Texts,Transmissions,Receptions i

(1)

Texts,Transmissions,Receptions

ThisisanopenaccesschapterdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution- Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.

(2)

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

(3)

Texts, Transmissions, Receptions

Modern Approaches to Narratives

Edited by

AndréLardinois SophieLevie HansHoeken ChristophLüthy

LEIDEN|BOSTON

(4)

Thispublicationhasbeentypesetinthemultilingual“Brill”typeface.Withover5,100characterscovering

Latin,ipa,Greek,andCyrillic,thistypefaceisespeciallysuitableforuseinthehumanities.

Formoreinformation,pleaseseebrill.com/brill-typeface.

issn2213-9729

ThisworkispublishedbyKoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,TheNetherlands.

KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillNijhoff,GlobalOrientalandHoteiPublishing.

KoninklijkeBrillNVreservestherighttoprotectthepublicationagainstunauthorizeduseandto

authorizedisseminationbymeansofoffprints,legitimatephotocopies,microformeditions,reprints,

translations,andsecondaryinformationsources,suchasabstractingandindexingservicesincluding

databases.Requestsforcommercialre-use,useofpartsofthepublication,and/ortranslationsmustbe

addressedtoKoninklijkeBrillNV.

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,Sophie

Levie,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.Oral

communiction.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.T462015

401'.41--dc23

2014029729

(5)

Part1 New 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

Part2 Narrativity

5 Modality in Lolita 97

Helen 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 133 José Sanders and Hans Hoeken

(6)

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

Part3 Image 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 240 Tom Lambeens and Kris Pint

Part4

Reception 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

(7)

List of Illustrations and Tables

Figures

2.1 TextversioncomparisonintheMenschen en bergenonlineedition 40 2.2 TheOptionsscreenforannotationcategoriesintheWalewein ende Keye

onlineedition 41

2.3 Thehover-overboxwithlinguisticinformationintheAlexanders saga

editiononCD-ROM,DeLeeuwvanWeenen(2009) 42

2.4 ClusteranalysismadewithMinitab15oftheJudithepisodeinallfifteen

manuscriptsoftheRijmbijbel,forthe250highestfrequencylemmas 47 2.5 PrincipalcomponentsanalysismadewithMinitab15oftheJudith-

episodeinallfifteenmanuscriptsoftheRijmbijbel,forthe250highest

frequencylemmas 47

2.6 PrincipalcomponentsanalysismadewithMinitab15oftheJudith-epi- sodeinallfifteenmanuscriptsexcludingmanuscriptIoftheRijmbijbel,

forthe250highestfrequencylemmas 49

6.1 Theindirecteffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalthroughreaders’disposi- tionsonempathy 126

6.2 Theindirecteffectoftheprotagonist’sportrayalthroughempathyon

transportation 127

9.1 Caravaggio,ThepenitentMaryMagdalene,canvas,c.1596,Rome,Galleria

DoriaPamphilij 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:Mary

Magdalene’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

(8)

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:Zacharias

Heyns,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,forthewidowofHillebrant

Jacobsz.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.van

Ravensteyn,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 Organizationrepresentsthreedifferentviewsof

thedouble-headmaskoftheNa’naqualitl,adancerofthewinterceremo- nial.Thefigureshowstworeverse–syntheticandrealistic–viewsand

athird,complementaryview.Thedrawingsofthemask’soutline,while

lackinginvolumeandmateriality,ismorepreciseastothewaythetwo

masksareattachedtooneanother.Thesmallerheadshangingfromthe

maskareisolatedatthebottomandthereforeappearmoreclearly 225 11.2 Figure18ofThe Social Organization representstheHousefrontofthe

clanGigilqaminthevillageofNimkish. Itiscaptioned“Fromaphoto- graph.”Thepaintedmotifofthehousefrontappearsdistinctively.The

presenceofthetwocanoesonthebeachandthetwosmallhumanfig- uresontherighthandsideofthefaçadereinforcesthelargedimensions

ofthebuildingandofthepaintingitself 226

(9)

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,whichonlyreinforcestheartificial

characteroftheimage.Infact,thisgrasswasthatoftheChicagoWorld

ColumbianFairgroundsof1893,andthedancerwassurroundedbyother

Kwakiutl.The“context”surroundingthedancerhasbeenerased,andthe

focusisputonthegestureandtheparaphernalia 229

11.4 a)OntheleftistheexplanationofPlate1ofThe Social Organization,with

thecorrespondingimageoftheheaddressrepresentingthewhiteowlon

theright.Thesefacingpagesareinsertedbetweenp.324and325ofthe

report;b)Thispage(325ofthereport)displaysacombinationoftextand

music,i.e.,thesongbelongingtotheowl’slegend 234

11.5 Anexampleofthecombinationofethnographicdata.Herearetwopages

(516and517)wherenolessthanfourdrawings,representingtwomasks,a

rattle,ablanketandaheadring,arereproducedwithinthetext 235 11.6 Plate16 ofThe Social Organizationrepresentshouseposts intheshapeof

animalsholdingcoppers.Thebackgroundofthevillagehasbeenblurred,

thusfocusingtheattentionofthereaderonthepoststhemselvesrather

thanontheirenvironmentoranyotherirrelevantelementthatcouldbe

seenonthepicture 236

11.7 EdwardS.Curtis’Kwakiutl house-frame waspublishedinvol.VofThe North American Indian,1915.Althoughthetitlesuggeststhattheimage

focusesonthearchitectureofthetypicalKwakiutlhouse,the“romantic”

subjectivityofthephotographerisevidentinthedramaticframingofthe

photographinwhichthepostsofthehousehavebeenusedtodrawthe

viewer’sattentiontothebackgroundimages,ratherthantothehouse- frameintheforeground 237

12.1 Hergé,De Zonnetempel(Doornik:Casterman,1977),p.17 243 12.2 Goblet,D.,Faire Semblant C’est Mentir(Paris:L’Association,2007),

p.21 244

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

org/isotype 247

12.4 Hergé,De Zonnetempel(Doornik:Casterman,1977),p.6 247 12.5 Gerner,J.,TNT en Amérique(Paris:L’ampoule,2002),p.41 248 12.6 Franquin,Zwartkijken(Doornik:Gladijs/Casterman,2008),p.56 250 12.7 Lambeens,Front Back(Hasselt:UHasselt/HetOnrijpheid,2009),

p.2 252

12.8 Lambeens,Front Back(Hasselt:UHasselt/HetOnrijpheid,2009),

p.54 253

(10)

12.9 Lambeens,Front Back(Hasselt:UHasselt/HetOnrijpheid,2009),

p.83 254 Tables

6.1 Meansandstandarddeviations(betweenbrackets)ofaffectivedisposi- tion,empathy,transportationandbeliefsbycondition(1=verylow,7=

veryhigh). 126

8.1 Speech,thought,andwritingpresentationscales(afterSeminoandShort,

2004:49) 153

Contents

Contents v

ListofIllustrationsandTables vii

ListofContributors xi

Lardinoisetal. 1

Introduction 1

AndréLardinois,SophieLevie,HansHoekenandChristophLüthy 1

part1 15

NewPhilology 15

∵ 15

Chapter1 17

TransmissionandTextualVariants:DivergentFragmentsofSappho’sSongsExamined17

MarkdeKreij 17

Chapter2 35

InPraiseoftheVariantAnalysisTool:

AComputationalApproach toMedievalLiterature 35

KarinavanDalen-Oskam 35

Chapter3 55

Mutatis Mutandis:TheSameCallforPeace,butDifferentlyFramedEachTime 55

RobvandeSchoor 55

Chapter4 71

TheSalmanRushdieArchiveandtheRe-ImaginingofaPhilologicalE-volution 71

BenjaminAlexander 71

part2 95

Narrativity 95

∵ 95

Chapter5 97

ModalityinLolita 97

HelendeHoopandSanderLestrade 97

Chapter6 114

TransportedintoaStoryWorld:TheRoleoftheProtagonist 114

AnnekedeGraafandLetticaHustinxDeGraafandHustinx 114

Chapter7 133

ConstructingtheLandscapeofConsciousnessinNewsStories 133

JoséSandersandHansHoekenSandersandHoeken 133

Chapter8 152

QuotedDiscourseinDutchNewsNarratives 152

KirstenVis,JoséSandersandWilbertSpoorenVisetal. 152

part3 173

ImageandText 173

∵ 173

Chapter9 175

MaryMagdalene’sConversioninRenaissancePaintingandMediaevalSacredDrama 175

BramdeKlerck 175

Chapter10 194

TheDiffusionofIllustratedReligiousTextsandIdeologicalRestraints 194

ElsStronks 194

Chapter11 221

IllustratingtheAnthropologicalText:DrawingsandPhotographsinFranzBoas’The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians(1897) 221

CamilleJoseph 221

Chapter12 240

TheInteractionofImageandTextInModernComics 240

TomLambeensandKrisPintLambeensandPint 240

part4 257

ReceptionandLiteraryInfrastructure 257

∵ 257

Chapter13 259

HolyWritandLayReadersinLateMedievalEurope:TranslationandParticipation 259 SabrinaCorbelliniandMargrietHoogvlietCorbelliniandHoogvliet 259

Chapter14 281

ReceptionandtheTextualityofHistory:

RamusandKepleronProclus’HistoryandPhilosophyofGeometry 281

GuyClaessens 281

Chapter15 295

OccasionalWriter,SensationalWriter:MultatuliasaSentimentalBenevolenceWriterinthe1860s 295

LaurensHam 295

IndexofPersonalNames 313

(11)

List of Contributors

Benjamin Alexander

isanAssistantProfessorintheGraduateSchoolofLibraryandInformation

StudiesatQueensCollegeoftheCityUniversityofNewYork,wherehealso

servesastheHeadofSpecialCollectionsandArchivesfortheQueensCollege

Libraries.Hisresearchandteachinginterestsfocusonthehistoryofarchives,

archivaltheoryandpractice,thehistoryofbooksandprinting,aswellas20th

CenturyAmericanculturalhistory.

Guy Claessens

obtainedhisPhDinphilosophyattheCatholicUniversityofLeuvenwitha

dissertationontheEarlyModernreceptionofProclus’Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements.HenowworksasaPostdoctoralFellowofthe

ResearchFoundation–Flanders(FWO)attheDeWulf-MansionCentreforAn- cient,MedievalandRenaissancePhilosophyattheuniversityofLeuven.

Sabrina Corbellini

isRosalindFranklinFellowattheUniversityofGroningen(FacultyofArts).

Sheisworkinginthefieldoflatemedievalculturalhistoryandreligiosityina

Europeanperspective.

Karina van Dalen-Oskam

isresearchleaderoftheDepartmentofTextualScholarship&LiteraryStudies

attheHuygensInstitutefortheHistoryoftheNetherlandsandProfessorof

ComputationalLiteraryStudiesattheUniversityofAmsterdam.Sheisan

activescholarintheinternationaldisciplineofDigitalHumanities.

Anneke de Graaf

isapostdoctoralresearcherintheDepartmentofCommunicationand

InformationSciencesandtheCentreofLanguageStudiesoftheRadboud

UniversityNijmegen.Herresearchfocusesonthepersuasiveeffectsof

narratives.

Laurens Ham

isaPhD-studentatUtrechtUniversity.Heisworkingonathesisaboutthe

autonomyofDutchwritersfromthenineteenthcenturyonwards.

(12)

Hans Hoeken

isProfessorofCommunicationandInformationSciencesattheCentrefor

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

Margriet Hoogvliet

receivedherPhDdegree(cum laude)fromtheUniversityofGroningenin

1999.Inthesameyearshewasawardedwithagrantforapersonalresearch

project:“Multi-MediaArtasRoyalLegitimizationandPropaganda(France,

1450–1650”.From2009to2013shewaspostdoctoralresearcherinSabrina

Corbellini’s“HolyWritandLayReadersProject”.Herresearchhasresultedin

numerousinternationalpublicationsaboutthecultureandsocietyoflate

medievalandearlymodernFrance.

Helen de Hoop

isProfessorofTheoreticalLinguisticsattheRadboudUniversityNijmegen,

theNetherlands.Shehaspublishedonvarioustopicsontheinterfacebetween

syntaxandsemantics,amongwhichmodality.Currently,sheisinterestedin

combininglinguisticsandliterarystudies.In2012and2013sheorganizedtwo

workshopsonthelanguageofliterature.

Lettica Hustinx

isAssociateProfessoroftheDepartmentofDutchLanguageandCultureat

theCentreforLanguageStudies,RadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.Shehas

publishedonnarrativepersuasionandexemplificationincludingThe impact of exemplars on responsibility stereotypes in fund-raising letters(Hoeken&

Hustinx,2007).

Camille Joseph

isassistantlecturerattheEnglishDepartmentoftheUniversitéParis8.With

IsabelleKalinowski,sheiscurrentlypreparingandtranslatingthefirst

anthologyofFranzBoasinFrench.

Bram de Klerck

teachesArtHistoryoftheEarlyModernPeriodatRadboudUniversity,

Nijmegen.Hisresearchfocusesonissuesoffunctionandpatronageof

religiousartinsixteenth-centuryNorthernItaly,aswellasonartisticrelations

betweenItalyandtheNetherlands.

(13)

Mark de Kreij

haswrittenaPhDthesisonthelanguageofGreekepicandlyricatthe

Ruprecht-Karls-UniversitätofHeidelberg.Hisresearchinterestsincludeearly

Greekpoetry,papyrology,andlinguistics.

Tom Lambeens

currentlyworksasajuniorresearcheratPHLUniversityCollege/Hasselt

Universityontheoperativefunctionofsensationandcodeinvisualnarra- tives.HehaspublishedtwoexperimentalvisualnarrativesentitledArme Indiaan(2008)andFront/Back (2009).

André Lardinois

isProfessorofGreekLanguageandLiteratureatRadboudUniversityNijme- gen.HismainresearchinterestscentreonGreeklyricpoetryandGreek

drama.HeisalsotheacademicdirectoroftheInstituteforHistorical,Literary

andCulturalStudies(HLCS)atRadboudUniversityNijmegen.

Sander Lestrade

obtainedaPhDinLinguisticsaswellasabachelor´sdegreeinLiteraryStudies

inNijmegen.AfterhisPhDheworkedasapost-docattheUniversityof

BremenandasassistantprofessorinLinguisticsattheUniversityofAmster- dam.Currently,heisaresearcherinLinguisticsattheCentreforLanguage

StudiesofRadboudUniversityNijmegen.

Sophie Levie

isProfessorofEuropeanLiteratureandCulturalStudiesatRadboudUniver- sityNijmegen.SheischiefeditoroftheseriesRadboudStudiesintheHuman- itiesandeditoroftheseriesLa Rivista‘Commerce’e Marguerite Caetani

(EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,Rome).

Christoph Lüthy

isProfessoroftheHistoryofPhilosophyandScienceatRadboudUniversity

Nijmegen.Heisparticularlyinterestedintheoriginofthemodernscientific

disciplines,theevolutionofnaturalphilosophyandofmattertheories,aswell

asinmethodsof(graphically)visualizingabstractthoughtandtheories.

Kris Pint

PhD, teachesphilosophyofinteriordesign,semiotics,culturaltheory,and

theoryofscenographyatthedepartmentofArtsandArchitectureatPHL

UniversityCollege/HasseltUniversity.HeistheauthorofThe Perverse Art of

(14)

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

José Sanders

isAssociateProfessorofCommunicationandInformationSciencesatthe

CentreforLanguageStudies,RadboudUniversityNijmegen.Shehaspublished

ontheformandfunctionofperspectiveinjournalisticandfictionalnarrative,

includingResponsible subjects and discourse causality(Sanders,Sandersand

Sweetser,2012).

Rob van de Schoor

teachesnineteenth-centuryDutchliteratureatRadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.

HeiscurrentlypreparinganeditionofGeorgiusCassander,De officio pii viri

(1651).

Wilbert Spooren

isProfessorofDiscourseStudiesofDutchatRadboudUniversityNijmegen.

WilbertSpoorenandJoséSandershavebothpublishedextensivelyontext

linguistics,specializingincoherenceandsubjectivity(e.g.Sanders&Spooren,

1997).

Els Stronks

isProfessorofEarlyModernDutchLiteratureatUtrechtUniversity.Shehas

publishedextensivelyontheproductionofillustratedreligiousliteraturein

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

Kirsten Vis

ispost-doctoralresearcherattheFacultyofHumanitiesatUtrechtUniversity.

Shehaspublishedontextlinguistics,specializinginsubjectivityinnews

discourse(e.g.Visetal.,2010).

(15)

Introduction

André Lardinois, Sophie Levie, Hans Hoeken and Christoph Lüthy

In2009thecentraladministrationofRadboudUniversityNijmegenawarded

the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology, and Religious

Studiesalargegranttofundtwoprojectsthatwouldstimulatetheresearch

andcollaborationofthetwofaculties.Itwasdecidedthatoneoftheseprojects

wouldbedevotedtoexploringcommonwaystostudythefunctionandmean- ingoftexts,sincetextsareatthecoreofthesubjectsstudiedinbothHumani- tiesfaculties.Theword“text”hereisusedinthebroadestsenseoftheterm:it

doesnotonlydenoteliteraryorscholarlysources,butalsooraltales,speeches,

newspaperarticlesandcomics.Oneofthepurposesbehindtheprojectwasto

discoverwhatthesedifferenttextshaveincommon,wheretheydifferand

whethertheycanbestudiedinsimilarways.Thesamequestionsunderliethis

volume.

InFebruary2009GlennMost(ScuolaNormaleSuperiorediPisa/University

ofChicago),theauthorofinnumerablestudiesinthefieldofClassics,Philoso- phy,andtheHumanitiesatlarge,wasappointedvisitingprofessoratbothfac- ulties. Together with André Lardinois, he organised an interdisciplinary

researchgroupentitled“Text,TransmissionandReception,”whichconsisted

ofresearchersfromthetwoHumanitiesfacultiesofRadboudUniversity.With- inthisresearchgroup,differentprojectswerepursued,basedontheinterests

oftheindividualresearchers.Thisresultedinfoursubgroups,whicharealso

representedassectionsinthisvolume:NewPhilology,Narrativity,Imageand

Text,andReceptionandLiteraryInfrastructure.

AfterresearchersofthetwofacultiesofRadboudUniversityhadworkedfor

overayearinthesefoursubgroups,itwasdecidedtoorganisealargeconfer- enceinthefallof2010,entitled“Texts,Transmissions,Receptions,”wherethey

couldshareresultswithoneanotherandalsowithotherscholarsfromoutside

theuniversity.Aselectionofthepaperspresentedatthisconferenceliesbe- foreyou.Theconferencewassetupinsuchawaythatallparticipantscould

attendallthepapers.Thiswasdonedeliberately,sothatparticipantscould

learnfromeachother’s,oftenverydifferent,approaches.Morethan70schol- arstookpartintheconference,whichbroughttogetherresearchersfromsuch

diversedisciplinesasClassicalStudies,MedievalDutchLiterature,EnglishLit- erature,Philosophy,ReligiousStudies,CulturalStudies,ArtHistory,Linguis- tics,andCommunicationandInformationStudies,allunitedinacommon

interestin“texts.”

ThisisanopenaccesschapterdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution- Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.

(16)

Wehopethatsomethingofthisunityofpurposeisalsoapparentinthis

volume.Humanitiesstudiesaregoingthroughhardtimes,whiletheircontri- butiontosocietyisbeingquestioned.Humanitiesresearchersarethemselves,

however,ofteneachother’sworstcritics.Insteadofrecognisingtheircommon

purpose,theydenounceapproachesthatdifferfromtheirownasiftheycon- stitutesomekindofheresy.Inthisvolumedifferentapproachesarejuxtaposed

whichtheindividualcontributorshadpreviouslynotconsideredtogether.The

hopeisthatthereader,liketheparticipantsattheoriginalconference,learns

fromthesedifferentapproachesandlearnstoappreciateeachoftheminits

ownright.Togethertheyprovideabroadpictureofthefunctionandmeaning

oftexts,whichstilllieatthecoreofhumancommunicationinreligion,law,

politics,advertisement,journalism,philosophyandliterature.Ifsuchtextsare

notworthstudying,onewonderswhatis.

New Philology

Thefirstsectionofthisbooktakesasitsstartingpointanapproachtotextual

criticismthatcallsitselfNewPhilology.Itdemandsattentionforthedynamic

changesinthephysicalappearancesandcontextsofliterary,philosophical

andreligioustextsovertime.Thissectionseekstoevaluatethemeritsofthis

approach in four papers that combine theoretical reflections with either a

modernorhistoricalliteraryorreligioustext.Inthefirstpaper,MarkdeKreij

examinestherecordofthetextualtransmissionofSappho’spoetryinantiq- uity.Sappho,wholivedandworkedontheislandofLesbosaround600BC,was

recognizedasoneofthecanonicallyricpoetsofancientGreece.Becauseof

thisexaltedstatus,wefindquotationsofherpoemsinmanylaterclassical

authors.Togetherwithpapyrusfinds,thesequotationsmakeupforourlackof

asurvivingmanuscripttraditionofherwork.Usuallytheyarestudiedonly

withaneyetothereconstructionofthelostoriginalofSappho’ssongs.Asa

result,theyhavereceivedlittleattentionintheirownright.Inthetraditionof

NewPhilology,deKreijcloselyexaminestwofragmentsofSapphothathave

beentransmittedinmorethanonesource,fragments2and154,contrasting

thedifferentformstheytakeinthedifferentsources.Hearguesthateachof

theseformsistheproductofitstimeandauthor,andassuchconstitutesarich

sourceofinformationaboutthereceptionandtransmissionofSappho’spo- etryinantiquity.HethereforepleadsforaneweditionofSappho’sfragments

thatshowsthevariationsinthetransmissionofhersongsinantiquity.

NewPhilologicaltexteditions,whichtrytoreproducethedifferentversions

inwhichtextsappearovertime,arealmostimpossibletoproduceonpaper,

(17)

whenmanyvariantsofatextsurvive.BernardCerquiglini,oneofthefounders

ofNewPhilologyinMedievalStudies,thereforepredictedtheuseofcomput- ersinconstitutingtexteditionsfromtheperspectiveofNewPhilologyalready

in 1989. Karina van Dalen-Oskam in her article looks back at Cerquiglini’s

predictionconcerningtheroleofthecomputerinsuchtexteditionsandcom- pares his expectations with the current state of the art in digital textual

scholarship.SheshowswherethecurrentsituationprovesCerquigliniright,

butalsowheretechnicaldevelopmentshaveovertakenandimprovedupon

thepossibilitiesCerquigliniforesawmorethantwentyyearsago.Thenewop- portunitiesthathavecomeaboutareillustratedthroughtheexampleofstatis- ticalresearchonfifteencopiesofthesameepisodeinaMiddleDutchBiblein

rhyme,theso-calledRijmbijbel,writtenbyJacobvanMaerlantin1271BC.It

demonstrateshowmultivariateapproachessuchasclusterobservationand

principalcomponentsanalysiscanhelptovisualizetherelativepositionof

eachofthecopieswhencomparedtoeachother.Italsoshowshowsuchmeth- odscanbeusedasexploratorytools,pointingtheresearchertothoseepisodes

ormanuscriptsthatdeservecloserattention.

RobvandeSchoorinhiscontributiontothevolumeexploresthesignifi- canceoftheinsightsgeneratedbyNewPhilologyforthetextualtransmission

andreceptionhistoryofaprintedtext,De officio pii viri (“OntheDutyofthe

PiousMan”),writtenbyGeorgiusCassanderandfirstpublishedin1561.Vande

Schoorlists15editionsorreprintsbetween1561and1687,oftenwithsignificant

additionsorchangestothetext.Thesechangesareoftenbasedonthereligious

convictionsofsubsequenteditors.HecomplimentsNewPhilologyfordrawing

attentiontosuchvariationsofatext,butheiscriticalofthenewmovementas

well.Firstofall,ashepointsout,traditionalphilologyregisteredthesediffer- encesaswell,butitevaluatedthemdifferently.Secondly,itishardtomaintain

thatthesedifferentversionsareofequalsignificance,especiallyinthecaseof

printededitions.VandeSchoorvaluesNewPhilologymorefortheparadig- maticshiftitrepresentsthanforthepracticaleffectitwillhaveontextualstud- ies.NewPhilologyhascloseaffinitywithgeneticediting,exceptthatgenetic

editingrecordsandevaluatesvariationsofatextbefore itsfirstpublication(au- thor’snotes,typescripts,etc.),whereasNewPhilologyfocusesonvariationsof

atextafteritsfirstappearance.WehavethereforeincludedanarticlebyBenja- minAlexanderwhichlooksatthepossibilitiesoftheSalmanRushdieArchive,

keptatEmoryUniversityinAtlanta,forthereconstructionofthecreativepro- cessthatledtohisnovels.ThisarchiveincludesfourApplecomputers,whose

harddrivesallowforanalmostminutebyminutereconstructionofRushdie’s

writingprocess.Alexanderdrawsparallelswithotherdigitalarchivesofmod-

(18)

ern authors or the way we know other modern novels have been written.

AlexanderusesthefindingsofNewPhilology,aswellastheconceptofthe

palimpsest(amanuscriptthathasbeenwrittenoverwithanewtext),toargue

forthesignificanceoftheseearlier,creativeversionsofatext.Togetherthese

four contributions in the New Philology section celebrate the diversity in

whichatextcanappearratherthantryingtopinitdowntoone,authorial(and

authoritative)version.

Narrativity

ThefourcontributionstotheNarrativitysectionbroadenthescopeofresearch

onthereceptionoftextstothewaystoriesarereadandunderstood.Twoofthe

papersfocusonthecharacteristicsandimpactofliterarytexts,whereasnews- paperstoriesarethetopicofinterestintheothertwo.Intwopapers,theanal- ysisofthesenarratives(oneliterary,theotherjournalistic)isembeddedwithin

alinguisticframework,whereastheothertwostudiesadoptacommunication

sciencemodel.Finally,apartfromamoretheoreticalpaper,corpusanalyses

arereportedonintwopapers,andanexperimentonparticipants’responsesto

aliterarytext,intheother.Despitethisvarietyinchosentexts,theoretical

frameworksandapproaches,thestudiesinthissectionformasurprisinglyco- herentset.

ThechapterbyHelendeHoopandSanderLestradeisanexcellentexample

ofhowlinguistictheoryandanalysiscanbeappliedfruitfullytoliterarytexts.

TheyfocusintheirstudyontheuseofasinglewordinNabokov’sLolita:the

epistemicmodalityauxiliary might.Innaturallanguage,speakersemployepis- temicmodalitymarkerssuchasmay andmighttoexpresstheirhypotheses

aboutthestateofaffairsintheactualworld.Bystatingthat“Petermightpass

theexam,”thespeakercommunicatesthatheorshebelievesthatitispossible

–butnotcertain–thatPeterwillpass.Whereaspeopleintherealworldcanbe

uncertainaboutsuchfacts,omniscientnarratorsinfictionarenotexpectedto

sufferfromsuchuncertainties,astheymakeupthisworldthemselves.

Nabokov’sLolitaisaninterestingworkoffictioninthisrespect,giventhatit

isaframestory.HumbertHumbert,themaincharacterinthestory,isalsoa

characteratahigherlevelwhereheservesasthenarratorwhenwritinghis

confessioninprisonaftertheeventshaveunfolded.Asaresult,whenmightis

used,itmayrefertouncertaintyfeltbyHumbertasthecharacterinthestory

orbyHumbertthenarratoroftheevents.DeHoopandLestradeanalyzeall136

occurrencesofmightinNabokov’sLolitatoassesswhetherthepersonindoubt

is“Humbertthecharacter”or“Humbertthenarrator.”Theresultsshowthat

(19)

whenmightisusedtoexpressthedoubtofacharacter,itisalmostalways

clearly and explicitly marked by syntactic embedding. In contrast, subtle

contextualcuesrevealwhentheuseofmighthastobeinterpretedfromthe

narrator’sperspective.TheapproachtakenbyDeHoopandLestradeyields

interestingresultsforbothliterarystudiesandlinguistics.Forliterarystudies,

itshowshowacarefullinguisticanalysiscanhelptoaddressthequestionof

whoisthinking,perceiving,andwonderinginastory.Forlinguistics,thestudy

showshowlanguageinthehandsofageniuscanbeusedtoachievegoalsand

effectsordinarylanguageuserswouldnotthinkof,butstillcanunderstand.As

such,itbroadensourviewofwhatlanguagecanachieve.

WhereasDeHoopandLestradestudythewayinwhichanunreliablenarra- torrepresentshisownaswellasotherpeople’sthoughtsandwords,Kirsten

Vis,JoséSandersandWilbertSpoorenfocusonthewayinwhichjournalists

representthewordingoftheirsourcesintheirnewsreports.Theyshowthat

quotationsinnewsstorieshavespecialcharacteristicsandserveotherfunc- tionsthantheydoinworksoffiction.Forinstance,directquotesdonotonly

servetoenliventhenewsreport,theyalsosuggestthatthejournalistswere

presentwhenthesewordswereuttered,thusattestingtotheveracityofthese

words.Visetal.claimthatjournalistsquoteanewssourcedirectlytopresent

themselvesasreliablewitnessestothesituation.

Visetal.donotonlystudytheuseof(complete)directquotes,butalsoof

partial direct quotes, and of indirect representations of people’s spoken or

writtenwordsinnewsstories.Theseindirectrepresentationsinwhichpeople’s

wordsareparaphrasedbythejournalist,appeartobeusedtosummarizea

source’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,theyalsoputdistancebetweenthequoted

speaker’sopinionandthatofthejournalist.

Whereasquotationscancreatedistancebetweentheopinionofthenews

sourceandthatofthejournalist,freeindirectpresentationsof,forinstance,

thoughtsinnewssourcesachieveexactlytheopposite:theyleadtotheinter- twiningofthesource’sandthejournalist’svoices.Freeindirectthoughtisa

quitecommontechniqueemployedinliterarytexts.Visetal.showthatfree

indirectthought,however,isabsentinbothrecentandolderDutchnewsnar- ratives.Giventhatjournalistsdonothavedirectaccesstowhattheirsources

werethinking,thismayexplainwhytheyrefrainfromusingthistechnique.

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

(20)

thought,toreconstructtheeventsandbackgroundsofshockingnewsevents.

JoséSandersandHansHoekenfocusintheircontributiononthefunction

suchreconstructionsmayserveandonthekindofimpactthatthesestory

telling techniques may have. It has been claimed that the most important

functionoflanguageistheexchangeofsocialinformation.Nowadays,journal- istsplayanimportantroleintheexchangeofsuchinformation.Theyfunction

asgatekeeperswhoidentifyeventsthatarenewsworthyforthecommunity

theycaterto.

Onewayinwhichaneventcanmeetthecriterionofnewsworthinessisby

(strongly)deviatingfromtheexpectationsandnormsofthecommunity,such

asamotherkillingherownbabiesoramankillinginnocentbystandersina

mall.Hardnewsreportsonsucheventsaretypicallyfollowedbylongerback- groundarticles.Thesearticlesareoftencastinanarrativeformatwhichde- scribeseithertheeventsastheyhavebeenexperiencedbypeopleinvolved,or

thepsychologicalmakeupoftheperpetrator.SandersandHoekenpointout

thatthisdistinctioninfocusrunsparalleltothedistinctionmadebetweenthe

twolandscapesastoryissaidtoconstruct:thelandscapeofactionandthe

landscapeofconsciousness.Thelandscapeofactionenablesreaderstoassess

theconsequencesofactions,whereasthelandscapeofconsciousnessprovides

readerswithapotentialexplanationforwhytheperpetratoractedthewayhe

orshedid.

Inthefinalcontributioninthissection,thefocusshiftsfromnewsnarra- tivesbacktoliterarystories.Animportantaspectthatsetsstoriesapartfrom

genressuchastextbooksorletterstotheeditoristheirabilitytoluretheir

readersawayfromthehereandnowandleadthemintotheworldevokedby

thestory.Thisexperienceofbeinglostinabookhasbeendubbed“transportation”andhasattractedalotofresearchattention.AnnekedeGraafandLettica

Hustinxintheircontributionfocusontheroleofthecharacterintransporting

readerstothenarrativeworld.

DeGraafandHustinxfollowuponthesuggestionthatitiseasiertoem- pathisewithalikeablecharacterthanwithanunlikeablecharacter.Intheir

study,theyuseashort,literarystoryaboutamanwhotravelsintheBasque

countryinSpainandendsupbeingmurderedbyaterroristgroupthatisactive

inthatarea.Inanexperiment,DeGraafandHustinxcreatedthreeversionsof

thisstorythatonlydifferminimallyfromoneanother.Inoneversioninforma- tionisprovidedthatmakesthecharactermorelikeable;inanotherversion

informationisgiventhatmakeshimratherunsympathetic.Athirdversion,

whichservedasacontrol,isrelativelyneutralaboutthecharacter’slikeability.

Subsequently, the three versions were randomly distributed among partici-

(21)

pantswhoindicatedtheextenttowhichtheyempathisedwiththecharacter

andfelttransportedtotheworlddescribedinthestory.

DeGraafandHustinxfoundthatreadersoftheversionwiththelikeable

characterdisplayedamorepositivedispositiontowardstheprotagonistand

empathizedmorewithhimthanreadersoftheneutralversion,whointurn

displayedamorepositivedispositionandfeltmoreempathyfortheprotago- nistthanreadersoftheversionwiththeunlikeablecharacter.Also,thestory

featuringthelikeableprotagonistresultedinmoretransportationoftheread- erthanthestorieswitheithertheneutralortheunlikeableprotagonists.These

resultsshowthattheportrayalofaprotagonistasamoresympatheticperson

throughdescriptionsof“good”actionsandthoughtsisindeedanantecedent

oftransportation.

Together,thecontributionsinthissectionrevealtherelevanceofseemingly

unrelatedtheoreticalframeworksandmethodstothestudyofnarrativityand

narrativereception.Theyshowhowlinguistictheorycaninformtheanalysis

ofperspectiveinbothliterarytextsandjournalists’narratives.Finally,they

showhowtheconceptualisationoftheimpactofstories,originallydeveloped

toexplainhowliterarytextsaffecttheirreaders,canbeextendedtoexplainthe

designandfunctionofnewspapernarratives.

Image and Text

Atleastetymologically,imagesandwrittenwordsappeartohavecommonori- gins.Thesearefoundintheactofscratchingmeaningfullinesonasurfacein

ordertoleavesignsthatlastlongerthanspokenwords.Afterall,theGreek

wordgraphein meansanygesturethatliterallyen-gravessomethingonatab- let,irrespectiveofwhethertheresultisaword(thespellingofwhichoughtto

followtherulesofortho-graphy),adia-gramoranothertypeofgraphicdesign.

Inotherwords,whenthegraphis(aslatepencil)hascarveditslines,theresult

maybeadrawingoraletter,butineachcaseitwillbeagraphēorgramma–

forthesetwoall-embracingwordsmeanallofthesetypesofengravings.Inthe

particularcaseofhieroglyphics,the“drawing”andthe“letter”mayevenfall

together,andonlythecontextwilltellwhetherthedrawingsshouldbereadas

textorasimage.

Writingandimagingcaninmanycasesthereforebeviewedasalternative,

butequivalentoptions.Inthecollectionofessaysthatarecontainedinthis

section,however,wordsandimagesarenotpresentedasalternativestrategies

forsimilarends,butaspartsofintegratedwholes.Thisisduetothefactthat

weroutinelyusewordsandimagesjointlysoastoreinforcethemeaningof

(22)

whatwewishtocommunicate.Ineverydaylife,thewayinwhichtextsand

imagescollaborateposesfewproblems.Wehavelearned,andthereforeintui- tivelyunderstand,howwordsandtextsinteractinsuchcasesastrafficsigns,

user’s manuals, encyclopedia entries or advertisements. However, when we

turntohistoricalexamples,weseethatourintuitionabandonsusquickly.Ba- roqueemblembooks,forexample,inwhichatitle,anoftendeliberatelycryp- ticimageandanexplanationinallegorizingversesarecombinedtoforma

message,arenolongerunderstandabletous,inthesensethatwedon’tgrasp

withoutengaginginmuchhistoricalresearchwhatweoughttodowithem- blemsandinwhichcognitive,spiritualormoralwaysweareexpectedtoreact

tothem.

Butevenincaseswhereweintuitthemeaninginword-imageconstellations

pastandpresent,weusuallycannotquiteexplainhowexactlytheywork.What

isthecontributionofthetext,whatoftheimages?Inwhichprecisewaydo

imagesreinforcethetextualmessage?Orconversely,inwhichwaydoesthe

texteitheraddto,orinsteadmerelyexplicate,themeaningoftheimages?

Whatistheargumentativeforcethatweattributetoaphotographwithor

withoutacaption,toadiagramwithorwithoutanexplanation,toapainting

withorwithoutatitle,toamapwithorwithoutinscriptions?

Thisprecisesetofquestionsanimatedtheabove-mentionedstudygroup

“ImageandText,”inwhichhistoriansofart,philosophy,literatureandscience

collaboratedwithexpertsinmediaandcommunicationscienceforanextend- edperiod.Thefourarticlesreproducedhereareasmallandyetrepresentative

expressionofthiswork.Examiningtheinteractionoftextsandimagesinpast

andcontemporarycases,theymanagetoprovideanexquisitelycomplexintro- ductiontotherichnessandcomplexityoftheissuesatstake.Thefirstofthem

studies the triangular relation between canonical and legendary texts, the

genreofsacreddrama,andpaintingintheconstructionofaspecificicono- graphicaltheme.Theseconddiscussesthereligiousandideologicalconsider- ationsbehindtheinclusionorexclusionofillustrationsinBiblesproducedin

theDutchRepublicbetween1560and1680.Thethirdcontainsananalysisof

theuseofvariousgraphicmeansofrepresentationemployedinananthropo- logicalstudyofNorthAmericanIndians.Thefinalessaydealswiththeinevi- tablebutuneasycombinationoftextandimageinthegenreofcomics.Each

exampleconfrontsuswithaverydistinctrelationbetweenlookingandread- ing;ineachcase,whatwordsareexpectedtoaddtoimagesorimagestowords

followsaverydifferentlogic;finally,thefourcasesalsodifferwithrespectto

theesthetical,pedagogicaloredificatoryobjectivesthatareinvolved.

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

(23)

Inthisparticularcasestudy,weencountertextsandimagesatoneremove

fromeachother,although–sodeKlerckargues–wewillnotunderstandthe

emergenceofthisnewsubjectofRenaissanceiconography,namelythecon- versionofMaryMagdalene,withoutunderstandingthegenreofsacreddrama

inwhichthisconversionwasfirstrepresented.Inotherwords,betweenthe

biblicalandnon-canonicaltextsthatspokeofMaryMagdalene’slife,andthe

Renaissancepaintingsofherconversion,thereexisted,asitwereasabridge,

thegenreofdramathatmixed(spoken)textwithvisualaction.Thethemeof

MaryMagdalene’sconversionisthus,asdeKlerckargues,“anexampleparex- cellenceofthesometimescomplexrelationshipbetweentextsandimages”in

Renaissanceart,where“depictions”ofathememustbeseenas“translations

intovisualform”ofaplethoraoftextualanddramaticsources.

ElsStronksinhercontributioncomparestheeditionsofBibletextsinthe

DutchRepublicwiththoseinneighbouringcountriesandexploreswhyprac- ticesofillustrationintheDutchRepublicdifferedfromthoseinothercoun- tries.Recentresearchhasshownthatbetween1560and1680,religiousliterature

producedintheDutchRepubliccontainedfarfewerillustrationsthansimilar

literatureinthesurroundingcountries.Stronksarguesthatthesedifferences

weremotivatedbytheologicalandideologicalviewsratherthanbycommerce.

Inpre-Reformationreligioustextsimageryservedtoillustratethedoctrineand

tohelpmemorizethetext.Theologicaldebatesonthehierarchybetweenword

andimage,whichinthesixteenthcenturyledtoiconoclasticoutburstsinlarge

partsofWesternEurope,putanendtoapeacefulcoexistenceofwordandim- age.IntheDutchRepublic,knownforitsreligioustolerance,peoplefromdif- ferentdenominationsparticipatedinacommonculture,whichcouldeven

leadtoamixtureofProtestantandCatholicfeaturesinimagery:thepaintings

ofRembrandtareanexampleofthis.However,intranslationsoftheBibleor

inspiritualsongbooksproducedintheRepublic,thisinterminglingofword

andimageprovedproblematic.Thisisdemonstratedinparticularbythecon- troversysurroundingthepublicationoftheStatesBiblein1637,inwhichthe

printerPaulusAertsz.vanRavesteynembellishedinitialswithillustrations.It

met with severe criticism and illustrated Bibles remained forbidden in the

NorthernNetherlands.ThisarticlesharesaffinitywithvandeSchoor’sessayin

theNewPhilologysection,whichregisterstheinfluenceofthereligiousand

theologicalviewpointsofsubsequenteditorsontheconstitutionofthetextof

Cassander’sDe officio pii viriinthesametimeperiod.

CamilleJoseph’sessay,entitled“IllustratingtheAnthropologicalText,”ana- lyzestheusemadebytheAmericananthropologistFranzBoasofdrawings

and photographs in hisSocial Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indiansof1897.JosephshowsthatforBoasphotographsanddrawings

(24)

constituted“data,”justlikehismusicalrecordings,thecollectedspecimensor

theevidencegatheredinsituanddescribedinwords,butthathe“neverfully

explainedhisuseofthedifferentkindsofethnographicdata.”Therespective

statusofphotographsanddrawingschangedinthecourseofBoas’activity,

withphotographstakingprominenceonlytowardsthecloseofthecentury.

Josephcarefullyexplainsthe“overwhelminglyabundant”presenceofmeans

ofcommunicationandrepresentationinBoas’workanddocumentstheway

theyreinforceoneanother.WelearnwhythisAmericananthropologistfound

photographs without explanatory captions useless; why he sometimes had

drawingsmadethatcorrectedthephotographsuponwhichtheywerebased;

andwhyphotographicportraitsofKwakiutlIndianswereattimesartificially

arrangedsoastodisplaytheelementsthatBoaswantedtoemphasizeinhis

text.

Inthefinalcontributiontothissection,TomLambeensandKrisPintdraw

attentiontotheuneasy,butnecessarycohabitationofwordsandimagesin

comics–agenrethathasevolvedsincethenineteenthcenturyasawayof

story-tellingbymeansofsequential,text-supportedimages.Theauthorsspeak

ofa“duality”ofimageandtextthatcontainsatensionthatcanbefeltbythe

reader,whoseglancehastojumptoandfrobetweentwomedia,aswellasby

theartists,whohavetocopewiththefactthatthe“anti-sensualrealmofthe

text”insomesensedisturbstheaestheticlogicoftheirimages.Theco-authors,

oneofwhomisacomicsartisthimself,speakofthevariousstrategiesbywhich

whattheyvariouslydescribeasa“chasm,”“tension”or“conflict”betweenthe

twomeansofexpressioncanbeovercome,oratleastmitigated.

“ImageandText”:byrespondingwithsuchdifferentcasestudiestoaclearly

formulatedsetofquestions,thefouressayspresentedheremakeavalidcon- tributiontoadebatethatsometimessuffersfromtotalitarianclaims.Aristot- le’sstatementthatwecannotthinkwithoutmentalimageshasledtoclaims

thateverythingisanimage,evenwhatiswrittenoutinwords.Thisviewhas

beencontestedbytheopposite,butequallyabsolutistclaimthat“allistext.”

Whetherwe,asmembersofthehumanspecies,ultimatelymakesenseofthe

worldinprimarilyvisualorprimarilyconceptualtermsisnodoubtafascinat- ingquestion.Butirrespectiveofwhattheanswertothisquestionmightbe,

andirrespectiveofthecommonrootsofdrawingandwritinginthescratching

actionoftheprimordialslatepencil,itmustbeevidentthattoday,weengage

verydifferentmediaindeedwhendescribing,interpretingorre-inventingthe

world, whereby textual and graphic means constitute two large types. The

waysinwhichthesetwotypesinteractisrich,complexandmysteriousenough

todeserveourintellectualattention.

Texts,﻿Transmissions,﻿Receptions ﻿ i