i Texts,Transmissions,Receptions - OAPEN

i

Texts,Transmissions,Receptions

© AndréLardinoisetal.,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_001This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/


ii

Radboud Studies in Humanities

Series Editor

SophieLevie(RadboudUniversity)

Editorial Board

PaulBakker(RadboudUniversity)AndréLardinois(RadboudUniversity)DanielaMüller(RadboudUniversity)

GlennMost(ScuolaNormaleSuperiorediPisa)PeterRaedts(RadboudUniversity)

JohanTollebeek(KULeuven)MarcSlors(RadboudUniversity)

ClaudiaSwan(NorthwesternUniversityEvanston)

VOLUME1

Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedat brill.com/rsh

http://www.brill.com/rsh

iii

Texts, Transmissions, Receptions

Modern Approaches to Narratives

Edited by

AndréLardinoisSophieLevieHansHoeken

ChristophLüthy

LEIDEN|BOSTON

iv

Thispublicationhasbeentypesetinthemultilingual“Brill”typeface.Withover5,100characterscoveringLatin,ipa,Greek,andCyrillic,thistypefaceisespeciallysuitableforuseinthehumanities.Formoreinformation,pleaseseebrill.com/brill-typeface.

issn2213-9729isbn978-90-04-27080-0(hardback)isbn978-90-04-27084-8(e-book)

Copyright2015bytheEditorsandAuthors.ThisworkispublishedbyKoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,TheNetherlands.KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillNijhoff,GlobalOrientalandHoteiPublishing.KoninklijkeBrillNVreservestherighttoprotectthepublicationagainstunauthorizeduseandtoauthorizedisseminationbymeansofoffprints,legitimatephotocopies,microformeditions,reprints,translations,andsecondaryinformationsources,suchasabstractingandindexingservicesincludingdatabases.Requestsforcommercialre-use,useofpartsofthepublication,and/ortranslationsmustbeaddressedtoKoninklijkeBrillNV.

Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaper.

Coverillustration:GiampietrinoBirago(1493–1499),MassimilianoSforzaattendingtohislessons.Donatus Grammatica,Ms2167,f.13v.BibliotecaTrivulziano,Milan.CKD,RadboudUniversityNijmegen.

ThisisanopenaccesstitledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License,whichpermitsanynon-commer-cialuse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalauthor(s)andsourcearecredited.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Texts,transmissions,receptions:modernapproachestonarratives/EditedbyAndréLardinois,SophieLevie,HansHoeken.p.cm.--(RadboudStudiesinHumanities;Volume1)Includesindex.ISBN978-90-04-27080-0(hardbck:alk.paper)--ISBN978-90-04-27084-8(e-book)1.Discourseanalysis,Narrative.2.Narration(Rhetoric)3.Meaning(Philosophy)4.Comparativelinguistics.5.Oralcommuniction.6.Comprehension(Theoryofknowledge)7.Interdisciplinaryapproachtoknowledge.I.Lardinois,A.P.M.H.editor.II.Levie,Sophie,editor.III.Hoeken,J.A.L.(JohannesAnnaLambertus),1965-editor.P302.7.T462015401'.41--dc232014029729

http://www.brill.com/brill-typeface



vContents Contents

Contents

List of Illustrations and Tables vii List of Contributors xi

Introduction 1André Lardinois, Sophie Levie, Hans Hoeken and Christoph Lüthy

Part1New Philology

1 Transmission and Textual Variants: Divergent Fragments of Sappho’s Songs Examined 17

Mark de Kreij

2 In Praise of the Variant Analysis Tool: A Computational Approach to Medieval Literature 35

Karina van Dalen-Oskam

3 Mutatis Mutandis: The Same Call for Peace, but Differently Framed Each Time 55

Rob van de Schoor

4 The Salman Rushdie Archive and the Re-Imagining of a Philological E-volution 71

Benjamin Alexander

Part2Narrativity

5 Modality in Lolita 97Helen de Hoop and Sander Lestrade

6 Transported into a Story World: The Role of the Protagonist 114 Anneke de Graaf and Lettica Hustinx

7 Constructing the Landscape of Consciousness in News Stories 133José Sanders and Hans Hoeken

vi Contents

8 Quoted Discourse in Dutch News Narratives 152Kirsten Vis, José Sanders and Wilbert Spooren

Part3Image and Text

9 Mary Magdalene’s Conversion in Renaissance Painting and Mediaeval Sacred Drama 175

Bram de Klerck

10 The Diffusion of Illustrated Religious Texts and Ideological Restraints 194

Els Stronks

11 Illustrating the Anthropological Text: Drawings and Photographs in Franz Boas’ The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians (1897) 221

Camille Joseph

12 The Interaction of Image and Text in Modern Comics 240Tom Lambeens and Kris Pint

Part4Reception and Literary Infrastructure

13 Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe: Translation and Participation 259

Sabrina Corbellini and Margriet Hoogvliet

14 Reception and the Textuality of History: Ramus and Kepler on Proclus’ History and Philosophy of Geometry 281

Guy Claessens

15 Occasional Writer, Sensational Writer: Multatuli as a Sentimental Benevolence Writer in the 1860s 295

Laurens Ham

Index of Personal Names 313

viiListOfIllustrationsAndTablesList of Illustrations and Tables

List of Illustrations and Tables

Figures2.1 TextversioncomparisonintheMenschen en bergenonlineedition 402.2 TheOptionsscreenforannotationcategoriesintheWalewein ende Keye

onlineedition 412.3 Thehover-overboxwithlinguisticinformationintheAlexanders saga

editiononCD-ROM,DeLeeuwvanWeenen(2009) 422.4 ClusteranalysismadewithMinitab15oftheJudithepisodeinallfifteen

manuscriptsoftheRijmbijbel,forthe250highestfrequencylemmas 472.5 PrincipalcomponentsanalysismadewithMinitab15oftheJudith-

episodeinallfifteenmanuscriptsoftheRijmbijbel,forthe250highestfrequencylemmas 47

2.6 PrincipalcomponentsanalysismadewithMinitab15oftheJudith-epi-sodeinallfifteenmanuscriptsexcludingmanuscriptIoftheRijmbijbel,forthe250highestfrequencylemmas 49

6.1 Theindirecteffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalthroughreaders’disposi-tionsonempathy 126

6.2 Theindirecteffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalthroughempathyontransportation 127

9.1 Caravaggio,ThepenitentMaryMagdalene,canvas,c.1596,Rome,GalleriaDoriaPamphilij 180

9.2 MasteroftheMagdaleneLegend,The worldly Mary Magdalene,panel,c.1518,formerlyBerlin,KaiserFriedrichMuseum(destroyed1945) 184

9.3 SandroBotticelli,The conversion of Mary Magdalene,panel,c.1491–1493,Philadelphia,JohnG.JohnsonCollection 186

9.4 PedroCampaña,The conversion of Mary Magdalene,panel,c.1562,Lon-don,NationalGallery 187

9.5 FedericoZuccari,The conversion of Mary Magdalene,drawing,c.1560,Florence,GalleriadegliUffizi 188

9.6 GaudenzioFerarri,Scenes from the life of Mary Magdalene,fresco,1532,Vercelli,SanCristoforo 189

9.7 GaudenzioFerarri,Scenes from the life of Mary Magdalene(detail:MaryMagdalene’sconversion),fresco,1532,Vercelli,SanCristoforo 190

10.1–2 OrnamentedinitialGenesis1,Biblia, dat is, De gantsche H. Schrifture.Leiden:PaulusAertsz.vanRavensteyn,forthewidowofHillebrantJa-cobsz.vanWouw,1637,fol.1 198

10.3–4 Dat Oude ende dat Nieuwe Testament [TheOldandNewTestament].Ant-werp:JacobvanLiesveldt,1526,fol.Uiiiiv 201

viii ListOfIllustrationsAndTables

10.5–6 Ornamentalinitialwithnon-figurativeelementsinDen Bibel, inhoudende dat Oude en Nieuwe Testament.[Emden]:NicolaesBiestkensvanDiest,1560,fol.1 202

10.7 ZachariasHeyns,Wercken by W.S. heere van Bartas.Zwolle:ZachariasHeyns,1621,facingfol.1 206

10.8 AnnotatedproofsoftheBiblia, dat is, De gantsche H. Schrifture.Leiden:PaulusAertsz.vanRavensteyn,1635–1637.Archieven van de commissie op nationaal niveau,1816,nr.143 207

10.9 OrnamentedinitialintheprefaceofBiblia, dat is, De gantsche H. Schrif-ture.Leiden:PaulusAertsz.vanRavensteyn,forthewidowofHillebrantJacobsz.vanWouw,1637,fol.*2r 208

10.10 Het Nieuwe Testament Ons Heeren Jesu Christi. Met ghetalen aen de canten gestelt, waer door de veersen bescheeden worden, tot de aenwijsinge der heyliger Schriftueren dienende.ChristoffelPlantijn,1577,fol.T3r 209

10.11–12 Non-figurativeinitialGenesis1,Biblia, dat is, De gantsche H. Schrif ture.Leiden:PaulusAertsz.vanRavensteyn,forthewidowofHillebrantJa-cobsz.vanWouw,1657,fol.1 210

10.13 Biblia, dat is, De gantsche H. Schrifture.Leiden:PaulusAertsz.vanRaven-steyn,forthewidowofHillebrantJacobsz.vanWouw,1637,fol.82 211

10.14 Keeten-slachs-ghedenck-teecken ende baniere.By een dienaer des god-delĳcken woordts.Middelburg:HansvanderHellen,1631,382 212

10.15 DirckV.Coornhert,Recht ghebruyck ende misbruyck van tydlicke have.Amsterdam:DirckPietersz.Pers,1620,printedbyPaulusAertsz.vanRavensteyn,fol.M4v 212

10.16 Biblia dat is, De gantsche H. Schrifture.Leiden:PaulusAertsz.vanRaven-steyn,forthewidowofHillebrantJacobsz.vanWouw,1637,fol.47 212

11.1 Figure127ofThe Social Organizationrepresentsthreedifferentviewsofthedouble-headmaskoftheNa’naqualitl,adancerofthewinterceremo-nial.Thefigureshowstworeverse–syntheticandrealistic–viewsandathird,complementaryview.Thedrawingsofthemask’soutline,whilelackinginvolumeandmateriality,ismorepreciseastothewaythetwomasksareattachedtooneanother.Thesmallerheadshangingfromthemaskareisolatedatthebottomandthereforeappearmoreclearly 225

11.2 Figure18ofThe Social Organization representstheHousefrontoftheclanGigilqaminthevillageofNimkish. Itiscaptioned“Fromaphoto-graph.”Thepaintedmotifofthehousefrontappearsdistinctively.Thepresenceofthetwocanoesonthebeachandthetwosmallhumanfig-uresontherighthandsideofthefaçadereinforcesthelargedimensionsofthebuildingandofthepaintingitself 226

ixListOfIllustrationsAndTables

11.3 Plate28ofThe Social Organizationiscaptioned“Dance of the Hamatsa. The peculiar head and neck ring of the dance were obtained from the Tlingit, his grandmother being of the Tongass tribe. From a photograph.”Thedancerposesonastretchofgrass,whichonlyreinforcestheartificialcharacteroftheimage.Infact,thisgrasswasthatoftheChicagoWorldColumbianFairgroundsof1893,andthedancerwassurroundedbyotherKwakiutl.The“context”surroundingthedancerhasbeenerased,andthefocusisputonthegestureandtheparaphernalia 229

11.4 a)OntheleftistheexplanationofPlate1ofThe Social Organization,withthecorrespondingimageoftheheaddressrepresentingthewhiteowlontheright.Thesefacingpagesareinsertedbetweenp.324and325ofthereport;b)Thispage(325ofthereport)displaysacombinationoftextandmusic,i.e.,thesongbelongingtotheowl’slegend 234

11.5 Anexampleofthecombinationofethnographicdata.Herearetwopages(516and517)wherenolessthanfourdrawings,representingtwomasks,arattle,ablanketandaheadring,arereproducedwithinthetext 235

11.6 Plate16 ofThe Social Organizationrepresentshouseposts intheshapeofanimalsholdingcoppers.Thebackgroundofthevillagehasbeenblurred,thusfocusingtheattentionofthereaderonthepoststhemselvesratherthanontheirenvironmentoranyotherirrelevantelementthatcouldbeseenonthepicture 236

11.7 EdwardS.Curtis’Kwakiutl house-frame waspublishedinvol.VofThe North American Indian,1915.AlthoughthetitlesuggeststhattheimagefocusesonthearchitectureofthetypicalKwakiutlhouse,the“romantic”subjectivityofthephotographerisevidentinthedramaticframingofthephotographinwhichthepostsofthehousehavebeenusedtodrawtheviewer’sattentiontothebackgroundimages,ratherthantothehouse-frameintheforeground 237

12.1 Hergé,De Zonnetempel(Doornik:Casterman,1977),p.17 24312.2 Goblet,D.,Faire Semblant C’est Mentir(Paris:L’Association,2007),

p.21 24412.3 Arntz,G.,Pictogram of a boat(1930).Accessibleathttp://www.gerdarntz.

org/isotype 24712.4 Hergé,De Zonnetempel(Doornik:Casterman,1977),p.6 24712.5 Gerner,J.,TNT en Amérique(Paris:L’ampoule,2002),p.41 24812.6 Franquin,Zwartkijken(Doornik:Gladijs/Casterman,2008),p.56 25012.7 Lambeens,Front Back(Hasselt:UHasselt/HetOnrijpheid,2009),

p.2 25212.8 Lambeens,Front Back(Hasselt:UHasselt/HetOnrijpheid,2009),

p.54 253

x ListOfIllustrationsAndTables

12.9 Lambeens,Front Back(Hasselt:UHasselt/HetOnrijpheid,2009),p.83 254

Tables6.1 Means and standard deviations (between brackets) of affective disposi-

tion,empathy, transportationandbeliefsbycondition(1=very low,7=veryhigh). 126

8.1 Speech,thought,andwritingpresentationscales(afterSeminoandShort,2004:49) 153

ContentsContents vContents vListofIllustrationsandTables viiListofIllustrationsandTables viiListofContributors xiListofContributors xiLardinoisetal. 1Introduction 1AndréLardinois,SophieLevie,HansHoekenandChristophLüthy 1part1 15NewPhilology 15∵ 15Chapter1 17TransmissionandTextualVariants:DivergentFragmentsofSappho’sSongsExamined 17MarkdeKreij 17Chapter2 35InPraiseoftheVariantAnalysisTool:AComputationalApproach toMedievalLiterature 35KarinavanDalen-Oskam 35Chapter3 55Mutatis Mutandis:TheSameCallforPeace,butDifferentlyFramedEachTime 55RobvandeSchoor 55Chapter4 71TheSalmanRushdieArchiveandtheRe-ImaginingofaPhilologicalE-volution 71BenjaminAlexander 71part2 95Narrativity 95∵ 95Chapter5 97ModalityinLolita 97HelendeHoopandSanderLestrade 97Chapter6 114TransportedintoaStoryWorld:TheRoleoftheProtagonist 114AnnekedeGraafandLetticaHustinxDeGraafandHustinx 114Chapter7 133ConstructingtheLandscapeofConsciousnessinNewsStories 133JoséSandersandHansHoekenSandersandHoeken 133Chapter8 152QuotedDiscourseinDutchNewsNarratives 152KirstenVis,JoséSandersandWilbertSpoorenVisetal. 152part3 173ImageandText 173∵ 173Chapter9 175MaryMagdalene’sConversioninRenaissancePaintingandMediaevalSacredDrama 175BramdeKlerck 175Chapter10 194TheDiffusionofIllustratedReligiousTextsandIdeologicalRestraints 194ElsStronks 194Chapter11 221IllustratingtheAnthropologicalText:DrawingsandPhotographsinFranzBoas’The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians(1897) 221CamilleJoseph 221Chapter12 240TheInteractionofImageandTextInModernComics 240TomLambeensandKrisPintLambeensandPint 240part4 257ReceptionandLiteraryInfrastructure 257∵ 257Chapter13 259HolyWritandLayReadersinLateMedievalEurope:TranslationandParticipation 259SabrinaCorbelliniandMargrietHoogvlietCorbelliniandHoogvliet 259Chapter14 281ReceptionandtheTextualityofHistory:RamusandKepleronProclus’HistoryandPhilosophyofGeometry 281GuyClaessens 281Chapter15 295OccasionalWriter,SensationalWriter:MultatuliasaSentimentalBenevolenceWriterinthe1860s 295LaurensHam 295IndexofPersonalNames 313IndexofPersonalNames 313

xiListOfContributorsListofContributors

List of Contributors

Benjamin Alexander isanAssistantProfessorintheGraduateSchoolofLibraryandInformationStudiesatQueensCollegeoftheCityUniversityofNewYork,wherehealsoservesastheHeadofSpecialCollectionsandArchivesfortheQueensCollegeLibraries.Hisresearchandteachinginterestsfocusonthehistoryofarchives,archivaltheoryandpractice,thehistoryofbooksandprinting,aswellas20thCenturyAmericanculturalhistory.

Guy Claessens obtainedhisPhDinphilosophyattheCatholicUniversityofLeuvenwithadissertationontheEarlyModernreceptionofProclus’Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements.HenowworksasaPostdoctoralFellowoftheResearchFoundation–Flanders(FWO)attheDeWulf-MansionCentreforAn-cient,MedievalandRenaissancePhilosophyattheuniversityofLeuven.

Sabrina Corbellini isRosalindFranklinFellowattheUniversityofGroningen(FacultyofArts).SheisworkinginthefieldoflatemedievalculturalhistoryandreligiosityinaEuropeanperspective.

Karina van Dalen-Oskam isresearchleaderoftheDepartmentofTextualScholarship&LiteraryStudiesattheHuygensInstitutefortheHistoryoftheNetherlandsandProfessorofComputationalLiteraryStudiesattheUniversityofAmsterdam.SheisanactivescholarintheinternationaldisciplineofDigitalHumanities.

Anneke de Graaf isapostdoctoralresearcherintheDepartmentofCommunicationandInformationSciencesandtheCentreofLanguageStudiesoftheRadboudUniversityNijmegen.Herresearchfocusesonthepersuasiveeffectsofnarratives.

Laurens Ham isaPhD-studentatUtrechtUniversity.HeisworkingonathesisabouttheautonomyofDutchwritersfromthenineteenthcenturyonwards.

xii ListOfContributors

Hans Hoeken isProfessorofCommunicationandInformationSciencesattheCentreforLanguageStudies,RadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.Hehaspublishedexten-sivelyonpersuasionandnarrativeincluding:The impact of exemplars on responsibility stereotypes in fund-raising letters(HoekenandHustinx,2007).

Margriet HoogvlietreceivedherPhDdegree(cum laude)fromtheUniversityofGroningenin1999.Inthesameyearshewasawardedwithagrantforapersonalresearchproject:“Multi-MediaArtasRoyalLegitimizationandPropaganda(France,1450–1650”.From2009to2013shewaspostdoctoralresearcherinSabrinaCorbellini’s“HolyWritandLayReadersProject”.HerresearchhasresultedinnumerousinternationalpublicationsaboutthecultureandsocietyoflatemedievalandearlymodernFrance.

Helen de HoopisProfessorofTheoreticalLinguisticsattheRadboudUniversityNijmegen,theNetherlands.Shehaspublishedonvarioustopicsontheinterfacebetweensyntaxandsemantics,amongwhichmodality.Currently,sheisinterestedincombininglinguisticsandliterarystudies.In2012and2013sheorganizedtwoworkshopsonthelanguageofliterature.

Lettica HustinxisAssociateProfessoroftheDepartmentofDutchLanguageandCultureattheCentreforLanguageStudies,RadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.ShehaspublishedonnarrativepersuasionandexemplificationincludingThe impact of exemplars on responsibility stereotypes in fund-raising letters(Hoeken&Hustinx,2007).

Camille JosephisassistantlecturerattheEnglishDepartmentoftheUniversitéParis8.WithIsabelleKalinowski,sheiscurrentlypreparingandtranslatingthefirstanthologyofFranzBoasinFrench.

Bram de KlerckteachesArtHistoryoftheEarlyModernPeriodatRadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.Hisresearchfocusesonissuesoffunctionandpatronageofreligiousartinsixteenth-centuryNorthernItaly,aswellasonartisticrelationsbetweenItalyandtheNetherlands.

xiiiListOfContributors

Mark de KreijhaswrittenaPhDthesisonthelanguageofGreekepicandlyricattheRuprecht-Karls-UniversitätofHeidelberg.HisresearchinterestsincludeearlyGreekpoetry,papyrology,andlinguistics.

Tom LambeenscurrentlyworksasajuniorresearcheratPHLUniversityCollege/HasseltUniversityontheoperativefunctionofsensationandcodeinvisualnarra-tives.HehaspublishedtwoexperimentalvisualnarrativesentitledArme Indiaan(2008)andFront/Back (2009).

André LardinoisisProfessorofGreekLanguageandLiteratureatRadboudUniversityNijme-gen.HismainresearchinterestscentreonGreeklyricpoetryandGreekdrama.HeisalsotheacademicdirectoroftheInstituteforHistorical,LiteraryandCulturalStudies(HLCS)atRadboudUniversityNijmegen.

Sander LestradeobtainedaPhDinLinguisticsaswellasabachelor´sdegreeinLiteraryStudiesinNijmegen.AfterhisPhDheworkedasapost-docattheUniversityofBremenandasassistantprofessorinLinguisticsattheUniversityofAmster-dam.Currently,heisaresearcherinLinguisticsattheCentreforLanguageStudiesofRadboudUniversityNijmegen.

Sophie LevieisProfessorofEuropeanLiteratureandCulturalStudiesatRadboudUniver-sityNijmegen.SheischiefeditoroftheseriesRadboudStudiesintheHuman-itiesandeditoroftheseriesLa Rivista‘Commerce’e Marguerite Caetani(EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,Rome).

Christoph LüthyisProfessoroftheHistoryofPhilosophyandScienceatRadboudUniversityNijmegen.Heisparticularlyinterestedintheoriginofthemodernscientificdisciplines,theevolutionofnaturalphilosophyandofmattertheories,aswellasinmethodsof(graphically)visualizingabstractthoughtandtheories.

Kris PintPhD, teachesphilosophyofinteriordesign,semiotics,culturaltheory,andtheoryofscenographyatthedepartmentofArtsandArchitectureatPHLUniversityCollege/HasseltUniversity.HeistheauthorofThe Perverse Art of

xiv ListOfContributors

Reading. On the phantasmatic semiology in Roland Barthes’ Cours au Collège de France(2010).

José SandersisAssociateProfessorofCommunicationandInformationSciencesattheCentreforLanguageStudies,RadboudUniversityNijmegen.Shehaspublishedontheformandfunctionofperspectiveinjournalisticandfictionalnarrative,includingResponsible subjects and discourse causality(Sanders,SandersandSweetser,2012).

Rob van de Schoorteachesnineteenth-centuryDutchliteratureatRadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.HeiscurrentlypreparinganeditionofGeorgiusCassander,De officio pii viri(1651).

Wilbert SpoorenisProfessorofDiscourseStudiesofDutchatRadboudUniversityNijmegen.WilbertSpoorenandJoséSandershavebothpublishedextensivelyontextlinguistics,specializingincoherenceandsubjectivity(e.g.Sanders&Spooren,1997).

Els StronksisProfessorofEarlyModernDutchLiteratureatUtrechtUniversity.ShehaspublishedextensivelyontheproductionofillustratedreligiousliteratureintheRepublicincludingNegotiating Differences: Word, Image and Religion in the Dutch Republic (Brill,2011).

Kirsten Visispost-doctoralresearcherattheFacultyofHumanitiesatUtrechtUniversity.Shehaspublishedontextlinguistics,specializinginsubjectivityinnewsdiscourse(e.g.Visetal.,2010).

1IntroductionLardinoisetal.

Introduction

André Lardinois, Sophie Levie, Hans Hoeken and Christoph Lüthy

In2009thecentraladministrationofRadboudUniversityNijmegenawardedthe Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology, and ReligiousStudiesa largegrantto fundtwoprojects thatwouldstimulatetheresearchandcollaborationofthetwofaculties.Itwasdecidedthatoneoftheseprojectswouldbedevotedtoexploringcommonwaystostudythefunctionandmean-ingoftexts,sincetextsareatthecoreofthesubjectsstudiedinbothHumani-tiesfaculties.Theword“text”hereisusedinthebroadestsenseoftheterm:itdoesnotonlydenoteliteraryorscholarlysources,butalsooraltales,speeches,newspaperarticlesandcomics.Oneofthepurposesbehindtheprojectwastodiscover what these different texts have in common, where they differ andwhethertheycanbestudiedinsimilarways.Thesamequestionsunderliethisvolume.

InFebruary2009GlennMost(ScuolaNormaleSuperiorediPisa/UniversityofChicago),theauthorofinnumerablestudiesinthefieldofClassics,Philoso-phy,andtheHumanitiesatlarge,wasappointedvisitingprofessoratbothfac-ulties. Together with André Lardinois, he organised an interdisciplinaryresearchgroupentitled“Text,TransmissionandReception,”whichconsistedofresearchersfromthetwoHumanitiesfacultiesofRadboudUniversity.With-inthisresearchgroup,differentprojectswerepursued,basedontheinterestsoftheindividualresearchers.Thisresultedinfoursubgroups,whicharealsorepresentedassectionsinthisvolume:NewPhilology,Narrativity,ImageandText,andReceptionandLiteraryInfrastructure.

AfterresearchersofthetwofacultiesofRadboudUniversityhadworkedforoverayearinthesefoursubgroups,itwasdecidedtoorganisealargeconfer-enceinthefallof2010,entitled“Texts,Transmissions,Receptions,”wheretheycouldshareresultswithoneanotherandalsowithotherscholarsfromoutsidetheuniversity.Aselectionofthepaperspresentedatthisconferenceliesbe-foreyou.Theconferencewassetupinsuchawaythatallparticipantscouldattend all the papers.This was done deliberately, so that participants couldlearnfromeachother’s,oftenverydifferent,approaches.Morethan70schol-arstookpartintheconference,whichbroughttogetherresearchersfromsuchdiversedisciplinesasClassicalStudies,MedievalDutchLiterature,EnglishLit-erature, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Cultural Studies, Art History, Linguis-tics, and Communication and Information Studies, all united in a commoninterestin“texts.”




2 LardinoisEtAl.

We hope that something of this unity of purpose is also apparent in thisvolume.Humanitiesstudiesaregoingthroughhardtimes,whiletheircontri-butiontosocietyisbeingquestioned.Humanitiesresearchersarethemselves,however,ofteneachother’sworstcritics.Insteadofrecognisingtheircommonpurpose,theydenounceapproachesthatdifferfromtheirownasiftheycon-stitutesomekindofheresy.Inthisvolumedifferentapproachesarejuxtaposedwhichtheindividualcontributorshadpreviouslynotconsideredtogether.Thehopeisthatthereader,liketheparticipantsattheoriginalconference,learnsfromthesedifferentapproachesandlearnstoappreciateeachoftheminitsownright.Togethertheyprovideabroadpictureofthefunctionandmeaningoftexts,whichstilllieatthecoreofhumancommunicationinreligion,law,politics,advertisement,journalism,philosophyandliterature.Ifsuchtextsarenotworthstudying,onewonderswhatis.

New Philology

ThefirstsectionofthisbooktakesasitsstartingpointanapproachtotextualcriticismthatcallsitselfNewPhilology.Itdemandsattentionforthedynamicchanges in the physical appearances and contexts of literary, philosophicalandreligioustextsovertime.Thissectionseekstoevaluatethemeritsofthisapproach in four papers that combine theoretical reflections with either amodernorhistoricalliteraryorreligioustext.Inthefirstpaper,MarkdeKreijexaminestherecordofthetextualtransmissionofSappho’spoetryinantiq-uity.Sappho,wholivedandworkedontheislandofLesbosaround600BC,wasrecognizedasoneofthecanonicallyricpoetsofancientGreece.Becauseofthis exalted status, we find quotations of her poems in many later classicalauthors.Togetherwithpapyrusfinds,thesequotationsmakeupforourlackofa surviving manuscript tradition of her work. Usually they are studied onlywithaneyetothereconstructionofthelostoriginalofSappho’ssongs.Asaresult,theyhavereceivedlittleattentionintheirownright.InthetraditionofNewPhilology,deKreijcloselyexaminestwofragmentsofSapphothathavebeentransmittedinmorethanonesource, fragments2and154,contrastingthedifferentformstheytakeinthedifferentsources.Hearguesthateachoftheseformsistheproductofitstimeandauthor,andassuchconstitutesarichsourceofinformationaboutthereceptionandtransmissionofSappho’spo-etryinantiquity.HethereforepleadsforaneweditionofSappho’sfragmentsthatshowsthevariationsinthetransmissionofhersongsinantiquity.

NewPhilologicaltexteditions,whichtrytoreproducethedifferentversionsinwhichtextsappearovertime,arealmostimpossibletoproduceonpaper,

3Introduction

whenmanyvariantsofatextsurvive.BernardCerquiglini,oneofthefoundersofNewPhilologyinMedievalStudies,thereforepredictedtheuseofcomput-ersinconstitutingtexteditionsfromtheperspectiveofNewPhilologyalreadyin 1989. Karina van Dalen-Oskam in her article looks back at Cerquiglini’spredictionconcerningtheroleofthecomputerinsuchtexteditionsandcom-pares his expectations with the current state of the art in digital textualscholarship.Sheshowswhere thecurrentsituationprovesCerquiglini right,but also where technical developments have overtaken and improved uponthepossibilitiesCerquigliniforesawmorethantwentyyearsago.Thenewop-portunitiesthathavecomeaboutareillustratedthroughtheexampleofstatis-ticalresearchonfifteencopiesofthesameepisodeinaMiddleDutchBibleinrhyme, the so-called Rijmbijbel, written by Jacob van Maerlant in 1271 BC. Itdemonstrates how multivariate approaches such as cluster observation andprincipal components analysis can help to visualize the relative position ofeachofthecopieswhencomparedtoeachother.Italsoshowshowsuchmeth-odscanbeusedasexploratorytools,pointingtheresearchertothoseepisodesormanuscriptsthatdeservecloserattention.

RobvandeSchoor inhiscontributiontothevolumeexploresthesignifi-canceoftheinsightsgeneratedbyNewPhilologyforthetextualtransmissionandreceptionhistoryofaprintedtext,De officio pii viri (“OntheDutyofthePiousMan”),writtenbyGeorgiusCassanderandfirstpublishedin1561.VandeSchoorlists15editionsorreprintsbetween1561and1687,oftenwithsignificantadditionsorchangestothetext.Thesechangesareoftenbasedonthereligiousconvictionsofsubsequenteditors.HecomplimentsNewPhilologyfordrawingattentiontosuchvariationsofatext,butheiscriticalofthenewmovementaswell.Firstofall,ashepointsout,traditionalphilologyregisteredthesediffer-encesaswell,butitevaluatedthemdifferently.Secondly,itishardtomaintainthatthesedifferentversionsareofequalsignificance,especiallyinthecaseofprintededitions.Van deSchoorvaluesNewPhilologymore for theparadig-maticshiftitrepresentsthanforthepracticaleffectitwillhaveontextualstud-ies.

New Philology has close affinity with genetic editing, except that geneticeditingrecordsandevaluatesvariationsofatextbefore itsfirstpublication(au-thor’snotes,typescripts,etc.),whereasNewPhilologyfocusesonvariationsofatextafteritsfirstappearance.WehavethereforeincludedanarticlebyBenja-minAlexanderwhichlooksatthepossibilitiesoftheSalmanRushdieArchive,keptatEmoryUniversityinAtlanta,forthereconstructionofthecreativepro-cessthatledtohisnovels.ThisarchiveincludesfourApplecomputers,whoseharddrivesallowforanalmostminutebyminutereconstructionofRushdie’swritingprocess.Alexanderdrawsparallelswithotherdigitalarchivesofmod-

4 LardinoisEtAl.

ern authors or the way we know other modern novels have been written.Alexander uses the findings of New Philology, as well as the concept of thepalimpsest(amanuscriptthathasbeenwrittenoverwithanewtext),toargueforthesignificanceoftheseearlier,creativeversionsofatext.Togetherthesefour contributions in the New Philology section celebrate the diversity inwhichatextcanappearratherthantryingtopinitdowntoone,authorial(andauthoritative)version.

Narrativity

ThefourcontributionstotheNarrativitysectionbroadenthescopeofresearchonthereceptionoftextstothewaystoriesarereadandunderstood.Twoofthepapersfocusonthecharacteristicsandimpactofliterarytexts,whereasnews-paperstoriesarethetopicofinterestintheothertwo.Intwopapers,theanal-ysisofthesenarratives(oneliterary,theotherjournalistic)isembeddedwithinalinguisticframework,whereastheothertwostudiesadoptacommunicationsciencemodel.Finally,apart fromamoretheoreticalpaper,corpusanalysesarereportedonintwopapers,andanexperimentonparticipants’responsestoa literary text, in the other. Despite this variety in chosen texts, theoreticalframeworksandapproaches,thestudiesinthissectionformasurprisinglyco-herentset.

ThechapterbyHelendeHoopandSanderLestradeisanexcellentexampleofhowlinguistictheoryandanalysiscanbeappliedfruitfullytoliterarytexts.TheyfocusintheirstudyontheuseofasinglewordinNabokov’sLolita:theepistemicmodalityauxiliary might.Innaturallanguage,speakersemployepis-temic modality markers such as may and might to express their hypothesesaboutthestateofaffairsintheactualworld.Bystatingthat“Petermightpasstheexam,”thespeakercommunicatesthatheorshebelievesthatitispossible–butnotcertain–thatPeterwillpass.Whereaspeopleintherealworldcanbeuncertainaboutsuchfacts,omniscientnarratorsinfictionarenotexpectedtosufferfromsuchuncertainties,astheymakeupthisworldthemselves.

Nabokov’sLolitaisaninterestingworkoffictioninthisrespect,giventhatitisaframestory.HumbertHumbert,themaincharacterinthestory,isalsoacharacteratahigher levelwhereheservesas thenarratorwhenwritinghisconfessioninprisonaftertheeventshaveunfolded.Asaresult,whenmightisused,itmayrefertouncertaintyfeltbyHumbertasthecharacterinthestoryorbyHumbertthenarratoroftheevents.DeHoopandLestradeanalyzeall136occurrencesofmightinNabokov’sLolitatoassesswhetherthepersonindoubtis “Humbertthecharacter”or“Humbertthenarrator.”Theresultsshowthat

5Introduction

when might is used to express the doubt of a character, it is almost alwaysclearly and explicitly marked by syntactic embedding. In contrast, subtlecontextualcuesrevealwhentheuseofmighthastobeinterpretedfromthenarrator’s perspective.The approach taken by De Hoop and Lestrade yieldsinterestingresultsforbothliterarystudiesandlinguistics.Forliterarystudies,itshowshowacarefullinguisticanalysiscanhelptoaddressthequestionofwhoisthinking,perceiving,andwonderinginastory.Forlinguistics,thestudyshowshowlanguageinthehandsofageniuscanbeusedtoachievegoalsandeffectsordinarylanguageuserswouldnotthinkof,butstillcanunderstand.Assuch,itbroadensourviewofwhatlanguagecanachieve.

WhereasDeHoopandLestradestudythewayinwhichanunreliablenarra-torrepresentshisownaswellasotherpeople’sthoughtsandwords,KirstenVis,JoséSandersandWilbertSpoorenfocusonthewayinwhichjournalistsrepresentthewordingoftheirsourcesintheirnewsreports.Theyshowthatquotationsinnewsstorieshavespecialcharacteristicsandserveotherfunc-tionsthantheydoinworksoffiction.Forinstance,directquotesdonotonlyserve toenliven thenewsreport, theyalsosuggest that the journalistswerepresentwhenthesewordswereuttered,thusattestingtotheveracityofthesewords.Visetal.claimthatjournalistsquoteanewssourcedirectlytopresentthemselvesasreliablewitnessestothesituation.

Visetal.donotonlystudytheuseof(complete)directquotes,butalsoofpartial direct quotes, and of indirect representations of people’s spoken orwrittenwordsinnewsstories.Theseindirectrepresentationsinwhichpeople’swords are paraphrased by the journalist, appear to be used to summarize asource’s position on an issue. Such paraphrases are often alternated with(semi-)directquotationsofthesource.Partialdirectquotes,suchas:The min-ister found the accusation “really disgusting” appeartoserveseveralfunctions:notonlydotheyenliventhearticle,theyalsoputdistancebetweenthequotedspeaker’sopinionandthatofthejournalist.

Whereasquotationscancreatedistancebetweentheopinionofthenewssourceandthatofthejournalist, freeindirectpresentationsof, forinstance,thoughtsinnewssourcesachieveexactlytheopposite:theyleadtotheinter-twiningof thesource’sandthe journalist’svoices.Free indirect thought isaquitecommontechniqueemployedinliterarytexts.Visetal.showthatfreeindirectthought,however,isabsentinbothrecentandolderDutchnewsnar-ratives.Giventhatjournalistsdonothavedirectaccesstowhattheirsourceswerethinking,thismayexplainwhytheyrefrainfromusingthistechnique.

Visetal.didnotfindanyoccurrencesoffreeindirectthoughtintheircor-pus.However,therehaverecentlybeenanumberofarticlesinwhichjournal-istsemploy(literary)storytellingtechniques,suchastheuseoffreeindirect

6 LardinoisEtAl.

thought,toreconstructtheeventsandbackgroundsofshockingnewsevents.José Sanders and Hans Hoeken focus in their contribution on the functionsuch reconstructions may serve and on the kind of impact that these storytelling techniques may have. It has been claimed that the most importantfunctionoflanguageistheexchangeofsocialinformation.Nowadays,journal-istsplayanimportantroleintheexchangeofsuchinformation.Theyfunctionas gatekeepers who identify events that are newsworthy for the communitytheycaterto.

Onewayinwhichaneventcanmeetthecriterionofnewsworthinessisby(strongly)deviatingfromtheexpectationsandnormsofthecommunity,suchasamotherkillingherownbabiesoramankillinginnocentbystandersinamall.Hardnewsreportsonsucheventsaretypicallyfollowedbylongerback-groundarticles.Thesearticlesareoftencast inanarrativeformatwhichde-scribeseithertheeventsastheyhavebeenexperiencedbypeopleinvolved,orthepsychologicalmakeupoftheperpetrator.SandersandHoekenpointoutthatthisdistinctioninfocusrunsparalleltothedistinctionmadebetweenthetwo landscapes a story is said to construct: the landscape of action and thelandscapeofconsciousness.Thelandscapeofactionenablesreaderstoassesstheconsequencesofactions,whereasthelandscapeofconsciousnessprovidesreaderswithapotentialexplanationforwhytheperpetratoractedthewayheorshedid.

Inthefinalcontributioninthissection,thefocusshiftsfromnewsnarra-tivesbacktoliterarystories.Animportantaspectthatsetsstoriesapartfromgenressuchas textbooksor letters to theeditor is theirability to luretheirreadersawayfromthehereandnowandleadthemintotheworldevokedbythestory.Thisexperienceofbeinglostinabookhasbeendubbed“transporta-tion”andhasattractedalotofresearchattention.AnnekedeGraafandLetticaHustinxintheircontributionfocusontheroleofthecharacterintransportingreaderstothenarrativeworld.

DeGraafandHustinxfollowuponthesuggestionthat it iseasiertoem-pathisewitha likeablecharacter thanwithanunlikeablecharacter. In theirstudy,theyuseashort, literarystoryaboutamanwhotravelsintheBasquecountryinSpainandendsupbeingmurderedbyaterroristgroupthatisactiveinthatarea.Inanexperiment,DeGraafandHustinxcreatedthreeversionsofthisstorythatonlydifferminimallyfromoneanother.Inoneversioninforma-tion is provided that makes the character more likeable; in another versioninformation is given that makes him rather unsympathetic. A third version,whichservedasacontrol,isrelativelyneutralaboutthecharacter’slikeability.Subsequently, the three versions were randomly distributed among partici-

7Introduction

pantswhoindicatedtheextenttowhichtheyempathisedwiththecharacterandfelttransportedtotheworlddescribedinthestory.

DeGraafandHustinxfoundthatreadersof theversionwiththe likeablecharacterdisplayedamorepositivedispositiontowardstheprotagonistandempathizedmorewithhimthanreadersoftheneutralversion,whointurndisplayedamorepositivedispositionandfeltmoreempathyfortheprotago-nistthanreadersoftheversionwiththeunlikeablecharacter.Also,thestoryfeaturingthelikeableprotagonistresultedinmoretransportationoftheread-erthanthestorieswitheithertheneutralortheunlikeableprotagonists.Theseresultsshowthattheportrayalofaprotagonistasamoresympatheticpersonthroughdescriptionsof“good”actionsandthoughtsisindeedanantecedentoftransportation.

Together,thecontributionsinthissectionrevealtherelevanceofseeminglyunrelatedtheoreticalframeworksandmethodstothestudyofnarrativityandnarrativereception.Theyshowhowlinguistictheorycaninformtheanalysisof perspective in both literary texts and journalists’ narratives. Finally, theyshowhowtheconceptualisationoftheimpactofstories,originallydevelopedtoexplainhowliterarytextsaffecttheirreaders,canbeextendedtoexplainthedesignandfunctionofnewspapernarratives.

Image and Text

Atleastetymologically,imagesandwrittenwordsappeartohavecommonori-gins.Thesearefoundintheactofscratchingmeaningfullinesonasurfaceinorder to leave signs that last longer than spoken words. After all, the Greekwordgraphein meansanygesturethatliterallyen-gravessomethingonatab-let,irrespectiveofwhethertheresultisaword(thespellingofwhichoughttofollowtherulesofortho-graphy),adia-gramoranothertypeofgraphicdesign.Inotherwords,whenthegraphis(aslatepencil)hascarveditslines,theresultmaybeadrawingoraletter,butineachcaseitwillbeagraphēorgramma–forthesetwoall-embracingwordsmeanallofthesetypesofengravings.Intheparticularcaseofhieroglyphics, the“drawing”andthe“letter”mayevenfalltogether,andonlythecontextwilltellwhetherthedrawingsshouldbereadastextorasimage.

Writingandimagingcaninmanycasesthereforebeviewedasalternative,butequivalentoptions.Inthecollectionofessaysthatarecontainedinthissection,however,wordsandimagesarenotpresentedasalternativestrategiesforsimilarends,butaspartsofintegratedwholes.Thisisduetothefactthatweroutinelyusewordsandimagesjointlysoastoreinforcethemeaningof

8 LardinoisEtAl.

whatwewish tocommunicate. Ineveryday life, theway inwhichtextsandimagescollaborateposesfewproblems.Wehavelearned,andthereforeintui-tivelyunderstand,howwordsandtextsinteractinsuchcasesastrafficsigns,user’s manuals, encyclopedia entries or advertisements. However, when weturntohistoricalexamples,weseethatourintuitionabandonsusquickly.Ba-roqueemblembooks,forexample,inwhichatitle,anoftendeliberatelycryp-tic image and an explanation in allegorizing verses are combined to form amessage,arenolongerunderstandabletous,inthesensethatwedon’tgraspwithoutengaginginmuchhistoricalresearchwhatweoughttodowithem-blemsandinwhichcognitive,spiritualormoralwaysweareexpectedtoreacttothem.

Butevenincaseswhereweintuitthemeaninginword-imageconstellationspastandpresent,weusuallycannotquiteexplainhowexactlytheywork.Whatisthecontributionofthetext,whatoftheimages?Inwhichprecisewaydoimagesreinforcethetextualmessage?Orconversely, inwhichwaydoes thetext either add to, or instead merely explicate, the meaning of the images?What is the argumentative force that we attribute to a photograph with orwithoutacaption,toadiagramwithorwithoutanexplanation,toapaintingwithorwithoutatitle,toamapwithorwithoutinscriptions?

Thisprecisesetofquestionsanimatedtheabove-mentionedstudygroup“ImageandText,”inwhichhistoriansofart,philosophy,literatureandsciencecollaboratedwithexpertsinmediaandcommunicationscienceforanextend-edperiod.Thefourarticlesreproducedhereareasmallandyetrepresentativeexpressionofthiswork.Examiningtheinteractionoftextsandimagesinpastandcontemporarycases,theymanagetoprovideanexquisitelycomplexintro-ductiontotherichnessandcomplexityoftheissuesatstake.Thefirstofthemstudies the triangular relation between canonical and legendary texts, thegenreofsacreddrama,andpainting intheconstructionofaspecific icono-graphicaltheme.Theseconddiscussesthereligiousandideologicalconsider-ationsbehindtheinclusionorexclusionofillustrationsinBiblesproducedintheDutchRepublicbetween1560and1680.Thethirdcontainsananalysisoftheuseofvariousgraphicmeansofrepresentationemployedinananthropo-logicalstudyofNorthAmericanIndians.Thefinalessaydealswiththeinevi-tablebutuneasycombinationoftextandimageinthegenreofcomics.Eachexampleconfrontsuswithaverydistinctrelationbetweenlookingandread-ing;ineachcase,whatwordsareexpectedtoaddtoimagesorimagestowordsfollowsaverydifferentlogic;finally,thefourcasesalsodifferwithrespecttotheesthetical,pedagogicaloredificatoryobjectivesthatareinvolved.

Inthefirstcontributiontothissection,BramdeKlerckexaminesMaryMag-dalene’s conversion in Renaissance painting and mediaeval sacred drama.

9Introduction

In this particular case study, we encounter texts and images at one removefromeachother,although–sodeKlerckargues–wewillnotunderstandtheemergenceofthisnewsubjectofRenaissanceiconography,namelythecon-versionofMaryMagdalene,withoutunderstandingthegenreofsacreddramainwhich thisconversionwas first represented. Inother words,between thebiblicalandnon-canonicaltextsthatspokeofMaryMagdalene’slife,andtheRenaissancepaintingsofherconversion,thereexisted,asitwereasabridge,thegenreofdramathatmixed(spoken)textwithvisualaction.ThethemeofMaryMagdalene’sconversionisthus,asdeKlerckargues,“anexampleparex-cellenceofthesometimescomplexrelationshipbetweentextsandimages”inRenaissanceart,where“depictions”ofathememustbeseenas“translationsintovisualform”ofaplethoraoftextualanddramaticsources.

ElsStronksinhercontributioncomparestheeditionsofBibletextsintheDutchRepublicwiththoseinneighbouringcountriesandexploreswhyprac-ticesofillustrationintheDutchRepublicdifferedfromthoseinothercoun-tries.Recentresearchhasshownthatbetween1560and1680,religiousliteratureproducedintheDutchRepubliccontainedfarfewerillustrationsthansimilarliteratureinthesurroundingcountries.Stronksarguesthatthesedifferencesweremotivatedbytheologicalandideologicalviewsratherthanbycommerce.Inpre-Reformationreligioustextsimageryservedtoillustratethedoctrineandtohelpmemorizethetext.Theologicaldebatesonthehierarchybetweenwordandimage,whichinthesixteenthcenturyledtoiconoclasticoutburstsinlargepartsofWesternEurope,putanendtoapeacefulcoexistenceofwordandim-age.IntheDutchRepublic,knownforitsreligioustolerance,peoplefromdif-ferent denominations participated in a common culture, which could evenleadtoamixtureofProtestantandCatholicfeaturesinimagery:thepaintingsofRembrandtareanexampleofthis.However,intranslationsoftheBibleorinspiritualsongbooksproducedintheRepublic,thisinterminglingofwordandimageprovedproblematic.Thisisdemonstratedinparticularbythecon-troversysurroundingthepublicationoftheStatesBiblein1637,inwhichtheprinterPaulusAertsz.vanRavesteynembellishedinitialswithillustrations.Itmet with severe criticism and illustrated Bibles remained forbidden in theNorthernNetherlands.ThisarticlesharesaffinitywithvandeSchoor’sessayintheNewPhilologysection,whichregisterstheinfluenceofthereligiousandtheologicalviewpointsofsubsequenteditorsontheconstitutionofthetextofCassander’sDe officio pii viriinthesametimeperiod.

CamilleJoseph’sessay,entitled“IllustratingtheAnthropologicalText,”ana-lyzes theusemadeby theAmericananthropologistFranzBoasofdrawingsand photographs in his Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indiansof1897.JosephshowsthatforBoasphotographsanddrawings

10 LardinoisEtAl.

constituted“data,”justlikehismusicalrecordings,thecollectedspecimensortheevidencegatheredinsituanddescribedinwords,butthathe“neverfullyexplainedhisuseofthedifferentkindsofethnographicdata.”Therespectivestatus of photographs and drawings changed in the course of Boas’ activity,with photographs taking prominence only towards the close of the century.Josephcarefullyexplainsthe“overwhelminglyabundant”presenceofmeansofcommunicationandrepresentationinBoas’workanddocumentsthewaytheyreinforceoneanother.WelearnwhythisAmericananthropologistfoundphotographs without explanatory captions useless; why he sometimes haddrawingsmadethatcorrectedthephotographsuponwhichtheywerebased;andwhyphotographicportraitsofKwakiutlIndianswereattimesartificiallyarrangedsoastodisplaytheelementsthatBoaswantedtoemphasizeinhistext.

Inthefinalcontributiontothissection,TomLambeensandKrisPintdrawattention to the uneasy, but necessary cohabitation of words and images incomics–agenre thathasevolvedsince thenineteenthcenturyasawayofstory-tellingbymeansofsequential,text-supportedimages.Theauthorsspeakofa“duality”ofimageandtextthatcontainsatensionthatcanbefeltbythereader,whoseglancehastojumptoandfrobetweentwomedia,aswellasbytheartists,whohavetocopewiththefactthatthe“anti-sensualrealmofthetext”insomesensedisturbstheaestheticlogicoftheirimages.Theco-authors,oneofwhomisacomicsartisthimself,speakofthevariousstrategiesbywhichwhattheyvariouslydescribeasa“chasm,”“tension”or“conflict”betweenthetwomeansofexpressioncanbeovercome,oratleastmitigated.

“ImageandText”:byrespondingwithsuchdifferentcasestudiestoaclearlyformulatedsetofquestions,thefouressayspresentedheremakeavalidcon-tributiontoadebatethatsometimessuffersfromtotalitarianclaims.Aristot-le’sstatementthatwecannotthinkwithoutmentalimageshasledtoclaimsthateverythingisanimage,evenwhatiswrittenoutinwords.Thisviewhasbeencontestedbytheopposite,butequallyabsolutistclaimthat“allistext.”Whetherwe,asmembersofthehumanspecies,ultimatelymakesenseoftheworldinprimarilyvisualorprimarilyconceptualtermsisnodoubtafascinat-ingquestion.But irrespectiveofwhattheanswertothisquestionmightbe,andirrespectiveofthecommonrootsofdrawingandwritinginthescratchingactionoftheprimordialslatepencil,itmustbeevidentthattoday,weengageverydifferentmediaindeedwhendescribing,interpretingorre-inventingtheworld, whereby textual and graphic means constitute two large types. Thewaysinwhichthesetwotypesinteractisrich,complexandmysteriousenoughtodeserveourintellectualattention.

11Introduction

Reception and Literary Infrastructure

Thethreecontributionsinthefinalsectionofthisbooklookatdifferentas-pectsofthereceptionoftextsthatinfluencetheirunderstanding.SabrinaCor-bellini and Margriet Hoogvliet discuss the dynamics of the process oftranslation,transmissionandreceptionoftheLatinBibleintothevernacularsduringthelateMiddleAges.NexttotheclergywhichtraditionallyusedLatinas its language, a respublica laicorum for which the vernacular was the lan-guageofcommunication,developedinthisperiod.Thisculturaltransforma-tion, which started in France and Italy, has been much discussed in recentresearch,especiallywithregardtodidacticandmoralizingliterature.Corbel-lini and Hoogvliet instead concentrate on the emancipation of the laitythroughactivereadershipofreligiousliteratureinthevernacular.Theauthorsapplytheconceptof“culturaltransfer”todiscusstheprocessesoftranslationanddisseminationoftheBibleintothevernaculars.Theystressthereciprocityoftheexchange:laymenaswellastheclergyplayedanimportantroleinthetransmissionofthetexts.VeryoftenmanuscriptswouldcontainaselectionofBiblebooksinsteadofacompletetranslation.CorbelliniandHoogvlietarguethatthesefragmentedBiblesshouldnotbeinterpretedaspartofastrategyoftheChurchtokeepthe“real”Bibleawayfromthelay,butinsteadasastrategyoftheclergytopropagatethetextoftheBible.Asfortheparticipationofthenewreadingcommunities:thecompilationsandcopiesmadeforpersonalusewerepassedonfromonegenerationtoanotherandthushelpedindividuals,families and (semi-)professional networks of laymen to construct their reli-giousidentities.Inthisprocesstheyweresupportedbytheactivitiesofmem-bersoftheclergywhoactivelysupportedthereligiousambitionoflaybelievers,bothmenandwomen.Therearecloseparallelsbetweenthispaperandthepapers in the New Philology section: translationscanbeseenasanextremeexampleofthevariationofatext,whichopensituptoawholenewreadershipandtonewwaysoftransmissionandreception.ItalsosharesaffinitywithElsStronks’paperintheImageandTextsectionontheappearanceofBibletextsintheDutchRepublic.

InhisessayontheinterpretationbyPetrusRamusandJohannesKeplerofProclus’Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements,GuyClaessensap-proachesthenotionofreceptionfromaphilosophicalperspective.Claessens’goalistoshowthatbothRamus’andKepler’sreadingarebasedontheirownideasandpreconceptionsaboutmathematics,whiletheyatthesametimefeeltheneedtogroundtheseideasintextofafifth-century,classicalNeoplatonist.Ramus’ evaluation of Proclus’ commentary of Euclid is mostly positive.AccordingtoProclus,thehistoryofmathematicsisanevolutionaryprocess,

12 LardinoisEtAl.

andRamusagrees.ButthereadingoftheFrenchlogiciandiffersfromthatofProclusontwoimportantpoints.Ramustransfersthenotionofmathematicsasaprocessofreminiscencefromtheleveloftheindividualtothatofacollec-tiveevolutionaryprocess.Secondly,mathematical learning,accordingtoRa-mus,doesnotinvolvetherememberingofinnateconceptsbutofmathematicalpracticesinstead.(LaterRamuschangedhisideasaboutthehistoryofmathe-maticsandacceptedProclus’ideaofrecordatioasanindividualrecollectionofinnate concepts.) Ramus blames Plato for the corruption of the history ofmathematics.Accordingtohimthereturnofanaturalgeometryisonlypossi-blewhenthewordsusus[“practice”]andfinis[“purpose”]becomesynonymsagain,andgeometryreturnstobeingthears bene metiendi[“theartofcorrectmeasuring”] insteadofaphilosophicaldoctrine.Ramus’appreciationof theworkofEuclidthuscloselyfollowsthedevelopmentofhisownideas.

ThereadingoftheGermanastronomerKeplerofProclus’Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements differs greatly from Ramus’ utilitarian ap-proach.Accordingtohimthephilosophicalrelevanceofgeometryisreflectedinthearchetypicalconstructionofthecosmos,Claessensexplains.ForKepler,Proclus’textisfundamentalforacorrectunderstandingofgeometry’sphilo-sophicalfoundation.HethereforecriticizesRamusinhisHarmonices mundi(Linz1619),usingProclus’treatise.InhismeticulousanalysisClaessensdem-onstrateshowbothRamusandKeplergobacktothetextofProclustorestorethefundamentsofgeometricalthinking,butindiametricallyopposedways.

WhileClaessensexplainsthedifferentinterpretationsofProclusfromthedifferent, philosophical ideas of two of his later readers, Ramus and Kepler,LaurensHaminhiscontributiontothisvolumeattributesthelackofconsen-sus among modern critics about the meaning of Max Havelaar, the famousnovel of the nineteenth-century Dutch writer Multatuli (Eduard DouwesDekker), to the ambivalent and complicated relationship the author adoptstowardshisreaders.Multatuli’sworksprovokediscussionineverynewgene-ration of readers. Did the author of Max Havelaar really suggest a societalchange?Washeamodernistwriterorananti-modernist?Orwashe,afterall,aconservativewhowantedtokeeptheDutchcoloniesandonlytriedtochangeindividualopinion?InhisessayHamshowshowthewayinwhichMultatulicommunicateswiththereader-in-the-textcontributestotheongoingcontro-versialstatusofhiswork.Multatuliprovokeshisreaders,butalsotriestowinthemforthegoodcause,i.e.,abetterlifefortheJavanesepeople.

In his contribution Ham focuses on a pamphlet Multatuli wrote in 1861,commissionedbytheRotterdampublisherNijgh.Thistext,Show me the place where I sowed!,waspublishedtoraisemoneyforthevictimsofafloodintheDutchEastIndies.Itbelongstotheso-calledbenevolencebooks,anow-forgot-

13Introduction

tengenre,whichfunctionedasaninstrumentforcharity:allprofitswenttothepoorortopeopleaffectedbyanaturaldisaster.Traditionallyauthorandread-ers/buyersbelongedtothesamesocialclassandsharedthesamereligiousbe-liefs;theyusuallyadoptedaconservativepoliticalagenda.Multatuli,however,explicitlyviolates therulesof thegenre.Ontheonehand,heprovokesandevenscoldshisreaders,whileontheotherhand,hetriestoattractthembygivingthemwhattheyexpect:asentimentalstoryaboutaJavanesefamilyofvictims.Moreover,thetextstartswithalongmetafictionalcommentinwhichMultatuli states thathe isnotaconventionalauthor, like theotherbenevo-lencewriters.Hamshowshowthepeculiarwayinwhichthisauthorconnectswithhisreadersinthispamphlet,butalsoinMax Havelaar, contributestotheambivalentreceptionofhisworks.

Allthreepapersinthissectiontakentogetherdemonstratehowtherecep-tionofatextdependsupontheformittakes,includingthelanguagesinwhichitistranslated(CorbelliniandHoogvliet),theideasandpreconceptionsofitsreaders(Claessens),aswellasthenarrativestrategiesadoptedbytheauthorhimself(Ham).Theydemonstrate,asdotheotherpapersinthisvolume,howthe interpretationofnarrativesconsistsofacomplex interplaybetweenau-thor,textandreader.Theauthorcaninfluencethisinterpretationbythenarra-tivestrategiesheadoptsor thestyleshechooses.Thesametextcanappearovertimeinmanydifferentforms,withorwithoutillustrations,intranslationor in revised editions, which inevitably influence its meaning. Finally, everyreadercomestothetextwithhisorherownpreconceivedideasandexpecta-tions.Noapproachbyitselfcancoverallthesedifferentaspectsoftheprocessofunderstandingatext.Thisvolumethereforecollectsawidevarietyofdiffer-entapproacheswhichtogetherilluminatethecomplexmeaningsoftexts.

…Wewouldliketoendthisintroductionbythankingseveralpeopleandinstitu-tions.InthefirstplacewewouldliketothankthecentraladministrationofRadboudUniversityfortheirfinancialsupportbothoftheText,TransmissionandReceptionresearchprojectandoftheconference,aswellastheFacultiesofArtsandofPhilosophy,TheologyandReligiousStudiesfortheirlogisticalsupport and for hosting the conference.We would further like to thank theoriginal panel organizers, Johan Oosterman (New Philology), José Sanders(Narrativity,withHansHoeken),ChristophLüthy(ImageandText),JosJoostenandMaartenSteenmeijer(ReceptionandLiteraryInfrastructure)andthere-spondentstothefourpanels:GlennMost(ScuolaNormaleSuperiorediPisa/UniversityofChicago)intheNewPhilologypanel;DolfZillmann(University

14 LardinoisEtAl.

ofAlabama)intheNarrativitypanel;SteffenSiegel(UniversityofJena)intheImage and Text panel; and Isabelle Kalinowski (École Normale Supérieure,Paris) in the Reception and Literary Infrastructure panel. Their commentsgreatlyhelpedthecontributorstoimprovetheirpapers,asdidthecommentsoftheanonymousreviewers.Theyremainunnamedbutnolessthanked.WewouldalsoliketothankClaireStocks,assistantprofessorintheClassicsDe-partmentofRadboudUniversity,whodidaverythoroughjobincopyeditingthe various contributions, and the two student assistants, Judith Campmanwhomadesuretheyall followedtheauthor’sguidelines,andMariekeGrau-mans,whoproducedtheindex.Finally,wewouldliketothankBrillPublishersforincludingthisvolumeintheirnewseriesRadboudStudiesinHumanities.

15Introduction

part 1

New Philology

∵

16 LardinoisEtAl.

17TransmissionAndTextualVariants

Chapter1

Transmission and Textual Variants: Divergent Fragments of Sappho’s Songs Examined

Mark de Kreij

“NewPhilology”focusesontextsintheirmaterialanduniqueforms.ThenamecomesfromamovementinitiatedbyAmericanphilologistsworkingonmedi-aeval texts,whointhe1990 issueofSpeculumarguedforamoresystematicanalysisofthemanydifferentversionsofmediaevaltextsthathavebeentrans-mitted.1Thisfocusonthedivergenceoftexts,asopposedtotheemphasisonreconstructionofanoriginalUrtext,hadalreadybeenadvocatedbyZumthorandCerquigliniintheprecedingdecades,butwasonlynowappliedtoarangeofactualcorpora.2AfteranendorsementbytheGermanmediaevalistStack-mann,“NewPhilology”becameknowntoawideraudience,whorealizeditsapplicability to corpora other than mediaeval epic songs.3The panel at theText, Transmission, ReceptionconferenceinNijmegenshowedhowNewPhilol-ogymay illuminate issues intextualcorporaranging fromearlyantiquitytothetwentiethcentury.Afterall, instabilityoftexts isofall times,whether itmanifestsindifferentversionsonapapyrusandinamanuscript,inmultipleeditionsandtranslationsofaneighteenthcenturynovel,orincontemporarypaperanddigitaleditions.

Thoughtheapproachandmaintenetsmaybesimilarforeachperiodandgenre,thesalientissuesdiffersignificantly.Inclassicalstudies,thestrengthofNewPhilologyliesinitsabilitytorevealtheeffectsofdifferentstagesoftex-tualtransmission.4Thisapproachplacesthetexts–thatisthemultipleactual-izationsofatextinallpossibleforms–first,inamoreradicalwaythanthemajorityofresearchersinclassicstendtodo.Fromancientpapyriandinscrip-tionstolatemediaevalmanuscriptsandfragmentsquotedwithinotherworks,

1 SeetheintroductionbyNicholsonpages1–10forastatementofintent.2 Zumthor(1972)and(1983),Cerquiglini(1989).3 Stackmann(1994).4 Inthefieldofclassics,Gentili(1984)anticipatedsomeofthetenetsofNewPhilology.More

recently,Lardinois(2006)discussesdivergentversionsofSolon’spoetrytransmittedindiffer-entsources.Likewise,Lardinois[forthcoming]isexplicitlynew-philologicalinitsapproachtotextsofearlyGreeksong.

© MarkdeKreij,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_003This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



18 DeKreij

thefieldofclassicalstudieshasawealthofmaterialatitsdisposalforthiskindofresearch.

Historically,thetendencyinclassicalphilologyhasbeentoapproachitsrichcorpuswiththeintentionofreconstructingoriginaltexts.Eachinstantiationofacertaintextisthusappreciatedonlyinsofarasitishelpfultothatenter-prise.However, it isalmost impossibletoreconstructtheoriginalversionofanytext,andinthecaseofarchaicandclassicalGreektextsthereisnohopeatallofestablishingtheoriginalform;asituationthatarisesduetothenon-exis-tenceof literature(asweknowit today)beforethefifthcenturyBC. If textswerewrittendown,theywerenotintendedforpublicationandreading,butrather forconservationandre-performance.The texts thatweregardas the“classics”ofclassicalliteratureinthisperiodwereprimarilyworkstobeper-formed;beittheHomericepics,thedramasbyAeschylus,Sophocles,andEu-ripides,orthelyricsongscomposedbyPindar,Alcaeus,orindeedSappho,whocomposedsongsonLesbosinthesixthcenturyBC.5

ModerneditionsofSappho’ssongshavebeenpiecedtogetherfromquota-tionsintheworksofother,later,authorsand–morerecently–fromscrapsofpapyrus.Thesourcesatourdisposal,then,werewrittendownnoearlierthanthreehundredyearsafterthesupposedcomposition,whilethemajoritydatesfromtheMiddleAges.Moreover,theyarenomorethanthetextualcomponentof a larger whole that once included music, a specific venue, and probablydance.Generally,theonlyresidueofthesongs’originalnatureistheirmetricalpattern,andsometimesnoteventhat.6Thetexts inourpossessionareveryfragmentary,representonlyonefacetoftheoriginalperformanceofSappho’ssongs,andareseparatedfromthedateofcompositionbyaphysicalgapofatleastthreecenturies,whichraisesthequestion:Howmaysuchinevitablycom-promisedsources forSappho’ssongsserveclassicalphilologists?Atentativeanswer requires firsta surveyof the traditionalphilological research on thefragmentsofSappho.AdducingtwoquotesofSapphoinsecond-centuryAD

5 SeeespeciallyAndrewFord’s“FromLetterstoLiterature.Readingthe ‘SongCulture’ofClassicalGreece”inYunis(2003)15–37.

6 Greekmetreisbasedonthedivisionofheavyandlightsyllables(or“long”and“short”).ThisfactmayhelpourunderstandingofSapphointwoways.Firstly,knowledgeofthemetressheusedmayhelpidentifyaspecificmetricalpatternevenifweonlyhaveafrag-mentarytext.Secondly,someofSappho’smusicwasstanzaic,builtoutofrepeatedmetri-cal–andprobablymelodic–patterns.Ifwehavealargeenoughpartofthesong,itispossibletoestablishifthemetricalpatternrecursconsistently–evenifwehaveneverencounteredthatspecificmetrebefore.Withthesetwotools,itbecomespossibleinsomeinstancestoestablishtheoriginalmetre,andnotewherethetextdepartsfromthepat-tern;theseplacestheninvitediscussion.


sources,Iwillprobethepossibilitiesofferedby,andchallengesposedto,NewPhilologyinthefieldofclassics.InSappho’scase,whilethelatersourcesmaypointonlyminimallytowardheroriginalsixthcenturyBCcompositions,theyprovidetantalizingglimpsesoftheformofhersongsintheearlycenturiesofourera.

TheproblemswiththetextualtraditionforSapphoarisefromthefactthatunlikeforHomer,forexample,nomanuscripteditionofSappho’ssongshassurvivedfromtheMiddleAges.7Asaresultwearereliantuponquotationsinothertexts,eithertransmittedonpapyrior,mainly,inmediaevalmanuscripts,uponfragmentsofpapyri,whichdatefromthethirdcenturyBCtothefourthcenturyAD,apieceofparchment(sixthcenturyAD),andtheSapphoostrakon(orpotsherd)thatcontainsthefragment2V.8Thefragmentarynatureoftheextant texts is, however, not the only problem we face when reconstructingSappho’ssongs.Workingonsixth-centuryBCLesbos,Sapphoprobablycom-posedhersongsinadialectthatwasfarremovedfromtheGreekofclassicalAthens,letalonethatoflaterantiquityortheMiddleAges.Thisisreflectedinthefactthattheformswefindinthemediaevalindirectsourcesdifferconsid-erablyfromthosefoundinearlyLesbianinscriptionsandintreatisesbyan-cientgrammarians.9

EditingSappho’stexts,then,hasbeenaprocessofreconstructionforschol-arsfromtheoutset.10Ifthegoalistoapproachtheoriginalcompositionsascloselyaspossible,thismethodisindeedtheonlyoneavailabletous,butNewPhilologyarguesthatreconstructionisnottheonlygoalinclassicalphilology.Thereconstructivemethodisreliantuponlaterauthors’competenceincopy-ing correct citations into their own texts, as well as on the accuracy of ourknowledgeregardingSappho’smetresandtheLesbiandialect.Thesepresup-positions have had the effect that the divergent forms of Sappho’s songs, asfoundinthegreatmajorityofsources,havebeenpickedapartandreconstruct-

7 ThesamethingholdsfortheotherGreekpoetsofthelyriccanon,withthesoleexceptionofPindar.SeeHadjimichael(2011)forarichexpositionontheearlytransmissionoftheearlyGreeklyriccomposers,aswellasananalysisofitsreceptionintheperipateticschol-ars.

8 TheeditionreferredtothroughoutisVoigt(1971).Theoriginaleditionoftheostrakon isPapiri della Società ItalianaXIII,1300.

9 The two most recent works on the dialect of the Lesbian poets, by Hooker and A.M.Bowie,provideaframeworkthatisbasedoninscriptionalevidenceandancientdescrip-tionsofthedialect.Thisproducesasetofrulesthatappearstohavebeenfollowedquitecloselybytheancienteditors,atleastasfarasthatisreflectedinthepapyrusevidence.

10 UntilthelatenineteenthcenturySappho’scorpuswasrestrictedtofragmentstransmittedinindirectsources.

20 DeKreij

edtofittheexpectedformofbothdialectandmetre.Those“divergent”frag-mentsofSapphohavethusrarelybeenstudiedin situ.11

ThebulkofthefragmentsofSappho’ssongsarefoundasquotationsintheworks of later authors such as Plutarch (first-second century AD), Stobaeus(fifthcenturyAD),andAthenaeus(second-thirdcenturyAD),whichbringwiththemaveryparticularproblemforthetextualcritic.Therelationbetweenthehosttextandthequotedfragmentissimilartoamise-en-abîme,anditurgesustoconsidertheinterplaybetweenthetwoveryclosely.Afterall,itisonethingtoattempttoreconstructanoriginalsongbySapphowithalltheknowledgeofmetreanddialectwehavenow,andquiteanothertoassumethat,firstly,theauthorquotinghersonginthesecondcenturyADhadthesameknowledgeand,secondly,hadtheintentionoreventheopportunitytofaithfullyrendertheoriginal.Inpractice,however,thiseffortisrarelymade,andthetwodis-coursesarereconstructedasiftheywerecompletelyseparatetexts.12

Inthefollowing,Iadducetwofragmentsfromtheearlycenturiesofourerathatwerebothtransmittedbymorethanonesourceandindivergentforms.Fragment 2V., transmitted on a potsherd and as a quote within Athenaeus’Deipnosophistae,servestoputthebasicchallengesandopportunitiesofanew-philologicalapproachinrelief.Subsequently,anotherfragmenttransmittedintwodifferentbutroughlycontemporarysourcesillustrateshoware-examina-tionofvariantsmaychallengea latentpresupposition in the reconstructivephilologicalapproach,namelythat(generallyolder)papyrusevidencetrumpsmanuscriptevidence.

In the Deipnosophistae, a work of wide-ranging scholarship,13 Athenaeussetsthesceneofabanquet,introducesthelearnedmenwhoattend,andimag-inestheconversationsthatwouldtakeplacebetweenthem.Heusesfictitiousdialoguesandspeechesasavesselfortheexpositionofhisownknowledge.Topicsrangefromfood,tomusic,andtopoetry,andthusagreatdealofinfor-mation isaccumulated in themanypagesof the Deipnosophistae.Arguably,mostvaluabletophilologistsarethenumerousquotesfromancientauthors,oftentransmittedonlythroughthiswork.

The scene presented by Athenaeus brings to mind the practice of thesymposion best known from classical Athens. Even though it went through

11 AloneexceptionisNicosia(1976).12 Seepage31withnote41below.13 Olson’s2006LoebeditionpresentsanaccessibleeditionalongwithafullEnglishtransla-

tion;see,however,page31belowforacommentonhistext.Itmustbenotedthateventhemostcompletemanuscript(A) is incomplete. Itmissesthefirst twobooks,partof thethird,andafewpageshereandthere.Thesegapsareusuallyfilledbyusinganepitomethatwaspreservedintact.


significantchanges,thegatheringafterdinnertosharepoetryandsonglivedonindifferentformsuntiltheendofantiquity.AulusGellius(secondcenturyAD)inhisAttic Nights testifies,amongothers,totheprobabilitythatthesing-ingof“Sapphic”songswasstillanafter-dinneractivityeveninthesecondcen-turyAD.14

Sappho’s songs, with love and longing as their subjects in many cases,formedafittingcorpusforthesymposiastinanyperiod.15Itisthusnosurprisetofindpartsofherworkinthisfictionalsymposion imaginedbyAthenaeus.Within his dinner scene, he quotes the following fragment, which itself in-vokesasymposiasticscene–adivinesymposion,describingthemixingandpouringofnectar.

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 11.463e16

(…)ἐλθέ,Κύπρι,χρυσείαισινἐνκυλίκεσσινἁβροῖςσυνμεμιγμένονθαλίαισι.νέκταροἰνοχοοῦσατούτοισιτοῖςἑταίροιςἐμοῖςγεκαὶσοῖ.

Come,Kypris,ingoldencups[ ]mixedwithgentlefestivities,17 pouringnectarforthesefriendsofmineandforyourself.

ThequoteinAthenaeusformstheendofalongersong,Sappho2intheVoigtedition,thelargestpartofwhichispreservedontheostrakon.ThetextontheostrakonwaswritteninthethirdorsecondcenturyBCwhileAthenaeusworkedaround200AD.Thepotteryshardgivesatextthatiswritteninanunclearhand,

14 AulusGellius,Attic Nights 19.9.3–7.ForthesingingofSappho’ssongsinthistimeseealso:Aelianfr.190,inStobaeus3.29.58;Plutarch,Moralia,611cand722d.

15 YatromanolakisgatherstherelevantevidenceforSapphoinChapter3ofhis2007work.SeeReitzenstein(1893),Collins(2004),andespeciallyVetta(1995)foranoverviewofourevidenceforpoeticpracticesatsymposia.

16 The text as given here is the one found in Manuscript A (Venetianus Marcianus 447).CompareOlson2009:V.224.

17 Thepunctuationafterνέκταρcreatesaproblemineithersyntaxorsense.At thesametimeitshowsthatthescribeofthismanuscriptbelievedthefollowinglinetobesyntacti-callyconnectedtothequoteofSappho.

22 DeKreij

andwhatcanbereadisdecidedlyproblematicwithregardtobothmorpholo-gy and syntax. Athenaeus’ version is problematic for different reasons, yetclearlyrelatedtothetextontheostrakon.

Sappho Ostrakon18

(…)ενθαδησυ[στεμ[ελοισαΚυπριχρυσεαιςενκυλικεσσιναβρωςεμμειχμενονθαλιαιεσσιννεκταροινοχοεισα

Thereyou[were],holding[],Kypris,skilfullypouringingoldencupsnectarmixedwithfestivities

Withoutgoingintodifferencesofdialectandorthography,theversionontheostrakon differs mainly from the version in Athenaeus in that it is part of alargerwhole.Thisinitselfleadstoadifferentinterpretationofthepassage,butthedifferencebetweenthetwoversionsisalsoreflectedinthelanguage:whereAthenaeushastheimperative“ἐλθέ”[“come”],theostrakonhastheparticiple“ἔλοισα”[“havingtakenup”],whichonewouldexpecttobeprecededbyamainverb.Moststrikingofall,Athenaeus’textcontainsanextralineafterthepointwheretheostrakon ends.Asstatedabovetheostrakonisapotsherd,butitmustbenotedthatthesongwasonlywrittenonthispieceofpotterywhenitwasalreadyasherd.Thetextisthusfairlycomplete,asfaraswecanestablish,andthebreak-offpointcomesnaturallyaftertheendofastanza,whilethereisstillmoreroomlefttowriteonthepotsherdhadthewriterwishedit.TheextralineinAthenaeusmayeitherrepresentthestartofanewstanzaofthesong(omit-tedfromtheostrakonbecauseonlypartofitwouldhavefitted)oranaddition,eithercomposedbyAthenaeusoralreadyknowntohiminthatform.ThefinaltextbelowisthefragmentasgiveninVoigt’sedition;areconstructionwhich

18 PSI XIII, 1300.The reading of the ostrakon is extremely problematic. Different readers(Norsa, Theiler, Lanata, Lobel and Page) have all come up with different readings. AsIhavenotbeeninapositiontogainaccesstoanythingotherthana(decent)photograph,IhavedecidedtofollowNorsa’sreading.WhatisbeyonddoubtisthattheostrakonandAthenaeusdonotgivethesamereading.Formetricalreconstructions,seeNorsa(1953)47andLanata(1960)89-90andallmoderneditionsofSappho.


makesuseofbothofthesesourcesandisbasedonourknowledgeofmetreanddialect.

Voigt (1971)

ἔνθαδὴσὺστέμ<ματ’>ἔλοισαΚύπριχρυσίαισινἐνκυλίκεσσινἄβρως<ὀ>μ<με>μείχμενονθαλίαισινέκταροἰνοχόεισα

Andthereyou[were],havingtakenupthewands,Cypris,skillfullypouringingoldencups,nectarmixedwithfestivities

ThefactthattheostrakonistheearliersourceisusedbyVoigtasalicensetotakeitstextasthebasisforherreconstruction.Heredition,however,maskssomesignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwosources,bothatthebeginningandattheendofthefragment.Asforthefirstfourlines,wecannotknowiftheostrakonversionistheoriginalratherthanAthenaeus’,asbothfit themetreroughlyandbothcouldhavemadesenseintheoriginal.Forthelastlinehow-ever,giveninAthenaeusbutnotontheostrakon,wearehelpedbythemetre:itdoesnotfitthereconstructedmetricalschemainanyway.ItisthushighlyunlikelytohavebeenpartofthesongasAthenaeusknewit,andnosurprisethatVoigtomitsitinhereditionofSappho.

Fortheprovenanceofthisunmetricallinewemightconsiderthefollowingtwopossibilities.Asnotedabove,Sappho’ssongsweremostlikelysungatsym-posia.Thesegatherings,likeAthenaeus’literaryreflectionofit,formedoppor-tunitiestodemonstrateone’serudition,literaryprowess,poeticcreativity,andwit.Apartfromwineandsong,poeticgamesformedaninherentpartoftheseevents,andpartoftheskillinthesegameswastoremember,select,andadaptsongsorpoemsbyfamouscomposers.ThelastlineofthequoteinAthenaeussuggests that it might be the result of such a creative adaptation. Symposiawerepredominantlymaleaffairs,atleastintheearlystagesinAttica.Sappho,however,seemstohavewrittenmainlyforandaboutanaudienceconsistingofagroupofwomen.19ThelastlineofthequotebyAthenaeus,then,issuspect

19 Thenatureofthisgroupisopentomuchdiscussion,butdoesnotconcernusnow.Cf.Parker (1993) Sappho Schoolmistress for a debunking of earlier theories, and Lardinois(1994)forareactiontothisarticle.

24 DeKreij

notonlybecauseofthemetricalproblems,butalsobecauseofthegenderofthe“friends”mentioned.Sympoticusesofpoetryandsongweremostlyintheform of quotations or passages rather than performances of whole works. Ihavenotrouble imaginingthisstanzaofaSapphicsongbeingadapted(theparticipleἔλοισα“havingtakenup,”whichwaspartofalarger,precedingcon-struction,changedtotheimperativeἔλθε“come”)andextendedwithanextralinetoprovideafittingintroductoryquasi-prayerforasymposionofmalearis-tocrats.Suchanadaptationmaythenhaveendedupinacollectionoranan-thologyofpassages,quotes,andadaptations,suchaswefindinthepapyruscontainingthenewSapphopoem.20

Ifthisistoofancifulaproposition,theotherpossibilityisthatAthenaeusintroducedtheadditioninhisworkbothtoshowtheworkingsofthesympo-sionandtointegratethequoteintohisnarrative.Thislatterismoreattractivetoa textually-orientedmodernreaderbecauseaparticipantata symposionmighthavebeenexpectedtomakeametrically-fittingaddition,whereasAth-enaeusasanauthorofprosehadnosuchrestrictiontodealwith.ItisunclearatwhichpointSappho’slyricbegantobereadaspoetry,butIbelievethatbythefirstcenturyADthetextswerestilltransmittedassongs,whilealsocirculat-ingaspoetryforreading.However,theaudienceofthelatterwasnotnecessar-ilyawareof the formthat this “poetry”had inearlier times,or, if theywereaware,eitherdidnothavetheabilityortheinteresttoreconstructit.

Despitethenotedtextualproblems,mostofthefragmentasquotedbyAth-enaeusstillfitsthemetrereconstructedwiththehelpofthelongerfragmentontheostrakon.ThisshouldurgeustoconsiderthatdivergencesinformfoundinotherfragmentsquotedbyAthenaeusmighthavecausesotherthanscribalerror,suchasearlierimprovisationinperformance,orliteraryadaptationbyAthenaeushimself.Moreover,eventhoughsomeevidencepointstoSappho’ssongsstillbeinginsomewayperformedinthesecondcenturyAD,21thefinaladdedlinesuggeststhatthereisnoreasontoassumethatallofherworkwasstillknownintheformofsongsatthistime,orthattheformremainedconsis-tentthroughoutsubsequentcenturies.

Myanalysisof theSapphofragmentabove isopentoonemajorpointofcriticism.JustlikeSappho’ssongs,Athenaeus’workwentthroughaprocessoftransmission.Justlikethetextsofhersongs,therefore,thetenth-centuryADtext that we have of his books is merely a reflection of his second-centurycomposition.HowcanwebesurethatthismaterialisareliablesourcefortheformofSappho’ssongsinAthenaeus’time?Afterall, ifwecanusethelater

20 P.Kolninv.21351and21376;seeClayman’schapterinGreene(2009)131–46.21 Seenote8above.


manuscriptstoestablishorapproachtheoriginaltextbyAthenaeus,whycanwenotdothesamewiththelatesourcesforSappho?Wecannot,becausethemodeoftransmissiondifferssignificantlyforthefragmentsofSappho’ssongson the one hand and the manuscript of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae on theother.Whereas Athenaeus’ work was created as one whole and consistentlycopiedas such,mostofour sources forSapphoquoteher fragmentswithintextsofadifferentnature.

When discussing fragments, Glenn Most writes the following: “However splendidly the fragment gleams, what fascinates us even more is the darkness sur-rounding it.”22Thewordfragmentitselfimpliesa(violent)separationofonepiecefromalargerwhole.Atthesametime,thefragmentisirrevocablyandcontinuallyconnectedtothelostwhole.Inhis2003workThe Powers of Philol-ogy,HansUlrichGumbrechtdescribestherelationbetweenaresearcherandhisfragmentsinpsychologicalterms.23Afterestablishingthatatextis,infact,afragmentofalarger–butlost–whole,aseriesofeventsoccursinourminds.Unconsciously,butinevitably,thereaderwillconstructawholeinhisimagina-tion.Fromthatmomentonward,thisimaginarywholeremains–oftenuncon-sciously–apointofreference inthereadingof the fragment.24GumbrechtbasesthisargumentonSartre’sL’imaginaire,25whichstatesthateveryimag-inedpictureortextisbydefaultwhole.

Onlybyscrupulouslyapplyingnewevidencetothisimagewillitbepossibletoadddetailsandchangeit.26ForSappho,thetwofactorsthatmostallowfornew input are dialect and metre. These are often adduced as an objectivemeanstoreachabetterreadingofthefragments.MostagreeswithGumbrechtthatimaginationplaysaslargearoleaseruditioninourstudyoftextualfrag-ments.27Whenconfrontedwithafragment,weconstructalostwhole,subse-quently – and unconsciously – leaving the fragment to one side in furtherstudy.Thereasonthisconstructedwholeinterestsus,Mostargues,isthatitistheleastfleeting.Asfaraswecanestablish,theoriginaltexthasperished;and

22 Most(2009)18.23 Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, “Identifying Fragments,” in: idem, The Powers of Philology.

Dynamics of Textual Scholarship(Chicago,2003),pp.9–23.Gumbrechtpublishedanear-lierversionofthechapter“Identifyingfragments”:“Eatyourfragment!,”in:GlennW.Most(ed.),Aporemata I: Collecting Fragments – Fragmente Sammeln(Gottingen,1997)315–27.

24 Gumbrecht(2003)16.25 Sartre(1940).26 Gumbrecht(2003)16–18.27 Most(2009)18.

26 DeKreij

eventhefragmentthatweatheredtheagesismoreephemeralthantheimageweconstituteinourheads.28

TakingintoaccountMost’sideasabouttheplaceofthewholeinourstudyoffragmentsandGumbrecht’scommentsabouttheroleofourimagination,itisclearthatthereisadistincttendencytowardsthespeculativeinthestudyoffragments.GumbrechtandMostshowusconvincinglythateveryanalysis isdirectedbypreconceptionsabout thewhole that ishiddenbehindthe frag-ment.Whenstudyingfragments,westudynothingmore–andnothingless–thantheimagewehaveconjuredupinourheads.Iftheirintuitionisright,itexplainswhythefocusofclassicalphilologyhasforsolongbeentheattemptto(re)constructtheseimaginedwholes.

Textual fragments, then, form tricky primary sources, but for Sappho thetextualfragmentsarefragmentaryinanothersense.Besidesgivingonlypartofthesupposedoriginal,fragmentsofSappho’ssongsgiveonlytext,andoftennohintoftheotherdimensionsofthesong:music,dance,andoccasion.Thereisno evidence that the archaic lyric composers like Sappho wrote down theirwork.Eveniftheydid,however,theirworkprobablycirculatedlargelyinper-formance,ratherthanonpaper,atleastuntilthelatefifthcenturyBC.29Eachsongwassungandheardinadifferentplaceandtime.Fromthenonitmaywellhavebeenre-performedseveraltimesbeforesomeonesawreasontowritedownthe lyrics. It is impossibletoestablishexactlywhathappenedto indi-vidualsongsduringthisstageinthetransmission,butthestatusofthesongs(evidencedbythesimplefactthattheysurvivedaslongastheydid)willprob-ably have guaranteed a rather close adherence to the original in re-perfor-mance.Still,anumberoffactorsmayhaveintrudedatanypointtochangethetextofasonginseveralways,beitconsciouslythroughadaptationoruncon-sciouslythroughmistakes.

ThelasttwopointsformthecrucialdifferencebetweenthetransmissionofSappho’ssongsandAthenaeus’Deipnosophistae.Firstly,Sappho’ssongswerereperformed in venues different from those originally intended and by newinterpreters,mostlyinasympoticatmosphere,asdescribedabove.Asaresult,(partsof)hersongswillhavebeenperformedoutofcontextandwithdifferent

28 However,sincethewholeweconstructisconnectedbothtothemindthat“conjureditup,”(Gumbrecht(2003)18)andtothefragmentthatprovidedthestimulusforthecon-struction, every single reading of a fragment is unique, making the imagined whole itproducesinfactextremelyephemeral.

29 See for the case of Sappho Lardinois (2008), and more generallyThomas (1992), Robb(1994)40n23fornotesoncorporaoforalpoetryandpassimfortheslowadventofwide-spreadwrittentransmissionforpoetryinGreece,andFord(2003).


goals than originally intended: every single reperformance was unique andcouldhavehadaneffectonlatertextualrenderings.Secondly,ifwebelieve,asIdo,thatwrittenversionsofcompositionsofarchaiclyricpoetsdidnotcircu-late early on, then there is a distinct possibility that written versions wouldhavebeenmadeafterauralreception,probablyfrommemory.DespitethefactthattheGreekswouldhavebeenmoreusedtothispracticethanweare,thisprocesswouldhaveledtomistakes,andhencetovariations.30

Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae, conversely, was preserved in a manuscript,transmittedasawhole,atleastforthepartswhereSapphoisquoted.Themainproblemoffragments–thefactthattheyarefragmentary–isthusnotanissueatall;noneoftheresearchers’effortsneedgointothereconstructionofalostcontext.Sinceitwasnotquotedpartially,buttransmittedwiththeintentionofreproducing it as a whole, there is no reason to assume that the scribe hadspecificreasonstopresentadeceptiveimageofthetext.Finally,therecanbenodoubtthatbythesecondcenturyAD,Athenaeuscomposedhisprosewithwritinginmind,eitherrecordingithimselfordictatingtoascribe.Theonlyseriousobstacleseparatingthemodernreaderfromtheoriginalwork,then,isthefactthatthemanuscriptwentthroughseveralcenturiesofcopyingbeforereachingthetenthcentury,whenourearliestextantmanuscriptwasproduced.Therecanbenodoubt,however,thatthisproblemisofadifferentnaturetothosecreatedbythetransmissionofSappho’ssongsinantiquity.

SothemainproblemsthatoneencounterswhenresearchingthefragmentsofSappho’ssongsdonotapply(oratleastdosotoalesserextent)toAthenae-us’Deipnosophistae.Thisisapplicableforthewholeofthetext,irrespectiveofwhether it isaquotationorpartof themainnarrative.Themost importantadvantageisthatthegreaterquantityofmaterialprovidesanopportunitytouseinternalevidenceintheanalysis.Forexample,iftheformofonestanzabySapphoquotedinAthenaeusiscorroboratedbyexternalevidence,whilean-other quote diverges significantly from the passage as found elsewhere, orfromthemetreasreconstructed,itisnoteconomicaltopositthatinthesec-ondcasescribalerrormustbe thecause.Rather, iturgesus toconsider thepossibilitythateitherAthenaeusorhissourcechangedthepassage,againei-therintentionallyorbyaccident.

30 Rubin(1995)188showsthatevenifsomeoneattemptstofaithfullyreperformasong,inthiscasefivesongsbyThe Beatles,mistakesofalimitedkindwillbemade.SeealsoLardi-nois(2006)whoadducesEnglishnurseryrhymestoshowhowvariationmaymakeitswayfromoralintowrittenversions.

28 DeKreij

PapyrusfindsdemonstratethatinAthenaeus’timefulleditionsofSappho’ssongswereavailableinEgypt,wherehehimselfworked.31AthenaeusthushadthepracticalmeanstoquotefromtheseeditionsanysongbySappho,andheisshowntodosoforthelargestpartofhisquoteoffragment2V.Whenevertheformofthefragmentgivesusreasontobelievehedivergedfromthisnorm,then,wearechallengedtoestablishwhatreasonshemighthavehad.Errorsintransmissionarealwayspossible,buttheycannoteasilyaccountforlargedi-vergences.

After an exposition of the method, the following question might still beasked:NewPhilology–what’snew?32Intheend,nothinginthemethodologyortheoreticalframeworkisfundamentallynew,sinceall“newphilologists”areessentiallyrepeatingtheworkofotherphilologists.WhatIcansayintheir–orshouldIsayour–defenceisthatwedomoreofthiswork.Philologistshavepaidattentiontofragmentsanddivergentversionsoftexts–infacttheyaretheoneswhofoundtheminthefirstplace.Theirattentionhas,however,beenfocused upon comparison with a view to reconstruction in the majority ofcases.NewPhilologyproposestomaketheresearchintothosefragmentsthatarenormallyconsignedtothedarknessmorevisible.Readingsthathavebeenforsomereasonregardedasdivergent,defective,or“absurdandunmetrical”arepickedupagainandre-appraised.33Bymakingthemnotmarginalbutcen-tralevidence,theyarebroughtbacktothelightandaskedtoyieldwhateverinformationtheymightgiveus.Insteadofasking:whatistherelationofthefragmenttotheoriginal?Wemightask:whatistherelationbetweenitsformanditsowner?Or:whatcanthelanguagetellusaboutitstransmission?Whatdoestheco-existenceofdifferentvariantsinroughlythesametimeandplace(in this case second-century Roman Egypt) mean for the attribution of thefragmentorperhapsfortheconsciousnessaboutauthorshipingeneral?

Although Sappho composed in the sixth century BC, the Alexandrianedition(s),34createdsometimeinthethirdandsecondcenturiesBC,arethe

31 This is suggested by the care with which they were created, the general uniformity ofdialectandthepresenceofbooknumbersandauthor’sname.MostnotablypapyriP.Oxy1787and 1231 showagreatdealofeditorial influence in, forexample, theorderof thesongsandnormalizationofforms.AthenaeusworkedinNaucratis.

32 Igratefullyborrowthis turnofphrase fromD’Angour (2006).NotealsoSchnell (1997):“Was ist neu an der ‘New Philology’?”

33 As claimed by Maehler of some variants in a discussion of new fragments of Pindar’sEpiniciansinthe2010Oxyrhynchusedition,pages63(“corruptandexcessivereading”),64(“unmetricalnonsense”),and67(“absurdandunmetrical”).

34 ForAlcaeus,asourcementionstwoseparateeditions,sothesamepossibilitycannotbeexcludedforSappho.


bestpointofreferencefortheformofhersongs.ThiscanonicalcompilationformedthebasisforastrongtextualtraditionthatappearstohaveremainedlargelyintactatleastuntilthethirdcenturyAD.Itisveryprobablethatwehaveparts of copies of this edition in some of the Sappho papyri found in andaroundOxyrhynchus.35Thesefragmentspresentapredominantlyconsistenttextasregardsmetreanddialect,andwereavailabletothepeopleatlargeandtoscholarsinparticular.Asignificantdivergencefromthestandardversioninthisperiodmust thereforeberegardedasmarked insomeway.Ratherthancullthedivergentelementsofthese“wild”fragments,theymaybeusedmoreproductivelytoestablishtheformofSappho’ssongsinthetimethatthesourc-esthemselveswerewritten.36

Letusconsideronemorecasethatillustratesthevicissitudesofthetrans-missionofSappho’ssongs,andhowtheywerequoted.TheGreekmetricianHephaestionwroteabookonmetreinaboutthesameperiodasAthenaeusworked.Asmentionedbefore,Sappho’ssongsweremarkednotonlybymetri-calform,butalsobythepeculiarLesbiandialectsheprobablycomposedin.Thisdialectwassomethingalientothesecond-centuryspeakerofGreek,andprobablyforthemonlyaccessiblethroughtheAlexandrianeditionsoftheLes-biancomposers.37ItisassumedthatlaterauthorshadatendencytochangethelanguageofSappho’ssongswhentheyquotedherintheirworks.InsteadofretainingthecuriousdialectfromLesbos–whichtheypossiblydidnotfullyunderstandthemselves–theychangedittoAttic,thedialectofAthensandlaterestablishedasthestandardthroughoutthegreaterGreekempire.38Theattitudeofdifferentauthorstowardsthedialectmayhelpusunderstandtheformthatwascurrentinthesecondcentury,oratleastwhattheproficiencyoftheauthorswasatthattime.

35 Seenote25above.36 IborrowthetermfromHomericscholarship,wherethereisagroupofearly(Ptolemaic)

papyricontainingdivergent,oftenotherwiseunknownreadingsoftheIliadorOdyssey.Forthatreasontheyhavebecomeknownas“eccentric”or“wild”papyri.SeeS.West(1967)forasurveyofagroupofsuchfragments.

37 The nature of the actual sixth century BC Lesbian dialect, however, is not completelyknown(seeHooker(1977)andBowie(1981) fordiscussions).Moreover,hersongswerealsoinfluencedbyepic,whichmaywellexplainmanyofthenon-Lesbianformswefindinherlyric.LateinscriptionsshowthatthedialectasusedonLesbositselfhadchangedsignificantlybythefourthcenturyBCalready.

38 Thattherewasastandardlanguagedoesnotmeanthiswasalwaysattained,cf.Versteegh(1987).SeefortheatticizationofSapphothenoteinYatromanolakis(2007)346.

30 DeKreij

Hephaestion, Encheiridion XI, 3 P. Oxy, 220, col. IX, 12–13

πλήρηςμὲνἐφαίνετ᾽ἀσελάνα· μενεφαινεθασελαναἅιδ᾽ὡςπερὶβωμὸνἐστάθησαν·

Themoonshonefull, Themoonshone,andtheystoodasifaroundanaltar

ThisfragmentofasongattributedbyHephaestiontoSapphoisknownintwodifferent forms.Thedivergencerelevanttothisanalysis is theunaspiratedτ(tau)intheHephaestionmanuscript,asopposedtotheaspiratedformθ(thê-ta) in the papyrus. Lesbian was described as a psiloted, “hairless,” dialect,meaningitdidnotknowinitialaspiration.39InAtticandmostotherdialects,thearticle(ἁ,ha)isaspirated,whichherehasaneffectonthelastletteroftheprecedingwordinelision.Theaspirationextendstotheprecedingtau,produc-ingatheta,aswefinditinthepapyrusfragment.

Therestofthefragment,inbothsources,doesshowremaindersoftheLes-biandialect,butnotconsistently.40Thekeyfactaboutthispairofvariantsisthatitshowsalatemanuscriptpreservingtheolder,probablycorrectreading,whereasamuchearlierpapyrussourcecontainsaformadaptedtothethencurrentlanguage.TheHephaestiontextshowsusthatatleastinsomemanu-scriptsLesbianformshavesurvivedthecenturiesoftransmission.ThechancethatthisformwaschangedbacktoLesbianatalatertimeinthetransmissionismuchsmallerthanthatitwaspreserved–forwhateverreason–whileotherformswere“simplified” intotheAttic form.This lineofreasoningraisesthepossibilitythatHephaestion,writingonmetre,wasconsistentinquotingSap-phointheLesbianform.Ifthatwasthecase, itshowsthatsomeauthorsatleasthadnoproblemwiththepeculiardialect.

Atthesametime,wehaveapapyrusfromthesecondcenturythatcitesalinethatseemstohavebeenadaptedtotheAtticform.Sincewecanassumethatthecorrect formswerebothavailableandactuallystill inuse, thentheformonthepapyrusmayarguefortheatticizationthatissooftenposited,butitisoneofonlyaveryfewatticizedformsfoundonancientpapyri.Thepapy-ruscontainsananonymoustreatiseonmetre,justlikeHephaestion’sbooklet.IfoneweretolookforareasontoexplaintheunusualAtticformfoundinso

39 Cf.Hooker(1977)18,andBowie(1981)51–52.40 Thealphainsteadoftheêtainboththearticleandthenounselênêareun-Attic,butinall

probability(theevidenceisnotconclusive)theLesbianformwouldhavebeenselanna,withadoublenu.


earlyasource,onemightconsiderthatthelinehadbecomearoteversetoex-plainacertainkindofmetre.Thiswouldthenprobablyhavebeentransmittedorally,asanoften-usedexample,untilfinallyitwaswrittendownoutofcon-text,havinglost–asfarastheauthorofthepapyrusisconcerned–mostofitsconnectiontoitsauthorandherLesbiandialect.

Whereas Gumbrecht and Most were concerned with the nature of frag-mentsintheory,thepracticeisevenmoreproblematicbecauseourimagina-tionisnotonlyletlooseonthedarksurroundingthefragment,butalsoonthecontentsofthefragmentsitself.InthecaseofSappho’sfragmentssomeofitsmetaphysicalsurroundingsarenotquitesodark;thatistosay,wehaveanideaaboutthecontext.Thisregardsform(metreanddialect),genericcontext,andinsomecasesevenco-text.Thisdarknessembodiedthreatenstoovershadowthesmallpointoflightthatisthefragmentinmanycases.Justasafragmentmaygiveaskewedviewofitscontext,socontextmightintrudeuponthefrag-menttosuchanextentthatitsimmanentcharacteristicsarelost.

ForSappho,asformanyoftheothercomposersknownonlythroughfrag-ments,thereisatendencytothrustthegeneralupontheparticular.Thescarceknowledgeextrapolatedfromthecollectiveoffragmentsandtestimoniaovertime becomes the reference point for the assessment and reconstruction ofeveryindividualfragment.Idonotquestionthevalidityofthismethod,butIdohaveaproblemwithwherethismethodhasleftthefragmentsthemselves.Theiroriginalformhasbecomecompletelysubordinatetotheirplaceinthereconstructedcorpus.ThishappenstosuchanextentthateditionsofAthe-naeus’DeipnosophistaewillgiveaquotefromSapphoinitsemendedformsoasto“faithfully”representthereconstructedoriginal.41Thiscreatesaveryun-desirablesituation,asthereaderispresentedwithatextofAthenaeusthattheancient(andintended)readermostprobablyneverheardoforlaideyeson.

EvenifAthenaeusdidnotknowSappho’ssongsintheiroriginalform,hewouldhavehadrecoursetothestandardeditionsthatweknowwereavailableinhistime.Heshouldthereforehavebeenabletoreproducethesongsatleastinaconsistentway.AsforthetransmissionofAthenaeusandthequotationsofSappho contained within it, the transmission would probably have been abumpyrideforthelinesinthecuriousLesbiandialect;scribeswritingscriptio continuawouldhavemadeidentificationsofquotationsveryhard,andunder-standingforlatercopyistswouldnothavebeenaidedthereby.Themistakeswe

41 SeeOlson(2009)(volume5)224;Gulickinhis1933Loebedition,volume5page20,doesthesame,butatleasthenotesmostemendationsinhisapparatus.Meinecke’s1858edi-tion,volumeIIpage340,staysclosertotheAmanuscript,buthecompletelychangesthelastlineofSappho2V.inanattempttomatchthemetre.

32 DeKreij

expect,andfind,aremostlyofanorthographicnature,42andarepossiblysomewell-intendedcorrectionsbyscribes.Moresubstantialdifferencescanstillbetheresultofthecopyingprocess,butoftentheymaybeexplainedotherwise,especiallyifthetexttheyyieldhasnotbecomenonsense.

Whenwequotesomeone,especiallyinconversation,ourattitudetowardsrealityisoftenloose.Thisisinmanycasesnotdonewithaneyeontwistingwhatwasactuallysaid,butratherbecausethepointwewishtomakeisuncon-nectedtotheexactformitcomesin,whilewedowishtoclaimaconnectionwithanauthority.Or,conversely,whenquotingasongwemayrememberthemelodyverywell,buthaveamoreliberalattitudetowardsthelyrics.ItisthiskindofquotingthatwemightexpecttohaveledtomanyofthedivergencesinformthatwefindinlaterquotesofSappho’ssongs.

I would conclude that with regard to Sappho’s songs, even the first eightcenturiesoftransmissioninevitablylefttheirmark.Evenafterthestandardiza-tionofthetextatsomepointinthethirdcenturyBC,themodesoftransmis-sion would have remained diffuse. There is no reason to assume that eachfragmentofSappho’ssongswefindinotherauthorsorevenonpapyrishouldhavehad theformthatisfoundinthestandardedition.Ifweacceptthisnotwhollycounterintuitivepremise,wemayfindpeacewithsomeoftheappar-entlydefectivefragmentsofSapphothatwefind,acceptingthemastheresultofdifferentkindsoftransmission.Thesedifferentkindsoftransmissionwerefuelled by different kinds of motivation and created in divergent environ-ments.Somesongs,orpartsofthem,mayhaveroughlyretainedtheirintendedformsthroughcontinuousoraltransmission.Forotherstheformwouldhavebeenlostintime,eveniftheaccompanyinglyricswerepreservedinwriting.Oncethisdissociationhadtakenplace,itwasbutasmallsteptochangesinthewordingandinsomecasesacompletelossofthemetricalform.

ThediversityofthefragmentswefindinsourcesfromtheearlycenturiesofourerareflectsboththedifferentmeansthroughwhichSappho’ssongsweretransmittedandtheattitudeofindividualauthorstowardsthem.Ifwerecon-siderthedivergentformsofhersongs,wemaynotcomeclosertohearinghersixth-centuryBCcompositions,butwemayfindfirst-handaccountsofpeoplewhostillhadaccesstomostofhersongs,inwhateverform,andestablishwhattheyfoundinhersongsthatmadethemworthrecording.

42 AninterestingcaseisSapphofragment55V.,whichisquotedtwiceinPlutarch’sQuaestio-nes,indifferentforms,andinathirdforminStobaeus’Anthologia.


References

Bowie,A.M.,The poetic dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus (NewYork,NY,1981).Cerquiglini,B.,Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie (Paris,1989).Collins,D.,Master of the game (Washington,2004).D’Angour,A., “TheNewMusic:Sowhat’snew?,” in Rethinking Revolutions through

Ancient Greece,eds.S.GoldhillandR.Osborne(Cambridge,2006),pp.264–83.Ford,A.,“FromLetterstoLiterature.Readingthe‘SongCulture’ofClassicalGreece,”in

Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece,ed.H.Yunis(Cambridge,2003),pp.15–37.

Greene,E.andM.B.Skinner,eds.,The New Sappho on Old Age (Cambridge,MA,2009).Gumbrecht,H.U.,“Eatyourfragment!”inAporemata I: Collecting Fragments – Fragmente

Sammeln,ed.G.W.Most(Gottingen,1997),pp.315–27.––––––,The Powers of Philology. Dynamics of textual scholarship (Chicago,IL,2003).Hadjimichael,Th.A,Bacchylides and the Emergence of the Lyric Canon (unpublished

thesis,UniversityCollegeLondon,2011).Hooker,J.T.,The language and text of the Lesbian poets (Innsbruck,1977).Lardinois,A.P.M.H.,“SubjectandCircumstanceinSappho’sPoetry,”inTransactions of

the American Philological Association124(1994)57–84.––––––,“HaveweSolon’sverses?”inSolon of Athens: new historical and philological

approaches,eds.J.BlokandA.Lardinois(Leiden,2006),pp.15–35.––––––,“‘Someone,Isay,willrememberus’:OralMemoryinSappho’sPoetry,”inOrality,

Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World,ed.A.MacKay(Leiden:Brill2008)79-96.

––––––, “New Philology and the Classics: Accounting forVariation in theTextualTransmissionofGreekLyricPoetry,”inThe Reception of Greek Lyric Poetry 600BC–400AD: Transmission, Canonization, and Paratext,eds.B.CurrieandI.Rutherford.ProceedingsoftheNetworkfortheStudyofArchaicandClassicalGreekSong,Vol.3,forthcoming.

Maehler,HandM.Buchholz,The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 75 (London,2010).Most,G.W.,ed.,Collecting Fragments/Fragmente Sammeln (Gottingen,1997).Most,G.W.,“OnFragments,”inThe Fragment: An Incomplete History,ed.W.Tronzo (Los

Angeles,CA,2009),pp.8–20.Nichols,S.G.,“Introduction:PhilologyinaManuscriptCulture,”inSpeculum 65(1990),

pp.1–10.Nicosia,S.,Tradizione testuale diretta e indiretta dei poeti di Lesbo (Rome,1976).Olson,S.D.,Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Edited and Translated by S. Douglas

Olson (2006–2012).Parker,H.N., “SapphoSchoolmistress,” inTransactions of the American Philological

Association 123(1993),pp.309–51.

34 DeKreij

Reitzenstein,R.,Epigramm und Skolion (Giessen,1893).Robb,K.,Literacy and paideia in ancient Greece (Oxford,1994).Rubin,D.C.,Memory in oral traditions (NewYork,NY,1995).Sartre,J.-P.,L’imaginaire: psychologie phénoménologique de l’imagination (Paris,1940).Schnell,R.,“Wasistneuander‘NewPhilology’?”inAlte und neue Philologie,eds.M.-D.

GleßgenandF.Lebsanft(Tübingen,1997),pp.61–95.Stackmann,K.,“NeuePhilologie?”inModernes Mittelalter: Neue Bilder einer populären

Epoche,ed.J.Heinzle(FrankfurtamMain,1994),pp.398–427.Versteegh,K.,“Latinitas,Hellenismos,Arabiyya,” inThe History of Linguistics in the

Classical Period (Amsterdam,1987),pp.251–74.Vetta,M.,Poesia e simposio nella Grecia antica (Bari,1995).Voigt,E.-M.,Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta (Amsterdam,1971).West,S.,The Ptolemaic papyri of Homer (Cologne,1967).Yatromanolakis,D.,Sappho in the Making. The early reception (Washington,DC,2007).Zumthor,P.,Essai de poétiqui mediévale (Paris,1972).––––––,Introduction á la poésie orale (Paris,1983).

35InPraiseOfTheVariantAnalysisTool

Chapter2

In Praise of the Variant Analysis Tool: A Computational Approach to Medieval Literature

Karina van Dalen-Oskam

Introduction

WhenIfirstreadBernardCerquiglini’sÉloge de la variante(1989),oneofthefirstandmostinfluentialpublicationsrelatedtotheNewPhilological“move-ment,”IwasworkingasalexicographerontheDictionary of Early Middle Dutch (1200–1300).Theyearwas1993.Ourdictionaryprojectwasoneofthefirsttobefullycomputer-assisted.Wehadcreatedadigitalcorpusofliteraryandnon-literarytextsenrichedwithlemmasandpart-of-speechtags.Bymeansofanintricatesystemthatenabledustoquerythecorpusandtosort,classifyandmarktheexacttextstouseasquotationsinourdictionaryentry,wecouldin-putourlexicographicaldescriptionsintoadigitalformfromwhichtheactualdictionarycouldbegeneratedinunlimitedkindsofvisualizations.Ourprojecthadbeenrunningforfouryears,andforseveralyearswehadputouryear’sworkofentriesbeforeacommitteeofwisescholarsforcomment.Ourlexico-graphicalandlinguisticspeersinTheNetherlandsandFlandersgaveusmuchsupportandusefulcriticism.Wehadadifficulttime,however, inexplainingtwo of our most fundamental methodological choices to our literary col-leagues: our corpus consisted only of those Middle Dutch manuscripts ofwhichitwascertainthattheywerewrittenintheThirteenthCentury,andweonlyusedthetextsofthesemanuscriptsinadiplomaticedition.Literaryschol-ars did not understand why the most famous of our Middle Dutch literarytexts,ofwhichitwascertainthattheywereoriginallywrittenintheThirteenthCentury,wereexcludedfromourcorpusonlybecausetheirmanuscriptswerefromtheFourteenthCentury–muchofthelexiconmuststillhavebeenThir-teenthCentury.Weexplainedthat ifyouwantto findouthowmuchof thelexiconisindeedfromtheThirteenthCentury,youhavetobeabletocompareittoareferencecorpusthatwasasrigidlyselectedasourswas.IfsuchaFour-teenthCenturycopywasincludedintheThirteenthCenturycorpus,thecor-puswouldbepollutedandwouldexcludethepossibilityofacomparison.Andastoourfanaticaladherencetodiplomatictexts:weexplainedthatifyouwanttoknowwhichspellingsandvariantsThirteenthCenturyscribesusedinwhich

© KarinavanDalen-Oskam,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_004This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



36 VanDalen-oskam

geographicalareaorinwhichdecade(forexample),youagainneedededitionsreproducingtheexactspellingsandvariantsasrepresentedinthemanuscripts.Therefore,diplomaticeditionsarethemostsuitable,astheymarkresolvedab-breviationswithitalicsanddonotadaptspelling,punctuationandcaseuse.Wealsopreferrededitionsinwhichemendationswerenotappliedtothemaintext,butweresuggestedbytheeditorsin(e.g.)footnotes,inordertomaintainapurelyThirteenthCenturytextwhichwouldgivethescribesduecreditforhavingpresentedalinguisticallycorrecttext.Wefounditdifficulttoexplaintoourliterarypeersthatthesechoiceswerenecessarytoguaranteeagood,verifi-abledictionary,whichinitsturncouldbeusedbyscholarseditingatextinthecorrectmanner,editionswhichintheirturnwouldbetrustworthysourcesforevenbetterdictionariesinthefuture.1

AsamatteroffactCerquiglini, inhisÉloge de la variante(onlytranslatedinto English in 1999, under the title In praise of the variant), eloquently de-scribedthephilologicalsideofwhatweweredoinginourlexicographicalproj-ect. He proposed to abandon the old approach to medieval text and texteditions,andinsteadtoapplyaNewPhilologicalperspectivetomedievaltexts.Insteadoflookingatvariationastheresultofalterationswhichpollutedanddegraded“theoriginal,”eachcopyofatext(withallitspartlyunique,partlysharedvariants)shouldbeseenasanewanduniquetext,functioninginitsown,uniqueway,initsown,uniquecontext.Eachcopyshouldberesearchedbaseduponthisapproach.

Iwaselated.Oneofmylexicographicalcolleagues,KatrienDepuydt,andIwroteapaperdescribingourmethodologicalapproach,withreferencetoCer-quiglini’sbook.ItwaspresentedatthefirstInternationalMedievalCongressattheUniversityofLeedsin1994,publishedinavolumeofproceedingsandig-noredbyourliterarypeers.2

The Role of the Computer: Cerquiglini’s Predictions

In his 1989 book, Cerquiglini admitted that the methodological changes heproposedwouldnotbeeasytoapplyinpractice.Heexpectedthatthecom-puterwouldplayaveryimportantroleinleadingusbacktomedievaltextualvariance.Itisnow2012,andwhatIproposetodointhispaperislookbackat

1 Apointwellunderstood,however,byMasters(1991)284.Masters’article–apublicationIfoundthankstoanexplicitreferenceinBusby(1993)–takesacomparablestandtoCerquigliniinhisÉloge de la variante.

2 VanDalen-OskamandDepuydt(1997).


Cerquiglini’s specific predictions and to show where his words concur withcurrentpractice,andwherehisvisionandourcurrentexpectationsdiffer.Inthelattercase,Iwillshowhowcurrent,aswellasanticipated,technicaldevel-opmentsmayinfluenceeditorialpracticesinthenearfuture.Inthis,Iwillpayspecial attention to the discipline of Stemmatology: the building of familytreesofmanuscripts.ThisdisciplinehasanintriguingstatuswhenweconsideritfromCerquiglini’spointofview.Inthe“old”days,astemmawasoneofthefirst thingsaneditorwouldestablish.Buildinga stemma helped to findoutwhichoftheexistingmanuscriptsofatextseemedtobetheclosestrepresen-tativeoftheoriginaltextbytheoriginalauthor.Thiswouldusuallybecomethemanuscripttobeedited,whilethevariantsinothermanuscriptscouldbeei-therignoredbytheeditorasunimportant,ormentionedintheapparatus,orchosenasabetterreadingthantheoneinthemanuscriptbeingeditedandpromoted/elevated into the edition of the text. From the New Philologicalpointofview,however,thebuildingofthestemmaisnotnecessaryatthebe-ginningoftheeditionproject–wemerelywanttohaveatranscriptionofallmanuscripts.SowhyhasStemmatologygonethroughsuchabigtechnicalde-velopmentontheonehand,whileontheotherhandmosttexteditorshaveignoredthisnewpotential?Iwillendmypaperwithashortreflectiononthisissue.

ToshowexactlyhowCerquiglinithoughtabouttheroleofthecomputerin1989,Iwillquoteratherextensivelyfromthelastpagesofhisbook.Here,hestatesthatthecomputer:

allowsthereadertoseeandconsultnotonlythetotalityofthemanu-scripts of a particular medieval work but also the editions (empirical,Lachmannian, Bédierist, etc.) which took these manuscripts as theirobjects.Moreover,itcanprovideagreatmanyminorbitsofinformation,whichshouldremainvirtualsotheywillnotgetinthewayofreadingbutwhichoneneedstobeabletolocate:makersofconcordances,frequencylists,tablesofrhymes,everysortofcalculation,codicologicalandpaleo-graphicdata,andsoon–everythingthataprintededitionusuallyaban-dons or from which it makes a painful choice, everything that thehyper-scholarlyeditionhypostatizestothepointofunreadability.3

Cerquiglinifurtherstatesthat:

3 Cerquiglini(1999)79–80.

38 VanDalen-oskam

thecomputerisabletohelpusdetectthedynamicsofthetextbymakingvisibletheconnectionspreparedandsuggestedbytheeditor.Itislessaquestion, therefore,ofprovidingdata thanofmaking thereadergraspthis interaction of redundancy and recurrence, repetition and change,whichmedievalwritingconsistsof–andtodosoaccordingtothetwoaxesthatwehavebroughttolight.Vertically,alongthethreadthatleadsthroughthework,itcanbringbackallthethingsthateachnoteworthyutteranceconstantlyechoesbutwhichmodernmemorynolongerhears;thescreenunrollstheinfinityofmemorablecontext.Horizontally,itcancomparetheutteranceswithinapersistentandchosenrangeofvariantsthat are paraphrases of one another from one manuscript to the next,evenindicatingbysomesymbolornotewhatthecharacteristicsofthisrelationshipare.4

Cerquigliniknewverywellwhatallthiswouldmean:

Thattrulywouldbepublishingonagrandscale,editingonascaleneverbeforerealized,yetindispensable,andonlytheinformationtechnologyoftodaycanprovideuswiththemeans,probablyeventheidea,ofdoingso. Because the computer, through its dialogic and multidimensionalscreen,simulatestheendlessandjoyfulmobilityofmedievalwritingasitrestores to its reader the astounding faculty of memory – the memorythatdefinesitsaestheticreceptionandisbasictothepleasuretakenbyareader.5

The Role of the Computer: Realized Potential

Onlynow,morethan20yearsafterÉloge de la variante,isthetypeofdigitaltexteditionsCerquiglinihadinmindslowlystartingtoemerge.PeterRobinsonhasinitiatedseveralimportantdigitaleditions,suchasintheCanterburyTalesprojectIwillgointomoredeeplyinthelastsectionofthiscontributionandthe very impressive Codex Sinaiticus website.6 So too Huygens ING and theVanGoghMuseumhavepublishedthewidelyacclaimedwebsiteVincent van Gogh: The Letters,7andBarbaraBordalejohaspublishedtheOnlineVariorum

4 Cerquiglini(1999)80.5 Cerquiglini(1999)80–81.6 Cf.http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/7 Cf.http://www.vangoghletters.org/vg/


ofDarwin’sOrigin of Species.8Theseareonlyafewofanewgenerationof(dig-ital)editions.Muchworkhasbeendoneonamoretheoreticallevelaswell,byscholarssuchasPeterShillingsburgandPeterRobinsonwhobothcontributedtoaninterestingvolumeofarticlesentitledText and genre in reconstructiononthesubjectof,respectively:“Digitaleditionsforeveryone”(Robinson),sketch-inganewwayofinvolvingmanymorepeopleineditingthanscholarsalone,and: “How literary works exist: implied, represented, and interpreted” (Shil-lingsburg),which,amongstotherthings,dealswithseveralkeytheoreticalandtechnicalaspectsofdigitalediting.9ElenaPierazzogivesasoliddescriptionofthestateoftheartofdigitaleditinginherarticle“Arationaleofdigitaldocu-mentaryeditions.”10Foranoverviewofthehistoryofdigitaleditionsbefore2010,EdwardVanhoutte’sarticle“Definingelectroniceditions:ahistoricalandfunctionalperspective”isextremelyuseful.11JorisvanZundertandPeterBootlookaheadatthepossibletaskdistributionbetweenscholarlyeditorsanddig-itallibrariesintheirpaper“TheDigitalEdition2.0andtheDigitalLibrary:Ser-vices,notResources.”Andtheseareonlyafewoftheimportantpublicationsofthelastcoupleofyears.Thisisnottheplacetogiveanelaborateoverviewofthecurrentstateoftheart.Myaimhereis,beforeIgointothereasonsforthementionedtimelapsebetweenCerquiglini’sideasandtheemergenceofthedigitaleditionmoredeeply,topresentsomedigitaleditionswithwhichIamfamiliar in more detail, to sketch the ways in which current digital editionsfulfilsomeofCerquiglini’spredictions,anddivergefromothers.ThefirsttwoexamplesareonlinedigitaleditionspublishedbyHuygensING.IndealingwiththesetwoeditionsIwouldadvisethereadertoopenabrowseronacomputer,gotothesitesdescribed,andtofollowmyinstructions.Thiswillbringaboutamuchclearergraspofnewpotentialitiesthanpagesandpagesofwordscouldachieve.ThethirdexampleisfromadigitaleditiononCD-ROMmadebyAn-dreadeLeeuwvanWeenen.

Example1:Cerquigliniimaginedtheparallelpresentationofdifferentwit-nessesonscreen.AnexampleofthisistheonlinetexteditionofanessaybyLodewijkvanDeyssel,Menschen en bergen.12Gotothenavigationbarontheleftandchoose“Bekijk de editie”[viewtheedition].Underthebutton“Versies en varianten”theusercanchoosefromaneditionofalldifferentversionsoftheessay.Under“Versies vergelijken”[compareversions],theusercanselecta

8 Cf.http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/index.html9 Robinson(2010),Shillingsburg(2010).10 Pierazzo(2011).11 Vanhoutte(2010).12 Cf.http://menschenenbergen.huygens.knaw.nl/path

40 VanDalen-oskam

partofthetext,anddecidewhichoftheversionsofthatpartheorshewishestocompare.

Here(Figure2.1),wecomparethetextinthemanuscript(lefttextcolumn)withthefirstprintededition(righttextcolumn).Additionsaremarkedwithagreenmarkandareunderlined;replacementswithapurplemark.

Example2:Howmanytypesofannotationscanbeshownwithouthavingtheminterferewiththereadingofthetext?Cerquiglinisawherethepossibil-ityofaninfiniteamountofinformation.Forthis,wegototheonlineeditionofaMiddleDutchArthurianromance,Walewein ende Keye[GawainandKay].13Weopen“II. De editie”inthenavigationcolumnontheleft,thenchoose“Over-zicht per kolom, met afbeeldingen”andgoto178rand178ra.Whenweclickonthis,severalcolumnsareopened:ascanofthemanuscriptcolumn,thetran-scription, and the annotations.There are three types of annotations in thisedition,eachmarkedwithadifferentcolourinthetranscription.ButtheusercanchoosewhichonestoseeandwhichonestoignorebyusingtheOptionsbutton at the top of the screen to the right (Figure 2.2). Unchecking all theboxeswillresultinaverysimpleandclearvisualizationofthetext.Itisalsopossibletoshowornottoshowthe italics inthetext thatdenoteabbrevia-tions,thelinenumbersorareferencetothelinenumbersinanearlieredition

13 http://www.waleweinendekeye.huygens.knaw.nl/path

Figure2.1 Text version comparison in the Menschenenbergen online edition


ofthistext.Notethattheusercanalsoclickawayanyofthecolumnsheorshedoesnotneed,e.g. togive thescanof themanuscriptandthetranscriptionmorespaceonthescreen.

Example 3: Cerquiglini also mentioned the desirability of having concor-dances,indexesandlinguisticinformationathandinthedigitaledition.Thetwo online editions presented above have simple search options that yieldconcordancesofthehits.Atthemoment,thisisabouttheextentofwhatwecando,butwewanttodomoretorealizeCerquiglini’sidea.Iwillgiveanex-amplefromarecenteditionoftheOld-IcelandicAlexanders sagaonCD-ROMbyAndreadeLeeuwvanWeenen,toshowoneofthethingsthatIwouldliketoachieveinthefuture.14Inthisedition,whentheusermovesthemouseoveraword,asmallboxshowsthemostlinguisticallyrelevantinformation:theformof the word in the facsimile edition, the normalized word form, the lemma(dictionaryentry), the linguistic formandfunction(e.g.present tense, thirdperson singular for a verb form), and the page and line of the manuscriptwherethewordoccurs.Thisisexactlytheinformation,bytheway,withwhichwehadenrichedthecorpusofThirteenthCenturyDutchonwhichtheDic-tionary of Early Middle Dutchwas based.

14 DeLeeuwvanWeenen(2009).

Figure2.2 The Options screen for annotation categories in the WaleweinendeKeye online edition

42 VanDalen-oskam

Why Did It Take So Long to Publish this Kind of Edition?

ThegrandscaleofCerquiglini’sideaswasrecognizedbyothermedievaliststorequireanenormousamountofwork.KeithBusbyexpressedthismostclearlyinareactiontoCerquiglini’sbook:

ConsiderwhatwouldbeinvolvedinCerquiglini’sidealedition:notjusttranscriptionofthetexts,butthecodingofabbreviations,differenttypesof letters (forexample, longandrounds),majusculesandminuscules,varietiesofcapitalsandotherformsofdecoration,word-division, line-division,enclisis,proclisis,scribalpunctuation,etc.Andbecauseofcon-siderableorthographicalvariationbothbetweenandwithinmanuscripts,transcriptions would have to be uniformized in order to permit manykindsoflinguisticanalysis.Foranythingotherthanashorttextextantina small number of copies, the difficulties involved and the amount oftimethatwouldberequiredareenormous.15

15 Busby(1993)42.

Figure2.3 The hover-over box with linguistic information in the Alexanderssaga edition on CD-ROM, De Leeuw van Weenen (2009)


Busbywasquiteright:eachparticulartypeofinformationandeverycategorythat can be made visible or clicked away in the examples I have presentedabove is encoded with special tags and this took the editors a great deal oftime.In1994,theTEI(TextEncodingInitiative)encodingschemefortextualscholarshipstartedtobeusedinvariousprojects.EditorsneededtolearnthismarkuplanguagetomakethekindofdigitaleditionsCerquiglinihadinmind.EncodingatextinTEItakesanenormousamountofwork,andinpracticeisnotdoneveryoften,orwithonlyaverylimitedTagSet.TheexampleIhavegivenoftheessayMenschen en bergenisbasedonmaterialthatwasencodedinthisway.MostscholarsdeemedthelearningcurveforTEItobetoosteep,ortheydidnotseeany immediatebenefits,anddecidednottospendtimeonlearningandusingit.Theycontinuedtomaketheireditionsinthetraditionalway,using thecomputermerelyasawordprocessor,andusingcommercialsoftwaresuchasWordorWordPerfect.Thisresultedintraditionalprintededi-tions.TheWordorWordPerfectfilesusedfortheseeditionsareextremelyhardtoconvertintofilesthatcanbeusedforadigitaledition,becauseoneneedsnotonlytochangetheformatofthefilesintoanaccuratelytaggedformat,butalsotothinkoftheeditioninadifferentwayandusedifferenttypesoftagstothoserequiredforaprintededition.Evenindigitalform,theseeditionswillstilllookandfeellikeprintedones.AsCerquiglinisoclearlyperceived:printtexteditionsareheldbackbythetechniqueofbookprinting,andtraditionalchoices in texteditingare inspiredby the technicalpossibilitiesand limita-tionsofprintingandreadingprintedtext.Thecomputerhasadifferentsetofpossibilitiesandlimitations,andformostoftheselimitationsthecomputeralsohasasolution(e.g.theclickingawayofinformationthatisnotusefultotheuseratthismoment,butisavailableifneededlater).

Inrecentyears,severaltoolshavebeendevelopedwhichhaveenabledthecreationofadigitaleditioninanonlineenvironment.Agoodexampleisthetoolforthecrowd-sourcingprojectofthecollectedworksofJeremyBentham(Causer et al. 2012). This tool requires the user to apply a simple encodingscheme.HuygensINGhastakenanotherapproachintheonlineworkenviron-mentithasdevelopedfortranscribingandeditingtextsonline,aloneorwitha“crowd”ofvolunteers.eLaborategivestextualscholarsthepossibilitytocreatetheireditionsonlinewithouttheneedof learninganencodingschemaoramarkuplanguage.Scholarscanuploadscans,transcribethetext,andannotatetheirtranscriptionswithexactlytheannotationcategoriestheydeemrelevantforthetexttheyedit.TheycanworkonaneditiontogetherwithcolleaguesallovertheWorld:oneonlyneedsacomputerwithaccesstotheInternetandagood browser (i.e. Mozilla Firefox). The text edition, as input in the onlineworkenvironment,isveryeasilyconvertedbyourprogrammerstoanonline

44 VanDalen-oskam

digitaledition,whichcanbeupdatedanytimetheeditorchoosestodoso.TheWalewein ende KeyeeditionIdemonstratedearlierisanexampleofthiswayofworking.Thisapproachhasprovedtobemuchmoreuser-friendlythanTEI,anditmakestheentireorganisationofalargeandcomplexeditionprojectalotmoremanageable,asbecameapparentwhenanumberofusersandmod-eratorswereinterviewed.16TheeLaborateenvironmentalsoofferstheoppor-tunity to add the transcription of (for example) other manuscripts or othereditionsatalatertime,andtosubsequentlyenrichtheexistingeditionwithanewsetofannotations,e.g.foraveryspecificresearchquestion.

This way of working inspires textual scholars to rethink the traditionalprint-boundchoicesforatexteditionbyworkinginadigitalenvironmentandexperiencingwhat “works”andwhatdoesnot “work” in termsofcreatingasuccessful, usable, edition. Editors working in Word or WordPerfect have amuchhardertimeexploringtechnicalpossibilitiesanddemands(andarefur-thermore “imprisoned” in proprietary software which limits their freedomconsiderably).Theyaredependentonexistingtechnology(bookprinting;per-hapspdf).Evenusingnewtechnologythatisinitsinfancygeneratesnewideasand new technological demands – these demands are, of course, always faraheadofwhatcanbedoneatthepresenttime.Thiscanbefrustrating,butitisthewayforward:newpotentialwillnotbedevelopedifthereisnocallforitorifnobodydarestolooktothefuture.Sousingtechnologyitselfgeneratesideasaboutwhichtechnologieswemightwanttodevelop.Thisistheprincipalrea-sonwhyittooksolongtopublishthekindofeditionCerquiglinihadinmind.Onlynowhaveeasilyusabletoolsbecomeavailabletotextualscholars,inspir-ingthemtorethinkthetraditionalprinteditionwithouttheneedtolearnatotallynewtool(everyonecanuseabrowsernowadays!).Ontheotherhand,technicaldevelopmentshappenveryfast.Ideasabouthowtopreparedigitaleditionsare,equallyinastateofconstantflux.Weareslowlyworkingtowardsthedevelopmentofinternationaltechnicalstandardsthatwillhopefullyleadtoasurgeinthepublicationofdigitaleditionsinthenextdecade.Oneofthechallengestobeovercomeistheneedtomaketoolsavailablefordifferentplat-forms,forwhichthe“microservices”asdevelopedfortheIntereditionprojectseempromising.17Alsothearchitectureofthedataandthewayofstoringan-notations are non-trivial technical puzzles that still need an adequate solu-tion.18

16 Beaulieu,VanDalen-OskamandVanZundert(2013).17 VanZundert(2012).18 VanDalen-OskamandVanZundert(2012).


The Next Step: A Computational Way of Looking at Variance

WhattheuserofthedigitaleditionsIreferredtocannotdoasyetistocomparetheeditedversionsofatextwhentheyarenotenrichedwith(underlying,usu-allynotvisible)specialtagging.SoBusby’sfearofhavingtomanuallyaddmyr-iadsoflinksetc.isstillveryvalid.Butthereislightattheendofthistunnel;because tools have been and are being developed that can help the scholarwhoperformsthiskindofresearchandtagging.19Theywillalsohavetobein-cludedforuseinthedigitaleditionsthemselves,whichwillnotbeeasy,butcertainlycanbedone.TogiveabetterideaofthekindoftextanalysisthatIanticipatetobeachievablewithineditionsinthefuture(notpossibleasyet)Iwillpresentacoupleofexamplesfrommyownresearchintothefifteenmanu-scriptsofJacobvanMaerlantsScolasticaorRijmbijbel(“RhymingBible,”aMid-dle Dutch translation/adaptation of Peter Comestor’s Historia Scholastica)written in1271.Amoreelaboratedescriptionof thisresearchhasbeenpub-lishedin LLC: The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities(VanDalen-Oskam,2012).

Thefifteenmanuscripts,datingfromca.1285untiltheendoftheFifteenthCentury,haveallfunctionedintheirownuniquecontext:theydifferastotheirgeographicallocation,patrons,theculturalenvironmentofthepatronaswellasofthescribe,andinthetimeperiodinwhichtheywerecopied.20WhatIwanttoknowistheextenttowhichthecopiesdiffer,andIespeciallywanttoknowhowwidelytheydifferonacontentlevelandwhetherwecanfindoutwhythecontentisdifferent.Forthemoment,Iamnotveryinterestedinafam-ilytree,astemma,becauseIdonotexpectthistotellmewhatIwanttoknow.

Thefirst thingIwanttodo is to findoutwhichof thecopiesseemtobebroadlysimilarandwhichofthemstandapart,butIdonothavethetimetopersonally evaluate all of the words and lines. The hypothesis, therefore, isthat:ifitispossibletohaveacomputercalculatethevocabularyof,say,oneepisodeinallofthefifteencopies,itshouldbeveryeasytoobserveanydevia-tions.Imagineforexamplefifteensmallbags,oneforthesameepisodeineachmanuscript,withallthetokens(individualoccurrencesofwords)ofthisepi-sodeinit.Abagrepresentingacopythathasalongerorshortertextwillbebiggerorsmaller,sovisiblydifferent.Andsincewearelookingatcopies,anyvisibledifference invocabularyorword frequencies is interesting. Iwant tomakegraphsshowingthedegreeofsimilaritybetweenthecopies(so-called

19 Cf.formoreinformationaboutusabilityoftoolsVanZundert(2012).20 TheoldestmanuscriptwasediteddiplomaticallybyM.Gysseling(1983).Alistofthemore

orlesscompletemanuscriptsisgiveninPostma(1991).

46 VanDalen-oskam

clusteranalysis)and,onestepdeeperintothestatistics,showthecopiesthatdifferfromtheothersonstatisticalcomponents(principalcomponentsanaly-sis).Theresultsofthesegraphswillthenpointmetowardsthosemanuscriptsthatpromisetobemostinterestingforfurtheranalysis.21

MyexamplehereistheapocryphalstoryaboutJudith,whokilledthegen-eralofanalienarmy,Holofernes,whenitbeleagueredthecityinwhichshelived.SinceMiddleDutchdidnotyethaveafixedspelling,thecopiescontainmanydifferentspellings,evenwithinthesamecopy,whichcanhardlyeverbelinkedtolexicaldifferencesbetweendialects.IfIweretodomymeasurementsonthediplomaticeditionofthetext,theresultinggraphswouldbeexpectedtoshowmetheamountofsimilaritiesanddifferencesonthelevelofspelling(Iwillnotpresentthegraphshere,butrestassuredthattheylookverydifferentfromtheonesshownbelow).Inthetraditionofcorpuslinguisticsandcompu-tationallexicography,ItaggedallfifteenepisodesconcerningJudithwithlem-mas,representingthewordformthatwouldbethedictionaryentryifyouweretolookitupinadictionary,andacodedescribingthepartofspeech.Thisisstandardcorpusprocedure,butnotoftenpractisedwithrespect to textedi-tions. Using a statistical package called Minitab to calculate the similaritiesbetweenthe250highestfrequencylemmasandtheirfrequenciesinthefifteenepisodesresultsinthegraphinFigure2.4.

Thisclusterobservationshowsthatfourteenofthefifteenmanuscriptsarecalculated to be relatively similar, with only one, “I,” deviating significantly.WhenwereadtheJudithepisodeinthismanuscript,itimmediatelybecomesclearthatthemanuscriptpresentsamuchlongertextaboutJudith,withmuchrephrasing,andevenmanyof therhymewordsdonotagreewiththeotherfourteenmanuscripts.Thisepisodeclearlyhastobeseenasanewtext,withanewauthor(thescribe(orthescribeofhis/herexemplar(ortheetc.))).

Anothermultivariatemeasurementisprincipalcomponentsanalysis.Thisshowsthemanuscriptinascatterplot,inwhichthehorizontalaxisshowsthecomponentonwhichmostofthedifferencebetweentheplacedmanuscriptsisplotted,andtheverticalaxis,showingthesecondmostimportantcompo-nent (more components can be calculated and shown, but I will keep it totwo).TheJudithepisodesnowshowupasinFigure2.5.

InthegraphinFigure2.5weseemanuscript Idifferingextremelyonthefirstcomponent,butthereisalsoanothermanuscriptoutsideofthegrouponthesecondcomponent,butinadifferentway:E.ReadingtheJudithepisodein

21 The first results of this analysis were published in Kestemont and Van Dalen-Oskam(2009).TheresearchintoscribeswastriggeredbytheresultsofearlierresearchpublishedinVanDalen-OskamandVanZundert(2007).


Figure2.4 Cluster analysis made with Minitab 15 of the Judith episode in all fifteen manuscripts of the Rijmbijbel, for the 250 highest frequency lemmas.

Figure2.5 Principal components analysis made with Minitab 15 of the Judith-episode in all fifteen manuscripts of the Rijmbijbel, for the 250 highest frequency lemmas.

48 VanDalen-oskam

E,wefindthatthisscribe(orthescribeofhis/herexemplar(ortheetc.))regu-larlyrewritesphrasesinthetextwhichcouldbeseenasdifficult.Thescribe,however,“corrects”thetextinsuchawaythatitlosestheoriginalmeaning–whichwouldbethemeaningaswecanfinditintheMedievalLatinsourcetextbyPeterComestorandtheMedievalLatinBible.Thesemicro-changesareex-pectedtobepartlyresponsibleforE’splaceoutsidethegroup,butsincethemultivariate, top-downapproachshowsusanoverviewpicture, furtherbot-tom-up research is needed to find out more about the details. This graph,therefore,leadsustoalsotakeacloserlookatE,whichwemightnothavedonewhenapproachingthetextsthroughclosereadingonly.Applyingthesetoolsyieldsmoreinformationaboutthepossiblenextstepstobetakenforfurtherresearchthanclosereadingwoulddo,whichisoneofthereasonswhyusingthemissofruitful(moreaboutthis“secretlifeofscribes”inVanDalen-Oskam,2012). Furthermore, manuscript I differs so much from the fourteen others,thatthestatisticsmaybeseverelydistorted.IfweremovemanuscriptIfromtheselectionandconductthesamemeasurementsonthefourteenothers,wecan gain a better grasp of the relative differences between the other manu-scriptsforthisepisode.Therearestillothermanuscriptswhichdrawouratten-tionotherthanE:namelymanuscriptsHandC(Figure2.6).

IhavelookedatfivedifferentepisodesfromtheRijmbijbelandallofthemshowdifferentclustersanddifferentpatterns.Thisindicatesthatthestudyofscribalvariationhastobedealtwithonanepisodiclevel,takingthecontentofthestoryintoaccountaswellasthecontextofthescribe,patron,locationanddateofcopying.MynextresearchintotheRijmbijbelmanuscriptswillfocusonmanuscriptIandwillseektoaddressthefollowingquestions:fromwhereitoriginates,whetherornotwecanfindoutwhocopieditandforwhom,andwhyJudithwasaspecialfigureforthescribeorthepatron.

Onceitispossibletoofferstatisticaltoolssuchastheoneusedtoproducethesegraphstousersofadigitaltexteditionofparalleltexts,thiswillinfluenceeditorialchoicesinthemakingoftheeditioninanumberofways.Insteadofinvestingtimeinlistingvariantsor linkingtovariants,timewouldbebetterspentone.g.providingalemmaandpart-of-speechtagforallwords.ToolstolemmatizehistoricalDutchwillhopefullybeavailableshortly.Soweshould,Ithink, provide a combination of complete transcriptions of all copies andsmartcomputertoolsthatcanbeappliedrepeatedly.Thescholarlyadvantageisthatthebasetextscanbekeptas“clean”aspossiblefrominterpretationsbytheeditors,andcanbereusedforeachnewtoolthatbecomesavailable.The“old” way of selecting variants and promoting them into the edition in factclosestheeditiondownforcertaintypesofresearch.Forexample:acriticaledition (the Dutch term for a transcription with adapted spelling, added


punctuation,capitalization,andtheoccasionalemendation)isunsuitableforspellingresearch.Butifwealwaysprovidethebase(diplomatic)editionnexttoit,theeditionasawholeisreusableforeachnewresearchquestion.Sointhisnewdigitalcontext,theeditioncanhaveamuchmoredurableandmuchwidervalue forall typesofusers,makingagood investmentof the(public)moneyspentonit.Printededitionsareinfactnotreusable:ifacriticaleditionshouldneedtobeadaptedfore.g.spellingresearchandchangedintoadiplo-maticone,itwouldhavetobecompletelyredone.Digitaldiplomaticeditionscaneasilybechangedinto,orsupplementedwith,acriticaledition.Oritwouldbeveryeasytogenerateaversionaimedatawideraudiencewhichthencouldbepresentedonaseparatewebsiteifrequired.Butthebasicdigitaldiplomaticeditioncanalsobereusedbyaddingotherinformationlayerstotheeditionforarelativelysmallamountoffunding,sinceonecanbuildonwhatisalreadyavailableinsteadofhavingtostartalloveragain.Sincetheamountofworktobedoneisstillextremelylarge,anywaytoreuseavailableinformationwithoutthe investment of extra time is worthwhile from a practical (and financial)pointofview.Inthisway,theknowledgeconcerningatextcanreallygrow,in-steadofhavingtoberebuiltfromscratchineachnewedition(ornevergettingoffthegroundinthefirstplace).

Figure2.6 Principal components analysis made with Minitab 15 of the Judith-episode in all fifteen manuscripts excluding manuscript I of the Rijmbijbel, for the 250 highest frequency lemmas.

50 VanDalen-oskam

Anothermajorscientificadvantageof thisapproach isalsoapparent: thecombinationofadigitalworkingenvironmentincludingtranscriptionandan-notationtoolsaswellastextanalysistoolswillenabletheusertorepeatandverifymeasurementsandvisualizations.Aneditionofone textanda listofvariantsinotherversionswouldnothavethisoption.Andifmoresmarttoolsaredeveloped,weneednotchangeourtextedition:thesoundandtrustworthybasiswillalsobetherefornewapproaches,whichinturnwillbeeasilyverifi-able by other scholars. My expectation is that this approach will open up awholerangeofnewresearchquestionsandthatresearchintomedievaltexttransmissionwillgetanenormousboost,bringingresultsintoourreachthatwecouldneverhaveachievedbefore.Also,anewtaskdivisionwillarise:tex-tualscholarsofallkindswillfocusonthetextsthemselves;theirtranscriptionandannotation;theirinterpretationandwhichotherquestionstoask:andICTdeveloperswillcreatenewtoolstofurtherthis interpretationonascientificbasis.TogethertheywillcreateanewformofComputationalHumanities–inwhichresearchersfromthe“hard”sciencesareeagertoparticipate.

Stemmatology: Back to the Future?

Atthispoint,IwanttoreturntoStemmatology,bywayofBusby’s1993reactiontoCerquiglini’sÉloge de la variante.EarlierIquotedBusby’sworriesabouttheimpracticalitiesofCerquiglini’sideas.Inafootnote,headds:

Ihavebecomelessscepticalsincehavingwrittenthisarticleofthepos-sibilitiesoftheHypertextedition,especially inviewoftheremarkabletool that isPeterRobinson’s Collate.Twoproblemsnowpresent them-selves,onepurelymaterial (theequipmentrequired isexpensive),andtheotherofattitude(howdoweconvinceourcolleaguestousethecom-puterforsomethingotherthanbasicword-processing?).22

ThecomputerprogramCollatewhichBusbymentions,wasdevelopedbyPeterRobinsonforthecollation,analysisandpublicationoftextspreservedinmul-tiplewitnesses.Ithadtobeinstalledonthescholars’personalcomputers,notbeingavailableonline.Itwasused,amongothers,forRobinson’sownCanter-bury Tales Project, which aims to transcribe, collate and analyse all theFifteenth Century witnesses of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Apart from pre-paring the digital editions of all witnesses, the project aims to explore the

22 Busby(1993)42–43,infootnote41;insquarebrackets.


relationshipsbetweenthewitnesses.Forthis,itusessoftwareoriginallydevel-opedforevolutionarybiology(PAUP–PhylogeneticAnalysisUsingParsimonyandSplitTrees).23Theresultsofapplyingthismethodarestunning:beautiful“trees,”appearingwherethedifferentmanuscriptscouldbelocatedinthefam-ily tree of manuscripts, even indicating the distance a manuscript seems tohavefromits“parent”inthetree.ItisclearthatRobinson’sapproachincludesagreatdealfromNewPhilology:allmanuscriptsaretobeedited,andatool(Collate)isappliedtotagvariance,whichwillresultinfamilytreesthathelptodirectscholarstointerestingmanuscriptsorpartsofmanuscriptsandinterest-ingmethodologicalproblemssuchasexemplarchangeandcontamination.24Sointhechainoftasksofthetextualscholar,thestemmasarenowbasedonthetranscriptionofallthetextwitnesses,andthuscomeaftertheeditingisdone,attheend,leadingtonewinroadsandinsights,insteadofatthebegin-ning,leadingtothechoiceofonemanuscripttobeeditedwithalimitedlistofvariants,andtoaprocessofclosingdowntextsforresearchinsteadofopeningthemup.

AsIstatedinmyintroduction,theimpressivetechnicalandmethodologicaldevelopmentsinStemmatologyhavenotbeenembracedwithagreatdealofenthusiasmbytextualscholars.Thisiscloselylinked,inmyperception,tothefactthattextualscholarshavenotyetcommittedthemselveswholeheartedlytotheeditingofallwitnessesofatext: largely–Ithink, inaccordancewithBusby’sremark–becausethetechnology(andtherelatedknowledgeaboutthetechnology)wasnoteasilyavailabletothem.Iexpectthatinthenextfewyears,editorswillfinallybegintotakethenewphilologicaldirection,assistedbythetoolsthatareavailableonlineandareeasytouse,andthateditorswillsoonbeabletomoveontotheNewStemmatologyofRobinsonetal.Thestem-matologistsweresimplyfaraheadofusintheirwayofthinkingabouttextsandtheneedtohaveallversionsdigitallyavailable.Whatwehavetodonowistomaketheirtoolsalsoavailableinonlineworkenvironments,sothattextualscholarscan,inasense,gobacktothefutureofcomputationalhumanities.

References

Beaulieu,A.,K.vanDalen-OskamandJ.vanZundert,“BetweentraditionandWeb2.0:eLaborateassocialexperimentinhumanitiesscholarship,”inSocial Software and the Evolution of User Expertise: Future Trends in Knowledge Creation and Dissemination,

23 Cf.http://www.canterburytalesproject.org/index.html24 Cf.Spencerc.s.(2006);Windramc.s.(2008).

52 VanDalen-oskam

ed.TatjanaTakševa(2013),pp.112–29.IGI-Global.http://www.igi-global.com/chap-ter/between-tradition-web/69756.

Busby,K.,“Varianceandthepoliticsoftextualcriticism,”inTowards a synthesis? Essays on the New Philology,ed.K.Busby(Amsterdam,1993),pp.29–45.

Causer,T., J.TonraandV.Wallace,“Transcriptionmaximized;expenseminimized?CrowdsourcingandeditingTheCollectedWorksofJeremyBentham,”inLLC: The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities27(2)(2012),pp.119–37.doi:10.1093/llc/fqs004.Firstpublishedonline:March28,2012.

Cerquiglini,B.,Éloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philology (Paris,1989).––––––,In praise of the variant. A critical history of philology(Baltimore,1999).DeLeeuwvanWeenen,A.,Alexanders saga. AM 519a 4° in The Arnamagnæan Collection,

Copenhagen (Copenhagen,2009).MuseumTusculumPress.ManuscriptaNordica.EarlyNordicManuscriptsinDigitalFacsimileVolume2.

Dictionary of Early Middle Dutch: Pijnenburg,W.J.J.,vanDalen-Oskam,K.H.,Depuydt,K.A.C. and Schoonheim, T.H. c.s. 2001. Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek. Woordenboek van het Nederlands van de dertiende eeuw in hoofdzaak op basis van het Corpus-Gysseling.Leiden/Groningen.4Vols.Digitallyavailableathttp://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=VMNW

Gysseling,M.,“Rijmbijbel/tekst,”inCorpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300),ed.M.Gysseling,seriesII,vol.3(Leiden,1983).

Kestemont,M.andK.vanDalen-Oskam,“Predictingthepast:Memory-basedcopyistand author discrimination in medieval epics,” in Proceedings of the twenty-first Benelux conference on artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2009)(Eindhoven,2009),pp.121–28.

Masters,B.,“Thedistribution,destructionanddislocationofauthorityinmedievallit-eratureanditsmodernderivatives,”inRomanic Review82(1991),pp.270–85.

Pierazzo,E.,“Arationaleofdigitaldocumentaryeditions,”inLLC: The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities26(4)(2011),pp.463–77.doi:10.1093/llc/fqr033.Firstpublishedonline:July28,2011.

Postma,A.,“OverzichtvanScolastica-handschriften,”inScolastica willic ontbinden. Over de Rijmbijbel van Jacob van Maerlant, eds. J. van Moolenbroek and M. Mulder(Hilversum,1991),pp.145.(MiddeleeuwseStudiesenBronnenXXV)

Robinson,P.“Electroniceditionsforeveryone,”inText and genre in reconstruction. Effects of digitization on ideas, behaviours, products and institutions,ed.WillardMcCarty(Cambridge,Eng,2010),pp.145–63.

Shillingsburg,P.,“Howliteraryworksexist:impliedrepresented,andinterpreted,”inText and genre in reconstruction. Effects of digitization on ideas, behaviours, products and institutions,ed.WillardMcCarty (Cambridge,Eng.,2010),pp.165–82(165).

http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/between-tradition-web/69756

http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/between-tradition-web/69756

http://www.inl.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=251&Itemid=347



http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=VMNW

http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=VMNW


Spencer,M.,H.F.Windram,A.C.Barbrook,E.A.DavidsonandC.J.Howe,“Phylogeneticanalysisofwrittentraditions,”inPhylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languag-es,eds.P.ForsterandC.Renfrew(Cambridge,2006),pp.67–74.

VanDalen-Oskam,K.,“Thesecretlifeofscribes.ExploringfifteenmanuscriptsofJacobvanMaerlant’sScolastica (1271),” inLLC: The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities27(4)(2012),pp.355–72. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqs034.Firstpublishedonline:August8,2012.

VanDalen-Oskam,K.andK.Depuydt,“LexicographyandPhilology,”inDictionaries of Medieval Germanic Languages. A Survey of Current Lexicographical Projects,eds.K.H.vanDalen-Oskam,K.A.C.Depuydt,W.J.J.PijnenburgandT.H.Schoonheim(Turnhout,1997),pp.189–97.(SelectedProceedingsoftheInternationalMedievalCongress,UniversityofLeeds,4–7July1994)

VanDalen-Oskam,K.andJ.vanZundert,“DeltaforMiddleDutch–AuthorandCopyistDistinction in Walewein,” in Literary and Linguistic Computing 22 (2007),pp.345–62.

––––––,Digital editions with eLaborate: from practice to theory. Conference Abstract for Digital Humanities 2012(Hamburg,2012).http://www.dh2012.uni-hamburg.de/con-ference/programme/abstracts/digital-editions-with-elaborate-from-practice-to-theory/

Vanhoutte,E.,“Definingelectroniceditions:ahistoricalandfunctionalperspective,”inText and genre in reconstruction. Effects of digitization on ideas, behaviours, products and institutions, ed.WillardMcCarty(Cambridge,Eng,2010),pp.119–44.

VanZundert,J.,“Ifyoubuildit,willwecome?LargescaledigitalinfrastructuresasadeadendforDigitalHumanities,”inControversies around the Digital Humanities.Special issue of Historical Social research / Historische Sozialforschung 37, ed.M.Thaller(2012),pp.165–87.

VanZundert,J.andP.Boot,“TheDigitalEdition2.0andtheDigitalLibrary:Services,notResources,”inDigitale Edition und Forschungsbibliothek. (Beiträge der Fachtagung im Philosophicum der Universität Mainz am 13. und 14. Januar 2011).SpecialissueofBibliothek und Wissenschaft,44(2011),pp.141–52.

Windram,H.F.,P.Shaw,P.RobinsonandC.J.Howe,“Dante’sMonarchiaasatestcasefortheuseofphylogeneticmethodsinstemmaticanalysis,”inLiterary and Linguistic Computing23(2008),443–63.

Websites (All active 5 September 2013)Canterbury Tales Project:http://www.canterburytalesproject.org/index.htmleLaborate:www.e-laborate.nl/en/LodewijkvanDeyssel,Menschen en bergen:http://menschenenbergen.huygens.knaw.

nl/Minitab:http://www.minitab.com/

http://www.inl.nl/images/stories/VMNW/dalen97.pdf

http://www.dh2012.uni-hamburg.de/conference/programme/abstracts/digital-editions-with-elaborate-from-practice-to-theory/



54 VanDalen-oskam

OnlineVariorumofDarwin’sOrigin of Species:http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/index.html

Text Encoding Initiative:http://www.tei-c.org/index.xmlVincent van Gogh: The Letters:http://www.vangoghletters.org/vg/Walewein ende Keye:http://www.waleweinendekeye.huygens.knaw.nl/

55TheSameCallForPeace,ButDifferentlyFramedEachTime

Chapter3

Mutatis Mutandis: The Same Call for Peace, but Differently Framed Each Time

An exploration of the significance of the insights generated by New Philology for the printing and reception history of Georgius Cassander’s irenical tract De officio pii viri (1561)

“quia hodie eadem fere semper Scena, saltem mutatis personis ubiquelocorumagitur”1

Rob van de Schoor (Translation: Paul Gretton)

The Reception of De officio pii viri at the Colloquy at Poissy

ResearchintothehistoryofirenicismduringtheFrenchwarsofreligion–inparticularstudyofthesignificanceoftheColloquyatPoissy(1561,oneofmanyreligiouscongressestotakeplacebetweentheProtestantsandRomanCatho-licsduringthisperiod)–wasgivenapowerfulboostwhenscholarsofecclesi-astical history and the history of dogma began taking account of their ownpositionwheninterpretingthetextsandpersonalitiesofthetime.MarioTur-chettispokeofthenaturalsympathythatresearchershadfortheoppressedFrenchProtestantsasaproblemforhistoriography,onethatheattemptedtosolve by examining the changes in meaning and significance that the term“Politiques” had undergone in the course of time as the designation for theirenicalpartythatstroveforrapprochementbetweenthedenominations.2Hisstudy,togetherwithhismonumentalsurveyConcordia o tolleranza? François

1 “becausenowadaysalmostthesameperformanceisputonineverysingleplace,onlywithdifferentcharacters”:fromthetitleofthesecondeditionofDe corruptis moribus(Cracow,1615),towhichthetextofDe officio pii viriwasadded.

2 MarioTurchetti,“Unequestionmalposée :l’origineetl’identitédesPolitiquesautempsdesguerresdeReligion,”inDe Michel de L’Hospital à l’Édit de Nantes. Politiques et religion face aux Églises,ed.ThierryWanegffelen(Collection“Histoires croisées”)[n.p.](2002),pp. 357–90.Asfarbackas1970,AlainDufourcastigatedhistorianswho,“trop prompts à tout expliquer grâce à leur sens psychologique”,ascribedtheshiftinattitudeoftheKingofNavarre,AntoinedeBourbon,totheorthodoxCalvinistsasbeingduetoweaknessofcharacter:AlainDufour,“LeColloquedePoissy,”inMélanges d’histoire du XVIe siècle offerts à Henri Meylan(Geneva,1970),pp. 127–37;pp. 131.

© RobvandeSchoor,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_005This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



56 VanDeSchoor

Bauduin (1520–1573) e i « Moyenneurs » (Milan, 1984),3 has made our under-standing of the religious wars of the sixteenth century and the underlyingtheologicaldisputemorefluid,asitwere,andensuredthatthereisscopefordiscursivestudyoftheologicaltracts.Thisinnovationinmethodologyisinlinewithsomeoftheinsightsof“NewHistoricism”andopensupthepossibilityofinvestigatingwhethertheprincipalirenicaltextoftheperiod,GeorgiusCas-sander’sDe officio pii viri–andinparticularthevariousreprintsofthattract–canbeinterpretedaccordingtotheprinciplesofNewPhilology.Needlesstosay, a study of this kind also provides an opportunity to test the validity ofthesetheories.

OneofTurchetti’smostimportantachievements,alsoreferredtobyThierryWanegffeleninhisstudyNi Rome ni Genève. Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVIe siècle (Paris,1997),istohavegivenusabetterunderstandingofCassander’svisionforthe“Catholicchurch”andafuture,reunited,Christen-dom.4By this,Cassanderunderstoodnot theRoman-Catholicchurchof thetimebutthechurchthatwasconstantlyawareofitstaskandprinciples,andwhichwasthereforerequiredtoconstantlyreformitselfbystrivingforpurityanddrivingoutabuses.Cassander’sthirdway,offeredasanalternativetothestaunchpositionsoftheProtestantsandtheRomanCatholics,wasthevia re-gia, the “majestic highway” to peace, to which he directed the faithful andwhichwasintendedtobringtheCatholicchurchbeyondthemisleadingsid-eroadsoftheReformationandtheexistingRoman-Catholicchurch.Turchet-ti’s interpretationofCassander’sconceptoftheChurchmakesclearwhyDe officio pii virihadanentirelydifferentimpactontheColloquyatPoissythanPetrusCanisius’contributionhadontheColloquyofWormsin1557.Canisiusappears,atfirstsight,todealwiththesametopicsasCassander,butinfacttheJesuitarguesthatachurchthatcanbeahomeforalldenominationsalreadyexistedanditistotheProtestantsundoingthattheychoosetoscornit.Cas-sander’s tract was therefore fiercely denounced not only by Calvin but alsocriticisedontheCatholicsidebytheLeuvenprofessorsJohannesHesselsandJossedeRavesteyn(Tiletanus).

TheactualhistoryofthefirsteditionofDe officioanditsimpactisjustasshortandpainfulasthatoftheColloquyatPoissy.Becausehisweakstateofhealth prevented him from accepting Antoine de Bourbon’s invitation to

3 Thekeypointsofthisstudyaresummarisedin:MarioTurchetti,“Concordeoutolérance?LesMoyenneursàlaveilledesguerresdereligionenFrance,”inRevue de Théologie et de Philosophie 118(1986),pp. 255–67.

4 ThierryWanegffelen,Ni Rome ni Genève. Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVIe siècle(Paris,1997),pp. 115–16;MarioTurchetti,Concordia o tolleranza?,pp. 276–93.


participateintheColloquy,CassanderwrotehistractandhaditpublishedinBasel,probablybyJohannesOporinus.WhetherhisfriendandsupporterFran-çois Bauduin undertook to distribute it, or initially attempted to representhimselfas itsauthor,cannotbedetermined.5Bauduinhimself later tried todisassociatehimselffromitsauthorship,writingthatthetextwasalreadycir-culatinginFrancebeforehewasevenawareofitsexistence.6Itisclear,how-ever,thatCalvinimmediatelysuspectedhimofbeingtheauthoranddirectedan unusually fierce polemic against him. Bauduin defended himself againstthisattack,andCassander,stillunderapseudonym,publishedadefenceofhisinnocentlittleworkthathadcausedsomuchdamage.

ThelikelihoodoftheColloquyatPoissybringingaboutafavourableturnofevents inthereligiouswarswasnotverygreat fromthestart,althoughCas-sanderhadbelievedthatamiddle-of-the-roadirenicistpartyhadformeditselfinFrance,consistingofChancellorMicheldeL’Hospital,PauldeFoix,Clauded’Espence,andothers.Thedelegatesdidnottrustoneanotherintheslightest:aProtestantparticipantevenwrotehomethathewasafraidofbeingpoisonedandwasmoreconcernedaboutthesoupthanabouttheargumentsoftheop-posingparty.7TheassertionbyTheodoredeBèze,theleaderoftheCalvinistdelegation,thattheBodyofChristwasasfarawayfromthebreadoftheEu-charistasheavenwasfromearth8broughtabouttherapiddisintegrationoftheColloquy.

The Contents of De officio pii viri

Themostimportantmessageof De officio istheassertionthatwhoeversub-scribedtoChristiandoctrine,recognisedScriptureasthebasisfortheChris-tian faith, and accepted Christ as his Redeemer was considered to haveremained true to the head of the Church. Someone who found himself inanother part of the body of the Church than the Roman-Catholic part was

5 SeeMichaelErbe,François Bauduin (1520–1573). Biographie eines Humanisten(Gütersloh,1978),pp. 134–35;MichaelErbe,“FrançoisBauduinundGeorgCassander:DokumenteeinerHumanistenfreundschaft,”inBibliothèque de l’École des Chartes3(1978),pp.537sqq.

6 Bauduin,Responsio altera ad Joan. Calvinum(1562),pp. 38,citedbyTurchetti,Concordia o toleranza?,pp. 276.

7 AnentertainingaccountoftheColloquycanbefoundinDonaldNugent,Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy(Cambridge,Mass.,1974)(thesoupquotationcanbefoundonp. 92).

8 Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées au Royaume de France.Éditionnouvelle[…]parfeuG.BaumetparEd.Cunitz.Tomepremier(Paris,1883),pp. 574.

58 VanDeSchoor

thereforenotaheretic;onlysomeonewhodamnedthebodyoftheChurchbycallingitthehomeoftheAntichristhadunavoidablytobebrandedaheretic.

Thefollowingtopicsofdiscussioncanbefoundinthetext,explainedbelowwithabriefsummaryofthecontent:

1. An autobiographical account of the author (1–13), giving his reasons forpublishing the work.The experience and insights gained are offered for theconsiderationofthosewhohavefallenpreytothesamekindofreligiouscon-fusionastheauthorhimselfconfessestohavesufferedfrominthepast.

2. Scripture and traditionarebothindispensabletotheChristianfaith(13–28).Scriptureisthesealedtradition,whiletraditionistherevealedScripture.Canon doctrinal authority and Catholic tradition are therefore necessary inordertoremovethemainpointsofdisputebetweenthedenominations,spe-cificallyconcerningdogmaticsandecclesiasticalceremonies.

3. Dogmatics and rituals/ceremonies (29–69). Dogma’s that are true andCatholicare:(1)thedoctrinelaiddowninScripture;(2)thedoctrinebroughtdowntoussincethetimeoftheApostles inaccordancewiththespiritandmeaning of Scripture. There are also (3) doctrines accepted by most of thechurchesandconfirmedbyargumentstakenfromScripture;and(4)doctrinesthatarenotbasedonevidenceinScriptureoronlongtraditionbutthathavebeenaccepted laterbythe(western)Church. If the latterdonotmanifestlycontradict Scripture, they can be tolerated and religious peace must not bedisturbedbecauseofthem.Iftheyarecontestable,however,orhavecreptintotheChurchintheformofabusesthatresultfrommaliceormisunderstanding,thenscholarsandmoderatepersonsmustdiscusswhetherornot(andifso,how)theycanberemovedwithoutgivingoffence.

Therituals or ceremoniesthatarereferredtoas“sacraments”(1)aresacredandinviolable.Inaddition,theritualsthatservetoadministerorpracticethesacraments(2)andtheceremoniestoguaranteedisciplinewithintheChurch(3)areapostolictraditionsanduniversalusages,andtheirjustificationisper-fectlyevident.Therearealsorituals,however,thathavefallenoutofuse(4);ifitcanbedonewithoutgivingoffence,theycanbedispensedwith.Ritesthathavebecomesomewhatdegeneratebutthathavealongtradition(5)mustberespected until the competent authority either does away with them or re-storesthemtotheirformerglory.Time-honouredritualsthathaveanapostolictraditionbut thathaveslowly fallen intodisuse (6) shouldbe reintroduced.Localrituals(7),whichoftenhavealongtradition,canbetoleratedbutitisperhaps a better idea to remove them from the Church because they canthreatentheuniversalityofthatChurchandcanformanunnecessaryburdenontheliturgy.


4. Religious doctrine (70–95).Despiteitsshortcomings,thecurrentRoman-CatholicChurch,initsexternalmanifestationastheguardianofthetruefaithandapostolictradition,mustbeconsideredasaworthypartoftheuniversalcatholicChurch.Itcannotbedenied,however,thattherearemanywithintheRoman-CatholicChurchwhohavedrawnapartfromtheChurchofChristandarehostiletoHimandHisteachings.FurthermorethisChurchshouldbeem-bracedtotheextentthatitcorrespondstotheChurchofChrist;whatdeviatesfromthelattercanbetoleratedaslongasitdoesnotharmpiety.Contagionfromwhatiscorruptmustbeavoided.Evenso,thosecannotbecondemnedwhohavebegunimprovingthatwhichrequiredimprovementandaredoingawaywithwhatwaswrong,atleastaslongastheypreservepeace.TheymustbeconsideredtobemembersoftheChurchofChrist,evenifotherscondemnthemashereticsandschismatics.ThosewhohaveturnedtheirbackontheRoman-Catholic Church deserve censure, however, because rather than de-mandingthat theChurchbehealed, theydemandthat itberuinedandde-stroyed. Just as blameworthy is the attitude of the Church’s administrators,whorefusetohearofanydisordersinthehealthoftheChurchandwhobanishfromitscommunitythosewhostriveforittobehealed.Nevertheless,theun-fortunatefactthattheChurchpursuesitsreformersmustnotbeseizeduponasawayofdeprivingitofitsdesignation“Catholic.”ThosewhobelievethattheChurchhasthereforebecomethesynagogueoftheDevilmustbemadetoseethattheChurchthattheycondemnisfoundedinChristandthattheundeni-ablefactthatChrist’sfollowershavebuiltuponthatfoundationwithtimber,hay,andstrawratherthanwithgold,silver,andpreciousstonesdoesnotde-prive the Church of its right to exist. But someone who is rejected by theChurch,initsblindness,asahereticisentitledtoprotestagainstthatrejection.

5. Who are heretics?OnlythosewhocondemnthebodyoftheChurchasthebodyoftheAntichristaregenuineschismatics(96–135).EvenLutherandCalvinheldoffforalongtimefromsuchcondemnation.Someonewhothroughno fault of his own, as a result of an excess of religious zeal, has taken thewrongturningthatthosetwoindicateddoesnotdeservetobecondemnedasaheretic.Suchapersonmustbewillinglyreceivedandcaredforasaninvalidrecoveringfromalengthyillness.Scoffingatoneanotheraspapistsandhere-ticsmustbeabhorred.Settingupathird,neutralpartywillnothelp;itisbettertobringthetwoopposingpartiesclosertooneanotherbylovingone’sneigh-bour.Lovingoneanotheristhedutyofeverytruebelievernowadays,evenifonedoesnotagreewithone’sneighbourinallrespects.

6. Third party.Betweentheirreconcilableparties–theLutheransandCal-vinistson theonesideand thepapistson theother– there isa thirdparty(135–151),thatofthemediators,whoseekbrotherly loveandharmony.They

60 VanDeSchoor

areintheminorityandareoppressed,whereastherichandpowerfulalwaysbelongtothetwoirreconcilableparties.

7. Exercising piety in times of strife and uncertainty.Theprevailingdiscorddoesnotstandinthewayoftruepiety(151–178).Afterall,pietyconsistsofcar-ryingoutthetasksthatGodhasimposedonman:believinginChristtheRe-deemerandlovingone’sneighbour.

8. The task of church leaders.ThosechargedwithadministeringtheChurch(178–end)must free itofabusesandoppression.TheymustnotdeformthefaithinordertoperpetuateandjustifyabuseswithinChurchandStatefromwhichtheyprofit.

Printing History and Translations of De officio pii viri

AnoverviewofallthevariantsofDe officio canoffersomeinsightintoitsprint-inghistory.Thosevariantscomprisecorrectionsofprintingerrors(andthein-troduction of new ones), changes at the level of words and sentences, andadditionalcontent.

ConspectussiglorumA Basel,[1561]B S.l.,1562C Paris,1562.D Cologne,1562–1564E Paris,1564F Cologne,1594G [Paris],1607H Lyon,1612J Frankfurt,1614(inMelchiorGoldast,Politica Imperialia)K Cracow,1615(inDe corruptis moribus)L [Paris],1616(inCassandri Opera Omnia)M Mainz,1619(inM.-A.deDominis,De republica ecclesiastica,lib.VIII)N Lyon&Strasbourg,1642O Konigsberg,1650P Lyon,1687

ThemoststrikingoftheadditionalchangesaretwolonginterpolationsinB,C,D,andthelatereditionsKandL(ListheeditioninCassander’sOpera Omnia).IthasbeenestablishedthatB,C,andD–aswellastheabbreviatededitionE(1564)whichderivedfromthefirstgenerationofreprints–wereproducedby


FrançoisBauduin.Hewouldthereforealsohavebeenresponsible,probablyinconsultationwithCassander,fortheadditionofthetwointerpolations.Thosetwo passages had disappeared again by the next generation of De officio re-prints:F,G,andH,amongwhichF(Cologne1594)occupiesaseparateposition,alsobecauseofothervariantsthatcanbefoundinGandHbutnotinF.Fwasdesignated“secunda editio”butontheirtitlepageGandHassertthattheyfol-low the first edition (“postrema editio, iuxta priorem”). The addition of JeanHotman’ssyllabusofirenicalworksinGandHmakesitclearthatHotmansawtheseeditionsthroughthepress;latereditionsthatcontainthesyllabusthere-forederivefromtheseeditions.Theapparatusofvariantsdemonstratesarela-tionship between H, N, and P: N is a fairly common edition by the heirs ofLazarusZetznerfromLyonsandStrasbourgof1642;Pislikelytobefromthesameprintingestablishment(thetitlepagegivesonlyLyonsas theplaceofpublication) but is from 45 years later and is the final print of De officio ofwhichweareaware.

Betweenthesetwogenerationsofreprintslieanumberof“miscellaneous”editions:J(Frankfurt,1614),K(Cracow,1615),L(Paris,1616),M(Mainz,1619),and O (Konigsberg, 1650). L is the edition in Cassander’s Opera omnia, forwhichCordesius(JeandeCordes)wasresponsible.Forhisedition,Cordesiusutilisedthefirsteditionof1561,butasatruehumanisthecomparedthevari-ousprintsandincludedtheinterpolationsthatarefoundinB,C,andDasAd-denda in libello de officio pii viri, ex editione anni M.D.LXII.ThereisnodoubtthattheeditionofDe officiointheOpera omniabecamethestandardeditioninthedecadesthatfollowed,anditwasthebasisforthelatereditionsMandO.ItisstrikingthattheothereditionsfromtheperiodbetweentheBauduinandHotmangenerationsofreprints–J,K,M,andO–areallfromCentralEu-rope, namely from Poland and the domains of Germany (to the east of theLowerRhine).

Kisaseparatecasebecausethepersonwhosawitthroughthepressrevisedit thoroughly, removingeveryuseof the firstpersonsingular;othervariantsshowthattheeditormadeuseofB(1562).

K(Cracow,1615;right)comparedtoA(1561)

Equidem iam inde ab adolescentia constitutionum et caeremoniarum Ecclesiasticarum observantissimus fui: sic tamen, ut natura, vel divino potius impulsu, omnem superstitionem, quam tum utcunque deprehendere videbar, vehementer detestatus sim.

Equidem iam inde ab adolescentia constitutionum et caeremoniarum Ecclesiasticarum observantissimus sit: sic tamen, ut natura, vel divi no potius impulsu, omnem superstitionem, quam tum utcunque deprehendere videatur, vehementer detestetur.

62 VanDeSchoor

ThisalterationmeansthatthefirstpartofDe officio,withoutitsautobiograph-icalelement,becomeslesspersuasive:thereisnolongerany“I,”notevenonewhohideshisnamesoasnottostandinthewayofanunbiasedconsiderationofthecourseofhispersonaldevelopment(asdescribedinthetext)andtheargumentthatheputsforward.TheabbreviatedPariseditionof1564,E,isalsowithouttheautobiographicalaccountatthebeginning.WithK(Cracow,1615),EcanbeconsideredasastrongcaseinfavouroftheNewPhilologyperspectivebecausebotheditionsdemonstratethevariabilityevenofprintedtexts,withtheauthorandhisauctoritashavingbeencutfromthetext.

E (Paris 1564): “Because this treatise is truly of great importance andshouldberead,preciselyatpresent,inFranceinparticular,itseemedtomeagoodideatoreprintitintheinterestofthestateand–nowleavingoutthechaptersthatrelatemoretopersons–toverysimplyandreliablysetoutthemaincomponentofthemostimportantissue;asinareportdrawnupbyeachofthetwopartiesandinwhichonlytheissueitselfandits cause are to be found, only those things are included and broughttogether about which the judgment can ultimately be left to judiciousandsensiblereaders.”

TheanonymizededitionofDe officioinDe corruptis moribus(1615)–eventhenameoftheauthorisabsentinthepreliminarymatter–wasaddedtowhatwasinfactthesecondeditionofapublicationthatappearedin1561entitled De cor ruptis moribus utriusque partis, Pontificorum videlicet, & Evangelicorum: dia-

Mox itaque cum in lectionem scripto-rum huius aetatis, qui reformationem quandam et repurgationem supersti-tiosorum cultuum et absurdarum opinionum promittebant, inciderem, mire illorum institutum placuit: qui tamen ita superstitiones et abusiones quae nonnullis caeremoniis Ecclesias-ticis admixtae erant, exosas haberem, ut ipsam Ecclesiasticam politiam quae his caeremoniis fere constat, non sublatam et eversam, sed repurgatam et emendatam esse vellem.

Mox itaque cum in lectionem scripto-rum huius aetatis, qui reformationem quandam et repurgationem supersti-tiosorum cultuum et absurdarum opinionum promittunt, inciderit, mire illorum institutum placent: qui tamen ita superstitiones et abusiones quae nonnullis caeremoniis Ecclesiasticis admixtae sunt, exosas habeat, ut ipsam Ecclesiasticam politiam quae his caeremoniis fere constat, non sublatam et eversam, sed repurgatam et emendatam esse velit.


logus lectu jucun dus et valde utilis.9Itcontainsapolemicdialoguebetweentwocharacters:Felix,aRoman-CatholicPolishnobleman,andSylvester,aLuther-anfromBrandenburg.TheeditorwasS.Czekanowski,apseudonymofFried-richStaphylus(1512–1564),afollowerofMelanchthonwhohadconvertedtothe Roman-Catholic Church and been brought to Ingolstadt as professor oftheologybyPetrusCanisius.10Referencesaremadeinthecourseofthedia-loguetocurrenteventsinthedenominationallydividedPoland,inparticularthe actions of Francesco Stancaro. The Roman-Catholic interlocutor is sur-prisedattheseexplosiveconflictsamongtheProtestants,whiletheLutheranPrussian expresses his indignation at abuses within the Roman-CatholicChurch,whichhad–sotospeak–invitedtheReformation.Theconclusionofthis“entertainingdialogue”isthatthereisaneedfortoleranceandrapproche-ment,aconclusionthattheeditorofthesecondedition(1615)believedhewassupportingbypublishingDe officio.

InthePariseditionof1564(E;thiseditioncontainsonlysentences13–69),themuchabbreviatedtextofDe officioiscrowdedbyverboseparatexts,theanti-Cal-vinistcontentofwhichgreatlyinfluencedthereadingoftheirenicaltract.TheeditionopenswithtwolongepistolatoryrepliesfromBauduintoCalvin’saccusa-tionsof24Octoberand1November1563,followedbyalongforewordtotheread-er by Michael Fabricius (probably a pseudonym of Bauduin himself),11 whichcontinuesthepolemicwithBeza.TheneweditionofDe officio,fromwhichtheautobiographicalmotivationandthereligiousdoctrinehavebeencut,andthatconsequentlycontainsonlythediscussionofdogmaticandceremonialdisputes,providesthefollowingjustificationforitspublication:

Becausethistreatiseistrulyofgreatimportanceandshouldberead,pre-ciselyatpresent,inFranceinparticular,itseemedtomeagoodideatoreprintitintheinterestofthestateand–nowleavingoutthechaptersthatrelatemoretopersons–toverysimplyandreliablysetoutthemaincomponentofthemostimportantissue;asinareportdrawnupbyeachofthetwopartiesandinwhichonlytheissueitselfanditscausearetobe

9 RobvandeSchoor,“PetrusCanisius’reisnaarPolenin1558en1559,”inWegen van kerste-ning in Europa, 1300–1900, eds. Charles Caspers, Frans Korsten en Peter Nissen (Budel2005),pp.66–88:p.77.

10 Ute Mennecke-Haustein, “Friedrich Staphylus (1512–1564).VonWittenberg nach Ingol-stadt,”inMelanchthon in seinen Schülern.(=WolfenbüttelerForschungen,Band73.),ed.HeinzScheible(Wiesbaden,1997),pp. 405–26.

11 Mario Turchetti, Concordia o tolleranza?, pp. 66, note 24: “allievo, o forse alter ego, di Bauduin.”

64 VanDeSchoor

found,onlythosethingsareincludedandbroughttogetheraboutwhichthejudgmentcanultimatelybelefttojudiciousandsensiblereaders.12

ItisunderstandablethatFabricius/Bauduinscrapstheautobiographicalmotiva-tionforCassander’ssearchforathirdwaytopeace,avia regia,butheobviouslyalsofoundthediscussionofreligiousdoctrine–whichdoesindeeddealwiththeradicalisationofLuther’sviews–tobedetrimentaltoanunbiasedreadingofthetract.Accordingtotheeditor,onlythecentralportionofDe officio–nomorethan56sentences–remainedintactaftertheattacksofCalvinandBeza.

TheviewofNewPhilologythatallvariantsaresignificant–orcanbe–isconfirmedbyastudyofthevariantsofDe officio.Printingerrorsthatproduceanintelligibleandgrammaticallycorrectalternativesometimescometoleadastubbornlifeoftheirown,enablingthemodernscholartodeterminewhicheditionwasreadbywhom.Onecanconcludewithahighdegreeofcertainty,forexample,thatGeorgvonCell’sGermantranslationofCassander’stractwasbasedonB,becauseofanerrorinaquotationfromMartinLuther,whichistranslatedasWie sich ein yeder Gottsfürchtiger und des gemeinen Friedes Lieb-haber […] halten soll. In the passage “etiamsi in extremis malis essent, accur-reres”etc.,B,unlikeA,has“maris,”withtheGermantranslationconsequently“an dem eusserstem des Meres, soltestu zu ihnen lauffen.”13

ThisdiscoverywillprobablyberatherdisappointingforadherentsofNewPhilology,giventhatitdoesnotimmediatelyopenuptheprospectofthede-siredcolourfulalternationofusercontextsofvariants.Acarefulstudyaccord-ing to the principles of traditional philology would also have noted thedifferencementioned.TextssurelyareasfluidasNewPhilologistsassert,buttheytendtosolidifyatanyarbitrarymomentintheirexistence.Thesituationisdifferentasregardsthefollowingexample,whereaprintedvariantisrelatedtoapassagefromaletterbytheauthorofthetext.

AnoteworthyalterationinthetextofDe officio thatappearsfrom1607(G)onwardisthereplacementof“two”by“four”inthesentence“Wherethereare

12 “Tandem iis, quae ad personas pertinent, relictis, de reipsa cepit agere, ut libelli sui senten-tiam defenderet, & importuni castigatoris fumos discuteret. Quia vero haec disputatio de re magna est, & est hoc tempore imprimis necessaria, & vero in Gallia desideratur, visum est, Reipublicae interesse, ut ea recuderetur, ac relictis nunc aliis capitibus, quae ad personas magis referuntur, simplicissime & optima fide exponeretur summum caput principalis quaestionis, & veluti utriusque partis acta, quae ad rem causamque pertinent, sola recita-rentur, atque committerentur: de quibus deinde iudicium sanis cordatisque lectoribus relin-queretur.”

13 ThefactthatGeorgvonCelltranslatedBandnotAisalsoshown,ofcourse,bythepres-enceofthetwolengthypassagesthatareincludedinBbutnotinA.


nowtwotypesofissuesregardingfaith,thefirstofwhichconcernsdoctrineandtheotherdisciplineandceremonies…”

G(1607,above)comparedtoA(1561)

Cum autem quaestionum religionis duo sint genera, quarum aliae doctri-nam, aliae disciplinam et caeremonias spectant

Cum autem quaestionum religionis quatuor sint genera, quarum aliae dis-ciplinam et caeremonias spectant

Inthissentence,theoriginaldistributionofthedisputedpointsbetweendog-maticsandecclesiasticalritualsisobscuredbythecontinuationofthisalteration:“fourissues…someofwhichconcerndisciplineandceremonies.”ItisofcoursepossiblethatHotman–becauseitwashewhoproducedthefirsteditioninwhichthisvariantoccurs–madethechangefromtwotofourbecauseitcorrespondedmore logicallywithCassander’s followingsubdivision into fourtypesof issuesregardingfaith(eventhoughtheresultisthattherestoftheargumentbecomesincomprehensible),buthisomittingthedesignationofonemaincategoryofdis-putedpoints,concerningdogmatics,wouldseemtojustifyacertainsuspicion.MaybeHotmandidnotwanttoworrythereaderbyexplicitlypointingoutthatthedifferencesbetweenthedenominationswerealsoofadogmaticnatureandthereforehepreferredtoomittheheadingunderwhichCassanderhadpresent-edhisfourfolddivisionofdogma’s.Ifthatisinfactthecase,thenHotmanwasapplyingthesamerhetoricaltrickthatCassanderhimselfhadusedinhisdraftofDe officio pii viri,asdescribedintheletterthathewrotetoJohannesMolinaeuson23November1559.Inthatletter,hesaidthathewasponderingareconcili-ationproposalforProtestantsandRoman-Catholicsthatwouldconsistnotoffive points,ashehadpreviouslyannouncedinprint,butoftwo.Thefirstpoint,whichwouldbemadeupofthreecomponents,wouldbringaboutimprove-mentsinthepublicdomainandthesecondintheprivatelivesofbelievers.ThepresentationofthedisputedpointsinDe officioinfactturnedoutdiffer-ently:adichotomybetweendogmaticandceremonialissues,subdividedintofourandsevensub-categoriesrespectively.(Thedistinctionbetweenthedu-tiesofanindividualbelieverandthoseofachurchleaderwouldrunthrough-outthetract.)Hotmanspecifiesfourdisputedpoints,someofwhichconcernceremonialdisputesandinfactremovestheseventypesofritefromhislistalltogether.Bynotspecifyingoneofthemaincategories–themostperilous!–andobscuringtheoriginalsubdivision,HotmanmayhavehopedtomakeCas-sander’sinventoryofdisputedpointsappearlessinsurmountable.

66 VanDeSchoor

Thisinterpretationofthevariantsinthe1607editioninvolvesafundamen-talproblem.Surelylettersarepermissibleassourcesfortheinterpretationofprintedtexts,butisitpermissible,fromaNewPhilologypointofview,tolinktheauthor’sexplicitintentionsastheyhavecomedowntousinletterswrittenaccordingtotherulesofthehumanistletter,i.e.thears conscribendis epistolis,totheauthor’simplicitintentions–suchaswederivethemfromprintedtextsthatemphaticallycomplywithothergenreconventions?Intheletter,wearedealingwiththeself-fashioningoftheirenicistCassander,14whodivulgeshispeace-plan-in-preparationtoafriend;in De officio,ananonymousnarratoran-ticipatesthecriticismthatmaybelevelledathisoverviewofdisputedpointsandtheassociatedstatementsregardingpossibleagreementfromtheProtes-tant or Roman-Catholic side. Cassander’s meandering argument – “can bemaintainedevenif…providedthat…butevensoabolitionisperhapsprefera-ble,althoughitshouldbeconsideredinthatcontextthat…”–exposesthedis-cursivestructureofhispeacetract: thereadercanwritehisownobjectionsintothetext,asitwere,andisthenofferedanimmediatereply.Thenarrativestatus of the letter differs fundamentally from that of the persuasive tract;statementsinletterscanthereforeonlybeappliedwiththegreatestcautioninthediscursivecontextofaprintedtract.

“Mouvance” and “Variance”

OneunmistakablemeritofNewPhilologyisthatbyintroducingnewconceptssuchasmouvanceandvarianceitdemands–emphatically–thatattentionbepaidtoissuesthattraditionalphilologymightnotalwayshavenoticed.15We

14 “Self-fashioning”isusedhereinthesenseStephenGreenblattassignstotheterm:caughtbetweentheexistingideologyoftheRoman-CatholicChurchandhostileProtestantism,Cassandersseeksagenuinesolution(inspiredbyAntiquity)ofthedisputebetweenthecontestingpartiesbyrephrasingcurrentissuesin a humanist letter,intendedtobereadnot justbyMolinaeusbutbyallkindredspirits.Humanist lettersmoreoftenthannotwereintendedtobeprintedandpublished.

15 Theconcept“mouvance”wasoriginally introducedbyPaulZumthor(Essai de poétique médiévale. Paris, 1972); Bernard Cerquiglini (Éloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie.Paris,1989)elaboratedonZumthor’stheoriesandnoticed“une mobilité inces-sante et joyeuse de l’écriture medieval”(Éloge de la variante,pp.114),whichhedescribedas“variance.” Ingrid Bennewitz, “Alte ‘neue’ Philologie? ZurTradition eines Diskurses,” inPhilologie als Textwissenschaft: alte und neue Horizonte116(=Zeitschrift für deutsche Phi-lologie), eds. HelmutTervooren and HorstWenzel (1997), pp. 46–61, citation on pp. 51;ThomasCramer, “Mouvance,” in ibid.,pp. 150–69;RüdigerSchnell, “Wasistneuander


havebeenfocussingsofaronthevarianceofDe officiobutitisnowimportanttonotethatanumberofexamplesofmouvancecanalsobeidentifiedinthelifeofCassander’stract,whenthetextwasincludedaspartoflengthierdis-sertations,forexamplePolitica Imperialia, sive discursus politici, acta publica, et tractatus generales(J,Frankfurt,1614),De corruptis moribus, qui religionis sanc-tissimum negotium impediunt(K,Cracow,1615)orwhenitwasprovidedwithanexplanationandcommentarybytheeditor,aswasthecaseintheeditionbytheKonigsbergtheologianJohannesLatermann(O,Konigsberg,1650).There,thetextnolongerspeaksforitselfalonebutisplacedinadiscursivecontext.Seen inthisway,earliereditionsofDe officiocanalsobesuspectedofmou-vance:eacheditiontowhichisaddedthedefenceofDe officio(byCassanderorBauduin)againsttheattacksonitbyCalvinandBeza–orHotman’sSyllabusofirenicalworks–isevidenceofthefailureofCassander’speaceinitiativeduetotheopposingvoicesthatcanbeheardinthemorbecausethetractisdeclaredtobepartofanhonourablehistoryoffailures.Inactualfact,onecanalreadyspeak of a fundamental mouvance after the first edition in 1561: De officiochangesfrombeingapersuasivetextwithaspecificobjectiveintoanhistoricaldocumentwithargumentsandinsightsthatareworthyofconsiderationbutwereinfactdisregarded.

Readers: Commentators and Translators

One can gain an impression of the diversity of ideas that De officio pii viriarousedamongitswidelyvaryingreadersduringitslonglifebystudyingwhatanumberofcommentatorssaid–andonoccasionprinted–aboutit,aswellasthetwotranslationsthatweremade.ThereisaprintedGermaneditionof1562 by Georg von Cell (Wie sich ein yeder Gottsfürchtiger, und des gemeinen Friedes Liebhaber, in ietzigem werentem zweispalt der Religion halten soll)andaFrenchtranslationbyJeanHotman(Le debvoir de l’homme de bien et désireux du repos public en ce différent de religion), which is preserved in manuscriptform.16TheeditionofDe officiothatIampreparingwillpresentthetwotrans-lations side-by-side with the text of the first edition. The commentary byJohannesLatermann,printedinO, is includedasnotestothetext.The1593

‘NewPhilology’?ZumDiskussionsstandindergermanistischenMediävistik,”inAlte und neue Philologie,eds.Martin-DietrichGleßgenandFranzLebsanft(Tübingen, 1997),pp.61–95.

16 BibliothèquedelaSociétédel’HistoireduProtestantismeFrançais,Paris,HotmannianaI,no.7,fol.41r–50v.

68 VanDeSchoor

memorandumbytheGenevatheologianCharlesPerrot,previouslypublishedbyGuillaumePosthumusMeyjesintheNederlands Archief voor Kerk geschie-denis,17willbeincludedasanappendix.

Inhiscriticalnotes,Perrot,whoseirenicalconvictionsledtohispapersbe-ingconfiscatedimmediatelyafterhisdeathbytheGenevasyndicJeanLect,18primarilyattacksCassander’srhetoricaldistinctions.Hedisputes,forexample,theallocationofseparatedutiestoordinarybelievers(thepii viriofthetitle)andtopersonsholdingpublicofficewithinthechurch.Pursuingthislineofthinking,hewonderswhetherasaprivate individualCassanderwouldhavefeltcalledupontopublishhisviewsontheconditionofthechurch.Perrotisabletoendorseneitherthecleverargumentofpresentingtherelationshipbe-tweentraditionandScriptureasactandpotential19norCassander’sbroadin-terpretation of tradition, which rather than focusing on details and dealingwiththehighlycontentiousissueoftranssubstantiation,allowedCassandertocreatea taxonomyof traditions thatpresentedhis interpretationasbeingamatterofcourse.ThesamerhetoricalstrategyofcreatingsubdivisionsenableshimtopresentvirtuallythewholepracticeofRoman-Catholicceremoniesasbearinganapostolicsealofapproval.PerrotseemstohavetakenoffencenotsomuchatthemeanderingargumentationinDe officioasattherhetoricalpara-digmthatCassanderimposedontheseveryrealdifferences.

Latermann’sBreves & succintae notae ad tractatum Cassandri De officio pii viri unfold, for the Lutheran (Prussian) reader, Cassander’s implicit conces-sions to the Protestants, with reference to recent Lutheran theological writ-ings.WhereheallowshimselftomakecriticalremarksaboutLuther,Cassanderisreprimanded,buthisveiledcriticismoftheRoman-Catholicchurchisgivenlengthysupportinthenotes.

Onequestion,atfirstsightofonlyminorimportance,thatariseswhenpre-senting Latermann’s notes in an edition of De officio is where exactly theyshouldbeplaced.Shouldtheybeaddedinaseparateappendixtotheeditionofthetextofthefirstversionof1561,soastoemphasizethedifferencebetweentheoriginaltextandlatercommentary,orshouldtheybeaddedasfootnotestotheoriginaltext,amongBiblecitationsorreferencestootherexplanationsof

17 G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, “Charles Perrot (1541–1608). Een onbekend advies van zijnhandovereenwerkvanGeorgiusCassandermet,inappendix,ietsoverzijnDe extremis in ecclesia vitandis,”inNAKG/DRCH72–1(1992),pp. 72–91.Thetextconcernedis“Advissurle livre de Cassander intitulé De officio pii ac publicae tranquillitatis vere amnatis viri,”BSHPF,Paris,HotmannianaII,no.52,fol.121r–123v.

18 ThesepapersincludedthemanuscriptofDe extremis in ecclesia vitandis.19 ThesetermsareusedbyPosthumusMeyjesin“CharlesPerrot(1541–1608).Eenonbekend

adviesvanzijnhand,”p. 76.


Cassander’s tractbytraditionalphilologists?FromthepointofviewofNewPhilology,thisquestioncanbeseenasamatterofprinciple,giventhatNewPhilologydoesnotrecogniseanyhierarchyincommentaries,whethercreatedbytheauthororlatereditors,thoughitacknowledgestheirdifferences.Forthesakeofclarity,onecoulddecidethatLatermann’snotesshouldbeincludedasanappendix,althoughitwouldinfactbemoretruetotheprinciplesofNewPhilologytoannotateeachstatementbyCassanderwitheverythingthatany-onehadtosayaboutitatanypointinitshistory.

ThetranslationsofDe officio–thatintoGermanbyGeorgiusvonCelleandthatintoFrenchbyJeanHotman–canbeinvestigatedinavarietyofdifferentways.Besidesthewaytheyreinforceorweakenargumentswiththeantithesesandnuancesthattheycontain,itisabovealltheuseandexpansionofimagerythat attracts one’s attention in Cassander’s tract.20 Careful analysis of Cas-sander’suseofmetaphorsinDe officio,whichcanbeconsideredasa“système métaphorique,”21showsthattheyareintendedtoexpressthenecessityofregu-latingwhathas grown–theexistenceofwhichisconsequentlythefaultofnoone.Hotmansucceedsinembellishinghistranslationwithmetaphorsthatre-flectthis:Cassander’ssurgeonwhomustcureadiseaseisassistedbyaFrenchgardenerwhowishestouprootweeds.Imagerytakenfromtrade,seamanshipandtravel,restrictedasitistoapeculiartimeandspace,iscarefullytranslatedintoGermanbyGeorgiusvonCelle,thoughitishighlyunlikelythathisGer-manaudienceunderstoodthesemetaphorsaseasilyasCassander’sintendedreaderswouldhavedone.

New Philology, Analytical Bibliography, and a Postmodern/ Post-postmodern Approach to Literature

NewPhilologyisembracedbysomescholarsforthesamereasonsastheover-50sbuythemselvesamobilephoneoraniPod.Theirbeliefthatonecannotaffordnottoconnectwithmoderntrends,eventhoughsecretlydoubtingtheirusefulness, is very similar to Dietmar Rieger’s thinking when he wonders

20 IhavereferredelsewheretothesignificanceofmetaphorsinCassander’sletters:Robvande Schoor, “Georgius Cassander: Searching for Religious Peace in his Correspondence(1557–1565),”inBetween Scylla and Charybdis. Learned Letter Writers Navigating the Reefs of Religious and Political Controversy in Early Modern Europe,eds.JeanineDeLandtsheerandHenkNellen(Leiden-Boston,2011),pp. 127–47:pp. 145–47.

21 InthesenseassignedtothattermbyMaartenvanBuureninhisdissertation“Les Rougon-Macquart” d’Émile Zola. De la métaphore au mythe.n.p. 1986.

70 VanDeSchoor

whetherNewPhilologyis“im Grunde nur viel Lärm um nichts”andwhetheritwouldnotbebettertodevotehimselftothephilological“orderoftheday.”Hisanswer comprises a big “yes” and a little “no”: significant shifts in paradigmarisefromscholarly(i.e.traditionalphilological)praxis,neverfrom“Selbstin-szenierung und -etikettierung als ‘neu.’”However,anyonewhoshrugshisshoul-ders and ignores the New Philology, he warns, runs the risk of missing theinitialsymptomsofwhatcandevelopintoapost-postmodernapproachtolit-erature,fromwhichalotofgoodcanbeexpected.22Rieger’swarningisaper-tinentone:intheliterarytheoryoftheprintedbook,thattendencyhasalreadyled to the development of a systemic and institutional approach, discourseanalysis, and the revival of the author – previously thought to be “dead” intermsofhiscontributiontothesystemofvaluesofthetext.InNewPhilologytheauthor’s(oreditor’s)irrelevanceisstillacrucialdogma,23securedbytheimpossibilitytoidentifythosewhobroughtaboutthetransformationsthatatractlikeDe officiohasundergoneduringitsprintinghistory.Surelytextstrans-formaccordingtousercontexts–buttheydon’ttransformbythemselves.

OnemightarguethattheNewPhilologyoftheprintedbookoverlapswithNewHistoricismanddiscourseanalysis.ItisinanycasenoteworthythatnoextensivestudyoftheNewPhilologyoftheprintedbookhasyetbeenpub-lished.ThequestionsthatcanbederivedfromNewPhilologyinthecontextofmedievalstudiesforthestudyofearlybooks–fromtheincunabulauntilthemid-nineteenthcentury–havelongformedpartoftheresearcharmouryofanalyticalbibliography,i.e.thestudyofprintedbooks.Thescienceofeditingconcernsitselfwiththeproblemofthetransformationofthemanuscriptintoa printed text.The innovation that New Philology promises in the study ofprintedbookswouldthereforeseemtolienotprimarilyinaradicalrevisionofresearchperspectives,butaboveallinmeetinganeedforself-justificationandparadigmaticchanges.

22 DietmarRieger,“‘NewPhilology’?EinigekritischeBemerkungenausderSichteinesLiter-aturwissenschaftlers,”inAlte und neue Philologie,eds.Martin-DietrichGleßgenandFranzLebsanft(Tübingen,1997),pp. 97–109:p. 98.

23 OnecoulddoubtifthisslightlyprovocativestatementisreallychallengedbytheongoingdiscussionsinGermanicphilology.IngoldandWunderliche.g.wouldliketodefinethemedievalauthoras“VermittlervonbereitsGesagtem”:FelixPhilippIngoldundWernerWunderlich,“NachdemAutorfragen,”in:idem,Fragen nach dem Autor. Positionen und Perspektiven (Konstanz, 1992),pp.9–18.Recent literatureon thesubject:ThomasBein,“Zum‘Autor’ immittelalterlichenLiteraturbetriebundimDiskursdergermanistischenMediävistik,”inRückkehr des Autors. Zur Erneuerung eines umstrittenen Begriffs,eds.FotisJannidis,GerhardLauer,MatiasMartinezandSimoneWinko(Tübingen,1999),pp.303–20;ThomasBein,RüdigerNutt-KofothandBodoPlachta,Autor – Autorisation – Authen-tizität(Tübingen,2004).

71TheSalmanRushdieArchive

Chapter4

The Salman Rushdie Archive and the Re-Imagining of a Philological E-volution

Benjamin Alexander

“Ourwritingtoolsarealsoworkingonourthoughts,” FrederickNietzsche,typewrittenmanuscript

⸪Thefollowingdiscussionisshapedbyaparticularhistoriographicsensitivitythatcombinesaperspectiveonthearchiveasanintellectualbodythatfacili-tatescomplexscholarlypracticesofremembering,forgetting,andre-remem-bering,withaparallelconcernforevolvingprocessesofintellectualexchangeinvolvingthearchiveandtheliteraryscholar.AtthecentreofthisdiscussionreststheSalmanRushdieArchive,acollectionofpersonalmaterialsthat,fromthepointofviewofboththearchiveandtheliteraryscholar,isradicalinbothitsformandcontent.

My particular engagement with the Salman Rushdie Archive introduces(and then offers to reconcile) two distinct observations. First, The SalmanRushdieArchiveisamongthefirstcollectionstoprovideascholarlyperspec-tive on the increasingly intricate practice of twenty-first century textual in-quirythatis,atpresent,beingshapedandreshapedbyscholars’accesstoanarchivalrecordthatincreasinglyincludesauthors’engagementswithbothma-terial evidence and complex digital matrices. Second, dating from the 1990s(approximatelytheyearsinwhichRushdiepreparedandtransferredhismate-rialstothecareofthearchive),someliteraryscholarsbegantoengageinwhattheycalledNewPhilologyandtoapplyitsstrategiestotheinterpretationandre-interpretationoftexts.BasingthemselvesontheworkofBernardCerqui-glini(1989),theyarguedforthestudyoftextsinallitsvariationsfromabroadspectrumofliterary,historicalandcriticaldiscourses.1Whensensitivelycon-figured, these lines of discussion coalesce around a broadening critical per-spective regarding the subjective nature of the manufacture of texts

1 Esp.Nichols(1990)andWenzel(1990).

© BenjaminAlexander,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_006This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



72 Alexander

(manuscript,printedanddigital);and,whichrecallsBernardCerquiglini’sob-servationthat,“medievalwritingdoesnotproducevariants;itisvariance.”2

TheRushdieArchiveisamongthefirstarchivalcollectionstodocumenttheevolution of the intellectual and imaginative practices of a twentieth andtwenty-firstcenturyauthoras theyprogressedfromacombinedrelianceonmaterialinscriptionandtypewritingtechnologies,to,atpresent,analmostex-clusivedependenceonthefluidityofdigitalcomposition.Mostsuccinctly,theSalmanRushdieArchive is revolutionary (Iuse this termwithextremecau-tion);and,itisrevolutionaryfromacombinationofintellectualandhistoricalperspectivesthatreachdeepwithinthearchiveandacrossabreadthofaca-demicandhistoricalinterests.3

Salman Rushdie and the Archive: Shaping Twenty-first Century Literary Memory

OnMarch15,2010The New York TimespublishedanarticleentitledFending Off Digital Decay, Bit by Bit. “Among thearchivalmaterial fromSalman Rushdiecurrently on display at Emory University in Atlanta are inked book covers,handwritten journals and four Apple computers (one ruined by a spilledCoke)” the article begins. “The 18 gigabytes of data they contain seemed topromise futurebiographersand literaryscholarsadigitalwonderland:com-prehensive, organized and searchable files, quickly accessible with a fewclicks.”4

Withtheopeningof “SirSalmanRushdie’sarchive,”visitorstothewebpor-talforEmory’sManuscript,Archives,andRareBookLibrary,observe,“thecel-ebratedwriter’scomputerfiles,privatejournals,notebooks,photographsandmanuscriptsthatprovideinsightintohiscreativeprocess,campaignsforhu-man rights and celebrity.” “The multimedia exhibit, A World Mapped by Sto-ries,”theweb-pagefurthernotes,“alsomarkedasignificantstepforwardinthepreservationofpersonaldigitalmaterials.”5

2 Cerquiglini(1989),quotedinNichols(1990)1.3 Likemanythingsarchival,itisworthnotingthehistoricalfortunethatexplainsthepreserva-

tionofRushdie’soriginalcomputingdevices.DuringarecentinterviewpostedtoEmory’swebpage,RushdieexplainedtocuratorErikaFarrthatduringthefatwa,heavoideddiscardinghiscomputersoutofconcernforhispersonalsafety.Insteadofthrowingthemawayhesimplykepttheminaclosetuntiltheireventualtransfertothearchive.

4 Cohen,Patricia,“FendingoffDigitalDecay,BitbyBit,”inNew York Times15March2010.5 ElaineJustice,A World Mapped by Stories: The Salman Rushdie Archives.EmoryUniversity,

RobertWoodW.WoodruffLibrary.Web.library.emory.edu.

http://marbl.library.emory.edu/


Abriefreviewofcataloguerecord(FindingAidinarchivalparlance)totheRushdieArchiveimmediatelypointstoitsgroundbreakingcontributionbothto thearchivegenerallyandbyEmory’sarchivistsspecifically. It followsthattheFindingAiditselfidentifieswaysinwhichthetwenty-firstcenturyarchi-vistwillplayanincreasinglyvisibleroleintheshapingofliteraryscholarship.“Thepapersincludejournals,appointmentbooks,andnotebooks;writingsbyRushdie, specifically manuscripts and typescripts of his fiction, nonfiction,scriptsandotherwritings,”thefindingaidbegins. Theguidethendepartsfromthe familiarities ofmaterialmatricesand introduces pointsofaccess to thegestation of twenty-first century literatures within the expanding fluidity ofdigitaltechnologies.

OfparticulatenoteinthecollectionisthedigitalmaterialfromfourofRushdie’scomputersinadditiontoaharddrive.Thefilescurrentlyavail-able toresearchersare fromoneofhisearliercomputers,aMacintoshPerforma5400;theydatefrom1992–2002,andconsistofnotesanddraftsofRushdie’swritingsandselectedcorrespondence.Ofparticularinterestis a small cache of email correspondence, representing Rushdie’s firstforayintothisemergingformofcommunicationinthelate1990s.6

WhatistrulyrevolutionaryabouttheSalmanRushdieArchiveistheconver-genceofscholarlyopportunitytoexploreboththeevolutionofRushdie’scre-ativitywithinthespecificmaterialspaces(hardware),and,theevolvingdigitalmatrices (software) that theauthorpreferredacross the firstdecadesof thepersonalcomputerrevolution.

“AttheEmoryexhibition,”observesErikaFarr,DirectorofBornDigitalAr-chivesatEmory,“visitorscanlogontoacomputerandseethescreenthatMr.Rushdiesaw,searchhisfilefoldersashedid,andfindoutwhatapplicationsheused.TheycancallupanearlydraftofMr.Rushdie’s1999novel,The Ground Beneath Her Feet,andeditasentenceorpostaneditorialcomment.”7 “TotheEmory team,” Farr further observes, “simulating the author’s electronic uni-verseisequivalenttomakingareproductionofthedesk,chair,fountainpenandpaperthat,say,CharlesDickensused,andthenallowingvisitorstositandscribblenotesonacopyofanearlyversionof“BleakHouse.”8Farr’sobserva-

6 Rushdie,Salman,Salman Rushdie papers, 1947–2008.EmoryUniversity,Manuscript,Archives,andRareBookLibrary.

7 ElaineJustice,A World Mapped by Stories: The Salman Rushdie Archives.EmoryUniversity,RobertWoodW.WoodruffLibrary.Web.library.emory.edu.

8 Ibid.

74 Alexander

tionspointdirectlytothefundamentalobservationofthisessay:namelythatthe introduction of multifaceted combinations of material and digital evi-dencesintocontemporaryliteraryarchivesisconcurrentwiththeemergenceofnewdevelopmentsintextualscholarshipwhichseektoapplyNewPhilolo-gytotheinterpretationoftextsacrossincreasinglybroadfieldsofstudy.

At present, researchers can interact with Rushdie’s digital tools from therelativeoriginofthecommercializationofthepersonalcomputerthroughtothepresent. Oneofthegreatchallengesofthedigitalageremains,ofcourse,thefactthatthetechnologiesofcompositionwillcontinuetoshapeandre-shapeauthors’creativeprocessesatapacethatobscuresourjudgmentoftherelativeprimitivismofmachinesproducedonlyayearortwoago.Sotoosuchtechnologies of composition will remain in advance of the commensuratetechnologieswhicharecapableofpreservingandprovidingaccesstooutdatedhardwareandsoftware.TheRushdieArchiveretardssuchdistortionsandal-lowsscholarstosensitivelyconsidertheproductionofliteratureaccordingtolimitedspacesandoperatingcapabilitiesofthewordprocessingtechnologiesdatingfromthemid-1980s.

Farrnotesspecificallyscholars’accesstoboththeactualhardwareRushdieengagedwithandtheabilityto:“searchhisfilefoldersashedid,andfindoutwhatapplicationsheused(MacStickieswereafavorite).”9Suchremarkableaccessilluminatesthetremendousbroadeningofpotentialcaptureandpres-ervationofliterary“memory”thatdigitaltechnologiesofferfirsttothearchive,andthentothescholar.Suchaccessprovidesakindofsimulationofexperi-ence(thatis,opportunitiesforresearchwithinanexpandingcontextofcre-ation) that are unimaginable within the comparatively limited matrices ofmanuscriptsandprintedtexts.Whilescholars’engagementwithRushdie’spri-marymaterialswillalwaystakeplacewithinthecontextofthearchive(apriv-ilegedculturalspacedistancedfromtheauthor’senvironmentofcomposition),thearchivecreatesanadditionallayerofcontexttothegestationofparticulartextsthatistrulyrevolutionary,byprovidingaccesstobothRushdie’scomput-ersandtheiroperatingsystems.

Further,andofparticularimportancetothestudyathand,Emory’scontri-butiontoboththeexpandingperspectivesofthearchiveandconcurrentevo-lutionsoftextualandliteraryscholarshipportendsadditionalpointsofentryinto textual analysis. To-date, archivists have provided access to the digitalmanuscripts and drafts of manuscripts that Rushdie, himself, saved; i.e. tothosefilesthatarerepresentativeofRushdie’screativeprocess.These“digital

9 ElaineJustice,A World Mapped by Stories: The Salman Rushdie Archives.EmoryUniversity,RobertWoodW.WoodruffLibrary.Web.library.emory.edu.


manuscripts”areemphaticallydistinct fromtheadditional layers (Iuse thiswordliterally)ofevidencethatremainimprintedontheauthor’shard-drives.Thisisanessentialdistinction.Whileaccesstotheformerisunquestionablyprofound,theopportunitytoaccessthelatterwillbetrulyrevolutionary.And,Iargue,itisasharedawarenessamongacademicsofthisemergingpotentialtoaccess latentanddiscardedevidencesthathelpstoexplaintheon-goingre-valuationsamongtextualscholars fromtheearlymodernperiodthroughtothepresent.

Emory,however,isnotaloneitseffortstocaptureandprovideaccesstoourtwenty-firstcenturyliteraryheritage.TheHarryRansomCenterisworkingtomakeavailabledigitalrecordscontainedwithintheNormanMailerPapers.10Mailer, a contemporary of Rushdie’s, shared his experience of transitioningfrommanuscripttodigitalwritingpractices. Moreover,theRansomCentercanmakethepersuasiveclaimthat itcontains(perhapsmaintains)thearchivalrecordthatgivescontexttothefirstcomprehensiveevidenceofhypertextfic-tion:MichaelJoyce’sAfternoon: A Story.

ThecommitmentofinstitutionslikeEmorytopreservingtheevolutionofthe twenty-first century imagination as it continues to interact with digitaltechnologiesishistoricallyunprecedented.IfinstitutionslikeEmoryUniver-sityandtheRansomCenterweremorelimitedintheirperceptionsoftextualscholarshiptheycouldeasilymigratethedigitalevidencescontainedonthehard-drives of authors like Rushdie and Mailer and, much to their financialbenefit,disregardtheresponsibilityformaintainingtheoperationofauthors’computers.

Reimagining the Text

DuringthepreciseyearsthatRushdiewasnegotiatingforthetransferofhisarchive to Emory, and during which time archivists at Emory were makingrevolutionaryforaysintothepreservationandaccesstodigitalevidences,liter-ary scholars began to ask some fundamentally New Philological questionsabouttheverynatureoftextsdatingfromtheearlymodernperiodthroughtotherelativepresent.Thereasonsforthisconcurrentshiftor,perhaps,advance-ment in archival practices and literary scholarship are, I believe, easily ex-plained. Dating from the early 1990s, textual and literary scholars generally

10 For additional information about the Norman Mailer Papers, see Norman Mailer: An Inventory of His Papers at the Harry Ransom Center available at http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/.

76 Alexander

began to appreciate the coming challenges that digital technologies intro-duced.Indeed,datingfromthisperiodtherewasareorientationinscholarlyperspectiveontheverynatureofprimaryevidences,andtheirprocessofpro-duction,preservation,andfutureaccess,thatremainsrootedinscholars’vari-ousengagementswiththecomplexitiesofdigitaltechnologies–thatis,theirpersonal experiences of the “computer revolution.” Hindsight reveals a re-markableparallelenergyoccurringbothwithinthearchiveitself,and,acrossthe field of literary scholarship more generally. The opening of the SalmanRushdie Archive simply brings into focus these parallel interests, and illus-tratestheirincreasingconvergenceandprocessofmutualexchange.

Attheverycentreoftheseconvergentenergiesrestsafundamentalengage-ment with New Philology as it was envisioned by scholars dating from theearly1990s.“Arethinkingofphilologyshouldseektominimizetheisolationbetween medieval studies and other contemporary movements in cognitivemethodologies, such as linguistics, anthropology, modern history, culturalstudies,andsoon,”StephenNicholsobservesintheintroductiontoThe New Philology,“byremindingusthatphilologywasonceamongthemosttheoreti-callyavant-gardedisciplines.”11 “In itswidersensephilologyserves thebasicurge to understand a work of verbal and usually written communication,”writesSiegfriedWenzelinthesametext.“But,”Wenzelcontinues,

indoingsoitgoesbeyondthestrictconcentrationonlanguageanditsaspects,toincludewhatevercontextualinformationmighthelptoeluci-dateatext:firstofallitssources,butthenalsopoliticalandotheraspectsofhistory,biographywherethewriter isknown,socioeconomiccondi-tions(suchaspatronageorpracticaldemandforbooks),theconditionsandprocessesofwritingorcopyingadocumentandofprinting,thereli-gionorWeltanschauungoftheculturefromwhichthetextcomes,theintendeduseofthetext(itsSitzimLeben,tousethefashionablephrase),andmuchelse.12

To align critical observations regarding the evolution of textual scholarshipacrossthepasttwodecadeswiththeintroductionofdigitalevidencesintothearchiveistoobserveakindoffruitionofthecriticalobservationsofferedbyNewPhilologistsincludingNicholsandWenzel.

In my view scholars like Adrian Johns, David Kastan and Franco MorettihavebothincorporatedandexpandedupontheNewPhilologists’concernfor

11 Nichols(1990)1.12 Wenzel(1990)12.


contextualstudyinordertoexplaintheformationofliteraryconventionsdat-ingfromtheEnglishRenaissancethroughtotheVictorianage.Otherscholars,IamthinkingofLawrenceRaineyspecifically,havepioneeredaphilologicalapproachtotheinterpretationoftwentiethcenturytexts;indeed,textswhichhadlongassumedtohaveexhaustedtheresearchvalueoftheirprimarysourc-es. Mostrecently,MatthewKirschenbauminparticularhasturnedhisatten-tiontotheexplorationoftherevolutionaryadvancesinwritingtoolsthathavereshapedcreativepracticesacrossthepasthalf-century,exploring,inKirschen-baum’swords,thetwenty-firstcentury“forensicimagination.”13

This is a tremendous breadth of recent scholarship that has coalescedaround what are fundamentally new philological discourses and which hasbeensimultaneouslyfacilitatedbyscholars’engagementwithdigitaltechnolo-gies.

Thequestion,ofcourse,iswhydidtheseseeminglydistinctinterestsemergefrombothwithinthearchiveandtheacademyduringthisconcurrentperiodintime? Theanswer,Ibelieve,isinthewaysthatdigitaltechnologieshaveen-couragednewwaysofviewingourliteraryandculturalheritage.

The Text Re-Imaged

Itisacasebestmadethroughexample.OnOctober29th1998,ChristiesAuc-tionHouseauctionedanextraordinaryvolume. Thetext,athirteenthcenturyprayerbookcomposed inConstantinople,waspurchasedbyananonymouscollectorwhoimmediatelyplacedthevolumeinthecareofcuratorsandcon-servatorsattheWaltersArtMuseuminBaltimore,Maryland. Whatmakesthevolumesoextraordinaryisthatitis,byeverydefinition,apalimpsest.14 Initselfthismaynotseemremarkable. OnceinthecareofconservatorsattheWalters,however,afascinatingcombinationofintellectualandtechnologicalenergiesconvergedonthisvolume. Infact,theparticularnexusofthesetechnologicalandinterpretativepracticesidentifytheArchimedesPalimpsestasadefiningmomentinanticipatinghowculturalheritagematerialsandmanifestationsof“memory”ingeneralwillbeaccessedandre-imaginedintwenty-firstcenturycontexts.

TheArchimedesPalimpsest,asthisvolumehascometobeknown,isoneofonlythreemanuscriptsthatareknowntohavecontainedseminalphilosophi-cal and physical observations attributed to Archimedes written in ancient

13 Kirschenbaum(2008).14 NetzandNoel(2007).

78 Alexander

Greek,thelanguageofthephilosopher. ThetextincludestwoofArchimedes’treatises that can be found nowhere else: The Method and Stomachion. TwoothervolumesthatarebelievedtohavecontainedcomparabletracesofArchi-medes’treatisesdisappearedinca.1311and1550,respectively. TheonlyothercomparablevolumethatcontainsevidencesofArchimedes’ideasdatesfromapproximately700CE(400yearsbeforetheproductionofthepresenttext).

What makes this volume so singularly remarkable, however, is that it re-mains,initsverynature,apalimpsest. Thepresentvolumecomprises174foliopagesinscribedonparchment.Collectively,however,thesepagesrepresentaphysicalandintellectualsynthesisofleavesthatwereexcised(literallyextract-ed)fromatleastfivedistinctpre-existingtexts,including:tenpagesofwritingsattributed to Hyperides; six folio pages of an unidentified Neoplatonic text;fourfoliopagesfromanunknownliturgicalmanuscript;andafurthertwelvepagesfromtwotextsthathavenotyetbeenidentified.

ThemonksworkinginConstantinopleduringthetwelfthcenturyandwhointendedthecompositionofaprayerbookidentifiedforthematerialsoftheirvolumeleavesfromthesedisparatetexts.15Theythenscrapedtheextantinksfromtheirpagesandresizedtheleavestofittheuniformdimensionsoftheirintendedvolume,andtheninitiatedtheirprocessofcomposition.Fromthepointofviewofthearchive,whatthetwelfthcenturymonkspursuedduringtheirproductionofaEuchologionwasinfactacomplexprocessofremovingpreviousattemptstoconvergethought(cultureinitsimmaterialform)withitsmaterialrepresentation,thatis–inthecaseoftheArchimedesPalimpsest–leavesoftext,fromtheirexistingorpre-intendedintellectualandphysicalcon-texts (again, leaves of text). They then reconfigured their intellectual andphysicalpropertiestofittheirownparticularsetof intellectualandculturalinterests. Fromourpost-modernarchivalperspectivetheArchimedesPalimp-sestrevealsafascinatingandliteralprocessofremembering,forgetting,andre-remembering.

OnceinthecareofconservatorsattheWaltersArtMuseum,afascinatingconfluence of scholarly and technological energies converged upon this re-markable document. After the volume was dis-bound (a process that tookclose to4years), the individualpagesweredigitally imagedusingaprocesscalledmultispectralimaging.Theprocessallowsforthelayersoftexttobedif-ferentiatedanddiscerned.Theentireprocess isakindof textualarchaeolo-gy. Layersoftextualhistoryhaveinfactbeenliftedfromthevellumwiththe

15 TechnicallythevolumethemonkscomposedisknownasaEuchologion;aliturgicaltextoftheEasternCatholicChurchcorrespondingroughlytoaRomanCatholicMissal,RitualandPontifical.


result that scholars have had the opportunity to transcribe the Archimedestreatise.

I offer the example of The Archimedes Palimpsest as a segue into a moregeneral philological study precisely because its various interpretations relyuponaconvergenceofcriticalinterestsincludingatechnicalconcernforhowthis eleventh century text is being re-imagined within complex twenty-firstcenturydigitalmatricesintowhichthe“original”palimpsesthasbeenrepeat-edly migrated. In fact, this determinative re-exploration of our cultural andintellectualheritageprovidesanessentialcontexttotheunderstandingofhowphilologicalpracticesare,atpresent,beingmostsensitivelyexploredintwen-ty-firstcenturydigitalenvironments.Atthesametime,itexplainswhythesesame discourses have been effectively re-imagined within an increasingbreadthoftextualenvironments.

Theexplorationofpalimpsestsis,ofcourse,notnewtoclassicalandmedi-evalscholarship. WhatisperhapsmostremarkableabouttheArchimedesPa-limpsestisthekindofscholarlyfrenzyitseemstohaveproduced.Thereare,asexplained above, clear reasons for the emergence of these critical inter-ests. Mostsuccinctly,ahard-drive,bytheverydefinitionofitsdesignandop-eration,isapalimpsest. And,itisapalimpsestthatatpresent(likeitsByzantineantecedent)remainsinadvanceofcommensuratetechnologiesthatallowforitsfullanalysis.WhilethearchivistsatEmoryhavedoneatremendousjobinmakingselectdigitalfilesaccessible,namelythosefilesthattheauthorhimself“saved,”theyhaveonlyscratchedthesurfaceofanunimaginablewealthofla-tentevidencesthatremainencodedonRushdie’svarioushard-drives.

Totracethelineageofthisscholarlyperspectiveistoobservethatfromtheearly1990stextualscholarsbegantoabsorbthepalimpsestualcomplexitiesofdigitalcultureandintuitivelytograspthepotentialfornewscholarlyexplora-tions.However,intheplaceofatechnologicallysophisticated“de”-composi-tionoftheintellectualcontentsofahard-drivewhichbeganinapproximately1990, scholars turned their attention towards exploring contexts of creationandthereimaginingofestablishedphilologicaldiscourseswithintextualspac-es dating from the early modern period through to the present.16 From mypointofview,thisisacriticalprocessthattracesitsrootsthroughthethinkingofscholarslikeStephenNicholswho,datingfromthissameperiod,remained

16 As a point of beginning, I would offer George Bornstein’s 1993 text, entitled, simply,Palimpsest.Atextthatportends,Ibelieve,asubsequentdecade’sworthofscholarship,andatextthatinbothtitleandsubjectwouldhavebeenunimaginableduringthedecadethatprecededitspublication.

80 Alexander

focusedonthe“wayinwhichthebeliefsoftheMiddleAgesshapeditsinstitu-tionsandtextualartifacts.”17

The Advance of New Philology

Earlyforaysintotheinterrogationoftwenty-firstcenturytextsyieldsaremark-ablesynergyofintellectualandtechnicalchallenges.TakeforexampleMichaelJoyce’s novel, Afternoon. Joyce’s text was (and still is) published by Eastgate,whichaspostedonitswebportal,remainsaccordingtoRobertCooverofThe New York Times Book Review:“theprimarysourceforserioushypertext.”18Thetextitselfposesendlesspointsofcriticalrevaluationabouttheverynatureofthe“text”inthedigitalage: “IamcurrentlyrunningmyAfternoononaWin-dows machine, and the work was originally developed and released for theAppleMacintosh,”writesMatthewKirschenbaum,

initsowncatalogueEastgatediscriminatesbetweenso-calledMacintoshandWindows“editions,”whenwhattheyreallymeanisthatAfternoon hasbeenportedbetweenthetwoplatforms,probablymorethanonce.Selections from Afternoon have also appeared in print, in the Norton Anthology of Post-Modern Fiction (1997),andsubsequentlyonlineatNor-ton’sWebsite,whichdeploysanelaborateJava-basedinterfacetoapprox-imatesomeofthespecialfeaturesoftheoriginalStoryspacesoftware. Thison-lineversion(andport)isidentifiedasthesixtheditionoftheworkbyitsowncolophon,whichisotherwise identicaltotheoneIhaverepro-ducedabove. ThereareatleasttwoforeignlanguagetranslationsofAfter-noon, Italian and German. None of this considers the possibility thatcopiesofAfternoonhavebeenindividuallyalteredbytheirownersandputintocirculation,intentionallyorotherwise.19

Allthis,Kirschenbaumnotes,isexternaltotheadditionalcomplexitiesofin-terpretingtheauthor’screativeprocessasitmigratedamongvariouscomput-ersandoperatingsystems. “TheTruthis,”Kirschenbaumnotes,“therearemanyAfternoons,eveniftheliterarytextualdifferencesbetweenthemmayprovideslight;andindeeditisJoyce’sownpersonalhabit,whennamingfoldersand

17 Nichols(1990)3.18 http://www.eastgate.com/.19 Kirschenbaum(2008)261.


subfolderstostorebackupcopiesoftheworkonhispersonalfilesystems,tousetheplurallocution,‘Afternoons.’”20

Amidthisseeminglyoverwhelmingfluidityofemendationandre-imagin-ingofanytextacrossanynumberofdigitalspaces,scholarsmightfeelas iftheyfacedsomeSisypheanchallengeintryingtoestablishasocio-historicalcontextthatcanprovideabasisfortheinterpretationoftwenty-firstcenturytexts. In fact, I would argue that there are, at present, projects that rival, orperhapsevensurpassintermsoftheirtechnologicalsophistication,thecon-text of creation of works like Joyce’s Afternoon. Most emphatically I wouldpointtothecommitmentoftheLibraryCongresstopreserveTwitter. “Libraryofficialsexplainedtheagreementasanotherstepinthelibrary’sembraceofdigitalmedia”The New York TimesreportedinAprilof2010. “Twitter,theSili-conValleystart-up,declaredit‘veryexcitingthattweetsarebecomingpartofhistory.’”21 Iwouldalsooffer theLibraryofCongress’Web Capture Projectaswell as Brewster Kahle’s monumental project, The Internet Archive.22 If suc-cessful,thecombinationoftheseprojectsoffertheprospectofasocio-histori-cal context unimaginable to scholars of medieval and early modern culturewhere,ingeneral,thechallengeishowtobestaccountforabsenceratherthanfacetheprospectofoverwhelmingevidence.

ToreturntotheexampleofJoyce’sAfternoon,witheachsucceedingobser-vation about the complex lineage of Joyce’s work that Kirschenbaum notes,from the point of view of both the archive and the scholar the interpretivechallenges increase exponentially to the point where one finds oneself at akindofcriticalfull-circle,recallingBernardCerquiglini’sobservationregarding“varience”andthenatureofmedievalculture.

The synergies between such philological discourses and the evolution oftwenty-firstcenturycriticalparadigmsdonotendwithCerquiglini. “Byitsori-gins,in[Erich]Auerbach’sview,”Nicholswrites,“philologyrepresentedatech-nologicalscholarshipmadepossiblebyaprintculture. Itjoinedforceswiththemechanicalpressinamovementawayfromthemultiplicityandvarianceofamanuscriptculture,therebyrejecting,atthesametime,therepresentationofthepastwhichwentalongwithmedievalmanuscriptculture:adaptationortranslatio,thecontinualrewritingofpastworksinavarietyofversions,aprac-ticewhichmadethecopyingofmedievalworksanadventureinsupplementa-tionratherthanfaithfulimitation.”23ThoughIdoubtheimaginedaconnection

20 Ibid.21 Lohr,Steve,“LibraryofCongresswillSaveTweets,”New York TimesApril14,2010.22 Seehttp://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/andhttp://archive.org/.23 Nichols(1990)3.

http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/

82 Alexander

whilehewaswritinghiscritiqueofAuerbachuponsomewellantiquatedwordprocessingmachine,Nicholsarticulatesasetofassumptionsregardingthena-tureofprintcultureanditsnaivelyassumed“enhancedfidelity”(touseAdrianJohns’phrase24)comparedwiththeestablishedsubjectivitiesofthemedievalmanuscript.

Astheseconceptualizationsofthecomplexlineageoftextsevolvedwithincertaincriticalcirclestheyhavelenttoamoregeneralquestioningofcultural“memory.”Thetermisbroad,butarticulatesanevolvingconcernfortheprob-lematic relationship between scholars’ interrogation of material (historical)artifactsandtheinherentsubjectsoftheirintellectualcomposition.“Psycholo-gistsknowthatmemoryisneveraperfectwitnesstotheeventremembered,”David Kastan observes in Shakespeare and the Book, “it represses, displaces,andfalsifies;nonethelessitisinformative,thoughlessasanobjectiverepre-sentationoftheeventthanastheoverdeterminedregisteroftheevent’sre-ceptionandassimilation.Printrememberssimilarly;ittoofalsifiesevenasitrecallsandrecords,incorporatingelementsseparatefromthatwhichitwouldovertlyremember.TheShakespearerememberedintheprintinghouseisin-evitablysomethingotherthanShakespeare–bothmoreandlessthanhisorig-inalpresence.Hiscorpusisreconstructedbysetsofmotivationsandpracticesthatleavetheirmarksuponthetext,distortingitevenastheypreserveandsetitforth.”25

AcrossthepagesofShakespeare and the BookKastanpeelsawaylayerafterlayer of assumptions that are, and perhaps were, deeply rooted in a sharedculturalconfidenceaboutShakespeare’sverypresenceinthevariousprintedtextsthatwehadlongassumedwerefaithfultosomeimagined“trueoriginalcopies.”Onceexposed,KastanfillstheintellectualspaceleftbytheseassumedconfidenceswithacollectionofsubjectivitiesthatshaketheveryfoundationofourassumptionsaboutShakespeare,and,bycloseextension,thetransmis-sionofhisgeniusacrosstimeandspace.

AsIhavebeenarguingthroughoutthisbook,he[Shakespeare]hasneverreallybeeninanyofthosetextualspaceswherewepretendheresides.Nonetheless,weendoweachofthemwithhisname,discoveringinthevariousformsoftheirmaterialityimaginedsignsofhispresence.WeareabitlikeHamlet,lookingataghostthataccordingtoeverythinghehasbeentaughtcannotbehisfather’sspirit. Itstandsbeforehimin“ques-tionableshape,”yetnonethelessthePrincedecidestorecognize inthe

24 Johns(1998)8.25 Kastan(2001)15.


apparitionanauthenticityhisWittenbergeducation,anyhow,shouldtellhimisimpossible:“I’llcalltheeHamlet,/King,father,royalDane”(1.4.44–5). Lookingatthevariousquestionableshapesinwhichtheplaysappearto us, we too are motivated (and like Hamlet, more by desire than byknowledge)tofindbehindthe“solid”or“sallied”texts,displayedinwhat-evermediainwhichweencounterthem,aghostlypresencethatwecallShakespeare.26

SuchconcernforthesubjectivitiesoftheearlymodernprintshopremainsatthecentreofAdrianJohns’seminaltext,The Nature of the Book.“Earlymodernprintingwasnotjoinedbyanyobviousornecessarybondtoenhancedfidelity,reliability, and truth,” before adding, emphatically: “That bond had to beforged.”27

Johnsgoesontoobservethat,“thepublicationofanytextmarksthecom-pletionofonesetofcomplexsocialandtechnologicalpracticesandthebegin-ning of another.”28 While the observations of both Johns and Kastan arefundamentallyphilologicalintheirsensitivities,itisessentialtonotethat,de-spite the exhaustive critical interest in early modern culture, such insightswerenotfullyarticulateduntil1998and2001respectively;thatis,duringtheapproximateyearsthatRushdie’sarchivewastransferredtoEmory.

Theunitingofacriticalenergythatisnowsharedamongtextualscholars,bookhistorians,andliteraryarchives,and,whichremainsfocusedonacom-moninterestintheinherentsubjectivitiesoftheproductionandreproductionof ideas,emergedduring themid 1990swithscholars like JohnsandKastanleadingtheway.

To-date,however,thissharedcriticalspacehasfocusedontheinterrogationofthetext,broadlyconceivedasafinishedproductreadytobesoldandcircu-lated. Currently, scholars like Kirschenbaum are pushing the boundaries oftextualscholarshiptoincludeconcernforthemoregeneralgestationoftexts;butwithakeeninterestinhowtheirspecificcultivationisinextricablylinkedtoevolvingdigitaltechnologies. ItisanopeningupofanewformofcriticaldiscoursemadepossiblebytheworkofinstitutionslikeEmoryUniversityandtheHarryRansomCenterandwhicharerootedin,inKirschenbaum’swords,“theforensicimagination.”Heretoo,however,wefindmorepointsofcriticalsynergythandistinction.

26 Kastan(2001)136.27 Johns(1998)30.28 Johns(1998)8.

84 Alexander

Into the Twenty-first Century

“Weliveinatimeofforensicimagination,”MatthewKirschenbaumwritesinMechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination:

asevidencedbythecurrentvogueforforensicscienceintelevisiondramaandgenrefiction. Forensicsinthispopularsensereturnsustothesceneofthecrime;asalegalandscientificenterpriseforensicinvestigationhasitsorigins in thesamenineteenth-centuryera thatproduced thegreatinscribingenginesofmodernity–thegramophone,film,andthetype-writerallamongthem.29

Forthescholarofcontemporaryliterature,the“sceneofthecrime”istheinter-activespacebetweenauthorandcomputerthatshapestheformationoftextsinadigitalage. ItfollowsthatcuratorslikeFarrarejustifiablyexcitedabouttheopportunityfordigitalmediatobothretainand,insomeway,recreatetheau-thors’ process of composition within the precise technological space thatshapedtheirartistry.

Medievalscholars,however,havelongstressedthattheclosestudyofthecontextofcreationinitiatespointsofentryintotheinterrogationofamanu-script’s intellectual content. This is,ofcourse,commontoa field thathas along history of decoding and interpreting palimpsests which, to the eyes ofmodernscholarspresentatextualnightmare.

Theintrigueofthiscriticalunitydoesnot,however,simplyjumpfromme-dieval contexts and reappear in post-modern digital criticism. Rather, it in-creasinglyrunsthroughtheinterrogationoftextsacrosscenturiesofdistincttechnologicalinnovations. And,whilescholarslikeKastanandJohnshaveleadthechargeintotherevaluationofearlymoderntexts,itistheworkofscholarslikeLawrenceRaineywhourgedscholarsofmorecontemporaryliteraturetoquestion their assumptions about the very nature of archival materials thathad longassumedtohaveexhausted their researchvalueandwere increas-inglylookeduponasmuseumobjects.

“Ifwearetorestorethespecificityoftheprepublicationmaterialsandas-sess their bearing on critical understandings of The Waste Land,” LawrenceRaineywritesinRevisiting The Waste Land,“wemustfirstreturntothemanu-scriptsthemselves,revisitingthedebateswhichgroundtoahaltinthemid-1980s.”30Rainey’spreferenceto“returntothemanuscripts”of thetwentieth

29 Kirschenbaum(2008)250.30 Rainey(2006)2.


centurypoemthathasreceivedarguablythemostintensecriticalattention,highlightsthisresurgenceofcriticalinterestsamongscholarsofthetwentiethcenturyregardingtheprimacyoratleastcriticalparityofhistoriographyandconcernforthetechnicalmanufactureoftextswiththeirintellectualandcre-ativecontent.

The Waste Land manuscripts have, of course, been the source of focusedscholarlyattentionsincetheirdonationtotheBergCollectionofBritishandAmerican Literature in 1968. Harcourt published The Facsimile Edition in1971. Acrossthepasthalf-centurythesemanuscriptshavenotchangedintheirintellectualcontentorphysicalcomposition. Thismayseemlaughablyobvi-ous. Amidasetofcriticaldiscoursesthatgaveprioritytoliterarytheoryandclosereading,however,thesemanuscriptsandtypescriptsremainedinastateofcriticaldormancy.Raineysimplyaskedofthesemanuscriptsfreshquestionsthatwerephilological intheirorientationbutspecific intheirconcernforaforensic investigation, and which elicited fresh answers that provided for a“new” and historically determinative appreciation for Eliot’s creative pro-cess. Intermsofestablishingacriticalperspectivebasedonacontinuumofphilologicalinterests,Raineyshowedwithcunninginsightthattheeventuali-tiesofthepoem’scomposition,itsproblematicmigrationfrommanuscripttotypescript, and its manufacture as a printed object outlines a succession ofmultifariousmatricesrepletewiththeirowncontingenciesandwhichcollec-tivelyillustratetheinherentsubjectivitiesofthe“text.”

“Thespecificityoftheprepublicationmaterials,”writesRainey,“–theirheft,their material andhistoricaldensity–hasbeen levelled byaprocessofab-stractioninto‘text,’oreven‘the1921text,’thatdefinitearticleurgingamono-lithic entity that is at odds with the experience of pondering the undated,disorderedscrapsthatjostleoneanotherinthefacsimileedition.”31Rainey’sobservations,madefromthedistanceofsuccessivecenturies,echothekindsof philological concern for the medieval manuscript articulated by scholarssuchasNichols,WenzelandAuerbach,and,contemporaryconcerns for theprintedbookofferedbyJohnsandKastan.

By“pondering”RaineyportendsanincisivestudyofEliot’smanuscriptsthatcombinesphilologicaldiscoursewithaclosestudyoftheirmaterialitywhichmightbestbedescribedas“forensic”initsorientation. “Wemustestablishachronology for the entire corpus of prepublication materials to furnish acoherentaccountofthepoem’sproduction,assayingitssignificanceforlong-standingdebatesabouttheplanorprogramwhichshapedthepoem’scompo-sition.” Raineycontinues,

31 Rainey(2006)2.

86 Alexander

...weneedtointegratethoseconsiderationsintoahistoryspecifictotheearlytwentiethcentury,acultureofthebookthatgravitatedaroundtheepitomeofmoderncommunicationflows,thetypewriter,andthatrecog-nizablymodernprotagonist,thetypist. “Suchanexerciseneedsnoapol-ogy,”wroteHughKennerattheoutsetofhisownattempttoaddresstheprepublicationmanuscriptssomethirtyyearsago. “The Waste Landisstilladeterminateofmodernistconsciousness,post-modernistalsoifithascometothat,andtheprofit...maybethatweshalllearnalittlemoreaboutthehistoryofourownminds.” Or,asEzraPoundputitinhispref-acetothefacsimile,“ThemoreweknowofEliot,thebetter.”32

WhatRaineydiscoversremains,fromthepointofviewoftraditionalphilology,strikinglyobvious.

ThekeytounlockingtheprecisechronologyofThe Waste Land’scomposi-tionisrevealedduringahistoricallysensitivereviewofthetechnologyofitsproduction (primarily typewriters) and in the very fabric of the allied tech-nologies(primarilypaper)usedduringthepoem’scomposition. “Thesetype-writers,” observes Rainey, “produced characters generally rather similar inappearance.”

Yetoncloserscrutinytheycanbedistinguishedfromeachotherbysev-eralfeatures.Oneistheminusculeformsoftheletterstandf.Inthetype-writerusedforpartsIandIIthedescenderofthelower-casetendswithafinishingstrokethatseemsoddlyconstricted,curvingbacksharplyasitraises towardthecross-strokeabove.Similarly,theascenderofthelower-casefconcludeswithanarcthatcurlsbacktowardthecharacter’sbody,givingitacrabbedappearance,anditendsatapointhighabovethelevelofthecross-stroke.33

“Eliotwasafrugalman,”Raineyfurtherobserves,“atleastintheyears1914–1922.”Amazingly,itisinfactEliot’sparsimonioushabitsthatprovidethekeyevidenceusedtounravelThe Waste Land’sprecisepre-publicationhistory.

“DespiteearningarelativelysubstantialsalaryatLloydsBankfrom1917on-ward,”Raineycontinues,“hewasbesetbyworriesovermoney,promptedchief-lybyVivien’smanymedicalexpensesandtheneedtokeepacottage inthecountrywhereshespentmuchofhertime. Hisfrugalityextendedtohiscon-sumptionofpaperaswell:heseemstohavepurchasedrelativelysmallbatches

32 Rainey(2006)2.33 Rainey(2006)34.


ofpaperthatwouldlastatmostafewmonths,oftenonlyafewweeks,beforehewouldpurchaseanother.Asaconsequence,hisletterscanserveasacontrolbase forestablishing thedatesof theprepublicationmaterials of The Waste Land.”34 Eliot’spreferenceforparticularpaperstockprovesdeterminative. “El-iot,”notesRainey,“begantouseHieraticBondpaperinhiscorrespondenceinthefirstlettersthathewroteafterhisreturnfromMargatetoLondon.Quiteplainly,thepaperwaspartofasmallsupplywhichhehadpurchasedwhileinMargate,theremainderofwhichhethenproceededtouseupwhileinLon-don.TheHieraticBondpassages,then,wereallcomposedwhileEliotwasinMargate.”35

OnceRaineydiscernsfromwithinthesedistinctpaperstocksalatenthis-toricalnarrativeestablishingaprecisechronologyofEliot’screativeprocessiseasily achieved. “Given the preponderance of letters on British Bond whichdatefromtheperiod9–22May,aswellastheLondonLetter,May1921,whichmusthavebeenpostedby1Mayorthereabouts,itseemssafetosaythatthetypescriptsofPartsIandIIwereproducedduringthisperiod,andthattheyrepresentedasummationofworkthathadbeeninprogresssinceMarchorFebruary,perhapseventhelastweekofJanuary.”36

Rainey’sstudyoffers,arguably,themostdeterminativecontributiontocon-temporaryunderstandingsofbothEliotandThe Waste Landtoappearacrossthepastseveraldecadesor,arguably,sincethepoem’spublicationin1921. Rain-ey’sinsightsprovideadeterminativechronologyandperspectiveonthepre-publicationhistoryofthepoem,thatis,aprecisecriticalgesturethathelpstorecoverthevariouscontextsofthepoemscreation.

Most succinctly, Rainey subjects a modern poem (perhaps, the modernpoem)toasetofcriticalsubjectivitiesthatrecallphilologicalconcernsforthecomplexitiesofthe“manuscriptmatrix.” Hiscriticismepitomizestherecentawakeningof scholars toaparticularly,and largelyphilological,concern forliterarymatricesacrossabreadthoftechnologicalmediations.

Moreover,Rainey’sparticularinvestigationrepresents,fromatechnologicalpointofview,akindofmiddlegroundinhisspecificconcernfortheinfluenceofthetypewriterontheformationoftheliteraryimagination. TheimpressonthetypewriterontheformationofnewliterarymatricescantraceitrootsbacktoMarkTwain’srevolutionarydecisiontoproduceatypescriptofLife on the Mississippi(well-regardedasthefirstliterarytypescriptproducedbyanAmer-ican author) and claims an experimental apex with Jack Kerouac’s famous

34 Ibid.35 Rainey(2006)11.36 Rainey(2006)19.

88 Alexander

experimentinvolvinga120footscroll,atypewriter,andhisjourneyacrosstheUnitedStates(On The Road,ofcourse,theresultingtext).37

In2011, JohnMcMillanpublished,Smoking Typewriters: The Sixties Under-ground Press and the Rise of Alternative Media in America. McMillan’s study,likethatofRainey,advancesphilologicaldiscoursesdeepintothetwentiethcentury. “WehavenoshortageofbooksseekingtoexplainhowsomanyAmer-icanyouthsgrewrestlessanddissatisfiedwiththeircountryintheearly1960sand why they became so intensely radical in the mid-1960s,” Rainey ob-serves. “TheNewLeft’sdevelopment,however,can’tbeaccountedforbythese[CivilRights,Vietnam,etc.]factorsalone;ithasalsobeennecessaryforschol-arstoexaminethe internaldynamicsthatpropelledthemovement.”38 Suchinvestigation leads, for McMillan, directly into specific interpretation of thecontextsofcompositionanddisseminationofradicalnewspapers. “Byshow-inghowundergroundnewspaperseducated,politicized,andbuiltcommuni-ties among disaffected youths in every region of the country this bookcontributes,”McMillanargues,“toabroaderrevisionisteffort.”39

WhileMcMillan’sinterestsmaybemorebroadlysocio-historical,theybarethe unmistakable impress, I would argue, of the work of Rainey (as well asJohns,Kastan,andMoretti)intheirindebtednesstoNewPhilologyasitwasimaginedbyscholarsduringthelate1980sandearly1990s.

Old Challenges Reimagined

Writingatthebeginningofthe1990sSiegfriedWenzelobservedwithcautionthat,“thereare,however,severalpertinentobjectionsthatmightberaisedtothe claim that philology continues to have an important heuristic value.”Among these concerns, Wenzel notes, is the argument that Philology, “wasdone,andperhapsdonewell, inthenineteenthcenturyandearlytwentiethcenturies;but–quiteapartfromthefactthatourmodernintellectualquesthasmovedonbeyondthetypicalconcernsofphilology–themajorinsightswhichphilologycouldfurnishhavebeenfurnished,andnothingnewcanbeadded.” Or,asWenzelcontinues,thereisacriticismthat“philologyisnolongerrelevanttothemainobjectiveofliterarystudies,”and,lesstenablestill,that

37 MarkTwainwasespeciallyfascinatedbytheprospectofmechanicaltypesetting.Duringthe1870sTwaininfactwentbankruptfinancingJamesPaige’sPaigeCompositor:anearlycompetitorofOttmarMergenthaler’sLintotypeMachine.

38 McMillan(2011)5.39 McMillan(2011)6.


philologistswork,“inblissfulignoranceofsuchnotionsasstructuralism,thehermeneuticcircle,orindeterminacy.”40

ThetimingofWenzel’sauthorshipisimportant. Workingwiththecriticalenvironment of the late 1980s and early 1990s his observations were in factkeenintheappreciationforthetechnologiesofliterarycomposition. Atthetime,suchconcernsweresimplydismissedasirrelevanttoclassicistsandme-dievalistsandhadlittletocontributetotheinterpretationoftextsauthoredand“published”sinceGutenberg. Things,however,wereabouttochange.

By1990,itiswithoutquestionthatthecomputerhadbeenmade“personal”(reallythedefiningfeatureofthecurrentdigitalrevolution)butscholarlycon-cernforitsimpressontheshapesofintellectualandliteraryhistoryremained,atbest,nascent. Bythemid-1990sscholarslikeGeorgeBornsteininworksin-cluding, The Iconic Page in Manuscript, Print, and Digital Culture (1998) andMaterial Modernism: The Politics of the Page(2006),werebeginningtoaskcer-tain fundamental questions about the nature of literary production withintwentiethcenturycontexts. “IftheMonaLisaisinParis,attheLouvre,”Born-steinwondersinhisintroduction,“whereisKingLear?”41

AsIhavebeendescribing,scholarsofthehistoryofthebookinparticularpicked-uponthispointofcritical revision. Whatscholars likeAdrian JohnsandDavidKastanhaveshown,andshownwithremarkablesensitivity,isthatthe“book,”especiallywhenexaminedfromanartifactualpointofview,issim-plyapieceofhighlycommodifiedtechnologythatfromthe1450sonwardfun-damentally reshaped how scholars and intellectuals have developed andcommunicatedideas.42

Workingwithinthiscriticalperspective,whatinfactthedigitalrevolutionhasimpresseduponagrowingcontingentofscholars isthatauthorshiphasalwayscombinedsubjectivitiesoftechnologyandhistoriography. Whilethismaypresentasacommonplacecriticalobservation,thefactremainsthatsuchphilologicalengagementwithtextshas,to-date,largelyremainedthealmost

40 Wenzel(1990)13.41 Bornstein(1993)5.42 IfeelitisimportanttonotetheearlycontributionofElizabethEisensteinandherpubli-

cationofThe Printing Press as an Agent of Social Change(1980).Whilemorecontempo-rary scholars (including Johns) have established their particular analysis of thesubjectivities of the printing press in opposition to, what is sometimes referred to as,Eisenstein’s“magisterial”regardforGutenberg’sworkshop,Ithinkitimportanttoappre-ciateEisensteinasbeginningacriticaldiscoursethatwas,atthetimeofherauthorship,largelyabsentfromacademiccircles.Further, I thinkit fairtoconsiderthatEisensteinwasmakingaverychallenging(andlaudable) foray intowhathas longbeenakindof“boysclub”oftheRareBookworld.

90 Alexander

exclusive domain of classical and medieval scholars. The opening of theSalmanRushdiearchiveillustratesthatsuchdefinedinterestsaregivingwaytomuchbroaderandmoreinclusivecriticalexchanges.

InherrecentNew York Timesarticleentitled,The Muses of Insert, Delete and Execute,SchuesslerquotesKirschenbaumasstatingthat,“Thestoryofwritinginthedigitalageiseverybitasmessyastheink-stainedragsthatwouldhavelittered Gutenberg’s print shop or the hot molten lead of the Linotype ma-chine...Paynoattentiontotheneatlyformattedanddeceptivelytypo-freesur-faces of the average Microsoft Word file.”43 Kirschenbaum made thesecomments,asSchuesslerpointsout,atarecentlunchtimelectureattheNewYorkPublicLibrarytitled“StephenKing’sWang,”“acheekyreferencetothatbest-selling novelist’s first computer, bought in the early 1980s.”44 Kirschen-baum’sobservationsadvanceuponthecriticalinsightsofscholarslikeJohnsand Kastan: “The truth is that all of the technologies of writing betray ‘realpresence’;alwaystheyofferasimulacrumofavoicethatisbydefinitionab-sent,”Kastanobserves. “Thepreference thenofoneoveranothercannotbebasedonitspresumptionofitsgreaterauthenticity. Andeventhepencil,itisworthremindingourselves, isnomoreanaturalwriting tool than thecom-puter. Itisjustaloteasiertounderstandhowitworksanditstracesaremoredirectlylinkedbacktotheirauthor;thatis,theyaredependentlessuponotheragenciesthanprintordigitaldisplay,butnotthereforeanylessmediationsoftheauthorswork.”45

Kastan’spoint,ofcourse,isthattheverytechnologyofthewordprocessor(like thatof thepenciland theprintingpress)werespecificallydesigned tofacilitatetheproductionofasinglemanuscriptthatconcealsthroughitsveryprocessofcompositiontheerrors,emendations,andeditsassociatedwithma-terial(paper)basedtechnologies.Reflectingonevidencesdiscoveredwithinhisownarchive,SalmanRushdiehimselfcommentsonthewriters’fetishforthe “clean” page. “Like many writers I don’t like to show people pages withmany x-ings out,” Rushdie explained during an interview with Erika Farr. “Ifound,”Rushdiecontinued,“thatbecauseoftheeaseofrevision,becauseoftheeaseofcleaningupthepage...[it]leftmoretimeavailablefortheactualwork. Thatyouactuallyrevisedmorejustbecauseyoucould...Thefactthatyoucouldendlesslyimprovemadememorewillingtodothat.Itwas,inthe

43 KirschenbauminSchuessler,Jennifer,“TheMusesofInsert,DeleteandExecute,”inNew York TimesDecember26,2011.

44 KirschenbauminSchuessler,Jennifer,“TheMusesofInsert,DeleteandExecute,”inNew York TimesDecember26,2011.

45 Kastan(2001)135.


end,actuallybeneficialtothefinishedproduct. IwouldgooveritfiveorsixtimesmorethanIwouldonatypedpage.”46

While from Rushdie’s point of view the word processor may have simplyreplacedtheroleof thepencil, thetypewriter,and, theprinter increatingaliterary product that is appreciably clean and therefore trustworthy, from aphilological perspective, and, more certainly from that of the archive, suchconcernfortheconcealmentofprocesspresentsatremendouscomplexityofchallenges. In short, while present scholarship continues to engage with abroadeningofassumptionsaboutintellectualandliteraryhistorythatmedie-valistshavelongappreciated(“medievalwritingdoesnotproducevariants;itisvariance”)thecurrenttechnologiesthatfacilitateliteraryproductionaresi-multaneouslyconcealingitsprocessinwayswhichmaketheArchimedesPa-limpsestappearalmosttransparent.

Itisthereforeworthconsideringtheevolutionofwhatmightbeimaginedtobethecontemporaryscriptoriaorprintshop.HereagainPhilology,andNewPhilologyspecifically,offerspointsofentryintothepoignancyoftechnologi-calandhistoricalcontext.Inturn,however,NewPhilologyalsostandstoad-vanceitsowncriticalunderstandingsbyconsideringcloselythestrategiesofcontemporary archivists and literary scholars to capture a revolutionarybreadthofevidences,andwhichallowforscholars’closestudyofauthorship(andliteraturegenerally)asitenteredandnowprogressesthoughourageofthedigitalincunabula.

Digital Incunabula: Contexts of Creation

OnApril1,1976,SteveJobs,SteveWozniakandRonaldWayneestablishedAp-pleComputer. EightmonthslaterthecompanywasformallyincorporatedonJanuary3,1977. Apple’sfirstproduct,theApple I Personal Computer Kit(handbuiltbyWozniak)wasintroducedattheHomebrewComputerClubandre-tailedfor$666.66.

Apple’soriginsarehumble.Indeedtheyreflectthecombinationofentre-preneurship,anti-intellectualexperimentation,andinsightfulcomprehensionofhistoricalandtechnicaldemandsthatcombinetoreveal(toa fewmindseachcentury)thepotentialforlucrativere-inventionoftheprocessbywhichwecomposeandshareideas. CertainlyJobs,WozniakandWaynedeservetobe

46 SalmanRushdieinterviewwithErikaFarr(DirectorofBornDigitalArchivesatEmory).As of September 28, 2012 video available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmb1oQcRmkM.

92 Alexander

consideredalongwithinfluencesofGutenberg,Fourdrinier,andMergenthal-er.

Forthepurposesathand,itisessentialtoappreciatethatApple’sevolutionisofinterestfortheprecisereasonthatatnoothermomentinhistorysinceGutenberghasanindividualorgroupofindividualsbroughtintoalignmentaparticularfocusofgeniuswiththeexpectationsofaculturethatwasreadytoacceptandembracenewprocessesofcreating ideasandtransmitting themacrosstimeandspace. TheresultofApple’ssuccessisnothinglessthanGuten-berg-esqueintermsofitsdeterminativeinfluenceonlanguage,itsproduction,itscontinuedself-invention,andintheprocessesbywhichindividualimagina-tionspursuecreativeprocesses.

To chart a line of evolution from Apple’s origins in a garage in Palo Alto,Californiaduringthemid-1970stotheannouncementbytheRareBooksandManuscripts Division at Emory University that they had made available forscholarlyresearchtheSalmanRushdieArchiveistorealizeahistoricalperiodof less than forty years. Considered within the more general expanse of re-cordedintellectualhistorythisisashockinglybriefperiodoftime. Inshort:weliveinaworldofthedigitalincunabula.

OnNovember19,2007,AmazonreleasedtheFirstGenerationKindle. Thedeviceretailed for$399.00. In less thansixhoursAmazonsold itsentirere-serve. TheKindleremainedoutofstockuntillateApril. TheKindle2wasre-leasedonFebruary23,2009.TopromotethenewKindle,authorStephenKingmadehis(then)newnovella’sURavailableexclusivelythroughAmazon.

ThegeniusbehindtheKindle’ssuccessiseasilyexplained,andhasundeni-ableprecedentinGutenberg’ssuccessfulcommodificationofprintduringthemiddleofthefifteenthcentury.Quitesimply,fromthepointofviewofproductdevelopment,Amazonprivileged“e-inktechnology”overenhancedoperabili-ty. E-inkuseselectronicimpulsestodisplayandre-displayactualinkacrossthescreen. Thereisnobacklight. Theresultisadigitaldepictionofprintedtextthatremainsinkbasedandwhichrepresentsakindofseamlesscontinuumofrepresenting ideasbymeansofan ink-baseddelineation. Theresult, fromareader’sperspective,isareplicationofafamiliartextualspace. Onethatinfactpresentsthereader,whoremains,ofcourse,aconsumer,withaconfidenceintheproductthatisbasedonitsfaithfulrepresentationofaprintedpage.

Amazon’s development of the Kindle was both prescient, and strikinglyconsistentwithtechnicaldecisionsthatGutenbergmadeduringthemiddleof the fifteenth century and which resulted in his careful development of atechnology that mimics to an astonishing degree its manuscript anteced-ents. Several centuries later, the typewriter was designed to replicate theappearance of printed texts. More currently, the entire architecture and


nomenclatureofword-processingprogramshavebeencarefullydesignedtorepresentthe“familiar”toagenerationofuserswhohavehadtobeconvinced(asconsumers)toembraceanewtechnology. ThesameholdstrueforE-Read-ers. Thelistgoesonandon. Printcultureremains,andhasalwaysbeen,be-holdentoconsumerintereststhatremaindecidedlyconservativeandresistanttoradicalchange. Afterall,“Earlymodernprintingwasnotjoinedbyanyobvi-ousornecessarybondtoenhancedreliabilityandtruth.Thatbondhadtobeforged.”

Inhis introductiontoNew PhilologyNicholswritesthat, “Themanuscriptfoliocontainsdifferentsystemsofrepresentation:poeticornarrativetext,thehighlyindividualanddistinctivescribalhand(s)thatinscribethetext,illumi-natedimages,coloredrubrications,andnotinfrequentlyglossesorcommen-taries in the margins or interpolated in the text. Each system is a unitindependent of others and yet calls attention to them; each tries to conveysomethingabouttheotherwhiletosomeextentsubstitutingforit.”47

Ifscholarsgenerallyaretotakeseriously,andtheymostcertainlyshould,Nichols’observations,thentheymustconsiderthatifthegarageinPaloAlto(whichstillstands)whereAppletracesitsoriginsisnotascriptoriaorprintshopinandofitself,itiscertainlythemostimmediatecontextofcreationthatexplainstheworkoftwentyfirstcenturyscribesandprinters. Itiswithinthatgaragethatthe“personal”dimensionofthecomputerwasrealized.Thisreal-izationbroughtintothesingularcontroloftheauthorthemultifariousfunc-tionsofthescribeandmasterprinterandhaschangedforevertheprocessofliteraryproduction,and,itsprocessofremembranceandinterpretation.

Conclusion

TheSalmanRushdieArchiveoffers theopportunity to revaluatehowestab-lishedphilologicalinterpretationsofclassicalandmedievaltextsarecurrentlybeing re-imagined and applied to the investigation of texts dating from theearly modern period. In fact these (re)imaginings have been shown to offerimportantpointsof scholarlyentry into the interpretationofcontemporarytexts which often combine the contingencies of manuscript production(broadlyconceived),withthecommensuratevicissitudesofmechanicalprint-ingtechnologiesincludingtheprintingpress,thetypewriter,theLinotypeetc.,and now with an increasing reliance (in philological terms) upon complexdigitalmatrices.

47 Nichols(1990)7.

94 Alexander

Indeed,criticalobservationsmadebyscholarslikeNichols(datingfromtheearly1990s)arenowappreciatedasrepresentingamoreinclusivediscourse.

Whatis“new”inourenterprisemightbetterbecalled“renewal,”renova-tiointhetwelfth-centurysense. Ontheonehand,itisadesiretoreturntothemedievaloriginsofphilology,toitsrootsinamanuscriptandcul-turewhere,asBernardCerquigliniremarks,“medievalwritingdoesnotproducevariants,itisvariance.”Ontheotherhand,arethinkingofphi-lologyshouldseektominimizetheisolationbetweenmedievalstudiesandothercontemporarymovementsincognitive methodologies,suchaslinguistics,anthropology,modernhistory,culturalstudies,andsoon,byreminding us that philology was once among the most theoreticallyavant-gardedisciplines.48

Afterall,asFrederickNietzscheobserves,“ourwritingtoolsarealsoworkingonourthoughts.”49

Works Cited

Bornstein,G.,Material Modernism: The Politics of the Page(NewYork,2001).Busby,K.,ed.,Towards a Synthesis: Essays on New Philology(Amsterdam,1993).Cerquiglini,B.,Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie(Paris,1989).Colli,G.andM.Montinari,eds.,F. NietzscheBriefwechsel: Kritische Gesamtausgabe

(Berlin,1975).Johns,A.,The Nature of the Book(Chicago,1998).Kastan,D.,Shakespeare and the Book(NewYork,2001).Kirschenbaum,M.G.,Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination(Cambridge,

MA,2008).McMillan,J.,Smoking Typewriters(NewYork,2011).Reviel,N.andW.Noel,eds.,The Archimedes Codex: How a Medieval Prayer Book is

Revealing the True Genius of Antiquity’s Greatest Scientist(Philadelphia,2007).Nichols,S.G.,“Introduction:PhilologyinaManuscriptCulture,”inSpeculum65(1990),

pp.1–10.Rainey,L.,Revisiting The Waste Land(NewHaven,2005).Wenzel,S.,“Reflectionson(New)Philology,”inSpeculum65(1990),pp.11–18.

48 Nichols(1990)1.49 NietzscheinColliandMontinari(1975)84.


part 2

Narrativity

∵

96 Alexander

97ModalityInLolita

Chapter5

Modality in Lolita

Helen de Hoop and Sander Lestrade

Introduction

Aremarkablepropertyoflanguageisthatitallowspeopletotalkaboutunrealevents,andeventocreatewhollynewworldsinnarratives.1Butwhiletheanal-ysisofevery-daylanguageutterancesofthreeorfourwordsalreadyconstitutesa complex challenge to linguists, the structure and perception of narrativesprovideuswithanevengreaterpuzzletobesolved.2Inthischapter,wewillexaminefocalizationandepistemicmodality ina literarytext,whichreflectthis cognitive feat.The literary work that we use for our study is Nabokov’snovelLolita (1955),witharetrospective(unreliable)first-personnarrator,en-tailingdoublefocalization.3

Epistemicmodalityinordinarylanguageisseenasrelatingtothespeaker’sdegreeofcertaintyaboutwhattheactualworldislike.Inliterature,factscanbepresentedthroughtheeyesofthecharacters,whilebeingreportedbythenarrator.Moreover,thiscanbedonemoreorlessexplicitly.Therefore,aliter-arytextsuchasLolitaisanextremelyinterestingdomaintolookfortheuseand interpretation of epistemic modality. Whose degree of certainty is ex-pressedwhenanepistemicmodalitymarkerisused,isitthenarrator’s(exter-nal focalization), or is it his past self ’s (internal focalization)?4 Maybe evenmoreimportantly,howdoweknow?Linguisticelementssteertheunderstand-ingofanarrativetext.Whereasresearchintosuchlinguisticfactorsisundoubt-edlyrelevantforliterarystudies,viceversa,theinvestigationofliterarytextscangivenewinsightinthemechanismsoflanguageandcommunication.Thelanguageusedbythewriterornarratoralreadyliftstheveilalittleontheirmo-tives,underlyingthoughts,strategiesandtheirrelationtotheirreaders.

1 WethankourcolleaguesoftheresearchgroupGrammarandCognitionandtheinterdisciplin-aryresearchgroupNarrativity,aswellastheaudienceoftheConferenceonText,Transmission,andReception,heldinNijmegenatOctober2010,forhelpfulcommentsanddiscussion.AspecialwordofgratitudegoestoOlafHoenselaarforhisindispensablehelpinthefirststageoftheresearchreportedhereandtoClaireStocksforhereditorialhelpinitsfinalstage.

2 Cf.Dancygier(2012).3 Cf.Rimmon-Kenan(2002).4 Cf.Rimmon-Kenan(2002).

© HelendeHoopandSanderLestrade,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_007This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



98 DeHoopAndLestrade

Onecrucialcharacteristicthatdistinguisheshumanlanguagefromthelan-guageandcommunicationmeansofotheranimals,isthatitcannotonlybeusedtodescribetheactualworld,butalsotogobeyondthisworld.Oneex-amplefromtheanimalkingdomistheprairiedog.Inordertowarneachotheraboutdifferentspeciesofpredators,prairiedogsappeartohaveattheirdis-posaldifferentalarmcallswhichcontaininformationaboutwhothesepreda-torsare,whattheylooklike,andevenwhattheyaredoing.Dependentontheexacttypeanddegreeofdanger,differentalarmcallstriggerdifferenttypesof(escape) behaviour among the other prairie dogs.5 We can interpret thesealarm calls of prairie dogs as stating facts about the actual world, such as“There’sacoyote!”or“There’sahawkflyingaround!”Beingabletocommuni-catesuchstatementsabouttheworldcertainlyhelpsprairiedogstosurviveintheir extremely dangerous environment. At the same time, however, prairiedogswillpresumablynotbeabletosaythingstoeachotherlike“Theremightbeacoyote!”or “Theremustbeahawkflyingaround.”Theseareutterancesthatdonotstatemerefactsabouttheworldbutthatcanbeconceivedofashypothesizingaboutit,tostatewhattheworldmightormustbe.Bycontrast,amajorfunctionofhumanlanguageisindeedtohypothesizeaboutwhattheactualworldislike.

Modalexpressions in languageareusedprecisely for thispurpose: toputforward hypotheses about what the world is like. As such, they weaken thefactuality of the statement.6 Narrog defines modality in terms of factuality:“Modalityisalinguisticcategoryreferringtothefactualstatusofastateofaf-fairs.Theexpressionofastateofaffairsismodalizedifitismarkedasbeingundetermined with respect to its factual status, i.e. is neither positively nornegativelyfactual.”7

Thus,ifaspeakersays“Joranisthemurderer,”thenasfarastheyarecon-cerned,thatisafactoftheactualworld.Itisthereforepresentedasafact,andwillbeinterpretedassuchbythehearer.Thisisnotthecase,however,whenaspeakersays“Joranmightbethemurderer,”or“Joranmustbethemurderer.”Althoughthese twostatementsdiffer instrength(in thecaseofmust she is moreconvincedthatJoranisthemurdererthaninthecaseofmight),inbothcasessheleavesopenthepossibilitythatJoranturnsoutnottobethemur-dererafterall.Hence,theuseofamodalexpressionindicatesthatthespeakerdoes not present a certain fact about the world, but rather presents her hy-pothesisabouttheworld.

5 FrederiksenandSlobodchikoff(2007).6 Cf.Narrog(2005),FoolenanddeHoop(2009).7 Narrog(2005)184.

99ModalityInLolita

Now,supposethewriterofanovelusesthesentence“Joranmightbethemurderer.”Clearly,ifthenarratorisomniscient,thentheepistemicmodalityofthisexpressionmight cannotbeattributedtothenarratoranymore,becauseanomniscientnarratorwouldsimplyknowwhetherJoranwasthemurdererornotinthefictiveworld.Itmightbe,however,thatthenarratorisnot(orpre-tendsnottobe)omniscientafterall,andthentheutteranceisstillinterpretedasthenarrator’shypothesisaboutthe(fictive)world.Suchanarrator’sexpres-sionofuncertaintyturnsouttobeveryimportantforthereader’sperceptionandappreciationof thenarrative,asshowninanexperimentbyDixonandcolleagues.8 They conducted an experiment in which readers read a story(Emma ZunzbyJorgeLuisBorges)twice.Onegroupofreadersreadamanipu-lated version of the story, however, from which epistemic modality markersindicating uncertainty of the narrator, such as perhaps and might, were re-moved.Thishadacleareffectontheappreciationofthestorybyfrequentbutuntrainedreaders.Whilethereaders’appreciationoftheoriginalstorysignifi-cantlyincreasedafterrereading,thiswasnotthecaseforreadersofthema-nipulatedstory.

Epistemicmodalitymarkersdonotnecessarilyexpresstheuncertaintyofthenarrator,however.Anotherpossibilityisthatthemodalexpressionisinter-pretedwithrespecttotheperspectiveofsomebodyelse,thatis,notthenarra-tor, for instanceoneof thecharacters in thestory.Oneof thequestionswewishtoanswerinthischapteriswhether,andifsohow,wecaninterpretsuchashiftinperspectiveincasethecharacterandthenarratorrefertothesamepersoninthefictiveworld.Howdoweknowwhetheranexpressionofmodal-ityreflectsthedegreeofcertaintyofthenarratororthatofacharacter,espe-ciallywhenthenarratorandthecharacterarethesameperson?

Inordertoaddressthisquestion,wewillfocusontheuseofepistemicmo-dalityinthenovelLolita (1955)byVladimirNabokov.ThefirstpersonnarratorandmaincharacterofLolita isHumbertHumbert,amanobsessedwithhis12-yearoldstepdaughter.Thestoryisaconfessionofanunreliablecharacterand,therefore,isinterestingtostudyintermsofthemodalitymarkingusedbythenarratortoreflecthisownuncertaintyeitherinhisguiseasdistancednar-ratorlookingbackoneventsorasthemaincharacternarratingthoseeventsastheytakeplace.OuraimistoanalyzeexpressionsofepistemicmodalityintheEnglishnovelinrelationto(shiftsin)narrativepointofview.9Howdoesthenarratorlookbackattheevents?Whatwashisroleandhowinevitableweresome developments? The various levels of narration and the fluctuation in

8 Dixonetal.(1993).9 Cf.Levie(2009).


time that characterize Nabokov’s Lolita make it an extremely rich source tolookfor interactionsbetweenmodalityandnarrativepointofview.Forrea-sonsoftimeandspace,wewillfocusinthischapterononespecializedmarkerofepistemicmodality,theauxiliarymight.

Modality in a Literary Text

Notoriously,therearedifferenttypesofmodalityfoundinlanguage,whichallinvolvethenotionsofpossibilityandnecessity.10Forexample,deonticmodal-ityinvolvesexternalcircumstances,whichpermitorobligetheparticipanttoengageinthestateofaffairs.Twoexamplesofdeonticmodalityaregivenin(1)and(2),broughtaboutbytheuseoftheauxiliariesmay andmustrespectively.NotethatallexamplesinthischapteraretakenfromLolita, publishedinthePenguin Books, 1995 (page numbers given after each example; boldface isours):

(1) “Shemaymeetboysatherownlovelyhome,”Isaid.(p.195)(2) YoumustallowhertotakepartinThe Hunted Enchanters.(p.196)

Sentence(1)illustratesacaseofdeonticpermission.Thefirstpersonnarratorandmaincharacterfunctionsasanauthorityfigurehere,namelythefather,who says that his daughter may meet boys at home. In sentence (2) we aredealingwithacaseofdeonticnecessity:thistimetheheadmistressPrattistheauthoritywhoinsiststhatthefatherwillallowthedaughtertotakepartinaplay.Narrog’sfactualityapproachaccountsforalltypesofmodality,11includingdeontic modality. In the above two sentences, the auxiliaries may and must make the statements less factual.That is, even though the father allows hisdaughtertomeetboysathome,thisdoesnotentailthatsheactuallymeetsorwillmeetboys(infact,it’sprobablynoteventruethathewouldallowher,de-spitewhathesays).In(2),eventhoughtheheadmistressinsiststhatthefatherwouldallowhisdaughtertotakepartintheplay,itisnotcertainthathewill.Hence,bothstatesofaffairsinthescopeofthemodalauxiliariesareundeter-minedfortheirfactualstatus.

Aspointedoutabove,inaliterarytexttheuseofmodalitymayvarywiththepersontowhomtheutteranceisascribed.Thus,modalitycanbeexpectedto

10 Cf.VanderAuweraandPlungian(1998).11 Narrog(2005).

101ModalityInLolita

varywiththenarrativepointofview.Gavins,12withintheframeworkofTextWorld Theory,13 examines modalized propositions in literary fiction. TextWorld Theory is a theory at the interface between linguistic and literaturestudy,andcanbeconsideredalinguistictheorydealingwiththeworldscreat-ed in literary fiction.Gavins focusesonthoseworldswhicharecreatedasaresultofdepartingfromthetext-worldinitiallyestablishedbyaparticulartext,theso-called“sub-worlds.”Sub-worldscanbeconstructedbydiscoursepartici-pants(andarethus“participant-accessible”)orbycharacterswithinthetext-world(“character-accessible”).Character-accessiblesub-worldsarebuiltuponepistemic modals in Text World Theory. Gavins notes that the text-worldframework cannot provide a full picture of the important literary effects ofmodalization, such as pointed out by Simpson,14 because it has neglected acrucialelementofliterarynarrative,namelyfocalization.AccordingtoGavins,focalizednarrativesrepresentonlywhatonecharacterbelievestobethecase,and thereforeconstitutean epistemicmodalworldwhich isonlycharacter-accessible.

However,Gavinsdoesnotdiscussindetailhowmodalexpressionsareusedtoswitchbetweenworlds.Whatarethelinguisticmeansthatwritershaveattheirdisposaltomakesurethattheuncertaintyexpressedbytheuseofamod-alauxiliaryisattributedbythereadertotherightperson,beitthenarratororoneofthecharacters?

Assaidabove,Lolita isaninterestingtexttolookatfortheinteractionofperspectiveandmodalitybecauseitisaframestoryinwhichthenarratorandthemaincharacterareoneandthesame,andmoreoverareunreliable.Thisunreliabilityisparticularlyinterestingforusifitaffectstheuseofepistemicmodalitymarkers.Itisonepistemicmodalitythatwewillfocusfortheremain-derofthischapter,sinceitprovidesthemostfruitfulwayofexploringtherela-tionship between modality and narrative point of view or focalization.Epistemicmodalityisillustratedinthefollowingexample:

(3) Theremay havebeentimes–theremust havebeentimes,ifIknowmyHumbert–when(…).(p.69–70)

Thetwomodalauxiliaries in(3)areusedtoexpressthedifferentdegreesofcertainty of the narrator himself.The narrator, looking back, could have ut-teredthattherewere timeswhen…Inthatcase,hewouldhavepresentedhis

12 Gavins(2005).13 Werth(1999).14 Simpson(1993).


propositionasafactoftheactual(albeitfictive)world.Instead,heweakensthe factuality of his proposition by stating that there may have been timeswhen…(wheremay indicatesepistemicpossibility),andthen,whilegainingconfidence, he corrects himself and adds that there must have been times(where must indicatesepistemicnecessity).Fromthe linguisticcontext it isclearthatweare invitedtotaketheperspectiveof thenarratorandnotthemaincharacterHumberthere,alsobecause in thisexample theauto-obser-vantfirstpersonnarratorHumbertreferstothecharacterHumbertbytheuseof the third person proper name. Often, however, the character Humbert isreferredtobythefirstperson,justlikethenarratorHumbert,anditisaninter-estingquestionastohowtheauthordealswithepistemicmodalityfromthedifferentperspectives:theperspectiveofthenarratorI(Humbert)versusthatofthecharacterI (Humbert).

Inprinciple,thefirstpersonnarratorinLolita canuseepistemicmodalityintwosituations.First,hecanuseitatahigherlevel,asin(3)above,takingastepbackfromtheplot.Anotherexampleofthisisgivenin(4):

(4) Perhaps,mylearnedreadersmayperkupifItellthemthatevenhadwediscovered a piece of sympathetic seaside somewhere, it would havecometoolate,sincemyrealliberationhadoccurredmuchearlier:atthemoment, in point of fact, when Annabel Haze, alias Dolores lee, aliasLoleeta,hadappearedtome,goldenandbrown,kneeling,lookingup,onthatshoddyveranda,inakindoffictitious,dishonest,buteminentlysat-isfactoryseasidearrangement(althoughtherewasnothingbutasecond-ratelakeintheneighbourhood).(p.167)

Bycommentingonthehypothesizedlearnedreadersofhisstory,thenarratorbecomesacharacterhimselfatahigherlevelofnarration(or:partoftheworldheishypothesizingabout).Atthislevel,heusestheepistemicmodalmayin(4)above.Thenarratorisnotcertainofthefactthatthereaderswillperkup,buthypothesizesthatthismaybethecase.

Second, the narrator can use epistemic modality when representing thethoughtsofacharacter,forexampleindirectspeech.Inthatcase,themodalityexpressesthelackofconfidenceofthecharacter,notofthenarratorhimself.Thecharacter that theepistemicmodality isattributed tocaneitherbe thecharacterHumbert(whohappenstobethesamepersonasthenarrator,butatadifferenttimeinthestory),oranyoftheothercharacters.In(5)anexampleoftheformerisgiven,in(6)twoexamplesofthelatter.

103ModalityInLolita

(5) Icontrolledmybreathandsaid:“Dolores,thismuststoprightaway.IamreadytoyankyououtofBeardsleyandlockyouupyouknowwhere,butthismuststop.(…)”(p.205)

(6) [Context:aletterfromLolitatoHumbert]Pardonmeforwithholdingourhomeaddressbutyoumaystillbemadatme,andDickmustnotknow.(p.266)

Inboth(5)and(6)itisobviousthatthemodalexpression(auxiliary)shouldnotbetakentoexpresstheuncertaintyofthenarrator.Instead,ithastobeat-tributedtoacharacter.In(6)themodalexpressionsmay andmustareusedbyLolitainalettertoHumbert,andtherefore,itisclearthatitisthecharacterLolitawhoweakensthefactualityofthepropositionssheuttersbyusingthemodal auxiliaries. She considers the possibility that Humbert is still mad ather,andsheinsiststhatDick,herhusband,shouldnotknow.In(5)theeffectoffocalization is a little more complicated because the narrator and the maincharacterHumbertareoneandthesameperson,butbecausedirectspeechisuseditisclearthatitisthecharacterHumbert(atthatpointintime)whoex-pressesthat“itmuststop”rightnow.Atthatmoment,itisnotclearofcoursewhetheritwillindeedstop,andthereforethemodalauxiliaryweakensthefac-tualityofthestatementofthecharacter,whowantsittostopbutwhocannotbesurethatitwillactuallystop.Thusweviewthisutterancefromtheperspec-tiveofthecharacterHumbert.Forthenarratorwouldhaveknownwhetherornottheactionstopped,andsocouldhavepresenteditasfact.ThecharacterHumbert,however,doesnotstatethatitstops,whichwouldhavebeenafactofthefictiveworldatthetimeofutterance,butratherexpresseshisopinionthatitshouldstop.

Both(5)and(6)thuslinguisticallyencodethefactthatthemodalexpres-sionisnottobeinterpretedwithregardtothenarrator,butratherwithregardtoacharacter,Lolitain(6),andHumbertasacharacterin(5).Thewriteruseslinguisticmeansbywhichthereaderunderstandsthemodalityinaccordancewith the perspective of somebody other than the narrator. The question iswhether a writer actually needs to mark a shift in perspective linguistically,andifso,whetherforeachexpressionofmodalityinaliterarytextithastobeencodedtowhomthemodalityisattributed.WewillfocusontheuseoftheepistemicmodalauxiliarymightinordertoseewhetherandhowtheswitchinfocusbetweenthenarratorHumbertandthecharacterHumbertislinguisti-callyencoded.


Epistemic Might and Perspective in Lolita

Theauxiliarymight inEnglishisratherspecialasithastheepistemicmodalreadingas itsbasic,canonicalreading.Usually,modalauxiliarieshaveothermodalreadingsastheirbasicreading,suchasthedeonticmodalreadingformust and the participant-internal modal reading for can.15 By contrast, theauxiliary might is specialized forepistemicmodality readings, just likeepis-temicmodaladverbssuchasperhaps andprobablyare,andthereforethisaux-iliaryisparticularlyusefulforastudyoftheencodingofperspectiveshiftsintheinterpretationofepistemicmodality.ConsideranexampleontheuseoftheepistemicmodalauxiliarymightinLolita:

(7) I tippedthechauffeurandhopedhewouldimmediatelydriveawaysothat Imight doublebackunnoticedtomyhotelandbag;butthemanmerelycrossedtotheothersideofthestreetwhereanoldladywascall-ingtohimfromherporch.(p.36)

Themodalexpressionin(7)issyntacticallyembeddedundertheverbhopedandtherebyexpressesthehopeofthecharacterHumbertinsteadofthatofthenarratorHumbert. Itmaynotalwaysbesoclearwhichperspectiveistaken.Onepotentiallyambiguouscaseisillustratedin(8).

(8) NoMissOppositesatonthevinedporch–wheretothelonepedestrian’sannoyancetwopony-tailedyoungwomeninidenticalpolka-dottedpin-aforesstoppeddoingwhatevertheyweredoingtostareathim:shewaslongdead,nodoubt,thesemightbehertwinniecesfromPhiladelphia.(p.287)

Inprinciple, itcouldbeeither thenarratoror thecharacterHumbert in(8)whospeculatesaboutthewomenontheporch.EitherthenarratorHumbert,lookingbackatthecourseof theevents,supposesthatthetwogirlshesawrightthencouldhavebeenMissOpposite’stwinniecesfromPhiladelphia,orthe character Humbert at that point in time, seeing the two young womenthoughtthattheycouldbe.Butdoreadersknow,andifsohowdotheyknow,towhomtoattributethemodalexpressionincaseslikethese?

Inthefollowingfragment,weobserveashiftinperspective(fromthefirstpersonnarratorHumberttothefirstpersoncharacterHumbert)withacon-

15 Cf.FoolenanddeHoop(2009),vanGerrevinkanddeHoop(2011).

105ModalityInLolita

comitantshiftinthescopeoftheepistemicmodalityexpressionmight.Howdoesthisshiftcomeabout?

(9) Onemightsupposethatwithallblocksremovedandaprospectofdelir-iousandunlimiteddelightsbeforeme,Iwouldhavementallysunkback,heavingasighofdeliciousrelief.(...)InsteadofbaskinginthebeamsofsmilingChance,Iwasobsessedbyallsortsofethicaldoubtsandfears.For instance: might it not surprise people that Lo was so consistentlydebarredfromattendingfestiveandfuneralfunctionsinherimmediatefamily?(p.105)

Inthefirstsentence,thenarratoraddressesthereaderindirectly(“one”)andthe first instance of might is clearly interpreted from the perspective of thenarrator,henceitprovidesabroadoverviewofthecompletestory.Inordertoattribute thesecond instanceofmight to theperspectiveof the firstpersoncharacterHumbertratherthantothefirstpersonnarratorHumbert,themod-alexpressionisembeddedinthethoughtsandfeelingsofthecharacter(asin(in)directspeech).Inthefragmentabove,thenarratorstatesthatthefirstper-soncharacterisobsessedbyallsortsofethicaldoubtsandfears.Thenwhatfollowsisanexampleofthesedoubtsandfears:“Forinstance:”.Hence,wein-terpretthemodalexpressioninthescopeofthesedoubtsandfears,i.e.fromtheperspectiveofthecharacterHumbert.

Belowisanotherexampleofmightattributedtothenarratoragain:

(10) AstheassIwasIhadnotmemorizedit.Whatremainedofitinmymindweretheinitialletterandtheclosingfigureasifthewholeamphitheatreofsixsignsrecededconcavelybehindatintedglasstooopaquetoallowthecentralseriestobedeciphered,butjusttranslucentenoughtomakeoutitsextremeedges–acapitalPanda6.Ihavetogointothosedetails(which in themselves can interest only a professional psychologue)because otherwise the reader (ah, if I could visualize him as a blond-beardedscholarwithrosylipssuckingla pomme de sa canneashequaffsmymanuscript!)mightnotunderstandthequalityoftheshockIexperi-enceduponnoticingthatthePhadacquiredthebustleofaBandthatthe6hadbeendeletedaltogether.(p.226)

Inthisexampletheshiftintense–frompasttense(“theshockIexperienced”)torepresenttheperspectiveofthecharacterHumberttopresenttense(“Ihavetogointothosedetails”)fortheperspectiveofthenarratorHumbert–indi-catesthatmightisusedtoexpressthenarrator’suncertaintyaboutthetruthof


theproposition:itmightbetruethatthereaderpresentlydoesnotunderstandthequalityoftheshockthatthecharacterHumbertexperiencedinthepast.Ofcourse,referencetothereaderitselfalsoindicatesthatthenarratorHum-bert’sperspective is taken,even independentlyof thegrammatical tense,asthecharacterHumbertdoesnotknowofanyreader.

Methodology

Rather than speculating further about when and how readers know to shifttheirfocusfromthenarratortothecharacterHumbertininterpretingexpres-sionsof(epistemic)modality,wedecidedtoinvestigatethequestionmoresys-tematically. To that end, we withdrew all contexts from Lolita in which themodalexpressionsmay, might, ormust areused.Thisyielded271contextsintotal(83mays,136mights,and52musts).Weannotatedthissetfortypeofmo-dalityandforperspectivetaken.Inprinciple,eachauthortookcareofhalfoftheinstances,butweannotated57doublestocheckifourannotationwascon-sistent.Weagreedon95%(54items;mismatchesweresolvedthroughdiscus-sion).Witheachcategoryoccurringmoreorlessequallyoften(26vs.28inourtestset),wedonothavetocomputethekappascoretocorrectforexpectedoverlapbutcansimplyassumethattheinter-annotatoragreementscorewiththispercentageofagreementisverygood.Thatis,wecanbeconfidentaboutourclassificationofperspective.Withinthisset,wethenfocusedontheepis-temicusesofmight thatcouldbeattributedtoeitherHumbertthecharacterorHumbert the writer. Next, we carefully examined the linguistic encoding ofeitherversion.

Results

WefoundthattheinterpretationofepistemicmodalityfromtheperspectiveofthecharacterHumbertariseswhenexplicitlinguisticembeddingisoffered.Otherwise,the(default)interpretationofmight isepistemicmodalityfromtheperspectiveofthenarrator.So,in(11)bothinstantiationsofmight arerelatedto the perspective of the character Humbert, and twice this is linguisticallyencoded.

(11) Itoccurred tome that if Iwere really losingmymind, I might endbymurderingsomebody.Infact–saidhigh-and-dryHumberttoflounder-ingHumbert–itmightbequiteclevertopreparethings–totransferthe

107ModalityInLolita

weaponfromboxtopocket–soastobereadytotakeadvantageofthespellofinsanitywhenitdoescome.(p.229)

Notethat(11)isaveryclearexampleofepistemicmodalityattributedtothecharacter Humbert, and this use is clearly encoded.The first occurrence ofmight issubordinatetothematrixclause“Itoccurredtome”whichguaranteesthecorrectperspectivefortheinterpretationofmighthere,thatistheperspec-tiveofthecharacterHumbert.Thesecondoccurrenceofmight isevenmoreexplicitlymarkedassuch,sinceitispresentedasreportedspeech“saidhigh-and-dry Humbert to floundering Humbert.” Here the character tells himselfthatitmightbeagoodideatopreparethings.Anotherexampleisgivenin(12):

(12) Ahappythoughtstruckme.Ifandwhenmasterreturnedfromhisconsti-tutionalinthewoods,oremergedfromsomesecretlair,itmightbewiseforanunsteadygunmanwithalongjobbeforehimtopreventhisplay-matefromlockinghimselfupinaroom.(p.294)

Again, in (12) the epistemic modal might is clearly presented as part of thethoughts of the character Humbert by the overt explicit reference to histhoughts(“Ahappythoughtstruckme”).Three lastexamplesof theexplicitlinguistic marking of the shift in perspective to the character Humbert, arepresentedin(13)-(15):

(13) Iwonderedidlyifsomesurgeonofgeniusmightnotalterhisowncareer,andperhaps thewholedestinyofmankind,by revivingquiltedQuilty,ClareObscure.(p.306)

(14) Theroadnowstretchedacrossopencountry,anditoccurredtome–notbywayofprotest,notasasymbol,oranythinglikethat,butmerelyasanovelexperience–thatsinceIhaddisregardedall lawsofhumanity, Imightaswelldisregardtherulesoftraffic.(p.306)

(15) Then, figuratively speaking, I shattered the glass, and boldly imagined(forIwasdrunkonthosevisionsbythenandunderratedthegentlenessofmynature)howeventuallyImightblackmail–no,thatistoostrongaword–mauvemailbigHazeintolettingmeconsortwithlittleHazebygentlythreateningthepoordotingBigDovewithdesertionifshetriedtobarmefromplayingwithmylegalstepdaughter.(p.71)


In(13)mightisinthescopeofthematrixclause“Iwondered,”thusexpressingthecharacterHumbert’sthoughts.Intheabovecasestheepistemicmodalityisusedbythenarratortoindirectlyrepresenttheideasofhischaracters.Obvi-ously,thenarratormustmakesufficientlycleartothereaderwhosethoughtsareexpressed,hisortheonesofhischaracter.Mostly,thisisdonebyexplicitlyembeddingthemodalexpressionundermentalverbs,suchas“itoccurredtome”in(14)and“Iimagined”in(15).

WhenthenarratorofLolita usesepistemicmodalityatahigherlevelofnar-ration,thatis,whenbecomingacharacterhimself,thiscanalsobemarkedinvariouswaysofwhichwealreadyhaveshownsomeexamplesabove.Lolitaisaframestory.Thenarratorisacharacterinthestory,butheisalsoacharacteratahigherlevelatwhichheiswritinghisconfessioninprison.Therearevari-ouswaysinwhichthenarratorcangotothishigherlevel.Forexample,hecanmentionoraddresshisreadership,themembersofthejuryofhis(future)trialformurder.In(16),anexamplewiththemodalexpressionmight isgiven:

(16) ThenIpulledoutmyautomatic–Imean,thisisthekindoffoolthingareadermight supposeIdid.(p.278)

Inadditiontoaddressinghisreadership,thenarratorin(16)isplayingwiththeplot(thatis,hedidnotreallyputouthisgun)andusespunctuation,i.e.,thehyphen, to mark the switch to the higher level. Just as a character does notknowaboutreaders,sohe/shedoesnotknowaboutthewritingprocess.There-fore,ifthenarratoriscommentingonthewritingprocess,weknowthatweareatthehigherplotlevelagain.Oneimportantexamplethatillustratesthispro-cess effectively is given below. The excerpt does not contain the epistemicmodalauxiliarymight,butsomeothermodalexpressions(inboldface)arein-terpretedwithrespecttotheperspectiveofthenarrator:

(17) Andnowtakedownthefollowingimportantremark:theartistinmehasbeengiventheupperhandoverthegentleman.ItiswithagreateffortofwillthatinthismemoirIhavemanaged totunemystyletothetoneofthejournalthatIkeptwhenMrsHazewastomebutanobstacle.Thatjournalofmineisnomore;butIhaveconsidereditmyartisticdutytopreserveitsintonationsnomatterhowfalseandbrutaltheymayseemtome now. Fortunately, my story has reached a point where I can ceaseinsultingpoorCharlotteforthesakeofretrospectiveverisimilitude.(p.71)

109ModalityInLolita

Theauto-observantfirstpersonnarratorrevealsherethatinhisreportofthecourseoftheeventshehadtriedtobefaithfultotheperspectiveofthefirstpersoncharacter thathewas in thosedays (whenhekepta journal thathelaterlost).Now,atthispointinthestory,henolongerfeelstheneedtodoso.From that moment on, the narrator allows the reader to feel empathy withCharlotte,andthenarratorpretendshefeelsempathyaswell,indicatedbytheuseoftheattributiveadjective“poor”forCharlotte,butalsobytheuseofthemodalexpressions:he“managed”totunehisstyleasifCharlottewasstillbutan obstacle to him (“managed” implicates that it was not easy to do so), al-thoughthistone“may”seem“falseandbrutal”tohimnow,andheisrelieved(indicatedbytheevaluativeadverb“fortunately”)whenhe“can”stopinsulting“poorCharlotte.”

Anotherwayofleavingthelowerplottogettoahigherlevelperspectiveisbytheuseofpunctuation,forexamplebracketsorparentheses.Agoodexam-pleisgivenin(18):

(18) BourbonStreet (ina townnamedNewOrleans)whosesidewalks, saidthetourbook,“may [Ilikedthe“may”]featureentertainmentbypicka-ninnieswhowill [I likedthe“will”evenbetter] tap-dance forpennies”(what fun), while “its numerous small and intimate night clubs arethrongedwithvisitors”(naughty).(p.156)

In(18),themodalauxiliarymayisinaquotationfromatourbook,whencethemodalityisattributedtotheauthorofthetourbook,butwithinthequotethepart between brackets is to be interpreted at a higher level, in this case thelevelofthefirstpersoncharacterHumbert(indicatedbythepasttense).

AnexamplewheremodalmightisinterpretedatthelevelofthecharacterHumbertbutcommenteduponbythenarrator,isgivenin(19):

(19) “For the benefit of Leslie and Louise who might (and did) report it toJohnandJeanImadeatremendouslyloudandbeautifullyenactedlong-distancecallandsimulatedaconversationwithShirleyHolmes.”(p.100)

Bytheadditionof“anddid”inparentheses,weknowthatwhatwasthoughttobepossiblemusthavebeeninthemindofthecharacter;thenarratorknows,andstates,thatthiswasactuallytrueindeed.Notethattheinterpretationofmightin(19)asbeinginthescopeofthecharacterHumbertwouldnothavebeensoclearwithouttheadditionof“(anddid).”Withouttheaddedcommentofthenarratoronwhatreallyhappened,mightmight(andwould?)havebeeninterpretedasexpressingpossibilityfromtheperspectiveofthenarrator(in


thatcasehewouldnothaveknownwhetherLeslieandLouisehadactuallyreportedthecalltoJohnandJean).Bymarkingthenarrator’sperspectiveex-plicitly,weinferthattheprecedingmodalexpressionshouldbeattributedtothecharacter.

Consider(20)asanexamplewheremight expressesthepossibilityconsid-eredbythenarrator:

(20) Allatonceweweremadly,clumsily,shamelessly,agonizinglyinlovewitheachother;hopelessly,Ishouldadd,becausethatfrenzyofmutualpos-session might have been assuaged only by our actually imbibing andassimilating every particle of each other’s soul and flesh; but there wewereunableeventomateasslumchildrenwouldhavesoeasilyfoundanopportunitytodo.(p.12)

Theshiftinperspectivefromthecharactertothenarratorisalreadyinitiatedherebythe“hopelessly,Ishouldadd,”whichmakesthetransitiontothenarra-tor’sperspective for the interpretationof might aneasyone.However,evenwithoutsuchevidentclues,itseemspossibletoshifttothenarrator’sperspec-tiveintheinterpretationofmodalmight.Thisisshownin(21),forexample:

(21) ThistimeIhitsomethinghard.Ihitthebackofablackrockingchair,notunlikeDollySchiller’s–mybullethittheinsidesurfaceofitsbackwhere-uponitimmediatelywentintoarockingact,sofastandwithsuchzestthatanyonecomingintotheroommighthavebeenflabbergastedbythedoublemiracle: thatchairrockinginapanicallby itself,andthearm-chair,wheremypurpletargethadjustbeen,nowvoidofalllivecontent.(p.302)

Although(21)representsaclearexampleofafocalizednarrative,accessibleforthereaderthroughtheeyesofthecharacterHumbert,themodalexpressionmightisinterpretedwithrespecttotheperspectiveofthenarratorHumbert.Hence,mighttriggersashiftinperspectivethatisnotmarkedbyanylinguisticmeans.Wehaveseenthatwhenmight is tobe interpretedwithrespecttoacharacter’sperspective,itisinthevastmajorityofcasesexplicitlyencodedasbeinginthescopeofthecharacter’sthoughts.Intheexamplein(21)above,thisinterpretationcouldhavebeenachievedbyaddingamatrixmentalverb,suchas forexample: “Itoccurred tomethatanyonecoming into theroommighthavebeenflabbergasted(…).”However, itseemsthatthelackofsuchovertmarkingofanembeddedperspectiveautomaticallygivesrisetothein-terpretationwheretheepistemicmodality isattributedtothenarrator,evenin

111ModalityInLolita

afocalizednarrativecontext.Inotherwords,ifthenarratorwantsthereadertointerpretamodalexpressionastheexpressionofhisownuncertainty,hedoesnothavetomarkthisexplicitly,asitisthedefaultinterpretationofthemodalthatautomaticallyarisesintheabsenceofexplicitmarkingtothecontrary.

Oneinterestingexampleoffocalizationwhereonewouldnotexpectittobenecessarytomarkexplicitlythechangetotheperspectiveofthecharacter,isinadiarycontextthat isentirelyattributedtothecharacterHumbert.Con-siderthefollowingentry:

(22) Saturday. (Beginning perhaps amended.) I know it is madness to keepthisjournalbutitgivesmeastrangethrilltodoso;andonlyalovingwifecoulddeciphermymicroscopicscript.Letmestatewithasobthattodaymy L. was sun-bathing on the so-called “piazza,” but her mother andsomeotherwomanwerearoundallthetime.Ofcourse,Imighthavesatthereintherockerandpretendedtoread.(p.42)

Clearly,noextraexplicitmarkingisnecessaryforthemighttobeattributedtothecharacterHumbert,butthisisbecauseinthediary,thecharacterHumberthasbecomethe(lowerlevel)narratorofthestory.Generally,thereaderofadiary will assume no change of perspective without explicit cues (e.g. “Thiswasthediary,nowourstorycontinues”).Yet,notethatthehigherlevelnarratorofLolita playswiththisassumption.Inthefollowingexample,wehaveappar-entlymadetheswitchtothehigherlevelnarrator’sperspectivesomewhere,asweareexplicitlytoldtoresumethediaryagain.Itseemsthatonlyafterthisexplicitmarking,mightisagainattributedtothelowerlevelnarratorofthedi-ary,i.e.,thecharacterHumbert.

(23) Apoetà mes heures,Icomposedamadrigaltothesoot-blacklashesofherpale-grayvacanteyes,tothefiveasymmetricalfrecklesofherbobbednose,totheblondedownofherbrownlimbs;butItoreitupandcannotrecallittoday.Onlyinthetritestofterms(diaryresumed)canIdescribeLo’sfeatures:Imightsayherhairisauburn,andherlipsasredaslickedredcandy, the loweroneprettilyplump–oh, thatIwerea ladywriterwhocouldhaveherposenakedinanakedlight!(p.44)

Infact,thediary,whichisnotthe“original”one,butwhichisreconstructedbythehigherlevelnarrator,isfullofsuchperspectiveswitches.Forexample,thenarratorsuddenlysaysinthemiddleofwhatseemedtobeadiaryentry:


(24) AllatonceIknewIcouldkissherthroatorthewickofhermouthwithperfectimpunity.Iknewshewouldletmedoso,andevenclosehereyesas Hollywood teaches. A double vanilla with hot fudge – hardly moreunusual than that. I cannot tell my learned reader (whose eyebrows,Isuspect,havebynowtravelledallthewaytothebackofhisbaldhead),Icannottellhimhowtheknowledgecametome;(…).(p.48)

Obviously, there isno“learnedreader” for thewriterof thediary.Again,wemusthavetakenthenarrator’sperspectiveinsteadofthatofthecharacteratsome point. Importantly, these interventions make the perspective of thewholediarysectionquestionable.Contextualembeddingthereforeisalessre-liabledeterminantfortheperspectivethansyntacticembedding.

Insum,wehaveshownthatfortheinterpretationofmodalexpressionsallchangesofperspectivefromthenarratortoacharacter(ortoalowerlevelnar-rator) are marked by either syntactic or contextual embedding. Epistemicmodalexpressionsthatarenotexplicitlyassignedtoacharacterseemtobeattributedtothenarratorbydefault.

Conclusion

Anarratorwhoisomniscientisnotexpectedtobeunsureabouttheworldheis inventinghimself. Inthispaper,wehavestudiedtheuseof theepistemicmodality auxiliary might in Nabokov’s Lolita in two situations: (i) when thenarratorbecomesacharacteratahigherlevelofaframestory;(ii)whenherepresentstheperspectiveofoneofhischaracters.Thedifferentlevelsoftheframestorycanbemadeexplicitinvariousways.Thenarratorcanaddresshisreadership, comment on the writing process, or use punctuation to mark aswitchofframe.Whenamodalexpressionisinterpretedwithrespecttooneofthecharacter’sperspectives,thisisalmostexclusivelymarkedbysyntacticem-bedding.Thisfindingcanbeaccountedforasfollows.Epistemicmodalityinevery-daycommunicationexpressesaspeaker’shypothesisabout theactualworld. In a narrative the narrator is the speaker and the world is the fictiveworld.Hence,epistemicmodalityisbydefaultattributedtothenarrator,beingthespeakeroftheliterarytext.Ifanepistemicmodalexpressionistobeinter-preted fromtheperspectiveofoneof thecharacters,however, thismustbeexplicitlyencodedassuch.

113ModalityInLolita

References

Primary SourceVladimirNabokov,Lolita(1955).PublishedinPenguinBooks1995,London.

Secondary SourcesvanderAuwera,J.andV.Plungian,“Modality’ssemanticmap,”inLinguistic Typology2

(1998),pp.79–124.Dancygier,B.,The Language of Stories(Cambridge,2012).Dixon,P.,M.Bortolussi,L.C.TwilleyandA.Leung,“Literaryprocessingandinterpreta-

tion:Towardsempiricalfoundations,”inPoetics 23(1993),pp.5–33.Foolen,A.andH.deHoop,“Conflictingconstraintsontheinterpretationofmodal

auxiliaries,” in Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality, eds. L.Hogeweg,H.deHoopandA.Malchukov(Amsterdam,2009),pp.303–16.

Frederiksen,J.K.andC.N.Slobodchikoff,“Referentialspecificityinthealarmcallsoftheblack-tailedprairiedog,”inEthology, Ecology & Evolution19(2007),pp.87–99.

Gavins, J., “(Re)thinking modality: A text-world perspective,” in Journal of Literary Semantics34(2005),pp.79–93.

vanGerrevink,R.andH.deHoop,“Ontheinteractionoftense,aspectandmodalityinDutch,”inBidirectional Optimality Theory,eds.A.BenzandJ.Mattausch(Amsterdam,2011),pp.151–68.

Levie,S.A.,“ExileandAssimilation.SomeNotesonVladimirNabokov’sJourneythroughSpaceandTime,”inArcadia44(2009),pp.401–20.

Narrog, H., “On defining modality again,” in Language Sciences 27(2) (2005),pp.165–92.

Rimmon-Kenan,S.,Narrative Fiction, 2nded.(LondonandNewYork,2002).Simpson,P.,Language, Ideology and Point of View(London,1993).Werth,P.,Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse(London,1999).

114 DeGraafAndHustinx

Chapter6

Transported into a Story World: The Role of the Protagonist

Anneke de Graaf and Lettica HustinxDe Graaf and Hustinx

Introduction

Narrativescancreateanexperiencethatisbothintenseandimpactful.Read-erscanbecomedeeplyengagedwithanarrativeanditscharacters,astheyfo-custheircompleteattentionontheeventsthataredescribedandexperienceemotionsinresponsetotheseevents.1Readersthenloseawarenessoftherealworldandbecome“lost”intheworldcreatedbythenarrative.2Formanyread-ers,thisisafamiliarexperience.Infact,itisprobablyoneofthemainreasonswhypeoplereadstories.3Peopleenjoyforgettingtheirdailylivesforawhilebybecomingabsorbedinanalternativeworld.4Giventheintensenatureofthisexperience,itisnotsurprisingthatsuchengagementwithanarrativecanhavefar-reaching impact. Green and Brock’s research has shown that transporta-tion,orthefeelingthatoneisbeingcarriedintoanarrativeworld,canmakereaders’beliefsbecomemoreconsistentwiththebeliefsimplicitlyimpliedbythestory.5Also,engagementwithspecificcharactershasbeenshowntoleadreaderstoaligntheirownattitudeswiththoseofthatcharacter.6Itisthusclearthattheintensenarrativeexperiencecanimpactreaders’viewsoftheworld.

However,previousresearchhasgenerallynotaddressedwhycertainnarra-tivesaremoresuccessfulindrawingreadersintothestory,thanothers.Ante-cedentsoftransportation,i.e.thedeterminantsthatcausetransportationintoa narrative world, have scarcely been researched.7 In other words, it is stilllargely unclear which narrative features contribute to engagement with thestoryandultimatelytotheoccurrenceofpersuasiveeffects.ThisiswhyGreen

1 Busselle and Bilandzic (2008); De Graaf, Hoeken, Sanders and Beentjes (2009); Green(2006).

2 Gerrig(1993);Nell(1988).3 Slater(2002);SlaterandRouner(2002).4 Green,BrockandKaufman(2004).5 GreenandBrock(2000).6 DeGraaf,Hoeken,SandersandBeentjes(2012).7 Green(2004).

© AnnekedeGraafandLetticaHustinx,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_008This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



115TransportedIntoAStoryWorld:TheRoleOfTheProtagonist

(2008)seesuncovering“theactiveingredientsofeffectivenarratives”asoneofthemostimportantchallengesinthisresearcharea.8Thisstudytakesupthatchallengebyinvestigatingtheinfluenceofacentralelementofnarratives:fea-turesoftheprotagonist.BasedonZillmann’sAffectiveDispositionTheory,thedifferentportrayalsoftheprotagonists’behaviourandpersonality(assympa-thetic,neutral,orunsympathetic)inelicitingtransportationistested.9Inthefollowingtheoreticalframework,theTransportation-ImageryModelofGreenandBrock is discussed first.10Then, theAffectiveDispositionTheory ispre-sented.Finally,thehypothesesofthisstudyareformulated.

Transportation-Imagery Model

ThetermtransportationisusedbyGerrig(1993)asametaphorfortheexperi-encethatreadersofastorycanhaveduringreading.Hedescribesreadersastravellerswhofeelthattheyhavejourneyedsomedistancefromtheirworldoforiginandintoanotherworld.11Followingthisdescription,GreenandBrockconceptualizetransportationasaconvergentprocess,inwhichallmentalsys-temsbecomefocusedoneventsoccurringinthenarrative.Thesementalsys-tems are specified as readers’ attention, emotion, and imagery. Thus, whenreadersaretransported,theirattentionisconcentratedonthestory,theyhaveemotionsinresponsetothestory,andtheyformmentalimagesofthethingsthataredescribedinthestory.Inotherwords,atransportedreaderimaginesthenarrativeeventsin“themind’seye”andexperiencesthestoryfromthein-side,asifthenarrativeworldhasbeenentered.12

TheTransportation-ImageryModelprovidesatestabletheoryoftheante-cedentsandconsequencesoftransportation.Themodelconsistsoffivepostu-latesthatmakeupaunifiedaccountofthecompletetransportationprocess.The first twopostulatesconcern theconsequencesof transportation,whichare the persuasive effects of narratives. “Narrative persuasion” refers to achange in readers’ beliefs and attitudes after reading a narrative.13 The firstpostulateconcernstheprerequisitesforsuchpersuasiveeffectstooccur,suchasthefactthatcertainbeliefsneedtobeimpliedbythenarrativebeforeitcan

8 Green(2008)48.9 Zillmann(1994,2006).10 GreenandBrock(2002).11 Gerrig(1993)11.12 GreenandBrock(2000,2002).13 GreenandBrock(2000,2002).


havepersuasiveeffects.Thesecondpostulateconcernsthemechanismofnar-rativepersuasion,claimingthatbelief-changeoccurstotheextentthatreadersaretransportedintothenarrativeworld.Astransportationconsistsofatten-tion,emotionandimagery,thispostulateconcernsthesethreeaspects.Impor-tantly,thetypeofemotionthatispartoftransportationisnotspecifiedinthemodel. All types of emotions, from sadness to happiness can contribute totransportation.14 In sum, the Transportation-Imagery Model posits that asreadershavemoreattentionfor,emotionalresponseto,andvisualimageryofthestory,theirbeliefsandattitudeswillbecomemoreconsistentwiththesto-ry.

Thepersuasiveconsequencesoftransportationhavebeeninvestigatedex-tensively.Intheirfirstthreeexperiments,GreenandBrock(2000)presentedtheirparticipantswithastoryaboutayounggirlwhoismurderedinamallbyapsychiatricpatientonleave.Becauseanattemptedmanipulationoftrans-portationwasnotsuccessfulintheseexperiments,15participantsweredividedinto a group that achieved a higher score on the transportation scale and agroupthatachievedalowerscoreonthisscale.Resultsshowedthathightrans-portation participants held beliefs more consistent with the story than lowtransportationparticipants.For instance, themoretransportedreaderscon-sidered malls to be more dangerous and thought that psychiatric patientsshouldhavefewerrightstogoonleavethanthelesstransportedreaders.How-ever, as transportation was not successfully manipulated, it is not certainwhethertransportationactuallycausedthesedifferences.Therefore,afourthexperimentwascarriedout,whichdidsucceed inmanipulating transporta-tion.Thisexperimentusedastoryaboutayoungboywhowasstrandedonanislandoficewithhisdog.Participantswhohadbeeninstructedtocirclewordsthat they judged too difficult for fourth-grade readers were less transportedintothestorythanparticipantswhohadbeeninstructedtoreadthestorynor-mally.Moreover,theseparticipantsheldbeliefsthatwerelessconsistentwiththestory(aboutthevalueoffriendshipandloyalty)thantheparticipantswhodid not have to carry out an extra task during reading. Mediation analysis

14 Green(2006).15 Onegroupofparticipantswasinstructedtocircleallwordsthattheyjudgedtoodifficult

forfourth-gradereaders,whereasanothergroupwasinstructedtoreadthestoryliketheynormallywould.Itwasexpectedthatthefirstgroupwouldshowlowerlevelsoftranspor-tationintothenarrativeworldbecausetheyhadtofocusontheformofthewordsandgrammarinsteadoftheeventsinthestory.However,resultsshowedthattherewerenodifferencesbetweenthegroupsandthusthemanipulationoftransportationwasunsuc-cessful.


showedthattransportationwasindeedresponsiblefortheseeffects,indicat-ingacausaleffectoftransportationonpersuasion.

Similarly,anotherseriesofexperimentsinvestigatedtheeffectsofengage-mentwithcharacters.16Thistypeofengagement,alsocalledidentification,isanexperiencethatiscloselylinkedtotransportation.17Identificationreferstoadoptingtheperspectiveofacharacterandhavingemotionalresponsesthatareconsistentwiththoseofthecharacter.18So,readersofastorywhoidentifywithacharacteralsoexperiencethestory fromwithinandfeelemotions inreactiontothenarrativeevents.DeGraafetal.showedthatreadersofastorytold from the perspective of a specific character, identified more with thischaracterandheldattitudesmoreconsistentwiththischaracter.Again,me-diationanalysis revealedthat identificationwascausally responsible for thepersuasive effects of the story.19 In sum, several studies show that the ex-perience of becoming absorbed in a story and being transported into thestory-world leads to narrative persuasion, confirming the first part of theTransportation-ImageryModelabouttheconsequencesoftransportation.

The second part of the Transportation-Imagery Model, comprising thethird,fourth,andfifthpostulate,concernstheantecedentsoftransportation.Thesepostulatesstatethatpropensityfortransportationbyexposuretoagiv-ennarrativeaccountisaffectedbyattributesoftherecipient,attributesofthetext,andattributesofthecontext.So,characteristicsofthereader,ofthenar-rativeandofthereadingsituationinfluencewhetherareaderbecomestrans-ported into a narrative. For instance, regarding attributes of the recipient,readerswithanaptitudeforformingmentalimages,i.e.peoplewithastrongimagination, will tend to experience more transportation.20 With regard totheattributesofthecontext,thesituationmaylimitreaders’imaginativein-vestment in a narrative. For instance, when there are other people talkingloudlyinthevicinityofthereader,thereadermaybedistractedfromthestory.However,regardingattributesofthetext,thetheoryisnotveryclear.Accord-ingtoGreenandBrock,oneofthemostimportantattributesofthetextthataffectstransportationisartisticcraftsmanship.Ifastoryisofhighquality, itwillbemoretransporting.However,it isunclearwhatmakesastoryofhighquality.Therefore,thishypothesisishardtotestandthetheorydoesnotgiveconcreteindicationsofstorycharacteristicsthatwillleadtotransportation.To

16 DeGraafetal.(2012).17 SeeSlaterandRouner(2002)177.18 Cohen(2001,2006).19 DeGraafetal.(2012).20 GreenandBrock(2002).


expandtheTransportation-ImageryModelandtogaininsightintowhatmakesstorieseffectiveat transportingreaders intoanarrativeworld, thisstudy fo-cusesontheroleofattributesofthetextintransportation.

Some preliminary studies have investigated characteristics of narrativesthatcanpromotetransportation.DeGraafandHustinxhavelookedatthein-fluenceofstorystructure.Theyusedastoryaboutamanwhofallsillandtriesdifferentcurestogetbetter.Inoneversionofthestory,thefinaloutcomeofhim getting better was already disclosed at the beginning of the story, afterwhichthetreatmentsaredescribed.Intheotherversionofthestory,readersonlygottoknowthisfinaloutcomeattheendafterreadingaboutthedifferenttreatments.Thelatterversioninwhichitisuncleartoreaderswhattheout-comewillbe,wasexpectedtoelicitmoreemotionandtransportationbecausereadersareinsuspenseaboutwhatwillhappen,comparedtotheotherversioninwhichreadersalreadyknowfromthebeginningthatthecharacterwillbecured.Resultsindeedshowedthatreadersofthesuspensefulversionreportedhighertransportationonboththeemotionandtheattentionsubscales.Thisshowsthatreaderswhodidnotyetknowtheoutcomeweremoreabsorbedinthestory.Thus,storystructureisacharacteristicthatcaninfluencetransporta-tion.21

Inadifferentstudy,itwasassessedwhethertheperspectiveofthestoryaf-fects transportation.22 A version of a story with an omniscient narrator wascomparedtoaversionof thesamestory toldbya first-personnarrator.Theomniscientnarratorreferredtotheprotagonistas“he”andpresentedbothhisthoughts and the thoughts of other characters.The first-person narrator re-ferredtotheprotagonist(himself)as“I”andpresentedonlyhisownthoughts.Thelatterversionwasexpectedtobringreadersclosertotheprotagonistandthuselicitmoreemotions.Results indeedshowedthat thestory toldby thefirst-person narrator was more transporting; participants who had read thisversionreportedmoreemotionandmoreattentionforthestorythanpartici-pantswhohadreadthestorytoldbytheomniscientnarrator.23TheseresultswerecorroboratedbythepreviouslymentionedstudyofDeGraafetal.(2012),whoshowedthattheperspectiveofastoryledtomoreengagementwithchar-acters, which is closely linked to transportation.Thus, story perspective is astorycharacteristicthatcaninfluencetransportation.

Thesestudiesprovidespecificstoryattributesthatpromotetransportationandthusprovideinsightintoantecedentsoftransportation.Theyalsoprovide

21 DeGraafandHustinx(2011).22 HustinxandSmits(2006).23 HustinxandSmits(2006).


astartingpointforamoregeneralnarrativeelementthatcouldplayaroleintransportation.Thesestudiesshowedthatstoriesthatbringreadersclosertothe protagonist of a story make readers become more transported into thestoryworld.Thissuggeststhattheprotagonistmaybeimportantfortranspor-tation.Thishasbeenshownfortheperspectivefromwhichtheprotagonistispresented,24butotherfeaturesoftheprotagonistmayalsoincreasetranspor-tation.If it isshownthatdifferentfeaturesofacharacterthatbringreadersclosetothecharacterconsistentlyleadtotransportation,wewillhavefoundaclearandconcreteantecedentoftransportationtoaddtotheTransportation-ImageryModel.Therefore,weturntotheAffectiveDispositionTheory,whichprovidesanotherfeaturethatpromotesclosenesstocharacters.25

Affective Disposition Theory

AffectiveDispositionTheorywasdevelopedtoexplaintheemotionsrecipientsfeelinresponsetostories.Thetheorypositsthattheemotionsthatareevokedbyastoryaredependentonthedispositionsthatreaders26havetowardsthecharacters.Adispositionreferstotheextentthatareadercaresforthecharac-ter.Ifareaderlikesacharacter,thereaderhasapositivedispositiontowardthecharacter;ifareaderisindifferenttowardacharacter,thereaderhasaneutraldispositiontowardthecharacterandifareaderdoesnotlikeacharacter,heorshehasanegativedisposition.AffectiveDispositionTheorypositsthatthesedispositionspredicttheextentandthetypeofemotionareaderwillfeelforacharacter.27

Onlyifareaderhaseitherapositiveoranegativedispositiontowardachar-acter,doesthereadercarewhatwillhappentothecharacterandfeelsemo-tions as a result of that character’s experiences. If a reader has a neutraldisposition,he/shedoesnotcarewhathappenstothecharacterandfeelsnoemotioninresponsetotheeventsinthestory.Importantly,the type ofemotiondiffers between a positive and a negative disposition, whereas the extent of emotiondiffersbetweenaneutraldispositionontheonehandandapositive

24 HustinxandSmits(2006);deGraafetal.(2012).25 Zillmann(1994,2006).26 Inhispublications,Zillmann(1994,2006) talksabout “viewers”becausehe focuseson

storiesinthetheaterandontelevision.However,sincethetheoryisaboutcharactersandtheeventstheyexperience,itshouldalsobeappliedtowrittenstories.Aswrittenstoriesarethefocusofthisstudy,wewillusethetermreaders.

27 Raney(2004);Zillmann(1994,2006).


andnegativedispositionontheotherhand.Regardingthetypeofemotion,AffectiveDispositionTheorypredictsthatifareaderhasapositivedispositiontowardacharacter,thereaderwantsthecharactertosucceedandhopesposi-tiveeventswillhappento thecharacter.Oatley(1994, 1999)argues that thisevokesempathy.28Thereaderishappywhengoodthingshappentothechar-acterandsadwhenbadthingshappen.Thereader’semotionsarethenconsis-tentwiththeemotionsofthecharacter.29Conversely,ifareaderhasanegativedispositiontowardacharacter,thereaderwantsthecharactertofailandhopesnegative events will happen to the character. This evokes counter-empathy.Thereaderishappywhenbadthingshappentoacharacterandsadwhengoodthingshappen.Inthiscase,thereader’semotionsareinoppositiontotheemo-tionsofthecharacter.30However,theextentofemotions(althoughofoppo-sitevalence)canbethesameforreaderswhohaveapositiveandanegativedisposition. Affective Disposition Theory predicts that readers who have aneutraldispositionexperiencelessemotionsthanreaderswitheitheraposi-tiveornegativedisposition.

According to Affective Disposition Theory the dispositions that readershavetowardcharactersaredependentonthecharacters’moralconduct.Ifacharacterperformsmorallygoodactions,thereaderwillformapositivedispo-sitiontowardsthecharacter;ifacharacteronlyperformsactionsthatarenei-thermorallygoodnorbad,thereaderwillformaneutraldispositiontowardthecharacterandifacharacterperformsmorallybadactions,thereaderwillform a negative disposition.31 In other words, if a character behaves sym-pathetically, thecharacterwillbe liked, ifacharacterbehavesneutrally, thecharacterwillbemetwithindifference,andifacharacterbehavesunsympa-thetically,thecharacterwillbedisliked.Inourview,otherelementsthanbe-haviour can contribute to the sympathy shown toward a character, such asthoughts,utterances,andjudgmentsofotherpeople’sbehaviour.

In summary, readers form a disposition or attachment to characters in astoryfromnegativethroughneutraltopositiveonthebasisofthecharacters’conduct and personality. So, sympathetic behaviour and personality shouldlead to a positive disposition, which evokes empathy with the character,whereasunsympatheticbehaviourandpersonalityshouldleadtoanegativedisposition,whichevokescounter-empathy.Ifreadershaveaneutraldisposi-tiontowardacharacter,noemotionsshouldbeevoked.Toseewhetherthese

28 Oatley(1994,1999).29 Cohen(2001);Tan(1994).30 Zillmann(1994,2006).31 Raney(2004);Zillmann(1994,2006).


predictionsarecorrect,anexperimentwasconductedthatcomparedastorywithasympathetic,aneutral,andanunsympatheticprotagonist.

Hypotheses

Theaimofthisstudyistofindanarrativeelementthataffectstransportation,sothatwecanaddthiselementasaconcreteantecedentoftransportationtotheTransportation-Imagery Model.We focus on an element that influencestheemotionevokedbyastory,whichisoneofthethreeaspectsoftransporta-tion.AffectiveDispositionTheoryprovidesacharacterfeaturethatpromotesemotions,whichis theextenttowhichacharacter isdescribedasasympa-theticperson.Ifareadercaresforacharacterbecauseheactsandthinkssym-pathetically, the reader will feel empathy; if a reader is indifferent toward acharacter,thereaderwillfeelnoempathy,andifareaderdislikesacharacterbecauseheisdescribedasanunsympatheticperson,thereaderwillfeelcoun-ter-empathy.Basedonthisreasoning,thefirstthreehypothesesofthisstudyare:

H1 Readersofastorywithasympatheticprotagonisthaveamorepositivedispositiontowardtheprotagonistthanreadersofthestorywithaneu-tralprotagonist,whointurnhaveamorepositivedispositionthanread-ersofthestorywithanunsympatheticprotagonist.

H2 Readersofastorywithasympatheticprotagonistfeelmoreempathyfortheprotagonistthanreadersofthestorywithaneutralprotagonist,whointurnfeelmoreempathythanreadersofthestorywithanunsympa-theticprotagonist.

H3 Theeffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalonempathyismediatedbythedispositiontowardthecharacter.

Empathyisexpectedtobelessfortheunsympatheticprotagonistbecausethischaracter likely evokes counter-empathy. However, such counter-empathy isalsoatypeofemotion.Therefore,AffectiveDispositionTheorypredictsthatreaders of thesympatheticversion,as wellas readers of theunsympatheticversion,feelmoreemotionthanreadersoftheneutralversion.Thisisimpor-tantbecausetheTransportation-ImageryModelpositsthattheextentofemo-tionevokedbythestorycontributestotransportation,withoutspecifyingthetypeofemotion.So,whenAffectiveDispositionTheoryandtheTransporta-tion-ImageryModelarecombined,itcanbepredictedthattheversionswiththesympatheticprotagonistandwiththeunsympatheticprotagonistleadto


moreemotionandtransportationthantheversionwiththeneutralprotago-nist.

H4 Readersofastorywithasympatheticprotagonistoranunsympatheticprotagonistfeelmoreemotioninresponsetothestorythanreadersofthestorywithaneutralprotagonist.

H5 Readersofastorywithasympatheticprotagonistoranunsympatheticprotagonist experience more transportation into the narrative worldthanreadersofthestorywiththeneutralprotagonist.

H6 Theeffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalontransportationismediatedbyempathywiththatcharacter.

Finally, based on the Transportation-Imagery Model, the consequences oftransportationarealsotested.32InthestudybyHustinxandSmits,manipula-tionofperspectivehadnoimpactontheparticipants’beliefs.33However,sincetheprotagonisthasbeenportrayedmoresympatheticallythaninthatoriginalstory, persuasive effects may occur in the present study.Therefore, the finalhypothesesare:

H7 Readersofastorywithasympatheticprotagonisthavebeliefsmorecon-sistentwiththestorythanreadersofthestorieswithneutralorunsympa-theticprotagonists.

H8 Theeffectof theprotagonist’sportrayalonbeliefswillbemediatedbytransportationintothestoryworld.

Method

MaterialsTotestthehypotheses,a literarystorybythewell-knownDutchauthorTimKrabbé,titled“TheMatador”(1982),wasusedasbasematerial.Thisstorywaschosenbecauseithassuspensefulcontentandallowsreaderstobecometrans-ported,butitisstillpossibletoreadthestoryinanexperimentalsession.Also,ithasaclearprotagonistthatcanbemanipulatedintoasympathetic,aneu-tral,andanunsympatheticperson,sothatitcanbetestedwhetherthisactu-

32 GreenandBrock(2000,2002).33 HustinxandSmits(2006)


ally influences transportation.34 All versions of the story had a length ofapproximately4300words.

Thestoryisaboutaman,namedSchwab,whomakesasentimentaljourneytothetownLequitointheBasquecountryinSpain,whichhefirstvisited15yearsagowithhisformerloverEllie.Atthebeginningofthestory,hewalksaroundandtakespicturesofplacesthathavesentimentalvaluetohim.Sev-eraldays later,whenhe is leaving theBasquecountryviaacar through themountains,heisovertakenbyavanandforcedtostop.Maskedmenoverpow-erSchwabandthrowhimintothevan.HeremembersthatseveraldaysearlierthegovernorwaskidnappedbytheETA.Heisquestionedroughlyonadeso-latefarmaboutwhyhetookphotographsinLequito.HerecognizestheleaderofthegroupasthematadorwhomheandElliehadbefriendedduringhisfirstvisit15yearsago.ButthemandoesnotrememberhimandSchwabisblind-foldedandexecuted.

To manipulate the readers’ disposition toward the protagonist, three ver-sionsofthestorywereconstructed.Inthemainthiswasdonebyaddinginfor-mation that was either positive, neutral, or negative about the character’sactionsandthoughts.Atsomepointsinthetextinwhichcharacterdescrip-tionswereprovided,informationfromthebasestorywaschangedinthedif-ferentversions. In the “sympathetic”version,Schwab isportrayedasagoodmanwhobehavesinakindmanner.Forinstance,whenheiswalkingaroundinLequito,heseesakittenapproachinghim.Hisresponseinthisversionis:“Hebentovertopetthekitten.Hehadalwaysbeenananimallover.”Inthe“neutral”version,thethingshedoesareneitherpositivenornegative.Forex-amplehisresponsetothekittenis:“Hesatdownonabenchandlookedatthekitten.”Inthe“unsympathetic”version,theprotagonistisportrayedasanun-pleasantpersonwhothinksbadlyaboutothersandactsaccordingly. Inthisversion,herespondstothekittennegatively:“Hekickedtheuglyanimaltotheside.Hehadalwayshatedcats.”Similarly,thedescriptionsoftheprotagonist’sthoughtsweremanipulated.Forinstance,askingasour-lookingpasser-bytotakeapictureofhim,thesympatheticprotagonistthinks:“Shelookedmuchfriendlierup-close.Shewoulddefinitelyagreetotakeapicture.”Intheneutralversion,theprotagonistthinks:“Hecouldalwaystry.Nothingventured,noth-ing gained,” whereas the unsympathetic protagonist thinks: “He probablyshouldnotevenbothertotryaskingthewomanwiththegrumpyface.”Thefirstpartconsistedofapproximately1900wordsinallthreeversions.

InthepartofthestorywheretheprotagonistiskidnappedbytheETA(ap-proximately2400words),thesympatheticversionportraysSchwabasbrave,

34 HustinxandSmits(2006).


whichislikelytoelicitapositiveresponsefromthereaderfortheprotagonist.Forinstance:“Schwabrealizedhehadtostaycalm.Ifheweretoexplainevery-thingcalmly,theywouldseetheirmistake.”Intheneutralversion,theprotago-nistasksalotofquestions,andisunsureabouthowtobehave.Forinstancehethinks:“Whatshouldhedonow?Shouldheprotest?Orsaynothing?”Intheunsympatheticversion,theprotagonistactsnegatively,displayingcowardice:“Schwabrealizedhehadalwaysbeenacoward.”Insum,thecharactersweremanipulatedsothattheyappearedeitherasagoodperson,apersonthat isneithergoodnorbad,orabadperson.

However,thebasicplotremainedthesameoverthethreeversions.Thepro-tagonistvisitstheBasquecountryasatourist,andiskidnappedbytheETAandexecuted,thusimplyingthattheBasquecountryisadangerousplace.

Participants and ProcedureAtotalof83highschoolstudentswhowereintheirfifthyearofpre-academicstudies(5VWO)participatedinthisexperiment.35Therewere33men(39.8%)and50women(60.2%)andtheiragesrangedfrom16to18withameanof16.87years.Theseparticipantswererandomlyassignedtoreadoneofthethreecon-ditionsinabetween-subjectsdesign;28participantsreadtheversionwiththesympatheticprotagonist,28participantsreadtheneutralversion,and27par-ticipantsreadtheunsympatheticversion.Allparticipantsreadthestoryinthefamiliarcontextoftheirownhighschool.Theexperimentleadergavealltheparticipantsthesameinstructionsaboutconcentratingonthestorywithouttalking.Participantswerenotawareofanydifferentversions.Theexperimentlastedapproximately30minutes.

QuestionnaireAfterreadingthestory,participantsfilledinaquestionnairethatmeasuredtherelevantvariables.Thequestionnaireconsistedofitemsaboutreaders’disposi-tiontowardtheprotagonist,empathywiththeprotagonist,transportationintothenarrativeworld,beliefsimpliedbythestoryandthepersonalcharacteris-ticsofgenderandage.

Participants’ disposition toward the protagonist was measured with twoitems concerning the extent to which they liked the character. These itemsformedareliablescale(Cronbach’sα=.87).Anexampleitemis:“IthinkSchwabisasympatheticperson.”Participants’empathywiththeprotagonistwasmea-

35 TheauthorsthankJannekeSleenhofforpreparingthematerialsandcollectingthedatainpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsofherMaster’sthesis.


sured with three items. These items formed a reliable scale (Cronbach’sα=.71).Anexampleitemis:“Duringreading,IempathizedwithSchwab.”

Transportation intoanarrativeworldwasmeasuredwith itemsbasedonGreenandBrock’s(2000)transportationscale.Thecomponentsemotion,at-tentionandimageryweremeasuredseparately.Emotionwasmeasuredwithfour itemsconcerningthefeelingsparticipantshadinresponsetothestory.Theseitemsformedareliablescale(Cronbach’sα=.84).Anexampleitemis:“Thestoryaffectedmeemotionally.”Attentionwasmeasuredwithfiveitemsabouttheextenttowhichtheywerenotdistracted.Theseitemsformedareli-ablescale(Cronbach’sα=.74).Anexampleitemis:“WhileIwasreadingthenarrative,activitygoingonaroundmewasonmymind”(reversescored).Im-agery was measured with six items about the mental images participantsformed.Theseitemsformedareliablescale(Cronbach’sα=.70).Anexampleitem is: “During reading, I had a vivid image of Schwab.” In addition to theseparatecomponentsoftransportation,wecomputedthecompletetranspor-tationscalethatconsistsofallitemsofthethreecomponents.Thiscompletescalealsohadagoodreliability(15items,Cronbach’sα=.82).

Finally, beliefs were measured with five items about the danger of theBasquecountryandtheETA.Thesewereconsistentwiththemeasuresusedinthepreviousstudy.Theseitemsformedareliablescale(Cronbach’sα=.79).Anexampleitemis:“TheBasquecountryisnotasafedestinationfortourists.”AllitemswereansweredonasevenpointLikertscalerangingfrom“completelydisagree”to“completelyagree.”

Results

MeanscoresandstandarddeviationsofourdependentmeasuresbyconditionarereportedinTable6.1.

Affective Disposition and EmpathyRegardinghypothesis1and2abouttheeffectsoftheprotagonist’sportrayalontheaffectivedispositionthatreadershavetowardstheprotagonistandonem-pathywiththeprotagonist,univariateanalyseswerecarriedoutthatcomparedthethreeversionsofthestory.Theanalysesshowedthatthetypeofportrayalhadasignificanteffectonreaders’dispositions(F(2,80)=50.34,p<.001,η2=.56).Participantswhohadreadtheversionwiththesympatheticprotagonistlikedtheprotagonistmorethanparticipantswhohadreadtheneutralversion,whointurnlikedhimmorethanintheunsympatheticversion(allp’s<.001).Also,theprotagonist’sportrayalhadasignificanteffectonempathywiththe


character(F(2,80)=6.89,p<.01,η2=.15).Participantswhohadreadtheversionwiththesympatheticprotagonistempathizedmorewiththeprotagonistthanreaders of the neutral version (p < .05, one-sided), who in turn empathizedmorethanreadersoftheunsympatheticversion(p<.05,one-sided).

Hypothesis3aboutthemediationofreaders’dispositionwastestedforthedifferencebetweenthepositiveandthenegativeversion.Descriptiveinforma-tionabouttheindirecteffectisgiveninFigure6.1.AtestoftheindirecteffectwascarriedoutusingPreacherandHayes’(2008)bootstrappingmethod.Re-sultsshowedthatthemediationeffectwassignificant(B=1.28,SE=.38,95%CI=.5539to2.0783).

Table6.1 Means and standard deviations (between brackets) of affective disposition, empathy, transportation and beliefs by condition (1 = very low, 7 = very high).

Sympathetic protagonist

Neutral protagonist

Unsympathetic protagonist

Affectivedisposition 5.39(0.81)a 4.25(0.98)b 2.89(0.98)c

Empathy 5.13(0.80)a 4.58(1.11)b 4.09(1.18)c

Emotion 4.74(1.22)a 3.96(1.19)b 4.10(1.37)b

Attention 5.32(0.72)a 5.04(0.91)a 4.43(1.30)b

Imagery 4.89(0.83) 4.60(0.91) 4.75(1.05)Transportation* 4.99(0.63)a 4.58(0.71)b 4.47(1.06)b

Beliefs 5.21(1.08) 5.19(0.95) 5.30(1.17)

Note: Means with different superscripts differ significantly. *The scale forTransportation is acombinationofthescalesforemotion,attentionandimagery.

Figure6.1 The indirect effect of the protagonist’s portrayal through readers’ dispositions on empathy.

aregressionofprotagonistonempathywhenaffectivedispositionisnotentered.bregressionofprotagonistonempathywhenaffectivedispositionisentered.


Emotion and TransportationRegardinghypothesis4and5abouttheeffectsoftheprotagonist’sportrayalonemotionandtransportation,univariateanalyseswerecarriedoutforthesepa-ratecomponentsoftransportation,whichareemotion,attention,andimag-ery,andforthecompletetransportationscale.Theanalysesshowedthattheprotagonist’sportrayalhadamarginallysignificanteffectonreaders’emotion(F(2,80)=3.03,p=.054,η2=.07).Therewasasignificantdifferencebetweenthesympatheticandtheneutralversion(p<.05),suchthatreadersofthesym-patheticversionfeltmoreemotion.Also,therewasasignificantdifferencebe-tween thesympatheticand thenegativeversion(p< .05,one-sided).Again,readersofthesympatheticversionfeltmoreemotion.

Theprotagonist’sportrayalalsohadasignificanteffectonattentionalfocus(F(2,80)=5.70,p< .01,η2= .12).Forattention,readersoftheunsympatheticversiondifferedsignificantlyfromboththeneutralandthesympatheticver-sion(bothp’s<.05).Readershadlessattentionwhentheyreadtheversioninwhichtheprotagonistperformednegativeactions.Therewerenodifferencesbetweentheversionsforimagery(F(2,80)=0.66,p=.52).Finally,theprotago-nist’sportrayalhadasignificanteffectontransportationasawhole(F(2,80)=3.14,p< .01,η2= .07).Readersofthepositiveversionweremoretransportedintothestorythanreadersofthenegativeversion(p<.05)andreadersoftheneutralversion(p<.05,one-sided).

Hypothesis6aboutthemediationofempathywastestedforthedifferencebetweenthepositiveandthenegativeversion.Descriptiveinformationaboutthe indirect effect is given in Figure 6.2. Results of the bootstrapping testshowedthatthemediationeffectwassignificant(B=0.65,SE=.19,95%CI=.3062to1.0532).

aregressionofprotagonistontransportationwhenempathyisnotentered.bregressionofprotagonistontransportationwhenempathyisentered.

Figure6.2 The indirect effect of the protagonist’s portrayal through empathy on transporta-tion.


BeliefsRegardinghypothesis7abouttheeffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalonbe-liefs,univariateanalysisshowedthattherewasnodifferencebetweenthever-sions on beliefs (F (2,80) = 0.96, p = .91). Participants held beliefs equallyconsistent with the story after reading all versions. Therefore, hypothesis 8aboutthemediationoftransportationcouldnotbetested.

Conclusion and Discussion

ThisstudysetouttofindanantecedentoftransportationtoaddtotheTrans-portation-Imagery Model.36 Based on Affective DispositionTheory, the por-trayaloftheprotagonist’sbehaviourandthoughtsassympathetic,neutralorunsympathetic, were tested as a potential antecedent.37 Hypotheses 1 and 2abouttheeffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalonreaders’affectivedispositionsandempathywereconfirmed.Readersoftheversionofthestorywiththesym-patheticprotagonisthadamorepositivedispositiontowardtheprotagonistand empathized more strongly with him than readers of the story with theneutral protagonist who in turn had more positive dispositions and empa-thizedmorestrongly thanreadersof thestorywith theunsympatheticpro-tagonist.Inlinewithhypothesis3,wewereabletoshowthattheimpactonthelevel of empathy was mediated through affective disposition. These resultscorroborateAffectiveDispositionTheory.

Hypothesis4abouttheeffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalonemotionwaspartlyconfirmed.Readersoftheversionofthestorywiththesympatheticpro-tagonistfeltmoreemotioninresponsetothestorythanreadersoftheversionwith the neutral protagonist. However, the version with the unsympatheticprotagonistdidnotevokemoreemotionthantheversionwiththeneutralpro-tagonist.Asimilarpatternwasobtainedwithregardtothetransportationscaleasawhole(H5).Readersofthestorywiththesympatheticprotagonistexperi-encedmoretransportationintothenarrativeworldthanreadersofthestorieswithaneutralorunsympatheticprotagonist.Apossibleexplanationfortheseresultslieswiththeendingofthestory.

Tokeepthecontentofthestoryconsistent,theendingofthestorywasthesameinallthreeversions:theprotagonistwaskilled.Theunsympatheticver-siondescribedtheprotagonistasengaginginactionsandthoughtsthatweremorally reprehensible, but not so negative as to warrant such an outcome.

36 GreenandBrock(2002).37 Zillmann(1994,2006).


Therefore,itisunlikelythatreaderswerehappywiththeoutcome,whichinturnwouldhavelimitedtransportationevokedbythestory.Sincethismodelworks on the supposition that no reader would wish a violent death uponsomeonewhosepreviousactions,whilstrepugnant,donotplacehimbeyondredemption.

Futureresearchshouldincorporatethestoryoutcomeasanindependentvariabletogainmoreinsightintotheeffectsofthisimportantstoryelement.Aproportionallymoreappropriateendingmighthavemetwithmoreemotionandtransportationinthereadersoftheunsympatheticversionaswell.

Anotherpotentialexplanationfortheseresultsisthatreadersmayhavefeltmoresimilartothesympatheticprotagonist.Aspeoplegenerallyholdaposi-tive self-imageand thus thinkof themselvesas sympathetic, theymayhaveperceived themselves as having more in common with the protagonist inthe sympathetic version. Since perceived similarity is positively linked toempathy,38 the more sympathetic protagonist may have evoked more emo-tion and transportation through such a perception. However, since Schwabwasamiddle-agedmanreminiscingabouthispast,itisalsolikelythatthehighschoolstudentsthatparticipatedinthisresearchdidnotfindthemselvesverysimilartotheprotagonistinanyversion.Toestablishwhethersimilarityplaysarole intheeffectsofasympatheticprotagonist, futureresearchshould in-cludeameasureofperceivedsimilaritybetweenreaderandprotagonist.Pref-erably, this measure would be included in a study that also varies the storyoutcomeasoutlinedabove,sothatitcanbeestablishedwhetheranunsympa-theticprotagonistleadstolessemotionandtransportationthroughapercep-tion of dissimilarity or whether it can also lead to more emotion when aproportionallyappropriateendingisincluded.

Thedifferentlevelsoftransportationbetweenthegroups,whoreaddiffer-entversionsofthestory,wereduetotheemotionalandattentionalcompo-nent of the transportation scale. The other component of transportation,mental imagery, did not differ between versions.This is consistent with theresultsofpreviousstudiesthatalsodidnotfindaneffectoftextcharacteristicsonimagery.39Perhapsthiscomponentoftransportationisnotinfluencedbyattributesofthetextasmuchasemotionandattentionare.Thiscomponentmay rather be dependent on attributes of the recipient, like the strength oftheir imagination. Nevertheless, there were differences in the participants’transportation, showingthat readersof thesympatheticprotagonistversionweremoreabsorbedinthenarrativeworldandlessawareoftheirsurround-

38 Cohen(2001,2006),DeGraafandHustinx(2012).39 HustinxandSmits(2006);DeGraafandHustinx(2011).


ings.Moreover,hypothesis6concerningthemediationofreaders’empathyintheeffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalontransportationwasconfirmed.Theportrayalinfluencedempathywiththeprotagonist,whichinturnledtotrans-portation.

Withtheseresults,wehaveindeedfoundapreviouslyundisclosedanteced-entoftransportation.Theprotagonist’sportrayalassympathetic,neutral,orunsympatheticinfluencedtheextenttowhichreadersweretransported.Iftheprotagonist was found more sympathetic, more transportation occurred. Incombination with the results from previous studies, this study provides astrongindicationthatnarrativeelementsthatbringthereaderclosetoachar-acter,eitherbypresentingthestoryfromtheirperspectiveorbymakingachar-actermoresympathetic,actuallyleadtotransportation.Becausethishasnowbeenshownformultiplecharacterfeatures,showingthatitisareplicableandstableeffect,theprotagonistcanbeconfidentlyaddedtotheTransportation-ImageryModelasanantecedentoftransportation.40

Finally,hypothesis7abouttheeffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalonbeliefswasnotconfirmed.Readersofallthreeversionsheldbeliefsequallyconsistentwiththestory.Apossibleexplanationisthatperhapstheeffectsizesfortrans-portationweretoosmallfortheeffecttoinfluencebeliefs.Itcouldalsobethatthetopicofthestorylimitedthestory’spersuasivepowerinthepresentsam-pleofparticipants.Ofcourse,themajorityofDutchhighschoolstudentsdonothaveanaffinitywiththeBasquecountryandtheETA.Thestudythatprevi-ouslyusedthisstoryalsodidnotfindanypersuasiveeffects.41Thisindicatesthatdifferences intransportationmaynotalways leadtopersuasion.There-fore, it is important for future research to investigate when transportationleadstopersuasionandwhenitdoesnot.Inotherwords,researchersshoulduncover moderating factors of narrative persuasion. Involvement with thetopicofastorycouldbesuchafactor.

Alimitationofthisstudythatisrelatedtothispoint,isthatonlyonestorywasusedtotestthehypotheses.Suchasinglemessagedesignhasbeenusedinallresearchaboutnarrativepersuasionsofar,butthisdesignmakesithardtodrawconclusionsaboutstoriesotherthantheonethathasbeenused.There-fore, replication is needed with different stories. If potential moderators ofnarrativepersuasionaremanipulatedsystematically,factorscanbeidentifiedthatlimitorfacilitatepersuasionbynarratives.

Another limitation of this study concerns the sample of participants. Al-though high school students have sufficient reading ability to understand

40 GreenandBrock(2002).41 HustinxandSmits(2006).


stories,itisalsolikelythattheyhavelessexperienceandpriorknowledgethanadults. Therefore, adults’ reactions to the story could differ. However, eventhoughthestorywasaboutaforty-somethingmaledreamingaboutanoldro-mance,transportationofthesehighschoolstudentswasstillmoderate(abovetheneutralmidpoint).Apparently,transportationisapervasiveprocessduringreading.Thismakesitallthemoreimportanttoidentifyfactorsthatinfluencetheextenttowhichareaderistransported.Ourresultsshowthattheprotago-nistplaysakeyroleintransportation.Featuresoftheprotagonistthatmadehimasympatheticperson,increasedthelevelofreaders’transportation.Sinceantecedentsoftransportationhavescarcelybeenresearched,thisisanimpor-tantcontributiontotheliterature.Futureresearchshouldcontinuetoidentifynarrativeelementsthatinfluencetransportation.

References

Busselle,R.andH.Bilandzic,“Fictionalityandperceivedrealisminexperiencingstories:Amodelofnarrativecomprehensionandengagement,”inCommunication Theory 18 (2008),pp.255–80.

Cohen,J.,“Definingidentification:Atheoreticallookattheidentificationofaudienceswith media characters,” in Mass Communication and Society 4(3) (2001), pp.245–64.

––––––,“Audienceidentificationwithmediacharacters,”inPsychology of Entertainment,eds.J.BryantandP.Vorderer(LawrenceErlbaum,2006),pp.183–97.

Gerrig,R.J.,Experiencing narrative worlds(YaleUniversityPress,1993).DeGraaf,A.,H.Hoeken,J.SandersandH.Beentjes,“Theroleofdimensionsofnarrative

engagementinnarrativepersuasion,”inCommunications: The European Journal of Communication Research 34(4)(2009),pp.385–405.

––––––,“Identificationasamechanismofnarrativepersuasion,”inCom munication Research39(6)(2012),pp.802–23.

DeGraaf,A.andL.Hustinx,“Theeffectofstorytructureonemotion,transportation,andpersuasion,”inInformation Design Journal 19(2)(2011),pp.140–52.

––––––,“Waargenomengelijkenis,identificatieennarratieveovertuiging”[Perceivedsimilarity,identification,andnarrativepersuasion].InDe stralende lezer: Weten-schappelijk onderzoek naar de invloed van het lezen,ed.F.Hakemulder(Eburon,2012),pp.183–200).

Green,M.C.,“Transportationintonarrativeworlds:Theroleofpriorknowledgeandperceivedrealism,”inDiscourse Processes 38(2)(2004),pp.247–66.

––––––,“Narrativesandcancercommunication,”inJournal of Communication 56 (2006),pp.163–83.


––––––,“Researchchallengesinnarrativepersuasion,”inInformation Design Journal 16(1)(2008),pp.47–52.

Green,M.C.andT.C.Brock,“Theroleoftransportationinthepersuasivenessofpublicnarratives,”inJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(5)(2000),pp.701–21.

––––––,“Inthemind’seye:Transportation-imagerymodelofnarrativepersuasion,”inNarrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations, eds.T.C.Brock,J.J.StrangeandM.C.Green(Erlbaum,2002),pp.315–41.

Green,M.C.,T.C.BrockandG.F.Kaufman,“Understandingmediaenjoyment:Theroleof transportation intonarrativeworlds,” inCommunication Theory 14(4) (2004),pp.311–27.

Hoeken,H.andL.Hustinx,“Theimpactofexemplarsonresponsibilitystereotypesinfund-raisingletters,”inCommunication Research34(6)(2007),pp.596–617.

Hustinx,L.andA.Smits,“Meegevoerdindenarratievewereld:Deinvloedvanhetver-haalperspectiefopdeaandacht,emotiesenovertuigingenvandelezer”[Carriedintothenarrativeworld:Influenceofstoryperspectiveonattention,emotionandbeliefsofthereader],inStudies in taalbeheersing 2,eds.H.Hoeken,B.HendriksandP.J.Schellens(vanGorcum,2006),pp.132–43.

Krabbé,T.,“DeMatador,”inDe Matador en andere verhalen [The Matador and other stories] (Amsterdam:BertBakker,1982).

Nell,V.,Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure(YaleUniversityPress,1988).Oatley,K.,“Ataxonomyoftheemotionsinliteraryresponseandatheoryofidentifica-

tioninfictionalnarrative,”inPoetics 23 (1994),pp.53–74.––––––,“Meetingofminds:Dialogue,sympathyandidentificationinreadingfiction,”

Poetics 26 (1999),pp.493–54.Preacher,K.andA.Hayes,“Asymptoticandresamplingstrategiesforassessingandcom-

paringindirecteffectsinmultiplemediatormodels,”inBehavior Research Methods 40(3)(2008),pp.879–91.

Raney,A.A.,“Expandingdispositiontheory:Reconsideringcharacterliking,moralevalu-ations,andenjoyment,”inCommunication Theory 14(4)(2004),pp.348–69.

Slater, M.D., “Involvement as goal-directed strategic processing: Extending theElaborationLikelihoodModel,”inThe Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice,eds.J.P.DillardandM.Pfau(Sage,2002),pp.175–94.

Slater, M.D. and D. Rouner, “Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood:Understandingtheprocessingofnarrativepersuasion,”inCommunication Theory 12(2)(2002),pp.173–91.

Tan,E.S.H.,“Film-inducedaffectasawitnessemotion,”inPoetics 23 (1994),pp.7–32.Zillmann,D.,“Mechanismsofemotionalinvolvementwithdrama,”inPoetics 23 (1994),

pp.33–51.––––––,“Empathy:Affectivereactivitytoother’semotionalexperiences,”inPsychology

of Entertainment,eds.J.BryantandP.Vorderer(Erlbaum,2006),pp.151–81.

133ConstructingTheLandscapeOfConsciousnessInNewsStories

Chapter7

Constructing the Landscape of Consciousness in News Stories1

José Sanders and Hans HoekenSanders and Hoeken

Introduction: The Social-cognitive and Persuasive Functions of Narratives

Ineveryknownculture,peopletelleachothernarratives.2Toolan(2001)de-finesanarrativeas“aperceivedsequenceofnon-randomlyconnectedevents,typicallyinvolvingsentientbeingsastheexperiencingagonistfromwhoseex-periencewecanlearn.”3Theuseof“learn”suggeststhatnarrativesmayserveanadaptivefunction.Ithasbeenarguedthatthisfunctionliesinnarratives’contribution to the smooth collaboration between individuals within agroup.4 Since collaborating individuals were more successful in gatheringfood and fighting enemies than individuals fending for themselves, theirchancesofsurvivalincreased.

Successfulcollaborationrequiresthecapacitytodecidewhocanbetrustedtodotheirshareandthecapacity to turntheunwillingonesaround.Thesecapacitiesarereferredtoassocial intelligence, i.e., theability tounderstand, predict, and manipulate the behaviourofotherpeople.5Thefirstoftheseca-pacities, understanding a person’s behaviour, requires insight into the goalsand beliefs of this person, for, asTomasello et al. (2005) observe, “the samephysicalmovementmaybeseenasgivinganobject,sharingit,loaningit,mov-ingit,gettingridofit,returningit,tradingit,sellingit,andsoon–dependingonthegoalsandtheintentionsoftheactor.”6Tobeabletoaccuratelyinter-pret this action, one has to master “mind reading”: inferring the goal andthoughtsguidingtheseactions.Mindreadingisalsoessentialfortheabilitytopredictaperson’sbehaviour.Knowledgeaboutaperson’sgoalsandhisorher

1 Theauthorswishtothankananonymousreviewerofthispaperforhisvaluablecomments.2 Brown(1991).3 Toolan(2001)8.4 Boyd(2009);ScalisaSugiyama(1996);Tomasello(2008).5 Humphrey(1976).6 Tomaselloetal.(2005)675.

© JosésandersandHansHoeken,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_009This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



134 SandersAndHoeken

beliefsaboutthebarriersandopportunitiesconnectedtothosegoals,enableonetopredictthisperson’snextmove.Finally,tomanipulatepeople’sbehav-iour,onehastopointoutthatthepreferredbehaviourwillhavemorefavour-ableconsequencescomparedtoitsalternatives.Socialintelligencethereforerequiresrelevantinformationonhowaperson’sgoalsandbeliefsguidehisorheractionsaswellasinformationonwhattheconsequencesoftheseactionswillbe.

Boyd(2009)arguesthatnarrativesprovidethetrainingmaterialfordevel-opingsocialintelligence.Narrativesaretheperfectvehicletolearnaboutthewayinwhichpeople’sgoalsandbeliefsguidetheiractionsandsubsequentlytodocumenttheactions’consequenceswhileattractingandkeepingtheiraudi-ence’sinterestbecauseoftheentertainmenttheyprovide.Hedrawsananalo-gybetweenpeople’sseeminglyinsatiablethirstforstoriesandthefunctionofplay.Forinstance,lioncubsmock-fightwitheachother;thisplayisentertain-ingbutitalsoleadstothedevelopmentofskillsthatareimportantforsurvivalintheiradultlifeastheyareessentialforkillingtheirprey.AccordingtoBoyd,storieshavesimilarcharacteristics:theyprovideentertainmentbutalsotrainhumansinthecrucialartofunderstanding,predicting,andmanipulatingoth-erpeople’sbehaviour.

Pinker(1997)claimsthatstoriesenabletheaudiencetoexploretheconse-quencesofactionsbyobservinghowfictitiouscharactersinhypotheticalsitu-ationsactandwhattheconsequencesoftheseactsare.Inhiswords,fiction“isespeciallycompellingwhentheobstaclestotheprotagonist’sgoalsareotherpeopleinpursuitofincompatiblegoals.”(…)“Theintriguesofpeopleincon-flictcanmultiplyoutinsomanywaysthatnoonecouldpossiblyplayouttheconsequencesofallcoursesofaction in themind’seye.Fictionalnarrativessupply us with a mental catalogue of the fatal conundrums we might facesomeday and the outcomes of strategies we could deploy in them.”7 Peoplemaybenefitfromattendingtonarrativesby(learningto)understandandpre-dictpeople’sbehaviourortocharttheconsequencesofcertainactions.How-ever,theydonotreadastoryinordertobemanipulated.Storytellers,ontheotherhand,maystrategicallyfocusonsomeconsequencesofanactionwhilekeepingsilentonothersinordertoincreasethefavourabilityofabehaviouralalternative.

Wecanthereforedistinguishbetweenasocialcognitionfunctionandaper-suasivefunctionofnarratives.Thisdoesnotimplythatthereissharpdistinc-tionbetween“socialcognitivenarratives”and“persuasivenarratives.”Exactlythe same story can serve both functions; the autobiography (life story) of apersonwhorunsforofficecanserveasinputfortheaudiencetopredicthow

7 Pinker(1997)542–43.


thispersonwillactifelectedwhereasthepoliticianmayemploythisstorytopaintafavourablepictureofhimorherselfinordertomanipulatetheaudi-ence’svotingbehaviour.

Still,somenarrativesmaybemoresuitableforgaininganunderstandingofaperson’sactionswhereasotherswouldprovebetteratilluminatingtheconse-quencesofcertainactions.ThisdifferenceinsuitabilityappearstoberelatedtoBruner’s(1986)distinctionbetweenthetwolandscapesthatanarrativecon-structs:thelandscapeofactionandthelandscapeofconsciousness.Althougheachnarrativeconstructsbothlandscapes,narrativescandifferwithrespecttotheir emphasis on either the characters’ actions or on the beliefs and goalsguidingtheseactions.8Inanactionmovie,relativelymoreattentionispaidtothemaincharacter’sability,forinstance,toperformmartialartswhilewelearnlittle about the character’s history, opinions, and values. In a psychologicalstudy,itistheotherwayaround;wedolearnalotaboutthecharacter’sback-groundandthoughts,butlittleelsehappens.

Thelandscapeofconsciousnessappearsespeciallyimportantwhentryingtounderstandseeminglyerraticbehaviour.Forinstance,MarkHaddon’snovelThe curious incident of the dog in the night timeisverypopularamongschoolteachers, not only for its (literary) entertainment value, but also because it(supposedly)providesaviewofthelandscapeofconsciousnessofanautisticboy.9Thisviewenablesteacherstobetterunderstandthebehaviourofpupilswithautism.Similarly,inDutchhealthcareeducation,studentsarerequiredtothereadtheDutchnovelHersenschimmen(“Chimeras”) bytheauthorBernlef,anoveldepictingthethoughtsandexperiencesofamansufferingfromAlz-heimer’sdisease.10Itisexpectedthatthisnovelprovideshealthcareworkerswithabetterunderstandingoftheseeminglyerraticactionsofsuchpatients.Generally,literarytextsarebeingusedinmedicalsettingstoincreaseunder-standinginbothcaregiversandpatients.11Pinker’s(1997)descriptionofthefunctionsnarrativesmayserveappearstobemorerelatedtothelandscapeofaction,ashepointstotheinformationabouttheconsequencesactionsmayhave.Byandlarge,anarrativeinwhichthelandscapeofactionisemphasizedappearstofeedintothemanipulationdimensionofsocialintelligence,where-asanarrativeemphasizingthelandscapeofconsciousnessservestheunder-standing and predicting dimensions. In the next section, we will focus onjournalisticbackgroundstoriesandthefunctiontheymayserve.

8 CupchikandLaszlo(1994).9 Haddon,M.(2007).The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time.NationalGeographic

Books.10 Bernlef,J.(1994).Hersenschimmen[Chimeras].Amsterdam:Querido.11 Kapteinetal.,2011


Understanding Behaviour and the Landscape of Consciousness

Boyd(2009)makesacasefortheadaptivefunctionoffictionalnarratives.Inhislineofargument,hereferstotheworkbyDunbar(1996,1998)whoarguesthat “the principle function of language was (and still is!) to enable the ex-change of social information.”12 An important topic for this exchange is theextenttowhichpeopledoordonotbreach(cultural)groupnorms.Dunbar(2004)arguesthatsuchinformationisimportanttoensurethateverymemberofhisgroupdoeshisorherfairshareofworkwhichisessentialforthesmoothcollaborationwithinthegroupandfurthersuggeststhatcommentingonthebreachofsocialnormshasastrongimpactonpeople’swillingnessto“toetheline.”13

Nowadays,journalistsplayanimportantroleintheexchangeofsocialinfor-mation.Journalistsandtheirnewssourcesbothfunctionwithinan“interpre-tativecommunity,aculturalsitewheremeaningsareconstructed,shared,andreconstructedbymembersofsocialgroupsinthecourseofeverydaylife.”14Foraneventtoattractajournalist’sattention,ithastobenewsworthywithintheinterpretativecommunity.Oneofthewaysinwhichthiscriterioncanbemetisbyviolatingsharedexpectations.Ifaperson’sactionsharplydeviatesfromthe expected cultural convention, this action becomes newsworthy. For in-stance,ifsomeonebecomesviolentwithoutanapparentreason,ifamotherkillsherchildren,orifapolitician“goespublic”onwhatareconsideredconfi-dentialnegotiations,itwillmakethefrontpage.Whensociety’scorevaluesareunderthreat–suchaswithphysicalorpoliticalviolenceorterroristattacks–journalistsswitchtoaculturalnarrativethatmovesthepublicmindbackto-wardthedominantculturalorder.Inthecaseofnewsthatisculturallyremote–inthesensethatitviolatesculturallysharednorms–narrativesmustbere-lied upon more heavily to assist journalists’ sense-making, and the news ismoremythically-laden.15Thereasonbeingthatsuchremoteactsautomatical-lyevokethequestionofwhyactorsactedinthewaytheydid.

This“why”questionisrelatedtotheobservationbyTomaselloetal.(2005)citedabove:Weneedtoknowwhattheintentionofthepersonwaswhenper-formingtheaction,thatis,weneedsuchinformationtounderstandwhysoc-cerhooligansactviolentlyinandoutsideofthestadium,whysuicidebomberswouldsacrificetheirlivestokillothers,whyamotherwouldsuffocatehernewbornbabies.Thus,newsjournalismplaysoutmyths,rituals,andarchetypes,in

12 Dunbar(1998)98.13 Dunbar(2004)108.14 BerkowitzandTerKeurst(1999)125.15 NossekandBerkowitz(2006)691.


orderto“getthestory,”for“allthataudiences[try]todoisfindreassuranceandmeaninginaratherchaoticnewssituation.”16Bydrawingontheseanthropo-logicalinsights,textualanalysismayrevealthisnarrativeroleofmedia.17Mod-ernnonfictionnarrativesmayberevelationsofimportantculturalstandardsandbeliefs.18Thesestoriesaremadecredible,logicallymotivated,andmorallyacceptablebyapplyingtechniquesthatarenotsomuchtypicallyliterary,butcanbetracedbacktothestructureofGreekmythologyanddrama,suchasalteredchronology,discovery,peripety(orcomplication),andresolution.19

Ouraimistoexplorefurtherwhyandhownewsnarrativesoftheculturallyremotearebeingtold.AccordingtoBruner(1990),actsthatdeviatefromourculturallybasedexpectationsrequireastorywhosefunctionis“tofindanin-tentional state that mitigates or at least makes comprehensible a deviationfromacanonicalculturalpattern.”20Morespecifically,suchactsrequireare-constructionofthelandscapeofconsciousnessleadinguptotheaction.Nextto“hardnews”descriptionsoftheevents,newspapersrunbackgroundstoriesin which they aim to provide such a reconstruction. Although relating thesameevents,thesenewsstoriesdifferstronglyfromeachotherwithrespecttothestorytellingtechniquesemployed.Wewillarguethatthemaindifferencebetweenhardnewsitemsandbackgroundstoriesofthesameeventresidesintheextenttowhichthejournaliststrytosketchthegoals,beliefs,andinten-tionsofthecharacters,usingsuchnarrativetechniquesasalteredchronology,discovery,complication,andresolution.Thesenarrativetechniquesallowforjournaliststointertwinetheirownpointofviewwiththeirsource’spointsofview.Analyzingtwonewsarticlesreportingonthesameeventwithtoolsandmodelsdevelopedinliterarystylisticsandcognitivelinguistics,weaimtoshowhow the strategic use of language by the journalists opens up different per-spectivesontheevent.Thesechoicesarenotsomuchtheresultoftheneedtopleasethereadersbutratherasanecessarymeanstogainthereaders’under-standingforseeminglyerraticbehaviour.Inthefollowingsection,wewillelab-oratethisclaim,andwewillarguethatMentalSpaceTheoryhelpstodescribethenewssources’landscapeofconsciousness.

16 Fürsich(2009)245.17 Ibidem.18 Marsh(2010)295.19 Marsh(2010)296.20 Bruner(1990)50.


Representing the Landscape of Consciousness in a Mental Space Model

Inthissection,ashort“hard”newstextandalonger“soft”newsarticleareana-lyzedandcompared.21BothtextsweretakenfromDutchnewspaperDe Volksk-rantanddescribetheonsetofeventsthatleadtoamuchdiscussedcase:the“BeverwijkseBabyMurders”(December2005–Fall2006).Thiscasepromptedarticlestobewritteninvariousjournalisticnewsgenres,amongwhichwerenews reports coveringonesubjectand reportagesreconstructingnewsfactsorevents. When we compare one such short news report with a longer back-groundstory,differencesinregisterbecomeevident.

Constructingalandscapeofconsciousnessimpliesthatthereaderisabletoreconstructwhataparticularcharacterthought,believed,feltandwanted;inotherwords:areconstructionofthisperson’sperspectiveonthesituationandeventsconstitutingthenewsfacts.Fauconnier’sMentalSpaceTheory22offersaframeworktodescribesuchareconstruction.Ineachcommunicativesitua-tion,abasicspacecanbeassumedasavantagepoint inwhichtime,space,referencepointandtrutharelinkedtotheprimaryspeaker/narrator,23inthiscase the journalist.The basic space is illustrated in the first, short news re-port.24

1. BEVERWIJK – 1. The police are investigating the death of a newborninfantinBeverwijk.2. ThebodywasdiscoveredWednesdayinahouseinHaarlem.3. BecausetheinfantmayhavebeenborninahouseinBever-wijk, the police are investigating a house there as well. 4. The motherandherboyfriendhavebeentakenintocustodyforquestioning.(ANP)

Fromhisbasicspacehere-and-now,thejournalistdescribestheorderoftheeventsastheyareknowntohimatthetimeofwriting.Thatis,hedescribestheinvestigation as ongoing and positions the discovery of the body in time

21 Becauseoftheillustrativepurposesofouranalysisinthispaper,wehaveemployedmen-talspacetheoryinaratherloose,non-technicalway.AmoretechnicaltreatmentofpartsofthesetextscanbefoundinSanders(2010)inwhichsheshowshowembeddedspacesarecreatedbytheuseofverbsreferringtocognitiveactivities(e.g.,thinking,believing),changesinverbtense,andreferentialchoices.

22 Fauconnier(1985)[1994];SweetserandFauconnier(1996).23 Sanders,SandersandSweetser(2009,2012).24 DutchnationalnewspaperDe Volkskrant,December28,2005;translatedandquotation

labels added. http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article1014895.ece/Politie_onder-zoekt_dood_van_pasgeboren_baby.RetrievedonDecember3,2009,2.30PM.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article1014895.ece/Politie_onderzoekt_dood_van_pasgeboren_baby. Retrieved on December 3

http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article1014895.ece/Politie_onderzoekt_dood_van_pasgeboren_baby. Retrieved on December 3


(“Wednesday”).Thepresumednewssource–thepolice–musthaverelatedtheevents,buttheirutterancesandperceptionsarerepresentedinadistancedwayonly.Theyhavenovoice,noraretheirthoughtsrepresented.25Thereportrepresentsthejournalist’slandscapeofconsciousness,andonlyhis,withre-specttothisnewsevent.Notethatinthishardnewsevent,thechronologyisiconic;“discovery,”“complication,”and“resolution”arenotelaborated.

Withinthebasicspace,onecanopenupso-calledembeddedspaceswhichcanbefilledwithinformationthatisattributabletoanotherperson,informa-tion on what that person thought, felt, and believed at a certain point intime.26These embedded spaces enable the representation of other people’slandscapesofconsciousnessatotherpointsinthenarrativechronology.Thismechanismcanbeseeninexample2,27whichpresentsthefirstpartofalongbackgroundnewsstory(1.700words)publishedatalaterdateduringthetrial.Inthelead-in(0),thefirstspaceinthisbackgroundarticleisthejournalist’s.Inthisbasespace,thedeadchildisreferredtoas“afourthcorpse,”sinceitwasfoundfirst,butbornlastandreportedlastfromthejournalist’sstartingpoint.Fromthisbasespace,afurtherembeddedspace(1)iscreatedbytheverbsees.Thisverbofcognitionfunctionsasaspacebuilderandconnectsthenewem-beddedspacetothefirstnarrativecharacterwhoperformstheactofseeing:Carla.Inthissecondembeddedspace,thediscoveryofthebabyisretoldmoreelaborately,fromherperspectiveandfromanearlierpointintime.

2. O. On December 22, 2005, the criminal investigation department discovered, in a waste bin in the garden of Jeroen and Etta in Beverwijk, three buckets that each contained the small body of an infant. A fourth corpse had been found the day before. Last Monday, the mother appeared in court, today the father. By (name journalist).1. Shortly before Christmas 2005 Carla, who has just become a grand-mothertolittleEsra,isrummagingaroundinthecellarofherHaarlemresidence.Sheseesagreenbackpackthatshedoesnotknow.ThatwillbeEtta’s,shethinks.Ettaishereldestdaughter,whorecentlymovedbackinwith her. (…) When replacing the backpack Carla gets the impression

25 Only the verb discovered implicitly demarcates cognitive activity by the non-specifiedactor,indicatingthemerepresenceofaconsciousness(SandersandRedeker1993:implicit viewpoint).

26 SandersandRedeker(1996).27 WeertSchenk,Volkskrant,October6,2006“Alles zou goed komen”[Everythingwasgoing

tobeallright];translatedandquotationlabelsadded.http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article577454.ece/Alles_zou_goed_komen.RetrievedonDecember3,2009,2.30PM.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article577454.ece/Alles_zou_goed_komen. Retrieved on December 3

http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article577454.ece/Alles_zou_goed_komen. Retrieved on December 3


thatitcontainswetclothes.Shetakesoutagarbagebag,whichcontainsmore garbage bags and towels, and moments later she is holding (lit.“standsinherhandswith”)adeadinfant,wrappedinaredT-shirt(…).Anunbearablesmellfillsthecellar.2. Thefamilydoctor,whoatCarla’srequestarriveswithinmoments,seesa full-terminfant,agirlwelloversevenpounds.Later it isdeterminedthatthechildhasdiedweeksbefore,butthatitwasnotstill-born.3. Carla thinks that Etta is the mother.Whose baby could it be other-wise?(lit.Ofwhoelseshouldthebabybe?)Sheasksafriendandasister-in-lawtocometoherhouse.Onlythendoesshephoneherdaughter.Ettaisridingherbiketoschooltopickupthechildrenshelooksafter.4. “Pleasecomeatonce,”shehearshermothersay,“Ihavefoundsome-thing.”Ettastartstocry.Athermother’shome,Ettaatfirstdoesnotwanttoenter.Sheisveryupset.Shedoesnotwanttotalkaboutanything,shewantstodie.5. Laterthatdaysherelatesthatthebabyishers.ItwasborninBever-wijk,inthehousewhereshelivedwithherboyfriendJeroenwhoisfouryearshersenior.TheexactdayofthebirthEttacan’tremember.Itmusthavebeenthreeoffourweeksago,definitelybeforethedeliveryofhersisterDaphne.(…)6. Yet,shewouldrideherbikefromHaarlemtoheroldhomeinBever-wijktobewithherbabies.Shewould,justlikewhenshestilllivedthere,takethegarbagebagsoutofthebinandfantasizeabouthowthingscouldhavebeendifferent.AftertheseparationfromJeroenshehaddecidedtotakethelastbabywithhertoHaarlem:thenshewouldnotbesolonely.(…)7. Shewasafraid that Jeroenwouldbeangry ifhe heard that she waspregnant.Shetoldnobodythatshewaspregnant.Shedidnotgotoseeadoctor about it. Etta does not understand how her boyfriend nevernoticedthatshewaspregnant.Shehadabigbellyandherbreastshadgrown.Prosecutionalsothinksthisisunimaginable.(…)8. Ateachbirthshehopedthat Jeroenwouldenterthebathroomandsavethebaby.Sheneverthoughtthatshewouldactuallykillthechildren.Yetthatiswhathappened.Butshecouldnotpartfromherlifelesschil-dren.Thatiswhysheputtheminthegarbagebin.9. According to Jeroen the children would have been welcome. Heblames himself for not truly having known Etta. Etta and Jeroen havedecidedtohavetheirfourbabiescrematedassoonaspossible.Theasheswillbeinoneurn.(End of news story).


In the second sentence of fragment 1, several cognitive verbs indicate Carlanews source’s mental activity. “She sees a green backpack that she does notknow.” Here, these signals open an embedded space which is subsequentlyfilledwithperceptionsandthoughtsthatareconnectedtothissourceandofwhichthevalidityisrestrictedtothissourcethereandthen.“ThatwillbeEt-ta’s,shethinks.”Thethoughtsmayeventurnoutlatertobefalse.“Whenreplac-ing the backpack Carla gets the impression that it contains wet clothes.” Inaddition,discoveriesandperceptionsarerepresentedthatareparticular forthischaracterat thenarratedmoment. “She takes outagarbagebag,whichcontainsmoregarbagebags,towelsandmomentslatersheisholdingadeadinfant,wrappedinaredT-shirt.An unbearable smell fillsthecellar.”Inparticu-lar,theperceptioninthelastsentence“unbearablesmell”coloursthenarra-tor’stextasrepresentedfromthecharacter’sperspective:itisshewhosmells.

The representation from this person’s perspective also explains why thechildshediscoversisreferredtoasnew,“adeadinfant.”Whilethereaderal-readyknowsaboutthedeadchildrenastheyhavebeenintroducedinthear-ticle’sintroduction,itwasnewtothispersonatthatperiodoftime.SandersandRedeker(1993)showhowtheuseofsuch“lateindefinitereferences”canbeexplainedbytheembeddedspacewhichrepresentscontentvalidforthenarrativesourceonly.28Thereferentialchoicereinforcesthediscoverywhichisthedramaticclimaxofthestoryaswellastheonsettothesubsequentcompli-cation. Inthethirdparagraphagaintheuseofacognitiveverb,thinksfunctionsasaspacebuilder;subsequently,Carla’sembeddedmentalspaceisfilledwithherthoughtsinfreeindirectrepresentationmode.29“CarlathinksthatEttaisthemother.Who else could the baby belong to?”Obviously,journalistscannotreadtheirsources’thoughts;theyreconstructthem.Suchconstructedthoughtelementsgivea“fictionalized”flavourtothetext.Inthepresentexampleofabackgroundstory,thistypeoffictionalizedsourcerepresentationispragmati-callypossible,butitexplainswhythisformwillbeanexceptionin“hard”newsreportssuchasexample1.30

Inadditiontothealtered chronology,thechangeofverbtensehelpstobuildtheembeddedspace.Aftertheshortleadinthesimplepasttense,thearticle

28 Asimilarcaseoflateindefinitereferenceisseeninsection2,wherethedoctor“seesafull-terminfant,agirlwelloversevenpounds”:again, for thisperson, thereferentwasnew.

29 Fludernik(1993);SeminoandShort(2004).30 Reconstructedfreeindirectthoughtsformanattractivemeanstoincreasesuspensebut,

whenappliedinhardnewstexts,readerstendtofindthetextlessappropriateasanewsreport(seeeffectstudybySandersandRedeker,1993).


changestothepresenttense,whichenhancesthefeelingofimmediacyinthenarrativetext: itadvancesthesubsequentscenesasthoughinamovie,shotfromthepointofviewofCarla.Notably,theintendedeffectofrepresentingahorriblediscoveryasanactofthepresent,viewedfromtheperspectiveoftheonemakingthatdiscovery,isakinto“dramatization”:whathappenedwillbemore(?)imaginableandliterallyperceivable.ByrepresentingCarla’sembed-dedmentalspaceinthepresenttense,thejournalistfacilitatesidentificationwiththissourcewhoisasignorantandshockedbytheeventsasanyoneelse,includingthereader,wouldbe.Inotherwords,inordertohelpreaderscrossthebridgebetweenlackofunderstandingandtheabilitytounderstandtheunintelligible, the journalist starts his story from the perspective of a closerelativewhois,asthereadersare,stillunawareofwhathashappenedandwhy.

Gradually,inthefourthparagraph,theperspectiveshiftstowardsthemainnewscharacter,i.e.thedeadbaby’smother:Etta.Again,acognitiveverbfunc-tionsasspacebuilder.“Pleasecomeatonce,”shehearshermothersay,“Ifoundsomething.”Only fromEtta’smental space is itpossible to representEttaashearingwhatCarlasaysthroughthemobilephone.ThedirectquotesthatEttaishearingarereconstructionstoo,addingtothefictionalizedflavour.WithinCarla’sdirectlyquotedrequesttoEtta, it isunderstandablethattheunmen-tionablecharacterofthediscoveryisreferredtoas“something.”

ButEttaknowswhatthis“something”is,asdoesthereader.“Ettastartstocry.”AndEttarealizeswhattheconsequencesare.“Athermother’shome,atfirstEttadoesnotwanttoenter.Sheisveryupset.Shedoesnotwanttotalkaboutanything,shewantstodie.”Thehighlyemotionalreactionthatcanbedistilledfromthisstreamoffreeindirectquotespresumablyindicatessorrow(“startstocry”),fear(“doesnotwanttoenter;doesnotwanttotalkaboutany-thing”),anddepression(“wantstodie”).Theseemotionalstatescharacterizethe source as having strong negative feelings about the previous events intermsoflossandremorse;inotherwords,sheisnotacoldmurderess.

Aftersometime,inparagraph5,sheacknowledgesthefacts:“laterthatdayshe relates that the baby is hers.” A free indirect quote from her embeddedspaceprovidesthedetails.“ItwasborninBeverwijk,inthehousewhereshelivedwithherboyfriendJeroen,whowasfouryearsolderthanher.”Theemo-tionalpictureofthemotheriselaboratedinthesubsequenttext.Inparagraph6,itisrevealedthatshewasattachedtothecorpses:“Shewould,justlikewhenshestilllivedthere,takethegarbagebagsoutofthebinandfantasizedabouthowthingscouldhavebeendifferent.”Sheusedthecorpsestocopewithherfeelingsofloneliness.“AftertheseparationfromJeroenshehaddecidedtotakethelastbabywithhertoHaarlem:thenshewouldnotfeel so lonely.”Theuseofcognitiveverbstoconstructherembeddedspace;inthisembeddedspace,free


indirectthoughtsarerepresentedthatrevealEtta’smotivation.NotethatfromEtta’sspace,thedeadchildisreferredtoasthe“lastbaby,”asifitwerealive–likethebabiesofherfantasy.

Paragraph7and8arriveat thecentralmatterof thisnewsnarrative: theexplanationoftheerraticbehaviour.InalongstreamoffreeindirectquotesbyEtta, filled with cognitive and modal qualifications that firmly establish herembeddedmentalspace,hermotivationsarerevealedonebyone.Whydidshenottellanyonethatshewaspregnant?“Shewas afraid Jeroenwouldbeangryifheheardshewaspregnant.”Whydidshekillthechildren?“Sheneverthoughtshewouldactuallykillthechildren.”Whydidshekeepthecorpses?“Shecouldnotpartfromherlifelesschildren.”Andintheverycentreofthissequencetheactualkillingofthechildrenisrelatedinanimpersonalizedcon-struction:“Yet,thatiswhathappened.”Notethatthissentence,byitspositioninthecontextoffreeindirectthoughts,bearsthesuggestionofafreeindirectquote: we hear Etta’s voice, intertwined with the journalist’s voice (Sanders,2010).Byrelatingthekillinginthisimpersonal,non-cognitive,non-activeman-ner,theactor/newssourceandthejournalistjoinvoicesinindicatingthatshehadnointentiontokill,andthatshedidnotevenexperiencethekillingasanact.

Inthelastparagraphofthenewsstory(9),thefeelingsofthebabies’fatherarerepresented,specificallyhisregretstowardsEtta:“Heblames himselffornottrulyhavingknownEtta.”Thissuggeststhatifhehadactedandfeltdifferently,thingswouldhavebeendifferentaltogether,andthushe isnot freeofguilt.Again,informationrepresentedinanembeddedspaceenforcesthepictureofthebabies’motherasapitiful,highlytroubledwoman.Subsequently,thenewstextreunites,atleastforonemoment,thebabies’motherandfatherasacou-ple:theyshareacognitiveverbwhichbuildsasharedembeddedmentalspace.“EttaandJeroenhave decidedtohavetheirfourbabiescrematedassoonasthisispossible.”Theclosingsentence,representedfromthejournalist’sownnarra-tivecontentbase,finallyreunitesthedeadbabiesassiblings:“Theasheswillbeinoneurn.”Thusthejournalist,bywayofresolution,addsanelementof“nor-mality”tothepicture,atleastwithregardstopayingone’slastrespects.

Inpresentingthislast,normalactbythenarrativecharacters,thejournalistpointsoutthatnormalanderraticbehaviourcanbothbepresentinoneper-son.Thispositionappealstothejournalist’sandaudience’slevelofnormality,andimplicitlyposesthequestion:What,ofthisstory,isunderstandable?Whatcanbeexplainedbyunderlyingcauses?WhatwouldIhavedone,ifsomeofthesecircumstancesappliedtome?Suchapresentation,followingAlexander(2009),istypicalfornarrativeorliteraryjournalism:“anyprotractedrelation-ship between a journalist and a subject is likely to bring whatever qualities


–realorimagined–theymayshare,tolight;thisrecognitionofthefamiliarintheunfamiliarisadefiningcharacteristicofthefrighteningwhichFreudcalled‘the uncanny.’”31 Thus, paradoxically, the narrative journalistic story createsunderstandingfortheculturallyremoteOtherwhileatthesametimedisrupt-ingthecomfortofbothjournalistandaudiencebytheengagementwiththisOther.32Preciselythisstrangeness,andpreciselythisfusionofthesubjectiveand objective, explain why “literary” journalistic texts like the one analyzedherearenottypicallyexhaustedbyonereading:theystaynews.33

Empirical Research on Perspective Taking

Constructingthelandscapeofconsciousnessinvitesreaderstotakethepointofviewofacertaincharacter.Asaresult,readersmaybebetterabletounder-standwhysomeoneactedinacertainway,whichinturnmayleadtoamorefavourable(or lessunfavourable)evaluationof thisbehaviouras impliedbythe saying “understanding is forgiving.” To our knowledge, no empirical re-searchhasaddressedthequestionofwhetherthiseffectdoesoccurfornews-paperarticlessuchastheonesdiscussedinthispaper.However,thereisalineofresearchonthepersuasive impactofstories thatappearsrelevanttothisissue.

GreenandBrock(2000)showedthatreadingastoryonthemurderofalittlegirlbyapsychiatricpatientonleaveinfluencedreaders’attitudestowardstherightsofpsychiatricpatients,regardlessofwhetherthestorywasdescribedasfactual, fictional,orasadream.Thepersuasivepotentialofstorieshasbeendocumentedinotherstudiesaswell.34Inmodelsofhowstoriesexerttheirin-fluence,thefeelingofbeinglostinthestoryisbelievedtobethekeymecha-nism.35GreenandBrock(2000,Experiment4)providedevidencefortheclaimthatbeingenthralledbythenarrativewasthemotorofthenarrative’spersua-siveeffect.Thefeelingofbeinglostinthestorycomprisesseveraldimensions,suchasthefocusingofattentiononthestory,thefeelingofbeingpresentattheevents,andtheextenttowhichtheaudienceempathizeswiththecharac-

31 Alexander(2009)61.32 Alexander(2009)62–63.33 Alexander(2009)63,quotingEzraPound.34 See,forinstance,AppelandRichter(2007);Slater,Rouner,andLong(2006);Strangeand

Leung(1999).35 See, for instance, Green and Donahue (2009); Moyer-Gusé (2008); Slater and Rouner

(2002).


ters.36Thesedimensionsmaynotbeequally important forastorytohaveapersuasiveeffector,alternatively,theroutealongwhichthedimensionsinflu-encethepersuasiveoutcomemaydiffer.

Variousstudieshaveshownthat theextent towhichtheaudienceempa-thizeswithcharactersisanimportantdeterminantoftheimpactastoryhasontheaudience’sevaluation.37Thatis,themoretheaudiencerelatestoacer-taincharacter,themoreitisinclinedtoacceptthatcharacter’sopinionsortoevaluateitsbehaviourfavourably.However,thesestudiesarecorrelationalinnatureandthereforelendthemselvestoarivalexplanation.Insteadofempa-thizingwithacharactercausingtheaudiencetotakeonasimilarattitudeasthecharacter,itcouldworktheotherwayaround:havingasimilarattitudeasthecharactercausestheaudiencetoempathizemorestronglywiththatchar-acter.Andsager,Bemker,Choi,andTorwel(2006)provideevidenceforsucha(reversed)mechanism.

However,DeGraaf,Hoeken,Sanders,andBeentjes(2012)wereabletoma-nipulatethelevelofempathywithacharacterbymanipulatingtheperspec-tivefromwhichtheeventswererelated.Intwoexperiments,theystudiedthepersuasiveimpactoftwodifferentstorieseachofwhichcontainedtwocharac-terswithopposinggoalsandopinions.Foreachstory,twoversionswerewrit-tenwhichdifferedwithrespect to theperspectivisingcharacter.That is, thestorywaseithertoldbythecharacterholdingopinionAorbythe(opposing)character who held opinion B. If holding a similar opinion drives people toempathisewithacharacter,theaudiencewouldidentifywithacertaincharac-ter regardless of whether this character was the perspectivising one or not.However,theresultsshowedclearlythatparticipantsempathisedmuchmorestronglywiththeperspectivisingcharacter,regardlessoftheopinionheldbythatcharacter.Furthermore,theywereabletodemonstratethatthisincreaseinempathyledtoastrongeracceptanceoftheopinionsheldbytheperspec-tivisingcharacter.

The “I”-perspective provides readers with a clear view on the character’slandscapeofconsciousness.Theresultscorroboratetheclaimthattravellingthelandscapeofconsciousnesscanleadtoanunderstandingandacceptanceofthecharacter’sopinionsandactions.Theemploymentofan“I”-perspectiveisfarmoreobtrusivethantherelativelysubtlemanipulationsofperspectivein the newspaper article analysed in the previous section. The techniques

36 See,forinstance,BusselleandBilandzic(2009);DeGraaf,Hoeken,Sanders,andBeentjes(2009).

37 See,forinstance,DeGraafetal.(2009);Iguarta(2010).


employedbythejournalistleadtotheconstructionofthelandscapeofcon-sciousnessfordifferentpersons.Toshowhowthejournalistcreatestheseland-scapes,wehaveemployedmentalspacetheory.Webelievethatthistheoryishighlysuitableforourpurposes.Theconceptofanembeddedmentalspacerepresentingwhatacertainpersonbelieved,wanted,andintendedishighlysimilartothelandscapeofconsciousnessconcept.Inaddition,thetheoryde-scribesthewaysinwhichlanguageelementsopenupembeddedmentalspac-es, thus establishing narrative shifts such as altered chronology, discovery,complication,andresolution.

Aclearidentificationofthesespacebuildinglanguageelementsisimpor-tant.Forifonewantedtoassesswhethertheconstructionofembeddedspacesleadstotheperceptionofthelandscapeofconsciousness,andsubsequentlytoabetterunderstandingofaperson’sbehaviour,thisimpliesaneedforacon-trolledmanipulationofbuildingamentalspace.Forinstance,wouldthesec-ondparagraphhavelessimpactiftheeventsleadingtothediscoveryofthedead infant were not in the present tense, but in the simple past? In otherwords,notdescribedashappeningthereandthen:

ShortlybeforeChristmas2005Carla,whohadjustbecomeagrandmotherto littleEsra,wasrummagingaroundinthecellarofherHaarlemresi-dence.Shesawagreenbackpackthatshedidnotknow.Shethoughtthatitbelongedtohereldestdaughter,Etta,whorecentlymovedbackinwithher. (…)WhenreplacingthebackpackCarlagot the impressionthat itcontainedwetclothes.Shetookoutagarbagebag,whichcontainedmoregarbagebags,towelsandmomentslatershewasholdingadeadinfant,wrappedinaredT-shirt.

Andwouldtheidentificationbelessstrongifcognitiveverbsthatbuildem-beddedspacesareremoved:

ShortlybeforeChristmas2005Carla,whohadjustbecomeagrandmotherto littleEsra,wasrummagingaroundinthecellarofherHaarlemresi-dence.Shereplacedagreenbackpackthatbelongedtohereldestdaugh-ter,Etta,whorecentlymovedbackinwithher.(…)Itwasunusuallyheavy.When Carla unpacked the backpack, a garbage bag appeared, whichrevealedmoregarbagebags,towels,andfinallyadeadinfant,wrappedinaredT-shirt.


Suchmanipulationsenableapreciseandcontrolledassessmentoftheextentto which the narrative techniques employed by journalists do indeed leadreaderstotravelthelandscapeofconsciousnessinordertounderstandwhatmadepeopleactthewaytheydid.

Theexplorationoftheinnerlandscapecanbeattractive,butitdoesraisethequestionwhetherithasanimpactonnewspapers’perceivedquality.Sand-ersandRedeker(1993)showedthatthepresentationoffreeindirectthoughtsinnewsnarrativeswasappreciatedbyreaders,whofoundsuchtextsmoresus-pensefulthannewstextswithoutsuchelements.However,theydidnotcon-sider textswithsuchelementsasappropriatenews texts. It isan importantquestionwhen,andinwhichnewspaperstheexplorationofinnerlandscapeswasintroducedandhowthisdevelopmenthasinfluencedthepublic’sappre-ciation;thiscouldwellbedifferentfordifferentnewspaperstyles.Wehavear-guedthatjournalisticbackgroundstoriesfunctionasculturalnarrativesthatmovethepublicbacktothedominantculturalorder.Itisclear,however,thatseveral subcultures can be distinguished within the dominant culture, andmoresonowwiththebroadeningpresslandscapeandmoreubiquitousnewmedia.Itcanbehypothesizedthatjournalistsfromdifferentsubculturesusenarrativetechniquesindifferentcontexts,dependingontheirspecificculturalorder.Forinstance,intheDutchbroadsheetnewspaperthatwasanalyzedinthisarticle(De Volkskrant)aswellasinother“quality”pressmedia,theuseofsophisticatednarrativetechniquessuchasthefreeindirectstyleisusedtoex-plore seemingly inexplicablebehaviour,while tabloid pressmedia mightbemoreinclinedtousethesetechniquestoexplorethethoughtsandemotionsofthevictimsofthiserraticbehaviour.Alargerscaledcorpusanalysisisneededtocomparetechniquesinthesesubculturesfurther.

Concluding Remarks

Thetextualanalysispresentedinthispapershowsthatjournalistsemploylit-erary techniques to tell the story. More specifically, we have focused in ouranalysisonthewayinwhichthejournalistoverlayshisinterpretationorevensubjectiveevaluationontothenewsfacts,andlendshisownvoicetomakethenews sources’ voices heard. Although the employment of these techniquesmay provide the reader with an enjoyable reading experience, their impactmay go further than simply providing entertainment. By representing thelandscapeofconsciousnessofthepersonsinvolved,thejournalistappearstoprovideaviewonthe“intentionalstatethatmitigatesoratleastmakescom-


prehensibleadeviationfromacanonicalculturalpattern,”38which,accordingtoBruner,isanarrative’sgoal.

Inrecentyears,craftsaswellasmoralsofnarrativejournalismhavedrawnmoreattentionofbothprofessionals(KramerandCall,2007)andacademics(Sims,2009)inthejournalisticfield.Journalisticstoriessuchasthisonehelptocreateormaintain a society’sunderstandingof itselfand itsvulnerabilities,andalthoughjournalistsdonotalwaysthinkaboutdecisionsoftechniqueex-plicitlyasethicalchoicesintermsoftruthorcompassionwiththesubjects,39itisimportanttorecognizetheconsiderablepowerjournalisticchoicesmayhave.

References

Alexander,R.,“‘Mystoryisalwaysescapingintootherpeople’:Subjectivity,objectivity,andthedoubleinAmericanliteraryjournalism,”inLiterary Journalism Studies 1(1)(2009),pp.57–66.

Andsager,J.L.,V.Bemker,H.-L.ChoiandV.Torwel,“Perceivedsimilarityofexemplartraitsandbehavior:Effectsonmessageevaluation,”inCommunication Research 33(1)(2006),pp.3–18.

Appel,M.andT.Richter,“Persuasiveeffectsoffictionalnarrativesincreaseovertime,”in Media Psychology 10(2007),pp.113–34.

Berkowitz,D.andJ.V.TerKeurst,“Communityasinterpretivecommunity:rethinkingthejournalist-sourcerelationship,”inJournal of Communication49(3)(1999),pp.125–36.

Boyd,B.,On the origin of stories. Evolution, cognition, and fiction (Belknappress,2009).Brown,D.E.,Human Universals (McGraw-Hill,1991).Bruner,J.,Actual minds, possible worlds(HarvardUniversityPress,1986).––––––,Acts of meaning(HarvardUniversityPress,1990).Busselle,R.andH.Bilandzic,“Measuringnarrativeengagement,”inMedia Psychology

12(4)(2009),pp.321–47.Craig,D.,The ethics of the story. Using narrative techniques responsibly in journalism

(RowmanandLittlefield,2006).Cupchik,G.C.andJ.Laszlo,“Thelandscapeoftimeinliteraryreception:Character

experienceandnarrativeaction,”inCognition & Emotion 8(4)(1994),pp.297–312.

38 Bruner(1990)50.39 Craig(2006)18–19.


DeGraaf,A.,H.Hoeken,J.SandersandH.Beentjes,“Theroleofdimensionsofnarrativeengagement in narrative persuasion,” in Communications 34(4) (2009), pp.385–405.

––––––,“Identificationasamechanismofnarrativepersuasion,”inCommunication Research 39 (2012), pp.802–23.

Dunbar,R.M.,Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language(HarvardUniversityPress,1996).

––––––,“Theoryofmindandtheevolutionoflanguage,”inApproaches to the evolution of language,eds.J.R.Hurford,M.Studdert-KennedyandC.Knight(Cambridge,1998),pp.92–110.

––––––,“Gossipinevolutionaryperspective,”General Review of Psychology 8 (2004),pp.100–10.

Fauconnier,G.,Mental Spaces, 2nded.(Cambridge,1985[1994]).Fludernik,M.,The fictions of language and the languages of fiction: the linguistic repre-

sentation of speech and consciousness (Routledge,1993).Fürsich,E.,“Indefenseoftextualanalysis.Restoringachallengedmethodforjournalism

andmediastudies,”in Journalism Studies 10(2)(2009),pp.238–52.Green,M.C.andJ.Donahue,“Simulatedworlds:Transportationintonarratives,” in

Handbook of imagination and mental simulation,eds.K.D.Markman,W.M.P.KleinandJ.A.Suhr(PsychologyPress,2009),pp.241–56.

Green,M.C.andT.C.Brock,“Theroleoftransportationinthepersuasivenessofpublicnarratives,”inJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(5)(2000),pp.701–21.

Humphrey,N.K.“Thesocialfunctionofintellect,”inGrowing points in ethology,eds.P.BatesonandR.Hinde(Cambridge,1976),pp.303–17.

Iguarta,J.-J.,“Identificationwithcharactersandnarrativepersuasionthroughfictionalfeaturefilms,”inCommunications – the European Journal of Communication Research35(4)(2010),pp.347–73.

Kaptein,A.,S.vanderGeestandF.Meulenberg,“Verhalenverhalen”[Narrativesnar-rate], in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs30(3)(2011),pp.91–100.

Kramer,M.andW.Call,eds.,Telling true stories. A nonfiction writer’s guide from the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University(Penguin,2007).

Marsh,C.,“Deeperthanthefictionalmodel.StructuraloriginsofliteraryjournalisminGreekmythologyanddrama,”inJournalism Studies 11(2)(2010),pp.295–310.

Morgan,S.,L.MoviusandM.Cody,“Thepowerofnarratives:theeffectofentertainmenttelevisionorgandonationstorylinesontheattitudes,knowledge,andbehaviorsofdonorsandnondonors,”inJournal of Communication 59(1)(2009),pp.135–51.

Moyer-Gusé,E.,“Towardatheoryofentertainmentpersuasion:Explainingthepersua-siveeffectsofentertainment-educationmessages,”inCommunication Theory18(3)(2008),pp.407–25.


Nossek,H.andD.Berkowitz,“Telling ‘our’storythroughthenewsofterrorism,” inJournalism Studies7(5)(2006),pp.691–707.

Pinker,S.,How the mind works(Penguin,1997).Sanders,J.,“Intertwinedvoices.Journalists’representationmodesofsourceinformation

injournalisticsubgenres,”inEnglish Text Construction 3(2)(2010),pp.226–49.Sanders,J.andG.Redeker,“Linguisticperspectiveinshortnewsstories,”inPoetics 22

(1993),pp.69–87.––––––,“Perspectiveandtherepresentationofspeechandthoughtinnarrativedis-

course,”inSpaces, worlds and grammar, eds. G.FauconnierandE.Sweetser(UniversityofChicagoPress,1996),pp.290–317.

Sanders,T.,J.SandersandE.Sweetser,“Causality,cognitionandcommunication:Amentalspaceanalysisofsubjectivityincausalconnectives,”inCausal Categories in Discourse and Cognition,eds.T.SandersandE.Sweetser(MoutondeGruyter,2009),pp.21–60.

––––––,“Responsiblesubjectsanddiscoursecausality.Howmentalspacesandconnec-tiveshelpidentifyingsubjectivityinDutchbackwardcausalconnectives,”in Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012),pp.191–213.

ScaliseSugiyama,M.,“Ontheoriginsofnarrative.Storytellerbiasasafitness-enhancingstrategy,”inHuman Nature 7(1996),pp.403–25.

Semino,E.andM.Short,Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing(Routledge,2004).

Sims,N., “Theproblemandthepromiseof literary journalismstudies,” inLiterary Journalism Studies1(1)(2009),pp.7–16.

Slater, M.D. and D. Rouner, “Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood:Understandingtheprocessingofnarrativepersuasion,”inCommunication Theory, 12(2)(2002),pp.173–91.

Slater,M.D.,D.RounerandM.Long,“Televisiondramasandsupportforcontroversialpublicpolicies:Effectsandmechanisms,”inJournal of Communication56(2)(2006),pp.235–52.

Strange,J.J.andC.C.Leung,“Howanecdotalaccountsinnewsandinfictioncaninflu-encejudgmentsofasocialproblem’surgency,causes,andcures,”inPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4)(1999),pp.436–49.

Sweetser,E.andG.Fauconnier,“Cognitivelinksanddomains,”inSpaces, worlds and grammar,eds.G.FauconnierandE.Sweetser(UniversityofChicagoPress,1996),pp.1–28.

Tomasello,M.,Origins of human communication (MITPress,2008).


Tomasello,M.,M.Carpenter,J.Call,T.BehneandH.Moll,“Understandingandsharingintentions:Theoriginsofculturalcognition,”inBehavioral and Brain Sciences 28(2005),pp.675–735.

Toolan,M.,Narrative. A critical linguistic introduction,2nded.(Routledge,2001).

152 VisEtAl.

Chapter8

Quoted Discourse in Dutch News Narratives

Kirsten Vis, José Sanders and Wilbert SpoorenVis et al.

Introduction

Newsstoriesnarratenewsworthyfacts,events,andopinions.Mostofthecon-tentofthesestoriescomesfromsourcesotherthanthenewsnarrator.Report-ersobtaintheirnewsfromnewssources,representingtheirutterancesinmoreorlessverbatimways,paraphrasingandsummarizingastheythinknecessary.Therepresentationofsourcematerialcanbedescribedintermsofdiscoursepresentation.

Inthisstudy,weadaptanexistingmodelofdiscoursepresentationtoexam-ine in detail, what journalistic narrators (henceforth: reporters) actually dowhentheyrepresentwordsutteredpreviouslybynewssources,andhowlin-guisticchoicesexpressthefunctionsuchpresentationsmayfulfil.Inordertoaccount for empirical phenomena in news corpora, we studied both recentandoldernewsnarratives,strivingforabroadspectrumofdiscoursepresenta-tionphenomena.Inaclosereadingofbothpresent-dayandhistoricalnewstexts,thesecategoriesareinvestigatedsystematicallyintheirfunctionalcon-texts,andelaboratedwithseveralsubcategoriesnecessarytoaccountfortheempiricaldata.

The first section briefly addresses how quoted discourse is discussed andcategorized in literature. In thesecondsection, thematerialandmethodofanalysisareoutlined.Thethirdsectionsystematicallyinvestigateswhattypesofquotationoccur inacorpusofolderandrecentDutchnewstexts. Inthefourth section, the results are summarized and discussed for their implica-tions.

Categories of Quoted Language

Inareportedspeech/writing/thoughtsituation,thereareatleasttwopersonaeinvolved:thenarratorandthepersonwhosewordsorthoughtsarerepresented.1

1 In journalisticnarratives, thisquotedpersoncanalsobe the journalistasnewssource(Rennen,2000).

© Kirstenvisetal.,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_010This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

153QuotedDiscourseInDutchNewsNarratives

Thedegreetowhichthevoiceofthenarratorandthequotedpersonisheardin a text, can vary. Many descriptions are given of reported speech (andthought).AsastartingpointweuseSeminoandShort’s(2004)modelofdis-coursepresentation,whichconsistsofthreescales:forspeech,thought,andwriting presentation. These scales involve several options, or categories, forpresentingotherpeople’sutterancesorthoughts,asrepresentedinTable8.1.

Inthecolumnsfromlefttorightthecategoriesofdiscoursepresentationarenamed: Indirect Speech/Writing/Thought (IS/IW/IT); Free Indirect Speech/Writing/Thought(FIS/FIW/FIT);DirectSpeech/Writing/Thought(DS/DW/DT);andFreeDirectSpeech/Writing/Thought(FDS/FDW/FDT).Definitionsandex-amplesofallcategoriescanbe found inSeminoandShort(2004: 10–16and42–52).2

Withinthedifferenttypesofspeechorwritingpresentation,therearedif-ferencesinthedegreeof(assumed)faithfulnesstoanoriginalutterance,andhencetheresponsibilityoftheotherperson(SeminoandShort,2004).Canon-ically,afaithfulnessclaimisassociatedwithdirectspeechorwriting;itisas-sumedbyreadersthatthedirectlyquotedstringreportsexactlythewordsandstructuresusedbythespeakerintheoriginaldiscourse,asinShe said “Yes, I am right here.”Thedirectmodeissupposedtodemonstratewhatwassaid,thusexpressingmaximalfaithfulnessindiscoursepresentation(ClarkandGerrig,1990).Assuch,itreaffirmsboththepresenceofthewitnessingnarratorinthequotedsituationandthetrustworthinessofthequotation.Bycontrast,thein-direct presentation mode displays a straight connection with what was said(thepropositionalcontent),butitdoesnotconvey how itwassaid(thewords

2 SeminoandShort (2004)alsodescribeNarrator’sRepresentationofVoice/WritingandInternalNarration(NV/NW/NI);Narrator’sRepresentationofSpeech/Writing/ThoughtAct(NRSA/NRWA/NRTA);thesecategorieswerenotincludedinouranalysis,sinceweaimedtodescribethoseformsofdiscoursepresentationinwhichtheoriginalnewssourcehasatleastsomeinvolvementintherepresentation(eitherthecontent,orthewording,orboth).

Table8.1 Speech, thought, and writing presentation scales (afterSeminoandShort,2004:49).

Indirect Free indirect Direct Free direct

Speechpresentation: IS FIS DS FDSThoughtpresentation: IT FIT DT FDT

Writingpresentation: IW FIW DW FDW

154 VisEtAl.

andstructuresusedtouttertherelevantpropositionalcontent),asinShe said that / confirmed she was present / was there.Withrespecttofreeindirectspeechand writing, Semino and Short (2004) state that these categories involve a“mix”ofthefeaturesassociatedwithindirectspeech/writingontheonehandanddirectspeech/writingontheother,asinYes, she was right there.Asacon-sequence,freeindirectspeechandwritingareambiguouswithrespecttothefaithfulnessclaimconcerningthewordingoftheutterance.Oftenitisdifficulttodecidewhetheritisthenarrator/reporteroracharacter/newssourcewhoisresponsible for a particular word; their voices are intertwined (cf. Sanders,2010). Additionally, we distinguish partial quotations, by Semino and Short(2004:159)describedassubcategoryofdirectpresentationintermsof“embed-dedquotationphenomena”(notinTable8.1):relativelyshortstretchesoftextsurroundedbyinvertedcommasthatoccurwithinanon-directformofspeech/writing/thoughtpresentation,andthatequalthedirectandfreedirectcatego-rieswithrespecttofaithfulness,astheyseemtobeaverbatimreproductionofapartoftheoriginalutterance.

Material and Method

Inthisparagraph,thematerialandthemethodofanalysisinthisstudywillbedescribed.Asmaterial,acorpusofDutchnewspapertextswasassembledintwo sub-corpora. The first sub-corpus consists of old newspaper texts from1950(32.579words;50texts),thesecondofrecentnewspapertextsfrom2002(51.587words;99texts).Bothsub-corporaweretakenfromfivenationalDutchnewspapers(Algemeen Dagblad,NRC Handelsblad, Telegraaf,TrouwandVolk-skrant)andeightsections(frontpage,domesticnews,foreignnews,financialnews,culture,opinion,sports,science).Thetextsfrom1950werecopiedfrommicrofilm,the2002textswereextractedfromtheinternationalnewspaperda-tabaseLexisNexis.

Allnewstextsinthecorpuswerecloselyread,markingouteachinstanceofdiscoursepresentation.Themarkedcasesofdiscoursepresentationwerethenanalysedandcategorizedaccordingtothedegreeinwhichanewssourcewasinvolvedintherepresentationofthecontentand/orwording,usingthecate-goriesaspresentedinTable8.1.Finally,considerationwasgivenastowhetherornotadditionalcategorieswereneededtodescribetheempiricaldata.

Inthenextsection,theresultsofouranalysisarepresented.Foreachcate-gory,typicalcasesarediscussedanddescribedbothforlinguisticcharacteris-tics and functional context. Attention is paid to any observed differencesbetweenthe1950and2002cases.Finally,casesthatdidnotfitintooneofthe


pre-described categories are described and categorized linguistically, andcharacterizedfunctionally.

Results

Thissectionpresentsthefindingsforthespeechpresentation,writingpresen-tation,andthoughtpresentationcategories,consecutively.

Speech Presentation DirectSpeechInthenewspapercorpusquotationsaremostfrequentlypresentedasdirectspeech,asinexample(1).InthisexampleareporterpresentsanutteranceofthedeputyharbourmasteroftheharbourofZierikzeeaboutacaseofdrugsmugglingallegedtohaveoccurredintheharbour.Hiswordsaremarkedbysingleinvertedcommasandaverbofcommunication,“zegt”(“says”),andthequoted material consists of three complete sentences.The quoted source isidentifiedexplicitly,bothbynameandbyfunction.Theexplicitidentificationofthesourcemarkshimasbeinganauthority.Incombinationwiththeothermarkersthisistoassurethereaderoftheaccuracyandprecisionofthequota-tion,therebygivinganassuranceofthereporter’sreliability(Weizman,1984).

(1) “Op zich was er niets opvallends aan die mannen,” zegt hulphaven-meesterPh.deLeeuw.“Deafgelopendriewekenwarenelkedageenpaarmannenbezigopdatschip,maarniemandheeftietsgeksgezien.350Kilodrugskunjein10Albert-Heijntassenzonaarbinnendragen.”(Algemeen Dagblad,May32002,domesticnews)“In itself there was nothing conspicuous about those men,” says deputy har-bour master Ph. de Leeuw. “For the last three weeks, every day, some men have been working on that ship, but no one has seen anything odd. You could carry 350 kilos of drugs inside in 10 large shopping bags without anyone noticing.”3

Thewayofmarkingdirectspeechinexample(1)isverycommon.Alternativewaysofpresentingdirectspeechoftenencounteredinthecorpusincludeal-ternativeplacementofthecommunicativeverb(beforethequotationratherthanfollowingit,asinexample(2),theuseofacolon(alsoinexample(2)),

3 WithrespecttothetranslationofDutchexamples,thischapterprovidesglossesthatretainthestructureoftheoriginalasmuchaspossible.

156 VisEtAl.

andtheuseofaprepositionalphrasewith“aldus”or“volgens”(“accordingto”)insteadofaverb,seeexample(3).

(2) NaeenslechteaanloopnaarhetNewyorkseevenement(drieoverwin-ningenindrietoernooien)waarschuwdehijvriendenvijand:“OpdeUSOpenmoetniemandmijafschrijven.”(Trouw,September72002,sports)After a bad run-up to the event in New York (only three matches won in his last in three tournaments) he warned friend and enemy alike: “At the US Open no one should write me off.”

(3) “[…]Terhandhavingvanhetrechtendewettendermenselijkheidkanhier alleen de zwaarste straf de juiste geacht worden”, aldus mr. VanVoorsttotVoorst.(NRC Handelsblad,July61950,domesticnews)“[…] For the enforcement of the law and the laws of humanity only the sever-est penalty can be considered right”, according to Mr Van Voorst tot Voorst, Master of Laws.

Inadditiontotheoptionsmentionedsofar,somedirectquotationsinthe2002subcorpusareintroducedonlybythenameofthequotedsourceandacolon,leavingouttheembeddingphrase(communicativeverborphrasewith“aldus”or“volgens”).Mostoften,suchcasesarenotthefirstcitationofthisspeakerinthearticle,andthesourcehasbeenintroducedpreviously,butinfrequentlyitwasnot,orjustvaguelyintroduced,asinexample(4).

(4) Justitiespreektovereen“uitzonderlijk”vonnis.PersofficierI.vanHilten:“Nooiteerderiszo’nhogestrafopgelegd.Bijdemeesteverkeersongeluk-kenmetdodelijkeafloopwordt‘dooddoorschuld’tenlastegelegd.Hierbleekhethaalbaaromdrievoudigedoodslageneenpogingdaartoetenlasteteleggen.”(NRC Handelsblad,July22002,domesticnews)The judiciary speaks of an “extraordinary” sentence. Press officer I. van Hilten: “Never before has such a high punishment been imposed. In most fatal traffic accidents cases the suspect is charged with ‘culpable homicide.’ In this case an indictment of triple culpable homicide and an attempted cul-pable homicide proved feasible.”

Example(4)originatesfromanarticleonalawsuitinthecaseofafatalhit-and-runaccident.ThefirstmentionofpressofficerVanHilten’snameisinthesecondsentence,intheintroductionofthestretchofdirectspeech.Theonlyreferencepriortothisintroductionthatcouldpossiblyrefertothepressofficeris the word “justitie” in the previous sentence, referring to the judiciary in


general:“allthejudgesinacountrywho,asagroup,formpartofthesystemofgovernment” (Longman dictionary). Note that within the stretch of directspeechitself,asmallfragmentofthreewords(“dood door schuld”)ismarkedwith additional inverted commas. This phenomenon of inverted commaswithininvertedcommasoccursmoreoftenandisdiscussedinthesectiononpartialquotes,cf.example(21).

FreeDirectSpeechTheanalysis showssomecasesof freedirect speech;a stretchofquotation,marked by inverted commas, but not introduced as such by a name, colon,communicativeverb,orembeddingphrase,asinexample(5).

(5) Soekarnodeeldemee,datdeactietegendeZuid-Molukkenthansinvollegangis.“Wijzienonsgedwongentegendeopstandelingendewetvandevernietigingtoetepassen.”(Trouw,August181950,foreignnews)Sukarno announced that the action against the South Moluccas is now well under way. “We are forced to enforce the law of destruction against the rebels.”

Thefreedirectquotationinthesecondsentenceinexample(5)isattributedtoSukarno,becauseintheprecedingsentenceanindirectquotationintroducedbythecommunicativeverb“deelde mee”(“announced”)isattributedtohim,andthereisnoothersourceavailableitcouldbeattributedto.AccordingtoSeminoandShort(2004),inpressdiscourse,asopposedtoe.g.fiction,freedi-rectspeechalwaysfollowsanotherformofspeechpresentationwhichisclear-lyattributedtoasource.However,ourcorpuscontainsexampleswherethisisnotthecase,suchasexample(6).Inthetwosentencespriortothequotation,goalkeeperGrimofthesoccerclubAjax,isintroduced.Withoutanintroduc-tion,inthethirdsentencebeginswithadirectquotation.Thefactthatitstartsimmediatelyaftertheintroductionofaperson,andthefactthatinthesecondsentencethespeakeridentifieshimselfasagoalkeeper,makesitclearthatthestretchofquotationpresentswordsutteredbyGrim,eventhoughthereisnoreportingclauseforGrimforthisstretchofquotation,noranypreviousmen-tionofaspeechactinvolvingGrim.However,theemotionalexpression“be-laden”(“charged”)inthefirstsentencefacilitatestheattributionofthedirectquotetoGrimbytheimplicitreferencetohisconsciousness.4

4 Acaseofimplicit viewpointintermsofSandersandRedeker(1993).

158 VisEtAl.

(6) VoorGrimisdebekerfinaleextrabeladen.IndeKuipkeepthijzijnlaatstewedstrijd in het betaalde voetbal. “Dat realiseer ik me steeds meer. Ikweetalmaandendatmijntijdalskeepereropzit,maardathebikindecompetitie steeds ver weg kunnen stoppen. Afgelopen week lukte datechternietmeer.[…].”(Algemeen Dagblad,May112002,sports)For Grim the final is especially emotionally charged. The match in the Kuip [stadium] is his last match as a professional goalkeeper. “I realise that more and more. I have known for months that my time as a goalkeeper is finished, but during the competition I have been able to put that out of my mind. Last week that didn’t work anymore. [...].”

Thedifferentwaysofpresentingdirectspeechdiscussedabove,haveoneas-pectincommon:thequotationsarealwaysmarkedbysingleordoubleinvert-edcommas.Onlytwoarticleswerefoundintheentirecorpusinwhichsomefragmentsofdirectspeecharepresentedwithoutinvertedcommas.Inthosetwo cases, direct quotations were recognizable from the use of the presenttensewithinapasttensecontext,andafirstperson“I”referringtothequotedsourceratherthanthereporter,asinexample(7).

(7) Watde internepolitiekbetreftzeideSoekarnoteerkennen,daternogrampok is en dat er gewapende benden rondzwerven. Doch ik ben er zeker van, dat dit slechts tijdelijke verschijnselen zijn.(Trouw,August181950,foreignnews)About the internal politics Sukarno said to acknowledge that there still are robberies and that armed gangs are roaming around. However I am sure that these are only temporary phenomena.

Notethatallotherverbsusedinthistexttoreportonthesituationareinpasttense,like“zeide”(“said”).5

IndirectSpeechInthecorpusmanycaseswerefoundwherewordsofsourceswerepresentedas indirect speech. In example (8) both bold stretches are cases of indirectspeech.

5 Typicalforthedirectpresentationmodeisthatthedeicticcentrefortimeandplace(here,now),forreferencetopersonsandtoverbtenseisplacedinthequotedsource(SandersandRedeker,1996):I=source,now=presentforthesource.


(8) MinistervanBuitenlandseZaken,Abdullah,zeidat uit inlichtingenrap-porten blijkt dat Osama bin Laden en mullah Omar nog steeds in leven zijn, maar dat dat nog geen excuus is voor het ombrengen van burgers.Hijzeidat de jacht op Al-Qaeda en de Talibaan moet doorgaan, maar dat de procedures voor het lanceren van aanvallen moeten worden “herzien” om onschuldige slachtoffers te vermijden.(NRC Handelsblad,July32002,foreignnews)Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abdullah, said that intelligence reports show that Osama bin Laden and mullah Omar are still alive, but that that is no excuse to kill civilians. He said that the hunt for Al Qaeda and the Taliban should continue, but that the procedures for the launch of an attack should be “revised” to avoid innocent victims.

Theindirectquotationsinthisexamplearemarkedbytheverbsofcommuni-cation(“zei”(“said”)inbothcases),thesubordinatingconjunctionandthefactthattheyaredependentclauses. Infact,bothindirectquotations inthisex-ample consist of two dependent clauses, coordinated by coordinating con-junction“maar”(“but”).Theoriginalspeakerofthewords,inthiscaseMinisterofForeignAffairs,Abdullah, is responsible for thecontentof thequotation,butnot(necessarily)forthewording,whichmaybeparaphrasedandsumma-rizedbythereporterdependingonthearticle’sstyleandlength.Thus,there-portercanbeheldresponsibleforatleastthewordsthatareusedtopresentthesourcematerial.Interestingly,inthelastdependentclauseintheexample,one word (“herzien”, “revised”) is marked by inverted commas as quoted di-rectly.Thisphenomenonisdiscussedextensivelyinthesub-sectiononpartialquotes.NotethatthisstrokeofindirectspeechrepresentsanewssourcewhodoesnotuseDutch.Itisclearthatnon-Dutchspeakingnewssourcesarefre-quentlyrepresentedindirectly,thusparaphrasedbythejournalistwhowouldhavehadtotranslatetheirutterancesanyway.Interestingly,bothinthe1950and2002examples,non-Dutchspeakingnewssourcesarealsorepresenteddi-rectly,ascanbeseeninexamples(2),(5),and(7)above(sources:tennisplayerPeteSamprasandpresidentSukarno).

Semi-directSpeechInthenewstextsinoursubcorpus,atypeofspeechpresentationisencoun-tered fairly regularly that isnotrecognizedasan individual typebySeminoandShort(2004):semi-directspeech.Thisseemstobeamixedtypeinthatitcanneitherbeclassifiedasdirectnoras indirectspeech.Thiscomplexity isevidentintheothernamesgiventothiscategory:theterm“semi-directspeech”introduced by Haeseryn et al. (1997) in their book on Dutch grammar, and

160 VisEtAl.

“paratacticindirectspeech”employedbyWaugh(1995:150).Thestretchesofsemi-directspeecharesimilartodirectspeechinform:thewordorderisthatofanindependentclauseasitwouldbeindirectspeech,forinadependentclausethefiniteverbisplacedattheend,andthequotationisnotintroducedbyasubordinatingconjunction.Inexample(9),theboldstretchisattributedtothecounselforthedefencebymeansoftheembeddingphrase“aldus”(“ac-cordingto”).

(9) Deze dagvaarding is betrekkelijk de acte van beschuldiging tegen ver-dachte, aldus de verdediger; zij is ook de dagvaarding tegen iedere N.S.B.-er.(Telegraaf,March101950,domesticnews)This summons relates to the indictment against the defendant, according to the counsel for the defence; it is also the summons against every N.S.B.-member.

Semi-directspeechdiffersfromdirectspeech,andresemblesindirectspeech,intheabsenceofinvertedcommas,andcertaintransformationsinthefiniteverbanddeicticelementsreferringtotime,placeandperson;thisiswhyex-ample (7), with “I” referring to the quoted source, is categorized as directspeechandnotassemi-directspeech.Withregardstoinvolvementoftheorig-inalspeaker,semi-directspeechissimilartoindirectspeech:thesemi-directspeech mode involves a non-literal presentation of the words of anotherspeaker(Haeserynetal.,1997).Thismeansthattheoriginalspeakerisrespon-sibleforthecontent,butonlymarginallyresponsibleforthewording.Thisisnotableinthecaseofsemi-directspeechin(10).

(10) De verslaafden houden zich overdag vooral op in de omgeving van deMathenesserdijk.De buurt heeft al jaren te kampen met criminaliteit en overlast, zeggen de bewoners. (…) (NRC Handelsblad, July 4 2002,domesticnews)During the day, the addicted mostly linger around Mathenesserdijk. The neighbourhood has had to deal with criminality and nuisance for years, say the residents. […]

Theboldstretchinthisexampleisnotlikelytobealiteralquotation,asitisnotveryprobablethattheresidentshaveallutteredthissamesentenceliterally.Incaseslikethese,thesummarizingfunctionofindirect(orsemi-direct)speechisparticularlyevident(SeminoandShort,2004:79).


FreeIndirectSpeechInthe1950subcorpus,atypeofdiscoursepresentationoccursthatcannoteas-ilybecategorized.Stretchesoftextwerefoundthatfailtosatisfyformalcrite-riaofdirectorindirectformsofspeech/writing/thoughtpresentationinTable8.1. However, there are strong indications, formal and functional, that thestretchesdonotrepresentwordsofthereporter,either.Caseslikeexample(11)werefoundinsevenarticles,originatingfromvariousnewspapersections.Thisexamplewastakenfromadomesticnewsarticleonacourtcaseagainstanal-legedwarcriminalfromWorldWarII.

(11) Mr.Bottenheimvoerdeaan,datverdachtegeenkopstukvandeN.S.B.wasgeweest en desalniettemin al bijna vijf jaar detentie heeft ondergaan.Anderen, die belangrijker geacht kunnen worden, hebben echter het gevang al verlaten. K. heeft de Arbeiderspers uit de financiële débâcle gered en dat hij weinig kieskeurige middelen heeft toegepast, geeft hij toe. Het staat echter vast, dat hij oprecht berouw heeft. (Telegraaf,March91950,domesticnews)Mr Bottenheim, Master of Laws, brought forward that the defendant had not been a head man of the N.S.B. and had nevertheless undergone five years of detention. Others, who can be considered more important, have however left the prison already. K. has saved the “Arbeiderspers” from a financial disaster and he admits that he has used not very discerning means. However, it is certain that he is sincerely remorseful.

The first sentence presents a stretch of indirect speech. For the subsequentsentences,however,thestatusisnotasclear.Theswitchtopresenttenseandthecontentofsentences2to4seemtoindicatethattheyaredirectspeech:themaintextofthearticleisinpasttense,asisthefirstsentenceoftheexample,yetinthesentencefollowingtheindirectspeechthereisaswitchtopresenttense(“kunnen,”“hebben”).Thispresenttenseismaintainedupuntiltheendofthefragment(“heeft gered,”“geeft toe,”“staat vast,”“heeft”).Withrespecttothemeaningofthesentences,itislikelythattheboldsentencesarequotedfromMrBottenheim,thedefendant’scounsel,sinceitishardtobelievethatthere-porter himself would state that it is certain that the defendant’s remorse issincere.However,theboldsentencesarenotmarkedasdirectspeechbyin-verted commas.The finite verb “voerde aan” (“brought forward”) in the firstsentencefunctionsasasignalthatanindirectspeechpresentationwillfollow.Remarkably, thesubsequentsentencesshouldbeunderstoodasacontinua-tionoftheparaphraseofthewordsofMrBottenheiminthestretchofindirectspeech, since reference is made to people and objects in a manner that is

162 VisEtAl.

typicaltothinking/speakingsubjectwhichfunctionsassource–inthiscaseMrBottenheim.6Thereforethecontinuedparaphraseiscategorizedasfreein-directspeech.Instancesoffreeindirectspeechinourcorpusarelimitedtoaspecifictypeorarticles,reportingonprofessionalandformalmeetings:courtcasessuchasinexample(11),ashareholders’meeting,aninterviewwithapro-fessor,aUpperChamberassemblyinParliament,andameetingwithamayor.Itwouldseemthatthehighstatusofthequotedsourcesleadreporterstointe-gratethequotedmaterialwiththeirownproseinapracticallyunmarkedman-ner.

Summarizingtheresultsforspeechrepresentation,inourcorpuswefoundcasesoffreedirect,direct,andindirectspeechpresentation,whilefreeindi-rect speech was found only infrequently in the 1950 subcorpus; in addition,semi-directspeechwasfoundbothinthe1950andin2002subcorpora.

Writing PresentationIn addition to quoting from speaking sources, in the corpus reporters alsoquotefromwrittensources,oftenscientificarticlesorexpertreports.Similartospeechpresentation,thequotationsfromwritingarepresentedindirect,indi-rectandsemi-directmode.

DirectWritingInthenewspapers,reportersmayquotedirectlyfromvariouswrittensources.Threeexamplesofdirectwritingpresentationarepresentedhere,varyinginthetypeofsourcethatisquotedfrom:

(12) “Niet aanraken!,” staat er in veelvoud geschreven op de wanden inMuseum BoijmansVan Beuningen. (NRC Handelsblad, July 5 2002, cul-turalnews)“Do not touch!,” is written multiple times on the walls of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen.

(13) AlseenNederlandsekrantschrijftoverdedreigingvanRuslandenover“vrees” spreekt in verband met de bewapening, dan schrijft ds. Strijd:“Hieraan kunnen en mogen Christenen niet meedoen. […]” (Trouw,August121950,opinionnews)

6 Foranextensiveanalysisofthiscaseandsimilarcasesintermsofembedded speech,seeLok(2009).


When a Dutch newspaper writes on the threat of Russia and speaks of “fear” with regards to armament, minister Strijd writes: “Christians cannot and should not participate in this. […]”

(14) “ZegeeftaandatzijnietstemakenheeftgehadmetdedoodvanRowena[…],”staatineenrapportvandeRaadvoorKinderbeschermingwaarinDe Telegraaf gisteren inzage had. (Telegraaf, March 6 2002, domesticnews)“She declares that she has not had anything to do with the death of Rowena […],” [it] is written in a report for the Child Welfare Council that the journal-ist from De Telegraaf was given the opportunity to examine yesterday.

Theseexamplessharemanyformalandfunctionalcharacteristicswiththeex-amples of direct speech: the stretches in quotation are marked by invertedcommas,colons,andverbsthat indicatewriting,“staat geschreven”(“iswrit-ten”), “schrijft” (“writes”)and“staat” (“iswritten”).Thesourcesof thequota-tionsareusuallyexplicitlydescribed,eitherasthepersonwhohaswrittenthewords(13),orthelocationwherethewordsarewritten(areport,asin(14)),orthe walls in a museum, as in (12). Example (14) demonstrates that different(writtenandspoken)quotationscanbeembedded:thereport,quoteddirectlybythereporter,indirectlypresentsstatementsmadebyMrsRikkers,Rowena’smother.

Similartodirectspeechpresentation,thereareformalvariationsinthewaydirect quotations from a written source are presented, e.g. in word orderthroughthedifferentplacementsoftheembeddingverb(before,inthemiddleof,orafterthequotation,in(13),(12)and(14)respectively),butthesevariationsaremorelimited.Forexample,therearenooccurrencesofquotationsfromawrittensourceinwhichonlythenameofthesourceandacolonareused(cf.example (4) for speech presentation). At least, there are no occurrences inwhich this source had been introduced explicitly as a written source in theprecedingtext.Usually, incaseswhereonlyasourcenameandcolon intro-duceaquotation,thesourceisintroducedmoreelaboratelyinoneofthepre-cedinglines.However,whensuchacontextisnotpresent,thequotationwillbydefaultbeconsidereddirectspeech.Similarly,noexamplesof freedirectquotationfromawrittensourcenorexamplesofwritingpresentationsimilarto the examples for embedded speech presentation (cf. example (11)) werefoundinthecorpus.

164 VisEtAl.

IndirectWritingInthecorpus,numerouscasesofindirectwritingpresentationwereencoun-tered.Formally,thesecasesarequitesimilartoindirectspeechpresentation:onlytheembeddingverbsaredifferent,withtheexceptionofverbsthatcanrefertocommunicationboththroughspeakingandthroughothermodesofcommunication,suchaswriting.Inexample(15)twostretchesofindirectpre-sentationmodecanbefound.Thesecondstretchisexplicitlymarkedaswrit-ing presentation through the embedding verb “schrijft” (“writes”), while thefirststretchisembeddedthroughtheverb“waarschuwt”(“warns”).Thisreferstocommunicationwithaparticularpurpose,butthroughnoparticularmode.The broader context of the example clarifies the source as an article by re-searcherGershoff,publishedinascientificjournal.

(15) […]Hetisheelgoedmogelijkdatagressievekinderenvakerlichamelijkwordenbestraft, juistomdatze (omandere redenen)zoagressiefzijn.Ookwaarschuwtdeonderzoeker,ElisabethThompsonGershoffvandeColumbiaUniversiteitinNewYork,dat het hier specifiek om lichame-lij ke straf gaat en dat deze negatieve verbanden niet hoeven te gelden voor andere vormen van straf, zoals isolement (“op de gang!”) of het intrekken van privileges.Sterkernog,zeschrijftdat opvoeding zonder enige bestraffing waarschijnlijk antisociaal gedrag van de kinderen sterk bevordert.(NRC Handelsblad,July62002,science)[...] It is very well possible that aggressive children are more often physically punished, exactly because they are so aggressive ( for other reasons). The researcher, Elisabeth Thompson Gershoff of Columbia University in New York, also warns that this specifically concerns physical punishment and that these negative connections do not necessarily hold for other forms of punishment, such as isolation (“on the corridor!”) or the withholding of privileges. What’s more, she writes that parenting without any punish-ment probably leads to a strong increase of antisocial behaviour by the children.

Semi-DirectAndFreeIndirectWritingAs with speech presentation, reporters may present quotation from writtensources as semi-direct writing. In example (16) the reporter semi-directlyquotesfromacommentinascientificjournal.Inthisfragment,onlyattheendof thesecondsentencedoes itbecomeclearthat the firstsentence isa freeindirectrepresentationfromanotherwrittensource.


(16) Demakakenhaddendeaantallenschijnbaargeabstraheerd,maarhoe?Hier sneuvelt de klassieke theorie, schrijft een commentator bij hetberichtinScience.(Trouw,September62002,science)The macaques had apparently abstracted from the numbers, but how? Here the classical theory fails, writes a commentator as a comment to the article in Science.

Similar to semi-direct speech presentation, semi-direct writing presentationseemstobeamixedtype,showingcharacteristicsofbothdirectandindirectwritingpresentation.

Inshort,ournewspapercorpuspresentscasesofdirectandindirectwriting,aswellassemi-directwriting;freedirectandembeddedwritingdonotoccur,whilefreeindirectwritingwasrare.

Thought PresentationInadditiontoquotingfromotherpeople’sspeechandwriting,inthecorpusreportersalsoquotefromthoughtsofnewssources,oratleast,presentquota-tionsassuch:thesequotationsareembeddedbyverbsofthinking,insteadofverbsofcommunication,eitherwithorwithoutthemarkingofinvertedcom-mas(directandindirectthoughtpresentation).

DirectThoughtExample(17)showstwocasesofdirectthoughtpresentation:thefirstquota-tion isattributed tonewlyappointedCEOofNumico for theUSA,PetervanWel,bytheverbofthinking“realiseert zich”(“realises”),andthesecondtoananalystofSNSSecuritiesbytheverb“vindt”(“thinks”/”isoftheopinion”).

(17) “IkzalvoorlopigweinigkunnengenietenvanhetinFloridavolopschij-nendezonnetjeenvandehonderdengolfcoursesindeomgevingvanhetnieuwehoofdkantoor,”realiseerthijzich.[…]“Geensterkverweer,”vindteenanalistvanSNSSecurities.“Iedereendenktnudaterveelmeeraandehandis.”(Telegraaf,March82002,financialnews)“For now I will not be able to enjoy the sun that shines abundantly in Florida, and the hundreds of golf courses in the surroundings of the new head office,” he realises. […] “Not a strong defence,” an analyst of SNS Securities thinks. “Now everybody thinks that there is much more going on.”

Theonlyformaldifferencebetweentheseexamplesandtheexamplesofdirectspeecharetheembeddingverbs;inspeechpresentationtheseverbsare,usu-ally, verbs of communication suggesting speaking, whereas in thought

166 VisEtAl.

presentationtheverbssuggestcognitiveactiononthepartofthesourceofthequotation.Thiscognitiveactionisnotdirectlyaccessibleorobservabletothereporter,andsothereportercannotaccuratelyreportwhatis/wasthoughtinany real sense of the term. The question is whether thought presentation,whererealpersonsareinvolvedratherthanfictionalcharacters,istheresultofreporters inferring thoughts from their utterances or behaviour, or rather ofreporter’s stylistic variation in representing their speech. In example (17) itseemsthattheuseofthoughtpresentationprovidesthereporterwithawayofvarying the embedding of what is actually directly observed speech, and is,hence,merelyastylisticvariationbythereporter.Thisisclearlyadifferencewithfictionalnarratives,inwhichnarratorsfrequentlyrepresenttheircharac-ters’imaginedthoughts.Reporterscanusethoughtpresentationtoimplicitlyrepresentthedeliberationsintheconsciousnessoftheoriginalspeakersthattheyobserved intheirspeechandbehaviour.Theydonotreconstruct thesethoughts,butuselinguisticexpressionsofperception,cognition,oremotiontorepresentwhattheyhaveobserved(Sanders,2010:229).

FreeDirect“Thought”Example(18)fromanarticleonvariousmedicaltreatmentsforincontinencefurtherillustratesthatsomecasesofthoughtpresentationareactuallystylisticvariationsofspeechpresentationbythereporter.Thisexampleseemstobesuchacase,asthestretchoffreethoughtdoesnotseemtoinvolvementalde-liberations, opinions or thoughts.The verb “vindt” (“thinks”) in the first lineindicatesthatthisexampleinvolvesthoughtpresentation,andfromthatsig-nal, subsequent free direct quote would logically be interpreted as thoughtpresentationaswell.Fromthecontextitisclear,however,thatspeechpresen-tationisinorder:thesourcewasinterviewedbythereporter.

(18) Operaties kunnen bij milde gevallen echter erg ingrijpend zijn, vindtBerghmans.Depatiëntmoetondernarcoseenkannadeoperatienoglangpijnklachtenhebben.Daaromdoethijmetcollega’seenonderzoeknaareennieuwebehandelwijze.“Het gaat om een kleine ingreep, waar-bij met behulp van een injectienaald siliconen op drie plekken in de wand van de plasbuis worden gespoten.” (Algemeen Dagblad, May 102002,science)Operations can, however, be very far-reaching in mild cases, thinks Berghmans. The patient has to be put under an anaesthetic, and might be in pain for a long time after the operation. For that reason he and his col-leagues are studying a new treatment method. “It involves a minor opera-


tion, in which a hypodermic needle injects silicones in three places in the wall of the urethra.”

IndirectThoughtInadditiontodirectthoughtpresentation,indirectthoughtpresentationoc-cursinthecorpusaswell,asinexample(19).

(19) Veelmensenmenen,dateraanhart-envaatziektenweinigofniets tedoenvalt.(Volkskrant,January62002,science)Many people think that nothing can be done about cardiovascular diseases.

Asisthecaseinindirectspeech,importantfunctionsofindirectthoughtpre-sentationaretosummarizeandparaphrase(SeminoandShort,2004),particu-larlywhentheopinionofagroupofpeopleisreportedon.Thissummarizingfunctionisclearinexample(19).

Semi-directThoughtSimilartosemi-directspeechandsemi-directwriting,reporterspresentquota-tionsaswellintheformofsemi-directthought.Thefirstsentenceofexample(18),repeatedhereasexample(20)showsacaseofsemi-directthoughtpre-sentation.

(20) Operaties kunnen bij milde gevallen echter erg ingrijpend zijn, vindtBerghmans.(Algemeen Dagblad,May102002,science)Operations can, however, be very far-reaching in mild cases, thinks Bergh-mans.

As was argued for semi-direct speech and semi-direct writing, semi-directthought presentation is a category that shows characteristics of both directandindirectthoughtpresentation.

Summarizing,ournewscorpuspresentscasesofdirect,indirect,andsemi-directthought.AsopposedtoSanders(2010),nooccurrencesoffreeindirectthoughtpresentationwerefound.

Partial QuotationsExamples(4)and(8)abovehavealreadyshownstretchesofdirectquotationthat cannot be straightforwardly categorized as direct speech, because theyoccurinsideother,non-directquotations.Thesepartialquotationsrepresentless thanacompleteclause indirectquotationembedded inother typesof

168 VisEtAl.

discoursepresentation.Theyoccurregularlyinournewscorpus,whichcanbeexplainedfromthecontextofnewsreporting,whereusingpartialquotesen-ablesthereportertopresentselectedpartsoftheoriginalutterance,withoutsacrificingtheneedforbrevity.Thewordsusedinpartialquotationsaregener-allysingledoutforthereasonthattheyareparticularlyapt,shocking,contro-versial,orrevealing;thustheycanbeusedtovividlyevoketheoriginalspeaker’svoice,and/ortoconveythatthereportermaynotwanttobeassociatedwiththesewords(SeminoandShort,2004:154).Thus,thereportercreateslivelinessanddistanceatthesametime(Sanders,2010:236),asexemplifiedin(21).

Here,thereporterprobablyaimedtorefuseresponsibilityforthewordsoftheoriginalspeaker–MrsRikkers,accusedofkillingher4-year-olddaughterandofabusingher3-year-olddaughterwhensheaccusesherex-husbandofarangeofcrimes,including“mogelijk iets met kinderporno”(“possiblysomethingtodowithchildpornography”).Additionally,byusingpartialquotationsthereportersucceedsinevokingMrsRikkers’voicevividly,whilestillmanagingtosummarizeherwords.

(21) Rikkers vindt dat “belachelijk.” “IkwildatRochelle bij mijnmoeder ofmijn zus wordt ondergebracht. Anders wil ik dat het kind naar eenpleeggezingaat(...).Iedereenweetwatikwil.”[…]Omhaareisenkrachtbijtezetten,beschuldigtzijhaarex-echtgenootMartinachtereenvolgensvanomgangmeteenjongmeisje,xtc-encocaïnegebruik,overvallenenexhibitionismeinhetbijzijnvanminderjarigenen“mogelijkietsmetkin-derporno.”Verderbetichtzijhaarex-echtgenootervanRochelle“alleentewillen hebben, zodat hij rustig thuis kan zitten met een uitkering.”(Telegraaf,March62002,domesticnews)Rikkers thinks that is “ridiculous.” “I want Rochelle to be placed with my mother or my sister. If not, I want the child to go to a foster home (…). Every-one knows what I want.” […] To enforce her claims, she accuses her ex-hus-band Martin successively of contact with a young girl, XTC and cocaine abuse, robberies, and exhibitionism in front of minors, and “possibly some-thing to do with child pornography.” Additionally, she accuses her ex-hus-band of “only wanting to have Rochelle so that he can stay at home on benefits.”

Example(21)demonstratesthedifferentformsofpartialquotationthatoccurinthecorpus:thepartialquotationsusuallyconsistofsinglewords(“belache-lijk”)orphrases(“mogelijk iets met kinderporno”)butinsomecasesevenclaus-es are presented as a partial quotation (“alleen … uitkering”).The differencewithdirectspeech/writing/thoughtpresentationisthatinpartialquotations


theoriginalspeaker’swordsareembedded,bothgrammaticallyandsemanti-cally, within the reporter’s own discourse, whereas direct speech/writing/thoughtpresentationistypicallygrammaticallyindependentandsemantical-lyseparatefromthereporter’swords(SeminoandShort,2004:55).Theexam-plealsoshowsthatpartialquotationcanbeembeddedinthoughtpresentationaswellasspeechpresentation,althoughitislikelythatthisisacaseofthoughtpresentationwherethequotedwordswereoriginallyderivedfromaspokeninterview with the source. As has been argued above, the finite verb “vindt”(“thinks”/“isoftheopinion”)mightinthiscasebeactuallyusedasastylisticalternativetoaverbofspeaking.

Curiously,insomeexamplesofpartialquotationinourcorpus,itseemsthatwords are explicitly marked as a verbatim quotation, although it seems un-likelythattheyhaveactuallybeenutteredinthatway.Inexample(22),there-porterseemsoverenthusiasticinmarkingwordsasoriginatingfromanotherperson,possiblyconsideringitbettertoavoidpossibleambiguityatallcost.Theexamplestemsfromanarticleonanallegedfightbetweenaministerandoneofhisparishioners,anditslatercourtcaseinwhichasergeantwhohadbeencalledtothesceneafterthefightgaveatestimonyofwhathehadwit-nessed.

(22) Aandejasvandedominee,waarvaninhethetevandestrijd“alleknopeninhetrondzoudenzijngevlogen,”hadhijnietsbijzondersgezien.(Volks-krant,January111950,domesticnews)He had not noticed anything peculiar about the minister’s coat, from which in the heat of the fight “all buttons would have come off and flown in the air.”

Itseemsunlikelythatthesergeanttestifyingincourtwouldactuallyhaveusedthemodalverb“zouden,”glossedhereas“wouldhave,”asthismodalverbis,typicallyforjournalisticprose,usedtointroducethestretchofquotationthatititselfisin.7Probablythereportermadeamistakeanderroneouslyincluded“zouden”inthedirectquotation.Thisfragmentraisesthequestionofwhetherornottherewereclearconventionsinthe1950’sforusinginvertedcommastomarkquotationsinnews,orwhethertheconventionsfortheuseofinvertedcommaswerenotverystrict.

Inshort,partialquotesareubiquitousinnewsnarratives,allowingreporterstoportraytheirnewssourcesinashortandvividmanner,whileatthesametimeapportioningresponsibilityforthewordingawayfromthemselves.

7 Acaseofso-calledquotative conditional(seeSandersandRedeker,1993;Lyons,1982).

170 VisEtAl.

Conclusion of the Inventory of Quoted Language

Journalisticnarrativesseemtoputspecificdemandsonthemodelingofdis-course presentation. Of the pre-described speech/writing/thought presenta-tionmodes,directandindirectspeechrepresentationareubiquitousinnewsnarratives. Direct quotations not only vividly characterize the quoted newssources,theysimultaneouslyfunctionas“grounding”devices:theyaffirmthepresenceofthereporteratthenewssituationandhisorhertrustworthinessinrepresenting the news source material. Indirect presentation appears to beusedforitsparaphrasingandsummarizingfunction.Inonlysevenarticlesfreeindirectspeechpresentationwasfound,restrictedtoformalnewsnarrativesinthe1950’s.Whencomparingoldernewstextstothosemorerecent,freeindi-rectspeechseemstohavedisappeared,whereastheuseoffreedirectquota-tionshasbecomecommon.Inaddition,theinventorydemonstratesthatothertypesofspeechpresentationarepresentinourcorpus:semi-directpresenta-tion,whichallowsforrigorousparaphrasingandre-orderingofsentencestruc-ture;andpartialquotations,whichinvariousformsplayanimportantroleinnewsstories,bothinordertoenliveninabriefway,andtorejectresponsibilityfortheexactwording.Writingpresentationisusedonlyincaseswhereitistobeclarifiedthatthereporterdidnotactuallytalktoasource,butreadhisorherreportinwrittenform.

Particularlyinthoughtpresentation,thequotationsinnewsnarrativesdif-ferfromquotationsinfictionalnarratives.Fromthecorpusanalysisitmaybeconcluded that direct and indirect thought presentation in news is merelyusedasastylisticvariationonspeechpresentation,whereasinfiction,therep-resentationoffictionalcharacters’thoughtsisanimportantmeanstoelabo-ratetheirinnerobservationsandevaluations,thussketchingtheir(imaginary)“landscapeofconsciousness”(Bruner,1986).Inthisrespectitisimportanttonotethat the faithfulnessof thoughtpresentation is radicallydifferent fromspeechandwriting,becauseforthoughtthereisnooriginalutteranceinnews(cf.SeminoandShort,2004:50);thoughtscanbeeitherreconstructed(fromutterancesandbehaviour)orconstructed(fictionalized).Fromthelatterop-tionitcanbeexplainedthatinournewstextcorpusnocasesoffreeindirectthoughtwerefound,whileSanders(2010)foundremarkablecasesinsomelon-ger background articles. Possibly, free indirect thought presentation is usedonlyinextensivenewsnarrativesthataremeanttoelaborateonpeopleinthenewsbyfictionalizingtheirhistories.Thefunctionoffreeindirectthoughtpre-sentation may thus be to enhance identification with news characters, thusraisingunderstandingforseeminglyerraticbehaviour(SandersandHoeken,thisvolume;DeGraafetal.,2012).


Thecategorizationofpresentationmodesishighlyrelevantforfurtherin-vestigation of news narratives. It enables researchers to systematically andevenautomaticallyanalyzecorporaofnewstext,inordertoestablishthetypeandproportionofspecificcategories.Bythismeans,therelativeinfluenceofbothreporterandnewssourceonthecontentandwordingofquotationscanbe measured and compared for news narratives stemming from differentnewspapers,newsgenres,andperiods.Thisallows for testinghypothesesof“conversationalisation”(Fairclough,1992)andconcomitantincreaseofsubjec-tivityinnewsnarratives(Vis,2011).Continuingthislineofresearch,Visreportsthattheproportionofdirectquotationshasvastlyincreasedoverthelasthalfcentury.Thus, systematic corpus analysis can empirically confirm claims ofgrowing livelinessby larger influenceofsources innewsnarratives. Inaddi-tion,theanalysespresentedherearerelevanttodevelopfurtherempiricalre-searchonnarratives,forinstance,withrespecttothedifferentwaysinwhichreaderscanlearnabouttheopinionsofthemaincharactersina(news)narra-tive.Itcanbehypothesizedthatreadersaremorelikelytoadaptevaluationsand attitudes from characters whose speech and thoughts are representedelaborately and in a lively manner in direct or free indirect representationmodesthanfromcharacterswhoseutterancesaremerelyparaphrasedinindi-rectrepresentations;also,thattheseeffectsareaslikelytobefoundinnewsnarrativesasinfictionalnarratives.Suchempiricalquestionscouldbeputtothetestinexperimentalresearchofreaders’reactionstovariousrepresenta-tionsofsourcematerials.

References

Bruner,J.,Actual minds, possible worlds(Cambridge,1986).Clark, H.H. and R.J. Gerrig, “Quotation as demonstration,” in Language 66 (1990),

pp.784–805.DeGraaf,A.,H.Hoeken,J.SandersandH.Beentjes,“IdentificationasaMechanismof

NarrativePersuasion,”inCommunication Research39(2012),pp.802–23.Fairclough,N.,Discourse and social change (Cambridge,1992).Haeseryn,W.,KRomijn,G.Geerts,J.deRooijandM.vandenToorn,ANS. Algemene

Nederlandse Spraakkunst Tweede geheel herziene editie (Groningen,1997).Leech,G.andM.Short,Style in fiction(London,1981).Lok,A.,Recht van spreken. Perspectief in veertien journalistieke teksten uit een juridische

context uit 1950 en 2002.MAthesis.(VUAmsterdam,2009).

172 VisEtAl.

Lyons,J.,“Deixisandsubjectivity:Loquor,ergosum?”InSpeech, place, and action: studies in deixis and other related topics,eds.R. JarvellaandW.Klein(NewYork, 1982),pp.101–25.

Rennen,T.,Journalistiek als kwestie van bronnen(Delft,2000).Sanders,J.,“Intertwinedvoices,”inEnglish Text Construction 3(2)(2010),pp.226–49.Sanders,J.andH.Hoeken(thisvolume),Constructing the landscape of consciousness in

news stories.Sanders,J.andG.Redeker,“Linguisticperspectiveinshortnewsstories,”inPoetics 22

(1993),pp.69–87.––––––,“Perspectiveandtherepresentationofspeechandthoughtinnarrativedis-

course,”inSpaces, worlds and grammar,eds.G.FauconnierandE.Sweetser(Chicago,1996),pp.290–317.

Sanders,J.andW.Spooren,“Subjectivity,perspectivization,andmodalityfromacogni-tivelinguisticpointofview,”inDiscourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics,eds.W.-A.Liebert,G.RedekerandL.Waugh (Amsterdam,1997),pp.85–112.

Semino,E.andM.Short,Corpus stylistics: Speech, thought and writing presentation in a corpus of English writing (London,2004).

Vis,K.,Subjectivity in news discourse. A corpus linguistic analysis of informalization.PhDDissertation.(VUAmsterdam,2011).

Vis,K.,W.SpoorenandJ.Sanders,“UsingRSTtoanalyzesubjectivityintextandtalk,”inCognitive Linguistics in Action,eds.E.Tabakowska,M.ChoińskiandŁ.Wiraszka(Berlin,2010),pp.293–316.

Waugh,L.,“Reportedspeechinjournalisticdiscourse:therelationoffunctionandtext,”inText, 15(1)(1995),pp.129–73.

Weizman,E.,“Someregistercharacteristicsofjournalisticlanguage:aretheyuniver-sals?”InApplied Linguistics 5(1984),pp.39–50.


part 3

Image and Text

∵

174 VisEtAl.

175MaryMagdalene’sConversion

Chapter9

Mary Magdalene’s Conversion in Renaissance Painting and Mediaeval Sacred Drama

Bram de Klerck

Introduction

MaryMagdalene’sconversiontoChristianitymusthavebeenaturning-pointofparamountimportanceinherlife.Accordingtomanyalegendarysource,thesainthadbeennotoriousforostentatiouslyenjoyingheryouth,herphysi-calbeautyandhermaterialwealth.Atsomepoint,however,shemusthavefelttheurgetochangeherways,tofollowJesusChristandtodedicateherselftohisteaching.ThefirstmanifestationofthisisoftenconsideredtohavebeenherhumbleandreveringbehaviourtowardsChristwhenhestayedinthehouseofaPhariseecalledSimon,asdescribedintheGospelaccordingtoSt.Luke.Awoman, in theWestern tradition commonly identified with the Magdalene,enteredthehouse,startedweepingremorsefullyoverChrist’sfeet,andsubse-quentlydriedthemwithherownhair,kissedthemandanointedthem.Ifthisnameless woman should indeed be identified with Mary Magdalene, thiswouldimplythatthelatter’sactualconversionhadalreadyoccurredbeforetheepisodeinthePharisee’shouse.Surprisingly,thiscrucialmomentinMary’slifehasrarelybeennarratedintextualsources,norhasitveryoftenbeendepictedinthevisualarts

Inthepresentcontribution,Iwillexploretherelationshipbetweentextandimage,inrelationtotheportrayalofMaryMagdaleneintheLateMiddleAgesandtheRenaissanceintheWesternWorld,andmorespecificallywithregardstoportrayalsofherconversion.IwillbrieflyintroducethecomplexlegendarypersonaoftheMagdaleneasitemergesfrombiblicaltexts,aswellaslaterleg-ends.ThereceptionofspecificaspectsoftheMagdalene’slegendinbothhighandlowculturebecomesclearthroughthepresentationofherconversioninbothpopulartheatreandmoreelitistmanifestationsinthevisualarts.

© BramdeKlerck,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_011This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



176 DeKlerck

Mary Magdalene: Written and Visual Evidence

Itisawell-knownfactthatintheWesterntraditionMaryMagdaleneasa‘liter-ary’characteristheresultofafusionofseveralbiblicalandlegendaryfigures.1TheevangelistLukementionsa ‘Mary,calledMagdalene,outofwhomwentsevendevils’,asoneofthewomeninChrist’scompany,who‘hadbeenhealedofevilspiritsandinfirmities’(Luke8:2).Marksayssomethingsimilar: ‘NowwhenJesuswasrisenearlythefirstdayoftheweek,heappearedfirsttoMaryMagdalene,outofwhomhehadcastsevendevils’(Mark16:9).Otherbiblicalexamples which explicitly mention Mary Magdalene tell of her presence atChrist’scrucifixion(Matthew27:56,Mark15:40,John19:25).TheEvangelistJohndescribesMary’spresenceatChrist’sburial,andherattemptstoanointthe latter’sbodyonEasterMorning,only to find the tombempty(20: 1–18).Matthew, Mark and John, furthermore, describe her as the first witness toChrist’sresurrection(Matthew28:9,Mark16:9,John20:16–17).

TwootherwomendescribedintheBiblehavebeenassociatedwithMaryMagdalene.One,mentionedabove,istheanonymouspenitentinthehouseofSimon the Pharisee (Luke 7: 36–39).The other is Mary, the sister of MarthawhoreceivedJesusintheirhouseinthetownofBethanyandpreparedamealforhim(Luke10:38–42).TheirbrotherwasLazarus,amanwholaterwouldberaisedfromthedeadbyChrist(John11:1–44).ProbablyreferringtothewomaninthehouseofthePharisee,Johnsaysthat‘itwasthatMarywhichanointedtheLordwithointment,andwipedhisfeetwithherhair’(11:1–2).Thishypo-theticalidentificationwouldlaterbecamecommonplaceintheRomanCatho-lictradition.InahomilyonLuke’spassage(Hom.xxxiii),thePopeandChurchFather,GregorytheGreat,explicitlypresentsthesethreewomenasbeingoneandthesameperson,bystatingthat‘shewhomLukecallsthesinfulwoman,whomJohncallsMary[ofBethany],webelieve tobe theMary fromwhomsevendevilswereejectedaccordingtoMark’.2

AftertheeventsofChrist’sdeath,burialandresurrection,MaryMagdalenevanishesfromthecanonicalbooks.However,apocryphalsourcesdatingfromthefirsttwoorthreecenturiesCE,suchastheso-called‘GospelofPhilip’andthe ‘GospelofMary’,stressotherbiographicalaspectssuchasthereciprocalaffection,orindeedphysicalattractionbetweenMaryandJesus.Recently,thisfascinating information has met with a considerable response, especially in

1 TheliteratureonMaryMagdaleneisabundant.See,e.g.:Haskins(1993),Jansen(1999),Ricci,Marin(2006).

2 Homiliaxxxiii:GregorytheGreat(1999),p.288–298,EnglishquotationafterHaskins1993,p.96.


literaryfiction,suchasinDanBrown’snotoriousDa Vinci Code (firstpublishedin2003).Buttheseapocryphaltextswereunknownoratleastnottakenseri-ouslybyecclesiasticalauthorities in theLateMiddleAgesandRenaissance;they were rediscovered only in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuriesandsodonotconcernushere.3

Hagiographicalandtheologicalliterature,however,hascontributedmuchtofurthershapingtheMagdalene’slegendarypersonaintheLateMiddleAgesand the Early Modern period. The most detailed and best known of thesesourcesisundoubtedlythecompendiumofsaints’livesentitledLegenda aurea(‘Golden Legend’), written by the Dominican friar Jacobus de Voragine inaround1260.4 ItdescribesMaryasamemberofaveryaffluentfamily,whichowned pieces of land and even entire towns. One of these was Magdala onLakeTiberias,henceMary’ssurname‘ofMagdala’,or‘Magdalena’.Yet,thethir-teenth-centuryauthorhassurprisinglylittletosayaboutMary’slifebeforeshebecamea followerof Jesus.Rather,heprovidesa lengthydescriptionof theeventsofthelatterphasesofherlifeafterChrist’sdeathandresurrection,es-peciallyherstayinSouthernFrance,aftershehadbeenexpelledfromJudea.AccordingtoVoragine,MaryconvertedthepaganslivinginMarseille,aswellastheirprefect,toChristianity,andsubsequentlyspentthelastyearsofherlifeinasceticsolitudeinthewildernessofProvence.Aftershehaddiedthere,shewasburiedinSt.Maximin’schurchinAix-en-Provence.Possiblyasearlyas771,herremainsweretranslatedtothenewlybuiltchurchofSainte-Marie-Made-leineinVézelayinBurgundy,whereastowardstheendofthefourteenthcen-tury, veneration for the Magdalene received a new impetus in the south ofFrance,inSaint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Beaume.

On the basis of legends like Voragine’s, Mary Magdalene has sometimesbeendescribedasacourtesanorevenanoutrightprostitute.Thesequalifica-tionsarearesultofthehypotheticalidentificationoftheMagdalenewiththesinnerLukementionsinthehouseofthePharisee.TheChurchFatherGregory,inthesermonjustquoted,afterhavingsaidthat,tohim,theMagdalenewasidenticalwiththeMarypossessedbysevendevils,continues: ‘Andwhatdidthesesevendevilssignify,ifnotallthevices?[…]Itisclear,brothers,thatthewomanpreviouslyusedtheunguenttoperfumeherfleshinforbiddenacts.’5

3 FragmentsoftheGospel of Marywerediscoveredin1896;TheGospel of Philip,alongwithsomeotherimportantEarlyChristianwritings,in1945.

4 JacobusdeVoragine(1993),pp.374–384.5 Homiliaxxxiii:GregorytheGreat(1999),p.288–298,EnglishquotationafterHaskins(1993),

p.96.

178 DeKlerck

TheemphasistheRomanCatholicChurchtraditionallyputonMary’ssinfulorigins,aswellasherpenanceandvirtuouslaterlifecontrastingwiththem,havebeenreasontopresentherasexemplaryofthesalutaryeffectsofrepen-tance.Shebecameapatronsainttoconvertsofallkinds,andespecially‘fallenwomen’andprostitutes,andthecentresfoundedtotheirrelief.ItwasonlyinthetwentiethcenturythattheChurchimplicitlydissociateditselffromtheseviews.Inthe1969editionoftheRoman MissaltheknotofthefiguresoftheMagdalene,MaryofBethanyandtheanonymoussinnerrespectively,wasfi-nallydisentangled.IntheOrthodoxtradition,however,thisdistinctionhasal-ways remained doctrinal: the Eastern Church has never considered MaryMagdaleneotherthanasanexampleofvirtue,evenbeforeherconversion.6Also in many Protestant Churches as well as in the Church of England, theMagdalenewasnotinthefirstplaceregardedasasinner,butratherasanex-emplarydiscipleofJesus,andsometimesevenashisapostle.ThefactthattwoprestigiousEnglishacademiccolleges,inOxfordandCambridgerespectively,have been dedicated to the saint, undoubtedly has to do with this EnglishvariantofthevenerationfortheMagdalene.

ItcanhardlycomeasasurprisethatworksofvisualartinWesternEuropereflect the image of Mary Magdalene as it arises from the written sources.7Time and again, the saint has been portrayed in paintings and sculptures,drawings,andprints:nowastheyoungandelegant,butsinfulladysheoncewas,nowasaconvert,andnowasthehaggardasceticshebecametowardstheendofherlife.Ingeneral,shecaneasilyberecognizedbyherlong,oftenred-dishhair,whichhadplayedsuchanimportantpartintheepisodeinthePhar-isee’s house. Almost always she is holding an ointment jar of some sort, inreferencetotheanointmentofChrist’sfeet,aswellastohereffortstoanointthelatter’sbodyafterthecrucifixion.Clearly,theconfusionovertheMagda-lene’sidentitypersistsinvisualform.Indeed,inthearts,yetanothercaseofmistakenidentitywasaddedtotheothers.IndepictionsoftheMagdaleneasananchorite in thewilderness,herappearanceoftenseemstobeborrowedfromthatofanEarlyChristianhermitsaintgoingbythenameofMariaAegyp-tiaca.Thisfourth-orfifth-century‘MaryofEgypt’wasknowntohavefollowedaninsatiablecarnallustforseventeenyearsbeforesherepented,uponlookingataniconoftheHolyVirgininJerusalem.Afterthisshedecidedtogiveuphervilewaysandtowithdrawinthedeserttoliveanasceticlifeinsolitude.The

6 Accordingtothistradition,shewouldhavetravellednottoFrance,buttoEphesusanddiedthere.

7 ForgeneralstudiesontheiconographyofMaryMagdaleneandherlegend,seee.g.Kirschbaum(1968–1976)vol.7,516–541,Ingenhoff-Dannhäuser(1984),Rafanelli(2004).


parallels with the Magdalene’s conversion and subsequent conduct are evi-dent,asis,inimagesofthesaint,theemphasisonherlonghair.Whereas,forinstance,theGolden LegendhasitthatMaryofEgyptlivedinthedesert,‘na-ked,thebodyblackenedandburnedbythefierysun’,8iniconographysheisalways depicted covering her nudity with her own long hair. Since the thir-teenthcenturyandespeciallyinItaly,theimageofanemaciated,nakedwom-ancoveringherselfwithherlonghairhasoftenbeenusedindepictionsoftheMagdaleneaswell.

Narrativescenes taken fromtheMagdalene’s legendhave, since theearlyMiddle Ages, also been highly popular. Innumerable are the depictions of,amongothers,MaryMagdaleneinthehouseofthePharisee.OtherexamplesincludetheepisodeofherpresenceatChrist’scrucifixionandthesubsequentlamentationoverhisdeadbody,aswellasthestoryofherencounteronEastermorningwiththerisenChrist,commonlyknownasNoli me tangere.

Yetmirroringmosthagiographical literature,thethemeofMary’sconver-sion–howevercruciallyimportantitisfortheunderstandingofherprogress–israrelynarratedinthevisualarts.Sometimesitishintedatinanallegoricalway.Inthesecases,thesaintisusuallyshowninsplendidattire,butalsoshed-ding tears or close to doing so. She lets down her hair and symbolicallydisposes of her riches by putting aside her jewellery. Instances of this icon-ographicalformula,whichdevelopedinfullonlyduringtheCounterReforma-tionclimateofthelatesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,includefamousworksbyCaravaggio(Rome,GalleriaDoriaPamphilij,ca.1596,Figure9.1),andCharlesleBrun(Paris,MuséeduLouvre,1655).Thosefewsceneswhichdonar-ratetheconversionarefoundsomewhatearlier,bothinNorthernEuropeandItaly and, judging from the few examples that have come down to us, onlywithintherelativelylimitedtime-spanofthreequartersofacenturyfromap-proximately1490to1565.

The Magdalene’s Conversion in Sacred Drama

ImagesdepictinganarrativesceneofMaryMagdalene’sconversionseemtohavebeenbasedprimarilyononeparticularsetofsources.For,asweshallsee,theyalmostexclusivelyshowsomevariantofastorywhichtellsofthesinfulMary listening to Christ delivering a sermon, which in turn induced her to

8 JacobusdeVoragine(1993),pp.227–229.

180 DeKlerck

repent.ThisstoryhasbeenrepeatedmanytimesinaccountsfromLateMedi-aevalandEarlyModernsacreddrama.9

9 Anotableexceptionisanaccountofthestory inPietroAretino’stractLa humanità di Christo,firstpublishedin1535.Thistextmayhavebeenthesourceforthedepictionofthethemeinapaintingofca.1548(nowinLondon,NationalGallery),bytheVenetianpainter

Figure9.1 Caravaggio, ThepenitentMaryMagdalene, canvas, c. 1596, Rome, Galleria Doria Pamphilij. CentrumvoorKunsthistorischeDocumentatie,RadboudUniversityNijmegen.


BeingoneoftheprotagonistsintheeventssurroundingChrist’sdeathandresurrection,theMagdaleneplaysamajorroleinEasterplaysfromasearlyasthetwelfthcenturyonwards.10Inadditioninlaterversionsofthese,thestoryofMary’sconversionissometimesrecountedatlengthandindetail.GenerallythesettingisBethany,anditisassumedthatthebiblicalMarywhoislivinginthattownisidenticaltotheMagdalene.Hersister,Martha,andsometimesalsothelatter’sservant,Marcella,takepainstopersuadeMarytogoandattendthesermonChristisabouttodeliver.Thoughreluctantatfirst,theMagdaleneintheendgivesin,inkeeping(itseems)withhersupposedpredilectionformate-rialwealthandphysicalbeauty,sincesheisattractedtotheideaofmakingtheacquaintanceoftheeloquentandfine-lookingnewcomer.

PlaysrecountingtheepisodeofMary’sconversionappeartohavecomeintobeinginmidfourteenth-centuryGermany,withscoresofversionsandvariantsfollowingthereafteralloverEurope.11Withoutadoubtonlypartofthisnum-berhavesurvivedinmanuscriptorprint.Ofthetextswhichhavecomedowntous,awell-knownexample is theFrench Mystère de la passion,writtenbyJeanMichelinthesecondhalfofthefifteenthcentury.12ThisplaytellsoftheMagdalenewho,havingjustheardthatJesusisthe‘mosthandsomemanintheworld’andapparentlydesiringtoseducehim,makesherwaytothetempletoseeandhearhimpreach.Miraculously,sheconvertsonthespotandfromthattimeonsheisafollowerofChrist.InItaly,quiteanumberofsacreddramas(rappresentazioniinItalian)werepublishedduringthesixteenthcentury.Forinstance,atextentitledRappresentatione di un miracolo di Santa Maria Mad-dalena wasfirstpublishedinFlorencein1516andsawseveraleditionsduringthelatterhalfofthesixteenthcentury.13AsecondItalianplay,explicitlyenti-tled Rappresentazione della conversione di Santa Maria Maddalena (‘SacreddramaoftheconversionofSaintMaryMagdalene’)wasfirstpublishedinFlor-encein1554.14

Asanexampleofthephrasing(inrhymingverse)andtoneofsuchtexts,weshouldconsiderafewlinesfromtheRappresentazione di un miracolo of1516.Trying to talk her sister into going to the temple the next morning to hearChristspeak,Marthasays:

PaoloVeronese:seeRosand(2011),andseemstohavebeenimportantforseventeenth-centuryItalianpaintingaswell:Bull(2011).

10 Malvern(1975)100.11 Kirschbaum’sLexikonmentionsaFrankfurtplayof1350:Kirschbaum(1968–1976)7,col.

533.12 Jodogne(1959).Seealso:Malvern(1975)100–113;andHaskins(1995)166–168.13 SeeD’Ancona(1872)1,391–425.14 D’Ancona(1872)255–302,Banfi(1997)187–268.

182 DeKlerck

Dimioparlartantodilettarai,quantodrentoaltuocorsentissemai.Iosochetidilettaedàpiacerevedereungiovandigentilaspetto.Equantoiopossointendereesaperedamoltiesservedutahaigrandiletto;iotivo’far,sorellamia,vedereunuomchemaivedestielpiùperfetto;ditalbellezzaètantodecoratochepropriopareunangeloincarnato.

(Frommytalkingyouwillhaveasmuchdelightasyouhaveneverfeltinyourheart.Iknowthatyoutakedelightandpleasureinseeingayoungmanwithaniceappearance.And,asfarasIunderstandandknow,youtakegreatdelightinbeingseenbymany.Mysister,Iwillshowyouamanasperfectasyouwillneverhaveseen;giftedwithsuchbeautythathereallyseemsanangelincarnate.)

MarthagoesonextollingChrist’sphysicalbeautyandeloquence,andindeedsucceedsinpersuadingMary.Butleavinghersisteraloneafterthedialogue,asiftomakeexplicitnotonlytheessential improprietyofMary’sinitial inten-tion,butalsotojustifyherownargument,Marthamumblestoherself:

Benchésuodesideriononsiabuono,malascivoecarnalsecondoilsenso,perquestavoltaaltuttocertasono,chenonfaràpeccato,sebenpenso:mutatoilcor,ricevràperdonopergraziadelSignor,cheèbeneimmenso.Quelche’ldolcemaestrom’hapromesso,senzaalcundubiomisaràconcesso.

(Althoughherdesireisnotrightbutlasciviousandcarnal,directedonlybythesenses,I,thistime,amentirelycertainthatitwillnotdoanyharmifIthink:


onceshehaschangedherheart,shewillbeforgivenbythegraceoftheLord,whosemercyisimmense.Thatwhichthesweetmasterhaspromisedwillwithoutanydoubtbegrantedtome.)

Infact,onthenextdayMaryaccompaniesMarthatotheplacewhereChristwilldeliverhissermon.Hestartsspeakingaboutsinandpenance,afterwhichthemomentofMary’sconversionisdescribedinthefollowingstagedirection:

VoltasiCHRISTOversoMariaMaddalena,esegue,ementrechediceconefficacia,Maddalenacominciaapiangere,einclinailcapoingrembo,ecuopresiconunosciugatoriodellaancillasua.

(ChristturnstoMaryMagdaleneandfollowsher,andwhilehespeaksinwell-chosenterms,theMagdalenestartstocryandlowersherheadtoherlap,andcoversherselfwithherservant’stowel.)15

The Magdalene’s Conversion Depicted

Accordingtothetextsofthesepopularstageplays,theeventofMary’sconver-sionoccurredwhensheheardChristdeliveringasermon,sometimesspecifiedasahomilyonpenance.Aswehavealsoseen,thereweremanydifferentver-sions of the story, probably even much more than the ones that have comedowntous,intextsthathavegoneastray,orperhapsalsoinplaysforwhichnorecordexists.Afewdepictionsofthestoryinpaintingsshowasimilarvariety.

Oneinterestinginstanceisascenethatoncebelongedtoanearly-sixteenth-century tripartite altarpiece.The anonymous author of the work must havebeenactiveintheFlemishcityofAntwerp.Inarthistoricalliteraturehehasbecomeknownasthe‘MasteroftheMagdaleneLegend’.16Thetriptych,tobedatedinaround1518,hasbeendismemberedandpartlycutupintofragmentsthathavewoundupinvariouscollections.AreconstructionofitshowsaseriesofscenesfocusedontheMagdalene’slifeandlegend.Thecentralpanelhasthe

15 All quotations from D’Ancona (1872) 1, 391–425, the story of Mary’s conversion on pp.395–399.

16 Tombu(1927),Friedländer(1975)13–14,91,pl.7,Cohen(2001)37–38,and,foradiscussionof a few other instances, in early sixteenth-century Netherlandsh painting and manu-scriptillumination,ofMaryonhorseback:132–134.ForarecentdiscussionoftheMasterandthetriptychinquestion,see:BückenandSteyaert(2013)342–345.

184 DeKlerck

Figure9.2 Master of the Magdalene Legend, TheworldlyMaryMagdalene, panel, c. 1518, Gemäldegalerie Staatliche Museen Zu Berlin, Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Lost in Flakbunker Berlin-Fiedrichshain, May 1945 (Photo:GustavSchwarz).


episodeinthehouseofthePharisee,aswellasthesceneofChristraisingLaza-rusfromthedead.ThesidepanelontherightshowsanunusualdepictionofMaryMagdalenepreaching,probablytoconvertsinthesouthofFrance.Thepaneltotheleftisknownonlybywayofaphotograph,asithasbeendestroyedinBerlinduringtheSecondWorldWar(Figure9.2).ThebestpartofthispaneldepictsMaryMagdaleneinherformer,aristocraticappearance,ridingahorseside-saddle,andapparentlyengagedinahuntingparty.AmuchsmallersceneinthebackgroundshowsChriststandingonanimprovisedplatformmadeoutofbranches,whichechoestheoneonwhichtheMagdaleneherselfisstandingintheimageontheothersidepanel.Christ isaddressingagroupofpeopleamongwhomtheMagdalenecanberecognized.

InItalianartweknowofanevenearlierdepictionofthetheme.Sometwen-ty-fiveyearsbeforethe‘MagdaleneMaster’wastopainthistriptych,thegreatFlorentineRenaissancemaster,SandroBotticelli,hadpaintedtheepisodeonasmallpanel(nowinPhiladelphia, JohnG.JohnsonCollection,Figure9.3). ItshowsChriststandingonsomekindofriseinaloggia,whileheaddressesagroupofpeoplestandingandkneelingbeforehim.Apparently, the isolated,haloedfiguredressedinredtothefarleftshouldbeidentifiedastheMagda-lene.Originally,thesmallpanelwaspartofapredella(i.e.alow,rectangularandoftendecoratedpartatthebottomofanaltarpiece),withvariousnarrativescenesfromtheMagdalene’slegend.Thealtarpiece’smainpanel(nowinLon-don, Courtauld Gallery) has a depiction of the Holy Trinity flanked by twopenitentsaintspar excellence,JohntheBaptist(withhiscamel-hairshirt)andMaryMagdalene(hernudity,MariaAegyptiaca-style,coveredbyherownlonghaironly).Botticellimadetheworkintheyears1491–1493,forthechurchoftheFlorentineconfraternityofConvertitewhich,appropriatelyinthiscontext,wasacommunitymadeupofformerprostitutes.17

Almosttounderlinethescarcityofexamplesoftheshort-livedtraditionofdepictionsofthetheme,onlyafewmoreinstancescanbementioned,allbysixteenth-centuryartists.Oneisapanelpaintedinaround1562bytheBrus-sels-bornartistPeterdeKempeneerwho,havingworkedforsome25yearsinSpainandItaly,becameknownasPedroCampaña(theworkisnowbeingkeptinLondon,NationalGallery,Figure9.4).18Intheinteriorofatemple-likebuild-ing,Christsitsonaplatformunderabaldachin.Alargenumberofmensur-roundhim,whileheispointingwithhisrighthandinthedirectionofasecondgroup, made up largely of women, to the right of the composition. Amongthese,thekneelingfigureofMaryMagdaleneisnothardtorecognize.Sheis

17 Lightbown(1989)202–207,pl.75–79.18 Penny(2008)68–77.

186 DeKlerck

Figu

re9

.3

Sand

ro B

ottic

elli,

The

con

vers

ion

ofM

ary

Mag

dale

ne, p

anel

, c. 1

491–

1493

, Phi

lade

lphi

a, Jo

hn G

. Joh

nson

Col

lect

ion.

Cen

trum

voo

rKu

nst-

his

tori

sch

eDo

cum

enta

tie,

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

ity

Nijm

egen

.


Figu

re9

.4

Pedr

o Ca

mpa

ña, T

hec

onve

rsio

nof

Mar

yM

agda

lene

, pan

el, c

. 156

2, L

ondo

n, N

atio

nal G

alle

ry. ©

Th

eNa

tion

alG

alle

ry,L

ondo

n.

188 DeKlerck

beingaccompaniedbyawoman–doubtlesslyhersisterMartha–whoisad-dressingherandatthesametimegesturingtowardsChrist.PedroCampañamusthavebasedhiscomposition(atleastinpart)onafrescotheFlorentinepainterFedericoZuccarihadmadeintheearly1560sinachapelinthechurchofSanFrancescodellaVignainVenice(Figure9.5).Themuralitselfhasbeendestroyedshortlyafteritscompletion,butsomethingofitscompositioncanbegatheredbywayofapreparatorydrawingattributedtotheartisthimself.19Especiallythepartontheright,withthefiguresoftheMagdaleneandMartha,resemblesCampaña’scompositiontoagreatextent.

Onelastsixteenth-centurypaintingdepictingtheepisodeofMary’sconver-sion is a fresco by the Piedmontese painter Gaudenzio Ferrari. In the yearsaround1530,heexecutedanimpressiveandcomplexdecorationinthechoirandtwosidechapelsofthechurchofSanCristoforoinVercelli,atownsituatedabouthalfwaybetweenMilanandTurin.20Inoneofthesechapels,GaudenziopaintedafrescooftheAssumption of the Virgin overthealtar,aswellasfour

19 ZuccarotookoverfromBattistaFrancoafterthelatterhaddiedin1561.Hepaintedtwolateraliinthechapel,onetheConversion of the Magdalene,theotheraRaising of Lazarus.SeeRearick(1959)129–135.

20 ForthedecorationinSanCristoforo,see:Bo(2001),Villata(2003)61–84.

Figure9.5 Federico Zuccari, TheconversionofMaryMagdalene, drawing, c.1560, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. ArchivioFotografico,PoloMusealeFiorentino.


scenesdrawnfromthelifeofMaryMagdaleneonthewalltotheright(Figure9.6).21Thesefourfrescoesarearrangedintotwosuperimposedregisters.Thefirst,placedintheupperleftcorner,depictstheepisodeofMaryMagdalene’sconversion(Figure9.7).Theotherthreeare:ChristinthehouseofthePhari-

21 ForGaudenzioFerrari, seee.g.:Sacchi(1996)573–581(withamplereferencestoearlierliterature).TheresultsofmymorecomprehensiveresearchintoGaudenzioFerrariandhisdecorationsinSanCristoforo,willbepresentedelsewhere,withfullbibliography.

Figure9.6 Gaudenzio Ferarri, ScenesfromthelifeofMaryMagdalene, fresco, 1532, Vercelli, San Cristoforo. CentrumvoorKunsthistorischeDocumentatie,RadboudUniversityNijmegen.

190 DeKlerck

see,theBaptismoftheprefectofMarseille,andtheMagdaleneinthedesertelevatedbyangels,respectively.Theconversionfrescowasbadlydamagedintheearlyeighteenthcentury,whenaconsiderableportionofthepaintedsur-facedisappeared.However, itcanclearlybemadeoutthatGaudenzio’sren-dering of the episode shows an interior with Christ standing high up on apulpit,preachingandcountinghisargumentsonthefingersofhisrighthand.Theroomisfilledwithapublicoffiguresstanding,orsittingeitheronchairsorsimplyonthefloor.Therichlydressedladysittinginacomfortableseatatthefar right,apparently listeningattentivelybutasyetnot showinganysignofpenanceorremorse,shouldbeidentifiedastheMagdalene.

GaudenzioFerrari’sfresco,despitethedamageithassuffered,isespeciallyinteresting, because in art historical literature it has hitherto neither beenstudiedinthecontextoftheiconographyoftheMagdalene’sconversion,nor

Figure9.7 Gaudenzio Ferarri, ScenesfromthelifeofMaryMagdalene (detail: Mary Magdalene’s conversion), fresco, 1532, Vercelli, San Cristoforo. CentrumvoorKunsthistorischeDocumentatie,RadboudUniversityNijmegen.


everbeenrelatedtoanywrittensource.Ifweweretotryandsingleoutapar-ticularversionoftheplayasadirectsourceforthedesignandcompositionofGaudenzioFerarri’s frescoofMary’sconversion,ratherthanthetextquotedabove,thealreadymentionedRappresentazionedella conversioneofsomefor-ty years later would perhaps present itself as a suitable candidate. At leastsomedetailsinGaudenzio’sfrescoappeartoreflectthewordingoftheeventinthisparticularplay.Forinstance,therelevantstagedirectionreads:Iesù entra nel tempio, e salito sul pergamo, e’ comincia a predicare(‘Christentersthetem-ple,andafterhavingclimbedthepulpithebeginstodeliverhissermon’).Theexplicitmentionofapulpitthatonemustclimbseemstobeadistinguishingelementofthisparticulartext,andthesameholdstrueforthestagedirectionofhowMary’sdonzelle parano una sedia dinanzi al pergamo, e lei tutto pomposo vi si posa su(‘Mary’sservinggirlsadornachairinfrontofthepulpit,onwhichtheMagdalenepompouslytakesherplace’).Bothelementscanbeseenovertlyinthefresco.

Thisisnottosuggest,however,thatthepainterorhispatronswereawareofthis particular text. For whilst the play in question seems to have been per-formedduringthefifteenthcentury,22itwasnotpublishedforthefirsttimeuntileighteenyearsafterthemural’scompletion.Moreover,likemanyothersacre rappresantazioni,itprobablyoriginatedinFlorence,orelsewhereinTus-cany, locationsataconsiderabledistancefromtheNorthernItaliantownofVercelli.Finally,theremusthavebeenmanyothercomparabletextsthatinthecourseoftimevanishedwithoutatrace.Rather,thequotesfromtheRappre-sentazione della conversioneshowthat,inonewayoranother,theseparticularnarrativeelementswereknowninPiedmontinaround1530:inthedepictionbyGaudenzioFerrari,andmostprobablyalsoinpiecesofsacreddrama.

Conclusion

ThehandfulofimagesnarratingMaryMagdalene’sconversion,alldatingfromthe late fifteenth or sixteenth centuries and originating in both the Nether-landsandItaly,arecharacterizedbyavarietyofmediaanddimensions,aswellasinterpretationsofthescene.Botticellipresenteditonasmallpanel,andinarathersummaryway.Inaplainsetting,ChriststandsuponasoapboxwhiletheMagdalenewatcheshimfromthecorneroftheroom.ThelostsidepanelofthetriptychpaintedbytheMasteroftheMagdaleneLegendshowsanequally

22 Althoughhedoesnotgiveanyinformationaboutthedateoftheplay,LuigiBanfiimplic-itlyplaceditinthefifteenthcenturybyincludingitinhisTeatro del Quattrocento(1997).

192 DeKlerck

smallscene,thistimetakingplaceoutdoorsandwithChristonasimpleros-trumofbrancheswhilstMaryisseatedontheflooramidstotherlisteners.Fed-erico Zuccari’s preparatory drawing for a monumental fresco, and PedroCampaña’spanelinspiredbyit,offermoreelementsthatalludetothewrittensources.ChristissittingonachairwhilstMaryiskneelingbeforehim,andtheyaresurroundedbyahostofbystandersintheinteriorofatemple.GaudenzioFerrari’sfrescoprovidessomethingmoretangiblethroughtheinclusionofthesceneinachronologicalseriesofdepictionsofepisodesfromMary’slife,andbypresentingChristonapulpitwiththeMagdaleneonachairbeforehim–elementswhichrecurin(later)writtenItalianrappresentazioni.Mostproba-bly,theotherartisticrenderingsultimatelyderivefromthedescriptionsofthesceneinsacreddrama,butthethemeneverseemstohavebeensubjecttoanystandardiconography.

Theconversionthemeisanexamplepar excellenceofthesometimescom-plexrelationshipbetweentextsand images in the lateMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance.Depictionsofthethemeturnouttobetranslationsintovisualformofbiblicaltexts,hagiographiesandtheologicalcommentaries,and,final-ly,writtenaccountsofsacreddrama.

References

Banfi,L.1997.Teatro del Quattrocento, sacre rappresentazioni.Turin(firstpublishedin1963asSacre rappresentazioni del Quattrocento).

Bo,P.2001.Gaudenzio Ferrari a San Cristoforo in Vercelli,Vercelli.Bull,D.2011.CaravaggioandPietroAretino.InThe Burlington Magazine,153,607.BückerV.andG.Steyaert.2013.De erfenis van Rogier van der Weyden; de schilderkunst in

Brussel 1420–1520,Tielt.Cohen,B.M.,2001.Saint Mary Magdalen as a Cultural Symbol in the Low Countries, c.

1450–1530(diss.StateUniversityofNewYork).NewYork.D’Ancona,A.1872.Sacre rappresentazioni dei secoli XIV, XV, e XVI (vol1–3).Florence.Friedländer,M.J.1967–1975.Early Netherlandish Painting(vol.1–14),Brussels,TheHagueGregorytheGreat.1999.Gregorius Magnus Homiliae in Evangelia,Turnhout(Instrumenta

lexicologicalatina.SeriesA,120).Haskins,S.1993,Mary Magdalene, Myth and Metaphor.London.Ingenhoff-Dannhäuser,M. 1984.Maria Magdalena: Heilige und Sünderin in der ita-

lienischen Renaissance: Studien zur Ikonographie der Heiligen von Leonardo bis Tizian.Tübingen.

JacobusdeVoragine.1993.The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints(transl.WilliamGrangerRyan),Princeton.


Jansen,K.L.1999.The Making of the Magdalen; Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages.Princeton.

Jodogne,O.ed.1959.Jean Michel, Le MystèredelaPassion, 1486.Gemblond.Kirschbaum,E(ed).1968–1976.Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie(vol.1–8).Rome

etc.(repr.Rome1990).Lightbown,R.1989.Sandro Botticelli, Life and Work.NewYork.Malvern, M.M. 1975. Venus in Sackcloth; the Magdalen’s Origins and Methaphoses.

London,Amsterdam.Penny,N.2008.National Gallery Catalogues; the Sixteenth Century Italian Paintings,Vol.

II, Venice 1540–1600.London.Rafanelli,L.M.2004.The Ambiguity of Touch: Saint Mary Magdalen and the Noli me

Tangere Theme in Early Modern Italy(diss.NewYorkUniversity).NewYork.Rearick,W.R.1959,BattistaFrancoandtheGrimaniChapel.InSaggi e memorie di storia

dell’arte2,107–139.Ricci,C.andM.Marined.2006.L’apostola Maria Maddalena, inascoltata verità.Bari.Rosand,D.2011.Veronese’sMagdaleneandPietroAretino.InThe Burlington Magazine,

153,392–394.Sacchi,R.1996,Ferrari,Gaudenzio.InDizionario biografico degli italiani,46,573–581.

RomeTombu,J.1927.UntriptyquedumaitredelalégendeMarie-Madeleine.InGazette des

Beaux-Arts,15,299–311.Villata,E.2003.GaudenzioFerrariedEusebioFerrari.InArti figurative a Biella e a Vercelli;

il Cinquecento,ed.V.Natale,61–84.Biella.

194 Stronks

Chapter10

The Diffusion of Illustrated Religious Texts and Ideological Restraints

Els Stronks

Introduction

Inthisarticle,Idepartfromthefactthatatextneedstobemediated(vocal-ized,writtenorprinted)inordertobetransmittedto,andreceivedby,anaudi-ence.Thechoiceofavocal,visual,ortextualmediumforthetransferofatexttoareadershipcanbeaffectedbyideologicalmotivesthat,asIwillargue,be-comevisiblebystudyingtheforminwhichtextsarepublished.1InthecaseIdiscusshere,contentdictatedform,resultingintherejectionofreligiousim-ageryasameansofconveyingareligiousmessage.

AftertheReformation,reservationswithregardtotheapplicationofreli-gious imagery in the transfer of religious knowledge were widespread inWesternEurope.Anabundanceofvisualmedia isevident inmedieval,pre-Reformation religious literature to convey the biblical text to readers (espe-ciallythosewithalowornolevelofliteracy).Intheearlymodernera,however,theologicaldebatesonthehierarchybetweenwordandimage,inwhichtheReformedpositionwasdiametricallyopposedtotheCatholicview,endedthepopularityofthisvisualpractice.WhilepersonaldevotioninthePre-Reforma-tionandCatholicChurchwasenhancedbytextsillustratedwithimages–ofChrist,Maryandthesaints,forinstance–withthepurposeofclarifyingthereligiousdoctrineaswellasfacilitatingitsmemorization,internalizationandmeditative exercises, the use of religious imagery in literature presented aproblemtoProtestantauthorsandpublishers.2CentraltotheReformedandCatholicdebatewasthe interpretationof thesecondof theTenCommand-ments, inExodus20:4–5(intheKingJamesversion): “Thoushaltnotmakeunto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heavenabove.(…)Thoushaltnotbowdownthyselftothem,norservethem.”Inthe

1 Irelyhereonthedefinitionof“text”giveninRicoeur(1981),inthesensethatIusetheword“text”torefertoanautonomousworkwhichisgivenaninterpretationonceitisbeingmedi-ated(byaproduceroftexts)orreceived(byreaders).

2 SeeonthisissueforinstanceBesançon(2000).

© ElsStronks,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_012This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



195TheDiffusionOfIllustratedReligiousTexts

Christianfaith,thiswastraditionallyinterpretedastheprohibitionofincor-rectusageofreligiousimagery.3TheCatholicChurchbasednumerousvisualpracticesandritualsonthisinterpretation,whichwerecondemnedasabusebyReformers.Inthesixteenthcentury,tensionsovertheissueculminatedintheiconoclasticdestructionofimagesinlargepartsofWesternEurope.4The-ology,ideology,politicsandtheartsbecameinseparableintheseclashes.5

ThenewlyestablishedDutchRepublicdidnotescapefromtheProtestantbreakingofimagesattheendofthesixteenthcentury.Soonafter1600,how-ever,theDutchRepublicdevelopedintoasocietyinternationallyrenownedforitsreligioustolerance.TherelativefreedominwhichdifferentdenominationscoexistedintheDutchRepublicafter1600,generatedaclimateinwhich–ac-cordingtoourcurrentknowledge–culturalencountersbetweenconfessionscould easily occur and people from different denominations developed andparticipatedinacommonculture.Pre-Reformationvisualculturewas,forin-stance,retainedandtransformedbyProtestantartists(asMiaMochizukiar-guesinherstudyonthedevelopmentofvisualcultureinProtestantchurches):artandarchitecturaladditionswereincorporatedinProtestantNetherlandishchurchinteriorsinthefirstcenturyaftericonoclasm,onalargescaleandwithagrowingrepertoireofobjectsandthemes.6RembrandtvanRijn’setchingThe Death of the Virgin hasoftenbeenpresentedasanexemplarycaseofthisfusionprocess.ThetopicofthisetchingwastakenfromJacobusdeVoragine’smedi-eval Legenda Aurea [Golden Legends], and reworked by Rembrandt into aninterconfessionalmixtureoftraditions.7ThemixtureofProtestantandCatho-licfeaturesdetectedinthisetchinghasrecentlyledMaryChristineBarkertoconcludethat“Rembrandttranscendsthereligiouscategoriesofhisowntimesandthosethatourtimehasattemptedtoimposeonhim.”8

TheveryexistenceofculturalencounterslikethesehasimposedtheideathatreligiousidentitiesintheRepublicshouldnotbeperceivedasconfession-alidentities:peoplewithaclearsenseoftheirconfessionalidentitywereabletocrossconfessionalboundariestomingletheliteraryandartistictraditionswhichconstitutedtheseboundaries.Ingeneral,thisevidenceoftheRepublic’sculturalparticipationhasledscholarstoappreciatetheporosityofearlymod-ernconfessionalboundariesintheconfessionalizationprocesses,incontrast

3 IntheJewishfaith,thissecondCommandmentisinterpreteddifferently,namelyasacompleteprohibitiononthefabricationofreligiousimages.SeevanAsseltetal.(2007).

4 SeeforacasestudyofthediffusionoficonoclasmWandel(1995).5 AsPeterArnadehasargued,suchaconnectionbetweentheology,ideologyandpoliticscould

alsobefoundinthebreakingofimagesduringtheDutchRevolt,seeArnade(2008).6 Mochizuki(2008).7 See,forinstance,PerloveandSilver(2009)45–48,73and114.8 Barker(2010)138.

196 Stronks

towhatwasinitiallyascertainedintheso-called“confessionalizationthesis,”whichstatedthatinthesearchfordistinctCatholicandProtestantidentitiesinearlymodernNorthernEurope,confessionalboundarieswerefixed.9Cul-turalencounters–oftencastintermsofhybrid–appeartohavebeenattheheartoftheDutchRepublic’sreligiousculture.10Thisculturalhybridhasoftenbeen referred toas a centralpremise for the interconfessional dialogue andpracticeswhichhelpedtoresolveandpreventreligiousconflictsinDutchsoci-ety.11

Evidenceinsupportofthethesisthatconfessionalboundariescouldbeig-noredinculturalencountershavebeenfoundinthevisualartsandalsointhereadingcultureoftheRepublic:asmanyhaveargued,religioustextsproducedinoneconfessionalcirclewereownedandreadbyreadersfromanothercon-fessionalcircle.Catholicreligiousworkswerefoundinlibrariesandinvento-ries of Dutch Reformed readers, and vice versa.12 Also, religious literatureproducedbyvariousdenominationswaskeptinthehomesofthefaithfulandread during their informal gatherings.13 The Stichtelijcke rijmen [EdifyingRhymes],forinstance,bythepopularRemonstrantministerDirckR.Camp-huysenweresungbyRemonstrantsaswellasCounter-Remonstrants.Thefactthathispoetryhadtotalsanctificationasitscentralissuewasapparentlymoreimportantthanthedogmaticdifferences,whichwerehowevernotmarginal.TheRemonstrantCamphuysenperceivedsanctificationas thecondition forsalvation,whiletheCounter-Remonstrantswereconvincedthatsanctificationwastheconsequenceofsalvation.Thesedifferences,however,playednopartintheinterconfessionaluseofthevolume.14

Yetinonerespect,Dutchliteraryspaceswerestrikinglydemarcatedandpa-trolled:recentresearchhasrevealedthatbetween1560and1680,religiouslit-eratureproducedintheRepubliccontainedfarfewerillustrationsthanitdidinneighbouringcountries.Thecontroversialcross-fertilizationofPre-Refor-mationandCatholicvisualpractices,andProtestantliterarytraditionsprovedunexpectedlycomplicatedintheRepublic’sliterature,whereastheintermin-

9 SeeSchillingandTóth(2006).10 See foracriticalanalysisof theuseof theconcept “culturalhybridity”–onwhichmy

definitionisbased–delMarRosa-Rodriguez(2010).11 ThisisascertainedbyBurke(2009)73–74.Whilenotalloftheexistingstudiesintothe

natureoftheDutchRepublic’scultureemploytheconceptof“culturalhybridity,”thecaseoftheDutchRepublichasbeenpresentedthusin,forinstance,Kaplan(2007)240and8,NederveenPieterse(2009)andDeWulf(2008).

12 SeeforinstanceforexampleKaplan(2007)243.13 SeeforinstanceFrijhoff(2006)62–65,esp.62.14 SeeSchenkeveld(1991)51.


glingofwordandimagestartedinthereligiousliteratureofotherNorthernEuropeancountrieswhileiconoclasticactswerestillbeingstaged.15FullBibletranslations made by Dutch Protestants were never illustrated, the develop-mentoftheProtestantreligiousemblemwasproblematic,andthemajorityofspiritualsongbooksalsoremainedunillustrated.16EvenDutchCatholicswerereluctanttousereligiousillustrationsintheirliteraryworks.17

The Case of the Dutch State Bible

FocusingonthesubordinateroleassignedtoBibleillustrationsinDutchreli-gious literature, thisarticleexplores thedifferencebetweenpractices in theRepublicanditsneighbouringcountriesinordertoadvancethetentativehy-pothesis that these practices were motivated by theological and ideologicalconsiderationsratherthanbycommerce.Dutchauthors,publishers,engrav-ers,andbuyersrejectedvisualimagesthatwerereadilyavailableinmanyreli-giouslycontestedareasoutsidetheRepublic,andthisenabledthemtoformanewnationalidentityuntroubledbyallofthedisputessurroundingtheuseofwordandimagebetweenProtestantsandCatholics.Inessence,theprocessofculturalhybriditythatscholarshaveseenasinstrumentalinleadingtogreatersharedunderstandingandtolerancewasputonholdtoavoidpotentialcon-flicts.

TherestrictivemechanismsintheprintingpracticesoftheDutchRepublicwerediscussedindetailinmymonographNegotiating Differences: Word, Im-age and Religion in the Dutch Republic.Thisarticleoffersaninternationalper-spectiveonthesepractices.ItconcentratesontheillustrationsthatwereaddedtothemostprestigiousBibletranslationpublishedintheRepublic,theDutchReformedStatesBibleof1637.ItwaspublishedasaninitiativeoftheSynodofDordrecht(1618–1619)thatrequestedtheStates-GeneraloftheNetherlandstocommissionatranslationofaDutchBiblebasedontheGreekTextus Receptustext,aswastheEnglishKingJamesBible(1611).SincethefirsteditionoftheStatesBiblecontainedBibleillustrations–aswasfirstnotedbyPetervanderCoelen–itwastheoneoftheveryrareexceptionstotherulethatProtestant

15 Ontheearlystagesofthiscontrast,seePettegree(2005)106.Formoreonthiscontrast,seeDietz,Morton,Roggen,StronksandVanVaeck(2014).

16 OntheabsenceofillustratedBibles,seevanderCoelen(1998)passim;Rosier(1997)vol.I,35;Melion(2009a)42–45.Ontheunillustratedhymnbooks,seeVeldhorst(2009)217–86,esp.259–60.

17 SeePortemanandSmits-Veldt(2008)477.

198 Stronks

BiblesprintedintheRepublic inthesixteenth,seventeenth,andeighteenthcenturieswereunillustrated.Thefirsteditionpublishedin1637,andprintedin1636,wasissuedwithanillustratedtitlepageandtwelveornamentedinitialsthatrepresentedbiblicalstories:thetitlepageaswellastheinitialscouldnotbeignored.Thisinitialwasthefirstthingthatareaderwouldseeatthestartofthefirstfolio,attheopeningofGenesis1:1(Figures10.1and10.2).18

Fromthefirstglance,thisinitialintroducesasignificantaspectofthena-ture of these and other Bible illustrations used in the early modern setting.Becausetheirprimaryfunctionwastoexplainbiblicalstoriesto informand

18 SeevanderCoelen(1997)6.AcopyofthisissueiskeptinthelibraryoftheUtrechtUni-versity,shelfnumberRariorafol.26.Onfolio166,theyear1636isgivenastheyearitwasprinted.

Figure10.1–2 Ornamented initial Genesis 1, Biblia,datis,DegantscheH.Schrifture. Leiden: Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn, for the widow of Hillebrant Jacobsz. van Wouw, 1637, fol. 1. CourtesyLibraryoftheUtrechtUniversity.


educatethereader,theyhadnospecificconfessionalconnotation.Bibleillus-trations were used by all confessions, unlike religious emblematic imagery,whichstartedtoprosperafter1600whenCatholicsadoptedtheemblematicimageasatoolforenhancingthecommunicationbetweenGodandbeliever,anddevelopedaspecialiconographytothisend.19

TheopeninginitialalludestoanumberofpassagesfromGenesis.ItdepictsAdamandEveinParadisebeforetheirexpulsionandreferstothecreationoftheworld,showingthesun,themoonandthestars,theseparationofthewa-tersabovefromthosebelow,andtheexistenceofplantsandanimals(Genesis1:1–37).Aninscriptionoftheword“Yahweh”indicatesGod’spresence.Adam’seyesarehalf-open,asifheisabouttodiscoverthatGodhasmadeawomanfromoneofhisribs(Genesis2:22).Eveappearstobelookingattheanimalspeacefullygatheredaroundthecouple.BothAdamandEvearenaked,asym-boloftheirstateofpurityandinnocence.Theadventofdisasteris,perhaps,indicatedonlybythetwopeacocks,symbolsofhumanvanity,depicteddirect-lybehindEve.

ThissingleprintrepresentedanumberofeventsdescribedinGenesis1and2mergedthemintooneframe.Thiswascommonpracticeatthetimeasprintscouldvaryastowhichaspectsofastorytheywouldchoosetodepictandinwhatwaystheyrepresentedthosestories. It isdifficult, ifnot impossible, toidentifyaconfessionalpositiononthebasisofthesevariations,becauseprintswerefreelyshared(andproduced)betweenCatholicsandProtestantsthrough-outNorthernEurope.20TheunderlyingconsensuswasthattheseBibleillustra-tionscouldbeperceivedasliteralrepresentationsofthehistoricalinterpretationofbiblicalscenes.AvarietyofsourcestestifytotheexistenceofthisconsensusintheRepublic.ThetitlesofthepictureBiblesdiscussedinthisarticlemain-tainedthattheplatesweregenuineandtruedepictionsofbiblicalstoriesandweremeanttoimpartfactualknowledge.21Intherecurrentdiscussionsamongpainters,engraversandauthors,itwasassumedthatsuchliteralnesscouldbeachieved provided that certain considerations were taken into account.22LeidenprofessorofrhetoricandhistoryGerardusVossiusnarroweddowntheproblemssurroundingtheissuewiththeseguidelines:“Oneshouldreproduce

19 The characteristics of this iconography were recently analyzed and emphasized inDekoninck(2005);andMelion(2009b).

20 Argued in Melion (2009a) 15–83, esp. 21–5. Protestants, for instance, used plates oftenbasedontheVulgate,asarguedinTümpel(1991)8–23,esp.22.

21 AlsoconcludedinvanderCoelen(1998)177and195.22 See,forinstance,atreatisebytheDutchReformedPhilipsAngel,writteninsupportofthe

paintersinLeidenin1642,inMiedema(1996)227–58,esp.246–47.

200 Stronks

whateverGod’sbooksays,usesparinglywhatisnotmentionedinHisWord,andundernocircumstancescontradictit.”23

AlaterepresentationontheliteralnessfoundintheprefacetotheSleutel, dewelke verklaard de bybelse figuuren oover de vier evangelisten, Handelingen der Apostelen en Openbaaringe Johannis [“Key,whichexplainstheBiblicalFig-uresconcerningtheFourGospels,ActsoftheApostlesandtheBookofRevela-tion”],publishedin1682bytheDutchReformedministerJohannesMoller.Inthisillustratedvolume,withfold-outbiblicalprintsmadebyoneofthemostskilledengraversofthetime,RomeyndeHooghe,Mollerofferedamixofbibli-cal textsandexplanatorycomments.Mollerexplainedintheprefacetothisvolumethatillustrationsofbiblicalsceneswere“easytodepict”[“ligtelijk kun-nen afgebeeld werden”],especiallywhenthesesceneswereselectedfrompartsoftheBiblewhichfocusedonstoriesandparables.Allegoricalemblematicim-ages,ontheotherhand,weremeanttorepresentcomplexandabstractcon-cepts such as “meekness” or “labour” or “laziness,” and their creation andanalysisdemandedmuchmoreeffort.24Mollerpresentedthefirstcategoryofimages,thebiblicalillustrations,assuperiorbecausetheyshowed“nounfamil-iar,orfar-fetched[“vergesogte”]images,nohieroglyphsoremblems;nosuchimagesasfirsthavetobeinvented,andthenlearned,beforetheycanbeap-plied to the subject, and thus also require a great deal of effort, care anddiligence.”25

InthefollowingsectionIwilloutlinethedevelopmentsinvariousapplica-tionsofBibleillustrationsintheRepublic.InordertodeterminethespecificsoftheDutchsituationIwillfocusonwhatwasproducedduringwhichperiodandcomparethiswiththeproductioninneighbouringcountries.

23 “’t Geen Gods boek zeit noodzakelijk, ’t geen het niet zeit spaarzaam, ’t geen hiertegen strijdt geenszins te zeggen.”QuotedinSmits-Veldt(1991)59.Vossiusdeliveredtheseguidelinesasanaidtoauthorswhoaimedtoreworkbiblicalstoriesintostageplays,buthisadvicewas–mutatis mutandis–alsoapplicabletoengravingsandpaintings.

24 The“saake/sinnebeelden”[matters/emblems]demandedmuchmoreworkfromboththeengraverandtheviewerbecausethey“tot de saake, waar toe mense wil gebruiken, gepast [moeten] warden”[theyneedtobefittedtothesubjectforwhichonewishestousethem].“Berigt, Aangaande dit Werk,”inMoller(1682)22–24.

25 “geen vreemde nog vergesogte Beelden, geen Hyeroglyphica ofte Sinnebeelden, geen soodaa-nige, de welke, gelijk sy eerst moeten uitgevonden, en daar na geleerd werden, eer sy op de saak kunnen gepast werden, soo ook grooten arbeid, moeiten, en neerstigheid vereissen.”Moller(1682)30–31.


The Development of Separate Religious Printing Cultures between 1550 and 1590

SeparatereligiousprintingculturesdevelopedintheDutchRepublicanditssurrounding countries after 1550, when Northern Netherlandish publishersabstainedfromproducingillustratedBibles.Thisrefusalwasaradicaldepar-turefromexistingtraditions:thefirst illustratedCatholicDutchBible, JacobvanMaerlant’sso-calledRijmbijbel,wasneverreprinted,26norweretheDutchProtestantillustratedBiblesproducedinAntwerpbefore1550,suchasJacob

26 AnillustratedmanuscriptoftheRijmbijbelwascompletedinUtrechtin1332,andcon-tainedornamentalinitialsandminiaturesbythepainterMichielvanderBorch,seeCha-vannes(2008).

Figure10.3–4 DatOudeendedatNieuweTestament[The Old and New Testament]. Antwerp: Jacob van Liesveldt, 1526, fol. Uiiiiv. CourtesyoftheUtrechtUniversityLibrary.

202 Stronks

Liesveldt’s1526editionwhichwasbasedlargelyonLuther’stranslationoftheNew and Old Testaments and included woodcuts that illustrated biblicalscenes(Figures10.3and10.4).27

WhenProtestantprintersfledfromAntwerpinthemiddleofthesixteenthcenturytoproduceBiblesfortheDutchmarketinEmden,theseillustrationswerereplacedbyornamental initialswithnon-figurativeelements,as inthecaseofthisBiestkensBible(Figures10.5and10.6).

WhenmoreandmoreDutchcitieschosethesideofProtestantismandProt-estantBiblesbegantobeproducedintheRepublicitself,thetraditionofnotillustratingBiblescontinued.Onlyadozenofthemorethanonehundrededi-tionsoftheso-calledDeux-AesBibleprintedbetween1581and1633contained

27 AsRosierconcludedinRosier(1997)vol.I,3.

Figures10.5–6 Ornamental initial with non-figurative elements in DenBibel,inhoudendedatOudeenNieuweTestament. [Emden]: Nicolaes Biestkens van Diest, 1560, fol. 1. CourtesyoftheUtrechtUniversityLibrary.


pictorialmaterial.Thismaterialdidnotincludetheusualillustrationsofbibli-cal stories, however, but maps or explanatory illustrations of the Temple.28Theywerenotinsertedatdifferentpointsthroughoutthetext,butwereop-tionalandcouldbeboundtogetherasaseparatesection inthebackof thebookattheindividualbuyer’srequest.29

At the same time that the Dutch refrained from using Bible illustrations,importantinnovationsintheapplicationofthistypeofpictorialmaterialweretaking place in the Southern Netherlands. In Antwerp after 1550, more andmorepictureBibleswereproduced–collectionsofbiblicalprintswithversifi-cationsorparaphrasesofbiblicaltexts.30GerarddeJode’sThesaurus veteris et novi testamenti (firstprintedin1579),withengravingsafterdesignsbyMaartenvan Heemskerck and Maarten Vos, became very popular.31 In the 1590s thegenrewasadvancedwhentheAntwerppublisherChristophePlantinusedem-blematicplatesinhisproductionoftheJesuitJeromeNadal’s Evangelicae his-toriae imagines.32HealsousedplatesbyPietervanderBorchtinthetrilingualImagines et Figurae Bibliorum [BiblicalImagesandIllustrations]bytheAna-baptistHendrikJansenBarrefeldt(alsoknownasHiël)whowasanadvocateofthespiritualapproachtofaith.33ThesepublicationsextendedtheuseofBibleillustrations: itwaspossible toorganizespiritualandmeditationalexercisesaroundtheseprints.34

Partial Exchange: 1590–1617

These Southern Netherlandish innovations appear to have triggered Dutchpublishers’ sense of entrepreneurship; they may also have been encouragedby the growing popularity of single-sheet biblical prints in the Republic.35

28 SeeRosier(1997)vol.I,37.29 Onthebuyers’habits,seeVeldman(2006).30 VanderCoelen(2006)192.31 TheactualengravingitselfwasdonebytheWierixbrothers,amongothers,asdiscussed

inVanderCoelen(1998) 120and125.32 Theseprints(probablyprintedaround1593)accompaniedtextswhichwerepublishedin

aseparatevolume,titledAdnotationes et Meditationes in Evangelia[Annotations and Med-itations on the Gospels],originallyprintedinAntwerpinc.1595atPlantin’sworkshop.Fordetailedanalyses,seeMelion(2007)1–73.

33 SeeonChristophePlantin’spioneeringroleBowenandImhof(2008).OnHiël’saffiliation,seeDelaFontaineVerweij(1976).

34 Melion(2009)44–45.35 OnthepopularityofbiblicalprintsandsinglesheetswithBibleillustrations,seeVeldman

(1989).

204 Stronks

Between1592and1617,ninepictureBibleswereproducedintheRepublic.TheillustratedBiblewasstilltaboo,butjudgingbythisincreaseinproduction,theconcept of the picture Bible was no longer unwelcome. In 1604, Karel vanManderexpressedpraiseforHolbein’sHistoriarum Vetris Testamenti Icones –describingitasa“Bybel Figuer-boecxken in houte print”[alittlebookofbiblicalfigures in woodcut], in his popular and influential Schilder-boeck [Book onPainting],afactwhichfurtherillustratesmorefavourableattitudestothepic-tureBible.36

WhenintroducingthepictureBibleintheRepublic,publishersre-usedex-istingcopperplatesandtextsthathadbeencreatedinneighbouringcountries.Indoingso,theyreconnectedtoongoingdevelopmentsoutsidetheRepublic.FranciscusvanRaphelingen,Plantin’sson-in-law,wasthefirsttogetinvolved.In 1592and1593hepublishedtwovolumes inLeiden: theEmblemata Sacra and the Bibelsche Figuren, based on plates made by Pieter van der Borcht.WhenvanderBorcht’splateswerere-usedagainbytheDutchReformedprint-erandpublisherCornelisClaeszinAmsterdambetween1594and1609,theywerepublishedunderatitle–Biblicae Historiae –thathadalreadybeenusedinsomeGermansixteenth-centurypublications.37EvenwhentheAnabaptistCrispijnDePassemadenewcopperengravingsforhisLiber Genesisin1612,theforeignmodelscontinuedtodominate:DePasse’sengravingshadlargelybeenbasedonexistingforeignillustrations.38

Inthistransferofforeignmodels,confessionalorientationswereignored:the Remonstrant publisher Michiel Colijn produced four picture Bibles be-tween 1613 and 1617, two of which were based on van der Borcht’s plates,39whileanotherwasbasedonaseriesofetchingsafterthefrescoesbyRaphaelintheVaticanLoggia(theso-calledRaphael’sBible),firstpublishedin1607inthevolume Historia del testamento vecchio, produced by Giovanni Orlandi inRome.40

Thepossibilitiesofappropriation,however,werenotunlimited.First, themeditationalorspiritualuseoftheseillustrationswasavoided.Hiël’soriginalpreface,withitsspiritualmessage,waseitherradicallyabridgedofremovedbyDutchpublishers.Nadal’semblematicprintsformeditationalusewereneverreproducedintheRepublic.Second,somealterationsweremadeintheprints’iconography.InaccordanceperhapswithCalvin’sinjunctionthatallanthropo-

36 AsnotedinVanderCoelen(1998)135.37 AsisalsosuggestedinHamilton(1981)284.38 ForananalysisofDePasse’sre-useofexistingprints,seeVeldman(2001)66.39 Thevolumeswere titledEmblemata Sacra andFigures de Toutes les Plus Remarquables

Histoires et Aultres Evenements du Vieil et Nouveau Testament. On Colijn’s confessionalbackground,seeHamilton(1981)286.

40 Engamarre(1994)575.


morphicrepresentationsofGodorJesusshouldbeprohibited,depictionsofGodweresometimes–butnotalways–removedfromtheoriginalplates.41Colijn conserved the anthropomorphic depictions of God in the etchingsbasedonRaphael’sBible,butvanRaphelingenusedasecondseriesofplatesmadebyvanderBorchtinwhichthefigurerepresentingGodintheoldseriesofplateswasalmostalwaysreplacedbyacloudorbytheword“God.”42

Withdrawal: 1617–1637

Dutch publishers no longer completely ignored developments taking placeoutside the Republic between 1592 and 1617, but the advance of the pictureBiblefalteredafter1617.Between1617and1637,onlyonesmallerpublication,theillustratedchildren’sbookDe historie van den koninclijcken prophete David [The History of the Royal Prophet David] appeared on the Dutch market.43Thisrenewedresistancetothevisualappearstohavebeenrelatedtothefiercetheologicalcontroversiesof thisperiod.ThesecontroversiessurroundedthemeaningandroleofGod’sWordinestablishingthecontoursofthenewfaithandwerebasedontheconvictionthatGod’sWordcouldhaveonlyasinglemeaning.44

Itwaspreciselyon thispoint that tolerationwashard to findaroundthetimeoftheSynodofDordtin1618.TheProtestantsnotonlyopposedtheCath-olics,butwereinternallydividedasaresultofthedisputesbetweentheCoun-ter-RemonstrantsandRemonstrants.TheCounter-Remonstrantsbelievedthatthe correct interpretation of theWord ought to form the foundation of theDutchReformedChurchandtheRepublic.Accuracy,credibilityandauthoritywere the preoccupations of the Counter-Remonstrants in their struggle togroundthenewnationanditspoliticsinwhattheysawasthecorrectinterpre-tationtheBible.45ThisexplainsthedecisiontakenattheSynodofDordttohavetheBibletranslatedintoDutchfromtheoriginalHebrewandGreek(the

41 Dutchsixteenth-centurydisputesoniconoclasticissueshadbeendominatedbyCalvinisttheology, as argued in Veldman (1991) 421. As has been well established, Calvin wasnotopposedtoallvisualart.HisviewsweremostrecentlydiscussedinJoby(2007),andZachman(2007).

42 Onbothsets,seeMielke(2005).Oneoftheseplatesretainedananthropomorphicrepre-sentationofGod,asarguedinHamilton(1991)282.

43 PrintedbyJanvanWaesbergefromRotterdamin1622,andbasedonaSouthernNether-landishoriginal,asWaesberge’sDe historie van Ioseph den vromen ende godtvruchtighen ionghelinc[JosephthePiousandDevoutYoungster]hadbeenin1617.

44 AlsosuggestedinDekoninck(2004)57.45 ThepoliticalimplicationsofthesedebatesarediscussedinPrak(2006).

206 Stronks

StatesBible)andtoenrichitwithnotes,paraphrasesandcross-referencesdi-rectingthereadertoavarietyofrelatedbiblicaltexts.Itwasbrieflybutexplic-itly stated that this new Bible was not to include imagery which could give“erghernisse”[offence].46

ThisstruggleleftitsmarkonDutchreligiousliterature,asbecomesappar-entintheprintinghistoryofZachariasHeyns’DutchtranslationofDuBartas’La Sepmaine (1579),abiblicalpoemonthecreationoftheworld.WhenHeyns’firstpublishedhistranslationin1616,theengravingsdepictedanthropomor-phicrepresentationsofGod.ThesewerereplacedbyfiguralelementsinthesecondeditionofHeyns’translationpublishedin1621(Figure10.7).47

46 Acta (1621)28.47 FirstnotedinMeeus(1990)245.SeealsoStronks(2011b).

Figure10.7 Zacharias Heyns, WerckenbyW.S.heerevanBartas. Zwolle: Zacharias Heyns, 1621, facing fol. 1. CourtesyofLeidenUniversityLibrary.


Thisadaptationwasbroughtabout,itappears,byadecisionmadebetween1616and1621attheSynodofDordt.Eveninitsnewform,thereligiousimagewouldnolongerbetoleratedinthedecenniaafter1618.Until 1637,nomorepictureBiblesorillustratedbiblicalpoemslikeHeyns’translationofDuBartas’La Sepmaine werepublishedintheRepublic.

The Limits: Beyond 1637

Undertheserestrictivecircumstances,publishinganillustratededitionoftheStates Bible in 1637 was a bold enterprise. As testified by proofs of the first

Figure10.8 Annotated proofs of the Biblia,datis,DegantscheH.Schrifture. Leiden: Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn, 1635–1637. Archievenvandecommis-sieopnationaalniveau, 1816, nr. 143. CourtesyoftheNationaalArchief.

208 Stronks

edition, thecorrectorsandtranslatorsof theStatesBibleswereperhapsun-awareofvanRavensteyn’splanstoaddtheornamentedinitials(Figure10.8).Theseproofscarriednon-figurativeinitials,muchliketheinitialsfoundinoth-erDutchBiblesatthetime.48

Asmentionedearlier,thereaderoftheDutchStatesBiblewasconfrontedwith an ornamented figurative initial at the opening of the biblical text, inGenesis1:1.Evenbeforethat,however,afigurativeinitialisusedintheprefacetotheactualbiblicaltext,writtenbytheStatesGeneral.TheletterAisembel-lishedwithascenedepictingChrist(withhalo)andhisdisciples.Centraltothissceneisacandle,locatedintheuppertriangularpartoftheA,thatisshin-ingitslightonthosepresentatthescene(Figure10.9).

ItisasifJesusandhisdisciplesarelisteningintotheStates-General’svoicedeclaringthat:

Allofthosewhoshallseethisorhearthisreadaloud[…]needtoknowthatwe–fromtheverybeginningoftheReformation–havestrivedwithgreatcareanddiligencetospreadandfosterthetrue,ChristianReformedReligion:partofoureffortswasthe intentionto facilitatetheexplana-tion,educationandpreachingofGod’sWord.49

48 TheseproofsarekeptintheNationaalArchief,StatenvanHollandandWest-Friesland,1572–1795, toegangsnummer 3.01.04.01. They were printed from April 1635 onward, seeNauta(1937)27.

49 “Allen den genen die desen sullen sien ofte hooren lessen, […] DOEN TE WETEN: dat wy van den aen-beginne der reformatie af in dese Landen ter herten genomen, ende met alle vlijt ende sorghvuldigheydt ghetracht hebben te besorghen alles wat tot goeden welstant ende voortplantige vande Oprechte, Ware, Christelicke Gereformeerde Religie, en den suyveren Gods-dienst heeft mogen strecken ende noodigh was: ende onder anderen mede dat Godts Heiligh Woort […] mochte worden uytgeleyt, geleert, ende gepredickt,” Biblia, dat is, De gantsche H. Schrifture.Leiden:PaulusAertsz.vanRavensteyn,forthewidowofHillebrantJacobsz,vanWouw,1637,fol.*2r.

Figure10.9 Ornamented initial in the preface of Biblia,datis,DegantscheH.Schrifture. Leiden: Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn, for the widow of Hillebrant Jacobsz. van Wouw, 1637, fol. *2r. CourtesyoftheUtrechtUniversityLibrary.


Thisistheonlytimethisparticularinitial isusedinthefirsteditionsoftheStatesBibleprintedbyvanRavensteyn,anditseemslikelythatthedepictedscene was meant to give readers a representation of the way in which theyshouldpicturethemselveswhilelisteningtoGod’sWord.Averysimilarillus-trationwasincorporatedintoaDutchBibleprintedbyPlantijnin1577(Figure10.10): Here, the strategic placement of this image in the opening “A” of theDutchStatesBiblegivesanaddedemphasistothedepictedscene.

Only the first folio edition van Ravensteyn produced carried these orna-mentedinitials.Thesmall-sizededitionsvanRavensteynalsosoldshortlyafter1637lackanyformofillustration,50andthesameholdstrueforthefolioedi-tionsthatvanRavensteyn’scompanyproducedinthe1650’s.Inthe1657edi-tion,forinstance,thefigurativeinitialattheopeningofGenesis1:1hasbeenreplacedbyanon-figurativeone(Figures10.11and10.12).

Other printers who started producing editions of the Dutch States Biblesshortlyafter1637alsorefrainedfromdesigningorincorporatingornamentedinitials.51

GiventheunfriendlyattitudetowardstheuseofreligiousimageryinDutchBibles,thedecisionnottofollowvanRavensteyn’sexamplewasnotasurprise.

50 Forinstanceaneditionin12°,datingfrom1638,seeLibraryoftheLeidenUniversity,UB:228F58:1.WithspecialthankstoPetervanderCoelen,whonotedthisinhislectureattheconferenceIllustrated Religious Texts in the North of Europe, 1550–1800(tobepublishedinaconferencevolumebyAshgatein2013).

51 Seeforinstancethe1639editionbyJanMarcusz,andTheunisLootsman,keptintheRoyalLibraryTheHague,shelfmarkKB:345G6.

Figure10.10 HetNieuweTestamentOnsHeerenJesuChristi.Metghetalenaendecantengestelt,waerdoordeveersenbescheedenworden,totdeaenwijsingederheyligerSchriftuerendienende. Christoffel Plantijn, 1577, fol. T3r, courtesyofLibraryoftheVrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam.

210 Stronks

AlsonotsurprisingwasthefactthatvanRavensteyn’sillustratededitionstirredup animosity. The Acts of the regional synods of South-Holland record thecriticismoftheillustratedtitlepagethatwasexpressedbytheDutchReformedChurch.Thetetragramdepictedonthistitlepage,andmoreparticularlythesurroundingtriangle–asymbolofGod’sTrinity–wasthemainreasonforthishostility. In 1649, during a Synod in Leiden, the Synod’s secretary recordedsevenproblemsthathadarisenafterthepublicationoftheDutchStatesBible;thepresenceofthistriangleislistedasthefourthproblem.52Asaresult,the

52 “Of niet van de tytelplaet behoort weghgenomen te werden die beeltenis of dat hieroglyphi-cum S.S. Trinitatis, dat aldaer met een triangel uutgedruckt staet?”[Shouldthetriangleonthetitlepage,symboloftheHolyTrinity,notberemovedfromthetitlepage?],Knuttel(1908–1916)141.

Figure10.11–12 Non-figurative initial Genesis 1, Biblia,datis,DegantscheH.Schrifture. Leiden: Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn, for the widow of Hillebrant Jacobsz. van Wouw, 1657, fol. 1. CourtesyLibraryoftheLeidenUniversity.


tetragramaswellasthetrianglewereremovedfromthetitlepagefrom1657onward.53

Eventhoughnosuchcommotion is registeredregarding the initials, theywerenotwarmlywelcomedeither.Thechoiceofsubjectfortheinitialscannothavebeentheproblem.ThetwelveinitialswhichweremadeespeciallyforthiseditionandwhichwereusedatthebeginningofalmosteveryBiblebookde-pictednon-controversialandfrequentlyrepresentedscenesfromtheOldandtheNewTestaments;moreparticularly,vanRavensteynappearstohavebasedthem on some sixteenth-century Catholic series of images.54 Nor could thespecificsoftheiriconographyhavebeenthecauseofthecontroversies,sincethisiconographywasbasedonwidespreadandacceptedconventions.ThiscanbeseenintheinitialatthebeginningofthebookofJudges,whereDavidisportrayedpartiallyfacingthereaderwithhisgazeturnedupwardstoGod,whoisrepresentedbythesymbolicraysoflight(Figure10.13).

An almost identical initial was used in an anonymous sermon book pro-ducedbyVanderHellenin1631(Figure10.14).

PaulusAertsz.vanRavesteyn, theprinterof the firsteditionof theStatesBible,mustnothaveanticipatedanyproblemsintheuseoftheseinitialssincehestayedwellwithinexistingconventions.Hehademployedsimilar,some-whatsmallerinitialsandprinterdeviceswhendepictingthesamescenesinhisearlier publications without any negative repercussions, for instance in the1620editionofCoornhert’sRecht ghebruyck ende misbruyck van tydlicke have

53 SeeStronks(2010)formoredetails.54 ScenesfrequentlymentionedinVanderCoelen(1998):AdamandEveinParadise(Gen-

esis1),AbrahamofferingIsaac(Genesis22),Noahandtheanimalsenteringtheark(Gen-esis7),Mosesandtheburningbush(Exodus3),Gideonatthewaterfront(Judges7,4–6),Samsonkillingthelion(Judges14),thecrowningofDavid(1Samuel16),Davidplayingtheharp, Elijah fed by ravens (1 Kings 17), Esther touching the top of Ahasuerus’ sceptre(Esther5:2),theconversionofSaulusduringhistriptoDamascus(Acts9),andJesus’LastSupperwithhisdisciples(Matthew26,Mark14andLuke22).TheargumentabouttheCatholicsourcesfortheinitialwasmadebyVanderCoeleninhispaperfortheconfer-enceIllustrated Religious Texts in the North of Europe, 1550–1800.

Figure10.13 Biblia,datis,DegantscheH.Schrifture. Leiden: Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn, for the widow of Hillebrant Jacobsz. van Wouw, 1637, fol. 82. CourtesyoftheUtrechtUniversityLibrary.

212 Stronks

[TheRightUseandAbuseofTemporarilyGoods],inwhichheusedtheinitialwhichdepictsElijahbeingfedbyravens(Figures10.15and10.16).55

Thecontroversywascausednotbytheinitialsthemselves,butbythefactthattheyhadnowbeenintegratedintotheBibleitself.Thebiblicaltext,writ-tenbyGod’sSpirit,could,astheonlyroadtogenuinefaith,simplynotincludeimagery.

Itisverylikelythattheinspirationtointroducetheseornamentedinitialscame from German and Southern Netherlandish traditions, of which van

55 Dijstelberge(2007)35.

Figure10.14 Keeten-slachs-ghedenck-teeckenendebaniere. Byeendienaerdesgod-delijckenwoordts. Middelburg: Hans van der Hellen, 1631, 382. CourtesyofZeeuwseBibliotheek.

Figure10.15 Dirck V. Coornhert, Rechtghebruyckendemisbruyckvantydlickehave. Amsterdam: Dirck Pietersz. Pers, 1620, printed by Paulus Aertsz. van Raven-steyn, fol. M4v. CourtesyofUtrechtUniversityLibrary.

Figure10.16 Bibliadatis,DegantscheH.Schrifture. Leiden: Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn, for the widow of Hillebrant Jacobsz. van Wouw, 1637, fol. 47. CourtesyoftheUtrechtUniversityLibrary.


Ravensteynwascertainlyaware.56In1635,heproducedaDutchtranslationofa devotional treatise by the German Pietist Jacob Bohme, illustrating it in amannerreminiscentofGermanvisualliterarytraditions.57VanRavesteynap-pearstohavebeenoftheopinionthatthecontroversiessurroundingtheSyn-odofDordthadsubsidedtosuchanextentthatforeigntraditionscouldagainbetakenintoconsideration.

A second wave of success for the picture Bible after 1637 suggests thatRavesteyn’s instinct was not far off the mark. In 1637, following an impassewhichhadlastedtwentyyears,theDutchReformedClaesJansz.VisschertookstepstoproduceapictureBible,probablyinanattempttoconquerfinancialuncertainties.PublisherswereundeniablydreadingtheeffecttheStatesBiblewouldhaveontheirbusiness,especiallysincetheStatesGeneralplannedtogrant theprivilegesofprinting theStatesBible toonlyonepublisher.58ThefirstproofsoftheStatesBiblewerecompletedinDecember1636,andVisschermayhaveknownabouttheillustrationsthathadbeenaddedtotheStatesBi-ble in advance.59 In 1637, he resorted to publishing an adult version of vanWaesberge’sDe historie van den koninclijcken prophete DavidandalsoreprintedthepictureBible:David, hoc est virtutis exercitatissimae probatum deo spectac-ulum[David,ortheSpectacleofWell-ExercisedVirtuePleasingtoGod],firstproducedinAntwerpin1575byPlantinwithengravingsbyPhilipGalle.EachplatedepictedascenefromDavid’slife,withanexplanationofitsmoralimpli-cationsinfourlinesofLatinversebyBenedictusAriasMontanus,aCatholicmonk.60Thisfirstproductionwassoonfollowedbythreemore,allthankstothefactthatVisscherwasabletobuypartofColijn’scommercialassetsatauc-tion.61 In 1638, he launched a reprint of the Historia del testamento vecchio,basedontheetchingusedinColijn’s1607edition.Theoriginaletchingshaddepicted anthropomorphic representations of God which were excluded inthe new ones.62 God is personified in the 1607 edition as a bearded man inflowingrobestouchingthesunandthemoonandtherebycreatingthem,butin1638,heisreplacedbyatextualelement,atetragramofthewordYahweh. In

56 OntheGermanapplicationsoftheseornamentedinitialsinProtestantBibles,seeDijstel-berge(2007)30.OntheEnglishproductionofillustratedBibles,seeAston(2010)24–42.

57 TitledSleutel-bloem, vergadert (tot een hand-boexken) uyt de schriften van Jacob Böhme,seealsoGeissmar(1993)168.

58 DespitetheStatesGeneral’sintentions,theStatesBiblewassoonproducedbymorethanonepublisher.

59 OntheprintinghistoryoftheDutchStatesBible,seedeBruin(1993)236.60 SeeMelion(2005)74–90.61 VanderCoelen(1998) 215.62 VanderCoelen(1998) 226.

214 Stronks

Visscher’snextproduction,theTheatrum Biblicumof1639,therepresentationofGodfromacopperplateoriginallymadebyMaartenvanHeemskerckinthesixteenthcenturywasalsoreplacedwithaninscriptionofthewordYahweh.63TwootherpublicationsbasedonvandeBorcht’splates,theBiblia, hoc est vetus et novum testamentum iconibus expressum andtheEmblemata sacra,alsodat-ingfrom1639,alsoremovedtheanthropomorphicdepictionsofGodfromtheplatesoftheoldestseries.64

ConventionsregardingtherepresentationofGodbecamemorerestrictive,sinceresidualCatholicelementswerenowbeingrigorouslyremoved.Butinotherways,practicesbecameevenmoreinterconfessionalthantheyhadbeenbetween1592and1617.TheVisscherfamilyproducedninepictureBiblesinthefollowingdecades,aswellasproducingalarge-formatvolumecalledtheRoy-aal Bijbel, which contained engravings of Old Testament scenes based onpaintingsbyRubens.65EvenCatholicpublisherssuchasCornelisDanckertz.andJacobSaverijfollowedthenewtrend.66PictureBiblesfloodedtheDutchmarket,targetingthelargestpossibleaudienceofProtestantsandCatholics.67TheBibleillustrationhadnowbecomefullyacceptedwhenfeaturedinapic-tureBible,inaccordancewithfixedconventions.

ProtestantsalsobegantoemployBibleillustrationsoutsidethegenreofthepictureBible.Asingleexamplewillhavetosufficehere.SeveralpoemsonthepassionofChrist, firstpublishedin1651 inananthologyentitledVerscheyde Nederduytsche gedichten [Various Dutch Poems], remained unillustrated inseventeenth-centuryreprints,butillustrationswereaddedtoeighteenth-cen-turyeditions.

TheillustratedBibleremainedforbiddenterritoryforProtestants.ItwastheCatholicpublisherPieterJabobszPaetswhoproducedthefirstlavishlyillus-tratedBibleintheRepublic,theBiblia sacra dat is De geheele Heylighe Schrift-ure[BibliaSacra,thatistheEntireHolyScripture]in1657.Inthesevolumes,biblicaltextswereaccompaniedbywoodcutsmadebythevanSichemfamily,basedonengravingsbyBoetiusàBolswert,amongothers.Paets’editionwasbasedontheMoerentorfBibledatingfrom1599.AnotherDutchreprintofthisBible–withoutillustrations–hadalreadybeenpublishedin1653,byJoachim

63 Veldman(1999)418–19.64 VanderCoelen(1998)166–67.65 By1620Rubens’paintingswereknownintheRepublic, followinghisworkwithDutch

engraverstohavehispaintingsreproducedasprints,seealsoVanderCoelen(2006)45.66 Fordetailsonthisprintinghistory,seeVanderCoelen(1998)169–72.67 Ontheuseandre-useof theseprintsbyCatholicsandProtestants, seeVanderWaals

(2006)72–111.


vanMeteleninAmsterdam,indicatingthegrowingopportunitiesforthepro-ductionofCatholicBiblesintheRepublic.IllustratededitionsoftheMoeren-torfBiblewereagainproducedinthe1740s,alsobyaCatholicpublisher.68

Conclusions

WhatdoesthisbriefoverviewoftheapplicationoftheBibleillustrationbytheDutch tell us about the Republic’s culture?The difference between the reli-giousliteratureoftheRepublicanditsneighbouringcountriesappearstohavebeentheresultofawidespread,interconfessionalandsilentagreement–sup-portedbyall Protestant denominationsand evenbyDutchCatholics – thatpre-Reformational traditions and hybrid traditions from countries whereCatholic and Protestant traditions naturally mixed, were to be abandonedwhenitcametotheBible.TheunillustratedBiblewasusedtoconstrueamoreorlesscleanbreakwiththeCatholicpastaswellaswithcontemporaryhybriddevelopmentsinneighbouringcountries.ImageswerenottobedeployedtocontinuetospreadtheWordintheRepublic,notevenamongCatholics,untilthe1660s.Thisagreementwasnotenforcedbylaworbyofficialcensorshipandwasnotcontentiousenoughtobediscussedinpamphlets.DirectmentionofitoccurredonlyincidentallyintheminutesofDutchReformedSynods.69

ThehybridizationofDutchliteraryreligiouspractices,whicheventuallyoc-curred,aspictureBiblesbegantobeproduced,turnedacleanbreakwiththepastintoanegotiatedandrestrictedencounter,whichdidnotdevelopwithoutinterferencefromthesurroundingcountries.It istellingthatthefirstDutchpublishertoproducepictureBibles,vanRaphelingen,wasconnectedtoPlan-tinandtheSouthernNetherlandsthroughfamilyties.Innovationsinthegenrebased on foreign developments were kept under close watch and often en-counteredresistancefromtheDutchReformedChurch.TheprintinghistoryofMoller’sSleutel,the1682volumereferredtointheintroductionofthisarticle,demonstratesthismechanisminanutshell.MollerwasGermanbyoriginandbasedhisSleutel ontheGermantraditionofthears memorativa,specifically

68 ThepublisherwasthewidowofJoannesStichterinAmsterdam.69 ThiswasconfirmedfollowingconsultationofthemaincollectionofearlymodernDutch

pamphlets,knownastheKnuttel-catalogue,whichdoesnotcontainanypamphletsonthe issue. The absence of public commotion and the relative silence surrounding theissuearearemarkablefeatureoftheDutchsituation,inlightofstudiessuchasMcWil-liams (2004), which reveal much more aggression and discussion in similar situationswhereanation’sculturalmemorywasnegotiated.

216 Stronks

onJohannesBuno’sBilder-Bibel,firstpublishedin1674,inwhichvisualizationtechniquesandemblematicimageswerepropagatedtoenhancethestudyandmemorizationoftheBible.70InlinewithBuno’simagery,Moller’sSleutel con-tainedBibleillustrationswithemblematicrepresentationsofthemysteriesoffaith (such as the Holy Spirit represented as a dove).The regional Synod ofSouthHollandlevelledharshcriticismagainstthese“aenstootelijcke, ergerlijcke en onstightelijcke figuuren”[offensive,detestableandunedifyingimages].TheallegoricalelementsMollerintroducedwereobviouslyunwantedadditionsinBibleillustrationsdeployedintheDutchcontext.AcopyoftheSleutel keptinthe library of the University of Amsterdam reveals that those pictorial ele-mentswerespecificallyremovedbyatleastoneofthebook’sowners.71Overthecourseoftheseventeenthcentury,Bibleillustrationsbecameacceptedaslongastheywerenotincorporatedintothebiblicaltextsthemselvesandonlyillustratedthetextstheyaccompanied.AllegoricalormeditativeapplicationsdevelopedabroadcouldnotbeincorporatedintoDutchProtestanttraditionsandwerenotdeployedbyCatholicsuntilthe1660s.

The application of Bible illustrations became less controversial as timepassed, but it remained an ideological act well into the nineteenth century.WhenanewcontroversysplittheDutchReformedChurchintoanorthodoxandamoreliberalfactionaround1830,resultinginwhatisknownastheAfs-cheiding[Schism],thepictureBible–whichbythenseemedfullyaccepted–againbecamethetargetofvirulentattacks.AtamomentwhenliteracywasincreasingandmoreandmoreBibleswerebeingsoldtoProtestantsthroughtheDutchBibleSociety,foundedin1814,andthroughorganizationsthatsoldBiblesdoortodoor,pictureBibles,whichhadlongbeenacceptedbyProtes-tants,becameahotlycontested issue.72At theheightof thecontroversyanelderoftheorthodox(gereformeerde)faction,FrederikKon,wrotethathehadusedthepictureBiblesof themore liberal (hervormde)ministerandschoolheadmasterReddingiustolighthisstove,becausesuchworkshad“aruinouseffectonhumansouls.”OnceagainthedifferencebetweenCatholicandProt-estantliterarytraditions–thevisualversustheverbal–wasusedtoidentifyandreinforceideologicaldifferences.Theimpactoftheseventeenthcenturyimageless religious literature should perhaps not be underestimated. WhilenowadaysillustratedBiblesforadultsarepublishedinalmosteveryEuropean

70 OnBuno’smnemonicandemblematictechniques,seeStrasser(2007)211–12.MollerwasborninFrankfurtamMainin1641,marriedaDutchwomannamedWilhelminadeHulterin1678,workedasaministerinLeidenfrom1679anddiedtherein1710.

71 Leeflang(2008)144–45.72 Molendijk(2003)107–28.


country(includingforinstanceanillustratedKingJamesVersion),suchpubli-cations are lacking in the Netherlands. Even editions illustrated by GustaveDoré,onceasuccessintheNetherlandsandstillfrequentlyreprintedinotherEuropeancountries,areabsent;thelastDutcheditionwasprintedin1996.

Bibliography

Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi […] tot Dordrecht, anno 1618. ende 1619(Dordrecht1621).

Arnade,P.J.,Beggars, Iconoclasts, and Civic Patriots: The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt(Ithaca,2008).

Asselt,W.J.van,P.vanGeest,D.MüllerandT.Salemink,“Introduction,”inIconoclasm and Iconoclash: Struggle for Religious Identity,ed.W.J.vanAsseltetal.(Leiden,2007),pp.1–32.

Aston,M.,“PropertiesofthePageinReformationEngland,”inPrinted Images in Early Modern England: Essays in Interpretation, ed. M. Hunter (Aldershot, 2010), pp.24–42.

Barker,M.C., “TranscendingTradition:Rembrandt’sDeath of the Virgin 1639:ARe-Vision,”inDutch Crossing 34(2)(2010),pp.138–61.

Besançon,A.,The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm(Chicago,2000).Bowen, K.L. and D. Imhof, Christopher Plantin and Engraved Book Illustrations in

Sixteenth-Century Europe (Cambridge,2008).Bruin,C.deandF.Broeyer,De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers(Haarlem,1993).Burke,P.,Cultural Hybridity(London,2009).Chavannes-Mazel,C.,Maerlants Rijmbijbel in Museum Meermanno : de kracht van woor-

den, de pracht van beelden(DenHaag,2008).Coelen,P.vander,Rembrandts passie. Het Nieuwe Testament in de Nederlandse prent-

kunst van de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw(Rotterdam,2006).––––––,“PicturesforthePeople?BibleIllustrationsandtheirAudience,”inLay Bibles

in Europe 1450–1800,ed.M.Lamberigtsetal.(Leuven,2006),pp.185–205.Coelen,P.vander,De Schrift verbeeld: Oudtestamentische prenten uit renaissance en

barok(Nijmegen,1998).––––––,“DeStatenbijbelendeprentkunst:overeen‘liefhebber’eneen‘yvrighkerkelijk

man,’”inTransparant8(1997),pp.30–36.Dekoninck,R.,Ad imaginem: status, functions et usages de l’image dans la litérature

spirituelle jésuite du XVIIe siècle(Geneva,2005).––––––,“ImaginesPeregrinantes:TheInternationalGenesisandFateoftwoBiblical

PictureBooks(BarrefeltandNadal)conceivedinAntwerpattheEndoftheSixteenth

218 Stronks

Century,”inIntersections: Yearbook for Early Modern Studies3,eds.A.J.Gelderblometal.(Leiden,2004),pp.49–64.

DeWulf,J.J.,In the Jungle of Amsterdam. On the Re-Invention of Dutch Identity,MorissonLibraryInauguralAddressesSeries(Berkeley,2008).

Dietz,F.,A.Morton,L.Roggen,E.StronksandM.VanVaeck,eds.Illustrated Religious Texts in the North of Europe,1500–1800(Ashgate,2014).

Dijstelberge,P.,De beer is los!: Ursicula: een database van typografisch materiaal uit het eerste kwart van de zeventiende eeuw als instrument voor het identificeren van drukken(Amsterdam,2007).

Engamarre,M.,“LesFiguresdelaBible.Ledestinoubliéd’ungenrelittéraireenimage(XVIe-XVIIe’s),”inMélanges de l’École Française de Rome106(1994),pp.549–91.

FontaineVerwey,H.dela,“TheFamilyofLove,”inQuaerendo6(1976),pp.219–71.Frijhoff,W.,“Leescultuur:eennieuweinsteekvooronderzoeknaarcultureledynamiek,”

inTijdschrift voor Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis9(2006),pp.62–65.Geissmar,C.,Das Auge Gottes. Bilder zu Jakob Böhme(Wiesbaden,1993).Hamilton,A.,“FromFamilismtoPietism.TheFortunesofPietervanderBorcht’sBible

IllustrationsandHiël’sCommentariesfrom1584to1717,”inQuaerendo 11(1981),pp.271–301.

Joby,C.,Calvinism and the Arts: A Re-Assessment(Leuven,2007).Kaplan,B.J.,Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early

Modern Europe(Cambridge,2007).Knuttel,W.P.C.,Acta der particuliere synoden van Zuid-Holland 1621–1700, deel III (1646–

1656)(DenHaag,1908–1916).Leeflang,H.,“Waarheid,vlugheideninventie:ontwerpenuitvoeringvandeetsen,”in

Romeyn de Hooghe: de verbeelding van de late Gouden Eeuw,eds.H.vanNieropetal.(Zwolle,2008),pp.126–45.

MarRosa-Rodriguez.M.del,“SimulationandDissimulation:ReligiousHybridityinaMoriscoFatwa,”inMedieval Encounters16(1)(2010),pp.143–80.

McWilliams,J.,New England’s Crises and Cultural Memory. Literature, Politics, History and Religion, 1620–1860(Cambridge,2004).

Melion,W.S.,“BibleIllustrationinSixteenth-CenturyLowCountries,”inScripture for the Eyes. Bible Illustrations in Netherlandish Prints of the Sixteenth Century,ed.W.S.Melion(NewYork,2009),pp.14–106.

––––––, The Meditative Art: Studies in the Northern Devotional Print, 1550–1625(Philadelphia,2009).

––––––,“‘HaecPerImaginesHuiusMysterijEcclesiaSancta[Clamat]’:TheImageoftheSufferingChrist,” in Jerome Nadal, Annotationes and Meditations on the Gospels. Volume III: The Passion Narratives,ed.WalterS.Melionetal.(Philadelphia,2007),pp.1–73.


––––––,“BenedictusAriasMontanusandtheVirtualStudioasaMeditativePlace,”inInventions of the Studio: Renaissance to Romanticism,ed.M.Coleetal.(ChapelHillandLondon,2005),pp.73–107andpp.196–201.

Meeus,H.,Zacharias Heyns, uitgever en toneelauteur. Bio-bibliografie, met een uitgave en analyse van de Vriendts-Spieghel. Deel II(Leuven,1990).

Miedema,H.,“PhilipsAngel’sPraise of Painting,”trans.MichaelHoyle,withanintroduc-tionandcommentarybyHesselMiedema,inSimiolus24(1996),pp.227–58.

Mielke, H., U. Mielke and G. Luijten, Peeter van der Borcht: Book illustrations. New Hollstein Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450–1700(OuderkerkaandenIjssel,2005).

Mochizuki,M.M.,The Netherlandish Image after Iconoclasm, 1566–1672: Material Religion in the Dutch Golden Age(Aldershot,2008).

Molendijk,A.,“Geenbijbelcultus,geenbijbelalsreliek.Debijbelinhetnegentiende-eeuwseNederlandseprotestantisme,”inMaterieel christendom. Religie en materiële cultuur in West-Europa,ed.A.Molendijk(Hilversum,2003),pp.107–28.

Moller, J., Sleutel, dewelke verklaard de bybelse figuuren oover de vier evangelisten, Handelingen der Apostelen en Openbaaringe Johannis(Leiden,1682).

Nauta,D.,“GeschiedenisvanhetontstaanderStatenvertaling,”inDe Statenvertaling 1637–1937(Haarlem,1937),pp.1–50.

NederveenPieterse,J.,Globalization and Culture. Global Mélange(NewYork,2009).Perlove,S.K.andL.Silver,Rembrandt’s Faith: Church and Temple in the Dutch Golden Age

(UniversityPark,Pennsylvania,2009).Pettegree,A.,Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion(Cambridge,NewYork,2005).Porteman,K.andM.B.Smits-Veldt,Een nieuw vaderland voor de muzen. Geschiedenis

van de Nederlandse literatuur, 1560–1700(Amsterdam,2008).Prak,M.,The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century(Cambridge,2006).Ricoeur,P.,“WhatisaText?ExplanationandUnderstanding,”inHermeneutics and the

Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation(Cambridge,1981).Rosier,B.,The Bible in Print: Netherlandish Bible Illustration in the Sixteenth Century

(Leiden,1997).Schenkeveld, M.A., Dutch Literature in the Age of Rembrandt: Themes and Ideas

(Amsterdam,1991).Schilling,H.andI.G.Tóth,eds.,Religion and Cultural Exchange in Europe, 1400 – 1700

(Cambridge,2006).Smits-Veldt,M.B.,Het Nederlandse renaissancetoneel(Utrecht,1991).Strasser,G.,“WissensvermittlungdurchBilderinderFrühenNeuzeit:Vorstufendes

‘pädagogischenRealismus,’”inEvidentia: Reichweiten visueller Wahrnehmung in der Frühen Neuzeit,eds.GabrieleWimbocketal.(Berlin,2007),pp.191–216.

Stronks,E.,“HetbeeldbijhetWoordondergereformeerdecensuur,”inDelineavit et sculpsit34(2010),pp.8–18.

220 Stronks

––––––,Negotiating Differences: Word, Image and Religion in the Dutch Republic(Leiden,2011a).

––––––,“NevertoCoincide:theIdentitiesofDutchProtestantsandDutchCatholicsinReligiousEmblematics,”inJournal of Historians of Netherlandish Art3(2),see:http://www.jhna.org/index.php/past-issues/144-stronks-never-to-coincide(2011b).

Tümpel,C.,“DeOudtestamentischeHistorieschilderkunstindeGoudenEeuw,”inHet Oude Testament in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw,eds.ChristiaanTümpel(Zwolle,1991).

Veldhorst,N.N.H.,“PharmacyfortheBodyandSoul:DutchSongbooksintheSeventeenthCentury,”inEarly Music History27(2008),pp.217–86.

Veldman,I.M.,Images for the Eye and Soul: Function and Meaning in Netherlandish Prints (1450–1650)(Leiden,2006).

––––––,Profit and Pleasure: Print Books by Crispijn De Passe(Rotterdam,2001).––––––,“ProtestantismandtheArts:SixteenthandSeventeenth-CenturyNetherlands,”

inSeeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition,ed.PaulCorbyFinney(GrandRapids,1999),pp.397–421.

––––––,“Coornhertendeprentkunst,”inDirck Volckertszoon Coornhert. Dwars maar recht,ed.HenkBongeretal.(Zutphen,1989),pp.115–43andpp.178–79.

Waals,J.vander,Prints in the Dutch Golden Age: from Art to Shelf Paper(Rotterdam,2006).

Wandel,L.P., Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel(Cambridge,NewYork,1995).

Zachman,R.C.,Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin(NotreDame,2007).

http://www.jhna.org/index.php/past-issues/144-stronks-never-to-coincide

http://www.jhna.org/index.php/past-issues/144-stronks-never-to-coincide

221IllustratingTheAnthropologicalText

Chapter11

Illustrating the Anthropological Text: Drawings and Photographs in Franz Boas’ The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians (1897)

Camille Joseph

FranzBoaswasanAmericananthropologistwhoplayedamajorrole inthedevelopmentofmodernanthropologyinthetwentiethcentury.BoaswasborninGermanyandstartedhisscientificcareerasaphysicistbeforehechosetodedicatehimselftothefieldofethnography.HeleftGermanyin1886tostudythe Indiantribesof theNorthwestCoastofCanada,amongwhichwere theKwakiutl Indians who lived onVancouver Island. Boas eventually settled inNewYorkandbecameassistantcuratorofethnologyattheAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory(1895–1905).In1897,hepublishedhisfirstmonographontheceremonialsoftheKwakiutlIndians,entitledThe Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians.1Thismonographwaspublishedasareport for the United States National Museum based in Washington, D.C.,whichhadbeencreatedundertheauspicesoftheSmithsonianInstitution,ascientificinstitutionco-foundedbytheAmericangovernmentinthe1840stopromoteknowledge.ThevolumeisanaccountofBoas’numerousfieldtripstoBritishColumbiabetweentheyears1886and1891andthenagainin1894.ItwasduringthislasttripthatBoasdecidedtohavephotographstakeninordertoillustratethemonographhehadalreadyplannedtowrite(Jacknis,1984:36).

DuringtheseveralfieldtripshemadeamongtheIndiansofBritishColum-bia,BoascollectedalargenumberofspecimensbothfortheNationalMuseumandforotherinstitutions,aswellasimages(bothdrawingsandphotographs).The Social Organizationstrikesatfirstglanceasabewilderingmixofimagesrepresenting artefacts, masks, totem poles, architectural plans, ceremoniesandritualisticevents,“portraits”andoutdoorscenes.Thevolumeandintricacyoftheimageswithinitservetoprovideafulldescriptionofaparticularcere-monial–thewinterceremony.ThisfocussetsthepublicationapartandgivesitauniquestandingamongBoas’otherworks:neverwouldhecomeclosertowriting a complete ethnographical account, nor would he ever again use so

1 HereafterThe Social Organization,tobeabbreviatedSO.

© Camillejoseph,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_013This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



222 Joseph

manyillustrations(withtheexceptionofPrimitive Art,publishedin1927).The1897 report also provides a precious insight into Boas’ various skills as anethnographerinthefield;hewasabletolearnnativelanguages,tonotedownsongsandmusic,todrawsketches,andtoworkwithphotographers(orevenonoccasiontotakephotographshimself).

The Social OrganizationisaveryheavyvolumeoftextsandimagesthatBoasmeticulouslycollectedorhadhisinformantscollect.However,Boasneverfullyexplainedhisuseofthedifferentkindsofethnographicdata.Wearethereforeboundtolookintothewayshegathered,publishedandorganizedthisdiverseandcomplexarrayofrawdata.AcloseexaminationofThe Social Organiza-tion’slayout,forexample,providesoneofthefewwaysinwhichwecanunder-standBoas’positionregardingtherelativelynewmediumofphotographyandthewayinwhichitcouldbeusedbytheethnographer.ItappearsthatBoassuccessfullyandquiteuniquelycombinedalongtraditionofscientificillustra-tionwiththemodernapproachoffieldworkethnography,relyingonphotogra-phy and images to gather data. These images were a precious source ofethnographicinformationoncetheethnographerhadleftthefield.TheywerealsoameansofcollectingstoriesandtextsfromtheIndiansthemselves,illus-trating the interaction that existed between text and image. In this article,Iwouldliketoanalyzethestatusoftheseimagesas“illustrations”andtoexam-inetheirpositionwithinthescientificnarrative.First,Iwillarguethatinordertounderstandthenatureoftheseimages,oneshouldacknowledgethatitwasnotuncommonatthistimeforreportssuchasBoas’tocontainlargenumbersofimagesandthatthiscanbeseenasareflectionofthescientificstandardssetbyNorthAmericaninstitutionssuchastheSmithsonianinWashington.Sec-ond,manydrawingscanbefoundinthemonographthatarereminiscentofatradition in archaeological illustrations: drawings and photographs do nothavethesamestatuswithinthetext.Butmoreimportantly,andthiswillbemyfinalpoint,itisnecessarytotakeintoaccountthetheoreticalimportancegiv-entothenativetextandthefactthatlanguage,accordingtoBoas,wasthefirstandforemostexpressionofaculture.

An Illustrated Report

Asnotedpreviously,theillustrationsfoundinThe Social Organization arenu-merous and varied. If we consider only the drawings and photographs, andexclude the music sheets, we find a total of 266 illustrations for a 350-pagepublication,aratioofmorethanoneimagetoeverytwopages.Theimagesarecataloguedinthelistofillustrationsfoundattheendofthebookandfallintotwocategories,the“plates”(51intotal)andthe“textfigures”(215intotal).The


“text figures” are line drawings printed with text, and the “plates” are thoseimageswhichhavebeenprintedseparatelyandtheninsertedintothepublica-tion.Thisdistinctionrevealsoneofthechiefdrawbacksofphotographicandphotomechanicalreproductions:unlikewoodcuts,photographscouldnotatthetimebeprintedonthesheetwithtype.Becauseofthistechnologicalcon-straint, photographs (reproduced in half-tone or in paintings) are all foundamongtheplates(40photographs)andappearonfullpages.TheiconographyofThe Social Organization isthennotonlyplentifulbutalsodiverseintermsofformat,techniquesandstyles.

Asnotedabove,thediversityandprofusionofimageswasnotrareinotherNorth-Americanpublicationsofthetime,whetherforscientificorcommercialpurposes(Marr,1990).Governmentreports2suchastheonespublishedundertheauspicesoftheSmithsonianInstitution,whichwasastrongadvocateandpurchaser of images, combined different kinds of illustrations: maps, topo-graphicaldrawings,sketches,engravingsfromphotographs,paintings,etc.Theintroductionofphotographyingovernmentsurveysemphasizedthedemandsandwidenedtheusesandpracticesofimagesforscientificpurposes,althoughphotographsandphotographically-based illustrationshadbeenanexpectedcomponent of U.S. government reports since 1875 (Sandweiss, 2002). For in-stance,thefourGreatSurveys,senttotheuntamedregionsoftheAmericanWest in the late 1860s,wereconductedby teamsofexplorerswhocollectedartefacts,andbiologicalandgeologicalspecimens,andwhoeithermadeim-ages for themselves or commissioned professional painters, draftsmen, andphotographerstodosoontheirbehalf.Explorerswereingreatneedof“visual”images; theyfelt thatwordswereoftenunabletodepict thewondersof theAmericanWest.The inventions of emulsion-coated film in the 1880s and ofKodak’s“handcamera”in1890multipliedthenumberofpicturesthatprofes-sionalanthropologistsandexplorerscouldtakeonanygiventrip(Prins,2004:510).3Thecameraalsoplayedanimportantroleinsecuringvisualrepresenta-tionofmaterialsthatethnographerscouldnotbringbackwiththemtotheirmuseums.Photographsthereforeprovidedaccuratedocumentationofaworlddoomedtodisappear.Anthropologistsreliedonpicturesnotonlytocollect,preserve and later study Native American cultures, but also to display theirfindingstotheAmericanpublic:thefoundersofAmericananthropologybe-lievedintheuseofimagesasthebasisfortheeducationalmissionofascienceofmankind(Hinsley,1981:100).

2 Forexample,CarolineLehninumbers260illustrationsfor400pagesinMajorJohnW.Powell’sCanyons of the Colorado(1895).SeeC.Lehni(2006)80.

3 On the vast amount of photographs (over 3000) taken during the Jesup North PacificExpeditionunderthesupervisionofBoas,seeKendallandMathé(1997)7.

224 Joseph

AsascientistwhotrainedincartographicandtopographicdrawingandinanthropometricmeasurementswhilehewasstudyinginBerlininthe1880s,FranzBoaswasabletousethesesketchesasscientificdataandillustrations(Cole,1983:14).ThisisparticularlyvisibleinthegeologicaldrawingsandmapsreproducedinthereportofhisfirstfieldtripamongtheInuitofBaffinIsland(The Central Eskimo, 1885).However, tomyknowledge,BoasdidnotusehisowndrawingsinThe Social OrganizationbuthaddrawingsmadefromhisownsketchesbyprofessionalartistssuchasGeorgeT.Emmons,RudolfWeberorEmilyCarr.Also,BoaslearnedhowtouseacamerainBerlinin1882andwasnotadversetousingphotography.Hemadeawideuseofthecameraforan-thropometricandcraniometricmeasurementsandhewasalsoveryactiveincollectingpicturesofthenativecultureshecameincontactwith.Thisappearsinhiscorrespondencewithhisfriendandinformant,GeorgeHunt(1854–1933),aKwakiutlIndianwhobecameanassistantformanyethnographersandforFranzBoasinparticular:inseveralletters,BoasasksHunttoprovidephoto-graphsofspecificscenesorartefacts.Butphotographsdidnotcompletelytaketheplaceofdrawings.Neither the inventionofphotographyand its relativeavailabilityattheendofthenineteenthcentury,northewide-spreaduseofphotography by most anthropologists at the turn of the twentieth century,producedashiftinBoas’methods.4Hisprimeconcernremainedthecarefulscientific study of the culture, rather than utilising the latest technologicalmediumathisdisposal.

Drawings and Photographs

AlthoughBoasusedphotographyasearlyas the 1880s,photographsdidnotbecometheprivilegedmodeofillustrationinhispublicationsortheoneshesupervised.IndeedthepapersissuedfromtheJesupNorthPacificExpedition,editedbyFranzBoasbetween1896and1926,reveal,asMichaelOppitznotes,“a beautiful balance between drawing and photography.” (Oppitz, 2001: 121).Thepublicationscontainedphotographsbytheauthors,drawings,andindig-

4 IwillonlymentioninpassingthegenerouslyillustratedbookofSirBaldwinSpencerandP.J.Gillen,The Native Tribes of Central Australia,publishedin1899.Thereare119photographsinthework,whichisfarmorethanwouldhavebeencontainedinotherethnographicmono-graphsatthetime.Thesuccessofthebookisduetothedistinctionbetweenthesephoto-graphswhichweretakenoutdoors,andothercontemporaryphotographswhichweretakeninastudio.Theyareofaremarkablequality,and,asPetersonnoted,theyformedthefirstaccessibleandsubstantialcorpusofceremonialphotographsfromAustralia(Peterson2006).


enous sketches. Therefore, once we acknowledge the technical difficultieswhich limited the direct reproduction of photographs, it is remarkable thatBoascontinuedtomakegreatuseofamoreconservative,illustrativemediumsuchasdrawinglongafterphotographyhadbeenadoptedbyanthropologists.Yet did these images have the same status as photographs in terms of theirscientificvalidity?Wecouldsuggestthatdrawingsandphotographs,sincetheyoffereddiffering“representations”oftheirsubjectmatter,werebothofusetoananthropologist.

The classification of illustrations found in The Social Organization showsthat drawings are preferred to photographs when representing an object orartefactbecausetheyenablemultipleviewsofthesameobjectorartefactcon-currently.One“illustration”canoffertwoorthreedifferentviewsofthesameobject.Moreimportantly, itcanhighlightonedetailofaspecificartefactbyselecting itandzooming inon it,orbyomittingapartof theobject toem-phasizeanother.Textimagesrepresentselectiveanddidacticperspectives:asyntheticandrealisticviewontheonehandandacomplementaryviewrepre-sentingonlytheoutlineoftheobjectorthedesignpaintedonitontheotherhand(Figure11.1).Asaconsequence,adrawingseemstogiveabetterideaofthevolumeanddesignoftheobjects.

Figure11.1

Figure 127 of TheSocialOrganiza-tion represents three different views of the double-head mask of the Na’naqualitl, a dancer of the winter ceremonial. The figure shows two reverse– synthetic and realistic– views and a third, complementary view. The drawings of the mask’s outline, while lacking in volume and materiality, is more precise as to the way the two masks are attached to one another. The smaller heads hanging from the mask are isolated at the bottom and therefore appear more clearly.

226 Joseph

Followingatraditionofarchaeologicalillustration,Boaswaswellawareoftheabilityofdrawingstoexplainanddemonstrate:drawingsprovideahighlydetailedviewoftheobjecttothereaderwhichhis/herowneyesfailtosee.Oneexample is particularly striking regarding the appreciation of drawings in aconflictingvisualcontext.Atonepointinhisreport,BoasmentionsahouselocatedinaKwakiutlvillage.Thehousefront,itissaid,hadbeenpaintedandBoasprovidesthecorrespondingillustrationwithtextfiguren°18:arealisticfigurationofahouseand,inthecentreofthefront,theboldblackdesign(Fig-ure11.2).

Inthetextprecedingandfollowingtheillustration,Boaswrites:

Fig.18showsthehousefrontoftheclanGigilqamoftheNimkish.Itrep-resentsthethunderbirdliftingawhale,whichisitsfood,fromoutofthewater.Accordingtotheclantradition,theGigilqamarethedescendantsof the thunderbird. This house front was excellently painted, but hasbeenwhitewashed,owingtothemisplacedzealofamissionary.Thebeakwascarvedandfastenedtothehousefront.(SO:375–76)

Figure11.2 Figure 18 of TheSocialOrganizationrepresents the House front of the clan Gigilqam in the village of Nimkish.It is captioned “From a photograph.” The painted motif of the house front appears distinctively. The presence of the two canoes on the beach and the two small human figures on the right hand side of the façade reinforces the large dimensions of the building and of the painting itself.


Inthisparticularcase,thedrawingofthevanisheddesignenablesthereadertoseewhat it looked likebefore itwaswhitewashed: thephotographof thehousefront,whichcouldnotcapturethealmostinvisiblepainting,isturnedintoadrawing,theremainingtracesofthemotifareexaggeratedandtheorig-inal design is made fully visible once again. While he acknowledged thedamagingeffectsofhistoricalencountersbetweenNativeAmericansandmis-sionariesontheNorthwestCoast,Boasnonethelesschosenottoshowa“his-torical”andsomewhatdramaticviewofthewhitewashedpainting.BoascaredverymuchaboutthecultureoftheKwakiutlIndiansbeforetheircontactwith“thewhiteman”,andhistextleavesnodoubtastohisownopinionregardingtheimpactofWesterncultureontheKwakiutlculture.YetdocumentingtheartisticproductionoftheKwakiutl,amongotheraspectsoftheirculture,re-mainedhisforemostconcern,asillustratedbytheubiquitouspresenceinhisworkofdrawingsofthevariousornamentsusedbytheKwakiutl.Whilethetext goes so far as to provide the reader with a textual image of the white-washedhouse,thedrawingrestorestheoriginalpaintingandprovidesavividexampleofornamentation.Inthisspecificexampleasinothers,thedrawingsfoundinBoas’report“canbedetachedfromthenaturalconditionsinwhichtheirmotifsarebound;theycanisolate,singleout,decontextualize;theycantransporttheirsubjectsintodifferentsurroundings;theycantakeimaginaryviewpoints.Thismakesdrawingscapableofconceptualidealizationandab-straction;ofvisuallypresentingsymbolical signification;ofdepicting realitybeyondrealism,oftranscending.”(Oppitz,2001:122)

Thescientific“accuracy”ofthedrawingdoesnotlieinitsabilitytoproducea“likeness”;asinthecaseofthewhitewashedthunderbirdandwhale,atruth-fulimagewouldhaveleftthereaderwithnothingtoseeotherthanthefainttracesofanundecipherablemotif.Boasdoesnotseemtoagreewithanostal-gicperspective;hisdrawingsareactivelyselectiveandinterpretative.Inthiscase,thephotographicimageisturnedintoadrawingofwhatisnolongervis-ibletothehumaneye,whichisalsothemostinterestingthingfromtheeth-nographer’spointofview.Thetwomediasuccessfullycomplementeachother:thephotographbringsoutthegeneralformofthehouse,whereasthedrawingenablesthereadertoseewhatthepassageof timehasmade indistinctandprovides a clarification of the decorative design that the camera could notachieve.Inthiscase,thedrawingcanbeseenasaninterpretationofwhattheanthropologistsees,butitcanonlybe“readable”iftheanthropologisthasaclearunderstandingofwhat liesbeforehiseyesand if thismeaning findsa“translation”inacoherentmeansofrepresentation.Masksandotherartisticparaphernaliaormotifssuchasthecomplexdesignfoundonthehousefront

228 Joseph

oftheNimkishrequireadeepattentiononthepartoftheanthropologist,whomustrecognizeanddecomposethevariouselementsofthiscomplexart.5

Photographsprovetobenolessinventivethandrawings.Buttheyaddressdifferent subjects with a different approach.They contextualize rather thanputanemphasisonthevariouselementsconstitutinganartefact;theyareho-listicinrespecttotheobjectthattheyfocusonandcannotbeselectivelikedrawings.Thefactthatphotographscontextualizedoesnotmeanthatanal-terationcannotbemadetothem.Indeed,somecriticssuchasAnneMaxwellhavebeenparticularlyvocalonthissubject.6AccordingtoMaxwelltheillus-trationsfoundinnineteenth-centuryethnologicalpublicationsarenotvalu-ableasprimarydata,becausetheyare“untrue”totherealityofIndianlifeatthetime.Photographsinparticularhavebeenaccusedofconcealingthediffi-cultiesinvolvedin,anderasingthetracesof,forcedacculturationandintegra-tionofNativeAmericansintomodernlife.Theyaretoocolonial,tooromantic,too idealized, in a word, too ideological to be considered as “good” primarysources.Ratherthanpursuingthislineofargument,however,Iwouldliketofocusonhowsuchphotographsreceivedaspecifictreatmentthattendedtoachieveaqualityclosetothatofthedrawings.Forexample,thefewplatesde-pictingmenandwomeninthereportarenotcaptionedas“portraits”andhavelittle to do with the numerous images of Native Americans available at thesame time throughout the western territories.7 On the contrary, the photo-graphsofsinglepeoplefoundinBoas’reportfocusontheactivityofthepersondepicted.Forinstance,Figure10.3showsamemberoftheHamatsasecretso-ciety dancing. In this case, as in other illustrations (e.g. a “Chief deliveringspeech at festival”), the title of the illustration is generic: “Dance of theHamatsa.” Although this illustration focuses on the activity rather than theperson, the rest of the legend still mentions the “grandmother” of the man

5 InthecaseofKwakiutlartorNorthwestCoastartingeneral,whatappearstobeanabstractdesignisinfactveryoftenastylizedrepresentationofnaturalisticelements.BillHolmsug-gests,followingBoas’ownanalysisoftheartofthisregion,that “practicallynoexamplesofNorthwesttwo-dimensionalartarerealisticintheordinarysense.Thedifferentdegreesofrealisminthisartseemtoresultnotfromavarietyofconceptsofrepresentationbutfromtheartist’spreference(moreorlessstrictlyboundbytradition)inhandlingthegivenspace.”(Holm1965:11)

6 Asillustrationsforhisreport,BoasusedphotographshecommissionedfromNorthwestCoastphotographerO.C.HastingsduringtheChicagoColumbianFairof1893.SeeMaxwell(2002).

7 ThefirstphotographstakenontheNorthwestCoastsincethelate1860swerecommercial,small-sizepicturesofIndianwarriors.These“portraits”or“cartes-de-visite,”astheywerecalledatthetime,fittedwellwiththewidervogueformass-producedcelebrityphotographsthatsweptthroughtheAmericancontinent.SeeThomas(1981).


appearinginthepicture.Yetthegeneralimpressionleftonthereaderisthatofageneralizingimageofthedancersfromthisparticularsecretsociety,andoftheir specific ornaments. It seems that most of the time Boas required thatphotographsberenderedasdrawings–thatis,selectively–inordertomain-tainthedistinctnessandclearnessoftheillustration.Veryoftendetailssuchasthebackgroundhavebeenerasedorblurred,thusmakingtheforegroundap-pearmoreclearly(Figure11.3).Incontrasttowhatotheranthropologistsweredoing,whoincludedsomeofhisownstudentssuchasAlfredKroeber,Boashad little interest in giving a general impression, even in the most “natural”picturesfoundinhisreport(Jacknis,2002:526).Hewasverymuchconcerned,onthecontrary,withthepeculiaritiesandthedetailsofeachceremonial,cos-tume,mask,cedarbarkheadring,orwiththegestureaccompanyingcertainactivitiessuchasfishing,cooking,andofcoursedancing,etc.Thisreinforcestheabundanceofviewsandimages,whichcanbeattimesoverwhelmingforthereader.

Figure11.3

Plate 28 of TheSocialOrganization is captioned “DanceoftheHamatsa.ThepeculiarheadandneckringofthedancewereobtainedfromtheTlingit,hisgrandmotherbeingoftheTongasstribe.Fromaphotograph.” The dancer poses on a stretch of grass, which only reinforces the artificial character of the image. In fact, this grass was that of the Chicago World Columbian Fair grounds of 1893, and the dancer was surrounded by other Kwakiutl. The “context” surrounding the dancer has been erased, and the focus is put on the gesture and the paraphernalia.

230 Joseph

Becauseofhisinterestinthedetails,gestures,andpositionsofeachpersonduringceremonialsormoredailyactivities,BoaspaidagooddealofattentiontotheexactorderinwhichtheKwakiutlwouldarrangethemselvesormovearound. To a certain extent, the plates made from photographs can be de-scribedasreal“illustrations”oftheattitudeoftheKwakiutlIndians.Boasregu-larlywrotetoHuntabouthisdesiretoreceivesuch“illustrations”ofcertainspecificactivities,whichwereonlyavailablethroughpartialtextualdescrip-tionorstories:

Ihavelookedoveragainthesubject-matterofyourcooking,andIfindthatinordertoprintthematerialsatisfactorily,weoughttohaveillustra-tionsshowingthewaythecookingisdone.(…)Ishouldlike,forinstance,tohaveaphotographofthemanandthewomansittingattheholeonwhichclamsarebeingsteamed,andphotographsshowingthemannerofcuttingfish.Itwouldalsobewelltohavephotographsforshowingthefishasitisbeingcut,becauseitisverydifficulttounderstandsomeofthedescriptionsofthecuttingwithoutillustration.8

Thisletter,writtenlongafterthepublicationofthe1897monograph,revealshowmuchBoasreliedonimagesandphotographstounderstandnativecul-tures.Moreimportantly,this lettershowsthatBoas’ interest intheKwakiutlIndiansbecamewideandvaried,andembracedallaspectsoftheirlife.Justashebelievedthatthebestwaytoobtainatruthfulandprecisetextwastore-ceive itdirectly fromanativespeaker– inhiscasehehadspentsometimeteaching George Hunt how to write and translate his own language –, Boasexpectedhisinformantstoprovidehimwithimages(sketchesorphotographs)madebythemselvesinsofarastheyhadmasteredtheskillsnecessaryfordo-ingso.9MaterialssecuredbythenativesthemselveswereatthefoundationofBoas’anthropology,andthefactthatheappliedtheseprinciplestopicturesaswellisinkeepingwiththismethodology.Theimagesofthecookingorcuttingmentionedaboveprovidemuchmorethanavisualequivalenttothetext:theyprovideakeytotheunderstandingofthisparticularactivity.

The use of illustrations in The Social Organization therefore debunks theusualfunction ofbothmedia:drawingsareoftensaidtobeaboutgeneraliza-tion,whereasphotographsaresaidtobemorespecific,todowiththeunique-

8 F. Boas to G. Hunt, November 22, 1907, American Philosophical Society (Franz BoasPapers,Correspondence).Unpublishedarchive.

9 BoasnotonlyinstructedHuntinthewritingofhisownlanguage,healsointroducedhimtotheuseofthecamera.SeeJacknis(1992).


nessofoneobject,scene,orperson.Infact,illustrationsmadefromphotographshavemuchincommonwithdrawings:theymustbeaspreciseanddetailedaspossible,whileprovidingarealisticdimensionthatdrawingscannotachieve.Ratherthanbeingcompetingmediaofrepresentation,drawingsandphoto-graphsservedifferentpurposes.Whilebothhavetomaintaindistinctnessandclarity,photographsaremoreconcernedwiththegeneralimpressionofanob-jectand(e.g.) thecontextualization(notnecessarilyhistoricalorgeographi-cal)ofaceremonialoranactivity.Drawings,ontheotherhand,havecertainqualitiesthatmakethempreferabletophotographsincertaincircumstances.Boas,forexample,preferreddrawingsbecausetheybelongedtoagraphictra-dition that included geological, archaeological, and cartographic drawing.10YetBoas,asobservedabove,wasnotadversetousingmoderntechniquestorecordthemanyactivitiesandtraditionsoftheIndiansoftheNorthwestCoast.Lateinhiscareer,inthe1930s,heeventookethnographicfootageofdances,gamesandcraft-making.ButBoasalways turnedtomodernmechanicalde-vices toservehishighergoal: toobserveculturalpracticesandrecord themwithasmuchobjectivityaspossible.Heachievedthisnotonlybyreflectingontheuseofphotographyvs.drawing,butbyusingtheimagesheproducedtorecordmoreinformationandvaluabledataonthetribeshewasstudying.To-getherwiththeimages,Boasfrequentlypublishedthisdatainwrittentexts.Suchtexts layat the foundationofhisapproachtoculture,anapproachdi-rectlylinkedtotheGermanromanticassociationbetweenlanguageandcul-ture advocated by the likes of Johann Gottfried Herder and Wilhelm vonHumboldt.TheinfluenceofthisphilologicaltraditionuponBoas–illustratedinthecountlessbooksofmythsandlegendspublishedbyhim–requiresthatwecloselyexaminetherelationshipbetweenimagesandtextintheKwakiutlmonographof1897.

Images and Their Text

AdetailedanalysisofThe Social Organizationrevealsthattextimagesorplatesneveroccurwithoutsomeformofcitationordescriptioninthetext.Boashadalwayspaidcloseattentiontothewritingandeditingofhisworkandthatofothers.Ensuringthatillustrationsmatchedtheorderofthetextwasparticu-larlycrucialtohim(Jacknis,2002:526).Inthe1897monograph,Boastookgreat

10 Atthetime,Americananthropologyembracedsubdisciplinessuchaslinguistics,archae-ology, physical anthropology, and archaeology. It is therefore not surprising that theirmethodsmayoverlap.

232 Joseph

carewiththelayoutoftheimages,whichwerenotonlyarticulatedbythetextthroughcitedreferences,butwereplacedwithintheargumentation.Ifwelookat themasksandtotempoles, forexample,wecansee that theyarealwayslinkedtoaspecifictextwithinthegeneraldiscussion,namelytoalegendortale.Thecorrespondinglegendtellsthestoryoftheacquisitionofthetotemicanimalsfeaturedonthepoleorportrayedinthemask,andofthenamesoftheclanwhoseartefactsarepresented,etc.Therelationshipbetweenthevariouskindsofdatacollectedbyandfortheanthropologist–artefacts,objectsofart,legends,songs–seemstobeaspecificfeatureoftheethnographicalmethodol-ogydevelopedbyBoas.

ManyoftheillustrationsofmasksinThe Social Organization weresourcedfromthecollectionsoftheEthnographicMuseumofBerlin,whereBoashadbeenworkingunderAdolfBastianin1886,atatimewhenhemadehisshiftfromphysics toethnology.Hewas then inchargeofcataloguingmaskscol-lectedinBritishColumbiabyCaptainAdrianJacobsen,whowasanexplorerandamateurcollector.BoasfoundthattherewasnoscientificgroundingtothecollectionmadebyJacobsen,becausethemaskshadnotbeengatheredwiththeaccompanyinglegends–theonlyway,accordingtoBoas,ofunderstandingtheirmeaning.Therefore,Boas’firsttriptoBritishColumbiawasdedicatedtorecording these legends, which he succeeded in doing by showing waterco-loursthathehimselfhadmadeoftheBerlincollectiontotheindigenouspop-ulation. His own fieldwork, and later that conducted in collaboration withGeorgeHunt,wasnotonlydevotedtothecollectingandphotographingofob-jects,butalsotothecollectionofnativewordsandstories,andtoobtainingthemeaningofartisticmaterialsfromthenativepeoplesthemselves.BoasreliedgreatlyonHunttoprovidehimwithwhateventhemostdedicatedethnogra-pher would only ever be able to comprehend partially: the native’s point ofview.InalettertoHunt,Boaswrites:

I sent you some time ago photographs of a number of large carvingswhichyouhavesentme,andwhichIcouldnotidentify.Youhaveneveransweredmyletterinregardtothem.Pleasereturnthesephotographstome,andsayontheirbackswhattheyare.YouknowthatIwishtohave,forallthelargecarvings,aprettyfullhistory.

Boas’wordsillustratethedemandsthatheoftenmadeofHunt,hereaccusinghimoffailingtoanswerhisquestionsadequately.ForBoas,thephotographsofcarvings and posts referred to in this letter required further commentary.Imagesalonewerenot sufficientbecause theanthropologistneededa storyto accompany them – a story which Hunt was to obtain by showing the


photographstotheindigenouspopulation.ButBoas’exactrequirementsarerelatively vague: “what they are,” and “a pretty full history”, he writes. ThusthesephotographsfunctionedasapretextforBoastoobtain,viaHunt,anysortofstoryfromtheKwakiutlIndians:theimagesweretoactasatriggerforthewordsandtoencouragetheKwakiutltospeakabouttheircultureingeneralterms.WhileBoaswasinterestedinobtainingthemeaningoftheworksofartmadebythenatives,ashismanyworksonprimitiveartundeniablysuggest,itseemsthathewasalsoconcernedwithrecordingtextsthathewouldbeabletostudy from a linguistic point of view. The stories told by the natives, onceturnedintoabodyoftexts, thenbecameavailable foranalysisandgavetheethnographerauniqueunderstandingofaculturefromthepointofviewofitsmembers.ThestoriesthatBoasaskedHunttoobtaincannotbeconsideredasonly providing information regarding the carvings or other artefacts. Theyweretextstobescrutinizedbythelinguist.AsMelvilleJacobnoted,Boas“wasnotinterestedinobtainingalargesample,muchlessthewholeofanorallit-erature.Hewasconcernedwithsupplyinglinguisticmaterialsthatweresuffi-ciently varied to document the study of the language. Boas’ first love waslinguisticanalysis.”(Jacob1959:119–20)

Thisparticularcombinationof imageandtextthatreflectedtherelation-shipbetweentheoraltraditionandthewrittentext,andwhichenabledlin-guisticanalysis,canbeseeninthefirstplateofThe Social Organization.Theplateshowsaheaddresscaptioned“Nisqa’headdressrepresentingthewhiteowl.”Ontheoppositepageisanexplanationregardingthedifferentmaterialsusedtomaketheheaddress,thecoloursofthevariouspartsandthesizeoftheobject.Inthetextsurroundingthetwopagesdedicatedtotheplate,Boasgivesthelegendandthesongassociatedwiththeheaddress(seeFigure11.4).Thepassagebeginswith:

TheG’ispawaduwe’da,thebearclanoftheNisqa’,useaheaddressrepre-sentingtheowl(Plate1),surroundedbymanysmallhumanheadscalledgyadEmLaqs(clawmen).Thisisworninpotlatches,andcommemoratesthefollowingtradition(…).(SO:324)

ThenBoasprovidesthelegend,musicsheetandlyricsofthesong.Onthenextpage,hecontinueshisdescriptionoftheclanswithoutanyfurthercommentsonthisparticulartraditionorheaddress.Inthiscase,theartefactandtheleg-end are only juxtaposed – Boas does not say how the former “explains” thelatter.Therefore,thelegendbecomesatextualelementwithaspecificpositionwithinthegeneralnarrativeofthemonograph;itonlymakessenseinrelationto the other elements of the monograph, namely the images representing

234 Joseph

specificartefacts,music,songs,etc.Thecombinationofthesedifferentkindsof“rawdata”isareflection,asitwere,ofthecultureoftheKwakiutlIndians.

Theanthropologicalimagethusbecomespartofawiderscientificprogram.Infact,itisnotusedasamereillustration butitisintricatelyembeddedwithinthegeneralnarrative.Itleadsthereaderbacktothetextandfunctionsinac-cordancewithaspecific legend.Therelationshipbetweenthemasksor thetotempoles,forinstance,andtheircorrespondinglegendsisreflectedinthelayoutofthebook,inwhichimagesandtexthavebeeninterspersedwithmuchcare (see Figure 11.4 and Figure 11.5).We could argue that the ethnographicdata the reader isconfrontedwith in thisbookreflects the intricacy of lan-guage, art, myths and ceremonials in the life of the Kwakiutl Indians. Moreimportantlyforus,theimages,whetherdrawingsorphotographs,participateinthegeneralprocessofcollectingdataintheformoflegendsandmyths.Asaresult,itisclearthatBoasintendedtheseimagestobeanintegralpartofthecontentanddesignofhismonographfromtheoutset.

Yet,thoughimageswereanintegralpartofthemonograph,thefundamen-tal ideathat languagewasat thecoreofculturesensuredthat textand lan-guageremainedtheprimaryfocusforBoas.Thiswassomewhatincontradictionwithothers,suchasEdwardS.Curtis,whowereworkinginthesameregionof

Figure11.4 a) On the left is the explanation of Plate 1 of TheSocialOrganization, with the corresponding image of the headdress representing the white owl on the right. These facing pages are inserted between p. 324 and 325 of the report; b) This page (325 of the report) displays a combination of text and music, i.e., the song belonging to the owl’s legend.

a b


theworldat this time.Between1907and1930,Curtis,whohadnoscientificbackgroundbutwasaprofessionalphotographer,undertookavastandency-clopaedicpublicationofnolessthantwentyvolumesentitledThe North Amer-ican Indian, published between 1898 and 1930. Curtis was engaged in a vastprogram aimed at bringing back the most “authentic” images of the NativeAmericancultures,ratherthantexts.Hethereforespentagooddealoftimere-creatingscenesofIndianlife,staginghissitters,anddressingtheminan-cientclothing(Thomas,1981:79).CurtisworkedaccordingtotheVictoriantra-ditionandtastefortheaccumulationofknowledge,embodiedinthevolumeofhis(visual)project.FranzBoas,asastrongempiricist,alsobelievedincol-lectinganextensivecorpusofethnographicdata fromnativetextstoactualartefactsandimages.Hewasnotunfamiliarwiththequestforthemost“au-thentic”tracesofprimitivecultures,butheviewedCurtis’workaslargelynon-scientific.GeorgeHunt,whohadbeenworkingforCurtisaswell,sharedBoas’criticism of him and was also heavily critical of his approach, namely his

Figure11.5 An example of the combination of ethnographic data. Here are two pages (516 and 517) where no less than four drawings, representing two masks, a rattle, a blanket and a head ring, are reproduced within the text.

236 Joseph

over-aestheticizationandromanticizationoftheKwakiutlculture.HuntoncewrotetoBoasconcerningapictureofhiswifedressedasthoughforamarriage,whichhadbeentakenbyCurtis:“HeDontknowwhatallthemeaningandthestoryofit.ForonthatPictureyoucantseethefourcarvedPostunderit.”11Cur-tistriedtokeepastrongconceptualcontroloverhisphotographs.Inadditionto a dramatic imagination, this produced an aesthetic rather than scientificapproachto Indiancultures. IncontrastBoaswasmoreconcernedwiththescientificvalidityofthematerialrepresentedintheillustrationsthanwithcre-atinganextensivevisualsurveyof the “vanishing”culturesof theAmericanWest.Inthisrespect,Boasitseemscaredaboutthemodernmediumofpho-tographyonlyinsofarasitcouldcontributetohisscientificwork.Acompari-sonofCurtis’pictureofaKwakiutlhouse(Figure11.7)andPlate16ofThe Social Organization (Figure11.6), whichbothshowtwohousepostsandthebeamsofanativehouse,revealsstrikingdifferencesbetweenCurtisandBoasintermsoftheirvisualrepresentationandunderstandingofthesameculture,althoughthesephotographswerenottakenatthesametime.

11 G.HunttoF.Boas,May4,1920,citedinJacknis(1992)145.AsJacknisnoted,“notonlydidCurtisnotphotographthemostimportantelementsaccordingtoaKwakiutlviewpoint,but,unlikeBoas,hewasinterestedprincipallyinvisualeffect(…).”(Ibid.)

Figure11.6 Plate 16of TheSocialOrganization represents housepostsin the shape of animals holding coppers. The background of the village has been blurred, thus focusing the attention of the reader on the posts themselves rather than on their environment or any other irrelevant element that could be seen on the picture.


Theneutralblack-and-whiteimageinBoas’textstandsinclearoppositiontothesepiatonesofCurtis’spicturewhichimmediatelysuggestasenseofnos-talgiabaseduponthepopularideologyoftheVanishingIndian.TheimageofIndianculturesas“fading”wasinitselfnotanewideainAmericaatthebegin-ningofthetwentiethcentury.Indiancultureswereindisarrayandmanypeo-pleshadalmostdisappeared.Curtis’mission,asheunderstoodit,wastodepict“all featuresofIndianlifeandenvironment,typesoftheyoungandtheold,withtheirhabitations,industries,ceremonies,gamesandeverydaycustoms”(Curtis,1907:xiii).Withhisgiganticwork,consistingoftwentyvolumes,CurtiswishedtocollectthetracesleftbythedisappearanceoftheAmericanIndianandtobuildanAmericanmonumentnotonly tohimbutalsotoAmerica’spast (Arrivé, 2007). Boas, as an immigrant with no particular emotional orcultural links to American history, was probably less likely to view NativeAmericanculturesasCurtisdid,althoughhedidmanifesthisconcernforthe

Figure11.7 Edward S. Curtis’ Kwakiutlhouse-framewas published in vol. V of TheNorthAmericanIndian, 1915. Although the title suggests that the image focuses on the architecture of the typical Kwakiutl house, the “romantic” subjectivity of the photographer is evident in the dramatic framing of the photograph in which the posts of the house have been used to draw the viewer’s attention to the back-ground images, rather than to the house-frame in the foreground.

238 Joseph

preservationofIndiancultures.ThepicturefromBoas’workinsteadfocusesonthedetailsoftheconstruction,thearchitectureofthehouseandthecarvedpostsholdingthesupportingbeam.Asinmanyothercases,thebackgroundhasbeenblurred,ratherroughly,inordertofocustheattentionofthevieweron the foreground and, perhaps, to eliminate any trace of the most recenttransformationinthenativewayoflife.Inanycase,thefocusisputonthear-chitectural detail and function of the two houseposts supporting the largebeamabovethem.Despiteitstitle,Kwakiutl House-frame,Curtis’simageislesscentredontheconcretedepictionofthearchitecturethanonthelandscapethatsurroundsitor,tobemoreprecise,thatopens-upinfrontof it.There-mainingpolesaredirectedtowardtheseaandthecarvedanimal,onthelefthand-side,turnsitsbacktotheviewer,facinganever-lastingsunsetonade-sertedvillage.Thepositionofthisstatue,withitsactivegazeinthedistance,makesitalivewithnostalgiaand,perhaps,sadness.Curtisundoubtedlywant-edthesefeelingstobetransferredfromthestatuetotheviewer.Theframeofthephotographitselfenclosestheinternalframecreatedbythebeamsatthecentreofthephotograph,whichdrawsourperspectivetowardsthehorizon,suggesting a sense of loss as well as of “infinite patience and acceptance.”(Thomas,1981:79).SuchadramaticstagingiscompletelyabsentinBoas’pic-ture,wheretheabsenceofabackgrounddecontextualizestheimageandpre-ventsanycommentonthepassageoftime.Inthiscase,thevieweriscastintheroleofadistantobserver,lefttoexaminethetotempolesandtheircarvingsfromadispassionateviewpoint.Insum,whilstBoaswasfarfromindifferenttothepurposeof“salvageethnography,”hetriednottoprovidehisreaderwithimagesthatcouldonlyreinforcearomanticvisionoftheIndiansorpromptameditationondisappearingcultures.

Bibliography

Arrivé,M.,“CommunicationinSilence?RelationalIntersticesinEdwardS.Curtis’sPortraitPhotographs”(The North American Indian,1907–1930),inCulture, Language and Representation4(2007),pp.9–32.

Boas,F.,“TheSocialOrganizationandtheSecretSocietiesoftheKwakiutlIndians,”inReport ofthe U.S.National Museumfor 1895(1897),pp.311–738.

Cole,D.,“‘TheValueofaPersonLiesinHisHerzensbildung’:FranzBoas’BaffinIslandLetter-Diary,1883–1884,”inObservers Observed. Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork,ed.G.W.Stocking,Jr.(Madison,1983),pp.13–52.

Curtis,E.,The North American Indian,volumeI(NewYork,1907).Holm,B.,Northwest Coast Indian Art. An Analysis of Form(Seattle,1965).


Jacknis,I.,“FranzBoasandPhotography,”in Studies in Visual Communication10–1(1984),pp.2–60.

––––––, “George Hunt, Kwakiutl Photographer,” in Anthropology and Photography, 1860–1920,ed.E.Edwards(NewHaven,1992),pp.143–51.

––––––,“TheFirstBoasian:AlfredKroeberandFranzBoas,1896–1905,”inAmerican Anthropologist104–2(2002),pp.520–32.

Jacobs,Melville,“Folklore,”inThe Anthropology of Franz Boas. Essays on the Centennial of His Birth,ed.W.Goldschmidt,AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Memoir89(1959),pp.119–38.

Lehni,C.,“Del’explorationaurécitgrandpublic.Usagesdel’imagedansCanyons of the ColoradoparJohnWesleyPowell,”inEtudes photographiques18(2006),pp.72–95.

Maxwell,A.,“Montrerl’Autre:FranzBoasetlessœursGerhard,”inZoos humains,ed.N.Banceletal.(Paris,2002),pp.331–39.

Oppitz,M.,“DrawingorPhotograph.QuestionsonEthnographicIllustration,”inRobert Powell’s Himalayan Drawings,ed.M.Oppitz(Zurich,2001),pp.91–123.

Peterson,Nicolas,“VisualKnowledge:SpencerandGillen’sUseofPhotographyinThe Native Tribes of Central Australia,” in Australian Aboriginal Studies 1 (2006), pp.12–22.

Prins,H.,“VisualAnthropology,”inA Companion to the Anthropology of the American Indians,ed.T.Biolsi(Oxford,2004),pp.506–25.

Sandweiss,M.,Print the Legend. Photography and the American West(Yale,2002).Thomas,A.,“PhotographyoftheIndian:ConceptandPracticeontheNorthwestCoast,”

inBC Studies52(1981),pp.61–85.

240 LambeensAndPint

Chapter12

The Interaction of Image and Text In Modern Comics

Tom Lambeens and Kris PintLambeens and Pint

Introduction

The combination of image and text is undoubtedly one of the most typicalfeaturesofthecomicstripgenre.Thiscombinationinitselfis,ofcourse,farfromnew.SequentialimageswerealreadycombinedwithtextualelementsinEgyptianhieroglyphsormedievalmanuscriptsandpaintings.1Thecomicstripas such evolved in the first half of the nineteenth century, with artists likeRodolpheTopffer(influencedbyWilliamHogarth),WilhelmBuschandPehrNordquist,allofwhomcreatedstoriesthatwereeasytoreproduceandcom-binedwordsandimages,albeitstillstrictlyseparatedfromeachother.InspiredbytheAmericannewspapercomicsoftheearlytwentiethcentury,likeFrede-rikBurrOpper’sHappy Hooligan (1900)andAlphonse and Gaston (1901), theEuropeancomicstripstartedtointegratespeechballoonsintotheimageitself,withHergé’sLes Aventures de Tintin asitsmostprominentandbest-knownex-ponent.2InitiallyconceivedfortheyouthsupplementofaBelgiannewspaper,Tintin provedsosuccessfulthathisadventuresweresoonpublishedinbookformaswell.Theemergenceofrealcomicbooksmeantanimportantevolu-tionofcomics,amoveawayfromtherathertransitorymediumofthenewspa-per.Yetforalongtime,comicbooksweremostlyseenaschildren’sentertain-ment.Intheseventies,thisviewbegantochangewiththeemergenceoftheso-called“graphicnovel,”whichfeaturedmorematurecontentand,attimes,amoreexperimentalstyleofdrawingaswell.Asuccessful, recentexampleofthisemancipationofthecomicbookgenreisLogicomix (2008),byApostolosDoxiadis, Christos Papadimitriou, and Alecos Papadatos. The book is con-ceivedasacomplexaccountofboththetheoriesandthelivesofthefoundersofmodernmathematicsandlogics,likeBertrandRussellandLudwigWittgen-stein–afarcryfromthelight-footednewspapergagswhichgave“comics”theirname.

1 SeeLefèvre(2006)andDierickandLefèvre(1998)13–22.2 Foracomprehensivediscussionofthe“history”ofthespeechballoon,seeLefèvre(2006).

© TomLambeensandKrisPint,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_014This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



241TheInteractionOfImageAndTextInModernComics

Thelargenumberofrecentfilmsbasedoncomicbooks,likeDavidCronen-berg’sA History of Violence(2005),FrankMiller’sandRobertRodriguez’Sin City (2005),ZackSnyder’s300(2006,alsobasedonagraphicnovelseriesbyFrankMiller)andmorerecently,StevenSpielberg’sThe Adventures of Tintin (2011),seemstorevealthecloseaffinitybetweenbothmedia.Theycanbothbecate-gorisedasvisualnarrativesandoftenusesimilartechniques(montage,pointofview,splitscreen).ButasHans-ChristianChristiansenarguesinhis“Comicsand Film: A Narrative Perspective” (2000), this mutual influence should notcauseustoforgettheimportantaestheticdifferencesbetweenbothmedia.3One of the distinctive features of mainstream comics seems to be preciselythatco-presenceofwrittentextandimage,orasRobertC.Harveyputsitinhis“ComedyattheJunctureofWordandImage”(2007):“theessentialcharacteris-tic of ‘comics’ – the thing that distinguishes it from other kinds of pictorialnarratives–istheincorporationoftheverbalcontent.”4

Preciselybecauseofthischaracteristiccombinationoftextandimage,thereadersofcomicsarecaughtbetweentheactofperceivingandtheactofread-ing.Notonlythemediumitself,butalsotherelativelynewtheoreticalresearchonthegenrecontinuestostrugglewiththisdualitybetweentextandimage.5Thisofteninhibitsanexplorationofthefullpotentialoftheinteractionbe-tweentextandimagesocrucialtothegenre.Inthispaper,weintroducean-otherduality,onebetweencodeandsensation.Wearguethatexploringtheinteractionbetweenbothaxes(theaxisofword/imageandthatofcode/sensa-tion) provides interesting perspectives for both the analysis and creation ofcomics.WewillillustratethisbyexaminingtheworksoftwoofthefoundingfathersofEuropeancomics,HergéandFranquin,andthoseofsomecontem-porary,Westernavant-gardeartistslikeJochenGerner,DominiqueGoblet,BertVanderMeij,andChrisWare,andbydiscussingFront Back,anexperimentalcomicbookbyTomLambeens,co-authorofthispaper.

Word versus Image

Wewill startwithadiscussionof the firstaxis,word-image. Inhis standardworkThe System of Comics (1999,translatedin2007),ThierryGroensteendis-tinguishesbetweentheimagezone,whichcreatesanillusionofthree-dimen-

3 Christiansen(2000)107–23.4 Harvey(2007)75.5 SeeespeciallyGroensteen(1997,2007and2008),LefèvreandBaetens(1993),McCloud(1993)

andPeeters(1991).

242 LambeensAndPint

sionality, and the text zone, which remains faithful to the “bi-dimensionalmaterialityofthewritingsurface.”6

Suchanapproach,whichclearly separatesword fromimage,canbeveryfruitfulfortheanalysisoftheworksofsomeonelikeHergé.InLes Aventures de Tintin weseehowneatlyhesplitsthenarrationintodifferentpanelsandhow,withineachpanel,heseparatesthevisualandtheverbalelements.Thevisualelementsarepredominantlylocatedinthelowerhalfofthepanel.Theback-groundoftheimageisoftenfilledwithdetails,whilethefiguresinthefore-groundlackdetailing.Thewordsarerestrictedtothecaptionsandthespeechballoons,whicharealmostinvariablyplacedattheupperhalfofthepanel.Thesameneutraltypographyisusedtorenderthewordsoffriendsandfoes,youngandold,maleandfemale.Thisindicatesthatthetextisonlytheretoberead,likeonewouldreadwordsinanovel.Nonetheless,itisinterestingtonotethatthetext,withitstypographic“stir”ofcurvesandstraightlines,visuallycorre-sponds with the busy detailing in the background of the images, while theamplespacingofthewordsinthecaptionsandspeechballoonscorrespondswiththe“airy”figurationofthecharacters(Figure12.1).Yetdespitethiscareful,nuancedharmonybetweentextandimage,bothzonesremainstrictlysepa-ratedfromeachother.

Intheworksofanotherimportantmasterofthegenre,Franquin,theop-positionbetweenthezonesbecomesfarlessself-evident.InFranquin’stypical“busy”styleofdrawingweseemoreverbalelementsappearingintheimagezone.IfwelookatcomicstripslikehisGaston Lagaffe seriesaboutalazyyetinventiveofficeclerk,wecanseethatwordcloudsareplaced inamoredy-namic,fancifulwaythaninHergé’sworksandthatgrotesqueonomatopoeticforms (indicating e.g. shouting, explosions and other noises) play an activepartintheoverallfigurativecompositionofthepanel.7

Insomecontemporaryavant-gardecomicbooks,createdbyartistslikee.g.Dominique Goblet and Bert Van der Meij, the merging of the two zones ispushedtoitslimits,byintegratingintothevisualcompositionnotonlyono-matopoeticforms,but“normal”wordsaswell.Figure12.2illustratesthisradi-cal blending in Goblet’s Faire Semblant C’est Mentir (2007) [Faking is Lyingtoo].We see how Goblet rejects the uniform rendering of words in a singlefont.Thetextalsoescapesthetyrannyofthespeechballoonandsometimesevenpushesthevisualrepresentationtothebackgroundofthepanel.Incon-trastwiththeneutralfontsusedbyartistslikeHergé,thetypographyGobletandVanderMeijuseisfrequentlyadaptedtothespecificcontextoftheimage.

6 Groensteen(2007)69–70.7 Franquin(2009)39.


ItisherethattheanalyticalframeworkofGroensteenrevealsitslimits.ItcannotcompletelygraspthespecificinteractionbetweentheverbalandvisualelementsinFranquin,GobletandVanderMeij,preciselybecauseofitsoverlyexclusivefocusontheoppositionbetweenwordandimage.Whenwewanttounderstandhowtextualelementsstarttofunctionvisuallyandanimagestartstofunctionasatext,weshouldtaketwoothernotionsintoconsideration:sen-sationandcode.

Sensation Versus Code

The notion “code” has the advantage of transcending the classic duality be-tweenwordandimage.Wordsarejustone(linguistic)formofcode.Whenwereadcomicstrips,wemustalsodecodetheimages:weusenarrativeandcul-turalcodestomakesenseofthedepictedactionsandscenes,butalsovisualcodestorecognizethedifferentcharactersandlocations.Justlikeothercodes,avisualcodeworksbyconventionsand(internal)analogies,anoperationthatbansthedifferenceandrepeatsandstressesthegeneral,thesimilar.Thecodedimagecanrefertoanothersetofimages.AdrawingofGarfieldprimarilyreferstoother,similardrawingsofthiscartoonfigure,allowingustorecognizeitasthesamecharacterindifferentcartoons,butcanalsorefertoareferentinreal-ity:thedrawncathassomegeneralfeaturesincommonwitharealcat.InhisUnderstanding Comics. The Invisible Art (1993),ScottMcCloudpointsoutthatthis“codification”oftheimageisgradual,goingfromaphotorealistic,detailedrenderingtoanarchetypeand,in extremis,toanabstractsign.8Yeteventhat

8 McCloud(1993)52–53.

Figure12.1 Hergé, DeZonnetempel (Doornik: Casterman, 1977), p. 17. ©Hergé/Moulinsart,2012

244 LambeensAndPint

sortofviewontherelationbetweentextand imageasagradual transition,ratherthanastrictopposition(aswithGroensteen),stillignoreswhatitisinthiscodificationthatresiststhecodeorevendisruptsit:visualsensation.Itisstriking that the medium of comics, which belongs to the plastic arts, is soseldomanalysedfromavisualperspective.PascalLefèvrealreadypointedoutthisimportantomissioninthetheoreticalreflectiononthemediuminhis“Re-coveringSensualityinComicTheory”(1999).9Byaddingtheterm“sensation”tothetoolboxofcomicstriptheory,wewanttoprovideaninstrumenttoex-aminethisneglectedvisual,plasticcomponentofthegenre.

Unlike“decoding,”whichreferstoamentalactivity,anactofreadingthatabstractsfromtheactualperceptionofthecodeorthematerialityoftheme-dium,“sensing”isfarmorephysical:asensationaffectsthebody,makingoneawareofthephysicalactofexperiencingsomething.Everysensationisunique,as it isrelatedtoaspecificbodyatthisspecifictime-space,andthusdiffersfromanyothersensation.Thisdifferenceobscurestheconstructionofacode

9 Lefèvre(1999)141.

Figure12.2 Goblet, D., FaireSemblantC’estMentir (Paris: L’Association, 2007), p. 21. ©DominqueGoblet&L’Association,2007


thatrepressesthedissimilar.InhisFrancis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation (1981,translatedin2003),Deleuze’sinterpretationofsensationgoesfurtherthanthe“sensualreading”Lefèvreadvocates.Ratherthanmerelyanaesthetic,bodilyexperience,sensationarisesinaconfrontationwithforcesthatundoournor-maloutlookandpresenttheperceivingbodywithunknownaffectsthatcan-notbereducedtofamiliar(hence“coded”)emotionaloraestheticschemata.Deleuzeusesthenotionofsensationtoanalysemodernartasawayofexplor-ing“percepts”and“affects”thatnolongermimeticallyrefertoanexternalreal-ityoraninternalpsychologicalstate.Evenifmodernartpossessesreferential-ity–e.g. interpretedalong the linesofamimeticcode, theblackstrokes inWheatfield with Crows (1890),oneofVincentVanGogh’sfinalpaintings,refertothe birds we all know, just as, within the framework of a psychological/bio-graphicalcodeofinterpretation,theseevocativestrokescanbe“decoded”astheexpressionofVanGogh’smentaldiscomfort–itsimultaneouslypresentsthedifferencetoo.10Inmodernpainting,artistsrevealthisdifferencebynothidingbrush-strokesorclotsofpaint,butactuallyaccentuatingtheirmaterial-ity.Attherepresentationallevel,theytrytodeformwhatisdepicted,toover-loaditwithdetailortosupplementitwithaspecificvisualrhythm,sowecanonlyperceiveitasasensation,andnotreaditasacode.Wecanseethise.g.intheworkofCézanne,whoexaggeratescoloursand forms,or in theworkofBacon,whodepictsthehumanbodyalmostbeyondrecognition,and,insodo-ing,stirsastrongresponseinhisspectators.11

TheDeleuzianinterpretationofthenotionof“sensation”canbelinkedtothethatof“defamiliarisation”orostranenie,discussedbyVictorShklovskyinhis“ArtasTechnique”(1917).Throughrepeateddealingswiththesameobjectsor situations, our sensual perception becomes infected by a hidden coding,causingustoignoreallthedifferentexperiencestheyevoke.ForShklovsky,arttries todisrupt thiscodificationof theexperiencebysearching for formula-tionsthatallowustoseefamiliarthingsandsituationsasiftheywereexperi-encedfortheveryfirsttime:“Andartexiststhatonemayrecoverthesensationoflife;itexiststomakeonefeelthings,tomakethestonestony.Thepurposeofartistoimpartthesensationofthingsastheyareperceivedandnotastheyareknown.”12Shklovksy’sremarkmakesclearthatitwouldbeincorrecttosimplyequate theaxisofcode/sensationwith theaxisof realism/non-realism.ThepointShklovksymakesispreciselythatanon-realisticartisticrepresentationofastonecaninfactbeamorerealevocationofastonethananeasilyrecog-

10 Deleuze(2003)61–69,80.11 Ibid.,25–31,79.12 Shklovsky(1965)12.

246 LambeensAndPint

nizablephotographordrawing.Likewise,thesplashesofpaintonanon-figu-rativepaintingcanbeseenasmore“real”thanany“normal”representation,whichimpliesillusion.Andthereisalsonoreasonwhyaseemingly“realistic”paintingcouldnotevokesensationbyshowing, intherepresentationofthefamiliar, the “coded” reality, the non-evident, the unknown, the unreality ofactual sensualexperience.Wecaneasily recognize themimeticcodeof thecrowsandtheruralsettinginvanGogh’sWheatfield,yetthroughtheiractualmaterialityandpositiononthecanvasemergesasensationthatgoesbeyondtherealisticrepresentationofatypicalrurallandscape.

Obviously, such sensations that escape from the code are much easier tocreateinpaintings,wherethenarrativeandreferentialaspectscanbereducedtoaminimum.Inacomicstrip,thesepossibilitiesquicklycometoadeadend,becausethesequenceofimagesinevitablyinstallsnarrativesequentiality,rep-etitionandhencecode.Mostcomicstripsusecharacters,andwecanonlyrec-ognizeacharacterifitreappearsinafairlyrecognizable–hencecoded–waythroughoutthedifferentpanels.Thegenreofthecomicstrip,therefore,can-notdowithoutcode.Puresensationwithoutanycodeis,indeed,simplyim-possible.

Incontemporaryavant-gardecomics,wecandistinguishtwodifferentreac-tionstothisinteractionbetweencodeandsensation.Someartiststrytoavoidthisdualityaltogetherbyextendingtheanti-sensualrealmofthetexttotheimagesthemselvesandstrivingforanevermorepurifiedcode,withaslittle“sensual” surplus as possible. Due to the semiotic and narratological back-groundofcomicstriptheory,whichemergedfromliteratureandfilmstudies,itisnotsurprisingthatnearexclusiveattentionhasbeengiventosuchartists,likeHergéandmorerecentlyChrisWare,whose“coded”workseffectivelyil-lustratethetheoreticalschemes.

Ifwearetogiveaquickoverviewofthedevelopmentinwhatwecouldcallthe“schoolofrepetition,”weshould,again,takeLes Aventures de Tintinasastartingpoint.WehavealreadydiscussedtheabsenceofdetailinHergé’sfore-groundfigures,whichmakesthemakintothepictogramsofArntzandNeu-rath.WiththeirIsotype(InternationalSystemofTypographicPictureEduca-tion),theyhavetriedtodevelopauniversallanguageofpictogramsinwhichtheimagecompletelycoincideswithasemanticconcept,aswecanseeinFig-ure12.3,Arntz’simageofaboat.IfwecomparethisimagewithHergé’srender-ingofaboatine.g.Le Temple du Soleil (1949)(Figure12.4),weseethesamekindofreductionismthatpreservesonlythevolumeandthecontourlinesoftheship.

InspiredbyHergé’s famous ligne claire-styleandthepictogramsofArntz,JochenGerner’sTNT en Amérique(2002)bringsthis“codification”ofimagesto


aclimaxthatflirtswithabstraction.Inthiswork–anadaptationofthefamousTintin en Amérique –Gernercoversentirepanelswithblackpaint,sparingonlythemostnecessarywordsandimages.ThefewimagesthatescapetheblackpigmentarereducedtopictogramswhichcreateplayfulvariationsonArntz’sfamousset.Thisironicoperationbreaksupboththecodeoftheclassicalcom-icstripandthepictogram,butonlytoreplaceitwithathird,idiosyncraticcode–astrangepictorialuniversethatisGerner’sowncreation(Figure12.5).

Inamoreaccessible,“mimetic”stylethanGerner,ChrisWare,too,searchesfortheultimate limitsofcodificationbytakingfulladvantageof theformalpossibilitiesofthemedium.AgoodexampleofthisisWare’sJimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth (2000).Waretriestoconstructaclearoverallstruc-tureforhisstorybyusingthesamesetofcoloursthataresymbolicallyinter-related, and by copying identical curves and sometimes even whole panelsthroughoutthestrip,aswecanseeinWare’sJimmyCorrigan,p.117.JustlikeHergé,hestrivesforvisualpurity,anddigitallygeneratedcolouringoffershimthe ideal alternative to the unavoidable imperfections of manual colouring,whichwouldrevealthematerialityoftheimage.Wareaimstorenderaflowerinamannersoconventionaland“neutral”thatthereaderscanprojecttheir

Figure12.3 Arntz, G., Pictogramofaboat (1930). Accessible at http://www.gerdarntz.org/isotype

Figure12.4 Hergé, DeZonnetempel (Doornik: Casterman, 1977), p. 6. ©Hergé/Moulinsart,2012

http://www.gerdarntz.org/isotype

http://www.gerdarntz.org/isotype

248 LambeensAndPint

ownsubjectiveflowertofillintheimage.13Yetthosecodedimagescouldneverhaveastrongemotionaleffect,preciselybecausetheylacksurpriseandthussensation.Theimageissupplementedbythepersonalmemoryofthereader(tothepictogram-likeflowerheorsheaddstheknowledgeofhowrealflowerslookandsmell),butthismemoryonlyactivateswhatisalreadyknown,alreadyexperienced.The“sensual”poweroftheimageemergesonlywhentheexpec-tation,i.e.theimaginationofthereader,issurpassedandunsettledandato-tally new experience is provoked. Therefore, we believe that the evocative,“sensational”powerofWare’sJimmy Corrigan istobefoundonanotherlevel.Preciselybyevacuatingeveryvisualsensationfromthework itself,byusing

13 SeePeetersandSamson(2010)133-35.

Figure12.5 Gerner, J., TNTenAmérique (Paris: L’ampoule, 2002), p. 41. ©L’ampoule,2002


thesamecodifiedformsoverandoveragainandbyusingpure,computer-gen-eratedareasofcolour,thepanelsofJimmy Corriganevokeasensationofde-spair,sadnessandclaustrophobia.Thissensationcannotbevisuallylocatedinthe panels themselves, but instead resides in the reader’s bodily resistanceagainstthiscodification,againstthisclosed,neuroticuniversethatdoesnotprovideameansofescape.

When we move away from the shadowless and dematerialised, “clean”worlds ofWare and Hergé and instead look for artists who no longer try totamethesensualforceoftheimage,wearebroughtbacktoFranquinasakeyfigure.HispainstakinglydetailedfiguresoftheGaston Lagaffe orSpirou-seriesaredrawnwithawhimsicallinethatvariesinsize.This“rhizomatic”styleofdrawing,sotypicalforFranquin,istheexactoppositeofHergé’sabsoluteandneatligne claire.Contrarytothestaticnatureofapanelinacomicbook,Fran-quin’sdynamiclineevokesacertainvitalisticagilityandrevealsthematerialityofthedrawing,namelyinkonpaper,somethingthatis“repressed”inHergé’sperfectline.Obviously,Franquinalsoneedscodification,andGastonLagaffe,justlikeTintin,isacharacterthatwecanimmediatelyrecognizebecauseofthecodedrepetitionofcertainfeatures(hisgiganticnose,greenpulloverandtypical,stoopedgait).Yetbycramminghispanelsfullofdetails,Franquinalsodisruptsthiscode.Forinstance,hewillneverdepictGastoninprofile:histra-jectoryneverrunsparallelwiththatoftheimageplane.Thisfrictioncreatesasenseofdepthandaccentuatestheliveliness.WhenGastonwalks,ratherun-realistically,youalwaysseethetopsand/orsolesofhisshabbyslippers.14

Thesedetails functionasvisual“barbs”thatturnthereaderintoaviewerwhoisarrestedbythethingsheorsheseesonthepanel.JustlikeHergé,Fran-quin’simagesaremimetic,butunlikeHergé’s,theyneverbelongtoauniverseofalmostarchetypical,unchanging figuresandobjects.Theyaresimultane-ouslyutterlyunrealisticandperfectlyrecognizable.Franquinoverloadsthemwithdetailsandnevertriestomasktheimperfectionsofhisdrawings,northeimperfectionsinthestory-worldheevokes:hisdepictedobjectsaresuscepti-bletodecayandfullofflaws.Thismakeshiscomicstripslooklesscoded,be-cause the code is always overtaken by the chaotic fluidity that marks theuniverseofGaston&co.Wecaneasilyillustratethisdifferencewhenwecom-paree.g.aboatfromHergéwithamore“swinging”examplebyFranquin.Fran-quin’s boat can initially be drawn “tighter” than Hergé’s, but when, in anensuingpanel,itcollideswitharock,itappearstobeasliquidasthesurround-ingwateritself(Figure12.6).WithFranquinthingsareneverfixedintoasingle,clearlydefinedessence:dependingoneachsituation,theyacquireotherattri-butesandrevealanothertransformationwhichneversolidifiesintoacode.

14 Franquin(2009)39.

250 LambeensAndPint

This constant flow of sensations can be achieved not only by constantlychangingtheformandthemovementofthefiguresandobjects,highlightingthedifferencebetweeneachappearanceoftheseelements,butalsobyaccu-mulatingcodes,overloadingcodeswithothercodes,hoppingfromonecodetoanotherinanever-endingmotion.InlinewithFranquin,anartistlikeBlutchhasdevelopedothertechniquestofightcodification.Heusesdifferentcodes,likeFranquinusesdifferentstrokesandlinesizes,todefyaclear-cutcodifica-tionofhischaracters.Blutchdoesthisbycombiningdifferentstylesofdrawinginonestripandbyswitchingbetweenvisualclichésandculturalconventions.Hecombinesatypicalposefromfashionphotographywithafilmstillandacontrappostofromtheclassicalarts,orjoinsvisualfeaturestocreateananimalthatcan,atatime,beacat,ahorseandadog,andthuscanneverbereducedtoasinglereferent.15InLe petit Christian (1999–2008),themaincharactercon-stantlytakesdifferentshapes,rangingfromrealisticallydrawnmovieheroeslikeJohnWayne,BruceLee,andMarlonBrandotoothercomicstripcharacterslikeLuckyLukeandTintin.16Bycombiningamultitudeofcodesinthesamepanel,hecreatesansenseof“overkill”thatdisruptsaclearreferencetorealityandthatfavoursthesensationoftheimagesthemselves.

15 Blutch(2002)11.16 Blutch(1999)27.

Figure12.6 Franquin, Zwartkijken (Doornik: Glad ijs/Casterman, 2008), p. 56. ©Castermans.a.


Notjusttheimages,butalsothelinguisticcodeofwordscanbemade“sen-sual.”AgainwehavetomentionFranquin,whousedtoautographhisGastonLagaffegags.Thissignaturecombinestextwithimageinauniqueconjunction:lettersgetluredawayfromtheirsymbolicalreferentialityandbecomeactivecharactersinakindofmicro-gag.17Thesamekindof“sensual”typography,inwhichthevisual,activeaspectbecomesasimportantorsometimesevenmoreimportantthanthemeaningofthewords,canbefoundintheworksofVanderMeijandGoblet.AswecanseeintheopeningpanelofDe Winnaar,VanderMeijadapts the typographyofhiswords to theonomatopoetic forms.18Thelarge,boldlettersevoketheloudroaringofthemotor,whilethemoresubtlesoundofloosescrewsispresentedinasmallerfont.Whatwegethereisakindof synaesthesia, where auditive impressions can be experienced visually. Ofcourse,thissynaestheticsensationquicklyturnsintoacode:thedominanceofthewordsinthepanelsindicates“loudness,”thesizeofthewordsindicatestheincreasingvolume,andtheirrepetitionoverdifferentpanelsthroughoutthestripinevitablycodesthevisualimpactofthetypography.

AnothergoodexamplecanbefoundinGobletsFaire Semblant C’est Mentir.Figure 12.2 is a panel in which main character Dominique has an argumentwithheralcoholicfather,whoisirritatedbyher“academiclanguage,”specifi-cally thewaysheuses the formalphrase“cela dit” [notwithstanding].WhenDominiquepronouncestheword,thetypographyisconventionalandneutral.Butwhenherfatherrepeatsthiswordfivetimes,itisvisuallysupplementedwithcurlsandfringes,andbecomesmoreerraticwitheveryiteration.Thisinturnactivatesanactofdecoding:thefrillsthatweseearethevisualmanifesta-tionoftheaccusationthathisdaughteris“puttingonfrills,”andthesizeofthefontsreflectstheincreasingvolumeofhisvoiceandtheviolentemotionalim-pactonhisdaughter.Butatthesametimethepanelcreatesapredominantlyvisualsensation,inwhichthetypographicformsevokeadisturbing,oppres-siveatmosphere,afeelingofhumiliationandfrustrationthatisallinall“felt”morethanitis“decoded.”

Inordertoillustratethattheaxisofcode/sensationisnotonlyausefulsup-plementfortheanalysisofcomics,butalsofortheircreation,wewanttocon-cludewithashortdiscussionofFront Back (2009),anexperimentalcomicbyTomLambeensthatexploresthisvery interactionbetweencodeandimage.Evenabriefglanceatthiscomicbookrevealsthatananalysisusingtheclassicoppositionof“word”and“image”isrenderedimpossible,asthe“panels”onlyconsist of squares of fully saturated primary and secondary colours. The

17 Franquin(2009)39.18 VanderMeij(2005)1.

252 LambeensAndPint

narrativesequence,dividedintothreechaptersrespectivelyentitled“yellow,”“red”and“blue,”consistsofthechangingofthesesquares’colour,sizeandpo-sitiononthespread.Theimmediateassumptionisthatthesequenceofthesesquaresisnocoincidence,soonebeginsto“read”thesquaresandtheirchang-ingposition,colourandshape,asacode.Atfirstglance,Front Back takesthecodingofcolourand formthatcanalsobe found in Jimmy Corrigan, to theextreme.Andindeed,different“clues”toitsdecodingcanbefound:thesizeofthesquaresisinfluencedbytheusedcolour(smallforyellow,largerforblue),thesetofsquaresrotatealongapatternofacrossandalozenge,asecondarycolourisdividedintoitsprimarycoloursinanensuingpageandthespreadofthe squares follows certain proportions with utmost precision (Figure 12.7).Onecanevenconstructanarrative:thesequenceofsquarescanbe“decoded”asaradicalabstractionofalifestory.Inthefirst“yellow”chapter,allsquaresaresituatedatthetopofthepage,andoneachpagefivesmall,vibrantlyyellowsquaresreturn.Thebrightnessofyellowandtherelativesimplerotationsofthesquarescouldbesaidtoresembletheoptimisticbeginningsoflife.Thefi-nal chapter, by contrast, is dominated by the colour blue.The squares havenowbecomebiggerandhave“sunk”tothebottomofthepage,suggestingpas-sivityanddeath(Figure12.8).Italsoseemstobenocoincidence,then,thatthe

Figure12.7 Lambeens, FrontBack (Hasselt: UHasselt/Het Onrijpheid, 2009), p. 2.


backofthebookisentirelyblack,whilethecoveriswhite:whateverthestorymightbe,theendingissurelynotahappyone.Alltheseaspectsseemtoinvitethereadertotryand“crackthecode”–butatthesametime,sensationsbegintointeractwiththecodesandinterferewiththeneatsequenceofsquaresandcolours.Thesesensationsarecreatedbytakingadvantageofthespecificityofthemediumofcomics.Front Backtriestomakeclearthatthisspecificitydoesnotprimarilylieinthecombinationofwrittentextandimages,asHarveyar-gues,butinthesemedium-specificpossibilitiestocreatesensationsthatinter-actwiththecodes.

Someofthesesensationsarecreatedbythedecisiontouseadifferentkindofpaperforeachchapter:coated(“compressed”fibers)andbrightwhite,glossypaperforthefirstchapter,uncoated(“open”fibers)andrough,mildyellowishpaperforthelastone,whiletheneutralpaperofthesecondchapterfunctionsasatransitionbetweenthesetwoextremes.Unlikemoviesorpaintings,abookformallowsustoholdthework inourhands,allowingatactileperception.Literature, of course, uses the same form of the book, but only works withwords.Inthegenreofcomicbooks,however,thequalityofthepapercaninflu-encethevisualperceptionoftheimagesandhencethe“content”ofthevisualnarrative.Byusingthegrainandthethicknessofthepaperasoperativeele-


254 LambeensAndPint

mentsoftheworkitself,interestingsideeffectsarecreated.Especiallyinthesecond, “red” chapter, where the colours on the verso-side already shinethroughontherecto-side.Becausethesheetsweredeliberatelyboundbeforetheinkhaddriedcompletely,theinkhasalsostainedtheoppositepage.Thiscreatesa“halo”aroundsomeofthesquaresthatbecomespartoftheoverall-compositionofthespread(Figure12.9).Anothersensationistheresultofthefactthatinacomicbookmorethanoneimageispresentononeandthesamepage.The combination of different sizes and colours creates a strong visualrhythmthattranscendsthestrictcodificationandappearstoresembleFran-quin’swhimsicalstyle.

Ofcourse,allofthesesensationscanbereducedtoa“code,”whereby(e.g.)thesmooth,shinypaperrepresentsthevitalityofyouth,themorerough,thickpapertheruggednessofoldage,andtheinkstainstheimperfectionsoflife.ButjustlikeintheworkofBlutch,itisthisverymultitudeofcodesthatcanbe found in thework, thateventuallypreventsanyclear-cut solution to the“puzzle.”



Conclusion

OuranalysisoftheworkofBlutch,VanderMeij,GobletandLambeensmakesclearthattheinherentdualitybetweenwordandimageincomicbooksshouldnot be seen as an insoluble conflict between reading and perceiving. Manyexperiments in current avant-garde comics focus on the point where bothzonesbecomeindiscernible,andthesensationstartstodisruptthecodeandaffectthereader/viewer.Theirworksdemonstratehowanintelligentcombi-nationofcodeandsensationinfactrevealsthedistinctivepossibilitiesofthecomicgenreincomparisontoother,moreestablishedgenreslikefilm,litera-ture or painting.We hope to have demonstrated that in order to fully graspthesepossibilities,comicstriptheoryneedstoextenditspredominantlysemi-oticvocabularyby taking intoaccount thepictorialqualitiesofcomicbookimages.Therefore,anotionlike“sensation”shouldnotberestrictedtoastrict-lyphilosophical,Deleuzianapproachofhighmodernistart,butcanalsobeturnedintoaninterestingconceptualtooltoanalyseandcreatemoderncom-ics.

Secondary Literature

Christiansen,H.-C.,“ComicsandFilm:ANarrativePerspective,”in Comics & Culture: Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics, eds. A. Magnussen and H.-C.Christiansen(Copenhagen,2000),pp.107–23.

Deleuze,G.,Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation [translatedbyD.W.Smith](NewYork,2003[1981]).

Dierick,Ch.andP.Lefèvre,1998.“Introduction,”inForging a New Medium. The Comic Strip in the Nineteenth Century,eds.Ch.DierickandP.Lefèvre(Brussels,1998),pp.9–36.

Groensteen,Th.,“Unpremierbouquetdecontraintes,”inOuPus 1 / OuBaPo (Ouvroir de Bande Dessinée Potentielle) (Paris,1997),pp.13–59.

––––––,The System of Comics, trans.B.BeatyandN.Nguyen (Jackson,Miss.,2007[1999]).––––––,La Bande Dessinée: Mode d’Emploi(Brussels,2008).Harvey,R.C.,“ComedyattheJunctureofWordandImage:theEmergenceoftheModern

MagazineGagCartoonRevealstheVitalBlend,”inThe Language of Comics: Word and Image,eds.R.VarnumandCh.T.Gibbons(Jackson,Miss.,2007),pp.75–96.

Lefèvre,P.andJ.Baetens,Strips anders lezen (Amsterdam/Brussels,1993).––––––,“RecoveringSensualityinComicTheory,”inInternational Journal of Comic Art

1(1)(1999),pp.140–49.

256 LambeensAndPint

––––––,“TheBattleovertheBalloon:TheConflictualInstitutionalizationoftheSpeechBallooninVariousEuropeanCultures,”inImage and Narrative 14(2006).Accessibleat:http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inarchive/painting/pascal_levevre.htm

McCloud,S.,Understanding Comics. The Invisible Art (Northampton,Mass.,1993).Peeters,B.,Case, planche, récit. Comment lire une bande dessinée(Tournai,1991).Peeters,B.andJ.Samson,Chris Ware: La bande dessinée réinventée (Brussels,2010).Shklovsky,V.,“ArtasTechnique,”inRussian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays,eds.L.T.

LemonandM.J.Reis(Lincoln,1965),pp.5–24.

Comics Cited

Arntz,G.,Pictogram of a boat(1930).Accessibleathttp://www.gerdarntz.org/isotypeBlutch,Le cavalier blanc numéro 2(ChatenayMalabry:AlainBeaulet,2002).––––––,Le Petit Christian, tome 1(Paris:L’Association,1999).Franquin,Zwartkijken(Doornik:Gladijs/Casterman,2008).––––––,Die Reuze Flater(Brussel:Dupuis,2009).Gerner,J.,TNT en Amérique(Paris:L’ampoule,2002).Goblet,D.,Faire Semblant C’est Mentir(Paris:L’Association,2007).Hergé,De Zonnetempel(Doornik:Casterman,1977).Lambeens,T.,Front Back(Hasselt:UHasselt/HetOnrijpheid,2009).VanderMeij,B.,De Winnaar(Amsterdam:Sherpa,2005).Ware,Ch.,Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth(NewYork:Pantheon,2000).

http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inarchive/painting/pascal_levevre.htm

http://www.lesimpressionsnouvelles.com/cvpeeters.html


part 4

Reception and Literary Infrastructure

∵

258 LambeensAndPint

259HolyWritAndLayReadersInLateMedievalEurope

Chapter13

Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe: Translation and Participation1

Sabrina Corbellini and Margriet HoogvlietCorbellini and Hoogvliet

Cultural Dynamics in Late Medieval Europe

LatemedievalandearlymodernEuropeischaracterizedbyasignificantcul-tural transformation.Asa resultof thischange, thedichotomybetweenthecategories “religious” and “lay” and “Latin” and “vernacular” dissolved into amorediffusesituationandresultedinlayemancipationwithregardtoactiveparticipation in religious life. One of the most significant manifestations ofthisculturaltransformationwasthecreationofnew“readingcommunities”inadditiontothetraditionalrespublica clericorum,2 thelearnedcommunityofliterateintellectualsandreligious(secularandregularclergy)whodominatedculturallifethroughtheircontrolofChurchinstitutions,schoolsanduniversi-ties.Latin, thepreferred languagebythemembersof thisrespublica clerico-rum, was thus the official (and dominant) language of culture, science andreligion.3Thenew“readingcommunities”wereformedbyanon-Latinate,butgenerallyliterate,urbanlaitystronglyinvolvedinpolitical,financialandcom-mercial activities.The language of the members of this respublica laicorum,whowereshowingagrowinginterestintheorganizationofculturalactivitiesandintheproductionofliterarytexts,wasthevernacular,thetraditionallan-guageoftheilliteratiandthelaity.4Thegrowingtextualproductioninthever-nacularinvolvedachallengefromalinguisticandaculturalpointofview.Itmeantthatthevernacularwasemancipatedenoughtobeusedfortheproduc-tionofliterature,forthetransmissionofknowledge,andforreligiousmatters.5

1 ThispaperisbasedontheresultsoftheERC-StartingGrantResearchproject“HolyWritand Lay Readers. A Social History ofVernacular BibleTranslations in the Late MiddleAges.”Theproject(2008–2013)isfundedbytheEuropeanResearchCouncilinBrussels.

2 Mohrmann(1955)43.TheseideashavebeenfurtherdevelopedinCorbellini(2013a).3 For the changing relations between Latin and the vernacular languages, see: Van

Uytfanghe(2003).4 Burke(2004);Warnar(2008).5 For late medieval vernaculars and vernacularities, see: Copeland (1991); Blumenfeld-

Kosinskyetal.(2002);Somerset-Watson(2003).AEuropeancollaborativeproject(COST

© SabrinacorbelliniandMargrietHoogvliet,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_015This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



260 CorbelliniAndHoogvliet

ThedevelopmentoftheEuropeanvernacularlanguagestowardsapositionalmostequaltothatofLatinwasalreadyemerginginFranceandItalyfromthefourteenthcenturyonward.DanteAlighieriwrotehistreatiseindefenceofthevernacular,De vulgari eloquentia, intheearlyyearsofthefourteenthcentury.TheFrenchkingsJeanIILeBonandCharlesVinitiatedprojectsforthepromo-tionof theFrenchof the Île-de-Franceas thenewlanguage forpoliticsandscience(clergie).6 InspiteofthefactthatLatinremainedtheonlyacceptedlanguagefortheliturgy,asthearcanelanguageofthedivine,theculturalhege-monyofLatin,thetraditionallanguageoftheChurch,schoolanduniversitywasnolongerindisputable.7

This late medieval and early modern cultural transformation has been amuchdebatedtopicinEuropeanresearchagendaoverthelastdecades.Thefocusofthisresearch,however,hasbeenondidacticandmoralizingliterature,inwhichthemesstrictlyrelatedtothelifeandactivitiesoflayreadersaredis-cussed:therelationsbetweenindividualsandgroupsinthelatemedievalandearlymodernurbanenvironment,inparticularprofessionalethics,andfamilyrelations.Thespecificquestionoftheemancipationofthelaity,throughactivereadershipofreligiousliteratureinthevernacular,andinparticulartheactiveroleoflaypeopleinthetransmissionandintheproductionofreligiousknowl-edge is still an underestimated subject in medieval research, in spite of thegrowinginterestinthestudyofreligionasculturalmanifestationandthesig-nificantadvancesinthestudyoflatemedievalreligiousmovements.8

Possiblereasonsforthescarceattentionpaidtothispivotalaspectoflatemedievalandearlymodernculturallifecanbeidentifiedinthestilldominant“protestantparadigm”inthestudyofreligioushistory,aswellasintheleading

Action “New Communities of Interpretation. Contexts, Strategies and Processes ofReligiousTransformationinLateMedievalandEarlyModernEurope”;2013-2017),leadbytheauthorsofthiscontribution,willfurtherdevelopthesethemesinaEuropeancontext(seehttp://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/isch/Actions/IS1301).

6 Walters(2002);Minnis(2009)11,36.7 Thisisstillapointofdiscussion:somescholarsinsistthatLatinwastheonlyaccepted

languagefortheologicaldiscussions(Minnis,2009),thatitwasconsideredbysomeasan“Adamiclanguage”(Watson(2003)10),orthatthevernacularlanguageswerenotacceptedasawrittenlanguageofreligion(Hasenohr(2000)609),butotherspointatthedevelop-mentof“vernaculartheologies”duringthe14thand15thcenturies(Gillespie,2007).Aswewillsee,thereisampleevidenceforthelatterthesis.

8 ThestudyoftheDevotio Moderna intheNetherlandsandoftheWycliffiteandLollardmovementinEngland,tocitebuttwoexamples,hasbeenflourishingsincethe1980sandhasproducedaparticularlyhigh levelofscientificresults.Seeforexample,VanEngen(2008a);Ghosh(2009).Aseminalvolumefor theresearchof religious literature in themedievalLowCountriesisMertens(1993).OnthistopicseealsoCorbellini(2013a).


focus inresearchontheallegeddialecticalpolaritiesofhigh(elite)and low(popular)culture,learned(Latin)andunlearned(vernacular)andecclesiasti-calhierarchy(theChurch)andthelaybelievers.9Theprotestantparadigmim-pliestheexplanationofthesuccessoftheReformationinearlymodernEuropebydefiningthelatemedievalChurchas“corruptandmoribund”andlateme-dievalreligionasasuperficialreligion tarifiéecharacterizedbyaparticularlylowleveloflaycommitmentandlayparticipation.10Insomestudiesofmedi-evalChristianitythiscarelessnessof laybelieversis linkedtotheattitudeoflatemedievalChurchofficials,whofocussedonminimumrequirements(“theleastofthelaity”),11andtoleratedlaxityandevenfailure.Inshortthemedievalchurchwas “a systemwhich increasinglyexhortedspecific expectationsbutwashesitanttodefinecontumacyordisobedienceinmanybutthemostobdu-rateorscandalouscases.”12

Moreover,instudieswhichhavepaidattentiontothisaspect,suchastheseminalstudybyVauchez,13layreligiosityisseenasheavilydependentoncler-icalinputsasitis“shapedbythedistinctionsbetweenclergyandlaityandbytheirsometimesacrimoniousdebatesoverthesocialandreligiousrolespropertoeachconstituentelementofChristiansociety.”Themainfeatureoflayspiri-tualityinallitsmanifestationswasthefundamentalrelationshipbetweenthemedievallaityandtheclergy:theonlywaytorealizetheimitatio Christiwastheimitatio clerici.14ThisinterpretationofthelatemedievalChurchhas,how-ever,beenchallengedinrecentstudieswhichpresentadifferentpicture:theyemphasize, on the one hand, the high expectations of laypeople’s religiousknowledgeandof thereligiousservicesavailable to themand,on theotherhand,theystressthatlaypeople,oratleastsomeofthem,wereableandwillingtomeettheseexpectations.15

As John van Engen recently pointed out, the late medieval Church was amuchmoredynamicworldthantheonesketchedintraditionalliterature.Itwas a “carnival of religious options, multiple, competing, contested, coexis-tent, negotiated, overlapping, local, personally appropriated.” It was a worldwhere,asThomasofKempendescribedinhisImitation of Christ,bothclergyandlaityweremorepreoccupiedwithacquiringgoodsandgratifyingdesires

9 Richmond (1991). Contra this interpretation of lay religious culture: Schreiner (1992);Duffy(1992,2006);Corbellini(2012b).

10 Gow(2005);Clarke(2008).11 AsinSchmitt(1981).12 Tanner-Watson(2006)395.13 Vauchez(1993).14 Vauchez(1993)XVIII.15 Clarke(2008);Rider(2010);Corbellini-Hoogvliet(2013).


pleasingtothefleshthanwiththecareforthespiritualwell-being.Butatthesametimecertainlaypeoplewere,asJohnvanEngendescribeswhilereferringtoJeanGerson,“sointentinrealizingformsofreligiousintensitywhichonlytheprofessed, inGerson’sview,couldtrulydedicatethemselvestothattheygeneratedonlyinneranxietyorself-righteousnessordespondency.”16Bothex-tremeattitudeswerepossible: the indifferent, thecriticsandthe“reformingzealots,”butmostofall latemedievalreligious lifewascharacterizedbythevitalityofagrowinggroupofbelieverswho“werecrackingopennichesacrossa wide and diverse spectrum, finding ways to appropriate religion forthemselves.”17Thisvitalitybroughttothecreationof“voluntaryassociations,”suchasconfraternities,andtoaremarkableexpansionofpreachingactivities.

Oneofthemostinterestingmanifestationsofthisculturalchangewasthedramaticincreaseintheproductionandthedistributionofreligioustextsinthevernacular, inparticularvernacular translationsof theHolyWrit,whichwereaccessibletothegrowingnumberofmembersoftherespublica laicorum.Thisprocessoftranslationandofdiffusionofthebiblicaltextinthevernacu-larresultedinasignificanttransformation,whichopenedupnewpossibilitiestoculturalandreligiousparticipationofthelaity.

Thedynamicsofthetranslationprocessandofitsinfluenceonculturalandreligiousparticipationoflaybelieverswillbepresentedanddiscussedinthiscontribution.DrawingfromFrenchandItalian18sources,thisarticleaimstocontributetothereconstructionofthepossibilitiesforlayreaderstoaccesstheScriptures,andoftheimpactofthepresenceandthecirculationofvernacularbibletranslationsinlatemedievalreligiouslife.Thisstressonthesituations,responsesandoutcomesofthisprocessoflinguisticandculturaltranslationimpliesasignificantchangeofperspective.Therelationbetweenclergyandlaity,bothactiveintheprocessoftranslation,transmissionandchangingpar-ticipation,willnotbestudiedintermsofadominantclergytryingto“bringthelaityintoline,turningthembackintodocilesheep,”19butintermsofprocessesofnegotiationandcreativeaccommodationofmeaning.Tracesofthisprocess

16 VanEngen(2008b)266–67,284.17 VanEngen(2008b)269.18 ThecompletecorpusofItalianbiblicalmanuscriptsconsistsof358items.Thefiguresare

basedontheinventoryofItalianBiblicalmanuscriptspublishedbyChopin-Dinale-Pelo-sini(1993).ForageneralintroductiontovernacularBibletranslationsinmedievalItalyLeonardi (1998) and Corbellini (2013b). At present there is no exhaustive inventory ofmanuscriptsandearlyprintswithFrenchBibletranslations.Forageneralintroduction,seeBogaert(1991),Sneddon(2012)andHoogvliet(2013).

19 Vauchez(1993)268.


canbedetectedinthetextualmaterialwrittenandactivelyusedbybothmem-bersoftheclergyandlaybelievers.

Translation and Adaptation

Inhisprologuetoanearly fourteenthcenturyabridgedBible inFrench, theanonymoustranslatorunderscoresthatboththetranslationandthetranslatorshould be reliable in order to preserve the pureness and trustfulness of thetext:

HewhowantstostarttheenterpriseoftranslatingtheSacredscripturesfromLatinintoRomancemustbecarefulthatthathedoesnotincorpo-rate anything but the pure history, because if he discards the truth hewouldaddliesandthosewholistentoitwouldhavemuchwithwhichtoreproachhim.ThatiswhyonlythosewhoaresurethattheyunderstandScripturesverywellshouldundertakeit.20

TheargumentthatthevernaculartextisafaithfultranslationoftheLatinorig-inalisarecurringelementintheprologuestoBiblesandotherscripture-basedtexts.Asindicatedabove,duringthelateMiddleAges,Latinandthevernacu-larlanguageshaddifferentconnotations,butitisstrikingthatthevernacularBibletranslationsshowverylittletracesofapologeticargumentsfortheuseofalanguageotherthanLatin.21Thissuggeststhattheconceptualizationofver-nacular languages was changing and that these were considered as suitableformsofexpressionfortheBiblicaltext.However,oneexceptiontothisobser-vationmightbethefamouschancelloroftheSorbonneandguardianofortho-doxy,JeanGerson.HeopenshisworkofdevotionalinstructionLa montaigne de contemplation(c.1400–1401)byaffirmingthat“somepeoplemightwonderwhyIwanttowriteinFrenchratherthaninLatinaboutasubjectaselatedas

20 “Cil qui vvelt antremetre de traitier diuine escriture et metre de latin an romans se doit mout bien garder que il ni mete riens que ne soit de la vraie istore car se il laissoit la veriteit et il i metoit la mansonge il feroit moult a reprandre de celz qui lantanderoient et pour ceu ne san doit nuls antremetre cil nest bien seurs quil antande bien lescriture.”Paris,BnF,MSfr.24728(late13th-early14thc.),fol.1r.FormoreFrenchexamples,seeNobel(2011).

21 Anexceptionto thisgeneral featureshouldhoweverbenoted: inacertainnumberofprologuestheactoftranslatingthebibleis“defended”throughthereferencetoJerome’stranslatingactivities.AstheLatinbibleisatranslationoftheoriginalGreekandHebrewtexts,thetranslatorsofthebibleinthevernacularshouldbeseenas“newJeromes”trans-latingfromLatintothe“newlanguages.”


thecontemplativelife.”22ButGersoncontinuesbystatingthathistextis in-tended foravery suitableaudience:hisyounger sisterswhodonotwant tomarryandwhowishtoleadareligiouslifedevotedtoGodinstead.Beingwom-enandfromthelaity,theycannotreadtheologicalworksinLatin.Infact,asGersonsayshehasobservedmanytimes,certainlaypeoplearemoretalentedforalifeofdevotionthanclerics.23

ThusitbecomesclearthatGersonisnotreallyquestioningthesuitabilityofthevernacularforreligiousmatters:heusesitinordertopromotetheaptitudeofcertainlaypeopleforareligiouslife.Asimilarrhetoricalargumentcanbedetectedinafourteenth-centuryprologuetoaFrenchPsalterwithelaboratereflectionsaboutthetranslationprocessfromLatinintothevernacular.AtfirstthetranslatorseemstoinsistontheimperfectionsoftheFrench(Romance)vernacular:

Because the Romance language is imperfect, and more sufficient thananyothercompleteandperfectlanguage,onlygoodclericscantranslatecompletelyfromLatinintoRomance.24

Inthetreatiseabout translationtechniques fromLatin intoFrenchthat fol-lows,itbecomesclearthatthetranslatorisnotsoanxiousaboutthesupposedshortcomingsofmedievalFrench;ratherheisconcernedabouttheimperfec-tionsof flawedtranslations,anduses thisargument to insist that it isabso-lutelynecessaryforthetranslatortobeanexpertinLatin.Towardstheendofthe prologue the translator indicates unambiguously that daily prayers andrecitationsofthePsalmsareapleasuretoGod,bothintheRomancevernacu-larandinLatin,25thusindicatingthatinhisopinionthevernacularlanguagesaresuitableforreligiousactivities.

Thevernacularwasprimarilythelanguageofthelaity,butduringthefif-teenthcenturyitwasnotexceptionalforreligiousmenandwomentopossess

22 “Aucuns se pourront donner merveille pourquoy de matiere haulte comme est parler de la vie contemplative, je veuil escripre en francois plus qu’en latin.”Glorieux(1966),16.

23 “Et nous l’avons veu et veons par tant d’experiences es sains hermites et en aulcunes femmes qui plus ont pourfité en l’amour de Dieu par ceste vie contemplative que ne font ou ont fait plusieurs grans clers.”Glorieux(1966)18.

24 “Quar pour tant que langue romance est inperfaite et plus asseiz que nulle autre laingue entieire et perfate, il nest nulz tant soit boin clers que lou laitin puissent translateir entiere-ment en roumant.”Paris,BnF,MSfr.9572,fol.1r.AlsoquotedinBonnardot(1884)1–2.

25 “Sic donc soit en roman soit en laitin tres deuote prieires et orison et que mout plait a Dieu est de dire lou psaltieir ou chesques iour ou biens souuent.”Paris,BnF,MSfr.9572,fol.3r.AlsoquotedinBonnardot(1884)10.


biblicaltextsinthevernacular,too,andtousethemforpersonalreadinganddevotion.Themobilityofmanymanuscriptsbetweenlayandreligiousownersisanotherindicationforthegrowinginteractionandexchangebetweenthesetwogroupsthatinearlierscholarshipareoftenrepresentedasadversary.26

Traditionally the translation process of the Bible from Latin into the ver-nacularsduringthelateMiddleAgesisthoughtofasaonewayprocessfromanactiveandcontrollingclergytoapassiveandsubjectedlaity.27Duringthepastdecade,however,andduetotheinfluenceofpostmoderntheory,thisbi-nary transmitter-receiver model and the primacy of Latin have been ques-tioned,andmorecomplexmodels that includeprocessesof reciprocityandinterpenetrabilityhavebeenproposedinstead.28

ThevernaculartranslationsoftheBiblereachedwideraudiencesthanthesolerespublica clericorum.Inthisrespect,thetranslationoftheBibleduringthe late Middle Ages involved a process that can be qualified as a “culturaltransfer.”ThisconcepthasbeendevelopedtheoreticallybyMichelEspagne,whointroduceditforthetransferofphilosophicalandliterarytextsbetweenGermanyandFranceduringtheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.29Whilethetermculturaltransferhasmostlybeenusedfortransnationalprocesses,inourviewitcanalsobeappliedfruitfullyforprocessesoftransferbetweentwodifferentsocialandlinguisticentities;inthiscasebetweenthemainlyLatinaterespublica clericorumandtherespublica laicorumthatreliedprimarilyonthevernacularlanguages.Espagnealsosuggeststheuseofamorecomplexmodelthanthestraightforwardtransmitter-receivermodel,andurgestopayatten-tiontotheactiveroleofthecontextofreception.30Latertheoreticalelabora-tionsofEspagne’soriginal ideahaveunderscoredthereciprocityofculturaltransfers,andhaveproposedtouseterminologiesashistoire croiséeand“cul-turalexchange.”31ThesecomplexandreciprocalmodelsdescribeverywellthetranslationprocessoftheHolyWritintothevernacularlanguagesduringtheLateMiddleAgesaswellastheinteractionbetweenbothgroups.Thehistoricalsources indicate that clerics were not the sole agents of the processes of

26 Therearetoomanyexamplestoquotehereindetail.OneexamplefromFrance:Paris,Bibl.del’Arsenal,MS2038(dated1466)containsPassionofChrist,accordingtothenarra-tiveoftheGospels.Itwascopiedfor“seur Rogiere de Seuauile religieuse de Saint Marceu a Paris.” According to a late 15th c. inscription it was later in the hands of Iaqueline du Hamel.

27 AsinEire(2007)84.28 Bestul(1996)11;Kullmann(2009)8.29 Espagne(1999);Schmale(2003).30 Espagne(1999)23.31 Werner-Zimmermann(2003);Schilling-Tóth(2006).


translationofbiblicaltextsintothevernacularsandtheirdissemination,butthatlaymenwerepleadingfortranslations,theycopiedthetextsthemselves,ortheypaidforthecopiesmadebycommercialcopyistsorprinters.32

Moreover,asPeterBurkehasconvincinglysuggested,translatingimpliesaprocess of negotiation between different agents involved in the translationprocess.33EvidenceinthevernacularBiblessuggests,too,thatthetranslationofthebiblicaltextistheresultofaprocessofnegotiationbetweenmembersof the church, in particular Dominicans and Franciscans, and an increasinggroupofliteratelaypeople,whowereexplicitlypleadingforadirectaccesstothetextoftheScriptures.Tracesofthisrequestarestillvisibleintheprologuestothetranslations.AcaseinpointistheforewordaddedbythePisanDomini-canDomenicoCavalcatohistranslationoftheActsoftheApostles:

Tosatisfytherequestofsomedevoutpersons(probablythemembersofoneoftheconfraternitieslinkedtotheDominicanmonastery)Idecidedtotranslateinto“commonandclear”vernacularthebookoftheActsoftheApostles[…].34

ThecanonGuiartdesMoulinsindicatedfirstlyinhistranslationofthehistori-calbooksoftheBibleintotheFrenchdialectPicardtogetherwiththecom-mentariesofPetrusComestor’sHistoria scholastica (before1297),thathemadeitattherequestof“aspecialfriend”andbecauseof“thegreatpressureof[his]requests to give laypeople the opportunity to understand the ancientscriptures.”35

However,thetransitionfromHolyWrittolayreaderswasonlypossibleifarelationshipofmutualtrustwasbuiltbetweenthetranslators,thereadersandthe scribes. The importance of this “preliminary agreement” is clearly ex-pressedbyafourteenth-centuryanonymousItaliantranslatorofaglossedNewTestament.Notonlydoesherefertothenecessityforthetranslatortobeanexpertintheology,butherequiresfromthosewhoareeagertocopythetextthat“theyremainfaithfultothewrittentext,withoutmakinganychanges,be-causeeverytinysyllable,articlessuchasloandla[…]andwordsifaddedor

32 Corbellini(2012b).33 Burke(2007,2004);Eco(2003).34 “Volendo, a petizione e per divozione di certe divote persone, recare a volgare comune e

chiaro lo divoto libro degli Atti degli Apostoli.”QuotedinBarbieri(1998)300.35 “A la requeste dun mien especial ami” and“a la tres grant instance de voz prieres pour faire

laies personnes les hystoires des scriptures anciennes.”TheHague,MuseumMeermanno,MS10B23,fols.3v,4v.


leftoutcaninfluencethemeaningofthesentencemorethattheywouldex-pect.” Despite his reservations and warnings this anonymous translator isaware that his translation will most likely be read and copied by less well-trainedreadersandscribes.Histask,therefore,istoeducatethesenewusersoftheHolyWrittorespectthetextualintegrityofthetranslationwhilecopyingthetextforpersonaluseorwhilepassingitontoothers.36

Ithasoftenbeenobservedthattranslatingismorethanthesimplelinguistictranspositionofa text fromone language into theother,but that italso in-volves important cultural and ideological adaptations in order to make thesourcetextfunctionalinthenewcontextofreception.MichelEspagnecharac-terizesthisprocessas“métissages”andobserves:

Enoutrelemessagetransmisdoitêtretraduitducodederéférencesdusystèmed’émissiondansceluidusystèmederéception.Cetteappropria-tionsémantiquetransformeprofondémentl’objetpasséd’unsystèmeàl’autre.37

PeterBurkeforhispartusestheterminology“culturalhybridity,”38andheob-servesonreceptionthat:

Ideas,information,artefactsandpracticesarenotsimplyadoptedbutonthecontrary,theyareadaptedtotheirnewculturalenvironment.Theyare first decontextualized and then recontextualized, domesticated or“localized.”Inaword,theyare“translated.”39

Theadditionofparatextualelements, “navigationtools,” to thetext, suchaslistsofchapters,atableofcontents,rubricsandrunningtitlesisaclearstrat-egy intheprocessoftransmissionandadaptationofthevernacularbiblicaltext.Aclear-structuredtextiseasilyaccessible,eventonon-professionalusersoftheWrit,andmakesaselectiveandeffectivereadingofthetextpossibleas

36 “Guardi a conservare el parlare a lettera secondo che trova scripto et non lo vada mutando però che piccola sillaba et piccolo articulo come sono la lo […] parole et sillabe hanno molto a variare la sententia più che altri non crede ponendolo o levandole” Perugia, BibliotecaComunaleAugusta,1086,fol.3r.AlsoquotedinLeonardi(1996)185andCorbellini(2012c)33.

37 Espagne(1999)20.38 Burke(2009a),passim.39 Burke(2009b)70.Forthetransformationoftextsandmessagesintheprocessoftrans-

mission,seealsoDebray(2000).


theaforementionedDomenicoCavalcastatesintheintroductiontohistrans-lationoftheActsoftheApostles:

InordertomakethetextaccessibletothosewithoutanyknowledgeofLatin,Iwillchangeatsomepointsthegrammaticalstructureofthesen-tenceandIwillalsoaddsomeexplanatorywords.Moreover,tograntabetteraccesstothiscomplexandmultifacetedtextIhavedividedthetextintochapters,whichIhavelistedinthefollowingpages.40

This “cutting up of the Bible into specific, usable parts, bound separately”41couldleadtoanotherimportantfeatureofthetranslationandthedissemina-tionofbiblicalmaterialinthevernacular.Completebibles,i.e.containingbib-lical books from Genesis to the book of Revelation, are relatively rare inmedievalEurope.Completetranslationswereavailable,butmoreoftenmanu-scriptswouldcontainaselectionofbiblebooks,insomecasesevenonlyase-lectionofpericopes(forexamplethebeginningofthegospelofJohn),withastrongfocusontheNewTestamentandmorespecificallyonthepassagesnar-ratingthePassionofChrist,whichwasthecentralpointoflatemedievalreli-giouslife.Thisfragmentation,whichcontrastswithourmoderninterpretationofthebibleasonecoherenttext,doesnothoweverimplyalackofawarenesswithregardtotheunityoftheHolyWrit.Itshouldbeinterpretedastheresultofanactiveprocessof selectionof textualportions,andasadiscontinuousandselectivereadingpracticewhichisstrictlyconnectedwiththeliturgy,thepivotal“meetingpoint”inspirituallifeoflayandreligious.Itcannotbeafortu-itouscoincidencethataveryhighpercentageofvernacularbiblemanuscriptscanbeusedasalectionary,eitherbythearrangementofpericopesfollowingtheliturgicalcalendarorbytheadditionofliturgicaltablesorrubrics.

TraditionallythesefragmentedBiblesareinterpretedaspartofastrategybytheChurchtokeepthe“real”Bibleawayfromthelaybygivingthemasubsti-tute.42Ourresearchindicates,however,thatthehistoricalrealityismorecom-plex;firstly,becauseabbreviatedBibleswerecheaperandthusmoreaffordable,consequentlytheyoccurredmoreofteninlowersocialstrata.Secondly,they

40 “Per la moltiplice significatione e intenzione delle parole della Santa Scrittura muto in certi ma pochi luoghi l’ordine delle parole […] alcuna pongo da me per meglio isporre alcuna parola del detto libro. E perché il detto libro parla di diverse materie e pone molte quistione, acciocché meglio s’intenda e possa ciascuno trovare quello che vuole, holla distinta negl’infrascritti capitoli.”QuotedinBarbieri(1998)300.

41 Stallybrass(2002)47.42 See Bryan (2008) 31, for a critical discussion of the alleged repressive “here, read this

instead”orthodoxy.SeealsoCorbellini(2013b)andHoogvliet(2013).


wereperceivedasrealBibles,becauseinthemanuscriptstheabbreviatedtextsoftenhaveasatitle“la Bible en francoys,”and,thirdly(astheintroductiontoanabbreviatedBible indicates) itwaseasier for “simple folkwhohavenothadand who do not have the time to study”43 to understand. Consequently, itwouldbemorelogicaltointerpretthesefragmentsandabbreviatedversionsasa strategybycertainmembersof the respublica clericorum topropagate thetextoftheBible,insteadofcensoringandprohibitingit.

AccordingtoRégisDebrayoneoftheimportantconsequencesofthetrans-missionofatextisachangeinhierarchyandinidentity.44BylookingatthelayaudiencesofvernacularBibletranslationsduringthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies, we can note that the identity of the lay audiences had alreadychanged,andthatthischangeofidentitywasexpressedbytheirpressingde-mandforvernacularbibletexts.Theconsequenceofthetransmissionofthebiblical text in the vernaculars was a further acceleration of the religiousemancipationofthelaityandtheirparticipationinreligiouslife.

Participation

Asmentionedintheintroduction,laypeople,asmembersofarespublica laico-rum, wereactivemembersof“readingcommunities”takingtheformofconfra-ternities or informal private or semi-private networks, which permitted andstimulatedactivitiesrelatedtothedistributionofvernaculartextsandmanu-scripts.45 Lay scribes, users and readers of vernacular bible translations be-came involved both in a receptive and a productive role in the production,transmissionandconservationofreligiousknowledge.Throughtheseactivi-ties,laypeoplecouldbecomechannelsoftransmissionoftheHolyWrit.Laypeopleandagentsin“websofinterlocution”46discussingseminalissuescon-cerningtheuseandtheinterpretationofreligiousknowledge.

Theactiveuseofthetextenhancedthereader’sandthelistener’sparticipa-tionintheritualandintheeventsnarratedintheScriptures.Throughapro-cessofmeditation,whichstimulatedanaffectivereactiontothenarrationofthelifeofChrist,aprocessofconversionwasstarted:thepracticeofreading

43 “simples gens qui nont eu et nont lopportunite destudier.” La vie de iesucrist, [Lyons,c.1485–1487],Reims,BM,Inc.2.

44 Debray(2000)11.45 Ontheconceptof“culturalparticipation,”seeRigney(1993)2.SeealsoCorbellini(2012b)

ontheroleplayedbyconfraternitiesinthepleaforvernacularBibletranslations.46 ThetermwasfirstusedbyTaylor(1989)36.


wasaprayerfulactivitythatengagedbodyandsoulinastrivingtoChristiformi-tasorImitatio Christi. Bythereadingofthegospels,gospelharmonies,ornar-rationsofthepassiontranslatedintothevernacular,thereadercouldbettermeditateonChrist’slifeandreachahigherdegreeofparticipationinthemys-teryoftheincarnationandofthepassion,thedeathandtheresurrectionofChrist.Thishermeneuticprocess,whichcharacterizesthe“affectivetheology”of late medieval texts, consists in the psychological identification with theevents narrated in the life of Christ.Through this process, the readers weretransformedintocentralcharactersinthenarratedeventsandwereprojectedintoadimensionwherethedistanceintimeandspacewasannihilated:theycouldstandatthefootofthecross,theycouldwitnessthepainandthesuffer-ing,theycouldweepatthemomentofdeathandrejoiceatthenewsoftheresurrection.Thebooktheyheldintheirhandswasanever-lastingtokenofthemysteryoftheincarnationasannouncedinthebeginningoftheGospelofJohn(John1:14:“TheWordbecamefleshandmadehisdwellingamongus.Wehave seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from theFather,fullofgraceandtruth”).

Aclearexampleoftheroleofagentsinthedistributionofvernacularbibli-caltextsplayedbylaityinlatemedievalItalyistheveryhighnumberofama-teurscribes(copisti per passione)47involvedinthecopyingprocess:saddlers,soap makers, textile workers, shoe-makers, merchants in spices and secondhandgoods,barbersanddyers.Theycopiedforpersonaluse,butalsoforuseinfamilyandprofessionalnetworks. Insomecases,as inmanuscriptFlorence,BibliotecaNazionaleCentraleConventiSoppressiB.7.1146,thetextswerecop-iedbythreemembersofthesamefamily.Ontheflyleafthescribestakecaretoexplaintousersofthemanuscriptthat:

The book [was] owned by Giovanni del Nero di Stefano d’AlessandroCambi[….]Onepartwaswrittenby[his]fatherNero,thesecondby[his]brotherMarcoandthethirdbyhimself,Giovanni[…]ThefirstpartisbyMarco,thecentralpartandthePenitentialPsalmsarewrittenby[their]fatherandattheendtheConfessionbyStAntonino,archbishopofFlor-enceisin[his,Giovanni’s]handintheyear1475inCertaldo.48

47 ThetermhasbeenintroducedbytheItalianhistorianBranca(1961).Onthissubject,seeCorbellini-Hoogvliet(2013).

48 “Questo libro è di Giovanni del Nero di Stefano d’Alessandro Cambi degli Oportuni di Terma scritto per mano del Nero suo padre una parte e l’altra per mano di Marco suo fratello e l’altra del detto Giovanni et però chi l’acatta renda servigio a chi in esso s’è afatichato a scri-verlo. In principio di questo libro è di mano di Marcho del Nero Chambi i nel mezzo e salmi


Themanuscriptscouldthustransformintofamilybooks,49whichwerepassedon from generation to generation, as mentioned in a manuscript from Flor-ence,BibliotecaLaurenzianaGaddi,121,whichwascopiedon27October1431byAgnoloCarducci.50Afterhisdeath,in1434,amemberofthefamilyrecord-edontheflyleafthat“afterAgnolo’sdeaththemanuscriptwastobeconsid-eredthepropertyofallhisheirs.”Asfamilybooks,vernacularbiblemanuscriptsrepresenteda symbolof theunityof the family, transcendingchronologicallines.Themanuscripts,vernacularmiscellaniescontainingtextsselectedfromseveralexemplarsandoftencompiledinphasesandduringalongperiodoftime,51accompaniedthescribeandhisoffspringintheprocessofformationoftheirreligiousidentities,inthesamewaythatmemorialtextshelpedtocreateasocialandpolitical identity inthechangingworldof latemedieval Italiantowns.Manuscriptswere,aswellasmemorialbooksand familyarchives, “aculturalpatrimonytobepreserved,expanded,andtransferredtofuturegen-erations”andtheybecameparttheparadigmof“patrimoine.”52

Thecirculationofmanuscriptsandthesubsequenttransmissionofvernac-ularbibletextsthroughlaychannelscanbebetterunderstoodifitisplacedinthecontextofreligiousandculturalsociability,i.e.thecollaborationbetweenreligiousandlaybelievers,whichemergesfromthestudyoflatemedievalreli-giouslifeinItaliantowns.Oneoftheclearestmanifestationsofthisculturalsociability is the correspondence between Mendicant friars (Dominicans,FranciscansandAugustinians)andlaybelievers,bothmenandwomen.Thiscorrespondencecouldtaketheformofsermonsin absentia,i.e.asubstituteoftheoraltransmissionofreligiousknowledgethatwasconnectedtospiritualdirectionandtopublicpreachingactivities.53Spiritualdirectorsstressintheirlettersthatitisofthehighestimportancethatspiritualadviceisnotlimitedtopersonalmeetingsanddiscussions,butthatguidanceandsupervisionshouldbeprolongedbyreadingandre-readingofletters.TheAugustianfriarGirola-

penitenziali di mano di Nero nostro padre i nel fine una confessione del Reverendo maestro S. Antonino arciuescovo fiorentino schritta per Giovanni Chanbi per anno 1475 di Ciertaldo essendovi vichario detto Nero di Chambi suo padre M cccc lxx v,”Florence,BibliotecaNazio-naleCentraleConventiSoppressiB.7.1146,flyleaf.

49 Theterm“familybooks”(it.libri di famiglia)referstomemorialtextsordiarieswrittenbyindividualsormembersofthesamefamilywiththeprimarygoaltonarrateandtotrans-mittofuturegenerationseventsrelatedtothehistoryofthefamily.Foradiscussiononthedefinitionandfunctionof“familybooks,”seeMordenti(2001)andCiappelli(2003).ForarecentoverviewofresearchonItalianlibri di famiglia,seeRicci(2005).

50 Fol.183v.51 Onthetextualfragmentationofvernacularbiblemanuscripts,seesection“Translation.”52 Ketelaar(2009).53 Thetermsermonsin absentiaisbasedonServenti(2003).


moofSiena(1340–1420)stressesthispointinoneofhisletters:“Makearrange-mentstohavetheseletterswithyou,ifitispossible,andbelievestronglythatin these writings you will find the right instructions to retrieve the way tosalvation.”54Asnotedinthepreviousdiscussionontheprocessoftranslation,thecorrespondenceischaracterizedbyafullparticipationofthelayreceiver,askingquestionsandclearlywaitingforspecificanswerstohisorhermoralandreligiousdilemmas.Infact,answerstosuchlettersofspiritualguidancehave been preserved: when Girolamo da Siena wrote to one of his spiritualdaughters,Lucia,tocorrectherbehaviour,whichhesaidwasdictatedby“van-ityandpride,”Luciarespondedtothisdisciplina bythankingGirolamoforhisletter which had given consolation to her afflicted soul. She went on to de-scribehowshewouldmakeuseoftheletter,byreadingthewordsagainandagaininordertofind,throughherfaithandthroughdivinegrace,therightwaytorefrainfromsin.55Thisexchangeisevidenceofthegrowinglevelofreligiousacculturationamonglaybelievers,whowereclearlystimulatedbycloseinter-actionwithmembersofreligiousorders.Thecollaborationresultedalsointhewritingofreportationes,writtenaccountsofpredicationactivities,whichwereusedasreadingmaterialinordertocontinuein extensotheoralactofpredica-tion.Thereportationes oftheLentensermonsoftheAugustinianGregorioofAlessandria,heldin1427intheFlorentinechurchofSantoSpirito,aretheworkoftheFlorentinelaymanBettod’AndreaGherardini.BettowaspresentatallthesermonsbyGregorio,wherehetooknoteswhichhethenreworkedintoan“official”copy.56This“reworking”involvedaddingreferencestobookswhichconstituted part of “religious capital,” such as the Italian translation of theMeditationes vitae ChristiandavernacularversionoftheGospels:

HerebeginsthenarrationofthePassionfollowingStJohntheEvangelist,readthismorningatMass.ThismorningIhadnochancetotakenotesfrom the passion, as I had run out of wax tables [used to make quicknotesduringthepredication,SC]butIamcopyingitnowfrommyowntext[...]IwillwritedownthepassioinLatinandinvernacular.Gregorio

54 “E inçegnateve d’ avere le scripture suo con voi, chi può, e fateve forte concepto di credere che in esse scripture si contenga quello che basti di rasione a condurve per la via di venire a sal-vamento.”QuotedbyGagliardi(2010)428.

55 Gagliardi(2010)428–29.56 The reportationes by Betto d’Andrea Gherardini are preserved in manuscript Florence,

Biblioteca Riccardina, 1281. On this subject, see Visani-Bistoni (2009). Betto d’ AndreaGherardiniwasnotaloneinwritingsuchnotes.Formoreinformationaboutreportationesbylaycitizens,especially inFlorence,seeZafarana(1968),Howard(2008)andHoward(2006).


drewonly fromthegospelof Johnanddidnotsayanythingabout theothergospels.57

Betto’sattitudeisaclearanswertothefrequentincitementsfromthepulpittoreadtheHolyWritandtomemorizethemostimportantpassages,to“rumi-nate”thewordsandtousethemintheprocessofmeditationandvisualizationwhichcanleadthebelievertonullifythephysicalandchronologicaldistancebetweenthebelieverandtheeventsnarratedintheScriptures.58Oneoftheclearestexpressionsofthisreligiousparticipationthroughactiveuseofreli-giontextsisthepracticeofreligiousmeditationbydevoutlaypeople.

Meditation

At first sight, thedailyoccupationsof the laity seem incompatiblewith therhythmandthecompletedetachmentfromworldlyobligationsthatwerere-quiredforacontemplativelife.However,itisnotentirelycorrecttostatethatduringthelateMiddleAgestheChurchhadneverdevelopedaformofspiritu-alityespeciallyadaptedtothelaity,andthatacontemplativelifeaccordingtothe monastic model remained the ideal to be followed.59 On the contrary,many vernacular texts based on the Bible seem to suggest to their readersformsofreligiousreadingandmeditationthatcouldbeperformedbylaypeo-pleandthatpermittedthemtofulfiltheirdutiesintheworld,whileleadingareligiouslife.

Insomevernaculartextsthereligiousvalueofalife“intheworld”ispro-moted.Forinstance,inthefourteenthcenturytextLa somme le Roi,itisclearlystatedthatthevita activaisanecessaryconditionforarrivingatthevita con-templativa: “Nobody can come to the contemplative life if he has not beenthoroughlytestedfirstintheactivelife.”60Moreover,thetextunderlinesthat

57 “E quivi chomincia il passio di Giovanni vangelista è chantato istamane alla messa. Il quale passio io scritore non apresi per manchamento di tavolille ove scrivevo e feci di scriverlo poi sechondo il testo […] narerò il passio di San Giovanni e per latino e per volgare, chome Idio mi presterà la grazia, ch’ecchomi ho detto frate Ghrigoro narrò solamento il detto passio e degli altri vangelisti non disse nulla o pocho.”QuotedbyVisani-Bistoni(2009)134.

58 Onthisthemeofmeditationandrumination,seeCorbellini(2012a).ForananalysisofthepreachingactivitiesofGiovanniDominiciandtheirreferencesto‘rumination’andmedi-tation,seeDebby(2001).

59 AsinHasenohr(1987)68.60 “La premiere est voie entrée a la seconde, car nus ne puet venir a la vie contemplative se il

n’est premierement bien esprovez en la vie active, si comme dit sainz Greguoires,”seeBrayer-


theimportanceofthevita activais“tofeedGodwiththefleshofgooddeeds,”61a requirement that people living a withdrawn life of contemplation cannotfulfil.

Thelaityneededtohavegoodandreliabletextsinthevernacularrecount-ingthePassionofChrist“accordingtotheGospels,”becauseadetailedknowl-edge of this central element of medieval religion was imperative for eachChristian.Anexampleofthisrecommendationtoreaderscanbeseeninanearlyfifteenth-centurymanuscript“ExplanationoftheMass”:

ApersoncannotbeagoodChristianifhedoesnotthinkatleastonetimeeverydayofthegoodthingsourLordhasdoneforhim.DuringMassonecanthinkaboutthis,becausefromotherthoughtsonewillnotgainanyprofitfromit.ThesacramentisdoneinmemoryoftheblessedsufferingandPassionofourLord,andconsequentlyoneshouldknowitwellbyheart.62

Othertextscontainmorepracticalinstructionsforthelaity,suggestingtothemwaystointegratedevotionalreadingandmeditationintotheirdailylife.FirstlyitisimportanttofindeverydaysomefreetimetothinkofthePassionandtoreadaboutit,asisindicatedinthefollowingprologuetoafifteenth-centuryLifeofChristintheFrenchvernacular:

AndduringonehourofthedaytakewhattimeyoucantothinkofthePassionwithoutbeingpreoccupiedwithmundanethings;andlaterdur-ingothermomentsyoucanreadandunderstandthelessonsofthisbook.Andmemorizethemwithpatience,becausetheyareindispensableforanypersonwhowantstoarriveataspirituallife.63

Leurquin-Labie(2008)330.61 “Pestre Dieu de la viande de bones euvres,”seeBrayer-Leurquin-Labie(2008)329.62 “Et nest pas cristian parfait la personne qui ne pense au mains une fois le iour aux biens que

nostre seigneur a fais pour luy. A la messe y puet on penser aussi bien come a autre chose que tal ne peut mie prouffiter. Car li sacremens est fais en la remembrance de la benoite souf-france et passion nostre seigneur. Si le doit on bien auoir en memoire.”Reims,BM,MS614(dated1403),fol.129r.

63 “Et une heure du jour prens aucunne espace que tu ayes loisir d’y penser sans toy occuper en aucunes choses mondaines ; et apres es autres heures tu pourras lire et entendre les aucto-ritez et einseignemens de ce livre Et le retien dilligentement en ta memoire. Car elles sont tres necessaires a celuy qui veult venir a vie esperituelle.” Paris, Arsenal, MS 2036, fol. 388r;quotedinBoulton(2000)58.


Other prologues recommend the lay reader to think without interruptionaboutthePassionofChristduringtheirdailyactivities:

Andsimilarlyinallwordsandallactions,regardlessoftheplacewhereyouare,regardlessofwhatyourpositionis:ontheground,seated,lyingdown,eating,speaking,aloneorwithothers;alwayshaveyoureyesandyourmindonyourGodandoursaviourJesusChrist.64

As Maureen Boulton has observed, the instructions in the prologues to theLivesandPassionsofChristinFrencharesimpleandconstructedinamannerthat facilitatesmemorization.65For instance,agreatnumberof thesedevo-tionaltextsarestructuredaccordingtothesevendaysoftheweek,sothateachdayhasitsowntheme,connectedtothelifeandPassionofChrist.And,astheauthoroftheprologuetoanotherLifeofChrist,writtenin1464,claimsbyfol-lowingthesestrictureslaypersonscansurpassclericsintheirspirituallife:

Because,bythefrequentmeditationofthelifeofChristthesoulisliftedintoafamiliaritywithHim,trustinHim,andloveofHim,whileitabhorsallotherthings.Moreover,bythismeditation[…]severalsimplepeoplehaveknownmuchofGod’smysteriesandsecrets,towhichseveralgreatclericshavenotbeenabletoarriveatall.66

Conclusion

DuringthelateMiddleAgesalargegroupofmenofthechurch,includingJeanGerson,wereawareofthereligiousambitionsofthelaityandmanyofthemhad witnessed the spiritual successes of several laymen and -women. Layindividualsandgroupscombiningreligiousambitiouswithalifeintheworld,were accepted and even held in high esteem by their spiritual advisors. In

64 “Et semblablement en toutes paroles et fais En quelque estat et lieu et comment que tu soies Enclin et en estant seant et gesant en mengant ou parlant ou seul ou aueuc aultres Ayes a touteheure ton regard et ton entendement en ton dieu nostre redempteur Ihesucrist.”Paris,BnF,MSfr.181,fol.viijr.

65 Boulton(2000)54–56.66 “Car par la frequente meditacion de la vie diceluy lame si est admenee en vne familiarite

confidence et amour diceluy en tant quelle mesprise et contempue toute autre chose. Oultre plus par telle meditacion […] pluseurs simples gens ont congneu moult des misteres et secres de dieu ausquelz pluseurs grans clers ne sont point parvenus.”Paris,BnF,MS9587(dated1464),fol.ir.


ordertofulfilthereligiousandtheologicalneedsofthisgroup,andinordertoinciteotherlaypeopletofollowtheirexample,clericstranslated(partsof)theBibleintothevernacular,andadaptedittothespecificneedsofnewgroupsofreaders.Throughtranslations,predicationsandlettersofspiritualadvice,layreadersandlistenersweregiventheinstrumentstodevelopanewculturalandreligiouscapitalandnewsetsofreligiousvalues,tailor-madeandfittingthespecificsituationoflaypeople,combiningworldlyandearthlypreoccupationswithprayerandmeditation, thecare for their familieswith thecare for thesoulsandcivicresponsibilitieswithreligioussociability.Latemedievalbeliev-ers were taking advantage of the fifteenth-century “carnival of religious op-tions”andtheirpleaforahigherlevelofparticipationtoreligiouslifewasinmostcasesnotleftunheard:theywereexploringpossibilitiesandcollaborat-ingwiththeclergyandmembersofreligiousordersinacommonsearchforamoreintensereligiousexperiencefirmlygroundedincivicsociety.

Latemedievalreligiouslifewasnot“moribund”butverymuchalive.Itwasoneofthemostimportantelementsofculturaldynamics,atthecentreofaprocessofnegotiationoflanguages,meaningsandvalues.Itwasanon-goingdiscussionbetweenLatinandvernacular,betweenreligiousandlay,betweenearthandheaven,andbetweentraditionalandnewpowerstructuresinasoci-etythatwasinacontinuousstateoftransformation.Religiousparticipationofthelaitydidnotstartin1520withLutherandtheReformation,itisalateme-dievalphenomenon,aworldof“voluntaryinitiatives”connectedtothepossi-bilityto“personalize”religionandtoadaptittopersonallives.67

Bibliography

Barbieri,E.,“Cavalcavolgarizzatoredegli‘ActusApostolorum,’”inLa Bibbia in italiano tra Medioevo e Rinascimento,ed.L.Leonardi(Florence,1998),pp.291–328.

Bestul,Th.H.,Texts of the Passion. Latin Devotional Literature and Medieval Society(Philadelphia,1996).

Blumenfeld-Kosinsky,R.,D.RobertsonandN.Warren,eds.,The Vernacular Spirit. Essays on Medieval Religious Literature (NewYork,2002).

Bogaert,P.-M.,“LaBiblefrançaiseauMoyenÂge.Despremièrestraductionsauxdébutsdel’imprimerie,”inLes Bibles en français. Histoire illustrée du Moyen Âge à nos jours,ed.P.-M.Bogaertand-C.Cannuyer(Turnhout,1991),pp.14–46.

Bonnardot,F.,Le psautier de Metz: texte du XIVe siècle (Paris,1884).

67 VanEngen(2008b)284.


Boulton,M.,“LaPassionpourlaPassion:lestextesenmoyenfrançais,”inLe moyen français44–45(2000),pp.45–62.

Branca,V.,“Copistiperpassione,tradizionecaratterizzante,tradizionedimemoria,”inStudi e problemi di critica testuale. Convegno di Studi di filologia italiana nel centenario della Commissione per i testi in lingua(Bologna,1961)69–83.

Brayer,E.andA.F.Leurquin-Labie,eds.,“La somme le roi” par frère Laurent(Paris,2008).Bryan, J., Looking Inward: Devotional Reading and the Private Self in Late Medieval

England (Philadelphia,2008).Burke,P.,Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe(Cambridge,2004).––––––,“CulturesofTranslationinEarlyModernEurope,”inCultural Translation in

Early Modern Europe,eds.P.BurkeandR.Po-chiaHsia(Cambridge,2007)7–38.––––––,Cultural Hybridity(Cambridge,2009a).––––––,“TranslatingKnowledge,TranslatingCultures,”inKultureller Austausch: Bilanz

und Perspektiven der Frühneuzeitforschung, ed. M. North (Cologne, 2009b), pp.69–77.

Chopin,M.,M.T.DinaleandR.Pelosini,“Inventariodeimanoscritti,”inMélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome. Moyen Age105–2(1993),pp.863–86.

Ciappelli,G.,“Memoriacollettivaememoriaculturale.Lafamigliafraanticoemoderno,”inAnnali dell’Istituto storico Italo-germanico in Trento29(2003),pp.13–32.

Clarke,P.D.,“Newevidenceofnobleandgentrypietyinfifteenth-centuryEnglandandWales,”inJournal of Medieval History 34(2008),pp.23–35.

Copeland,R.,Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts (Cambridge,1991).

Corbellini,S.,“InstructingtheSoul,FeedingtheSpiritandAwakeningthePassion:HolyWritandLayReadersinLateMedievalEurope,”inShaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Readers in the Sixteenth Century,eds.B.GordonandM.McLean(Leyden,2012a),pp.15–39.

––––––,“ThePleaforLayBiblesinFourteenthandFifteenthCenturyFlorence.TheRoleof Confraternities,” in Faith’s Boundaries: Laity and Clergy in Early Modern Confraternities, eds. N. Terpstra, A. Prosperi and S. Pastore (Turnhout, 2012b),87–112.

––––––,“LookingintheMirroroftheScriptures.ReadingtheBibleinMedievalItaly,”in“Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants”. The Bible for the Laity and Theologians in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Era,eds.W.FrancoisandA.denHollander(Leuven,2012c)21–40.

––––––,“Introduction,” inCultures of Religious Reading in the Late Middle Ages,ed.S.Corbellini(Turnhout,2013a),1–11.

––––––,“VernacularBibleManuscriptsinLateMedievalItaly:CulturalAppropriationandTextualTransformation,”inForm and Function of the Medieval Bible,eds.L.LightandE.Poleg(Leiden2013b),pp.261–81.


––––––,andM.Hoogvliet,“ArtisansandReligiousReadinginLateMedievalItalyandNorthernFrance(c.1400-c.1520),”inJournal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 43(2013),pp.521–44.

Debby, N., Renaissance Florence in the Rhetoric of two Popular Preachers. Giovanni Dominici (1356–1419) and Bernardino da Siena (1380–1444)(Turnhout,2001).

Debray,R.,Introduction à la médiologie (Paris,2000).Duffy,E.,The Stripping of the Altars. Traditional religion in England 1400–1580(NewHaven

andLondon,1992).––––––,“Eliteandpopularreligion:theBookofHoursandlaypietyinthelatermiddle

ages,”inElite and Popular Religion,eds.K.CooperandJ.Gregory(2006),pp.140–61.Eco,U.,Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation(London,2003).Eire,C.M.N.,“EarlyModernCatholicpietyintranslation,”inCultural Translation in Early

Modern Europe,eds.P.BurkeandR.Po-chiaHsia(Cambridge,2007),pp.83–100.Espagne,M.,Les transferts culturels franco-allemands(Paris,1999).Gagliardi,I.,“TradizioneAgostinianaeTradizioneGesuata,”inStoria della direzione

spirituale. L’età medievale,ed.S.BoeschGajano(Brescia,2010),pp.425–45.Ghosh,K.,“WycliffismandLollardy,”inThe Cambridge History of Christianity vol. IV:

Christianity in Western Europe 1000–1500,eds.M.RubinandW.Simons(Cambridge,2009),pp.433–45.

Gillespie,V.,“VernacularTheology,”inMiddle English,ed.P.Strohm(Oxford,2007),pp.401–20.

Glorieux,P.,ed.,Jean Gerson. Oeuvres complètes. Volume VII/1: L’oeuvre française(Paris,1966).

Gow,A.,“ChallengingtheProtestantParadigm:BiblereadinginLayUrbanContextsoftheLaterMiddleAges,”inScripture and Pluralism. Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, eds.T.J.HeffernanandT.E.Burman(Leiden-Boston,2005),pp.161–91.

Hasenohr,G.,“AperçusurladiffusionetlaréceptiondelalittératuredespiritualitéenlanguefrançaiseauderniersiècleduMoyenÂge,”inWissensorganisierende und wissensvermittelnde Literatur im Mittalalter, ed. N.R. Wolf (Wiesbaden, 1987),pp.57–90.

––––––,“Lesprologuesdestextesdedévotionenlanguefrançaise(XIIIe-XVesiècles):formesetfonctions,”inLes prologues médiévaux,ed.J.Hamesse(Turnhout,2000),pp.593–638.

Hoogvliet, M., “The Medieval Vernacular Bible as a Flexible Text: Selective andDiscontinuousReadingPractices,”inForm and Function of the Medieval Bible,eds.L.LightandE.Poleg(Leiden2013),pp.283–306.

Howard,P.,“TheauralspaceofthesacredinRenaissanceFlorence,”inRenaissance Florence. A Social History,eds.R.J.CrumandJ.T.Paoletti(Cambridge,2006),pp.376–93.


––––––,“PreachingandliturgyinRenaissanceFlorence,”inPrédication et Liturgie au Moyen Âge,eds.N.BériouandF.Morenzoni(Turnhout,2008),pp.313–33.

Ketelaar,E., “TheGenealogicalGaze:Family IdentitiesandFamilyArchives intheFourteenthtoSeventeenthCenturies,”inLibraries and Cultural Record44–1(2009),pp.9–28.

Kullmann, D., “Introduction,” in The Church and Vernacular Literature in Medieval France,ed.D.Kullmann(Toronto,2009),pp.1–11.

Leonardi,L.,“‘Avolerlabenevolgarizzare’:teoriadellatraduzionebiblicainItalia(conappuntisull’‘Apocalisse’),”inStudi medievali37–1(1996),pp.171–201.

––––––,ed.,La Bibbia in italiano tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. La Bible Italienne au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance(Florence,1998).

Mertens,Th.,ed.Boeken voor de eeuwigheid. Middelnederlands geestelijk proza(Am-sterdam,1993).

Minnis,A.,Translations of Authority in Medieval English Literature: Valuing the Vernacular(Cambridge,2009).

Mohrmann,C.,Latin vulgaire, latin des chrétiens, latin médiéval(Paris,1955).Mordenti,R.,“IlibridifamigliainItalia,II,Geografiaestoria,”inAppendice gli Atti del

Seminario nazionale “I libri di famiglia in Italia: quindici anni di ricerche”(RomeTorVergata,27–28June1997)(Rome,2001).

Nobel,P.,“Latraductionbiblique,”inTranslations médiévales. Cinq siècles de traductions en français au Moyen Âge (XIe-XVe siècles). Étude et répertoire,eds.C.GalderisiandV.Agrigoroaei,vol.1(Turnhout,2011),pp.207–23.

Ricci,A.,Mercanti scriventi. Sintassi e testualità di alcuni libri di famiglia fiorentini fra Tre e Quattrocento(Rome,2005).

Richmond,C.,“TheEnglishGentryandReligionc.1500,”inReligious Belief and ecclesi-astical careers in late medieval England,ed.C.Harper-Bill(Woodbridge,1991),pp.121–50.

Rider,C.,“LayreligionandpastoralcareinthirteenthcenturyEngland:theevidenceofa group of short confession manuals,” in Journal of Medieval History 36 (2010),pp.327–40.

Rigney,A.,“Introduction,”inCultural Participation. Trends since the Middle Ages,eds.A.RigneyandD.Fokkema(1993),pp.1–12.

Serventi,S.,“Sermoniinassenza:l’epistolariodiGirolamodaSiena,”inLa letteratura in forma di sermone: i rapporti tra predicazione e letteratura nei secoli XIII-XVI,eds.G.Auzzas,G.BaffettiandC.Delcorno(Florence,2003),pp.79–95.

Schilling,H.andI.G.Tóth,eds.,Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe, 1400–1700, vol. I: Religion and Cultural Exchange in Europe, 1400–1700 (Cambridge,2006).

Schmale,W.,ed.,Kulturtransfer: kulturelle Praxis im 16. Jahrhundert(Innsbruck,2003).Schmitt,J.-C.,“DubonusageduCredo,”inFaire croire: modalités de la diffusion et de la

réception des messages religieux du XIIIe au XVe siècles (Paris,1981),pp.337–61.


Schreiner, K., “Laienfrommigkeit – Frommigkeit von Eliten oder Frommigkeit desVolkes?ZursocialenVerfasstheitlaikalerFrommigkeitspraxisinspätenMittelalter,”inLaienfrömmigkiet im späten Mittelalter,ed.K.Schreiner(Oldenburg,1992),pp.1–78.

Sneddon,C.R.,“TheBibleinFrench,”inThe New Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 2: From 600 to 1450, ed. R. Marsden and E. A. Matter (Cambridge, Eng., 2012), pp.251–67.

Somerset, F. and N. Watson, eds., The Vulgar Tongue: Medieval and Postmedieval Vernacularity(UniversityPark,2003).

Stallybrass,P.,“BooksandScrolls:NavigatingtheBible,”inBooks and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies,eds.J.AndersenandE.Sauer(Philadelphia,2002),pp.42–79.

Tanner,N.andS.Watson,“Leastofthelaity:theminimumrequirementsforamedievalChristian,”inJournal of Medieval History32(2006),pp.395–423.

Taylor,C.,Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modern Identity(Cambridge,1989).VanEngen,J.,Sisters and Brothers of Common Life: the Devotio Moderna and the World

of the Later Middle Ages(Philadelphia,2008a).––––––, “MultipleOptions: theWorldof theFifteenth-CenturyChurch,” inChurch

History77–2(2008b),pp.257–84.VanUytfanghe,M.,“LelatinetleslanguesvernaculairesauMoyenÂge:unaperçu

panoramique,”inThe dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe, eds.MichèleGoyensandWernerVerbeke(Leuven,2003),pp.1–38.

Vauchez,A.,The Laity in the Middle Ages. Religious Belief and Devotional Practices.EditedandintroducedbyDanielE.Bornstein(NotreDame,1993).

Visani,O.andM.G.Bistoni,“LabibbianellapredicazionedegliAgostiniani.IlcasodiGregoriodiAlessandria,”inSotto il cielo delle scritture. Bibbia, retorica e letteratura religiosa (secc. XIII-XVI), eds. C. Delcorno and G. Baffetti (Florence, 2009), pp.115–37.

Walters,L.J.,“TheRoyalVernacular:PoetandPatroninChristinedePizan’sCharlesVandtheSeptPsaumesallégorisées,” inThe Vernacular Spirit. Essays on Medieval Religious Literature,eds.R.Blumenfeld-Kosinsky,D.RobertsonandN.Warren(New-York,2002),pp.145–82.

Warnar,G.,“‘Leringhenindenboeken.’DetekstendedragerindeNederlandseliteratuurvandeveertiendeeeuw,”inSpiegel der Letteren50–2(2008),pp.155–71.

Watson,N.,“Introduction:KingSolomon’sTablets,”inThe Vulgar Tongue: Medieval and Postmedieval Vernacularity,eds.F.SomersetandN.Watson(UniversityPark,2003),pp.1–13.

Werner,M.andB.Zimmermann,“Penserl’histoirecroisée:entreempirieetréflexivité,”inAnnales H.S.S.57(2003),pp.7–34.

Zafarana,Z.,“PerlastoriareligiosadiFirenzenelQuattrocento.Unaraccoltaprivatadiprediche,”inStudi medievali9(1968),pp.1017–113.

281ReceptionAndTheTextualityOfHistory

Chapter14

Reception and the Textuality of History: Ramus and Kepler on Proclus’ History and Philosophy of Geometry1

Guy Claessens

Petrus Ramus: History as Forgetting

IntheProoemium mathematicum of1567,PetrusRamus’opinionaboutProclusis,forthemostpart,positive:theNeoplatonistmaynothavebeenagreatlogi-cian(licet logica leviter instructus),hewasundoubtedlyanexcellentmathema-tician(attamen eximius mathematicus fuit),whosecommentaryonEuclid isdefinitelyworththeeffortofreading.2Ramus’initialjudgmentrapidlychangeswhenhebroachesthesubjectoftheso-calledPlatonicpolyhedra(cf. infra).Afterall,apartfromtheeducationalvalueoftheElements–asanall-embrac-ingstarterpackforbothteachersandstudents–Proclushadalsomentionedasecond,moreimportantgoalofgeometry:

But Proclus located the other exceptional and admirable goal in theknowledgeofthefivecosmicfigures[...],asifthestructureofsuchfig-ures,theirdescriptionandmutualcomparisonareofsogreatimportancethatthewholeuse,i.e.thegoal,ofmathematicswillbeachievedwhenyou have mastered those very few things [...]. But that sacred goal ofgeometry was fiercely criticized and refuted by Aristotle in chapter 8,book3ofOn the Heavens,andProclushimselfhadphilosophizedmoreseriously before, when he explained that the mathematical arts wereinventedforthesakeofcommonusefulness.3

1 IwouldlikesincerelytothankDemmyVerbekeaswellasthisvolume’sanonymousrefereesfortheirhelpfulremarksfollowingtheirreadingofearlierversionsofthisarticle.

2 Ramus,Prooem. math.154.3 Ramus,Prooem. math.189–91:“Alterum vero mathematicae finem singularem Proclus & admira-

bilem [...] constituit in quinque mundanarum figurarum cognitione [...] tanquam talium figurarum constitutio, adscriptio inter se & comparatio tanti fuerit, ut mathematicae totius utilitas, id est finis, constiterit, si haec paucula teneas. [...] Verum sacer ille geometriae finis ab Aristotele 8. cap. 3. lib. de caelo vehementer exagitatus & labefactatus est, longeque gravius Proclus ipse est antea phi-losophatus, cum mathematicas artes popularis utilitatis causa repertas esse docuit.”ThepassageofOn the Heavens referredtobyRamusisAristotle,Cael.306b2ff.

© GuyClaessens,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_016This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



282 Claessens

Forthepresentdiscussion,themostimportantelementofthispassageisRa-mus’identificationoftheuse(utilitas)andthegoal(finis)ofgeometry.Exactlybecauseofthisassimilationthepossibilityofasacred(sacer)andmetaphysi-calgeometryisdismissed.ForRamus,onlytheprospectofapracticalgeome-tryasanars bene metiendi4remainsor,asstrikinglyputbyWalterOng:“onestudiesgeometry‘tomeasurewell,’nottounderstandmathematics[...].”5

ThepassageofProclus’Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements referredtobyRamusattheendoftheabovequoteissituatedatthebeginningof the famous history of geometry reported in the second prologue (IE, 64,7–68,23):

Butlimitingourinvestigationtotheoriginoftheartsandsciencesinthepresentage,wesay,ashavemostwritersofhistory, thatgeometrywasfirstdiscoveredamongtheEgyptiansandoriginatedintheremeasuringof their lands.Thiswasnecessary for thembecause theNileoverflowsandobliteratestheboundarylinesbetweentheirproperties.Itisnotsur-prisingthatthediscoveryofthisandtheotherscienceshaditsorigininnecessity, since everything in the world of generation proceeds fromimperfectiontoperfection.6

AccordingtoProclus,thereasonforgeometry’sbirth“outofnecessity”(ἀπὸ τῆς χρείας)liesinthefactthatinthesensiblerealmeverythingfollowsapatternofincreasingperfection:fromsense-perception(αἴσθησις)overdiscursivereason-ing(λογισμός)tointellectualapprehension(νοῦς).7Whatfollowsisasurveyofthe history of geometry as evolving from initial materiality to pureintellectuality,8allbroughttogetheraroundPlatoandhisfollowers.9Thewrit-

4 Ramus,Geometria,I,1inArithmeticae libri duo et geometriae libri septem et viginti(1569).5 Ong(1958)179.6 Proclus,In primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commentarii(IE)64,16–65,1:“ἐπεὶ δὲ χρὴ

τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τῶν τεχνῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπιστημῶν πρὸς τὴν παροῦσαν περίοδον σκοπεῖν, λέγομεν, ὅτι παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις μὲν εὑρῆσθαι πρῶτον ἡ γεωμετρία παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἱστόρηται, ἐκ τῆς τῶν χωρίων ἀναμετρήσεως λαβοῦσα τὴν γένεσιν. ἀναγκαία γὰρ ἦν ἐκείνοις αὕτη διὰ τὴν ἄνοδον τοῦ Νείλου τοὺς προσήκοντας ὅρους ἑκάστοις ἀφανίζοντος. καὶ θαυμαστὸν οὐδὲν ἀπὸ τῆς χρείας ἄρξασθαι τὴν εὕρεσιν καὶ ταύτης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιστημῶν, ἐπειδὴ πᾶν τὸ ἐν γενέσει φερόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀτελοῦς εἰς τὸτέλειον πρόεισιν.” All translations from Proclus’ Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements inthisarticlearetakenfromMorrow(1992)withsomemodifications.

7 Proclus,IE64,23–65,3.8 Goulding(2006)79.9 MuellerinMorrow(1992)xxix.


ingsofEuclid–aPlatonistaccordingtoProclus10–aretheultimatepinnacleandsynthesisofthishistoricalawakening:

Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Ele-ments,systematizingmanyofthetheoremsofEudoxus,perfectingmanyof those of Theaetetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable formpropositions that had been rather loosely established by his predeces-sors.11

IntheforewordofhisEuclid-editionof1544,12RamusagreeswithProclustotheextentthathebelievesthehistoryofmathematicstobeanevolutionaryprocess.StrangelyenoughthisagreementwithProclusgoeshandinhandwithanewandoriginalinterpretationoftheetymologysuggestedbytheNeopla-tonistfortheword“μαθηματική.”Procluswritesthefollowing:

Asforthenameitselfthatisappliedtomathematicsandmathematicalstudies,fromwhatsourcecouldwesaytheancientsgotitforthesesci-ences,andwhatrelevantmeaningcouldithave?Inmyopinion,suchadesignationforthescienceofdianoeticreasoningdidnotcomeaboutbyaccident,asmostnamesdo.Accordingtothetradition,thePythagoreansrecognizedthateverythingwecall learningisremembering,notsome-thingplacedinthemindfromwithout[…].This,then,iswhatlearning(μάθησις)is,recollectionoftheeternalideasinthesoul;andthisiswhythestudythatespeciallybringsustherecollectionoftheseideasiscalledthescienceconcernedwithlearning(μαθηματική).13

10 Proclus,IE68,20–23:“καὶ τῇ προαιρέσει δὲ Πλατωνικός ἐστι καὶ τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ταύτῃ οἰκεῖος, ὅθεν δὴ καὶ τῆς συμπάσης στοιχειώσεως τέλος προεστήσατο τὴν τῶν καλουμένων Πλατωνικῶν σχημάτων σύστασιν.”/“EuclidbelongedtothepersuasionofPlatoandwasathomeinthisphiloso-phy;andthisiswhyhethoughtthegoaloftheElementsasawholetobetheconstructionoftheso-calledPlatonicfigures.”

11 Proclus,IE68,6–68,21:“οὐ πόλυ δὲ τούτων νεώτερός ἐστιν Εὐκλείδης ὁ τὰ στοιχεῖα συναγαγὼν καὶ πολλὰ μὲν τῶν Εὐδόξου συντάξας, πολλὰ δὲ τῶν Θεαιτήτου τελεωσάμενος, ἔτι δὲ τὰ μαλακώτερον δεικνύμενα τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἰς ἀνελέγκτους ἀποδείξεις ἀναγαγών.”

12 TheforewordisincludedinRamus’Collectaneae praefationes(1599)119–21.13 Proclus,IE44,25–46,18:“Τὸ δ’ αὖ ὄνομα αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ τῆς μαθηματικῆς καὶ τὸ τῶν μαθημάτων

πόθεν ἂν φαῖμεν ὑπὸ τῶν παλαιῶν ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις ταύταις ἀποδεδόσθαι καὶ τίνα ἂν ἔχοι προσήκοντα λόγον; δοκεῖ δή μοι μὴ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων εἶναι, καθάπερ δὴ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἡ τοιαύτη τῆς ἐπιστήμης τῶν διανοητικῶν λόγων προσηγορία, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ λέγεται τῶν Πυθαγορείων κατειδότων μὲν ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ καλουμένη μάθησις ἀνάμνησίς ἐστιν οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἐντιθεμένη ταῖς ψυχαῖς

284 Claessens

Ramusendorsestheviewpointthatμάθησιςandἀνάμνησιςshouldbeconnect-ed,buthediffersfromProclusintwoimportantways.14Firstly,hetransfersthenotionofmathematicsasaprocessofreminiscencefromtheleveloftheindi-vidualtothatofacollectivehistory.Secondly,accordingtoRamus,thismath-ematicallearningdoesnotinvolvetherememberingofinnateconcepts,butofmathematicalpracticeinstead:

Obviously, to construct the building of this mathematical recollection,onehastoappealtomanycraftsmenandmanyarchitects,sincenotonlywouldneitherasinglemannorasinglegenerationbesufficienttocreatethescienceofsuchanobleandextraordinarydiscipline,buthardlymanythousandsofmenandgenerations.15

Thirteenyearslater,intheProoemium mathematicum,Ramustellsaradicallydifferentstoryandseemstogetridoftheevolutionaryaspectaswell.Accord-ingtoRobertGoulding,16thischangeofheartcanbeexplainedbytheobserva-tion that sixteenth-century mathematics was far from the natural and wellorganizedscienceonewouldexpectittobeattheendofalineardevelopmentthatstartedthousandsofyearsago.Mathematics, instead,“turnedouttobedifficult.”17Inordertograspthesignificanceofthewords“natural”and“diffi-cult” inRamus’discourse,abriefoutlineofRamus’philosophyofscienceisrequired.

Thepictureroughlylooksasfollows.18Dialectics–andeveryotherscience–consistsofthreeaspects:natura, doctrina andexercitatio.Allofusarebornwithanaturaldispositiontoreasondialectically.Inthisstateofaffairswearedealingwithnaturalandnotscientifically-developedknowledge:peopleuselogic inspeakingandwriting,evenwithout formal training.Thisnaturalarthas to be the starting-point for the development of a discipline (doctrina)basedontheimitationoftheappropriateexemplars(forinstance,Ciceroin

[…]. αὕτη τοίνυν ἐστὶν ἡ μάθησις ἡ τῶν ἀϊδίων ἐν ψυχῇ λόγων ἀνάμνησις, καὶ μαθηματικὴ διὰ ταύτην ἡ πρὸς τὰς ἀναμνήσεις ἡμῖν τὰς ἐκείνων συντελοῦσα γνῶσις διαφερόντως ἐπονομάζεται.”

14 Goulding(2006)72.15 Ramus, Collectaneae praefationes 121: “videlicet huius mathematicae recordationis opus

exaedificandum, tot fabros, tot architectos adhiberi oportuit, quia non modo non homo unus, aut aetas una: sed vix multa & hominum, & aetatum millia ad constituendam tam nobilis, atque praestantis doctrinae scientiam sufficerent.”

16 Goulding(2006)73–74.17 Goulding(2006)74.18 ThisbriefoutlineisbasedonOng(1958)175ff.,Skalnik(2002)48ff.andGoulding(2006)

64ff.


rhetoric).Thisformalorganisationiscompletelyfocusedontraining(exercita-tio),anditsultimategoalispracticaluse.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthisdoc-trina isnotamerecopyofnaturaldialectics,sinceitistheartofreasoningwell(bene):“Ramus’subsequentrestorationoftheCiceronianbene,tomakedialec-ticmean‘theartofdiscoursingwell’pointsuptothedifferencebetweenthe‘art’ofdialecticand‘natural’dialectic.Apersonendowedwithnaturaldialec-ticcandiscourse,butnotso‘well’ashemight.”19Bymeansofarticulationandtraining,thenaturalarthastobecomeasecondnature(habitus).AgainstthisbackgroundRamus’reformoflogicbecomesevident:thelogictaughtattheuniversitiesisinasharpcontrastwithnaturallogicandhastobereorganisedtoregainitsnaturalpurityandpracticaluse.20

Ramus’ views on dialectics apply to mathematics as well. His experienceandevaluationofcontemporarymathematicsasadifficultandunnaturalsci-enceinevitablyalterhisideasconcerningthehistoryofmathematics.Mathe-maticshasbeendeprivedofitspracticaloriginand,onemightsay,hasbeendenaturalised. Therefore, the model of a collective recollection should beabandoned.Butwherediditgowrong?AccordingtoRamus,it isPlatowhoshouldbeheldresponsibleforthisdegeneration.IntheProoemium mathemat-icum, Ramusseparatesthepairingofμάθησις–ἀνάμνησιςbyintroducinganewetymologyfor“μαθηματική,”baseduponthemeaningofμάθησιςas“learning.”Whatismore,RamusgivesaningenioustwisttotheetymologysuggestedinhisforewordtoEuclidof1544:insteadoftheoriginalinterpretationofthetermrecordatio asacollectiverememberingofmathematicalpractice,henowad-heres to Proclus’ reading, namely recordatio as an individual recollection ofinnateconcepts.Onceagain–inanalmostliteraltranslation–RamusreferstoProclus’account,albeitonlytorefutehim:

He[i.e.Proclus]answersthatthisnameisnotgiveninacommonman-ner,likeothers,butthatiswasgivenbythePythagoreansbasedontheargument of the recollection, namely that all learning is remembering[…].Untilnow,thatrecollectionhasnotbeenfoundinanyonesofertile,that by means of it one art has been discovered without industry andlabour.Inreality,thatnamewasinventedarbitrarily,andnotbecauseofaninitialexcellence,butbecauseofaproperty:duringmanyagesmath-ematicswastheonlydiscipline.21

19 Ong(1958)179.20 Goulding(2006)65.21 Ramus,Prooem. math.354–55:“Respondet non vulgo id nomen, ut caetera, factum esse, sed

a Pythagoreis impositum e recordationis argumento, quod omnis quae dicitur disciplina,

286 Claessens

Isitnotobviousthen,saysRamus,fromtheexamplesofthediligence(indu-stria) and effort (labor) of numerous mathematicians sketched in the firstbookoftheProoemium,thatmathematicscameintobeingbymeansofsen-soryperception(a sensu),induction(inductio)andexperience(experientia)?Therefore,isthisartnotinoriginstrangeandexternal(advena)insteadofin-born(indigena)?22

Yet,ifthehistoryofthosemathematicalactscannotbereadasastoryofprogress,howisittobeunderstood?Isadegenerativemodelavalidalterna-tive?WhatiscertainisthatRamusseemsfullyawarethathisrecollectionmod-elcanonlyfunctionasaprescriptive,theoreticalprogramwhichisunabletocopewithpossible“abnormal”corruptions.FromRamus’viewpointthemainresponsibilityfortheunnaturalcorruptionthatturnedthehistoryofmathe-maticsintoafalsehistorylieswithPlato.WhenPlato’sstudentsArchytasandEudoxusvulgarizedgeometrybymovingitfromthedomainofthesoulandstresseditspracticalusefulness,theirmaster’sreactionsealedthefateofge-ometry:

But Plato, outraged because the noblest possession of philosophy wasrevealedandrelinquishedtothemasses,bannedbothofthemfromhisinstitute, as if they had betrayed the secret mysteries of philosophy. ItgoeswithoutsayingthatIcannotapproveofPlato’sact.23

Putdifferently,itisPlato’schoicetoexclude“themasses”thathasderailedthehistoryofgeometry.Byturninggeometryintoanexclusivedomainofphiloso-phy,Platowithdrewit fromeverydaypracticaluse.AccordingtoRamus,thereturnofanaturalgeometry isonlypossiblewhenthewordsususand finisbecomesynonymsagain,andgeometryreturnstobeingthears bene metiendiinsteadofawaytounderstandmathematicsorphilosophy.

recordatio est [...]. Recordatio ista adhuc in nemine tam felix inventa est, ut eius beneficio sine studio & labore ars ulla perciperetur. Nomen vero ipsum pro arbitrio factum est, nec ulla quidem initio excellentia, sed proprietate: solae enim multis seculis artes mathematicae fuerunt.”

22 Ramus,Prooem. math.356–57.23 Ramus,Prooem. math. 73:“Verum indignatus Plato quod nobilissimam philosophorum pos-

sessionem in vulgus indicarent ac publicarent, & velut arcana philosophiae mysteria pro-derent, utrumque ab instituto deterruit. Quod factum Platonis equidem laudare non possum.”


Johannes Kepler: History as Awakening

IntheprologueofthefirstbookoftheHarmonices mundi, publishedinLinzin1619, Johannes Kepler directly challenges Ramus’ interpretation of Proclus’commentary.24Whatisatstakeistheacknowledgementofthephilosophicalandtheologicalbearingofgeometry.InhiscritiqueofRamus,Keplershowshowthephilosophicalrelevanceofgeometryisreflectedinthearchetypicalconstructionofthecosmos.AccordingtoKepler,RamusfailedtounderstandtheroleplayedbythefivePlatonicsolidsinGod’soriginaldesignoftheuni-verse:

[...]andthen,asheknewthatProcluswasamemberofthePythagoreansect,hedidnotbelievehimwhenheasserted,whichwasquitetrue,thattheultimateaimofEuclid’swork[...]wasthefiveregularsolids.25

Thepassagequoted in footnote 10 indeedasserts that,accordingtoProclus,EuclidbelongedtotheschoolofPlatoandthereforebelievedtheaimoftheElementstobetheconstructionofthefivePlatonicsolids.26ThefivePlatonicpolyhedra (tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron) aretheonlypossibleregularpolyhedramadeupofcongruentregularpolygons.27Their construction is described by Timaeus in Plato’s eponymous dialogue,wherefouroutof fiveregularsolidsareconnectedwiththeelementswater,fire,airandearth.28AlthoughtheallegedPythagoreanoriginofthetheoryofthePlatonicsolids–anditsassociationwiththeelements– isnowamuchdebated topic,29 Kepler considered it to be a genuinely Pythagorean inven-tion.30Twocompatiblereasons,Ithink,canbegiven.Firstly,Platosetsoutthe

24 Kepler,HM17:“Lectus est liber Procli Petro Ramo, sed quoad nucleum attinet philosophiae, pariter cum decimo Euclidis contemptus et abjectus.”/“ThebookofProcluswasreadbyPetrus Ramus, but as far as the core of philosophy is concerned, it was despised andrejectedequallywiththetenthBookofEuclid.”AlltranslationsfromKepler’sHarmonices mundi (HM) inthisarticlearetakenfromAiton(1997)withsomemodifications.

25 Kepler, HM 17: “[...] deinde cum sciret Proclum fuisse Pythagoricae sectae, non credidit ei affirmanti, quod erat verissimum, sc. Euclidei operis ultimum finem [...] esse quinque cor-pora regularia.”

26 Seefootnote10.27 SeeField(1988)6ff.28 Plato,Ti.55d6–56c7.Tetrahedron–fire;cube–earth;octahedron–airandicosahedron

–water.TimaeusdoesnotexplainhowtheDemiurgeusedthedodecahedron.29 SeeHeath(1960)158–62.30 Kepler,HM17:“[...] pythagoricam philosophiam circa elementorum proprietates ex quinque

corporas deductas.”/“[...]thePythagoreanphilosophyonthepropertiesoftheelements

288 Claessens

theoryasrecountedbythePythagoreanTimaeus,31afactexplicitlyunderlinedbyKepler.32Secondly,itislikelythatKeplerreliedonthefollowingtestimonyfromProclus’commentary:

Followinguponthesemen,Pythagorastransformedmathematicalphi-losophyintoaschemeofliberaleducation,surveyingitsprinciplesfromthehighestdownwardsandinvestigatingitstheoremsinanimmaterialandintellectualmanner.Itwashewhodiscoveredthedoctrineofpro-portionalsandthestructureofthecosmicfigures.33

AtfirstsightitmayseemstrangethatKeplerevengoesonestepfurther,name-lybycountingProclusamongthemembersofthePythagoreansect(pythago-rica secta).However,fromKepler’sperspective,theevidenceisoverwhelming:likethePythagoreans,Proclusstatesthatnumbersreflectthepropertiesofthehighestbeings;34 like thePythagoreanTimaeus,Proclusmentions theworldsoulgoverningthestars;35Proclus’hymnwrittentotheSunisclearlyinspiredbythesameschool.36

asdeducedfromthefivesolids.”Ibidem80:“Haec sunt illa corpora quinque, quae figuras mundanas appellare sunt soliti pythagorei, Plato, et Euclidis commentator Proclus.”/“ThesearethefivebodieswhichthePythagoreansandPlato,andProclus,thecommentatoronEuclid,wereaccustomedtocalltheworldfigures.”

31 Heath(1960)158.32 Kepler,HM265:“[...] Timaeus Locrensis ex pythagoricis placitis apud Platonem defendit.” /

“[...]defendedfromthePythagoreanbeliefsbyTimaeusofLocriinPlato.” Cf.ibidem221:“In Timaeo, qui est citra omnem dubitationis aleam, commentarius quidam in primum caput Geneseos seu lib. I. Mosis, transformansilluminphilosophiampythagoricam.”/“IntheTimaeus,whichisbeyondallhazardofdoubtakindofcommentaryonthefirstchap-terofGenesis,orthefirstbookofMoses,converting it to the Pythagorean philosophy”(myemphasis).

33 Proclus,IE65, 15–21: “ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις Πυθαγόρας τὴν περὶ αὐτὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἰς σχῆμα παιδείας ἐλευθέρου μετέστησεν, ἄνωθεν τὰς ἀρχὰς αὐτῆς ἐπισκοπούμενος καὶ ἀΰλως καὶ νοερῶς τὰ θεωρήματα διερευνώμενος, ὃς δὴ καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀναλόγων πραγματείαν καὶ τὴν τῶν κοσμικῶν σχημάτων σύστασιν ἀνεῦρεν.”

34 Kepler,HM99: “Et Proclus pythagoricus theologiam in numerorum contemplatione collo-cet.”/“AndProclusthePythagoreanlocateshistheologyinthecontemplationofnum-bers.”SeeProclus,IE22,6–8.

35 Kepler,HM265:“Esse aliquam totius universi Animam, praefectam motibus astrorum [...] Proclus vero [...] stabilivit.” / “The view that there is some soul of the whole universe,directingthemotionsof thestars[...] is in factconfirmedbyProclus invariousplaces[...].”

36 Kepler,HM365:“Quo exordio simul indicat, quid Pythagorei sub ignis vocabulo intellexerint (ut mirum sit,discipulumamagistris in centri loco, quod ipsi soli dabant,dissentire.”/“By


Contrarytowhatonewouldexpect,Keplerisnotinterestedintheconnec-tionbetweenthepolyhedraandthefour(orfive)elements,37butintheirroleinGod’soriginaldesignofthecosmos.Twenty-twoyearsbefore,intheMyste-rium cosmographicum(1596),Kepler“discovered”theuniquerelationshipbe-tweenthepolyhedraandtheconstructionoftheuniverse.38Firstly,theCreatorhadreliedonthecosmicfiguresfortherespectivedistanceratiosbetweenthespheresofthevariousplanets(e.g.thetetrahedronfitsproportionallybetweentheorbitsofJupiterandMars).AlthoughthediscoveryoftheellipticalorbitoftheplanetsbetweenthepublishingoftheMysteriumcosmographicum andthecompletionoftheHarmonices mundihassevereconsequencesforthismodelaswell,Keplerstucktotheideathatthedistancebetweentheorbitsoftwoplanetscouldbetracedbacktotheratiobetweenthecircumscribedandin-scribedsphereofoneofthefivesolids.39Secondly,accordingtoKepler,forthecreationofthenumberofplanetsGodhadstartedfromthefivecosmicpoly-hedra.Sincethedistancebetweentheorbitsoftwoplanetscanbeexpressedbymeansofaregularpolyhedronandsinceonlyfiveregularpolyhedracanbeconstructed,thenumberofplanetsamountstosix.40

Fromtheabove,itisclearthatKeplerextracts–inhisopinion–aPlatonic-Pythagoreanelement,namelytheconstructionofthefivepolyhedra,fromitsoriginalconnectionwiththecosmicelementsandappliesittoGod’sblueprintoftheuniverse.ThelegitimacyofthistransplantationisguaranteedbyKeplerhimself.41Thelinkbetweenthepolyhedraandtheelementsisvalidasaplau-sibleanalogy(analogia plausibilis)fromtheperspectiveoftheCreationasanact of God in the guise of geometrician (mundum a Deo creatum esse, in

thisbeginningheindicateswhatthePythagoreansunderstoodbytheword“fire,”sothatitisremarkablethat the disciple disagreed with the mastersonthepositionofthecenter,whichtheygavetotheSunitself.”(myemphasis)Cf.ibidem367:“[...] ex hoc Pythagorae cratere, quem Proclus in ipso statim primo versu hymni propinat.”/“[...]fromthiscupofPythagoras,whichProcluspledgesstraightawayintheveryfirstverseofhisHymn.”

37 TheassociationoftheelementswiththePlatonicsolidsbecamewidespreadinWesterniconographyandisalsofoundinKepler’sHM.SeeStephenson(1994)20.

38 Kepler,HM298.39 Field(1988)93ff.Cf.Kepler,HM299.40 Kepler,HM298:“Tertio repetat lector ex Mysterio meo Cosmographico, quod edidi ante 22.

annos: numerum planetarum seu curriculorum circa solem, desumptum esse a sapientis-simo conditore ex quinque figuris regularibus solidis [...].” / “Third, the reader shouldrememberwhatIpublishedinThe Secret of the Universe,22yearsago,thatthenumberoftheplanets,orofcoursesroundtheSun,wastakenbythemostwiseCreatorfromthefiveregularsolidfigures[...].”

41 Kepler,HM81.

290 Claessens

pondere mensura et numero).42Butwhenitcomesdowntothevalidityofthisanalogyan sich(tamen sic in specie informata),itisnotamatterofnecessarytruth(nulla necessitate continetur).Theacceptabilityandnecessityoftheanal-ogyareforKeplerclearlydistinctcriteria.It is interestingtoseehowKeplerleavesthepossibilityopenthatforthePythagoreansaswell,thesecriteriaweredissimilar:

IfthePythagoreansheldontothistheory,IdonotblameRamus,orAris-totle,forrejectingthisdisputedanalogy.Buttwenty-fouryearsagoIdis-coveredaverydifferentrelationbetweenthesefivefiguresandthefabricoftheworld.Isaidintheintroductiontobook1thatIthoughtitlikelythatevensomeoftheancientshadbeenofthissameopinion,buthadkeptitsecret,inthemanneroftheirsect.43

Inthefollowing,KeplergivestheexampleofthePythagoreanAristarchusofSamoswhomadeanallusiontotheinterpositionofthepolyhedrabydescrib-inghowthecosmoscomprisessixspheresaroundthesunwhichareseparatedfromeachotherbylargeandunequalintervals(magnisque et inter se inaequal-ibus intervallis dirempta).Inotherwords:eveninthisquestionKeplerisinthepossession of the hermeneutical key by means of which the truth that wasconcealedbythePythagoreansinthecapacityofaplausibleanalogycanbedeciphered.WhenwereturntoKepler’squarrelwithRamus,asimilarargu-mentisfound:

WhatifthePythagoreansputforwardthesameteachingasIdo,andhidtheirdoctrinebywrappingitupinwords?[...]Thereforethatinthesecretof the Pythagoreans on this basis the five figures were distributed notamongtheelements,asAristotlebelieved,butamongtheplanetsthem-selvesisverystronglyconfirmedbythefactthatProclustellsusthattheaimofgeometryistotellhowtheheavenhasreceivedappropriatefig-uresfordefinitepartsofitself.44

42 BookofWisdom11.43 Kepler,HM81:“Quod si hic substiterunt Pythagorei, non reprehendo in hac parte Ramum,

non Aristotelem, quod hanc analogiam disputationibus convulsam rejecerunt. At ego ante annos viginti quatuor, longe aliter haec quinque corpora in fabrica Mundi indagavi; dixique in praeambulo libri I. mihi videri consentaneum, eandem doctrinam etiam veterum fuisse, sed occultatam more sectae.”

44 Kepler,HM17–18:“Quid si Pythagorici hoc idem docuerunt, quod ego, sententiam involucris verborum texerunt? […] Quod igitur in mysteriis Pythagoreorum hoc pacto quinque figurae distributae fuerint non inter elementa, ut Aristoteles credidit, sed inter ipsos planetas; illud


IpaycloseattentiontoKepler’sandRamus’differingviewsontheroleofthefivePlatonicsolids,becauseinKepler’sopinion–asinmyown–thisparticularpoint indicates theessentialdifferencebetweenhis readingofProclus (andEuclid)andthatofRamusandhisfollowers.AfterhisoutburstagainstRamusKeplertargetsoneofRamus’studentsbythenameofSnellius.45ThefactthatKeplerexplicitlyreferstoSnelliusasafollowerofRamusprovesthatwearenotdealing with a simple ad hominem, but with a vicious attack on Ramism ingeneral:

Considerthemostingeniousoftoday’sgeometers,Snellius,clearlyasup-porterofRamus[…].Firsthesays, “Thatdivisionof the inexpressiblesintothirteenkindsisuselessforapplication.”Iconcedethat,ifheistorecognizenoapplicationunlessitisineverydaylife[…].ButwhydoeshenotfollowProclus,whomhementions,andwhorecognizesthatthereissomegreatergoodingeometrythanthoseoftheartswhicharenecessaryforliving?46

ThecoreofKepler’scritiqueamountstothefollowing:aRamistisonlyinter-ested in the direct usefulness (usus in vita communi and usus ad vitam) ofmathematics for daily life and fails to appreciate the philosophical value atstake.

Kepler’s reading of Proclus differs fundamentally from Ramus’ utilitarianapproach.47IntheintroductionofthefirstbookoftheHarmonices mundi Ke-plerreportshowProcluswastheonlyoneinAntiquitytophilosophically inter-pretEuclid’sElements:

Infactnotevenamongtheancientsisanyonefoundwhohasintimatedthatheknewexactlythesespecificdistinguishingfeaturesofgeometricalobjects, except for Euclid and his commentator Proclus. [...] ProclusDiadochus in the four books which he published on the first book of

vel maxime confirmat, quod Proclus finem geometriae inter caeteros hunc tradit, quod doceat, quo modo figuras convenientes coelum certis sui partibus acceperit.”

45 WillebrordSnellius(1580–1626)wasaDutchmathematicianwhomKeplerknewperson-ally.SeeAiton(1997)88.

46 Kepler,HM18:“Ecce sollertissimum geometrarum hodiernorum Snellium, plane suffragan-tem Ramo […]. Primum ait, ad usum inutilem esse divisionem illam ineffabilium in tredecim species.Concedo, si nullum ille usum agnoscat, nisi in vita communi […]. At cur non Proclum sequitur, quem allegat, qui agnoscit aliquod maius geometriae bonum, quam sunt artes ad vitam necessariae?”

47 OnProclusandKeplerasexegetes,alsoseeClaessens(2011)183–86.

292 Claessens

Euclidexplicitlyplayedthepartofatheoreticalphilosopherdealingwithamathematicalsubject.48

FromKepler’sperspective,Proclus’textbecomesfundamentalandevenindis-pensableforacorrectunderstandingofgeometry’sphilosophicalbearing:“Butthereisnoneedforarguments:Proclus’wholebookshouldberead.”49Whatismore,thehermeneuticalkeyneededissimilartothatofthePythagoreancor-pus.Proclusdoesnotstatethisdoctrineopenlyandconspicuously(non in ap-erto et conspicuo ponit),buthiseloquenceflowsfully(pleno velut alveo)andiswrappedinobscurePlatonicterminology.50OnlyKeplerisabletopenetrateintosuchmysteries(ad tam recondita penetrare).

KeplerthusassertsthatEuclid’stextisinpermanentneed ofacommentatorproviding the philosophical framework in which the text should function.51Proclus’ Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements is a decisive mo-mentinthereceptionofgeometryasphilosophy.Itisnotsurprisingthen,thatKeplerunderstandsthepoorgeometricalknowledgeofhiscontemporariesasasymptomoftheoblivionintowhichProclus’texthasfallen.Obviously,thisproblem can be solved by bringing renewed attention to Proclus’ text, withKeplerastheexegetepar excellence.Afterall,onlyProclushaswitnessedthesameChristiantruththatKeplernowtriestoexplain.52

Conclusion

For both Kepler and Ramus any comparison between sixteenth- or seven-teenth-century Europe and Antiquity concerning mathematical thinkingpointsinonedirection:thatofthepast.Somewhereontheroad“truth”hasbeenlost.Boththinkersseeitastheirtasktorectifythislossbyreproducinganoriginalmomentofthepast,priortothisfall.Thewayinwhichthisreturnhastobemadeandtheprecisemomentthatshouldbereproduced,however,isforboth men completely different. Ramus wants to return to a moment before

48 Kepler,HM15:“Adeoque ne ex veteribus quidem, qui has specificas rerum geometricarum differentias se exacte cognovisse significaverit, praeter Euclidem ejusque commentatorem Proclum, quisquam occurrit. [...] Proclus Diadochus, libris quatuor in primum Euclidis editis, Philosophum Theoreticum in mathematico subjecto ex professo egit.”

49 Kepler,HM16:“Sed non est opus argumentatione, legatur totus liber Procli.”50 Kepler,HM16.51 SeeClaessens(2011)184.52 Kepler,HM364.AccordingtoKepler theChristian foundationof that truthhasalways

alreadybeenpresentinProclus’work.SeeMartens(2000)34.


andoutsideofthetextualhistoryandtradition:acollectiveprimordialstatewherenaturerules.AccordingtoRamus,truthcoincideswithaninitial,natu-raldisposition,andareturntothisdispositionisthereforeareturntothepast.Itishistory,inallitsappearances,thatstandsbetweenusandournature:theevolution of education, the oblivion of usefulness, the arrogant choice thatalienatedmanfromnature,etcetera.Theonlysolutionavailableisamethodi-calreform,modelledonourownnatureinsteadofexternalauthorities.InhisDialecticae institutiones(1543)Ramuswritesthatwewoulddobettertoobtainadvicefromunschooledworkersthanfromscientists.Fromthelogical–andunaffected–mindoftheformer,theimageofournaturewillreflectasinamirror(ex eorum ingeniis veluti speculis imago naturae resultabit).53

Kepler,ontheotherhand,choosesanirreproduciblemomentwithin histo-ry.Itisexactlyhistory,thatspiritualawakeningsituatedintime,thatformsthenecessaryconditionforrevealingouressence.AccordingtoKepler,theactualsituationshouldbeascribedtoacrackinthetradition.Theonlywaytorestorethisgapislinkingupwithtradition.Firstly,bybringingProclus’commentaryto the attention of his contemporaries; secondly, by completing the projectinitiatedbytheNeoplatonist.Consequently,themomentofthepasttowhichKepler wishes to return is by no means a democratic, collective primordialstate.Onthecontrary,Kepler’sparadiselostisahighlyindividualandprivi-leged testimony that originated within a history and was crystallized in thisspecifictext.LikeProclus,Keplerisawitnessandbothtestimonialsfunctionwithinadialogueofmutualaffirmation.ThetextasahistoricalmomentumgivesaccesstotruthandKeplerholdsthehermeneuticalkey.

InKepler’saccountofthehistoryofgeometryasaprocessofspiritualawak-eningtheἀρχή ofgeometrycoincideswiththeἀρχή ofphilosophy,namelythetextualhistoryofPlatonism.Inotherwords,historyisoriginallyanevolutiontowards thetext.Onthecontrary,Ramus’verdictofPlatonismshowsahistoryofalienation:notahistoryoftexts,butananti-textualhistoryofpeopleandacts.Geometry’sἀρχή precedesthetextofphilosophy,itsgoalisa-textual.Ke-plerpraisesAntiquityastheplaceofanhistoricalandauthenticmomentum,whileRamusconsiders this textualizationpreciselyas thealienation fromareproduciblemomentwheremancoincideswithhismateriality.Both inter-pretations thus reveal an explicitly different contact with Antiquity, whichbringsaboutacrucialshiftinthemeaningofthetermreception.ForKepler,receivingAntiquityisandshouldbeatextualphenomenon:itisthebridgingofagapandtherestorationandfulfilmentofaspiritual-textualtradition.From

53 ThisexampleisgivenbyGoulding(2006)65andstemsfromRamus,Dialect. Instit.f.6.

294 Claessens

Ramus’perspective,receivingAntiquitycanonlybeusefulasana-textualandmaterialevent,i.e.astherememberingofmathematicalpractice.

Bibliography

Aiton,E.etalii,trans.,The Harmony of the World(Philadelphia,1997).Claessens,G.,“ImaginationasSelf-knowledge:KepleronProclus’Commentary on the

First Book of Euclid’s Elements,”inEarly Science and Medicine16(2011),pp.179–99.Field,J.V.,Kepler’s Geometrical Cosmology(Chicago,1988).Goulding,R.,“MethodandMathematics:PeterRamus’sHistoriesoftheSciences,”in

Journal of the History of Ideas67/1(2006),pp.63–85.Heath,T.,A history of Greek Mathematics. Volume I. From Thales to Euclid(London,1960).Martens,R.,Kepler’s Philosophy and the New Astronomy(Princeton,2000).Morrow,G.,trans.,Proclus. A Commentary to the First Book of Euclid’s Elements.With a

New Foreword by Ian Mueller(Princeton,1992).Ong,W.J.,Ramus. Method and the Decay of Dialogue(Cambridge,Mass.,1958).Skalnik,J.V.,Ramus and Reform. University and Church at the End of the Renaissance

(Kirksville,2002).Stephenson,B.,Kepler’s Physical Astronomy(Princeton,1994).

295OccasionalWriter,SensationalWriter:

Chapter15

Occasional Writer, Sensational Writer: Multatuli as a Sentimental Benevolence Writer in the 1860s1

Laurens Ham

Introduction

In2007,DarrenC.ZookpublishedasurprisingarticleaboutMultatuli’sMax Havelaar (1860).AccordingtoZook,thiscentrepieceoftheDutchliterarycan-onisalittleoverrated.Toooften,DutchreadershaveregardedMax Havelaar,thewriter’sdebutnovel,asawonderfullymodernbookwhichdefendspro-gressivepoliticalideas.Zookstates:“Multatuli’sMax Havelaarwasnotananti-colonialtextand[…]itsstylisticinnovationswerenotradicallynewanddidnotsingle-handedly inventDutch literarymodernity.”2Admittedly, formanynon-professionalDutchreadersMultatuli(1820–1887)istheanti-colonialwrit-er,althoughthisinterpretationmaybebasedasmuchonthefactthatafairtradecompanyadoptedthename“MaxHavelaar”inthe1980sasonhisnovels.Manyimportantnon-Dutchreadershavedefendedan“anti-colonial”readingtoo:BenedictAnderson,EdwardSaid,PramoedyaAnantaToer,evenVladimirLenin.3However,whenZookclaimedthatarevisionistreadingofMultatuli’sworkswasneverattempted,hecertainlywaswrong.4TheDutchnovelistWil-lemFrederikHermans,tonamebutoneinfluentialreader,wroteinhis1976Multatulibiographythattheauthorwasnotarevolutionaryatall.Multatulididnotwanttoreorganizethesocietalstructure,buthewantedindividualstochangetheirbehaviour.AdmittingthatitwouldbedisastrousifHollandlost

1 ThispaperwasrealizedaspartofthePhD-project“TheautonomyoftheDutchliteraryauthor:boundariesandpossibilities.”ItispartoftheNWO-fundedproject“Thepowerofautonomousliterature:WillemFrederikHermans”(supervisedbyWilbertSmulders,FransRuiterandGeertBuelens).IwouldliketothankthesupervisorsandSaskiaPietersefortheiradviceandEsméeFeinandClaireStocksforproofreading.

2 Zook(2007)1183.3 Pieterse(2010)55–56;Salverda(2007).4 Zook(2007),1187–188,note32.

© LaurensHam,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_017This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.



296 Ham

itscolony,hearguedforhighmoralstandards,topreventfutureupheavalintheIndies.5

Asfarasthequestionof literarynewness isconcerned,Zook’sclaimsarefresher.Still,hetakesasomewhatrigidpositionwhenheclaimsthatitis“ei-ther/or”:Multatuliisa“modernist”writeror heis“anti-modernist.”ThegeneralconsensusinrecentMultatulistudiesseemstobethatthisauthor’spositionisnotone-dimensional.Somecritics(e.g.E.M.Beekman)doindeedclaimthatthis ambiguity makes the works typically “modern,” while other critics (e.g.SaskiaPieterse)donotgothatfar.6Onecouldevensaythathis“(anti)modern”stanceisoneoftherecurringpointsofdebateinthereceptionofMultatuli’sworks.Veryoften,progressivepoliticiansandwriterstriedtoincorporatehimintotheirpoliticalplans(ofliberalism,feminism,anarchism,socialism…),butMultatulialwaystriedtostayawayfromthesegroups.7Ifhistoryhadtakenadifferentdirection,Multatuliwouldhavebecomeaconservativepoliticianinthe1860s.8

ItisnotmyintentiontopresentmyownviewontheproblemofMultatuli’s(anti)moderniststance.Iwanttorephrasethequestionandwonderwhy gen-erationsofreadershavecometoaddresstheproblemofaprogressiveoranti-progressive tendency in the oeuvre. The complexity of Multatuli’s worksprovokesdiscussionsamongeverynewgenerationofDutchreaders.Thewaythese works address the reader might contribute to the oeuvre’s continuingallureandcontroversialstatus.

Multatuli’stextsofferusaparadoxical“readingcontract”:theytrytostrikeupafriendshipwiththereader,butrejectthepossibilityofthisfriendlycon-tactatthesametime.9Iwillshowhowthisgameofattractingandrejectingworks, and what its effects are. Multatuli’s peculiar way of communicatingwiththereaderontheonehandraisesthefeelingthatthisauthorwantstodosomethingradicallynew,whileontheotherhanditcontributestoaliterarystrategywhichwasverycommonatthattime.

Idonotwanttoclaimthatallmeaninginatextisproducedbytheauthor.Awriterdoes,inmyopinion,createaplaceforthereaderinthetext–theso-called“implied”or“mockreader,”who(inthetextswearediscussinghere)is

5 Hermans(1976)92.6 Beekman(1996)202–52;Pieterse(2008,2010).7 EverardandJansz(2010);Gasenbeek(2010).8 vanderMeulen(2003)535–57.9 Cf.Booth’sremarkson“ImpliedAuthorsasFriendsandPretenders.”Booth(1988)169–98.

ForaslightlydifferentviewonMultatuli’srelationshipwithreaders,seePieterse(2008)48–59.


oftenexplicitlyaddressed.10Actualreadersare,ofcourse,notidenticaltotheirtextualcounterparts.Theycanbeunwilling,orunable,toidentifythemselveswiththe“reader-in-the-text”–theycanactas“resistingreaders.”11Myanalysiswillclarifythissituationtoshowthateverytextproducesdifferentmeaningsfordifferentreaders,dependingontheirhistorical,literaryorideologicalhori-zons.Still,itmightbevaluabletoinvestigatetowhatextentthereceptionofanauthor’sworkbyhisorherreadersistheproductofcertaincharacteristicsoftheliterarytext.Thatiswhatthisarticleaimstodo.

MyanalysisfocusesononeoftheleastknownworksbyMultatuli,thepam-phletShow me the place where I sowed!(Wijs mij de plaats waar ik gezaaid heb!,1861).Thisnovella,publishedtobenefitthepeoplestrickenbyafloodintheDutch East Indies in 1861, is perhaps the most “sentimental” of the author’sbooks.ItcanonlybeunderstoodproperlywhenplacedinthecontextoftheforgottentraditionofDutchbenevolenceliterature.Inthenexttwosections,Iwillgivearoughsketchofbenevolenceliteratureasitfunctionedinthe1860s,andofitspoliticalsignificance.Afterthat,Show me the placewillbeanalyzedagainstthebackdropofthistradition.

Benevolence Literature Around 1861

ThefrontcoverofShow me the place where I sowed!explicitlymentionsthatthisisabenevolencebook:“PublishedforthebenefitofthepeopledestituteafterthefloodintheDutchEastIndies.”12Thewords“publishedforthebenefitof…”functionedasaformula,whichindicatedthatabookwasaso-called“be-nevolencepublication.”13Allprofitsfromthesebooksweremeanttobenefitthepeopleaffectedbyaflood,astorm,alargefireorpoverty.Twogroupscanbedistinguishedwithinthematerial:booksrepublishedforcharityorbooksspecificallywrittenforthegoodcause.Here,Iwillfocusonthesecondgroupoftexts.

In1861, theproductionofbenevolencebooksappearstohavereacheditspeak.14Anestimatedamountof110bookswerepublishedinthisyear.Mostof

10 Fortheterm“mockreader,”seeBooth(1975).Cf.HermanandVervaeck(2005)20–22.11 Fetterley(1978).12 “Uitgegeven ten behoeve der noodlijdenden door de overstrooming in Nederlandsch Indië.”

Multatuli(1861a)frontcover.AlltranslationsofDutchtextsinthisarticlearemine.13 Forthemodernterm“benevolencepublication,”seedenBoer(1994).14 DenBoer(1994)counted67publicationsaboutthefloodof1855,and87abouttheflood

of1861.However,shemissedasignificantnumberofbooksfromthelatteryear,someofwhich were summarized in the Nederlandsche bibliographie of 17th May 1861 and 28th

298 Ham

themwerewrittenafterafloodinthemid-easternpartoftheNetherlands,afew (like Multatuli’s) were published after the Javanese disaster. One of thereasonsforsuspectingthatthisnumberofbookswasrelativelyhigh, is thatcontemporarycriticsshowedtheirsurpriseatthebenevolenceproductionof1861. In some newspaper articles or pamphlets, the literary quality of the“flood”ofbenevolencebookswasridiculed.TheliberalpoetP.A.deGénestet,forexample,mockedthepoorqualityofbenevolencepoems,butpraisedtheDutchreadersatthesametime,becausetheirfinancialcontributionsforthegoodcausemade“nutritiousbread[…]outofWaterpoetry.”15So,deGénestetwasnotagainstbenevolencethroughthesaleofbooksperse,butheobjectedtothemassproductionofinferiorpoemsthatresultedfromsuchsales.Inferiorornot,thereaderslovedbuyingbenevolencebooks.Show me the place,forin-stance, wasreprintedwithinafewweeksafteritsfirstpublication.Thepub-lisherNijghreceivedmorethan1300guildersforthetwoeditionsofthebook.Considering that it was sold for 60 cents, over 2100 copies must have beensold.16Inthesameyear,thepoetBernardterHaarearnedanastonishing3000guildersfromabenevolencebook.17Itwouldseemthatthenegativereactionsofthecriticsdidnotconflictwiththepopularityofthebooksforthereadingpublic.

It is very unlikely that the buyers of benevolence books always enjoyedevery page of the works they acquired. Presumably, they considered it theirdutytobuythem,justasthebenevolencewritersconsideredittheirdutytowritethem.Inthe1860s,Dutchsocialpoliticstoalargeextentreliedoncharity.Therewasnosocio-politicalstructurewithinwhichquestionsofpoverty,di-sasters,orothersocialproblemscouldbeaddressed,soanothersystemhadtobe established: private enterprises carried out several charity projects.18 Fortheliberaldemocratic leadersofthecountry,privateinitiativeswereimpor-tant to prevent the state from becoming too powerful. For large groups ofChristiancivilians,charityprojectsweretheonlyacceptablewayof(re)struc-turingsociety.

September1861.Intotal,Icountednolessthan110booksaboutthefloodof1861.Althoughwedonothaveprecisenumbersoftitlespublishedafterthefloodsofearlieryears(1809,1820,1825),mybibliographicalsurveyindicatesthatfarlessbookswereissuedintheseyears.

15 “[V]oedend brood kan maken / van Waterpoëzij.”SchimvanBraga(1861)7.Foramorecom-prehensiveanalysisofsomesatiricalpamphlets,seeHam(2012).

16 Multatuli(1865)30.17 Mathijsen(2002)225.18 Hoekstra(2005).


Although some research has been conducted recently on charity in theDutchnineteenthcentury,19thegenreofbenevolenceliteratureasawholehasreceivedlittleattentionfromscholars:onlyafewshortarticlesandanunpub-lishedmastersthesishavebeenwrittenonthesubject.20Thisscholarship,pub-lishedwithinthepastfewdecades,tendstoanalyzebenevolenceliteratureasaliterarypracticewithmanypositivepoliticaleffects:writersshowedtheirso-cialinvolvementandsowereabletoinfluencesocialconditions.

Iproposeamorecriticalapproach,framingbenevolenceliteratureasacon-servative practice which refashioned society according to the desires of theChristianandliberalupperandmiddleclasses.Itestablishedacommunicativepact between congenial readers, by means of prologues and epilogues, inwhichthebourgeoisbackgroundsofboththeproducersandtheconsumerswereemphasized.Itseemsunlikelythatlowerclassreaderspurchasedthesebooks.21Theyweremoreorlessexplicitlyexcludedfromtheliterarycommuni-cation, although the donations of benevolence books were often meant forthem.Therefore,onecouldcallliterarybenevolenceapaternalisticinitiative,apowerfulinstrumenttocontrolthesocietalhierarchy.

Oneofthebooksthatwaspublishedduringthe1861 floodintheNether-landsclearlydisplaysthewayinwhichthiscommunicativeagreementworks.Thisshortprosework,In the attic(Op den zolder,1861)bythehighlypopularcommercialwriterJacobJanCremer,22isaboutafamilylivinginthecountry-side,forcedtofleefromtherisingwaterandfindingarefugeintheirattic.Be-cause it is February, the cold threatens their lives. The father succeeds inmakingafire,butwhenhisdaughterburnsherfeetfromtheflames,heneedstoputoutthefire.Whilethereislittlehopethattheywillsurvivethisordeal,the lastsectionof thebookpresentsamiraculousrecovery, followedbythemoralofthestory.God’sreasonsforsendingthisfloodareexplainedinthelastlines:

[H]eretheycome,heretheycome!–yes–yeslook–heretheycometosaveyou.Listentothesplashingsoundoftheoars.Listentothevoices.You,numbwithcold!You,deadtired!You,half-deadpeople!Shoutwith

19 ForinstanceHoukes(2009)47–71.20 Dongelmans(1990);denBoer(1994);Mathijsen(2002,2008).21 Cf.vandenBergandCouttenier(2009)547,onthecontactbetweenreadersandwriters

inthenineteenthcentury.Bookhistorians,however,haveneverattemptedtowriteabouttheconsumptionofbenevolenceliterature.

22 Ichosetodiscussthisworkmainlybecauseit ismentionedinMultatuli’sShow me the place where I sowed!ComparedwithCremer’ssomewhatstereotypicaltext,weseehowprovocativeMultatuli’spamphletmusthavebeenforthecontemporaryreader.

300 Ham

joy: “There is salvation!” You, put to the test! Praise, praise the Lord,because the misery of your house and the misfortune of your village,meant for the well-being of your souls, also reflected God’s call FORLOVEANDCOMPASSION,meantforallDutchpeople!23

Cremercommunicateswiththecasualtiesofthefloodhere,byaddressinghisfictionalcharactersdirectly.Itisclearthatthesecharactersarepowerless;theyrequiregodlikesaviourstorescuethem.ThedisasterisinterpretedasanactofGod,whohas“used”thisdisastertoconvincehispeopletobepiousChristians.Thepeoplewholiveinthefloodedareaareurgedtoliveadevoutlife,whilethecivilianswhobuyIn the attic aregiventheopportunitytoshowtheircompas-sion.Fromastrictlyrationalizedperspective,thisdisasterisincomprehensi-ble,butitbecomesacceptableinthecontextofaProtestantworldview.Itisthebuyingpublicthatisbestqualifiedtosoftentheblowtotheafflictedfami-lies,sofulfillingtheirChristianobligations.TheepilogueofIn the atticisex-plicitly directed to these readers: “Esteemed Reader, not stricken by theflood…”24 This well-to-do class of readers has already sacrificed “significantgiftsonthealtaroflove,”accordingtoCremer.25Still,theyareabletorelievethecasualties’needsevenmorewithnewdonations.

The Politics of Benevolence

Inthelastsection,benevolenceliteraturewas,ratherunambiguously,readasaliterary genre with a conservative political agenda.The reader’s interpretivepositionseemstobeinscribedinthetext:itconstructsaconservative,explic-itlyaddressedreader.Another framing ispossible,however, ifwetakethreethingsintoaccount.Firstly,thereadercanchoose(moreorlessdeliberately)nottoconnectwiththepositionofthereaderinthetext.Whencriticallyeval-uating the ideology of In the attic and other philanthropic books, the inter-preter uses a way of reading which might have been “unthinkable” in 1861.Tousea termintroducedbythe literarycriticDerekAttridge,everyreading

23 “[D]aar komen ze, daar komen ze! – ja – ja zie maar – daar komen ze om u te redden. Hoor dan het klotsen der riemen. Hoor dan die stemmen. Verstijfden! afgetobden! halve dooden! juich, juich: “Daar komt redding!” Beproefden! loof, loof dan den Heer, want zie, de nood van uw huis en het wee uwer oorden – zij het almêe tot heil uwer zielen – het was ook: de wek-stemme Gods TOT LIEFDE, voor heel het Neêrlandsche volk!”Cremer(1861)26.

24 “Waarde en niet door den watersnood beproefde Lezer,”Cremer(1861)27.25 Cremer(1861)27.


processisa“performance,”inwhichthetext,theauthorandthereadercon-verge.26Theseperformancesaretoalargeextentinfluencedbythehistoricalandideologicalbackgroundsofthereader.

Secondly,thefundamentalambiguityintheprocessofproducingmeaninghastobetakenintoaccount.AccordingtotheoristsinthefieldsofNewHis-toricismorCulturalMaterialism,everytextunderminesitsownideology.AnapparentlyconservativetextlikeIn the atticmightserveasanexample.Whilethisbooksilencesthelower-classreadersforwhichitcollectsmoney,atthesametimeitbringsthesepeopleimplicitlyintoview.Cremer’sappealtothe“Reader,notstrickenbytheflood”canonlybemeaningfulwhenanotherindi-vidual(theonewhoisstrickenbytheflood)istakenintoaccount.Moreover,thefactthatthereadingpactbetweenlike-mindedwritersandreadershastobe re-established time and time again, proves that it is not a natural pact.Whereas Attridge seems to think that only literary masterpieces are able torepresent the hitherto unthinkable, to bring the cultural “Other” into being,somecriticsrejecttheideathatonlysometextsareabletodothat.CatherineBelsey,forexample,presentseverytextasapossiblelocus of“dissent.”27

Thereisathirdreasontotaketheideologicalmeaningofbenevolenceintoreconsideration.RecentAmericancriticismhasshownthatthegenreofsenti-mentalfiction,whichwasandoftenisregardedasahighlyconservativeliter-arypractice,mightbeunderstoodinamore“progressive”way.Tosomeextent,benevolence literature can be compared with the sentimental genre; that iswhyitisinsightfultointroducethisAmericandebateinslightlygreaterdetail.

Oneofthetextswhichsucceededinbringingsentimental fictionbacktocriticalattentionwasachapterinJaneTompkins’Sensational designs (1985).28Inhertext,Tompkinsarguedthattheideasaboutthenaïvetéofsentimentalnovels (such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s million-selling Uncle Tom’s Cabin)werelargelyrelatedtothegenderedandmodernistvaluesofliteraryscholars.Americansentimentalfiction,oftenwrittenbymiddle-classwhitewomen,fol-lowed an aesthetic which differed radically from the one twentieth-centuryscholarshadadopted.AccordingtoTompkins,thesescholarsrefusedtotakethenineteenth-centuryliteraryvaluesintoaccount,whereassomeknowledgeaboutthesevaluesisnecessarytounderstandwhythesenovelscametobesoextremelypopularintheirage.Tompkinsnotonlyre-emphasizedtheculturalimportanceofsentimentalliterature,shealsostartedadebateonthepoliticsof sentimentalism which has continued well into the twenty-first century.

26 Attridge(2004)95–106.27 Belsey(1999)1–25.28 Tompkins(1985).

302 Ham

Somecriticsdiscusseditsconservative(racial)ideas,29butotherstriedtofol-lowTompkinsintheideathatthesetextsprovidedanopeningtomorepro-gressivepolitics.ThevolumeOur sisters’ keepers, for instance,arguesforthepoliticalpossibilitiesbenevolenceliteratureenforcedforthenineteenthcen-turywomenwhowrotethetexts:

[T]hewritersofbenevolenceliteraturehavedonenothinglessthanre-envisiontheAmericanindividual.Inthefaceofanethosofindividual-ismandself-reliance,nineteenth-centurywomenwriterssawthevalueofandneedforconnectionwithothers.Hence,theyimaginedtheselfasadynamicentitythatseeksabalancebetweenselfishandselflesspur-suits,betweenconcernswiththeindividualselfandwiththeselfthatiscreatedinrelationtoanother.30

MarianneNobleaswellreadssentimentalliteratureasboth“positively”and“negatively”connoted.SheanalyzesarhetoricaleffectinUncle Tom’s Cabin shecalls“sentimentalwounding,”“abodilyexperienceofanguishcausedbyiden-tificationwiththepainofanother.”31AccordingtoNoble,sentimentalwound-ingcanhavethepositiveeffectofinvolvingreadersemotionally,butithadtheunintentionaleffectofsexualizingthebodyofthevictim.

ForDutchbenevolenceliterature,thequestionofpositiveeffectsonreadersandwritersmightbeaddressedaswell.CanthesentimentalityofIn the atticbeinterpretedasawayofconfrontingthehigher-ormiddle-classreaderswiththedevastatingeffectsofdisastersontheirfellowcitizens?Moreover,isitpos-sibletorecognizeamoreliberalandliberalizingtendencyinthisnovella?InthelastlinesofCremer’sepiloguetothebook,heapproachesthevictimsex-plicitlyandshowsthemthattheydohaveagencyinimprovingtheirdailylives:

Perhaps one question is not inappropriate here…? It is a hint for theinhabitantsofareasthatarethreatenedbyfloods,yearafteryear.Woulditbepossibleforyoutoputupahillinyourdistrict,whenthereisnotthat much work to be done; a large terp on which a big shed can beplaced,tosaveyourbelongingswhenadisasterisathand…?32

29 Sundquist(1986).30 BergmanandBernardi(2005)1.31 Noble(1997)295.32 “Zou een vraag hier ongepast zijn; een wenk voor de bewoners der oorden die telken jare toch,

aan de gevaren van watersnood bloot staan…? Kunt gij in tijden, wanneer er handen teveel zijn, geen heuvel opwerpen in uwe gemeenten; een brede terp waarop een groote loots [sic]


Thepoliticsofbenevolenceliteraturecanbeinterpreted,therefore, inalessone-dimensionalwaythanIhaveshownintheprevioussection.Thereadernotonlyhadthepowertorefusetheconservativereading-pactofferedtohimorher,butheorshecouldgosofarastoactivateanemancipatorymeaninginthetext:sentimentalbenevolencebooksmightbeabletomakeconnectionsbetweendifferentgroupsinsociety.

With these ideas about the “progressive” political possibilities of benevo-lenceliteratureinmind,wearenowreadytoanalyzeMultatuli’sShow me the place where I sowed!Wewillseethatthisnoveldeploysthetypicalcharacteris-ticsofbenevolenceliteratureinasomewhatprovocativemanner.Ontheonehand,theauthorrejectsthe“affirmative”pactwiththebourgeoisreader.Ontheotherhand,hesometimesconfirmsthecontactwithhisreaders,andtriesto activate empathy for the Javanese people. In other words: he exploits anemancipatoryeffectinbenevolenceliteraturethatwasalwaysthere,butneverstatedexplicitly.

Multatuli’s Show me the place where I sowed!

Multatuli’sShow me the placewascommissionedbytheRotterdampublisherNijgh,animportantcompanyatthattime.Whilstwecanbelievethattheprac-ticeofwritingbenevolencebooksbycommissionwas fairlycommon, therearefewsourcestoprovethis.OneofthemostnotableisinfactShow me the place,sinceMultatuli introduceshisbookwiththedisclaimer:“MisterNijghaskedmetodaytowritea‘something’forthebenefitofthecasualtiesoftheJavaneseflood.”33

Here, the author violates an unwritten rule of philanthropic literature.Whenauthorsofbenevolencebookstalkaboutthemselvesortheirreasonsforwriting a book, they do so in paratexts, such as prologues or epilogues: themaintextofthebookisnottheappropriatelocationforametafictionalcom-mentary.YetMultatulistartswithalongmetafictionalfragmentthatultimate-lywillformalargepartofthebook.Bydoingsohenotonlyrejectsthecommon“rules”ofthebenevolencegenre,buthedistanceshimselffromthereaderaswell.

moest geplaatst worden om, bij naderende ramp, te bergen wat er te bergen is….?’Cremer(1861)27–28.

33 “De heer Nijgh wendde zich heden tot mij met een verzoek om een ‘iets’ ten voordeele van de slagtoffers van de overstrooming op Java.”Multatuli(1861a)3.

304 Ham

AccordingtoMultatuli,he“cannotwriteanddoesnotlikewriting.”34Thispolemicalstatementismeanttodistinguishhimfromhiscontemporaries.Toprovehispoint,Multatulidiscussesonerecentbenevolencebook:Cremer’sIn the attic.Multatuli’s“analysis”canhardlybecalledareadingofthebook,sincehedoesnotevenopenit–althoughheadmitsthatitliesinfrontofhim.In the attic isboundtobesopredictable,heargues,thatitisnotevennecessaryforhimtoreadit.Confidentlyandwithsomeironicremarks,Multatuli“summa-rizes”thecontentofCremer’snovella.Hisdescriptionofthenovel’splotcor-responds partly to the actual content, especially when it comes to the lastwordsofIn the attic:“Lookatwhatyouseeonthelastpageofallfloodpam-phlets:Godislove!”35

CremerisexactlythekindofwriterwhomMultatulidoesnotwanttobe:aprosewriter.Fiction isaperversewaytoarousesympathy in thereader,ac-cordingtoMultatuli’spoetics.36Withastrikingmetaphor,hestates:“Ifsome-one once would inflict a deep wound on mister Cremer – Lord save him–nobodywouldbelieveinthesincerityofhisgrief.Hiscryofpainasahumanbeingwouldpassunnoticed,becausepeoplerememberhistuneasanartist.”37Thisuseofthemetaphorofthewound–whichmaybeinterpretedhereasbothmentalandphysicalpain38–remindsusofMarianneNoble’sanalysisoftheroleof“sentimentalwounding.”WhereasHarrietBeecherStoweseemstobeveryconfidentabouthowtoraiseempathybydescribingphysicalsuffering,Multatuliisveryscepticalaboutthispossibility.

So, the difference between “conventional” writers and Multatuli is madeclearfromthebeginningofShow me the place.Atthesametime,hereferstothegreatgapbetweenhimselfandhisreaders.Cremertriedtoemphasizetheequalitybetweenhimselfandthemiddle-classreader,butMultatulidoestheexactopposite.Afteradeliberatelyobscurefragmentinthefirstpagesofhistext,hewritesironically:

[N]othing[is]moreprobable[…]thantheimprobable.Doyouwantevi-dence of that, reader? When you planned to read this text, did you

34 “…dat ik niet schrijven kan, en niet van schrijven houd.”Multatuli(1861a)3.35 “Zie de laatste bladzijde van alle watersnood-brochures: God is liefde!”Multatuli(1861a)10.

Cf.Cremer(1861)9,26.36 Cf.Pieterse(2008)286–97.37 “Als den heer Cremer eenmaal, God beware hem wensch ik, eene diep treffende wond werd

geslagen, zou niemand gelooven aan de opregtheid zijner smart. De jammerkreet van de mensch zou onopgemerkt wegsterven, wijl men zich den toon herinnert van den artist.”Mul-tatuli(1861a)6.

38 InDutch,theword“smart”[pain]canbeusedtorefertoboth.


consider it likely that you would meet Briseïs next to cherrystones, orHugodeGrootnexttoDutchcharityandanexcursusonprobabilism,allinthefirstpageofa“something”abouttheJavaneseflood? ThatisthemainreasonwhyIhatewritingforthereadership,thatdoesnot like mental jumps and expects the writer to move on just like theothers.39

Here,Multatulimakesclearthathisaversiontowritingstemsfromhisprob-lematicrelationshipwithhisreaders.Butwhydoeshejudgethereadingpublicsonegatively?ThefirstreasonmightbethatMultatuli’s“natural”wayofthink-ingandwriting,whichrequiresmanymentaljumpsonthepartofhisreaders,isnotappreciatedbythem.However,hismentioningofBriseïspointstoasec-ond,evenmoreimportantreason.Multatuliseemstobedisappointedbyhisreaders:“[T]henon-craftsmanshippartofmy‘trade,’issocompletelyconflict-ingwithmynature,that,indeed,lesstalentisneededtobringtheDutchna-tion to beneficence, than to lure me away from the tent where I sit sulkingaboutBriseïs.”40

TheauthorequateshimselfwiththeGreekheroAchilles,who,intheIliad,satinangerinhismilitarytentafterAgamemnonhadrobbedhimofhisfe-maleslaveBriseïsandrefusedtoreturntobattleintheTrojanWar;itwasonlyafterhisbestfriendPatroclushaddiedinbattlethatAchilleswentbacktothefield.MultatulicompareshisrecentcareerwithAchilles’story.Afterthepubli-cation of Max Havelaar, a book which he expected to be of direct politicalsignificance, the author was extremely disappointed by the reception of hisnovel.41Readerspraisedthebook’ssuperiorstyle,buttheydidnottakeitspo-liticalmessageseriously,accordingtotheauthor.LikeAchilleswhoputasidehisangerafterPatroclusdied,MultatuliiswillingtoforgethisrageafterNijghaskedhimtowriteanewbook.Hismaingoal,however,wasnottoobeythewishofthepublisher,buttohavehisrevengeonthereadersfortheirindiffer-ence.

39 “[N]iets [is] waarschijnlijker […] dan de onwaarschijnlijkheid. Wilt gij bewijzen, lezer? Hadt gy ‘t vooraf waarschijnlijk gevonden Briseïs met kersepitten, Hugo de Groot en de Neder-landsche weldadigheid met een zijsprong op de probabiliteitsleer te ontmoeten op dit eerste blaadje van het gevraagde ‘Iets’ over den Javaschen watersnood? […] Ook vooral daarom heb ik een afkeer van schrijven voor het publiek, dat niet van sprongen houdt, wijl men van den schrijver verlangt dat hij zich voortbewege als een ander.”Multatuli(1861a)4.

40 “[H]et niet-ambachtelijk gedeelte van het ‘vak’ […] strijdt zo geheel tegen mijne natuur, dat er inderdaad geringer talent noodig is om de Nederlandsche natie te bewegen tot welda-digheid, dan om mij weg te lokken uit de tent waar ik pruil om Briseïs.”Multatuli(1861a)3.

41 VanderMeulen(2003)413–21.

306 Ham

Show me the placeis,indeed,asarcasticandalmostaggressivetext,whichconstantlyemphasizesthedifferencebetweentheauthorandthereadership.WhileMultatuliwroteMax Havelaarmoreorlessinanaffirmative,“tradition-al”mannerbyseekingsympathyinhispublic,fromthismomentonhiswrit-ingstaketheformofanattack.YeteverytimeMultatulitriestoprovokethereaders,hetriestoattractthemaswell.ThatstrategyiswonderfullyphrasedinhissecondnovelLove Letters,writtenshortlyafterShow me the place:“Ladiesandgentlemen,Idespiseyouwiththedeepestsincerity.”42

ManypartsofShow me the placeareconcernedwithwideningthegapinliterarycommunication.Inthefirstpartofthetext,Multatulicallsita“dishar-monybetweenprecentorandcongregation.”43Thisecclesiasticalmetaphoriswellchosen: itemphasizesthatthefriendlycontactbetweenproducersandconsumersofbenevolenceliteraturewasnotonlyguaranteedbytheirsimilarsocialposition,butalsobytheirsharedreligiousideas.Multatuli,however,un-derlinesthatheisnotaChristian,butanoutsiderwhotackleshisfellowciti-zensontheirsocialresponsibilities: “Yourbelief isatstake,yourChrist isatstake!”44

Although Multatuli dismisses some of the key characteristics of benevo-lence literature, he does employ others. After the largely metafictional firstpartofthebook,hetellsatypically“sentimental”storytoillustratetheannihi-latingeffectsoftheflood.45TheJavaneseKaridienhasjustsurvivedatigerat-tack; he, his family and some other people from their village are diningtogetherandarediscussingtheincident.Asurprisinglylargepartofthestoryisdevotedtotheintroductionofthethestory’scharacters.Theyarepresentedinaconventionalway.First,anextensiveextract focusesonintroducingthecharacterofKaridienandtellinghisstory.Afterthat,asmallerpartestablishesa portrait of Karidien’s wife Amia, who is expecting her first baby. An evensmaller part mentions the names and characters of other children who arepresent. This way of narrating may be highly gendered – a man, Karidien,is presented as the most important and most dynamic character – but stillthis introduction issurprising. Itpresentsseveral Javanesepeopleasnamed

42 “Publiek, ik veracht u met groote innigheid.”Multatuli(1861b)17.Cf.Pieterse(2008)7–39.IntheepilogueforthethirdeditionofShow me the place where I sowed,Multatulirepeatsthesewords:Multatuli(1865)32.

43 Multatuli(1861a)5.44 “Het geldt de eer van Uw geloof, het geldt de eer van Uwen Christus!”Multatuli(1861a)21.45 ThispassageresemblesthestoryoftheJavanesechildrenSaïdjahandAdindainMultatu-

li’s Max Havelaar. Inbothcases, thesentimental story isembedded inametafictionalframework,inwhichtheauthorcommentsonhisowntext.Itisworthnotingthat,Uncle Tom’s CabinisexplicitlymentionedinMax Havelaar.Multatuli(1987)278–79.


individualscompletewithfeelings–aperspectivewhichwas far fromcom-monintheDutchcoloniesin1861.Thenarrator’svoiceemphasizeshowimpor-tant it is to look at these people as human beings: “You, who for your owninteresttrytobanishtheJavanesefromthelargefamilyofhumanity,doyouthinkthatamotherthere,isnomother?”46

ThereaderisshownhowtheseJavanesefamiliesaresurprisedbythe“ban-jir”(theJavanesewordforflood),howeverythingissweptaway,andhownotonepersonissavedfromdeath.Atrociousdetailsareusedtodescribethedi-saster: “And Amia, who would be called Emboh Sarie? 47 Is one supposed tolookforawoman,orforamother?Isither,whoislyingtherewithapainfultwisttohermouth,asifshesuccumbedtoadoubledeath?Wouldthathavebeenherchild,thatclodwithoutaform,thatwasborninthewater?”48Timeandtimeagain,thestory’snarratorunderlinesthefactthatthesevictimswerehumanbeings,justlikethereaders.“Thebodiesthatliethere,andwillproba-blyspreadtheplague,arebodiesofhuman beings!Theyfeltthings,theyhoped,they feared just like us, they deserved happiness just like us, … reader, theywere human beings, these Javanese!”49 Multatuli not only makes the Dutchreaderseye-witnessesofwhathappenstotheJavanesepeople,heeventriestoinscribethelatter’ssufferingintothereaders’bodies:“[W]ehearthelastsighs,we feel the lastcramps,wecatchthe lastprayers,–andwe feelcold inourhearts.”50Here,Multatuliusestherhetoricaldeviceof“sentimentalwounding”toaffect,andafflict,hisreaders.

ItisclearthatMultatulidoesmakeaconnectionwithhispublic,albeitinadifferentwayfromCremer.Forthelatter,therelationshipbetweenhimandhisreadersseemstobetheforemostaim;thebondbetweenthepersonwhoreadsandthefictionalcharactersisfarlessimportant.Cremerdoestrytoraiseem-

46 “O gij, die uit belangzucht den Javaan tracht weg te stooten uit de groote familie der men-schheid, meent gij dat eene moeder daar, geene moeder is?”Multatuli(1861a)25.

47 Elsewhere in Show me the place, thenarratorexplains that Javanesewomenarecalledaftertheirfirstchildren.ThisiswhyAmia’snamewouldbechangedinEmbohSarie.Mul-tatuli(1861a)24–25.

48 “En Amia die EmbohSarie heeten zou? Moet men eene vrouw zoeken of eene moeder? Zou zij het wezen, zij die daar ligt met pijnlijken trek als ware zij bezweken onder een’ dubbelen dood? Zou dat haar kind geweest zijn, dat vormloos klompje, dat geboren werd in het water?”Multatuli(1861a)33.

49 ‘Die lijken die daar liggen, en dreigen met pest, zijn de lijken van menschen! Zij voelden, hoopten, vreesden als wij, hadden aanspraak op levensgeluk als wij, … lezer, het waren men-schen, die Javanen!’Multatuli(1861a)34.

50 “[W]ij hooren de laatste zuchten, wij voelen die laatste trekking der spieren, wij verstaan die laatste beden, – en het wordt ons eng om het hart.”Multatuli(1861a)33–34.

308 Ham

pathy,butwhenthecharacters’sufferingcomes“tooclosetohome”heholdsback.Takethefollowingexample,whichdescribeshowthefictionalcharacterstrytotakeshelterintheirattic:

[N]o,whodemandsthedescriptionofthedarknightwhichwillfollow!whodesires–beitimaginary–towatchthroughthedreadfulnightwithHanneke Daalhof, while she needs to constantly force herself to stayawake,tocherishherbelovedchildrenaslongassheisabletodoso–beit very inadequate. No, no! Your heart would break if you heard thelamentsandwailswhichrepeatedlyfilltheattic.51

WhereasMultatulimakeshisreadersfeelthepainandanguishofthefictionalcharacters,Cremerplacestheminthepositionofdistancedwitnesses,whoaresupposednottoempathizetoomuchwiththecharacters.Multatulibreakstheconventionalreadingagreementbetweenthereaderandtheauthor,sothathecanemphasizemore forcefully therelationshipbetweenthereaderandthecharacter in thestory.Thatheshouldchoose todoso through fiction, illus-trates that Multatuli’s condemnation of fictionality is not as definitive as itseems.Althoughthemetafictionalframeworkformsalargepartofthebook,thefictionalstoryseemstobethecentralpart.

Conclusion

FromtheaboveanalysesofIn the attic andShow me the place where I sowed!,itisclearthatMultatulihadacomplexrelationshipwithbenevolenceliterature,seeminglyrejectingsomeofthefundamentalcharacteristicsofthegenre,no-tablyinthefirstpartofthebookwherehehighlightsthedifferencebetweenhimselfandwriterslikeCremer.MultatuliportraysCremerasaconservative,unoriginal,evennaïveauthor,becauseheusestheinstrumentoffictiontocon-vincehisreaders.Moreover,Multatulichoosestoapproachhisreadershipinacompletely different way; whereas for Cremer a friendly contact is crucial,Multatuliaccentuatesthedifferences.

51 “[N]ee, wie eischt de beschrijving van den donkeren nacht die gaat volgen! wie heeft er lust om – zij het in de verbeelding – met Hanneke Daalhof dien schrikkelijken nacht te door-waken, terwijl zij zich telkens moet geweld doen om wakker te blijven, ten einde haar dierbare kinders – al zij het dan uiterst gebrekkig – te koesteren wat ze nog kan. Neen, neen! Uw hart zoude breken wanneer gij de smart- en de jammerkreeten aan moest hooren die gedurig den zolder vervullen.”Cremer(1861)24–25.


ByeloquentlymockingcontemporarywritersandliterarypracticesMultat-uliaimedtostresstheuniquenessofhiswork.Hisdeterminationtocreateasingular status for himself might suggest one way in which contemporaryscholarshipisabletoviewhimasabrilliant,typicallymodernindividual,whofamously changed the culture of literary consensus into a culture of “dis-sensus.”52Andyetthesituationismorecomplex.LateroninShow me the place,thereaderrecognizesthatMultatulicannotdistancehimselfcompletelyfromtherulesofbenevolenceliterature.Themetafictionalpassageseventuallyendupinafictionalstoryabouttheflood,whichmakesuseofconventionalinstru-ments(suchas“sentimentalwounding”)toraiseempathy.Onecouldsaythatcuttingthetiesbetweenhimselfandhisreaders(whichwasa“modern”tech-niqueinthe1860s),madeitevenmoreeffectiveforMultatulitoestablishrela-tions between the persons who read his work and the fictional characterslivingit.

Themetaphorof“sowing”inthebooktitlecouldrefertotheeffectMultat-uliaimstocreate:namelyinhiswritingsheoftenpresentsanauthorasanin-dividual who is able to find “fertile ground” for his ideas in the reader.53 Ofcourse,thechoiceofthistitlemaybefarmoreconventional:namelythattheDutchcoloniserispresentedastheoneto“cultivate”boththeJavanesesoilandsouls.Thus,theauthorseemstomakeaconnectionbetweenwritingandim-perialism;botharecolonizingacts.54Thereis,tobesure,noindicationthatheuses thismetaphor inacriticalorprogressiveway.Multatuli firmlybelievesthatwisecolonialismisajustpractice,andthataffectingreadersissomethingforthewritertostrivefor.

It is questionable whether categories of “modern” or “anti-modern” tech-niquesandideasarestillapplicablehere.Ratherthisauthorappearstofocusonthepossibilitiesinherentwithinthebenevolencegenre.With“sensational,”sentimentalwritingtechniques,heshowsuswhatimpactanoccasionalgenreiscapableofcreating.

ThequestionsthatthemodernreaderofShow me the place where I sowed!must face(suchas“Isthisamoderntext,ornot?”or“DoesMultatuli takeaconservative view with regard to colonialism?”) are typical of his oeuvre. Itseemsthatitsintelligentandprovocativerhetoric,anditsspecificwayofcom-municatingwith(implied)readers,constantlyencouragesustothinkofMul-tatuli as the first modern Dutch writer. The ultimate question is thus not

52 Forthemid-nineteenth-centurytransitionofacultureof“consensus”tooneof“dissen-sus,”seeRuiterandSmulders(1996)17–29.

53 SeePieterse(2008)103–07forananalysisofMultatuli’sgenderedviewonreading.54 Cf.thefascinatinganalysisofMax Havelaarand“writingascolonizing”inWright(1990).

310 Ham

whetherthisistrueornot,buthowhemakesusthinkthatitis,throughthepowerfulstyleofwriting.

Bibliography

Attridge,D.,The Singularity of Literature (LondonandNewYork,2004).Beekman,E.M.,Troubled Pleasures: Dutch Colonial Literature from the East Indies, 1600–

1950 (Oxford,1996).Belsey,C.,Shakespeare and the Loss of Eden: The Construction of Family Values in Early

Modern Culture (NewBrunswickNJ,1999).Bergman, J. and D. Bernardi, Our Sisters’ Keepers: Nineteenth-century Benevolence

Literature by American Women (Tuscaloosa,2005).Booth,W.C.,The Rhetoric of Fiction,11thed.(ChicagoandLondon,1975).––––––,The Company We Keep: An Ethics Of Fiction(Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon,

1988).Cremer,J.J.,Op den zolder: eene schets(1861)[Online]Rotterdam.Availablethrough:

GeheugenvanNederlanddatabase[Accessed:28March2011].denBoer,Elsa,Omwille van winter en watersnood: Liefdadigheidsuitgaven in de negent-

iende eeuw (Amsterdam,1994).Dongelmans,B.P.M.,“Overintekenaren,kopersenlezers:Eenzoektochtnaareenlees-

gezelschapteNieuwenhuis,”inDe negentiende eeuw14(2–3)(1990),pp.189–203.Everard,M.andU.Jansz,eds.,De minotaurus onzer zeden: Multatuli als heraut van het

feminisme (Amsterdam,2010).Fetterley,J.,The resisting reader: A feminist approach to American fiction (Bloomington,

1978).Gasenbeek,B.,ed.,“Misschien is niets geheel waar… en zelfs dát niet”: Multatuli, inspira-

tiebron voor vrijdenkers en humanisten (BredaandUtrecht,2010).Ham,L.,“Hetgebodofhetgenot:Multatulialsliefdadigheidsschrijver,”inOver Multatuli

34(68)(2012),pp.4–19.Herman,D.andB.Vervaeck,Handbook of narrative analysis (Lincoln,2005).Hermans,W.F.,De raadselachtige Multatuli,2nded.(Amsterdam,1987).Hoekstra,H.,Het hart van de natie: Morele verontwaardiging en politieke verandering in

Nederland 1870–1919 (Amsterdam,2005). Houkes,J.M.,Christelijke vaderlanders: Godsdienst, burgerschap en de Nederlandse natie

1850–1900 (Amsterdam,2009).Mathijsen,M.,De gemaskerde eeuw(Amsterdam,2002).––––––,“Gevaarlijkeontmoetingen:Defunctievanliteratuurindenegentiendeeeuw,”

inNeerlandistische ontmoetingen: Trefpunt Wrocław,eds.I.B.KallaandB.Czarnecka(Wroclaw,2008),pp.174–84.


Multatuli,Wijs mij de plaats waar ik gezaaid heb!(1891a)[Online]Rotterdam.Availablethrough:GeheugenvanNederlanddatabase[Accessed:28March2011].

––––––,Minnebrieven.(1861b)[Online]Amsterdam.Availablethrough:GoogleBooksdatabase[Accessed:28March2011].

––––––,Wys my de plaats waar ik gezaaid heb! 3rded.(1865)[Online]Amsterdam.Availablethrough:GeheugenvanNederlanddatabase[Accessed:28March2011].

––––––,Max Havelaar, or, The coffee auctions of a Dutch Trading Company.TranslatedfromtheDutchbyRoyEdwards(Harmondsworth,1987[1860]).

Noble,M.,“TheEcstasiesofSentimentalWounding,”inUncle Tom’s Cabin.The Yale Journal of Criticism10(2)(1997),pp.295–320.

Pieterse,S.,De buik van de lezer: Over spreken en schrijven in Multatuli’s Ideeën(Nijmegen,2008).

––––––,“‘IamnotaWriter’:Self-ReflexivityandPoliticsinMultatuli’sMax Havelaar,”in Journal of Dutch Literature [Online] 1(1) (2010). Available at: http://www.journalofdutchliterature.org/jdl/vol01/nr01/art03[Accessed:28March2011].

Ruiter,F.andW.Smulders,Literatuur en moderniteit in Nederland 1840–1990(AmsterdamandAntwerp,1996).

Salverda,R.,“‘ForJusticeandHumanity’:MultatuliandPramoedyaAnantaToer.Dutch-IndonesianLiterary,Historical,andPoliticalConnections,”inDutch Literature and Culture in an Age of Transition,eds.T.F.ShannonandJ.P.Snapper(Münster,2007),pp.121–40.

Sundquist,E.D.,ed.,New Essays on Uncle Tom’s Cabin (Cambridge,1986).Tompkins,J.P.,Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction, 1790–1860

(NewYorkandOxford,1985).vandenBerg,W.andP.Couttenier,Alles is taal geworden. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse

literatuur 1800–1900 (Amsterdam,2009).vanderMeulen,D.,Multatuli: Leven en werk van Eduard Douwes Dekker,8thed.(Am-

sterdam,2003).Wright,E.,“Dekolonisatievandetekst:OverMultatuli’sMax Havelaar,”inLiteratuur

in Psychoanalytisch Perspectief: Een inleiding met interpretaties van Multatuli’s “Saïdjah en Adinda”,eds.H.HillenaarandW.Schonau(AmsterdamandAtlanta,1990),pp.148–64.

Zook,D.C.,“SearchingforMax Havelaar:Multatuli,ColonialHistory,andtheConfusionofEmpire,”inMLA121(5)(2007),1169–189.

http://www.journalofdutchliterature.org/jdl/vol01/nr01/art03

http://www.journalofdutchliterature.org/jdl/vol01/nr01/art03

312 Ham

313IndexOfPersonalNamesIndexofPersonalNames

Index of Personal Names

Achilles 305Adam 199Aeschylus 18Alcaeus 18Alexander,R. 143Anderson,B. 295Andsager,J.L. 145Archimedes 77-79,91Archytas 286AriasMontanus,B. 213AristarchusofSamos 290Aristotle 281,290Arntz,G. 246-247Athenaeus 20-29,31Attridge,D. 300-301Auerbach,E. 81-82,85AulusGellius 21

Barker,M.C. 195Barrefeldt,H.J. 203Bartas,Du 206,207Bastian,A. 232Bauduin,F. 56-57,61,63-64,67BeecherStowe,H. 301,304Beekman,E.M. 296Beentjes,J.W.J. 145Belsey,C. 301Bemker,V. 145Bentham,J. 43Bernlef,J. 135Beza see:Bèze,Th.DeBèze,Th.De 57,63-64,67Blutch 250,253-254Boas,F. 221-238Bohme,J. 212Bolswert,B.à 214Boot,P. 39Borcht,P.vander 203-205,214Bordalejo,B. 38Borges,J.L. 99Bornstein,G. 89Botticelli,S. 185-186,191Boulton,M. 275Bourbon,A.de 56Boyd,B. 134,136

Brando,M. 250Brock,T.C. 114-117,144Brown,D. 177Brun,Ch.Le 179Bruner,J. 135,137,148,170Buno,J. 216Burke,P. 266-267BurrOpper,F. 240Busby,K. 42-43,45,50-51Busch,W. 240

Calvin 56-57,59,63-64,67,204Campanã,P. 185,187-188,192Camphuysen,D.R. 196Canisius,P. 56,63Caravaggio 179-180Carducci,A. 271Carr,E. 224Cassander,G. 55-57,60-61,64-69Cavalca,D. 266Cell,G.von 64,67,69Cerquiglini,B. 17,35-44,50,71-72,81,94Cézanne 245CharlesV 260Chaucer 50Choi,H.-L. 145Christ,Jesus 57,59-60,175-179,181-183,

185,188-192,194,205,208-209,214,268-270,274-275,306

Christiansen,H-Ch. 241Cicero 284-285Claesz,C. 204Coelen,P.vander 197Colijn,M. 204-205,213Comestor,P. 45,48,266Coornhert 211-212Coover,R. 80Cordes,J.de 61Cordesius see:Cordes,J.deCremer,J.J. 299-302,304,307-308Cronenberg,D. 241Curtis,E.S. 234-238Czekanowski,S. 63

Daalhof,H. 308




314 IndexOfPersonalNames

GregorioofAlessandria 272GregorytheGreat 176-177Groensteen,T. 241,243-244Groot,H.de 305Gumbrecht,H.U. 25-26,31Gutenberg 89-90,92

Haar,B.ter 298Haddon,M. 135Haeseryn 159-160Harvey,R.C. 241,253Hayes,A. 126Heemskerck,M.van 203,214Hellen,H.vander 211-212Hephaestion 29-30Herder,J.G. 231Hergé 240-243,246-247,249Hermans,W.F. 295Hessels,J, 56Heyns,Z. 206-207Hoeken,H. 13,170Hogarth,W. 240Homer 18Holbein 204Hooghe,R.de 200Hotman,J. 61,65,67,69Humboldt,W.von 231Hunt,G. 224,230,232-233,235-236Hyperides 78

Jacob,M. 233Jacobsen,A. 232JeanIILeBon 260Jesus see:ChristJobs,S. 91Jode,G.de 203Johntheevangelist 176,268,270,272JohntheBaptist 185Johns,A. 76,82-85,88-90Joyce,M. 75,80-81Judith 46-49

Kahle,B. 81Kalinowski,I. 13Kastan,D. 76,82-85,88-90Kempen,J.of 261Kempeneer,P.de see:Campanã,P.Kenner,H. 86

DanteAlighieri 260David 205,211,213Deleuze,G. 245,254Danckertz.,C. 214Debray,R. 269Depuydt,K. 36d’Espence,C. 57Deyssel,L.van 39Dickens,Ch. 73Dixon,P. 99Dominis,M.-A.de 60Doré,G. 217Doxiadis,A. 240Dunbar,R.M. 136

Elijah 212Eliot,T.S. 85-87Emmons.G.T. 224Engen,J.van 261-262Euclid 281-283,287,291-292Eudoxus 283Euripides 18Espagne,M. 265,267Eve 199

Fabricius,M. 63-64Farr,E. 73-74,84,90Fauconnier 138Ferrari,G. 188-192Foix,P.de 57Fourdrinier,H. 92Franquin,A. 241-243,249-251,253Freud,S. 144

Galle,Ph. 213Garfield 243Gavins 101Génestet,P.A.de 298Gerner,J. 241,246-248Gerrig,R.J. 115,153Gerson,J. 262-264,275GirolamoofSiena 271-272Goblet,D. 241-244,251,253Gogh,V.van 245-246Goldast,M. 60Goulding,R. 284Graaf,A.de 145,170Green,M.C. 114-117,144

315IndexOfPersonalNames

Noble,M. 302,304Nabokov,V. 97-113Nadal,J. 203-204Narrog,H. 98,100Neurath,O. 246Nichols,S. 76,79,81-82,85,93-94Nietzsche,F. 71,94Nordquist,P. 240

Oatley,K. 120Ong,W. 282Oppitz,M. 224,227Orlandi,G. 204

Paets,P.J. 214Papadatos,A. 240Papadimitriou,Ch. 240Passe,C.De 204Pierazzo,E. 39Pieterse,S. 296Pindar 18Pinker,S. 134-135Plantin,Ch. 203-204,209,213,215Plato 282,285-288Plutarch 20PosthumusMeyjes,G. 68Pound,E. 86Preacher,K. 126Proclus 281-294

Rainey,L. 77,84-88Ramus,P. 281-294Raphael 204-205Raphelingen,F.van 204-205,215Ravensteyn,P.A.van 198,207-213Ravesteyn,J.de 56Redeker,G. 141,147Rieger,D. 69-70Rijn,R.van 195Robinson,P. 39,50-51Rodriguez,R. 241Rushdie,S. 71-76,79,83,90-93Russell,B. 240

Said,E. 295Sanders,J. 13,145Sappho 17-32Sartre,J.-P. 25

Kepler 281-294Kerouac,J. 87King,S. 90,92Kirchenbaum,M. 77,80-81,83-84,90Kon,F. 216Krabbé,T. 122Kroeber,A. 229

Lagaffe,G. 249,251Lambeens,T. 241,251-254,Latermann,J. 67-69Lazarus 176,185Lect,J. 68Lee,B. 250LeeuwvanWeenen,A.de 39,41-42Lefèvre,P. 244-245Lenin,V. 295L’Hospital,M.de 57Liesveldt,J. 200-201Luketheevangelist 175-177Luther,M. 59,64,68,202,276

Mailer,H. 75Maerlants,J.van 45,201Mander,K.van 204Marktheevangelist 176Martha 176,181-183,188MaryofEgypt 178-179,185MaryMagdalene 175-192Matthewtheevangelist 176Maxwell,A. 228McMillan,J. 88McCloud,S. 243Meij,B.Vander 241-243,251,254Melanchthon 63Mergenthaler,O. 92Metelen,J.van 214-215Michel,J. 181Miller,F. 241Mochizuki,M. 195Molinaeus,J. 65Moller,J. 200,215-216MonaLisa 89Moretti,F. 76,88Most,G. 1-13,25-26,31Moulins,G.des 266Multatuli 295-310

316 IndexOfPersonalNames

Twain,M. 87

Vanhoutte,E. 39Vauchez,A. 261Visscher,C.J. 213-214Voigt,E.-M. 21-23Voragine,J.de 177,195Vos,M. 203Vossius,G. 199

Waesberge,J.van 213Wanegffelen,T. 56Ware,Ch. 241,246-249Waugh,L. 160Wayne,J. 250Wayne,R. 91Weber,R. 224Wenzel,S. 76,85,88-89Wittgenstein,L. 240Wouw,H.J.van 198,208,210,211,212Wozniak,S. 91

Zetzner,L. 61Zillmann,D. 13,115Zook,D.C. 295-296Zuccari,F. 188,192Zumthor,P. 17Zundert,J.van 39

Saverij,J. 214Schuessler,J. 90Semino,E. 153-154,157,159-160,167-170Shakespeare 82-83Shillingsburg,P. 39Shklovsky,V. 246Short,M. 153-154,157,159-160,167-170Siegel,S. 13Simon 175-176Simpson,P. 101Smits,A. 122Snellius,W. 291Snyder,Z. 241Sophocles 18Spielberg,S. 241Stackmann,K. 17Stancaro,F. 63Staphylus,F. 63

Theaetetus 283Tiletanus see:Ravesteyn,J.deTimaeus 287-288Toer,P.A. 295Tomasello,M. 133,136Tompkins,J. 301-302Toolan,M. 133Topffer,R. 240Torwel,V. 145Turchetti,M. 55-56

i Texts,Transmissions,Receptions - OAPEN

Documents

Transcript of i Texts,Transmissions,Receptions - OAPEN