"Interpretative Aims and Textual-Critical Decisions: Some Historical Constraints in the Discrimination of Textual Versions"
Document Type
Presentation
Abstract
Responds to a recent article by Peter Shillingsburg (in Studies in Bibliography, 1991) on the taxonomy of authorial revision or textual versions, arguing that for critical, biographical and historical study the editor (and interpreter) is constrained in the choice of variant by the purpose for which the text is being used. Examples are drawn from Victorian authors, including Alfred Tennyson, specifically the versions of Maud, and John Henry Newman, specifically successive versions of what became The Idea of the University. Originally presented at a symposium on Shillingsburg's article at the Textual and Bibliographical Studies Section, South Atlantic Modern Language Association, Atlanta, GA, November 1991.
Publication Info
South Atlantic Modern Language Association, 1991. Patrick Scott, "Interpretative Aims and Textual-Critical Decisions: Some Historical Constraints in the Discrimination of Textual Versions," South Atlantic Modern Language Association, 1991; (c) Patrick Scott, 1991.