I agree that it's a great assignment and I'd venture an answer for a and b.
I think a scholarly editition should responsibly communicate the best text(s)
available and give a reasonably comprehensive, though truncated, explanation of
a variety of topics such as provenance, explication, date, basic textual
conception, etc. However, I think it should be alert to interpretative
liberties which either were intended to reside with the reader or must reside
there due to limited contact with dead authors. A scholarly edition can err
either in inadequately explaining the obscure, or in excessively explaining the
ambiguous. The latter is increasingly a problem with modern editions which
seek to establish a reading by the "wink and nudge" hint. The work of a
scholarly edition is quite subtle, since it demands a careful negotation of the
grey area between making scholarship useful and protecting the readerly
questions which are so crucial to the act of reading -- and both sides are very
important in Spenser, because Spenser depends upon a great deal of material
which is completely unfamiliar to modern undergraduates, but he also often
mischievously plays with readerly expectiations. To be practical, should the
editor name a character like Malecasta before Spenser intends the reader
to "find out" her identity? To do so changes, and to some extent mars, the
reader's intended experience. But most cases are far more subtle.
Best wishes,
Michael Saenger
Quoting dmiller <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear Spenserians,
>
> I'm writing to invite responses to two questions. How would you explain to
> a bright but untutored group of undergraduates
>
> a) what a scholarly edition is and why we produce them; and
>
> b) what the purpose is of editorial commentary in such an edition?
>
> For an undergraduate course on Spenser this spring, I will be exploring
> these questions with students by examining and comparing models of
> commentary in existing editions, primarily of Spenser but perhaps also
> editions of other authors or texts if they have a special exemplary
> value. I want the students to think clearly about the audience and
> purposes of such editions, and especially of the commentary in them. Then
> I'll ask them to prepare their own commentaries, probably by working in
> teams to comment on assigned cantos of The Faerie Queene.
>
> I'm hoping that the kind of thoughtful and informed discussion that often
> appears on this list will provide my undergraduates (and me, too) with an
> ideal beginning for our exploration of these questions. Many of you have
> considerable editorial experience yourselves, and have no doubt weighed
> these questions as you answered them through the decisions you made in the
> course of your work.
>
> Two final points. First, let's assume that the commentaries can exist in
> two versions: one for the medium of print, which will face the kinds of
> space restrictions imposed by the economics of publishing, and another for
> an electronic archive, which will not only obviate space restrictions but
> will also permit textual links to audio and jpg files as well as to text
> files. And second, if any of you are so fascinated by the topic and so
> generous with your time that you wish to volunteer as email consultants for
> teams of undergraduates who will be working on these topics during the
> spring semester--all praise be yours, and please contact me!
>
> David
>
>
>
> David Lee Miller
> Department of English 543 Boonesboro Avenue
> University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40508-1953
> Lexington, KY 40506-0027
> (859) 257-6965 (859) 252-3680
>
|