtue and Gandhi's focus on praxis, the authors argue for a conception of the humanities as a dialogue between the ancients and moderns and between eastern and western cultures.
How should a literary scholar approach a text characterized not by stability but by variation and flux? This book offers a radical new perspective on the limits—and the accomplishments—of the modern traditions of textual criticism in classics.Sean Alexander Gurd takes as his starting point the case of a single Greek tragedy by Euripides, one of his last. According to ancient accounts, the Iphigenia at Aulis was produced at the city Dionysia, the great festival of Athenian tragedy, sometime after Euripides died (between 407 and 405 BCE). Whether the text performed then was entirely the work of Euripides, and whether the version that appears in the manuscripts reflects either that performance or its defunct author's design, are unknown. But since the mid-eighteenth-century the mysteries and conflicting evidence concerning Iphigenia at Aulis have given rise to an array of different attempts to reconstruct the original, and every generation has seen a version of the play that is radically different from those that came before. Gurd pioneers a literary philology comfortable with this textual multiplicity, capable of reading Iphigenias at Aulis in the plural.Regarding the dossier of successive editions of Iphigenia at Aulis as a symbol for the condition of modern textual reason, Gurd shows lovers of classical literature exactly how contingent the texts they read really are.
In this expanded version of James Barr's classic work, three additional articles by the author are added. They are (1) "Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks, with Illustrations from Job," (2) "Ugaritic and Hebrew sbm?" and (3) "Limitations of Etymology as a Lexicographical Instrument in Biblical Hebrew." The text of the original edition (Oxford University Press, 1968) remains unchanged. In addition to the seventy-five pages of additional material, this expanded version concludes with a postscript by Professor Barr, placing the articles within the context of the book.
In The Critical Editing of Music (1996) James Grier called Georg Feder's Musikphilologie (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1987) "the most important contribution to date" on textual criticism in music and "the only one that considers the full range of critical issues in editing" (Grier, p. 14). Pendragon Press's edition of Feder's Music Philology now makes available in English translation this essential, intellectually engaging but concise discussion of the complex and multi-faceted tasks in traditional scholarly editing of music. From the Middle Ages to the present, music has been written down and disseminated in notated form. In evaluating music notation, philological methods have been used more and more. These methods come from linguistic disciplines and are linked with specifically musical traditions and subjects. Starting with the relationships of music and language, tradition and understanding, work and text, Feder describes the fundamentals of music philology and its tasks. In addition to the musical sources themselves, theoretical and historical sources enable the critical study of questions about authenticity, dating, origin, and dissemination.
A Companion to Byzantine Epistolography offers the first comprehensive introduction and scholarly guide to the cultural practice and literary genre of letter-writing in the Byzantine Empire.
It has long been a task of great scholars to establish definitive texts of major works. But why, Bernard Cerquiglini asks, must there be such a preference? Might such a preference distort the fundamental understanding of what texts are or could be?
Philology and Criticism contrasts the Mahābhārata’s preservation and transmission within the Indian scribal and commentarial traditions with Sanskrit philology after 1900, as German Indologists proposed a critical edition of the Mahābhārata to validate their racial and nationalist views. Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee show how, in contrast to the Indologists’ unscientific theories, V. S. Sukthankar assimilated the principles of neo-Lachmannian textual criticism to defend the transmitted text and its traditional reception as a work of law, philosophy and salvation. The authors demonstrate why, after the edition’s completion, no justification exists for claiming that an earlier heroic epic existed, that the Brahmans redacted the heroic epic to produce the Mahābhārata or that they interpolated “sectarian” gods such as Vis.n.u and Śiva into the work. By demonstrating how the Indologists committed technical errors, cited flawed and biased scholarship and used circular argumentation to validate their racist and anti-Semitic theories, Philology and Criticism frees readers to approach the Mahābhārata as “the principal monument of bhakti” (Madeleine Biardeau). The authoritative guide to the critical edition’s correct use and interpretation, Philology and Criticism urges South Asianists to view Hinduism as a complex debate about ontology and ethics rather than through the lenses of “Brahmanism” and “sectarianism.” It launches a new world philology—one that is plural and self-reflexive rather than Eurocentric and ahistorical.
