Whereas 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 of interpretation, until now there has been very little reception of according ideas in the domain of scholarly editing. Here, emphatic criticism regarding the ›author-centricity‹ of textual scholarship rather employed concepts like ›textual dynamics‹ or ›textual fluidity‹, as well as a positivist focus on the ›materiality‹ of singular documents.
However, 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 a description of something already in existence. Actually, I don’t want to make a case for discourse editions either, that is, my contribution will not contain any programmatic or normative claims and I will not suggest a concrete editorial concept. Instead, I will explore what questions and problems someone would be confronted with when seriously conceptualizing and/or realizing such a project. So, generally my presentation takes the shape of a heuristic (partly critical) thought experiment: the answer to a what-if-question.
One 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 upon pragmatic considerations regarding research interests and overall aims of textual scholarship). Radically different modes of editing are imaginable and an editorial practice that is interested in asking different questions and pursuing different objectives would undoubtedly look very unlike what is the common practice and rationale of contemporary scholarly editing.
I 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 clarify what entities could be meant by the term ›discourse‹ – focussing especially on French poststructuralism (namely Michel Foucault) – in order to establish the very object of a discourse edition.
Secondly, I will ask why – for what reasons and purposes – one should engage in such an enterprise at all: Why should one favour it over conventional editions? Would discourse editions be complementary to or an extension of alternative editorial options, or would they be their replacement?
When I will have shown that a discourse edition can actually be justified as a reasonable editorial project, I will move on to the question of how such an edition might look like. Hence, I will distinguish three versions of how to conceptualize a discourse edition – a weak, a strong, and a radical version – each of which can be conceived as a complement, an extension, or a replacement of traditional editions: The weak version still focuses on author’s single or collected works but also tries to reconstruct them as ›hubs‹ within historical discourse networks, e. g. by adding extensive commentaries, contexts and source material. The strong version comes closest to Foucault’s programmatic ideas but also faces difficult questions, such as whether texts, parts of texts or statements are to be considered as the elementary units of a discourse edition, how exactly the quantity of editorially recorded objects is to be limited, and how different discourses are to be differentiated. The radical version – which turns out to be a prescriptive theoretical fiction – gives up not only on categories like ›author‹, ›work‹, etc. but also dispenses with pretty much any other concept of order exceeding ›free-floating‹ single statements, anonymous, and decontextualized.
Finally, I will briefly consider the question of how to practicallyrealize the strong version of a discourse edition.
Angermüller, Johannes, Diskurs als Aussage und Äußerung. Die enunziative Dimension in den Diskurstheorien Michel Foucaults und Jacques Lacans, in: Ingo H. Warnke (ed.), Diskurslinguistik nach Foucault, Berlin/New York 2007, 53–80 (Angermüller 2007b).
Angermüller, Johannes, Diskurs als Aussage und Äußerung. Die enunziative Dimension in den Diskurstheorien Michel Foucaults und Jacques Lacans, in: Ingo H. Warnke (ed.), Diskurslinguistik nach Foucault, Berlin/New York 2007, 53–80 (Angermüller 2007b).10.1515/9783110920390.53)| false
Barthes, Roland, La mort de l’auteur , in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 3, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 40–45 (Barthes 2002a).
Barthes, Roland, S/Z , in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 3, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 119–346 (Barthes 2002b). [S/Z. An Essay, transl. by Richard Miller, New York 272000.]
Barthes, Roland, De l’œuvre au texte , in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 3, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 908–916 (Barthes 2002c). [From Work to Text, in: R.B., Image, Music, Text, transl. by Stephen Heath, New York 1977, 155–164.]
Barthes, Roland, Texte (théorie du) , in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 4, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 443–459 (Barthes 2002d). [Theory of the Text, in: Robert Young (ed.), Untying the Text. A Post-Structuralist Reader, transl. by Ian McLeod, London 1981, 31–47.]
Brown, Beverly/Mark Cousins, The Linguistic Fault. The Case of Foucault’s Archaeology, in: Mark Gane (ed.), Towards a Critique of Foucault. Foucault, Lacan and the Question of Ethics, New York 2010, 33–60.
Büchner, Georg, Sämtliche Werke und Schriften. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe mit Quellendokumentation und Kommentar, ed. by Burghard Dedner, Darmstadt 2000–2013.
Bühler, Axel/Rüdiger Schmitt, Über Michel Foucaults Methodologie der Ideengeschichte, Saeculum 34 (1983), 212–225.
Eggert, Paul, Social Discourse or Authorial Agency. Bridging the Divide Between Editing and Theory, in: P.E./Margaret Sankey (eds.), The Editorial Gaze. Mediating Texts in Literature and the Arts, New York 1998, 97–116.
Fiske, John, Television Culture , New York 22010.
Foucault, Michel, From Torture to Cellblock , in: Sylvère Lotringer (ed.), Foucault Live: Collected Interviews 1961–1984, New York 1996, 146–149.
Foucault, Michel, On the Archaeology of the Sciences. Response to the Epistemology Circle , in: M.F., The Essential Works. Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. by James D. Faubion, transl. by Robert Hurley, London 1998, 297–333 (Foucault 1998a).
Foucault, Michel, What Is an Author? , in: M.F., The Essential Works. Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. by James D. Faubion, transl. by Robert Hurley, London 1998, 205–222 (Foucault 1998b).
Foucault, Michel, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History , in: M.F., The Essential Works. Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. by James D. Faubion, transl. by Robert Hurley, London 1998, 369–392 (Foucault 1998c).
Foucault, Michel, Archaeology of Knowledge , transl. by A. M. Sheridan Smith, New York 2010.
Freundlieb, Dieter, Foucault and the Study of Literature, Poetics Today 16 (1995), 301–344.
Frings, Andreas/Johannes Marx, Wenn Diskurse baden gehen. Eine handlungstheoretische Fundierung der Diskursanalyse, in: Franz X. Eder (ed.), Historische Diskursanalysen. Genealogie, Theorie, Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2006, 91–112.
Polzer, Markus, Philipp Melanchthons Schrift ›Widder die artikel der Bawrschafft‹. Studien zu einer intertextuell und diskursanalytisch orientierten Edition, in: Jörg Jungmayr (ed.), Officina editorica, Berlin 2011, 163–184.
Popper, Karl R., On the Use and Misuse of Imaginary Experiments, Especially in Quantum Theory, in: K.R.P., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London 1959, 442–456.
Reisigl, Martin, Sprachkritische Beobachtungen zu Foucaults Diskursanalyse, in: Brigitte Kerchner/Silke Schneider (eds.), Foucault. Diskursanalyse der Politik. Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden 2006, 85–103.
Rockenberger, Annika, Produktion und Drucküberlieferung der editio princeps von Sebastian Brants ›Narrenschiff‹ (Basel 1494). Eine medienhistorisch-druckanalytische Untersuchung, Frankfurt a. M. 2011.10.3726/978-3-653-00824-1)| false
Rockenberger, Annika/Per Röcken, Interessengeleitete Datenverarbeitung. Zur Empirie der neugermanistischen Editionsphilologie, in: Philip Ajouri/Katja Mellmann/Christoph Rauen (eds.), Empirie in der Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2013, 93–129.
Rockenberger, Annika/Per Röcken, Interessengeleitete Datenverarbeitung. Zur Empirie der neugermanistischen Editionsphilologie, in: Philip Ajouri/Katja Mellmann/Christoph Rauen (eds.), Empirie in der Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2013, 93–129.10.30965/9783957439710_008)| false
Tanselle, G. Thomas, The Varieties of Scholarly Editing, in: David Greetham (ed.), Scholarly Editing. A Guide to Research, New York 1995, 9–32.
Titzmann, Michael, Kulturelles Wissen – Diskurs – Denksystem. Zu einigen Grundbegriffen der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 99 (1989), 47–61.
Vitali-Rosati, Marcello, Digital Paratext, Editorialization, and the Very Death of the Author, in: Nadine Desrochers/Daniel Apollon (eds.), Examining Paratextual Theory and its Applications in Digital Culture, Hershey 2014, 110–127.
Vitali-Rosati, Marcello, Digital Paratext, Editorialization, and the Very Death of the Author, in: Nadine Desrochers/Daniel Apollon (eds.), Examining Paratextual Theory and its Applications in Digital Culture, Hershey 2014, 110–127.10.4018/978-1-4666-6002-1.ch006)| false
The Journal of Literary Theory is an international forum for debate in literary theory. It takes an interdisciplinary approach and is open to a broad variety of theories and methods, promoting their study, research, and development. JLT reaches out to disciplines dealing with theoretical foundations of the study of literature as well as to related fields of research such as musicology, art theory, and film studies as well as the sciences.