#2546. テキストの校訂に伴うジレンマ[editing][owl_and_nightingale][manuscript][spelling][punctuation][evidence]


 校訂者の悩みには様々な種類のものがある.The Owl and the Nightingale を校訂した Cartlidge (viii) が,校訂に際するジレンマを告白しているので,それを読んでみよう.

The presentation of medieval text to a modern audience---even leaving aside the question of emending obvious errors or obscurities in the extant manuscripts---inevitably faces the modern editor with a dilemma. The conventions of spelling, punctuation and word-division followed by the scribes have to be modernized to some extent in order to produce a reasonably accessible text for readers accustomed to the different conventions now current---but how much modernization is actually compatible with editorial fidelity to the text as it survives in the manuscripts? For example, neither surviving manuscript of The Owl and the Nightingale provides punctuation of a kind expected by a modern reader (except very occasionally) and units of sense are generally marked quite naturally by the metrical structure. It is only reasonable that modern punctuation should be inserted by the editor of a medieval literary text, but the effect of this is that the edited text often makes syntactic links much more explicit than they are in the medieval copies. Thus, even punctuation is not just a matter of presentation, but also, potentially, an act of interpretation. Recent editors of medieval texts have generally agreed that the editor should be prepared to punctuate, but once intervention has begun, even at this fairly minimal level, it is impossible to claim that the text has been handled wholly "conservatively". The problem is that editorial conservatism is not a matter of a choice between various absolute principles (and fidelity to them), but a scale that stretches from an absolute conservatism at the one end (which could only be achieved in a facsimile---if at all), through changes to word-spacing, capitalization, punctuation, spelling-reforms of various kinds, morphological regularization, alterations in syntax---and so to the point, at the other end, at which the "edition" is not an "edition" at all, but a translation into modern English. The challenge is to determine the point along the scale of editorial intervention that yields the greatest gain, in terms of making the text accessible to a modern readership, in exchange for the smallest loss, in terms of fidelity to the presentation of its medieval copies.

 ここで Cartlidge が吐露しているのは,(1) オリジナルの雰囲気や勢いを保持しつつも,(2) 現代の読者のためにテキストを読みやすく提示したい,という相反する要求の板挟みについてである.(1) のみを重視して,まったく手を入れないのであれば,写本をそのまま写真に撮ってファクシミリとして公開すればよく,校訂版を出す意味はない.また,(2) のみを重視するのであれば,極端な場合には意訳なり超訳なりに近づく.そこで,校訂版の存在意義を求めるのであれば,校訂者は (1) と (2) のあいだで妥当なバランスをとり,ある程度手を入れたテキストを提示する必要がある.だが,「ある程度」の程度によっては,たとえ句読法1つの挿入にすぎないとしても,それは校訂者の特定の解釈を読者に押しつけることになるかもしれないのである.校訂者によるほぼすべての介入が,文献学的な解釈の差異をもたらす可能性を含んでいる.
 editing という作業は,テキストの presentation にとどまらず,すでに interpretation の領域へ1歩も2歩も踏み込んでいるということを,校訂版を利用する読者としても知っておく必要がある.
 この問題と関連して,「#681. 刊本でなく写本を参照すべき6つの理由」 ([2011-03-09-1]) ,「#682. ファクシミリでなく写本を参照すべき5つの理由」 ([2011-03-10-1]) の記事を参照.

 ・ Cartlidge, Neil, ed. The Owl and the Nightingale. Exeter: U of Exeter P, 2001.

Referrer (Inside): [2018-10-24-1]

[ | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow