scholarly journals Take this Work Global

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Cornelius (39–49)

Paul Eggert’s The Work and the Reader in Literary Studies: Scholarly Editing and Book History elaborates a general program for the study of literature centered on the question, “What is the thing read?” Concepts of document, text, and work are parsed with care, generating many valuable insights and clarifications, but there is need for more thinking about the linguistic medium of literature. To textual studies, bibliography, and book history — the trio of foundational disciplines advocated by Eggert — one should add philology, or the study of literary language.

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Eggert (65–84)

This is a reply to commentary by Matt Cohen, Ian Cornelius, and Alan Galey occasioned by the publication of Paul Eggert’s The Work and the Reader in Literary Studies: Scholarly Editing and Book History (Cambridge University Press, 2019) and to a review of the book by John K. Young. A theory of the work based on the negative dialectic of document and text grounds the work as a regulative idea rather than an ideal entity and finds the role of the reader to be constitutive of it. The relationship (envisaged in the book as a slider) of archival and editorial digital projects, the potential cross-fertilization of philology and textual criticism, and an expanded role for textual studies inspired by D. F. McKenzie’s writings are discussed.


Author(s):  
Mark Faulkner

Scholars studying medieval manuscripts work in a variety of disciplines, from literary atudies to history to linguistics to art history to classics. Publications in all these areas use manuscripts and offer important findings about medieval manuscripts. In addition to its practice within different fields, much of the study of medieval manuscripts is strongly interdisciplinary, using techniques native to the study of the medieval book like codicology and paleography, alongside text critical-methods originally developed in classics and refined there, in literary studies and in history, visual analysis pioneered in art history, and philological methods now found in literary studies and linguistics. Insofar as the study of medieval manuscripts has a unified goal, it is to describe and explain the production and use of manuscripts and the textual culture associated with them, generating primary data that assists in the writing of literary, cultural, and linguistic history. Given the breadth of the field, this Oxford Bibliographies entry must necessarily be selective. It focuses primarily on manuscripts of British and Irish literature in English (manuscripts of texts in Irish, Welsh, and other Celtic languages being specialist fields of study in their own right). As a consequence, the vast majority of the material listed is in English, though scholarship on medieval manuscripts is also published in French, Italian, and German, as well as other languages. After sections devoted to General Overviews, Reference Works, Textbooks, Anthologies, Bibliographies and Journals, the bibliography presents lists of Catalogues of Manuscripts and Facsimiles, which are two of the most important tools for medieval book historians. It finishes with lists of works relevant to the major subdisciplines of medieval book history, Codicology (the study of the physical structure of manuscripts); paleography, the study of Scripts used in those manuscripts; as well as studies of Scribal Practice and Manuscript Culture; and works concerned with Ownership and Provenance.


Author(s):  
Joanna Rzepa

Abstract This review is divided into three sections: 1. Jeffrey T. Zalar, Reading and Rebellion in Catholic Germany, 1770–1914; 2. Edward Baring, Converts to the Real: Catholicism and the Making of Continental Philosophy; 3. ‘Translation and Religion: Crafting Regimes of Identity’, a thematic issue of Religion edited by Hephzibah Israel and Matthias Frenz. Taken together, these works provide an overview of approaches that demonstrate the value of interdisciplinary research into religion and representation. Drawing on the disciplines of social, political, and cultural history, literary studies, book history, theology, religious studies, translation studies, and postcolonial studies, they highlight the importance of research that contextualizes the relationship between religion and representation, bringing attention to its historically overlooked aspects.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumiyadi Sumiyadi

Abstrak Relasi Antarteks dalam Pengkajian Sastra. Relasi antarteks terdapat dalam karya sastra yang di dalamnya membayangkan teks lain. Dalam mengkaji teks demikian, kita biasanya langsung mengkaitkannya dengan konsep intertekstual, padahal konsep tersebut berkaitan dengan teori pascastruktural sehingga dalam pengkajiannya, kita harus mengikuti prinsip-prinsip pascastrukturalisme. Relasi teks juga mensyaratkan kita untuk melakukan kajian bandingan, yang dalam kajian sastra dapat menggunakan konsep sastra bandingan. Kajian sastra bandingan tidak berkaitan dengan salah satu teori. Bahkan, teori apapum dapat dimanfaatkan untuk kepentingan sastra bandingan. Sehubungan dengan relasi teks dalam dunia sastra merupakan fenomena menarik, kemungkinan banyak pihak atau peneliti yang tertarik untuk mengkajinya. Oleh sebab itu, diperlukan landasan teori sastra yang kukuh dan relevan sehingga menghsilkan kajian sastra yang bermakna dengan kadar ilmiah yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Penegasan ciri pembeda antara prinsip kajian sastra bandingan dan prinsip kajian intertekstual dalam tulisan ini merupakan upaya ke arah pengkajian sastra yang demikian.Kata kunci: teks, intertekstual, pascastruktural, sastra bandingan   Abstract Inter-textual Relation in Literary Studies. Inter-texts relation exista in literary works; one work shadows the other. In studying such texts we often immediately link them with the concept of intertextuality that belongs to post-structuralism. Texts relation also requires us to compare literary works using comparative literary study concepts. Comparative literary studies are not related with one specific theory. Any theory can be employed. Texts relation is an iteresting phenomenon that invites many to investigate. For this reason we need a grounded and relevant literary theory that will facilitate insightful and reliable literary studies. The difference between comparative literature principles and inter-textual studies principles are discussed in the article. Keywords: texts, intertextuality, post-structuralism, comparative literature.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. McDonald

Abstract Less concerned with the concept of World Literature than with the promise and perils of conceptualization, this essay considers what experiencing some forms of writing as world literature might involve. Using J.M. Coetzee’s In the Heart of the Country (1977) as an illustrative example, it addresses questions of circulation, translation, writing systems, book history, and literary geography in the context of recent academic debates about world literary studies. It concludes by revisiting Rabindranath Tagore’s landmark 1907 essay “World Literature,” arguing that it remains an indispensable guide to experiential reading and anti-conceptual thinking.


Via Latgalica ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Ieva Kalniņa

During the 90s of the 20th century revival of Latgalian literature took place in the Republic of Latvia. It was a gradual process; in 2001 in “History of Latvian Literature" created by the Institute of Literature, Folklore and Art of the University of Latvia (ILFA) Ieva E. Kalniņa wrote about poetry of the 90s where she admitted that “it is already quite customary that poetry can be read in Latgalian written language”. Recent studies of Latvian literature in the 90s of the 20th century show that authors have different attitude towards Latgalian literature: Guntis Berelis has not included the revival of Latgalian literature in his list of the new phenomena of Latvian literature in his book “History of Latvian Literature”; among the ILFA researchers only Ieva E. Kalniņa mentions Oskars Seiksts, Anna Rancāne, Andris Vējāns, Osvalds Kravalis along with Vends and Livs among other phenomena of the 90s poetry; meanwhile in the review of prose and drama Latgalian literature is not mentioned at all. In 2007 Māris Salējs in his essay “Reflection on Latvian Literature 2000–2006” included Latgalian poets in the description of Latvian poetry, thus Valentīns Lukaševics and Juoņs Ryučāns together with Kārlis Vērdiņš and Marts Pujāts make up a characteristic trend. In the description of other genres Latgalian literature is not mentioned in this publication either. In this article the similarities and differences of Latvian and Latgalian literary revival process of the late 80s and the 90s of the 20th century are examined with special attention to the literary monthly magazine „Karogs” (Flag). The article deals with the development of literary process, cultural and historical methods are used to reach the aim of this paper – to find out what elements constitute the way to the establishment of Latgalian literature in Latvian cultural space and the importance of literary magazine „Karogs” in this process. There are several common trends of Latvian and Latgalian literary renewal in the 80s and 90s of the 20th century literary process: 1) return of repressed Latvian and Latgalian writers and their work to Latvian culture (such as Marta Skuja); 2) broad entry of exile literature into circulation for Latvian readership (Jānis Klīdzējs Marija Andžāne, etc.); 3) reprinted works, written during the 20s and 30s and unpublished in the Soviet time (Aleksandrs Adamāns); 4) in both traditions a number of exile periodicals begin to come out and some Latvian time periodicals are restored („Acta Latgalica”); 5) return of exile archives to Latvia („Latgaļu sāta”). Postmodern tendencies are observed not only in works of Aivars Ozoliņš, Jānis Vēvers or Gundega Repše, but also in creative work of O. Seiksts. Latgalian language and literature in Latvian cultural space has a special situation: there are important tasks to complete – to create a new alphabet, restore confidence in Latgalian literature in both traditions, the young and middle generation have to start writing in Latgalian tradition. Monthly magazine “Karogs” vividly reveals the new trends in Latgalian literature of the turn of the 80s and 90s, an important role is played by editor Andris Vējāns. It was „Karogs” which published one of the most influential texts of national awakening in Latgalian tradition – poem by O. Kravalis „Brōļ, pīmiņ!” (Brother, remember!). This publication is undeniably regarded as programmatic in Latvian and Latgalian literary traditions, declaring the return of Latgalian tradition and accepting the existence of both literatures. Among important publications in 1988 in the magazine about remembrance of Latgale cultural week, there was an article by Antons Stankēvičs „Atkusnī uzplaucis zieds” (A thaw flower) and Juris Pabērzs’ article „Skan joprojām” (It still sounds) where the role of the minister of culture Voldemārs Kalpiņš was emphasized. Poetry section published a poem of Antons Kūkojs „Atceroties Latgales kultūras nedēļu pirms 30 gadiem” (Remembering Latgale cultural week 30 years ago). The 1989 concept of magazine „Karogs” is obvious in publications of Latvian and Latgalian texts as a desire to respect the two literary traditions and present them to readers throughout Latvia. In 1990 and 2000 when the editor is Māra Zālīte, works of Roberts Mūks, A. Rancāne, J. Klīdzējs are published, some of them are in Latgalian, but mainly publications are in the Latvian literary language. There are two important articles in „Karogs”. Issue No.4, 1994 published Janīna Kursīte’s article „Latgaliešu literatūra – kas tu esi?” (Latgalian literature – who are you?), where the importance of dialects was emphasized and their ability to enrich the Latvian language, also this article pointed out the importance of periphery for the development of centre. Regarding recent Latgalian literature J. Kursīte’s assessment is blunt:”If one looks more carefully at what is published in the Latgalian literary language, one cannot overlook that artistically much of it is “rubbish”.” In 1997 was published Ilga Muižniece’s elegant review „Rūgtais pieradums – (ne dzīvot)” (Bitter habit – (not to live)) about O. Seiksts’ and V. Lukaševics’ novel „Valerjana dzeive i redzīni” (Valerjan’s life and opinions). The 90s mark two cultural traditions of Latgalian literature: 1) to some extent in the Latvian tradition Latgalian literature is viewed as an ethnographic tradition, which shows the possibilities of the Latvian language, diversity of traditions, complements Latvian literature with Latgalian vitality and charm, marks its catholic orientation, shows the natural beauty of Latgale; 2) Latgalian literature is considered an independent literature, writing in Latgalian is authors’ way of self-expression, it does not try to add anything to Latvian literary tradition, and it is based in Latgale and together with the Latvian literary tradition forms Latvian literature. Revival of Latgalian literature is one of the brightest features of culturally restored independent Latvia.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annika Rockenberger

AbstractWhereas in literary studies poststructuralist theory (e. g. deconstruction, discourse analysis, broad concepts of intertextuality, ›Death of the Author‹-claims and several versions of anti-intentionalism) has had – and still has – a massive impact on practices ofHowever, within my contribution I will outline an entirely different approach by asking the question: If we actually decided to give up on author-centricity in scholarly editing and radically rejected authors’ intentions as well as authors’ single or collected works as objects of textual scholarship, could the yet unrealized project of ›editing a discourse‹ or ›discourse edition‹ work as a complement, an extension, or a replacement of traditional editions?To make this clear: So far there is no such thing as a discourse edition, so I cannot give aOne of the underlying ideas of this article is to confront contemporary edition philology (textual scholarship) – which is oriented towards categories like author, work, or text – with a ›foil‹ for contrast specifically invented for the purpose to show quite plainly that those leading categories scholarly editorial work is based on are anything but self-evident and without any alternatives but in the end rather contingent (namely uponI designed a meta-philological thought experiment to exemplify exactly this and I will thereby reveal a discipline-specific methodological ›blindness‹, irritate seemingly unproblematic habitual ways of thinking and thus uncover a deficit of reasoning and self-reflection in the field. Basically, I will clarify some implicit (categorial and methodological) presuppositions of scholarly editing and thereby uncover some aspects of the (invisible) normative framework underlying editorial practices.Firstly, I will clarifySecondly, I will askWhen I will have shown that a discourse edition can actually beFinally, I will briefly consider the question of


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document