Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
26
EUROPEAN STUDIES
Executive Editor
Menno Spiering, University of Amsterdam
m.e.spiering@uva.nl
Series Editors
Robert Harmsen, The Queen’s University of Belfast
Joep Leerssen, University of Amsterdam
Menno Spiering, University of Amsterdam
Thomas M. Wilson, Binghamton University,
State University of New York
EUROPEAN STUDIES
An Interdisciplinary Series in European Culture, History
and Politics
26
Edited by
Dirk Van Hulle and Joep Leerssen
Le papier sur lequel le présent ouvrage est imprimé remplit les prescriptions
de "ISO 9706:1994, Information et documentation - Papier pour documents -
Prescriptions pour la permanence".
ISBN: 978-90-420-2484-7
©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008
Printed in The Netherlands
NOTE FOR CONTRIBUTORS
JOEP LEERSSEN
Introduction: Philology and the European Construction
of National Literatures 13
CASE STUDIES I
EMERGING CANONS AROUND THE EUROPEAN RIM
DARKO DOLINAR
Slovene Text Editions, Slavic Philology and Nation-Building 65
PAULIUS V. SUBAČIUS
Inscribing Orality: The First Folklore Editions in the Baltic States 79
PAULA HENRIKSON
Scania Province Law and Nation-Building in Scandinavia 91
MARY-ANN CONSTANTINE
Welsh Literary History and the Making of
‘The Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales’ 109
BERNADETTE CUNNINGHAM
John O’Donovan’s Edition of the Annals of the Four Masters:
An Irish Classic? 129
8 EUROPEAN STUDIES
JOÃO DIONÍSIO
After the Lisbon Earthquake: Reassembling History 151
MAGÍ SUNYER
Medieval Heritage in the Beginnings of Modern Catalan Literature,
1780-1841 169
PHILIPPE MARTEL
The Troubadours and the French State 185
CASE STUDIES II
EUROPEAN CROSS-CURRENTS: ENGLAND, GERMANY
AND THE LOW COUNTRIES
TOM SHIPPEY
The Case of Beowulf 223
THOMAS BEIN
Walther von der Vogelweide and Early-Nineteenth-
Century Learning 241
HERMAN BRINKMAN
Hoffmann von Fallersleben and Medieval Dutch Folksong 255
JAN PAUWELS
Private to Public: Book Collecting and Philology in
Early-Independent Belgium (1830-1880) 271
MARITA MATHIJSEN
Stages in the Development of Dutch Literary Historicism 287
JOEP LEERSSEN
The Nation’s Canon and the Book Trade 305
AUTHORS IN THIS VOLUME
TOM SHIPPEY has recently retired from the Walter J. Ong Chair at Saint
Louis University. Among his publications are The Critical Heritage: Beowulf
(co-edited with Andreas Haarder, 1998), and an edited volume of essays
on The Shadow-walkers: Jacob Grimm’s mythology of the monstrous (2005). A
volume of essays in his honour has appeared as Constructing Nations,
Reconstructing Myths (2007), which also focuses on the effects of the philo-
logical revolution inaugurated by Grimm. He intends to continue this
theme with further publications on medievalism and nationalist philol-
ogy.
PAULIUS VAIDOTAS SUBACIUS is associate professor in literary theory at
Vilnius University and a member of the Lithuanian Catholic Academy of
Science. Member of the board of the European Society for Textual
Scholarship. He has published numerous monographs, collections and
articles in the areas of literature, history, religion, and academic politics.
His main interest is in the biographical, social and religious context of
textual production. He is now working on an edition of Antanas Ba-
ranauskas’s poetry.
MAGÍ SUNYER I MOLNÉ is lecturer in Catalan literature at the Rovira i
Virgili University in Tarragona (Catalonia). He has published poetry,
fiction and a contemporary tragedy. Among his scholarly work is a col-
lection on the reprinting of classic Catalan texts, as well as numerous
studies on aspects of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Catalan litera-
ture, with particular emphasis on Modernism and national myths. His
book Els mites nacionalistes Catalans appeared in 2006.
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 13-27
INTRODUCTION
Joep Leerssen
1
Borges 1930: ‘Para el concepto clásico, la pluralidad de los hombres y de los
tiempos es accesoria, la literatura es siempre una sola’.
16 European Studies
revolutions of 1776 and 1789, the end of the ancien régime, the Industrial
Revolution (which affected book production as much as other aspects of
life) and the rise of Romanticism. For our present purpose, it is useful to
draw attention to two further paradigm shifts: the rise of comparatism,
and the rise of historicism. By comparatism I mean that the philosophical
and anthropological questions which had been addressed in the abstract
in the Enlightenment decades (the study of Man, the origin of Language,
the meaning of History) was turned inside-out and became a compara-
tive study of differentiations: anthropology became a comparative-ethno-
graphical study of the differences between races and societies; the study
of the origin of Language and Culture was, following Herder, turned into
a comparative calibration of the diversity between languages and be-
tween cultures; and the philosophical history-writing of Hume, Voltaire
and Gibbon (what Bolingbroke called ‘Philosophy teaching by example’)
abandoned its political emphasis on succeeding dynasties and rulers, and
anchored itself in the demotic track record of the nation’s collective
experience (cf. generally Leerssen 2006).
Historicism, for its part, was the investigation of the past, not as a
philosophical exemplum or as antiquarian curio, but as a challenging ex-
pansion of one’s mental and cultural frame of reference, and as a contin-
uous dynamics of processes of growth, decay, conflict and resolution. If
any continuity existed between past and present, it was not so much a
moral or philosophical one as a national-anthropological one, showing
the nation’s evolution from primitive origins to modern maturity (or
decay), and stressing the need not to lose the purity of the nation’s pri-
meval roots and energies from sight amidst the complexities of the pres-
ent (cf. generally Leerssen 2004a and 2004b).
These developments all of them reflect the belated influence of
Giambattista Vico’s Scienza Nuova of 1724. A gnomic, wayward and
difficult book (which it unavoidably was, since it had no pre-existing
model to rely on), the Scienza Nuova had spelled out the agenda for some-
thing which Vico called by the old-fashioned Greek word for ‘erudition’,
filologia, but which he gave a very specific new meaning by opposing it to
philosophy. Whereas philosophy, for Vico, meant the investigation of the
truths that are greater than man (and therefore, in the final analysis, not
completely knowable by man), philology investigates the certainties that
are a product of the human mind, the factual or ‘constructed truth’ (verum
factum), and which man may understand as fully as a watchmaker knows
the clocks he has made. Philology dealt, then, with the sum total of man-
INTRODUCTION 17
made certainties, all things by which humans make their world recogniz-
able, knowable and predictable – which is tantamount to saying that
philology deals with culture. Aspects of culture are, for Vico: mythology
(a deferential way of saying that religion, too, is a cultural praxis provid-
ing certainties), history, manners and customs, law, literature and lan-
guage.
Vico was among the first European thinkers to formulate the idea, so
popular from Romanticism onwards, that these aspects of culture are all
derived from a single primitive ethnic self-invention and self-articulation.
Law-makers, poets and priests have aboriginally one and the same func-
tion. It is for that reason that ancient laws jointly address civic and theo-
logical issues, and are often couched in a poetic language; it is for this
reason that mythology is so often expressed through the poetic medium
of epic. And that in turn means that all the branches of learning dealing
with these matters can be jointly linked (we would call it ‘interdisciplin-
ary’ nowadays) in an endeavour that Vico already called philological. Al-
though Vico himself remained obscure during his lifetime and for a long
time after his death, and became famous only in the 1820s, his influence
was felt everywhere. The classical scholar August Boeckh defined philol-
ogy without once mentioning Vico, but in a sweeping anthropological
phrase that would have delighted the author of the Scienza nuova: as the
Erkenntnis des Erkannten, the ‘understanding of our understanding’.2
The spread of Vico-style philology triggered many important schol-
arly developments. For one thing, it resulted in the nineteenth-century
structural-comparative study of mythology. Its concerns are also notice-
able in the new discipline of legal history (and legal historicism) as
opened up by Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861), the great legal
historian and mentor of young Jacob Grimm. Legal history, nowadays a
fairly marginal specialism, was at the centre of jurisprudence before the
introduction of Napoleonic legislation in Europe: the full record of legal
wisdom constituted the tradition that was invoked for the settlement of
disputes, and therefore the record-keeping of ancient case law was at the
heart of the legal profession and made it the lodestar for textual source-
editing in the course of the eighteenth century. The major philological
2
On the conceptual history of ‘philology’, including the impact of Vico: Hummel
2000. On Vico: Berlin 2003. The recursive phraseology ‘Erkenntnis des Erkannten’
aptly indicates the self-reflexive dimension of a Vicoesque notion of culture and of
philology (as both a praxis and a reflection on that praxis), rendering it systemically
complex and autopoetic.
18 European Studies
ecclesiastical and legal scholarship that had always been concerned with
collecting, collating and compiling ancient source material. Literary com-
pendia and repertories in the eighteenth century can be encountered as
part of the church-historical and hagiographical school of the Bollandists
and Jean Mabillon, the founder of diplomatics (1632-1707), and above
all, as part of the legal-historical method, so influential all over Europe,
of Luigi Muratori (1652-1750), the founder of modern historical source
criticism and a lodestar of text-editorial method.
It would be simplistic, then, given all these scholarly activities, to
pretend that the philologists of the Romantic generation ‘invented’ the
historical method or the craft of text-editing, or even that it was they,
and they alone, who rediscovered the Middle Ages after centuries of total
amnesia. The editorial work of Correia da Serra in Portugal is in many
ways the continuation of an older eighteenth-century pattern. In North-
Western Europe, the antiquarianism of Iolo Morganwg and Theophilus
O’Flanagan (including their Macphersonesque penchant for fabricating
evidence where needed) forms the stepping-stone for the more philologi-
cal work of Thomas Price and John O’Donovan. While in most of West-
ern Europe, philology was professionalizing, the edition of oral material
in the Finnish-Baltic area remained, well into the century, the work of
amateur investigators like Elias Lönnrot and Krisjanis Baron. But on the
whole, all parts of Europe participate, whatever the variables of the local
situation, in an undeniable qualitative and quantitative leap after 1770,
and again after 1800, and it involved the matter of availability. Texts
were becoming available to an unprecedented degree. The eighteenth-
century scholars and antiquaries had worked on the basis of textual
material that was often in private hands. The large ballad MS from which
Bishop Percy published the Reliques was a fortuitous find (cf. Groom
1999); the grande bibliothèque of Paulmy and the collection of Arni
Magnusson were privately-owned. At best, text editions made use of
semi-public collections in the hands of monarchs, municipalities or mon-
asteries, to which it was a privilege to enjoy access. Bodmer’s first tenta-
tive edition of the Nibelungen material, for instance, was based on a
manuscript spotted in the private collection of Count Hohenems two
years previously.
Manuscript-collecting was a pursuit for the educated elite. We see
antiquaries like James Ussher, Sir James Ware, and Edward Lhuyd ac-
quire important collections of Gaelic manuscripts between 1620 and
1720; we also see how after their deaths, these collections are either sold
20 European Studies
3
The vicissitudes of Irish MSS can be gathered from the introduction to Hancock
et al 1865-73; Love 1961; Ó Muraíle 1996.
INTRODUCTION 21
from their century-old sequestration, drifted into the public domain over
the following decades. And even where libraries were not pillaged or
sold off (it was this that brought to light material as diverse as the medi-
eval Dutch Servatius Legend, by Veldeke, and the ancient Slavic Gospel
Book of Rheims), the French occupier would appoint officials in a bu-
reaucratic re-structuring which again often triggered re-inventories and
rediscoveries. The Biblioteca palatina in the Vatican Libraries is a case in
point: the old Court Library of the Palatinate, taken from Heidelberg as
war booty in the 1670s and donated to the Pope, was found around 1810
(by Gloeckle and Görres) to contain important treasures of medieval
German literature (cf. Görres 1955), and was eventually donated by the
Pope to Heidelberg University Library as part of the post-Napoleonic
settlements in 1818. Another case in point involves the appointment of
Angelo Mai (1782-1854) to the Biblioteca ambrosiana in Milan in 1811,
which resulted in the discovery important manuscript remains, Latin and
even Gothic.
One of the groundswell-changes of the eighteenth century involves
the development, traced by Jürgen Habermas (1990[1962]), of a ‘public
sphere’. In the professionalization of the pursuit of philology, this shift
makes itself clearly felt. The old patrons (like Kopitar’s patron Baron
Zois in Slovenia,4 or the church seminaries that spawned the priest-
scholars like José Correia de Serra, Josef Dobrovský and Angelo Mai)
were ceding their role to a new generation of university-trained and
academically-employed scholars; as a result, a good deal of generational
rivalry is seen where young generations are always ready to hurl the
reproach of amateurish dilettantism at their elders, thus taking the newly-
established high ground of a rigidly scientific methodology. That scien-
tific high ground goes together with a professionalization, that is to say:
a shift of philology from private hobby to publicly-funded discipline.5
The succession of philologists in their various generations is always one
of repudiation, driven by an ongoing urge to outgrow the credulity,
untrustworthiness and amateurish imprecision of the older generation.
What has not yet been traced in the cultural shift from private to
public in the emergence of the modern state is the transfer of ancient
4
Kopitar (1780-1844) was, with Dobrovský (1723-1859), the founder of modern
Slavic studies. On Kopitar and Zois, see Merchiers 2005. A good deal of interesting
material on Dobrovský is given in Keenan 2003.
5
An intermediary stage should not be overlooked: that of the sociable association
of private scholars into city academies or learned societies.
22 European Studies
literary material into that public sphere – a transfer which took place
everywhere, which made medieval vernacular literature accessible to an
unprecedented degree and made the entire enterprise of the emerging
philology possible in the first place. Practically all the great philologists
of this generation started their career as archivists and librarians, were
part of this vast, slow landslide of texts from private hands into public
ownership. After all, what else does the word publish – which we so
thoughtlessly use for the transition from handwritten to printed, from
single- to multiple-copy – mean than making a text public?
6
In Hroch’s analysis, national movements will typically start with an intellectual
rediscovery of the nation’s culture and traditions (phase A), will then move into a
phase of social assertions and demands for recognition (phase B), and then into a
phase of militant separatism (phase C).
INTRODUCTION 23
7
Cf. Leerssen 2006a: 180-185; Schmidt 1974 [1885]. On the national chauvinism of
Grimm and the Germanisten, also Fürbeth 1999, Netzer 2006.
8
The phrase ‘notre véritable épopée nationale’ is from a review in Le Monde, quoted
in the introduction to Michel 1869 [1837]. See also Brandsma 1996; Redman 1991;
Taylor 2001.
9
Espagne & Werner 1990; Gumbrecht 1986; Ridoux 2001.
24 European Studies
10
Paris 1836: ‘We used to have great poems, which for four hundred years formed
the most important object of study of our forefathers. And during that entire period,
all of Europe, including Germany, England, Spain and Italy, having nothing compara-
ble to place alongside us, either in their historical deeds or in the expression of those
deeds, vied for the secondary honours of translation and imitation.’
INTRODUCTION 25
mannian impetus predated Bédier and can already be found in the con-
flicting stances of Jacob Grimm and Paulin Paris over the notoriously
complex Reynard the Fox material.11
It is in this context that we must situate the rise of the national paradigm
in literary studies, and explain the intimate conjunction between nine-
teenth-century nation-building and the emergence of medievally-based
national-literary canons in Europe. The idea that literatures were cate-
gorized first and foremost by nationality, much as nationality itself was
first and foremost categorized by language, rises abruptly in these de-
cades: it is the influence of Herder’s cultural relativism combined with
the romantic historicism that flourished against Napoleon’s universal
rule.
There are mutliple ironies at work here. To begin with, the ‘national’
classics, now so firmly enshrined in our respective literary histories as the
figureheads of a firmly ‘national’ tradition, only emerged from obscurity
in the early nineteenth century. Again, although they themself were often
of indistinct national provenance, they were immediately subjected to
rivalling national appropriations. Thirdly, the national schools of philol-
ogy which were vying for the true ownership of these pre-national, medi-
eval texts and authors were themselves only crystallizing as the European
nation-states were taking firm shape in the post-Napoleonic decades. On
the whole, then, the process appears one where the very act of compe-
tition serves to give a clear outline to the competing parties, whose ri-
valry is subsequently retrojected into the past, and given historical roots,
by the act of claiming certain textual and cultural heirlooms as ‘theirs’ to
the exclusion of others. Much as, in the line of reasoning of Ernest
Gellner, Eric Hobsbawm and Benedict Anderson, national identities are
nationalist constructs, so too national literatures are philological con-
structs.
References
Berlin, Isaiah. 2003. Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder (ed.
Henry Hardy). London: Pimlico.
11
On the Reynard quarrels, Leerssen 2006a: 75-95. On Lachmann and his influ-
ence: Lutz-Hensel 1975, Timpanaro 1963, Weigel 1989. On Bédier: Ridoux 2001.
26 European Studies
Leerssen, Joep. 2006c. Nationalism and the Cultivation of Culture. Nations and
Nationalism 12.4: 559-578.
Love, Walter D. 1961. Edmund Burke, Charles Vallancey, and the Sebright
manuscripts. Hermathena 95: 21-35.
Lutz-Hensel, Magdalene. 1975. Prinzipien der ersten textkritischen Editionen
mittelhochdeutscher Dichtung: Brüder Grimm, Benecke, Lachmann. Eine methoden-
kritische Analyse. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Merchiers, Ingrid. 2005. Cultural Nationalism in the South Slav Habsburg
Lands in the Early Nineteenth Century: The Scholarly Network of Jernej
Kopitar (1780-1844). Doctoral thesis, Gent: Universiteit Gent.
Michaëlis de Vasconcellos, Carolina. 1904. ‘Resenha bibliographica’. In Cancio-
neiro da Ajuda. Edição critica e commentada, 1-53. Halle/S: Niemeyer.
Michel, Francisque (ed.), 1869 [1837]. La Chanson de Roland et le Roman de
Roncevaux des XIIe et XIIIe siècles; publiés pour la première fois d’après les manuscrit
de la bibliothèque Bodléienne à Oxford et de la Bibliothèque Impériale. Paris.
Netzer, Katinka. 2006. Wissenschaft aus nationaler Sehnsucht: Verhandlungen der
Germanisten 1846 und 1847. Heidelberg: Winter.
Ó Muraíle, Nollaig. 1996. The celebrated antiquary Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh
(c.1600-1671), his lineage, life and learning. Maynooth: An Sagart.
Paris, Paulin (ed.). 1832. Li romans de Berte aus grans piés, précédé d’une dissertation
sur les romans des Douze Pairs. Paris.
Redman, Harry, jr. 1991. The Roland Legend in Nineteenth-Century French Literature.
Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Ridoux, Charles. 2001. Évolution des études médiévales en France de 1860 à 1914.
Paris: Champion.
Schmidt, Ernst (ed.). 1974 [1885]. Briefwechsel der Gebrüder Grimm mit nordischen
Gelehrten (new ed. Ludwig Denecke). Walluf: Sändig.
Schmidt-Wiegand, Ruth. 1987. Das sinnliche Element des Rechts: Jacob
Grimms Sammlung und Beschreibung deutscher Rechtsaltertümer. In
Kasseler Vorträge in Erinnerung an den 200. Geburtstag der Brüder Jacob und Wil-
helm Grimm, ed. L. Denecke, 1-24. Marburg: Elwert.
Shippey, T.A. & Andreas Haarder (eds.). 1998. Beowulf: The Critical Heritage.
London: Routledge.
Taylor, Andrew. 2001. Was there a Song of Roland? Speculum 76: 28-65.
Timpanaro, Sebastiano. 1963. La genesi del metodo del Lachmann. Firenze: Le
Monnier.
Weigel, Harald. 1989. ‘Nur was du nie gesehn wird ewig dauern’: Carl Lachmann und
die Entstehung der wissenschaftlichen Edition. Freiburg/Br: Rombach.
TEXTS BETWEEN PAST AND PRESENT:
EUROPEAN READERSHIP, NATIONAL ROOTEDNESS
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 31-43
Abstract
While most European editors in the so-called Sattelzeit (the period
leading up to and following after the French Revolution) were preoc-
cupied with establishing and fixating national Urtexts in the service of
nation-building, authors became increasingly aware of the literary
creation as a process and started preserving their rough drafts and
manuscripts. This trend prefigured a Darwinian change in editorial
thinking: from an essentialist approach to a new focus on gestations
and processes, marked by an acceptance of imperfection and an ap-
preciation of the value of ‘mistakes’ as a crucial element in the dy-
namics of writing.
1
See Geert Lernout’s contribution in this volume.
32 Dirk Van Hulle
rial ‘schools’.2 To try and analyse this development, this article focuses
on three schools: the German, the French, and the Anglo-American
traditions.
As Thomas Bein points out,3 Karl Lachmann was not the only im-
portant figure in the foundation of the German school. Sebastiano Tim-
panaro notes that the Lachmannian method had been prepared by many
other philologists, such as Carl Gottlob Zumpt, Johan Nicolai Madvig,
Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl, and Friedrich August Wolf (Timpanaro 1971,
42; 69). More specifically, they prepared the genealogical division of the
manuscripts and the identification of common ‘ancestors’ by arranging
versions in a kind of family tree of textual descent. Lachmann started
applying his method not only to classical authors and medieval texts, but
also to works by modern authors such as Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
(edited between 1838 and 1840). However, Lachmann’s method was not
designed to cope with autograph manuscripts, drafts and genetic variants
(changes made by the author himself during the process of writing and
revising). His genealogical method focused on transmissional variants
(‘Überlieferungsvarianten’).
This is interesting because it indicates the impact of the ‘Sattelzeit’
phenomenon on scholarly editing: editing was mainly regarded – at least
by Lachmannians – as a tool to provide the German-speaking audience
with the stable, definitive text of ‘national’ poets. After Lessing, Schiller
and Goethe followed in the second half of the nineteenth century. Karl
Goedeke’s edition of Schiller’s Sämtliche Schriften (1867-76) and the
Weimar edition of Goethe’s works in 143 volumes, the so-called
‘Sophien-Ausgabe’ (1887-1919) represent two different tendencies in
German editorial theory, which Klaus Hurlebusch respectively calls ‘das
produktionsbezogene Editionskonzept’ and ‘das rezeptionsbezogene
Editionskonzept’ (Hurlebusch 1986, 22; see also Nutt-Kofoth 2000). As
Bodo Plachta points out, the publication of the ‘Sophien-Ausgabe’ of
Goethe’s oeuvre reflected the then prevailing view, which took for
granted that the basis of the edited text was the last version revised by
the author (‘Fassung letzter Hand’) or the ‘letztwillige Textrecension’ of
the final revised edition: this document is a sort of testament, according
2
For a survey of these schools in relation to twentieth-century literary geneses, see
Van Hulle 2004
3
See Thomas Bein’s contribution in this volume.
A DARWINIAN CHANGE IN EUROPEAN EDITORIAL THINKING 33
lines very fine lines & passages. They are also in many places warm with
passion. Their chief faults, and heavy ones they are, are sameness, te-
diousness, laboriousness, quaintness, & elaborate obscurity’ (Coleridge
1980, 42a). Whatever Coleridge may have thought when Wordsworth
returned the anthology, he would not have dreamt of erasing the pencil
marks. Instead, he added his own comments, expressing the wish (in a
kind of note to posterity) that Wordsworth’s marginalia should never be
removed: ‘I can by no means subscribe to the above pencil mark of W.
Wordsworth; which however, it is my wish, should never be erased. It is
his: & grievously am I mistaken, & deplorably will Englishmen have
degenerated, if the being his will not, ^in times to come,^ give it a Value’
(Coleridge 1980, 42a). A simple note in the margins of an anthology thus
marks the importance the Romantics attached to the spontaneous, un-
structured spur-of-the-moment flashes of insight, which contrast sharply
with the contemporary editorial concerns, focused on establishing and
fixating national ‘Urtexts’.
In France, Victor Hugo was one of the first authors who not only
systematically preserved his manuscripts (from the 1820s onward), but
also made a link between the individual, private, spontaneous aspect of
literary drafts and the ‘national’ value of the literary heritage. Apart from
medieval texts, modern manuscripts had national value as well, so Victor
Hugo donated his manuscripts to the national library of France. What
may at first sight seem to be yet another example of the Sattelzeit phe-
nomenon should however be nuanced, because Hugo saw this ‘national-
ist’ act as just a first step toward a European vision. In his testament
(1881) he wrote: ‘Je donne tous mes manuscrits et tout ce qui sera trouvé
écrit ou dessiné par moi à la bibliothèque nationale de Paris qui sera un
jour la bibliothèque des États-Unis d’Europe’.4
More than a century later, it seems irrelevant to speak of a European
library. If all the existing online library databases can be regarded as part
of one big library, this is a global, not a European endeavour. What
Hugo’s testament seems to be hinting at is a remnant of a nationally con-
ceived, Napoleonic Europe, in which all European countries would
constitute something like the greater banlieue of Paris.
4
Hugo in Biasi 2000, 13: ‘I donate all of my manuscripts and whatever will be
found that is either written or drawn by me to the national library of Paris, which one
day will be the library of the United States of Europe.’
A DARWINIAN CHANGE IN EUROPEAN EDITORIAL THINKING 35
French editorial theory in those days was closely related to the Ger-
man tradition. Romance philology was more or less introduced to the
French by a German scholar, Friedrich Diez. As Jean-Louis Lebrave has
pointed out, it was Victor Cousin who took up the task of developing a
French editorial school, by drawing attention to ‘the necessity of a new
edition of Pascal’s Pensées’. This was the topic of his report to the
Académie française in 1842 (Sur la nécessité d’une nouvelle édition des ‘Pensées’
de Pascal), in which he advocated the consultation of Pascal’s manu-
scripts, preserved at the national library. In his lecture, he explains that
numerous editions of Pascal’s Pensées succeed each other, but that none
of the editors takes the trouble of double-checking the manuscripts. The
autograph is available at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; every editor
mentions it, but no-one consults it, Cousin complains (Cousin 1949, 109;
cf. Lebrave 1992, 58). This neglect is probably the result of an editorial
tradition that is so completely geared to the absence of autograph manu-
scripts that editors lose all common sense. Cousin’s rhetoric is quite
effective in that it draws attention to his contemporaries’ blind spot by
means of one simple rhetorical question: what would people say if
Plato’s original manuscripts were still preserved in a public library, but
editors would simply ignore it and continue copying their editions from
previous editions?
Among French scholars, there was a genuine admiration for the Ger-
man approach to philology. In 1864, Gaston Paris advocated a rap-
prochement between German and French scholarly editors. The posi-
tivism of philology was contrasted with the French tradition of the Belles
Lettres. But ironically this new editorial development toward a rapproche-
ment and toward an international dialogue was used to create national
monuments such as the collection Les Grands Écrivains de la France set up
by Hachette in 1862. The timid attempt to exchange ideas was inter-
rupted rather abruptly by the Franco-German war in 1870, resulting in
two divergent tendencies. On the one hand, there was the urge to out-
strip the Germans in their own field of expertise; on the other hand,
philology was increasingly regarded as the science of the enemy, which
resulted in a return to the Belles Lettres tradition. In editorial terms, this
implied a reaction against Lachmann, which led to Joseph Bédier’s so-
called ‘best text’ approach, based on the criterion of ‘good taste’. Michael
Werner explains how this war eventually resulted in a dichotomy that is
still noticeable today:
36 Dirk Van Hulle
6
Charles Darwin, B-notebook (on transmutation of species) 74; quoted in Gruber
1974, 21.
7
Reinhart Koselleck’s research focus is ‘die Auflösung der alten und die Ent-
stehung der modernen Welt in der Geschichte ihrer begrifflichen Erfassung’ (‘Ein-
leitung’ in Brunner, Conze and Koselleck 2004, I: xiv).
A DARWINIAN CHANGE IN EUROPEAN EDITORIAL THINKING 39
A hundred years after Edward Young’s idea that an Original ‘is not
made’ but ‘grows’ notably found its expression in works by poets such as
Walt Whitman. The organic metaphors initiated by Whitman himself are
exemplified by the steady ‘growth’ of the successive editions of Leaves of
Grass.
In the immediate post-Sattelzeit period, authors seem to be increas-
ingly aware of the literary creation as a process, and some editors were
quicker than others to react. In Germany, Karl Goedeke tried to recon-
struct the ‘Geschichte von Schillers Geist’ (‘history of Schiller’s mind’,
Schillers sämmtliche Schriften, 1: v), and to visualize the creative process:
‘den Process seines Schaffens (…) einigermassen zu veranschaulichen.’8
In France, the ambivalent attitude toward German philology after the
Franco-German war did not imply a sudden aversion to manuscript
research. On the contrary, early versions of Flaubert’s Madame Bovary
were studied (by Antoine Albalat in 1903), Zola’s writing method was
analysed (by Henri Massis in 1906), Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s manu-
script of Paul et Virginie was examined (by Gustave Lanson, in 1908).9
While in Germany critics such as Georg Witkowski (1921) and Reinhold
Backmann (1924) emphasized the importance of the apparatus to recon-
struct the textual development, the French critic Gustave Rudler pub-
lished a study (in 1923) that contained a chapter with the title ‘Critique
de genèse’. Although Almuth Grésillon argues that this should not be
confused with what is now called ‘critique génétique’, Rudler did make
an important statement with regard to editorial theory: ‘Pourquoi la
pensée et sa volonté finales de l’auteur auraient-elles plus de prix que sa
pensée et sa volonté première?’10
8
Goedeke 1867-76, 15/2: vi-vii: ‘Nur eine photographische Wiedergabe könnte
einen Begriff gewähren, was dem Dichter während der Arbeit der Aufzeichnung
bedürftig erschien. Aber auch nur in der Photographie würde die Art seines eigent-
lichen Schaffens deutlich werden. Dazu reichen gestrichne Lettern und Schriftsorten
verschiedenster Art nicht aus. Und doch erschien es als unausweichliche Aufgabe, den
Process seines Schaffens, so weit es mit gedruckten Lettern möglich ist, einigermassen
zu veranschaulichen.’ (‘Only a photographic representation could give us an idea of
what the poet deemed necessary during the writing process. Only in the photograph
would the art of his actual creation become clear. In this regard, crossed-out letters
and different fonts do not suffice. Nonetheless it seemed to be an inevitable task to
visualize his creative process insofar as that is possible at all in print.’)
9
For a thorough study of the history of genetic studies in France, see Gothot-
Mersch 1994.
10
Rudler 1923, 85: ‘Why would the author’s final thought and wish be more valu-
able than his initial thought and wish?’
40 Dirk Van Hulle
critics avoid using the term ‘variants’ and prefer to employ the notion of
‘réécritures’ is precisely because, traditionally, textual variants were consid-
ered to be corruptions. If scholarly editing in the post-Sattelzeit can be
described in terms of Darwin’s heritage and its crucial change of focus
from an essentialist origin to a focus on processes, the following passage
from The Origin of Species may be elucidating: ‘natural selection tends only
to make each organism, each organic being, as perfect as, or slightly
more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which
it has to struggle for existence’ (Darwin in Mayr 1985, 771). The compar-
ative ‘more perfect’ is a contradiction in terms. It implies a kind of per-
fection that is not absolute; in other words, it implies the acceptance of
imperfection. The consequence is an enhanced interest in processes, not
just products.11 What scholarly editors have increasingly learned to ap-
preciate in the post-Darwin age is the value of ‘mistakes’ to understand
the dynamics of the writing process. It is important to realize that this
international revaluation has been made possible by the decision of au-
thors from the Sattelzeit to start preserving their manuscripts at a time
when editors were perhaps too busy with nation building.
References
Backmann, Reinhold. 1924. Die Gestaltung des Apparates in den kritischen
Ausgaben neuerer Dichter. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der großen
Grillparzer-Ausgabe der Stadt Wien. Euphorion 25: 629-662.
Beare, Robert L. 1957. Notes on the Text of T. S. Eliot: Variants from Russell
Square. Studies in Bibliography 9: 21-49.
Biasi, Pierre-Marc de. 2000. La Génétique des textes. Paris: Nathan.
Bowers, Fredson. 1966. Textual and Literary Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brunner, Otto, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck, eds. 2004. Geschichtliche
Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland,
vol. 1. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1980. The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge:
Marginalia I (Abbt to Byfield). Ed. George Whalley; London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul / Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11
For instance, the notion of ‘relative perfection’ was the reason why the French
poet Francis Ponge presented his ‘Fabrique du Pré’ in the early 1970s as a series of
manuscript versions, in a facsimile edition with transcriptions.
42 Dirk Van Hulle
Geert Lernout
Abstract
Philology is a historical discipline and as such, it cannot fail to be
interested in its own origins. From its earliest forms in Hellenistic
Alexandria, philology has attempted to understand and preserve older
texts. With the development of a Christian body of texts in Greek
and later also in Latin, this discipline only became relevant again in
the Renaissance, when numerous new texts were rediscovered. In the
next few centuries the new culture of the Republic of Letters led to a
flowering of classical philology, which stressed the common Euro-
pean culture. Romantic scholars applied the new methodologies to
vernacular texts and this in its turn led to ‘national’ philologies which
began to lead their own lives.
Let me begin by generalising, just a little bit, about the difference be-
tween facts and generalizations. The study of texts and the care for texts
in their most general description, which is what I will call ‘philology’ in
this paper, has always been caught in the famous hermeneutic circle
where we can only understand the first puzzling detail that we find in the
text when we place it in the context of the whole we haven’t even begun
to read and where we can only claim to understand that same whole if
we have first managed to make sense of every single detail. Or, to mud-
dle metaphors even more, philology has always tried to navigate between
the all too solid rock of individual fact and the whirlpool of generaliza-
tions. The dichotomy between the detailed fact on the one hand and the
generalization on the other hand is true on all levels of philological in-
vestigation. At the most basic level it can be seen in the fundamental
distinction between the material form of an individual copy of a book
46 Geert Lernout
and that platonic ideal of a Book that editors refer to as ‘the text’ and
that most literary theorists try so hard not to think about at all. We can
also observe the philologist’s fascination for little things in the enthusi-
asm with which an editor or textual scholar can investigate the presence
or absence of a single comma. It is interesting to see that even a peculiar
form of this interest in orthographic pedantry can find a general audience
in Lynne Truss’s successful book on spelling, Eats, Shoots and Leaves. But
despite its attention to detail, the general field of the study of writing is
not averse to the most encompassing generalizations. On the one hand
we have French post-structuralism’s metaphysical ruminations on écriture
and on the other the partly unrelated work of the theorists of the power
of the oral, the written, the printed and the digital word such as Harold
Innis, Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, Jack Goody, Elisabeth Eisenstein
and George P. Landow.
As a fundamentally historical discipline, philology cannot fail to be
interested in its own origins and for the greater part of its history, it has
been characterized by a keen interest in a tradition that reached back
through Christian Rome to a double origin in Hebrew scripture and in
Greek literature and philosophy. Both of the foundational cultures for
Western civilization were built on a sense of identity that was not entirely
tied to geography (as the Egyptian had been) but to a set of shared val-
ues that had first been articulated in oral tales and that was later codified
in written texts. Although we have been warned by scholars such as
William V. Harris for Greek and Roman readers and Harry Y. Gamble
for Christian readers not to overestimate the levels of literacy in the
Hellenistic and Roman periods (Harris 1989, Gamble 1995), it is clear
from the spread of libraries and schools that something like a common
written culture did exist in the later Roman Empire: the great Greek
classics on the one and the biblical literature on the other hand gave their
respective communities a sense of unity and purpose that was thought to
constitute a good education. Scribal culture in Egypt had been the pre-
serve of an elite priestly class, but in later centuries literacy seems to have
become more general among Greeks, Jews and Christians. Of course we
should always be aware that we can only come to such a conclusion on
the basis of evidence that is to a large extent limited to texts, i.e. written
materials that were created, passed on and preserved by the same scribal
class that had every reason to exaggerate its own importance.
THE ANGEL OF PHILOLOGY 47
The two essentially scribal cultures, Greek and Hebrew, were based
on an education of the young who were trained to read and write by
studying classic writings. It could thus be argued that through the litera-
ture of early rabbinical traditions there is a scribal continuity, for exam-
ple, between the first few centuries of the Common Era and present
forms of Judaism. Until a few decades ago, when Latin and Greek were
still taught generally, a similar continuity was claimed to exist between
Greco-Roman culture and the values of European elites. In both cases
this continuity has recently been questioned: claiming such continuity is
not the same as proving it. In both cases there is a silent supposition that
in the course of history these continuities have not been contaminated by
each other. And in both cases there is the historical fact of a third conti-
nuity of texts, which had its origin in roughly the same region at roughly
the same time. In the greater part of Europe it was by the efforts of an
exclusively Christian elite that both Hebrew and Greek ideas were trans-
mitted in a decidedly changed form. For seventeen centuries the suprem-
acy of Christian ideas could not fail to have a decisive effect on the fate
of the other two continuities.
But let us start from the fact that on the one hand human beings in
general and Western culture in particular need to think that there is a
continuity between the past and the present and that on the other hand
philology has been used to supply that sense of continuity. The history of
philological scholarship itself is subject to the same interest in continuity
we observe in culture in general. The nice thing about the history of
philology is that this history itself has its own historians, among the most
recent of them the prolific Anthony Grafton who has written both ex-
tremely specialist studies and popular books for a general audience on
the history of scholarship. In an intellectual market where books on the
unified field theory in science can become bestsellers, it should not be
too surprising that someone manages to interest a wider audience in the
obscure scholarship by writers long dead about obscure authors who had
been dead even longer by the time they were written about. But surely in
the case of modern physics and biology the immediate political, meta-
physical and moral implications are much more obvious than when the
subject matter is the study of Latin, Greek and Hebrew-Christian schol-
arship? Philologists and editors labour under a relatively well deserved
prejudice that most of the time they are much more interested in the
arcane art of punctuation than in the meaning of the texts they work on.
48 Geert Lernout
the market for forgeries and Grafton writes that the new specialists in
detecting forgeries were the canon lawyers.
The renaissance marked the genuine rebirth of philology and it was in
the study of Latin and Greek texts that the humanist writers rediscovered
and refined the tests that had been invented by their Hellenistic col-
leagues twenty centuries earlier. Francesco Petrarch and the other great
humanist scholars rediscovered scores of texts that had long disappeared
and they reinterpreted existing texts in a new light. And at the same time
the new invention of the printing press for the first time in history made
perfect copies of a single editio princeps available for comparison and
collation everywhere in the world.
Grafton’s major intellectual heroes belong in this period: they are the
philologists Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, Joseph Scaliger, Justus
Lipsius, Richard Bentley, all of them critics and editors who perfected
and sometimes invented the careful critical study of and care for texts
from the past. In their study of the works of the Roman and Greek
writers, they refused to take anything for granted and their irreverent
attitude to the glories of the past led to famous intellectual debates such
as the querelle des anciens et modernes in France or the Battle of the Books in
England, where the authority of the classics was at stake. The critical
attitude towards tradition is already present in the writings of the earliest
humanists but it would lead inevitably, first to the reformation and then,
after the disasters of the different religious wars, to scepticism and what
Jonathan Israel has called the radical enlightenment.
What is striking about this heroic generation of philologists is the
new self-assurance needed to position oneself just outside and, if need
be, against the accumulated weight of tradition, even, for those con-
cerned, in opposition to the most absolute forms of religious tradition.
This attitude may be most famously embodied by the German monk
when he had been summoned by the Holy Roman Emperor in an at-
tempt at reconciliation: ‘Hier steh’ ich, ich kann nicht anders.’ But a
similar attitude can be found in the work of philologists such as Valla
when he haughtily proves that the Donation of Constantine cannot pos-
sibly be genuine1 or when Erasmus edited the most holy Christian texts
1
Valla explains in a letter to cardinal Trevisan: ‘Why did I write about the Dona-
tion of Constantine? (...) Bear one thing in mind. I was not moved by hatred of the
Pope, but acted for the sake of the truth, of religion, and also of a certain renown – to
show that I alone knew what no one else knew.’
THE ANGEL OF PHILOLOGY 51
from Greek (and thus by definition schismatic) originals and in the pro-
cess managed to give the New Testament a new and philologically more
correct title (Novum Instrumentum). The same extreme self-assurance can
be found in Spinoza’s Tractatus, in Richard Bentley’s textual criticism and
in the work of so many of the other erudite and extremely critical think-
ers of this period.
It is an irony not lost on the major participants in this movement that
just as these critics had edited and printed most of the major and minor
Greek and Latin texts, when to a large extent issues of chronology and
authenticity had been settled, that the same critical spirit began to cast a
cold eye on their own discipline (Grafton 1991). In the most advanced
circles of the seventeenth century textual study began to lose its prestige
to the experimental sciences and increasingly also to the experience of
the practical men who would build the new world of technology. Galileo
had already established that if there was a book of nature, that particular
book was written not in Latin or Greek or Hebrew but in the language
of mathematics.
Strangely from our present point of view this generation of textual
critics seems to have agreed with their critics: Richard Bentley wrote that
ratio et res ipsa (reason and the thing itself) carried more weight than a
hundred manuscripts. The rediscovery of Roman and Greek ruins, the
careful collection of inscriptions and coins had already changed the
writing of history based on literary sources, when the French Jesuit Jean
Hardouin made the claim, ‘well beyond the verge of madness,’ quotes
Grafton from Momigliano (Grafton 2001, 182) that the confrontation of
coins and literary texts proved that most of the texts of classical and early
literature had in reality been written by an atheist sect of fourteenth
century Italians, who forged among many other texts (including the
complete works of Thomas Aquinas), all the works of the Latin and
Greek church fathers. This conspiracy of clerics, this unholy cabal was
even responsible (dixit Hardouin) for convincing the Byzantine Greeks
that they should abandon their originally Latin liturgy and Bible for the
forged Greek translations, and all of this just to confuse the Catholic
faithful (Grafton 2001, 193).
The textual critics and participants in the several querelles did not need
unbalanced Jesuits to make a mockery of their own discipline: they had
lampooned themselves and each other even earlier, writing satirical ac-
counts of nit-picking editors and over-scrupulous textual critics. That
52 Geert Lernout
they used the all too classical genre of satire for this purpose and that
these texts were often written in the most difficult and erudite Latin is an
irony that cannot have escaped their attention.
The self-criticism of humanism is even older. In her study of the fate
of Latin, Françoise Waquet describes the rise in the early sixteenth cen-
tury of the stock-character of the pedant in vernacular literatures in Ital-
ian, French and English, who quotes Latin and Greek indiscriminately.
Examples are Giordano Bruno’s Il Candelaio, Gabriel Harvey’s Pedantius
and Cyrano de Bergerac’s Le pédant joué. In his essay Du pédantisme
Montaigne blamed this condition on the fact that the only people who
tried to make a living out of learning were people of low fortune: ‘And
with such people their natures, being by family background and example
of the lower sort, assimilate the fruits of knowledge falsely’ (Waquet
2001: 209). This snobbish dismissal of the lowly pedant should remind
us that quite a few of the textual scholars, like Harvey and Bentley, did
indeed rise from the lower classes and in both cases they were not al-
lowed to forget their original status. The cruel treatment they encoun-
tered from the people that used to be called their ‘betters’ may well ex-
plain some of the stridency in their writings and it certainly demonstrates
that for ambitious young men of humble birth the thorough mastery of
Greek and of an elegant Ciceronian Latin represented one of the few
chances for advancement (see Stern 1979 and Monk 1883).
Montaigne may have mourned the loss of Latin as a European lan-
guage in his essays, but he wrote and published his lament in French and
this is a development that we find everywhere in the seventeenth century:
Newton still wrote his Principia in Latin but his Optics was in English.
Latin was used by scholars to communicate, but on the continent at least,
it began to be replaced in the eighteenth century by French. It is clear
that this common language was an important cohesive factor in Europe.
This was certainly the case for the Catholics who still had Latin as a
lingua franca, but in the study of Latin the close scrutiny of texts by Ro-
man writers was part of the education of both Catholics and Protestants
and thus the language was not restricted to the former. Some textual
scholars and editors in the sixteenth and seventeenth century showed a
remarkable versatility in adapting their religious allegiances to the situa-
tion in which they found themselves and Dutch and English Protestants
visited Italian libraries and monasteries with very few restrictions. While
the study and interpretation of biblical and patristic sources was highly
THE ANGEL OF PHILOLOGY 53
2
A good example is Nicolaes Heinsius, see Blok 1984.
54 Geert Lernout
hand all the major Greek and Latin texts had already been edited and
most of the efforts would henceforth be directed on the one hand to-
wards the edition of the more obscure texts and on the other hand to the
annotation of those works that were beginning to be considered and
marketed as ‘the classics’. But these classics also changed their character:
among quite a few other essays and books in the final decades of the
eighteenth century, it was the same F.A. Wolf’s study Prolegomena ad
Homerum that turned the Greek poet from the classicist writer of the
previous era into a natural, naive and folk poet (or group of poets).
The privileged and newly ‘classic’ texts also needed commentary and
annotation because their thorough study began to form an important part
of a university education that had until this moment been a uniform
phenomenon. The earliest universities used to offer an education that
was not substantially different in Bologna than in Oxford or Paris or
Prague. It was only when this essentially religious education split into
Catholic and Protestant versions that there were at least two kinds of
universities, but even then the Latin and Greek curriculum tended to be
similar, regardless of the university’s religious allegiance.
It was in the nineteenth century that this common culture came under
attack from the most unlikely side: textual scholars and editors, all of
whom had learned the trade in the study of Greek and Latin literature,
began to collect, edit and publish texts in the vernacular languages. Again
the German scholars were pioneers in this practice and it has become a
common-place that it was this development that stands at the start of the
modern conception of European humanist study at the secondary and
tertiary levels.
No wonder then that by the end of the nineteenth century the Ger-
man form of textual criticism was being imitated all over the world. This
form of inquiry became the basis of the modern humanities departments
at the new research university that in one way or another is still the
world-wide model for higher education. German textual study was every-
where and even Italy, a country that claimed to have invented both clas-
sical and vernacular humanist study, had to be prodded by German
scholars into the editing and studying of early Italian texts. Similar devel-
opments took place all over Europe, with local scholars only slowly
catching up with what the Germans had been doing successfully for
many years. In the course of the nineteenth century, in other words, the
discipline of philology went through a process of nationalization. By the
THE ANGEL OF PHILOLOGY 55
end of the century the scholarly study of each of the different national
literatures and the historical-critical edition of its major texts had become
a university specialism that of course tended to be restricted in the main
to the university departments in one’s own country. No single European
university could afford to have all of the European languages and litera-
tures covered. National philologists not only wrote on their own lan-
guage but in their publications they increasingly began to use that lan-
guage too. In most cases this effectively excluded non-native speakers
from this form of enquiry and this resulted in the novel fact that some of
the national philologies began to have their own divergent developments,
to some extent outside of the hitherto general university culture.
Language still is a central issue in philology, not just as the object of
study but at least as importantly as a medium of that study: philology
used to be an international science that was practiced, like all other sci-
ences, in an international language, Latin. Nowadays classical philology
by its nature remains an international and to some extent a non-national
concern but its practitioners no longer write in a common language. In
the nineteenth century the specialized journals began to publish their
scholarship in the vernacular languages, so that modern classical or bibli-
cal philologists who wanted to keep up with the literature were required
to have a reading knowledge of at least Italian, of English, German and
French and preferably also of Dutch, Spanish and Danish.
Judging from the titles of the contributions in this symposium, it is
obvious that in the nineteenth century philology as a science shifted its
attention from classical Greek and Latin texts to texts in the vernacular,
beginning with the oldest medieval texts and in some instances moving
to what was called the ‘national’ literatures of the eighteenth and nine-
teenth century. By the turn of the twentieth century the development of
editorial practice in some cases would shift from classical philology to
the edition of modern literatures with the difficult cases of ‘national po-
ets’ such as in the UK William Shakespeare (no manuscripts and defec-
tive printed versions) in the UK and in Germany Friedrich Hölderlin
(only drafts of the later major poems) and Franz Kafka (only manu-
scripts of the major works) among many other controversial cases. Be-
cause of these conditions, in many cases editorial theory ceased to have a
common international forum. When in the seventies and eighties French
genetic criticism became interested in those textual issues that had been
dismissed as positivist by structuralism and post-structuralism, the result-
56 Geert Lernout
3
For general surveys of biblical criticism, see Greenslade 1963 and Reventlow
1990-97.
58 Geert Lernout
cent days, that word still had its original force. It can only be a hopeful
sign that last year, I think for the very first time, a Dutch translation of
the bible was published that was the result of a real collaboration be-
tween Catholics and Protestants and that seems to have been acceptable
to both parties. In the field of biblical criticism at least, a general agree-
ment has been found on the presumably historical and critical shape of
the text that transcends these old sectarian divisions.
In conclusion I would like to make a few suggestions. If we can learn
anything from the history of our discipline, it is that there is no such
thing as a German or a French philology, just as there is no Catholic or
Jewish science. The principles governing the creation, transmission and
usage of written texts are the same, whether we study classical, biblical or
modern writings. As Joep Leerssen has argued in the introduction to this
volume, there are no good reasons for the continued separate develop-
ment of the national philologies and it might be a good idea to increase
the number and quality of contacts between scholars from the different
national scholarly traditions in all forms of philology. For that purpose it
seems necessary that major contributions to editorial theory or practice
should at least be reported and maybe systematically translated in
English-language publications. That would put an end to the harmful
isolation of some national philologies who continue to be blissfully un-
aware of what is and has been happening in neighbouring cultures and
literatures. At the same time scholars working within these national
literatures should be much more aware of what is going on in the study
of earlier texts and vice versa. As G. Thomas Tanselle put it, almost a
quarter of a century ago:
By not familiarizing themselves with the textual criticism of classical, bibli-
cal, and medieval literature, textual scholars of more recent literature are
cutting themselves off from a voluminous body of theoretical discussion
and the product of many generations of experience. And by not keeping up
with developments in the editing of post-medieval writings, students of
earlier works are depriving themselves of the knowledge of significant
advances in editorial thinking. (Tanselle 1983: 22)
Finally, and this bring us back to the discussion of facts and generaliza-
tion in the first part of this paper: in Joseph A. Dane’s recent The Myth of
Print Culture it becomes evident that what philology in the widest defini-
tion needs most desperately is not more generalization. Dane skilfully
and wittily demonstrates that some of the most widely cherished beliefs
60 Geert Lernout
and stories about print culture are no more than convenient myths that
cannot possibly be substantiated. Most relevantly in his Chapter 6 Dane
demolishes what he calls ‘the critical mythology that accrues to certain
historical figures (Erasmus, Bentley, Malone) as they become defined as
editors in the modern sense’ (Dane 2005, 4-5). Since my all-too-general-
ising comments have to some extent been based on the mythological
history of the discipline written by latter-day philologists, we may well
have to revise part of this story. But before we do that, we will require
many more details, because it is there, among the details, according to
the old saying, that we’ll find ‘der Herr-Gott’. The first irony is that at
least one editorial variant of this old saying claims that instead of God
we will find ‘der Teufel’ in the detail. And perhaps the final and com-
pletely appropriate irony is that both versions of this saying have been
variously attributed to Goethe, Spinoza, Flaubert and a host of other
writers. Personally I am quite certain that it is the devil who is to blame.
References
Auvray, Paul. 1974. Richard Simon: 1638-1712. Paris: Presses universitaires
françaises,
Barthes, Roland. 1980. La chambre claire Paris: Seuil.
Blok, Frans Felix. 1984. Nicolaas Heinsius in Napels (april-juli 1647). Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company.
Camporeale, Salvatore. 1972. Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia. Preface by
Eugenio Garin. Firenze: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento.
Canfora, Luziano. 1991. The Vanished Library. London: Vintage.
Canfora, Luziano. 1998. La Bibliotheca del patriarca: Fozio censurato nella Francia di
Mazzarino. Roma: Salerno.
Canfora, Luziano. 2002. Convertire Casaubon. Milano: Adelphi.
Cerquiglini, Bernard. 1989. Eloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philology. Paris:
Seuil.
Dane, Joseph A. 2005. The Myth of Print Culture: Essays on Evidence, Textuality, and
Bibliographical Method. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Fuller, Reginald C. 1984. Alexander Geddes 1737-1802: Pioneer of Biblical Criticism.
Sheffield: Almond Press,
Gamble, Harry Y. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early
Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Grafton, Anthony. 1990. Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity inWestern
Scholarship. London: Collins & Brown.
THE ANGEL OF PHILOLOGY 61
Darko Dolinar
Abstract
Critical editions in Slovenia belong to two different contexts: Slavic
philology and Slovenian national culture. Their development can be
divided along two lines. The editions of older texts and materials are
more committed to pure scholarly criteria; they are intended primarily
for a specialized, also international readership, with less interest in (or
for) the wider public. The editions of more recent literary works have
a wider and more mixed target readership. In terms of editorial
procedure they are more subject to compromise and more open to a
nationally ideological parti-pris. The major contemporary series
‘Collected Works of Slovenian Poets and Writers’ represents the
mixed type of editions where strictly scholarly treatments coexist with
accessibility for the general public. However, this schematic division
still leaves room for exceptions such as the recent critical edition of
the medieval Freising manuscripts, whose eager acceptance among
the wider public bespeaks the political attitudes of a specific historical
moment.
Ever since its beginning in the early nineteenth century, editing activity in
Slovenia has primarily been tied to national philology or national literary
history, and much less, or almost not at all, to other text-related disci-
plines such as law, philosophy, history, theology or Biblical studies – that
is, disciplines in which critical editions may have an equally important
role. The history of critical editions in Slovenia should be seen, then, in
two different but interconnected contexts: Slavic philology and Slovene
66 Darko Dolinar
national culture. I first examine these contexts and then proceed to con-
sider critical editions themselves.
Contexts
Slavic philology belongs to the group of ‘new’ or national philologies.
These were shaped relying heavily on the model of ‘old’, i.e. classical
philology, with the theoretical and methodological approaches, values
and techniques of the Classics transposed to the subject areas of ‘new’
European literatures and cultures. This occurred at a specific historical
juncture towards the end of the eighteenth and at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, under the influence of the flourishing and predomi-
nance of historicism and the rise of national awareness and of modern
nation-formation. Against the backdrop of these significant conceptual
and intellectual shifts could national literatures and cultures become a
rewarding subject of scholarly studies. The assumption behind every
critical edition is that a text under consideration has a certain value, and
therefore deserves close philological examination. A priori recognition of
its value is a prerequisite, or the undertaking would not make sense. This
means that, similar to the approach adopted by old philology in treating
the works of classical antiquity, the new philologies view texts written in
national languages as having value – albeit that the perspective and eval-
uation criteria are now somewhat different. Whereas the Classics carried
ethical, cognitive and aesthetic values that constituted the core of the
ideal of universal humanist education and Bildung, and as such were
accepted by European cultures of later periods, the texts treated by the
new philologies have yet another, added value in addition to these. They
are the manifestations of the creativity of a specific ethnic group or
nation – or, in other words, the intellectual life of these groups finds
expression through these texts. Perhaps the most energetic expression of
this belief is the formulation that the individuality of a nation – that is,
the nationality of a nation1 – is in essence its language, literature (in the
widest sense of the word, including folklore), mythology and religion.
Roughly speaking, the development of the new philologies seems to
go through two crucial phases. In the first phase, the new philologies
delineated their subject fields, identified the main problems, put in order
1
This was the basic standpoint explicitly formulated by Gregor Krek, the first
professor of Slavic philology at the University of Graz; cf. Krek 1874, 141-46; the
same in Krek 1887, 477-83.
SLOVENE TEXT EDITIONS 67
and arts are the main (if not practically the only) manifestations of the
existence of ‘stateless’ nations, they tend to be studied and cultivated
with special zeal. While a rich and developed culture with many quality
texts at its disposal can afford to neglect works of less significance, in
smaller and less developed nations every cultural phenomenon, regard-
less of significance, may become the focus of philologists’ interest.
The Slovene nation falls into this latter category: stateless, with a late
development. A process of national revival or awakening occurred in the
late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century; it was initially
restricted to linguistic, literary and cultural activities, and later spread into
the economic, social and political fields. National philology emerged as a
part of this process. Its very birth and existence testify to the efforts to
revive the local language and culture; conversely, it played an active role
in this process and contributed to the emergence of national awareness.
National philology was driven by the need for national affirmation, and
philology’s ideological function in the Slovene context was more salient
than in large, developed and sovereign nations.
Slavic studies evolved along more or less the same path as the other
new philologies. The important stages, shifts and milestones in its devel-
opment mainly corresponded to the established pattern of Germanic and
Romance studies, albeit a little belatedly. One of the central dilemmas,
probably not so conspicuous in other studies, related to the specification
of the subject field. The points at issue were the relationships, bound-
aries and transitions between the fields common to all Slavic nations in
general and those specific to individual ethnic (i.e., national) entities
inside this framework. One of the problems was a distinction between
languages and dialects and between nations and ethnic groups or tribes.
The perspective on this issue obviously changed over time; this is indi-
cated by a meaningful difference between the titles of two standard
works. In 1826 Pavol J. Šafárik wrote his History of the Slavic Language and
Literature (note the singular form) in all its Dialects (Šafárik [Schaffarik]
1826), but forty years later Pypin and Spasovich published their Historical
Review of Slavic Literatures (note the plural).2 This vacillation has wider
implications. It is connected with the emergence of Pan-Slavism and its
various offshoots (e.g., Illyrianism in the South Slavic region). Above all,
2
Pypin and Spasovich 1864, 2nd expanded ed.: Pypin and Spasovich 1879-80. The
contemporary German translation of this book (1880-84) was very popular among
Slavic readers in the Habsburg monarchy.
SLOVENE TEXT EDITIONS 69
Slovene (as a native language) and Slovene literature that were gradually
established in Germanised schools; the textbooks and reference books
used in these courses can be considered the second line of development
in emerging Slovene studies. Another relevant influence were newspa-
pers and magazines, which published popular texts with didactic content
and written in the spirit of national awakening, paving the way for more
complex literary and critical textual activity. Such journalism combined
the programmatic standpoints of literary authors, more ambitious book
reviews and the first serious attempts at literary theory. In this long and
complex process of the constitution of Slovene letters, the crucial
passage-points are marked by the first academic treatises, the first com-
plete literary historical reviews, the gradual specialisation of professional
publications, the strengthening of a theoretical and methodological basis
at the beginning of the twentieth century and, finally, the full institutional
and social recognition of this discipline, which occurred only after the
disintegration of the Habsburg monarchy and within the new Yugoslav
state. Slovene studies were accorded a central place in the first Slovene
university in Ljubljana, established in 1919.
Critical Editions
The manoeuvring space of these editions seems by and large to have
been determined by three factors: the nature and the scope of the textual
heritage in question, the principles and theoretical or methodological
approaches employed by their parent disciplines, and various external
systemic aspects (ideological, cultural and social, organisational, eco-
nomic). The interplay of these factors crucially shapes and directs the
structure and function of critical editions.
One of the most important factors influencing editorial practice is the
fact that the corpus of older Slovene texts is modest in number and
scope. Only some ten medieval manuscripts have survived to date, some
in their entirety and others in fragments, and these are predominantly
prayers and sermons; these manuscripts are unique specimens, and so
they do not provide evidence of a copying tradition. The Early Modern
period saw the emergence of a body of writing with a predominantly
ecclesiastical religious focus; alongside, the number of secular functional
writings gradually increased as well. Artistic literature emerged towards
the end of the eighteenth century and reached its first peak in the first
half of the nineteenth century with Romantic poetry, represented by
SLOVENE TEXT EDITIONS 71
3
Kopitar 1836, XXXIII-XLIV; cf. also the modern Slovene translation, Kopitar 1995.
4
The series includes the Freising Manuscripts (Bernik et al. 1992, 1993, 2004),
some Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, various Slovene texts from the sixteenth to
eighteenth century (works of Protestant writers, collections of poems, collections of
72 Darko Dolinar
7
The book was printed in 1914, but publication was delayed due to to outbreak of
the First World War.
8
Cf. occasional articles by, and interviews with both general editors, Anton Ocvirk
and, after his death in 1980, France Bernik, as well as some ambitious book reviews
such as Pogačnik (1979) and, among the very rare critical works, Kramberger (1993).
74 Darko Dolinar
9
For additional information, cf. the survey of studies by Igor Grdina and bibliogra-
phy by Marko Kranjec in the critical edition Bernik et al. 2004, 154-91. A recent
electronic critical edition (Grdina et al. 2007) has been placed online at
http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc.bs
76 Darko Dolinar
be extended beyond its scheduled closing date. Thus, even today, critical
text editions, for all their academic and scholarly content and intent, may,
given a suitable occasion, obtain an ideological function.
References
Bernik, France. 2004. Iz veka v vek, iz roda v rod: ob petdesetletnici zbirke
slovenskih klasikov. In Spektrum ustvarjalnosti, 114-16. Ljubljana: Slovenska
matica. (Reprint from Delo 38, 12 December 1996: 13).
Bernik, France et al., eds. 1992. Brižinski spomeniki. Znanstvenokritična izdaja.
Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanst-
venoraziskovalni center SAZU and Slovenska knjiga.
Bernik, France et al., eds. 1993. Brižinski spomeniki. Znanstvenokritična izdaja. 2nd
ed.; Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti and
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU.
Bernik, France et al., eds. 2004. Brižinski spomeniki – Monumenta frisingensia.
Znanstvenokritična izdaja. 3rd ed, ed. Jože Faganel and Darko Dolinar.
Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU.
Glonar, Joža and Avgust Pirjevec, eds. 1929. Doktorja Franceta Prešerna zbrano
delo. Ljubljana: Jugoslovanska knjigarna.
Grdina, Igor et al., eds. Brižinski spomeniki: Monumenta Frisingensia. Elektronska
znanstvenokritična izdaja. Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne
vede ZRC SAZU. Online at http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/bs
Kidrič, France, ed. 1936. Prešeren. I. Pesnitve – pisma. Ljubljana: Tiskovna
zadruga.
Kimball, Stanley B. 1973. The Austro-Slav Revival: A Study of Nineteenth-century
Literary Foundations. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Kopitar, Bartholomaeus (Jernej). 1836. Glagolita Clozianus. Vindobonae (Vi-
enna).
Kopitar, Jernej. 1995. Jerneja Kopitarja Glagolita Clozianus – Cločev glagolit. Ed. Jože
Toporišič; Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slovanske jezike in
književnosti, Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture.
Korytko, Emil, ed. 1839-44. Slovenske pesmi krajnskiga naroda. 5 vols.; Ljubljana:
Blasnik.
Kramberger, Igor. 1993. Sociologija filološko-založniške institucije. Doctoral
thesis, Univ. Ljubljana.
Krek, Gregor. 1874. Einleitung in die slavische Literaturgeschichte und Darstellung ihrer
älteren Perioden. Theil 1. Graz.
Krek, Gregor. 1887. Einleitung in die slavische Literaturgeschichte: Akademische Vor-
lesungen, Studien und kritische Streifzüge. 2nd ed. of Krek 1874. Graz.
Levec, Fran, ed. 1882-92. Josipa Jurčiča zbrani spisi. 11 vols.; Ljubljana.
Levec, Fran, ed. 1891-95. Levstikovi zbrani spisi. 5 vols.; Ljubljana.
78 Darko Dolinar
INSCRIBING ORALITY:
THE FIRST FOLKLORE EDITIONS IN THE BALTIC STATES
Paulius V. Subačius
Abstract
The earliest Lithuanian and Latvian editorial efforts intended to show
that behind the scarcity of mature literary works there existed an
older medieval, orally transmitted cultural tradition. Its rediscovery
was mostly assigned to folklore publications which were remarkable
for their philological quality. The professional collection of folklore
was likewise more advanced than that of ancient manuscripts. The
character of the first annotated folklore editions was determined by
the fact that they were addressed not only to local readers, but also to
foreign linguists, whose interest in the Baltic languages required an
exact rendering of textual features. The modern national literature
drew its pedigree from folk culture and folklore publications, side-
lining the heritage of written (religious and didactic) literary sources.
Latvia during the period from the thirteenth to nineteenth century the
local population, as well as settlers from other countries, were prolific in
different genres in other languages: Latin, Polish, German, Yiddish, and
East Slavic languages (Kubilius et al., 1997). The absence of state institu-
tions, along with other factors, determined, however, that a modern
Lithuanian and Latvian sense of national identity was established along
linguistic-ethnographic, rather than political, principles. Therefore texts
written in other languages were marginal to an emerging national culture.
Acceptance of those texts as part of the Lithuanian and Latvian cultural
heritage spread only by the end of the twentieth century (Ulčinaitė 1996,
Narbutas 2000).
Thus, as a result of the dearth of the ancient written texts and
authorial literature in the vernacular languages, the very first efforts to
search for national origins were directed almost exclusively towards
folklore. These efforts were inspired by intellectual factors current in
many parts of Europe: the influence of Macpherson’s Ossian, and espe-
cially of the German philosophers’ and philologists’ ideas on vernacular
language and folk culture. Herder’s two-volume collection of Volkslieder
(1778-79; now better known under the title of the 1807 re-edition as
Stimmen der Völker in Liedern), contained some Lithuanian and Latvian
songs. This collection provided European philologists with their first
extensive acquaintance with Baltic oral literature. Reciprocally, its impact
was far more important. For a hundred years it was quoted in Lithuania
and Latvia as an argument that Baltic folklore, and by implication the
Baltic languages and nations, stood as equals alongside other European
nations.
In addition to this general Romantic atmosphere, there was another
formative reason for the incipient interest in Lithuanian and Latvian
folklore: the emergence of comparative linguistics. The very founders of
the theory of Indo-European affinity had already asserted that, among
the living languages of the Indo-European family, the Baltic languages
best preserved ancient forms. Therefore almost all prominent nineteenth-
century European linguists included the Baltic languages in their studies
(Žukas 1999, 22). What is more, the most suitable resource in order to
identify the archaic strata of language was considered to lie in the folk
tradition, rather than in authorial works or in contemporary usage. As a
result, philologically-qualified publications on Baltic folklore could count
on an interested academic readership abroad even before they appeared.
82 Paulius V. Subačius
text than he had done with the folklore ones. Out of the poem’s 2968
lines he deleted 468, changing characters’ names and otherwise altering
the text. The principal reasons for these changes were aesthetic and
moralistic. The passages that were omitted or transformed were the ones
which, according to the editor’s opinion, contradicted ‘good taste’,
clashed with the pastoral image of the Lithuanian peasants’ life, or criti-
cised Prussian authorities. While Rėza’s statements concerning the au-
thenticity of the folk songs was, as we have seen, less than well-founded,
still his editorial policy was guided by the principle of faithful textual
rendering; but in his interference with Donelaitis’ manuscript he con-
sciously disregarded the author’s intention or the documentary evidence.
The attitude seems to be that the folk texts should be presented as au-
thentically as possible, whereas authorial works can be safely edited
according to the editor’s taste and the target audience. In Lithuania this
editorial stance was dominant throughout most of the nineteenth cen-
tury. The Romantic attitude towards folklore reached the Baltic nations
almost a hundred years earlier than the modern concept of authorship.
It is illustrative to compare these two editions by Rėza with the edito-
rial strategy of the German philologist G.H.F. Nesselmann, who pub-
lished the same texts a quarter of a century later. In diametrical opposi-
tion to Rėza, Nesselmann published Donelaitis’ text (Nesselmann 1869)
scrupulously following the autograph and the earliest copy, and accu-
rately retaining diacritical signs and other features; whereas in his edition
of 410 folk songs, compiled mostly from Rėza and other earlier editions,
Nesselmann (1853), on the contrary, shortened, supplemented, emended
and reworked the texts. Thus he removes segments that were, in his
view, contaminated; in several cases he splits into two works that are on
record as one song; in other cases he welds verses from several songs
into one. Such interventions were motivated by his individual taste and
the idea that texts should be subjected to the methods of comparative
reconstructive linguistics.
Rėza’s folksong edition was favourably reviewed by Goethe and by
Jacob Grimm. These endorsements encouraged foreign scholars’ interest
in the Baltic nations, and acted as a powerful boost to the few nationally-
motivated members of the Lithuanian intelligentsia. In their eyes, publi-
cations that were succesful in the international literary system enhanced
chances national self-expression.
INSCRIBING ORALITY 85
The first edition of Latvian songs appeared somewhat earlier than Rėza’s
work and in more extensive form. In 1807 by Gustav Bergmann
(1749-1814), a Lutheran priest, who himself collected the texts and
printed them at the printing-house on the island of Rujen, in the prov-
ince of Latvia; the printing-house he had established himself. Bergmann
is typologically akin to Rėza in that he also had edited and published a
(Latvian) Bible translation. Although Bergmann had high philological
ambitions as an editor, his edition of folk songs contains ill-understood
and poorly recorded words; also, authentically traditional texts are inter-
mixed with newer songs of various origins. The edition also lacks a
philological apparatus.
A much higher editorial standard is attested by a collection, modest in
its extent – the texts of only 30 Lithuanian songs – which in 1829 was
published in Vilnius by Simonas Stanevičius (1799-1848). Stanevičius, a
beggared nobleman and a poet who had graduated in Classics from
Vilnius University, was the first Lithuanian who sought to earn his living
as a free-lance professional philologist. Before he published the collec-
tion of songs, he had edited and published selections from a sixteenth-
century Lithuanian book of sermons, as well as a new edition of an early
eighteenth-century grammar, in Latin, of the Lithuanian language
(Stanevičius 1823, 1829). Stanevičius’ collection was marked by strict
selection criteria. He included only one fifth of the texts that he had at
his disposal, clearly listing the criteria of selection in the ‘Introduction’:
archaic nature, internal coherence of the text, complexity as a song. The
songs are carefully recorded and numbered, and many are accompanied
by linguistic and factual comments. In his commentaries, Stanevičius
evinces trenchant historicism, as against romantic idealization:
Tykietise idant butu daynas nu karzigiu senowes Lituwiu yr Zemaycziu
kures daynewa Waydelotay musu zemes wiresnynjey yr daynynynkay, ira
tuszczia dyngstys. Waykay sawa tiewu daynas atkartodamy wadyn tay
senowes daynomys yr nor jas uzmyrszty; ko taygy benoriety idant daynas
Wai[d]elotu pyrm 400 yr 500 metu daynujemas, szendin pazynstamas butu?
Mazne be abejojyma galu sakity jog wysas szendin randamas Zemaycziu
daynas nier ankstibesnes uz (...) XVIII amziaus (...).1
1
Stanevičius 1829, [6]: ‘A hope to have songs from olden times of valiant Lithuani-
ans and Samogitians that were sung by high-priests and songsters of our land is but a
vain hope. Children who repeat songs of their fathers call them songs of antiquity and
hasten to forget them; how then could one wish for the songs of high-priests, sung
400 or 500 years ago, to be current today? Without hesitation I could say that all
Samogitian songs that are found today are not anterior to the eighteenth century.’
86 Paulius V. Subačius
The musical scores for all the published songs were published four years
later (Stanevičius 1833). Stanevičius disseminated these and other
publications with the declared aim of nurturing national culture and
national awareness.
A substantial part of the gentry intellectuals in Lithuania (bilingually
Polish- and Lithuanian-speaking) felt sympathy for Lithuanian language
and folklore. ‘Interest of Baltic Germans intellectuals in popular culture
was not very wide and did not transgress the limits of purely scholarly
concern. Even sympathetically to popular culture disposed Baltic Ger-
man intellectuals held German culture superior’ (Pivoras 1996, 7). Either
negatively or positively, this scholarly concern fed into the ambitious
scheme, in the mid-century, of publishing a full corpus of Latvian songs.
The somewhat utopian plan took shape in sections of the Lettisch-Literäri-
sche Gesellschaft (Latvian Literary Society, composed of Germans). Latvian
songs are short, consisting mostly of a single stanza, and thus it was
possible for collections of thousands of songs to appear earlier on in
Latvia. In 1844 Georg Büttner (1805-1883) published, under the aegis of
the Lettisch-Literärische Gesellschaft a collection of ‘The Songs and zinges of
Latvian People’ (Büttner 1844) comprising 2854 texts, and with an ap-
pendix of Clarifications and Remarks. In 1874-1875 the same Society, to
celebrate its anniversary, printed in Leipzig two volumes of ‘The songs
of the Latvian Nation’, Latviešu tautas dziesmas (edited by August Bielen-
stein, 1826-1907). This edition was intended to run to four volumes and
to contain all of the material collected; it was never completed, and only
4793 out of the expected number of 10.000 texts have been published.
Lithuanian folk songs are much lengthier (often more than twelve
stanzas), which explains why the collection of 7000 songs compiled in
the 1850s and 1860s by the Lithuanian Catholic priest Antanas Juška
(1818-1880) far exceeds the Latvian collections in size. Four volumes,
almost a thousand pages each, were published in 1880-1883 in Russia
through the efforts of his brother, the philologist Jonas Juška
(1815-1886), comprise only a third of the manuscript collection (Juška
1880-82, 1883). The volumes were disseminated legally only outside
Lithuania, because in the period between 1864 and 1904 the Russian
Imperial administration had prohibited the use of the Latin alphabet in
Lithuanian-language publications. The Catholic clergy played a signifi-
cant role in the Lithuanian national awakening movement and in the
resistance against the printing ban. Bishops organized the publication of
INSCRIBING ORALITY 87
References
Ābols, Guntars. 2002. The Contribution of History to Latvian identity. Riga:
Nacionālais apgāds.
Baronas, Darius et al. 2002. Christianity in Lithuania. Vilnius: Aidai.
Barons, Krišjānis. 1894-1915. Latvju dainas: Chansons nationales lataviennes. 6 vols.;
Jelgava & St. Petersburg.
Biblia. 1816. Biblia, tai esti: Wissas Szwentas Rásztas Séno ir Naujo Testamento […],
Nů keliû Mokytojû Lietuwoj Lietuwiszkay perstattytas, Dabar isz naujo pérweizdētas
ir tréczą Kartą iszspáustas. Karaliaučius.
INSCRIBING ORALITY 89
Biblia. 1824. Biblia, tai esti: Wissas Szwentas Rásztas Séno ir Naujo Testamento,
Lietuwiszkay pérstattytas, isz naujo pérweizdētas Ir ketwirtą kartą iszspáustas. Tilžė.
Bielenstein, August. 1874-75. Latviešu tautas dziesmas. 2 vols., Jelgava.
Bleiere, Daina et al. 2006. History of Latvia: The Twentieth Century. Riga: Jumava.
Bojtár, Endre. 1999. Foreword to the Past: A Cultural History of the Baltic People.
Budapest: CEU Press.
[Bumblauskas, Alfredas]. 1999. History. Lithuania. Vilnius: Du Ka,
Büttner, Georg. 1844. Latviešu laužu dziesmas un zinges. Jelgava.
Foley, John Miles. 1995. Folk Literature. In Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research,
ed D. C. Greetham, 600-626. New York: MLA.
Gerutis, Albertas (ed.). 1984. Lithuania: 700 years. New York: Manyland books.
Jovaišas, Albinas. Liudvikas Rėza (Vilnius: Vaga, 1969),
Juška, Antanas. 1880-82. Liėtùviškos dájnos. 3 vols.; Kazan;
Juška, Antanas. 1883. Liėtùviškos svotbinės dájnos. St. Petersburg
Kiaupa, Zigmantas et al. 2002. The history of the Baltic countries. 3rd rev.
ed.Tallinn: Avita.
Kubilius, Vytautas et al. 1997. Lithuanian literature. Vilnius: LLTI.
Leerssen, Joep. 2004. Literary historicism: Romanticism, philologists, and the
presence of the past. Modern language quarterly 65.2: 221-243.
Narbutas, Sigitas. 2000. The Mysterious Island: a Review of 13th-16th Century Litera-
ture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Vilnius: LLTI.
Nesselmann, G.H.F. 1853 Littauische Volkslieder, gesammelt kritisch bearbeitet und
metrisch übersetzt. Berlin.
Nesselmann, G.H.F. 1869. Christian Donalitius Littauische Dichtungen nach Königs-
berg Handschriften. Königsberg.
Pivoras, Saulius. 1995. The Development of Lithuanian and Latvian Civic Self-conscious-
ness during the End of XVIII – First Half of XIX Centuries: A Comparative As-
pect. Vilnius: VU.
Plakans, Andrejs. 1974. Peasants, Intellectuals, and Nationalism in the Russian
Baltic Provinces, 1820-90. Journal of modern history, 46: 445-475.
Puisāns, Tadeušs. 1995. The Emerging Nation: The Path of Agonizing Development
from Baltic Tribalism to Latvian Nationhood. Rīga: Centre of Baltic-Nordic
History and Political Studies.
Pumpurs, Andrējs. 1888. Lāčplēsis, latvju tautas varonis: Tautas epus. Riga.
Rhesa, L.J. 1816-24. Philologisch-kritische Anmerkungen zur litthauischen Bibel. 2 vols.
Königsberg.
Rhesa, L.J. 1818. Das Jahr in vier Gesängen, ein ländliches Epos aus dem Littauischen
des Christian Donaleitis, genannt Donalitius, in gleichem Versmaaß ins Deutsche
übertragen. Königsberg.
Rhesa, L.J. 1825. Dainos oder Litthauische Volkslieder gesammelt, uebersetzt und mit
gegenueberstehendem Urtext herausgegeben. Nebst einer Abhandlung ueber die litthaui-
schen Volksgedichte. Königsberg.
Rowell, Stephen C.; Reda Griškaitė; Gediminas Rudis. 2002. A History of Lithua-
nia. Vilnius: Inter Se.
90 Paulius V. Subačius
Paula Henrikson
Abstract
Competing Danish and Swedish editions of the Scania province law
exemplify the role of textual editing for nation-building in Scandina-
via. A Danish province up to the seventeenth century, Scania has
since 1658 been Swedish territory. This has made the Scania province
law, which dates from the Middle Ages, a cultural heirloom of two
nations, Sweden and Denmark. The editions of the law, which have
been produced in both countries from the seventeenth to the twenti-
eth century, express their national bias not only in the introductions
but also through elements such as the evaluation of manuscripts, the
treatment of text and commentary, and visual codes such as format
and layout. On the whole, editing proves to be a means of defining
nationality and social identities, fundamentally determined by the
editor's preconceptions and prejudices.
Gary Taylor has compared scholarly editing to the battle between Per-
sians and Greeks over the dead body of Leonidas: the text, though pow-
erless and dead, is the object of scholarly contest (Taylor 1994, 19). With
this drastic image Taylor calls attention to the symbolic character of
textual scholarship. The editors pursue their task driven by ambitions
and interests which, though seldom verbalised, nevertheless form the
basis for their historical commitment. Power over the corpus of the text
gives power over history as well, and over the understanding of history.
Traditionally, scholarly editing has elicited only sparse theoretical
(even though frequent methodological) interest. The old notion of schol-
arly editing as the ‘handmaid’ of the higher criticism has been persistent.
92 Paula Henrikson
To see in editing a disinterested task has also been the prerequisite guar-
antee for its claim to authority. The representation of history that an
edited text embodies secures its reliability through the notion of editing
as an objective, neutral and unbiased activity. And vice versa: if the
conditions of scholarly editing must be understood as variable with the
editor’s theoretical and historical bias, how is it possible to justify an
endeavour which claims to produce the material foundations for compre-
hensive and unprejudiced research?
In an ongoing project I explore the tradition of Swedish scholarly
editing from the Renaissance to present times, raising questions of ideol-
ogy, power, and responsibility. The historical perspective is meant to lay
open the preconditions of textual scholarship, important for present
scholarly editing as well. At the same time the approach is meta-histori-
cal: my attention is directed above all to the history of historical under-
standing and historical consciousness. Why do we turn to the texts of
history? What questions do we hope that the texts will answer? What use
do we believe we have of history? Issues like these have been raised
through the narrative turn of historical theory during the last decades,
represented by names such as Hayden White, Paul Ricoeur and Jörn
Rüsen. I should like to place scholarly editing in this context.
The modern philologies built their claim to legitimacy on nineteenth-
century historicism and its notions about source-critical scholarly meth-
ods whose results were founded in positive fact rather than in opinion-
ated preconceptions. But this increasing commitment to the ‘scientific’ –
understood as a disinterested striving for objectivity – tended also to veil
the roots in ideology which brought forth the philological discipline. In
hermeneutic terms, the modern, methodologically advanced philology
was prone to mask its origins in romanticism’s notions about the uses of
history and the ideal of the nation.
In this way also the dependence of textual scholarship on societal
interests became obscured. Yet observing textual editing from an histori-
cal perspective makes transparent the fact that texts at all times have
been edited with specific – societal, ideological and aesthetic – purposes
in view, and that such preconceptions govern the editorial choices. The
same insight provided the point of departure for the scholars who to-
wards the end of the 20th century, aimed at re-evaluating the task of
textual criticism in terms of a social and historical understanding of
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 93
1
Greetham 1993, 14: ‘While he was thinking of schools of cultural or aesthetic
criticism rather than schools of textual editing, Terry Eagleton’s dictum, “Ideology,
like halitosis is(...) what the other person has”, could equally well apply to an editor’s
conviction that his or her method of textual display has no ideological content and is
somehow natural and proper to the work being edited. My point is that there is no
inherent physical display of text and apparatus that is more natural to a specific work
than any other, and that each display carries the codes of meaning the editor designs as
part of the total ideological construct.’
2
The term derives from Montrose 1989, 242: ‘By the historicity of texts, I mean to
suggest the cultural specificity, the social embedment, of all modes of writing – not
only the texts that critics study but also the texts in which we study them. By the
textuality of history, I mean to suggest, firstly, that we can have no access to a full and
authentic past, a lived material existence, unmediated by the surviving textual traces of
the society in question – traces whose survival we cannot assume to be merely con-
tingent but must rather presume to be at least partially consequent upon complex and
subtle social processes of preservation and effacement; and secondly, that those textual
94 Paula Henrikson
logical and narrative strategies. Texts, in their turn, have a history – this
implies that they do not exist above or outside history, but must be stud-
ied in all their historical instability. Empirical facts, too, are constructed
from notions of the nature of history: there is no Archimedean point to
stand on in the world of texts.
It is from the example of the Scania Province Law, a text over which
both Danish and Swedish editors have fought for rightful possession,
that I wish to discuss the relationship between textual editing and ideol-
ogy. I restrict myself to the printed editions of the law’s Scanian text, and
thus leave aside, among other things, the translations to modern Danish
and Swedish, not so much for theoretical as for practical reasons. One
particular aspect of editorial preconception will be the focus of my inter-
est, namely the interconnection between national allegiance, nation build-
ing and textual editing. Several interesting aspects of the law’s editorial
history thus will be left out of my present considerations – among these
are largely, for instance, the issues of legal and linguistic history. I should
also add that I will mainly examine what might be called the rhetoric of
the editions, manifested not least in their paratexts (such as format and
illustrations), and thus leave aside all evaluation of the actual editorial
decisions.
Scania nowadays is a province on the southern edge of Sweden, but it
has been so for only 350 years. Before that, it was one of the most im-
portant provinces of Denmark, harbouring, notably, the Danish episco-
pal see. The Scania Law was drawn up in the thirteenth century, and it is
also Denmark’s oldest surviving law text. But in consequence of Scania’s
changed national appurtenance, the Scania Law acquired double owner-
ship: both Swedes and Danes have laid claim to the monument. It is this
double possession that I wish to explore.
The editio princeps of the law was brought out in 1505.3 This was in a
small quarto service edition printed by Gotfred af Ghemen in Copenha-
gen. It derived from a recent, and subsequently lost, manuscript, said in
the title of the edition to be ‘wæl offuer seeth och rættelighe corrigeret’
(‘well overseen and set right with corrections’). The flyleaf carries the
traces are themselves subject to subsequent textual mediations when they are con-
strued as the “documents” upon which historians ground their own texts, called “histo-
ries”.’
3
The title of the edition is Hær begynnes skonskæ logh paa ræth danskæ, och ær skifft i xvij
bøgher oc hwer bogh haffuer sith register. ok ær wæl offuer seeth och rættelighe corrigeret (1505).
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 95
Danish royal crest with three lions, symbolising the three main Danish
provinces, including Scania. Britta Olrik Frederiksen, who has compared
the text with the manuscript which the edition possibly or probably was
based on, states that the purpose of the edition was ‘det rent praktiske’
(‘the entirely practical’), that is, to spread the current lawtext. Ghemen
chose a young manuscript, apparently without much critical judgement.
In principle he followed its text as far as he understood it – the devia-
tions are mainly orthographical (Frederiksen 2001, 118).
Ghemen’s edition thus could be classified as a pre-critical edition, in
which the main ambition was not to present a better or more authentic
text than the existing texts, but simply to further the spreading of the
work. The four editions I will take a closer look at, by contrast, were not
so motivated. The first of them appeared in 1676, commissioned as a de
luxe edition by Johan Hadorph, the Swedish secretary in the Swedish
College of Antiquities (Antikvitetskollegium). Thereafter it was not until
1853 that the Dane P.G. Thorsen published an edition of the Scania Law
in his edition of the Danish laws. In 1859, this was followed by Carl
Johan Schlyter’s edition of Sweriges Gamla Lagar (‘Sweden’s Ancient Law
Texts’), where the Scania Law occupied volume 9. A new scholarly edi-
tion appeared in 1933 in the first volume of Danmarks Gamle Lands-
kabslove (‘Denmark’s Ancient Province Laws’).
From the time that Sweden won Scania in 1658, in other words,
Sweden and Denmark have fought a long drawn out tug-o’-war over the
right to the Scania Law, practically as if it were that province’s deed of
ownership. In fact, when the territorial wars over Scania ended, the sym-
bolic war over the right to Scania’s history was only just beginning.
Hadorph’s edition of 1676 was a prop to the Kingdom of Sweden’s
ambition to annect and ‘swedify’ the new-won province. His preface
opens quite frankly: ‘Skåne hafwer af äldste tijderne warit en Ledamot af
Götharijket/ hwilket sina Råmärke hafwer mitt uthi Öresund’ (‘Scania
has since the earliest times been part of the realm of the Goths, whose
borderline goes through the middle of the Öresund’). In this way the
edition was put in the service of a tendentious writing of Swedish his-
tory.
When Hadorph’s edition came out, the Scania Law was actually still
the current law in Scania – Swedish law was introduced only five years
later. There was of course a strong symbolism in the fact that the Law’s
text was published in Stockholm, and Hadorph’s edition is also a declara-
96 Paula Henrikson
4
‘The old Scania Law, which was applied in ancient times, and now is fair-copied
scrupulously from an old parchment, compared with newer codices and thus im-
proved, as is noted on the next page, and is published at the expense of His Royal
Majesty’.
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 97
to the capital of Sweden, as the big power it then was, and Hadorph
emphasised with satisfaction that the like of this manuscript was hardly
to be found in Denmark. About its language he says that it is ‘renare och
åldrigare än i the senare Manuscriptis, ja aldeles lijkt med thet gambla
Göthiske Språket/ som i Götharijkes Laghböckerne finnes’ (‘purer and
older than in the later manuscripts, indeed altogether like the old Gothic
language, as it can be found in the laws of the Goths’) – in the Danish
edition from 1505, however, the language is ‘mera fördanskat’ (‘more
“danified”’; Hadorph 1676, n.p.).
The antiquarian desire to reproduce an older rather than a younger
manuscript corresponds fully to Hadorph’s patriotic ambition: the lan-
guage of the older Danish manuscript was of course closer to the Swed-
ish language than a younger manuscript could be. Frederiksen has
pointed out, though, that the fidelity to the text is not bigger in
Hadorph’s edition than in Ghemen’s (Frederiksen 2001, 121). Among
the alterations Frederiksen registers is the repeated shift of æ as final
vowel to a, which might be interpreted as an attempt to adjust the lan-
guage in a Swedish direction. Hadorph’s message is that the Scania Law
is Swedish, its language is Swedish, and its rightful overlord is the Swed-
ish King.
The patriotic resonances in Hadorph’s big-power-oriented edition
were of course typical of their day. It is symptomatic, nonetheless, that
when the Scania Law was edited again, this time by the Dane P.G.
Thorsen in 1853, the introduction opened with an echo in the same
spirit: ‘Skånes gamle Provindslov, hvis Sprog er den ældste Dansk,
står ved sit Indhold i et meget nært Forhold, på forskjellig Måde, såvel til
den gamle sællandske Lov som til Valdemar den andens jydske Lov’.5 By
assigning the language of the law to ‘the oldest Danish’ and pointing out
the Danish legal tradition as the relevant context, Thorsen not only re-
plies to Hadorph’s attempt to ‘swedify’ the law. He also places the law in
the history of linguistics, in accordance with the revolutionary achieve-
ments of the early nineteenth century in that field. In his Forsøg til en
videnskabelig dansk Retskrivningslære med Hensyn til Stamsproget og Nabosproget
(‘An attempt at a scientific theory of Danish spelling, with regard to the
root language and the neighbouring language’, 1826), Rasmus Rask had
5
Thorsen 1853, 1: ‘Scania’s old province law, whose language is the oldest Danish,
is in its content closely related, in many ways, both to the old Själland law and to the
Jylland law of Valdemar the Second’.
98 Paula Henrikson
singled out the language of the Scania Law as precisely ‘den ældste Dansk’
(‘the oldest Danish’, 107), and Thorsen could thus on scientific grounds
dismiss Hadorph’s politically rather than scientifically motivated view on
the language of the Scania Law.6
Thorsen underscores at the same time that the moment has come for
the Danes, too, to make a bid on behalf of this ‘ærværdige og vigtige
fædrelandske Monument’ (‘glorius and important national monument’).
Fortunately, he continues, a manuscript happens to exist which is older
than the one Hadorph edited. Even though Hadorph’s manuscript is
very old, he writes, ‘står den dog i Alder tilbage for det berömte Rune-
håndskrift af Loven’.7 He dates this runic manuscript, Codex Runicus,
which was brought to Copenhagen by Arne Magnusson, to the second
half of the 13th century and uses it as the base text for his edition.
Thus for Thorsen, too, antiquity is the weightiest argument: the Co-
penhagen manuscript shall by its very age silence the self-important
Stockholmers. The fact that it was written in runes gave an extra aura to
Thorsen’s native ward, and it was not without a certain mythification that
he enlarged upon the function, significance and ‘ædle og naturlige Stil’
(‘noble and natural style’) in the Codex Runicus (ibid., 8). Unhappily
enough, however, the runic manuscript had a major lacuna which in one
way or another had to be filled in. Thorsen states that Hadorph’s manu-
script would have been the most desirable source of reference, yet, ‘da
den er svensk Ejendom, vilde jeg slet ikke anholde om den’ (‘since it is in
Swedish possession, I did not even wish to seek permission to use it’. He
explains this decision by declaring that he does not wish to anticipate the
contemporary effort by Schlyter to edit the law in his edition of Sweriges
Gamla Lagar (ibid., 13). Therefore, Thorsen filled the gap instead from a
much younger Copenhagen manuscript – a compromise that in the first
place, no doubt, had practical reasons, but which at the same time gives
evidence of the lack of cooperation between the neighbouring countries
in the editorial enterprise.
The rivalry was loaded as to which manuscript was the oldest, the so-
called B76 in Stockholm or Codex Runicus in Copenhagen, and the
competing claims were to remain controversial in the editions of the
Scania Law. The two existing Swedish editions are based on B76 in
6
Many thanks to Britta Olrik Frederiksen, who called my attention to this connec-
tion between Thorsen and Rask.
7
Thorsen 1853, 3: ‘it must yield as to age to the law’s old runic manuscript’.
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 99
Stockholm. The two Danish ones both accept Codex Runicus in Copen-
hagen as the oldest and best manuscript. In each individual case careful
scholarly considerations no doubt lie behind the editorial decisions, yet
from a bird’s-eye perspective this division is inevitably seen to spring
from a sense of editorial scholarship whose task is assumed to be an
affirmation of the primary right of access of one’s own nation to the
Scania Law.
Carl Johan Schlyter’s edition of the Scania Law followed in 1859, only
six years after Thorsen’s, but it constituted a qualitative leap in terms
both of theory and of methodology.8 While the frame of reference legiti-
mising Thorsen’s edition was still a late romantic nostalgia for the old
Nordic heritage, Schlyter’s edition by contrast is an early representative
of the kind of historicism that was to gain ground in the latter half of the
19th century. For Schlyter, the aura surrounding the runic hand has
simply become a matter of ridicule. His legitimising strategy lies instead
in an astonishingly modern sense of scholarship. Schlyter is not only the
originator of the first stemma known in the history of textual scholarship
(presented in the edition of 1827 of the Västgöta Law); he is also aware
of the need for meticulously compiled inventories of all extant manu-
scripts. In his introductions, moreover, his arguments are based on vari-
ants, communal error, watermarks and press variants. These introduc-
tions, not least for the reason that they explicitly reflect upon his own
editorial principles, are prone to run to the length of some 200 pages.
Schlyter’s consistency of method was innovative, but it should be
noted that his scholarly attitude did by no means get in the way of an
outspoken patriotism. The fact that Scania belonged to Denmark when
the law was instituted ‘har varit mig bekant allt sedan min barndom’ (‘is
something I have known ever since my childhood’), Schlyter asserts. Yet
he offers three reasons for nonetheless perceiving the Scania Law at
home among Sweden’s province laws. In the first place, the provinces in
which it was valid law have ever and again been under Swedish rule and
therefore share the same legal tradition as the Swedish laws, he declares;
secondly, he claims that the law’s diction and the diction of the Swedish
laws all must be considered dialects of the same language, and thirdly –
8
On this, see Holm 1972, 48–80, esp. 60: ‘I have no hesitation in maintaining that
already in 1827 Schlyter had complete theoretical and practical command of the
methods now accepted in modern stemma construction, including the rule of commu-
nal and distinctive error.’
100 Paula Henrikson
and above all – Scania does now belong to Sweden (Schlyter 1859,
CLXII–CLXIII). Schlyter’s argument that the three provinces in question,
Scania, Blekinge and Halland, ‘af naturen äro sammanbundna med
Sverige’ (‘by nature are bound up with Sweden’) is also recurrent in
Swedish arguing, not least in the contradictory Swedish attempts to com-
bine Scandinavism and patriotism in the 1890’s (cf. Zander 1999,
12–30). This reference to ‘natural borders’ appealed to the notion of
societies and nations as objectively given by nature and God, rather than
as being human constructions.
Age and origin carry positive connotations for those who value
manuscripts. The same notions are implicit, too, when the Swedish edi-
tors argue for Sweden’s right to the Scania Law. Schlyter speaks of the
Danish ‘språkförbistring’ (‘corruptions of the language’) and the lack of
‘renare språk’ (‘purer language’) in old Danish manuscripts – the early
dissolution of the conjugational system becomes an index for the degen-
erative departure of Danish from the common Nordic origins, better
preserved in Swedish. In fact, they have been particularly well preserved
in Schlyter’s edition of the Scania Law – for his establishment of the text
is archaising in such a way that he repeatedly corrects the manuscript text
where it does not show the right, that is: the ancient, conjugational forms
(Brøndum-Nielsen 1917, 127). It is true that, with his famous accuracy,
he records his every emendation, but the result is nonetheless an estab-
lished, privileged, text, leaning more towards Old Swedish than the
manuscript warrants. By way of this archaising, Schlyter proves his con-
tention that Scania is by rights a Swedish province. Schlyter’s edition thus
manifests the thesis Allen J. Franzen has argued for in his monograph
Desire for Origins (1990):
The search for origins is never disinterested; those wishing to trace an idea
or tradition to its historical, linguistic, and textual beginnings have always
done so with a thesis in mind, and the origin they have found has often
been an origin they have produced.9
9
Frantzen 1990, xii. Further: ‘My attempt to define history and textual criticism
within the context of reception and reproduction is designed to emphasize the subjec-
tivity inherent in both scholarly practices. The technical nature of historiography and
textual criticism has sometimes caused both to be understood as objective. Yet it is
obvious that, just as history requires a writer to reconstruct the story being told,
textual criticism requires a scholar to reconstruct the text to be read – not just to
“edit” it, but to do so within a specific, reconstructive, and hence interpretive, frame-
work. To call either practice ‘objective’ is to forget its hermeneutic function.’
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 101
10
Frantzen 1990, xiii: ‘My thesis – and thus my own reason for seeking the origin
of Anglo-Saxon studies – is that engagement with political controversy has always
been a distinctive and indeed an essential motive for studying language origins and
therefore for studying Anglo-Saxon.’
102 Paula Henrikson
of a pre-scholarly nature. For the most part, all mention of the editors’
motivations had thus meanwhile to be relegated to prefaces and other
forms of more personally reflective paratexts. But even so, one should
note the logotype on the flyleaf: it displays yet again the three lions from
the Danish crest that once adorned Ghemen’s edition.
Though this is only a summary survey of the Scania Law’s editorial
history, it still permits drawing a few conclusions. On every level – from
the material one concerned with the book’s physical appearance, via
prefaces and introductions, to the choice of base text, editorial emenda-
tion and the establishment of the edited texts, we may discern just how
the editions have been shaped in relation to the symbolically charged law
text. The editions become building blocks towards the building of na-
tions – and seen from an historical perspective, it is precisely such a
function that textual editing has generally assumed as one of its central
tasks. It was by no means fortuitous, for example, that the romantic ideas
about the emergence of the nations coincided with the most significant
phase of expansion of the modern philologies – but that is another story.
I wish to conclude with a closer look at the notions my paper has
been meant to illustrate: namely, the editor’s preconceptions and preju-
dices. Hans-Georg Gadamer’s attempts to re-instate these notions takes
a stand against rationalism’s belief in rationality. The belief in ‘rational-
ity’s absolute self-construction’ according to Gadamer shuts its eyes to
the insight that whoever wishes to comprehend a text always already has
something in common with it.
‘Belonging to a tradition’ is in Gadamer’s view therefore a ‘condition
of hermeneutics’; indeed, such preconception is for him in fact ‘the most
basic of all hermeneutic preconditions’. This pre-existing bond with a
common tradition in its turn leads the interpreter to pre-conceive the
text’s meaning, or the text’s ‘perfection’, Vollkommenheit. Gadamer writes:
So machen wir denn diese Voraussetzung der Vollkommenheit immer,
wenn wir einen Text lesen, und erst wenn diese Voraussetzung sich als
unzureichend erweist, d. h. der Text nicht verständlich wird, zweifeln wir an
der Überlieferung und suchen zu erraten, wie sie zu heilen ist. Die Regeln,
die wir bei solchen textkritischen Überlegungen befolgen, können hier
beiseite bleiben. Worauf es ankommt, ist auch hier, daß ihre rechte An-
wendung nicht von dem inhaltlichen Verständnis ablösbar ist.11
11
Gadamer 1990, 296, 299; for the English translation, Gadamer 1989, 291, 294:
‘So when we read a text we always assume its completeness, and only when this as-
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 103
This is one of the few instances where Gadamer explicitly talks about the
activity of textual criticism; and it is hardly surprising that he relates it to
an understanding of content. But it is not least in terms of the task of
textual criticism that Gadamer’s reasoning is dubious, and this is not just
because he leaves aside its ‘rules’. Rather, our discussion of the Scania
Law prompts two pressing questions: in the first place, is Gadamer’s
view not in fact seriously reductive, narrowing textual criticism, as it
does, to a mere instrument of power to restore the text in harmony with
our expectations? And secondly, how can one within Gadamer’s system
ever break with a reductive and oppressive tradition?
What makes the Scania Law an instructive example of the role that
preconception plays in textual editing is the fact that it has been shown
to belong within not just one, but two traditions. Since both Swedes and
Danes claim the text, both traditions become mutually revelatory: the
one brings out the blind spots in the other. The kind of preconception
that in other editions is an implicit and opaque precondition for a text’s
adoption, thereby becomes explicit and transparent. This is why I would
also suggest that the mechanisms that the Scania Law reveals are not
exceptions, but the rule. The Scania Law makes processes visible which
otherwise usually remain invisible.
The circumstance that the Scania Law belongs to two traditions
shows how unstable the categories are that control understanding. When
Gadamer names ‘the text’s perfection’ as the point of origin of textual
criticism, he allows for but a single tradition enveloping us all that makes
understanding possible and legitimises text-critical decisions. It would
seem, in fact, as if ultimately but the abstract notion of tradition remained
as the only active principle in his hermeneutics – yet he does not give the
interpreter, in this case the textual critic, a chance of breaking with his or
her tradition. On the contrary, the intrusion of textual criticism becomes
the ultimate tool to prevent tradition from losing its grip on the text. This
is textual criticism as the exercise of power – and from this perspective,
a pluralism of traditions were not only a challenge, but above all a salva-
tion.
sumption proves mistaken – i.e., the text is not intelligible – do we begin to suspect
the text and try to discover how it can be remedied. The rules of such textual criticism
can be left aside, for the important thing to note is that applying them properly de-
pends on understanding the content.’
104 Paula Henrikson
12
Martens 1991, 19: ‘Die historisch-kritische Ausgabe hätte danach gerade ihre
eigentliche Aufgabe darin, gegen Anpassung und vorschnellen Abbau des für uns
abweichend Erscheinenden den geheimen Widersinn des Kunstwerks, seine konsti-
tutive Fremdheit freizulegen.’
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 105
ment, das monologisch sein zeitloses Wesen offenbart. Es ist vielmehr wie
eine Partitur auf die immer erneuerte Resonanz der Lektüre angelegt, die
den Text aus der Materie der Worte erlöst und ihn zu aktuellem Dasein
bringt (...)13
To ‘free the text from the substance of the words’ is for Jauß a metaphor
for the power of reading to give the works of literature a renewed pres-
ence. But Jauß can be much more radically conceived. To speak of the
shifting faces of the literary work is not to speak in metaphor, but of a
physical reality, and the texts’ ‘substance’ is not invariant, just as little as
is the literary work itself. Scholarly editing is a material expression of the
historical transformations of literature.
The editor of a text does not arrest this transformation. The editor
does not – as he or she sometimes believes – remove textual variation or
instability. On the contrary, editions engender added variation, as they
give a new face to the edited text. This is the law of entropy, applied to
editorial scholarship: an editor never creates greater order, but only con-
tributes to the accretive disorder. Or, expressed more optimistically: text-
critical knowledge is accumulative, not definitive.14
References
Aarsleff, Hans. 1985. Scholarship and Ideology. Joseph Bédier’s Critique of
Romantic Medievalism. In Historical Studies and Literary Criticism, ed. Jerome
J. McGann, 93–113. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Brøndum-Nielsen, Johs. 1917. Danske lovhåndskrifter og dansk lovsprog i den
ældre middelalder. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 34: 105–37.
Frantzen, Allen J., 1990. Desire for Origins. New Language, Old English, and Teaching
the Tradition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Frederiksen, Britta Olrik. 2001. Om udgivelse af gammeldanske håndskrifter i
500 år – en skitse. Collegium Medievale 14: 115–40.
13
Jauß 1970, 171ff.: ‘A literary work is not an object which stands by itself and
which offers the same face to each reader in each period. It is not a monument which
reveals its timeless essence in a monologue. It is much more like an orchestration
which strikes ever new chords among its readers and which frees the text from the
substance of the words and makes it meaningful for the time’ (Jauß 1970-71: 10).
14
This article was prepared during a stay as a guest scholar at the Institut for
Nordiske Studier og Sprogvidenskab at the University of Copenhagen, funded by
Stiftelsen för internationalisering av högre utbildning och forskning i Sverige (STINT). I wish to
thank STINT, as well as my contact at the institute, Johnny Kondrup. Finally, I also
wish to thank Hans Walter Gabler, for valuable help with the English language.
106 Paula Henrikson
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. Truth and Method. 2nd ed.., trl. Joel Weinsheimer
& Donald G. Marshall; London: Sheed and Ward.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen
Hermeneutik (1960). Tübingen: Mohr.
Greetham, D. C. 1993. Editorial and Critical Theory. From Modernism to
Postmodernism. In Palimpsest. Editorial Theory in the Humanities, ed. George
Bornstein & Ralph G. Williams, 9–28. Ann Arbor:: University of Michigan
Press.
Hadorph, Johan, ed. 1676. Then Gambla Skåne Lagh/ Som i forna Tijder hafwer
brukat warit/ Och nu Aff ett Gammalt Pergamentz MS.to med flijt uthskrifwin/
Medh Nyare Codicibus jempnförd och förbättrat/ som på nästfölliande Blad finnes
antecknat/ Sampt Medh Hans Kongl. May:s Bekostnat uplagd. Stockholm.
Holm, Gösta. 1972. Carl Johan Schlyter and Textual Scholarship. Saga och Sed.
Kungl. Gustav Adolf Akademiens Årsbok, 48–80.
Hær begynnes skonskæ logh paa ræth danskæ, och ær skifft i xvij bøgher oc hwer bogh
haffuer sith register. ok ær wæl offuer seeth och rættelighe corrigeret. 1505.
Kiøbenhaffn.
Jauß, Hans Robert. 1970. Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literatur-
wissenschaft. In Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, 144–207. Frankfurt/M:
Suhrkamp.
Jauß, Hans Robert. 1970–71. Literary History as a Challenge to Literary The-
ory. New Literary History 2: 7–37.
Lindroth, Sten. 1975. Svensk lärdomshistoria, vol. 2 (Stormaktstiden). Stockholm:
Norstedts.
Martens, Gunter. 1991. ‘Historisch’, ‘kritisch’ und die Rolle des Herausgebers
bei der Textkonstitution. Editio. Iinternationales Jahrbuch für Editionswissenschaft
5: 12–27.
McGann, Jerome J. 1985. The Monks and the Giants. Textual and Bibliographi-
cal Studies and the Interpretation of Literary Works. In Textual Criticism and
Literary Interpretation, ed. Jerome J. McGann, 180–199. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Montrose, Louis A. 1989. Professing the Renaissance. The Poetics and Politics
of Culture. In The New Historicism, ed. H. Aram Veeser, 15–36. London:
Routledge.
Rask, Rasmus, 1826. Forsøg til en videnskabelig dansk Retskrivningslære med Hensyn til
Stamsproget og Nabosproget. København.
Schlyter, Carl Johan (ed.). 1859 Corpus iuris sueo-gotorum antiqui. Samling af Sweriges
gamla lagar, på kongl. maj:ts nådigste befallning utgifven, bd 9 (Skåne-Lagen, med
ärkebiskopens i Lund Andreas Sunessons latinska bearbetning, skånska kyrkrätten
och stadsrätten, samt åtskilliga stadgar för Skåne). Stockholm.
Schück, Henrik. 1932. Minne af Johan Hadorph. Svenska Akademiens Handlingar
ifrån år 1886 43: 71–335.
Shillingsburg, Peter. 1997. Resisting Texts. Authority and Submission in Constructions
of Meaning. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
SCANIA PROVINCE LAW AND NATION-BUILDING IN SCANDINAVIA 107
Taylor, Gary. 1994. The Rhetorics of Reaction. In Crisis in Editing. Texts of the
English Renaissance, ed. Randall M. Leod, 19–41. New York: AMS.
Thorsen, P. G. (ed.). 1853. Skånske Lov og Eskils skånske Kirkelov, tilligemed
Andreæ Sunonis lex Scaniæ prouincialis, skånske Arvebog og det tilbageværende af
Knud den 6.s og Valdemar den 2.s Lovgivning vedkommende skånske Lov. Kjøben-
havn.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von. 1907. Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie.
Berlin: Weidmann.
Zander, Ulf. 1999. Hur stort är fäderneslandet? Skånsk historia och dansk-
svenska gränser från sekelslut till sekelslut. Ale. Historisk tidskrift för Skåne,
Halland och Blekinge 3: 12–30.
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 109-128
Mary-Ann Constantine
Abstract
This chapter explores a formative moment in the history of Welsh
literature and philology: the publication, between 1801 and 1807, of
three volumes of medieval Welsh-language texts known as the
Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales. Now generally discredited as the product
of misguided Romantic-era enthusiasm, the Myvyrian was a respected
and respectable companion for writers and scholars in Wales and
beyond during most of the nineteenth century, and it helped shape a
vision of ‘Welshness’ still recognisable today. It repays closer scrutiny,
both as a work of scholarship and for its contribution to incipient
Welsh nationalism. Moreover, the story of its compilation by three
very different men – a compelling mixture of endeavour, generosity
and deviousness – is as much a part of Welsh literary history as the
publication itself.
1
La Villemarqué 1850, ii-iii: ‘But alas, the gardens of these Celtic Hesperides, now
so graciously open to those who know how to touch their fruits without spoiling them,
were at the time guarded as fiercely as if by fabled dragons: (...) what hope of entry,
then, for a poor peasant? Realizing that money alone would provide him with the
dragon-vanquishing golden bough, his very love for his country forced him to bid that
country farewell, and he made his way to London, where he found employment in a
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 111
fur merchant’s shop in Thames Street. Here he worked his way up from apprentice to
become, at the death of the proprietor, head of the firm, and for forty long years he
saved day by day, shilling by shilling, the necessary amount to have copied and then
printed the texts of the ancient British poems; encouraged in this enterprise by a few
friends, who were, like himself, exiled from their native soil, and like himself were
often moved to tears at the thought of their homeland, hardened and provoked by the
unfair prohibitions, the insulting doubts, and the vulgar jests which foreigners directed
against the bards, he published these texts, in 1801, under the title of the Welsh
Archaiology of Myfyr, or the Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales.’
2
The Honourable Society of the Cymmrodorion (lit. ‘earliest inhabitants’) was
founded in London in 1751 by Richard and Lewis Morris with an essentially antiquar-
ian remit; the Gwyneddigion (lit. ‘men of Gwynedd’), founded in 1770 with Owain
Myfyr as its first President, had a more eclectic membership and a more radical tone.
3
Williams 1926: xvi: ‘bydd ein llên a’n hanes am oes neu ddwy eto cyn byddant lân
o ôl ei ddwylo halog ef’.
112 Mary-Ann Constantine
underground streams, and all of Iolo’s works are now suspect. They
include, of course, large parts of The Myvyrian Archaiology, over which he
laboured for many years, tracking down and copying out manuscripts,
and sending texts – but how many of them reliable? – to his colleagues
in London. The first decades of the twentieth century saw a fierce rejec-
tion of Welsh Romantic scholarship, a return to sources, to new schol-
arly editions, and the cultivation of that scrupulousness bordering on
mania which becomes one of the hallmarks of modern academic Celtic
studies. The Myvyrian Archaiology, a standard text for nineteenth-century
writers, fell out of favour.
Two centuries on, and standing a good long way back from the
source, the patterns made by the interconnecting streams, complex as
they are, seem rather clearer: it becomes easier to pick out the roles of
the three editors of the compilation and the relative proportions of their
scholarly endeavour, zeal and deception. It is also easier to situate the
nature of their scholarship within a broader cultural context, both British
and European – a broader context which, incidentally, includes La
Villemarqué’s own somewhat dubious role in transferring (or, as he
would have it, repatriating) part of that Brittonic legacy to Brittany.4 The
story of the genesis of The Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales is a useful lens
through which to focus some of these wider concerns, and it really does
not need dragons and golden apples to make it interesting.
Eighteenth-century Wales was witness to a huge surge in published
works, yet in many respects, even by the end of the century, it was still
very much a manuscript culture: most people still copied out or learned
each other’s poems, and the collecting and copying of early manuscripts
was far from an elite antiquarian pursuit (McKenna 2005). Yet as the
traditional ways of sustaining cultural knowledge crumbled there was a
growing sense of a need to rescue the written debris of the past: the old
system of bardic patronage was by now virtually defunct and Welsh
gentry looked increasingly to England to educate their sons. Old Welsh
books and papers had ceased to be valued and many perished. By the
middle of the century efforts had begun to stem the tide of neglect: an
energetic circle of writers and scholars around the Morris brothers of
Anglesey became involved in recovering manuscripts and encouraging
4
La Villemarqué’s relations with Wales and his use of The Myvyrian Archaiology are
discussed in Constantine 2007, 143-98. For a comprehensive introduction to Iolo’s life
and work see Jenkins 2005.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 113
new authors (cf. Morgan 1981, Herbert & Jones 1988). They began to
assess the holdings of the various estate libraries and other private collec-
tions, they chased priceless medieval manuscripts still being passed casu-
ally around by hand, and they copied them, creating a sizeable collection
which would come to be held in the Welsh Charity School at London.
The Morrises’ protégé, the unlucky, drink-prone cleric Evan Evans
(‘Ieuan Fardd’), was one of the greatest and most dogged collectors of
Welsh manuscripts. He it was who rediscovered the early heroic poem Y
Gododdin, now the immovable cornerstone of any Welsh literature course:
its belated addition to the canon offers a neat parallel to England’s long
wait for its own literary ‘beginnings’ in Beowulf, first published in 1825.
In 1764 Evan Evans published Some Specimens of the Poetry of the Antient
Welsh Bards, a selection of texts in Welsh, with some English translations
and a Latin dissertation on Welsh literature. Specimens was aimed for the
first time at a readership outside Wales, and was conceived, at least
partly, as a kind of sobering response to Macpherson’s Ossian: the tone is
scholarly, defensive.5 Evans’s work was an important turning point, but
it did not go far enough: a generation later there was continuing corro-
sive fall-out from the Ossian controversy, and attacks on all things Celtic
by the ‘Gothic’ apologist John Pinkerton left Wales still driven by the
need to defend both the age and reliability of Welsh tradition. One
senses, in Welsh scholarly circles, an indignation born of insecurity, a
fear of being misunderstood. Establishing a verifiable and venerable
literary history, far earlier than anything the Saxons could boast, would
also be some consolation at Wales’s effective loss of prestige within an
English-speaking ‘Britain’ rapidly consolidating its power-base in Lon-
don – the Ancient Britons, after all, undisputably spoke Welsh. Such
considerations make the publication of the Myvyrian or something like it
seem inevitable: in actual practice, given the characters involved in its
genesis and the difficulties they faced, it is rather miraculous that it ever
happened at all.
By the 1770s Owain Myfyr was doing well in the fur-trade in Lon-
don.6 Iolo Morganwg first made contact with him there in 1773-4, when
he went to find work as a stonecutter. Myfyr, always responsive to fellow
5
For the Welsh reaction to the Ossian phenomenon see Constantine 2004 and
Constantine 2007, 85-128.
6
The most thorough account of Owain Myfyr’s life to date is the unpublished PhD
thesis Phillips 2006. Cf also Phillips 2005.
114 Mary-Ann Constantine
7
William Owen inherited property from a kinsman in 1806 and took the name
‘Pughe’ in recognition of the bequest. For an account of his life (in Welsh) see Carr
1983, also Carr 2005.
8
Jones and Pughe 1789. Iolo’s forgeries are analysed by G. J. Williams 1926.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 115
9
See Phillips in Jenkins 2005, 403-423.
116 Mary-Ann Constantine
and copying material for the ‘Welsh Archaiology’, which was now, after
several false starts, seriously underway.10 Myfyr, in fact, would have
preferred to have had Iolo in London helping William Owen Pughe with
the huge task of editing the reams of material they already possessed, but
Iolo (who had suffered a nervous breakdown in London in 1792) re-
sisted all attempts to lure him back. He did things very much his own
way, travelling on foot all over Wales, sometimes covering thirty or forty
miles a day, and effectively disappearing for weeks on end. Anxious
letters from Pughe and Myfyr, often sending him money, chased him
from county to county; he did not always bother to reply. Nor did the
treasures he discovered on his travels always correspond to their list of
desiderata for the great edition; a box full of historical material which
was urgently needed in London languished for several months in Bristol
while Iolo turned his mind to what he felt was the far more pressing
business of collecting (and, be it said, manufacturing) ancient Welsh
proverbs (Phillips 2006, 417-418).
Politics played its disruptive part as well. After several fruitful ses-
sions copying manuscripts in the great library at Hafod in Ceredigion
there was a marked cooling of relations between Iolo and the landowner
Thomas Johnes, when, as William Owen Pughe put it, ‘some body must
have insinuated something to him respecting your kingophobia’;11 in
Llanrwst Iolo met with aggressive opposition to their ‘little pitiful con-
cern (...) of printing some inconsiderable portions of the works of the
Welsh bards on a very narrow scale’ by a rival group who claimed that
Myfyr and his men would only publish ‘democratical stuff’.12 There was
an element of truth in this. Although the Myvyrian, a sober edition of
texts, claimed no overt political agenda, Iolo’s revolutionary brand of
bardic nationalism had already infiltrated many of the pieces he would
supply to Pughe and Myfyr. His 1794 collection of verse in English,
Poems, Lyric and Pastoral, set out a vision of the ancient British past whose
political and religious principles were directly opposed to the restrictive
rule of Pitt’s government; a couple of years earlier William Owen
Pughe’s equally innocuously-titled The Heroic Elegies and Other Pieces of
Llywarç Hen had carried a lengthy and learned introductory account of the
ceremonies and beliefs of the British bards which again owed almost
10
Iolo’s travels are tracked in detail by Phillips 2006, 190-211.
11
William Owen Pughe to Iolo Morganwg, 14 June 1799. Correspondence nr. 504.
12
Iolo Morganwg to Owen Jones, 22 July 1799. Correspondence nr. 510.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 117
13
‘E.B.’ 1710, 3 (this work is sometimes attributed to Ned Ward). For an assess-
ment of the Myvyrian as a turning point in Welsh scholarship see Williams 1966.
14
For two draft versions of this work see Charnell-White 2007, 172-181 and 181-
201.
118 Mary-Ann Constantine
ume contained prose works, histories, law texts and saints’ lives. Transla-
tions were not included, but each volume bears an index giving names
and dates of the known authors, and an indication of the manuscript
provenance of variant versions. The editorial principle, set out in an
English introduction to the whole work, was ‘to give these ancient manu-
scripts with the most scrupulous fidelity, as we find them’ (MAW 1: xix)
The first two volumes appeared in 1801; there was then a significant
delay before the third, and most controversial, volume appeared in 1807
– a year after the editorial triumvirate had effectively collapsed. A fourth
proposed volume, to have contained the texts of the prose romances and
native tales, never saw the light of day.
The contents of the third volume are, for present purposes, the most
interesting. Advertised as a ‘collection of aphorisms, proverbs, ethical
triads, legislative triads, laws, and music’, it presents a rich mixture of
what might be called foundational texts – material pertaining to the early
stages of a national self-definition, both legal (the official structuring of
society) and characteristic (defining the innate character of the people).
They perfectly express Joep Leerssen’s notion of ‘a single primitive eth-
nic self-invention and self-articulation’ deriving ultimately from Vico,
and have many European parallels: one might compare the manuscript
‘discovered’ in Zelená Hora in 1819, which ‘cast much light on the pri-
mal practices of Czech justice, political counsel and communal organiza-
tion’.15 The nature of the contents of the third volume is announced in
the title-page quotation:
Tri dyben addysg a chôv: gwybyddu, diwallu, a dyddanu
The three objects of instruction and record:
to convey knowledge, to supply defects, and to give pleasure
Of the three, that middle verb gives most pause for thought: the typically
eighteenth-century ‘supply defects’, meaning to correct, is given in Welsh
as diwallu – literally, to remove or erase error. As Gwyneth Lewis has
shown, the concept of revision was central to Iolo’s perception of his
bardic role, expressing itself on both a spiritual and an editorial level as a
licence to improve.16 Little wonder, then, that this volume of the Myvyrian
has been both the most influential, and the most reviled.
15
See Leerssen’s introduction to this volume; also Evans 2005, 58.
16
Lewis 1991, 232.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 119
The most widely-used texts in the third volume were undoubtedly the
Triads (‘Trioedd’ in Welsh), remnants of a mnemonic system used by
Welsh bards and other professionals to classify historical, poetic and
other instructive material. Many are genuine (or at least pre-Iolo) texts,
sequences of elliptical, three-line verses, often tantalizing in their refer-
ences to names and narratives partially or completely forgotten:
Three Exalted Prisoners of the Island of Britain:
Llír Half-Speech, who was imprisoned by Euroswydd,
and the second, Mabon son of Modron,
and third, Gwair son of Gweiriodd.17
For many antiquarians, the triads were a form crying out for interpreta-
tion – for expansion and clarification. It was a form Iolo made his own,
and long before work began on The Myvyrian Archaiology he had expanded
or coined dozens of sequences to cover all eventualities: religion, philos-
ophy, history, law and the early stages of Welsh civilization. (As he
would remark disingenuously to the Ossianophile Robert Macfarlan in
1804: ‘to forge with any hopes of success in the Erse it would not do to
fabricate an Ossian, or any thing else alone, you must forge in all the
unavoidably concomitant branches of literary knowlege, at least in a great
many of them’).18 The triads provided a platform for his ‘culture heroes’,
characters pulled from the meagre sources into whom he breathed new
life: Hu Gadarn, the ploughman-king who first taught the Welsh their
system of Vocal Song; the wise ruler Prydain fab Aedd; the bards
Plennydd, Alawn and Gwron, all of them founding fathers of a culture
which could be traced back to the Biblical patriarchs.19 One of the most
appealing figures is the early British law-giver Dyfnwal Moelmud
(Geoffrey of`Monmouth’s Dunwallo Moelmutius). Iolo’s ‘Moelmutian’
triads use legal language to evoke an ideal early British society, a kind of
Golden Age, under this legendary leader, while an essay amongst his
manuscripts extrapolates an entire world from what seem to be largely
his own invented texts.20 Thus Iolo’s triads, mixed, in the Myvyrian, with
17
Bromwich 2006, 146. Sequences of Iolo’s triads also appeared in the second
volume of the Myvyrian.
18
Iolo Morganwg to Robert Macfarlan, 6 June 1804. Correspondence nr. 692.
19
For a detailed account of Iolo’s manipulation of the traditional triads see
Bromwich 1969.
20
National Library of Wales MS 13088B, 63–78. Iolo’s ‘Moelmutian’ vision of a
just society seems, by a somewhat circuitous route, to have impressed Karl Marx. See
letters written to Engels in March 1868 and May 1870, Marx and Engels 1975-2005,
120 Mary-Ann Constantine
the genuine articles, became the principal medium of his fictive bardic
grand narrative – a body of knowledge handed down through (invariably
Catholic) periods of repression and intolerance to keep the flame of true
Christian understanding alight. They were immensely popular in the
nineteenth century, and won considerable attention on the Continent
from scholars like Ferdinand Walter, Claude Fauriel and Adolphe Pictet
– the latter thrilled to find premonitions of Kant and Leibniz in the
wisdom, as he thought, of the ancient Celts.21
But valuable echoes of ancient times might equally be found in the
humbler proverbs of the people, and the third volume of the Myvyrian
also became the repository for earthier voices from the past. Reams of
sayings attributed to wisdom figures like Catwg Ddoeth (‘Wise Catwg’),
or the Bardd Glas (the ‘Blue Bard’) encapsulate the spirit of the Welsh
people through time: the running title for this section of the book is
‘Doethineb y Cymry’ (‘the Wisdom of the Welsh’).22 The sayings and
proverbs listed in the Myvyrian appear, like other texts, without interpre-
tative or descriptive commentary, but a sense of what such pieces might
have meant to Iolo comes across very vividly in a letter he wrote to
Owain Myfyr in April 1800. It demonstrates to perfection the spirit of
zealous interpretation and the inevitable direction of its flow:
Amongst my collection of proverbs used in Glamorgan, there is one that is
singular enough: a person on receiving useful instructions, information, &c.,
says of his instructor by way of complimenting him, ‘Hyfforddwr a fydd
gorddwr’ [He who instructs will become a churner]. This proverb is pretty
common, but I have never yet met with a person who seemed to me to
understand it.
Noting that the saying is never used in a derogatory manner, he suggests:
42: 547 and 43: 515-516. I am much indebted to Brian Davies for this information.
21
See Löffler 2007, 82-3; Pictet 1856. For Fauriel’s interest in matters Welsh see
Constantine 2007, 145-7.
22
The sayings of ‘Catwg Ddoeth’ emerge from a complex process of muddled
substitutions (not all, it must be said, attributable to Iolo) as the Iolo-ized version of
the Disticha Catonis, or ‘Sayings of Cato’, a popular school-text across Europe in the
late medieval period. Iolo also claimed that the ‘Bardd Glas’ was the ‘Glasgerion’
mentioned in Chaucer’s House of Fame.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 121
23
For ‘cordd’ and ‘corddaf: corddi’, see the entries in the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru.
Although Iolo’s connection of the two would have seemed plausible enough, the
meaning ‘tribe, clan’ and the verb ‘to churn, agitate’ are not in fact related; nor has the
phrase in question been otherwise recorded. I am grateful to Andrew Hawke for this
information.
24
The word gwyddelod, as Iolo happily points out elsewhere, is also the Welsh word
for the Irish, and does indeed mean ‘dwellers in the woods’; there was little love lost
between Wales and Ireland during this period, which effectively predates the general
post-Romantic perceptions of Celtic-speakers bound together by a shared distant past
and ties of blood.
122 Mary-Ann Constantine
etry, through the triads, which were easily retained by the memory of
even the unlettered masses. Their enlightened, democratic – and, indeed,
Unitarian – doctrines could be recovered from both written and oral
sources, from the spoken proverbs he collected on his travels around
Wales (‘with all my ears open’, as he put it) as well as in the triads he
found in the libraries of the gentry or from ragged manuscripts passed
from hand to hand in smoky cottages:
From our ancient proverbs may be collected the sublimest truths of reli-
gion, the most refined precepts of morality, the happiest dictates of wisdom,
the most excellent maxims of prudence, the most elegant modes of expres-
sion, the neatest disposition, and the most rhythmical arrangement of the
words. They also throw great light on ancient usages and manners, and not
inconsiderably elucidate history.25
Such cryptic material was, inevitably, immensely rewarding to the eye of
faith, and where the necessary ideas failed to materialize Iolo could al-
ways provide them himself. His forgeries have long earned him the
opprobrium of medievalists, but, as Morfydd Owen has suggested, Iolo’s
fascination with the triads and his aptitude for coining them situate him
in a long line of antiquarians who, down the centuries, have preserved
and revitalized this distinctively Welsh genre (Owen 2007) Similarly
revisionist interpretations of other so-called forgers, James Macpherson
and Hersart de La Villemarqué among them, are now more inclined to
see them as transformative bearers, than betrayers, of their respective
traditions. I will return to the subject of forgery and betrayal at the end.
The putative fourth volume of The Myvyrian Archaiology is also of
interest. It was to have contained more medieval prose texts, those gen-
erally if somewhat erroneously known today as The Mabinogion, from the
title given them in 1838 by their translator, Lady Charlotte Guest. They
comprise a dozen or so stories from the fabulous native tales (including
the earliest Arthurian tale in Europe, and the complex interlinked narra-
tive of the Four Branches of the Mabinogi) through to the French-in-
flected chivalric romances. Since these much-discussed texts are now
often the first port of call for the new student of Welsh, and have come
to typify medieval Wales, their virtual absence from the literary landscape
of the time is worth noting. That absence was in part an accident of
circumstance: although various scholars, Sharon Turner and Sir Walter
25
Iolo Morganwg to Owain Myfyr, 17 June 1800. Correspondence, nr. 547.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 123
Scott among them, urged William Owen Pughe to publish the transla-
tions at which he had laboured long and hard, he died before they could
go to press.26 But it also reveals the relative prestige of poetry, history
and law at this period in the defining of a national culture: one may note
Iolo’s own objection to the notion of ‘fable’ (a word invariably associated
in his writings with the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth) and his claim
that prose was a far less reliable receptacle for ancient ‘truths’ than
verse.27
If the value of the Myvyrian’s edited texts has diminished with the
discovery of Iolo’s forgeries and advances in textual editing generally, its
English-language introduction, ‘A short review of the present state of
Welsh manuscripts’ has become more interesting with time. Iolo pro-
duced it after much nagging from Pughe and Myfyr (the first volume was
printed and waiting for ‘the flourish of a preface’ by August 1800: Iolo,
for various reasons both practical and psychological, did not manage to
write the piece until December).28 The essay went through many drafts
before appearing in its published version, and these drafts, preserved in
the huge and chaotic archive of Iolo’s manuscripts held at the National
Library of Wales, shed considerable light on the curiously pressured
atmosphere of the published piece: as I have said elsewhere (2007, 95), it
feels as if it has been written with clenched fists. Iolo defends the Welsh
manuscript tradition with vigour, stressing the abundance of manuscripts
dating from many different periods through which the ‘originals’ could
be traced; he gives the names of private collections and libraries, and a
brief history of previous scholarship, with the efforts of predecessors
such as Evan Evans duly acknowledged. The tone, however, is frequent-
ly angry and defensive, castigating both the English for their lack of
support and the Welsh upper classes for their lack of patriotic fervour
(‘these first-moving virtues, for such they certainly are, have almost
disappeared in Wales’, MAW 1: ix). There are moments of sudden ag-
gression:
Why Welsh Bibles were taken out of churches and burnt, as we have it
recorded, and English ones ordered to be used in the room of them, cannot
26
Parts of some of the tales did appear in the press. See Johnston 1957-58.
27
See especially his essay on the triads in his English collection, Williams 1794,
217-227. For Iolo’s ideas about orality and literacy see Constantine2007, 85-142.
28
William Owen Pughe to Iolo Morganwg, 28 August 1800; Iolo Morganwg to
William Owen Pughe, 19 December 1800. Correspondence, nrs. 561 and 570.
124 Mary-Ann Constantine
now be well known; we trust that, however hostile the politics of this coun-
try [i.e. England] were once towards our language, they have so far ceased
to be so, as to become absolutely indifferent about the matter. (MAW 1: x)
Such accusations hardly seem calculated to win over an audience new to
the Welsh material, nor, as Iolo expresses the hope elsewhere, to encour-
age sympathetic English scholars to learn the language. Subsequent
attempts to mollify his readers still fall some way short of expected levels
of urbanity: ‘We desire to be understood as speaking of past times, sin-
cerely hoping that those of the present will make amends before the
tribunal of the literary world’ (MAW 1: 10).
Another distinctive feature of the ‘Short review’ is the Ossian contro-
versy, strikingly absent from the published version but not from the
earlier drafts. Even in the awkwardly restrained published form it is an
obvious point of reference, the unnamed ‘imposture’ against which the
fidelity and reliability and historical depth of the Welsh tradition can be
measured. Ironically enough, the attacks on Ossian patently ventriloquize
comments made by James Macpherson’s arch-enemy, Samuel Johnson.
Thus Iolo does not merely adopt the position and basic assumptions of
Johnson concerning the Gaelic bard (including the erroneous claim that
there were no manuscripts in Scots Gaelic), but he echoes his very phras-
ing: ‘our bards’, says Iolo, ‘were not barbarians amongst barbarians; they
were men of letters (...) we talk not foolishly and incredibly of oral tradi-
tion’.29 Once again the emphasis is on Wales’s civilized early past, con-
ceived as everything that Ossian’s Scotland is not: literate, organized,
enhanced rather than destroyed by the Roman occupation, and assured
of continuity through the strength and continued presence of Welsh
itself: ‘our language, as some have imagined, is not altered’ (MAW 1:
xviii). In short, Iolo’s preface – an English-language introduction to a
collection of untranslated Welsh texts – is a tangle of resistance and
complicity, a gift for those interested in the paradoxes inherent (and
perhaps more intensely so amongst ‘minority’ cultures) in the struggle to
define national identity.
In a recent essay, Joep Leerssen (2006) sets out the case for the study of
a vast range of cultural artefacts – poems and novels, folk songs, dictio-
29
MAW 1: xviii. Compare Dr. Johnson (1775 2: 101): ‘He that cannot read may
converse with those that can; but the Bard was a barbarian among barbarians, who,
knowing nothing himself, lived with others that knew no more’.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 125
30
The federal University of Wales was founded in 1893; the National Museum and
the National Library (institutions of which Iolo had dreamed more than a century
previously) in 1907.
126 Mary-Ann Constantine
31
‘Rhodd y Cyhoeddwyr ag o law Iolo Morganwg i’r Parchedig Dderwyddfardd
Thomas Glynn Cothi’.
THE MYVYRIAN ARCHAIOLOGY OF WALES 127
our fingertips that it was not always thus: ‘In looking over my journals
and itinerary and summing up the whole, I find that I have travel’d afoot
for you more than two thousand miles from first to last.’32
References
B., E. 1701. A Trip to North-Wales: Being a Description of that Country and People.
London.
Bromwich, Rachel. 1969. ‘Trioedd Ynys Prydain’ in Welsh Literature and Scholarship.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press
Bromwich, Rachel, ed.. & trl. 2006. Trioedd Ynys Prydein. 3rd ed.; Cardiff: Uni-
versity of Wales Press.
Carr, Glenda. 1983. William Owen Pughe. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.
Carr, Glenda. 2005. An Uneasy Partnership: Iolo Morganwg and William Owen
Pughe, in Jenkins, 443-460.
Charnell-White, Cathryn. 2007. Bardic Circles: National, Regional and Personal
Identity in The Bardic Vision of Iolo Morganwg. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Constantine, Mary-Ann. 2004. Ossian in Wales and Brittany. In The Reception of
Ossian in Europe, ed. Howard Gaskill, 67-90. London: Continuum.
Constantine, Mary-Ann. 2007. The Truth Against the World: Iolo Morganwg and
Romantic Forgery. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Correspondence: Geraint H. Jenkins, Ffion M. Jones and David Ceri Jones, eds.
2007. The Correspondence of Iolo Morganwg. 3 vols; Cardiff: Cardiff University
Press.
Evans, Robert. 2005, ‘The Manuscripts’: The Culture and Politics of Forgery in
Central Europe’, in Jenkins.
Herbert, Trevor and Gareth Elwyn Jones, eds. 1988. The Remaking of Wales in the
Eighteenth Century. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Jenkins, Geraint, ed. 2005. A Rattleskull Genius: The Many Faces of Iolo Morganwg.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Johnson, Samuel. 1775. A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland. 2 vols.; Lon-
don.
Johnston, Arthur. 1957-58. William Owen-Pughe and the Mabinogion, National
Library of Wales Journal 10: 323-8.
Jones, Owen and William Owen Pughe, eds. 1789. Barddoniaeth Dafydd ab
Gwilym. London.
La Villemarqué, Th. Hersart de. 1850. Poèmes bretons du VIème siècle. Paris.
32
Iolo Morganwg to Owain Myfyr, 5 April 1806. Correspondence, nr. 763 I am very
grateful to Geraint Phillips for his judicious comments on an earlier draft of this essay.
128 Mary-Ann Constantine
Leerssen, Joep. 2004. Ossian and the Rise of Literary Historicism. In The Recep-
tion of Ossian in Europe, ed. Howard Gaskill, 109-25. London: Continuum.
Leerssen, Joep. 2006. Nationalism and the Cultivation of Culture, Nations and
Nationalism 12: 559-578.
Levinson, Marjorie. 1986. The Romantic Fragment Poem: A Critique of a Form.
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Lewis, Gwyneth. 1991. Eighteenth-Century Literary Forgeries, with Special
Reference to Iolo Morganwg. DPhil thesis, Oxford.
Löffler, Marion. 2007. The Literary and Historical Legacy of Iolo Morganwg,
1826-1926. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.1975-2005. Marx/Engels Collecetd Works. 50
vols., London: Progress.
MAW: Jones, Owen, Edward Williams, and William Owen Pughe, eds. 1801-
07. The Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales. London.
McKenna, Catherine. 2006. Aspects of Tradition Formation in Eighteenth-
Century Wales, Memory and the Modern in the Celtic Literatures, (CSANA Year-
book, 5): 37-60.
Owen, Morfydd E. 2007. Traddodiad y Triawd Cyffredinol yn y Gymraeg a’r Myvyrian
Archaiology of Wales. Aberystwyth: Canolfan Uwchefrydiau Cymreig a
Cheltaidd Prifysgol Cymru.
Phillips, Geraint. 2005. Forgery and Patronage: Iolo Morganwg and Owain
Myfyr. In Jenkins, 403-23.
Phillips, Geraint. 2006. Bywyd a Chysylltiadau Llenyddol Owain Myfyr. PhD
thesis, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.
Pictet, Adolphe. 1856. Le mystère des bardes de l’île de Bretagne: ou, La doctrine des
bardes gallois du moyen âge sur Dieu, la vie future et la transmigration des âmes.
Genève.
Morgan, Prys. 1981. The Eighteenth-Century Renaissance. Llandybië: Davies.
Williams, Edward. 1794. Poems, Lyric and Pastoral. London.
Williams, G.J. 1926. Iolo Morganwg a Chywyddau’r Ychwynegiad. Llundain:
Cymdeithas yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol.
Williams, G.J. 1966. Hanes Cyhoeddi’r ‘Myvyrian Archaiology’, Journal of the
Welsh Bibliographical Society 10: 2-12.
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 129-149
Bernadette Cunningham
Abstract
The Annals of the Four Masters, compiled by professional Irish his-
torians in the 1630s, were intended to provide a comprehensive chro-
nicle of Irish history from earliest times to the present. Written in
Irish, the work remained unpublished in the early modern period,
known only to antiquarian scholars. Later, in the atmosphere of civic
patriotism prevalent among Irish scholars in the 1840s, the work was
published in a dual language edition. At the same time, stories from
the annals were popularised in cheap magazines. The scholarship and
the ideology of their nineteenth-century editor, John O’Donovan,
coupled with the Gaelic and Catholic credentials of the original an-
nalists and the romantic perception of the annals as having rescued
Irish history from oblivion, made these annals a foundational text for
the emerging Irish Catholic nation in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.
The Annals of the Four Masters is the popular title given to a chronicle
of Irish history compiled in the 1630s and eventually published in the
mid- nineteenth century (O’Donovan 1848-51). Written in the Irish
language by professional historians trained in the Gaelic tradition, the
annals recounted the history of Ireland, year by year, from the time of the
Biblical flood down to AD 1616. The Annals of the Four Masters were
derived principally from earlier manuscript sources, only a few of which
now survive. In the 1630s, most of those older source manuscripts were
in the hands of hereditary learned families in the north-west of Ireland,
in particular the families of Ó Cléirigh, Ó Maoil Chonaire, Ó
130 Bernadette Cunningham
1
RIA, MSS 23 F 2-3 and TCD, MS 1279 are late eighteenth-century transcripts of
the early portion of the Annals of the Four Masters, while RIA MSS 23 F 4-6 are
transcripts completed in 1778 of the later part of the same annals.
132 Bernadette Cunningham
2
RIA, Council minutes, vol. I, p. 344 (18 Feb, 1797).
3
For an analysis of the membership of the Irish Archaeological Society see Murray
2000, 62-7.
THE ANNALS OF THE FOUR MASTERS 133
land’. That the work was in the nature of a rescue mission is evidenced
by the assertion that ‘should the publication of these manuscripts be long
delayed, many most important literary monuments may become unavail-
able to the students of history and comparative philology’.4
John O’Donovan emerged as a pivotal figure in the editorial work
promoted by the Irish Archaeological Society. His knowledge of the
historic Irish language and the intricacies of the Irish manuscript tradi-
tion were a rare enough specialism in his intellectual circle in the 1830s
and 1840s. His work in this sphere was extensive, and he translated and
edited numerous dual language editions of Irish texts published by the
Irish Archaeological Society, and later by the Celtic Society. Works trans-
lated and edited by O’Donovan during the 1840s included The Banquet of
Dún na n-Gédh and the Battle of Magh Rath, an Ancient Historical Tale (1842),
The Tribes and Customs of Hy-Many, Commonly Called O’Kelly’s Country (1843)
and The Genealogies, Tribes, and Customs of Hy-Fiachrach, Commonly Called
O’Dowda’s Country (1844). He also contributed editions of shorter texts to
two miscellaneous volumes, Tracts relating to Ireland, vol. 1 (1841), and The
Miscellany of the Irish Archaeological Society, vol. 1 (1846). His edition of
Leabhar na gCeart, or the Book of Rights (1847) was published by the Celtic
Society, and he also edited the Miscellany of the Irish Celtic Society (1849).
Perhaps of even greater scholarly significance than the various
learned societies that emerged in mid-nineteenth-century Ireland was the
work of the Ordnance Survey of Ireland. This government-sponsored
project to create large scale maps of the entire island of Ireland, though
initially conceived as a military enterprise, served as a kind of proxy
university for a group of scholars interested in Irish topography, place-
names, folklore and antiquities. The personnel employed in the topo-
graphical department of the Ordnance Survey, headed by Sir George
Petrie, included people who were also active in the Royal Irish Academy
and the Irish Archaeological Society. An article by Sir Samuel Ferguson
published under the heading ‘Lord Romilly’s Irish publications’ in the
Quarterly Review gave due recognition to the vision of the leaders of the
Ordnance Survey project in promoting research on Irish history. Fergu-
son acknowledged not just the contribution of Sir George Petrie, but
also that of Sir Thomas Larcom, who had overseen the Ordnance Survey
project. ‘To him is mainly due the idea of attaching the loyal classes to
4
Annual report, The Irish Archaeological and Celtic Society, MDCCCLX: RIA,
LR/1/B/10.
134 Bernadette Cunningham
of the Annals of the Four Masters was first proposed (Kinane 1994, 130-
131; McGuinne 1992, 102-103).
The design and physical appearance of the Irish text of the Annals
was clearly regarded as important. While the use of a Gaelic script was
readily justifiable on scholarly grounds, as necessary for the accurate
representation of the written text, its significance transcended those
technicalities. Just as the Gaelic origins of Irish place-names were being
brought to light by O’Donovan and other researchers in the topographi-
cal department of the Ordnance Survey, so the Gaelic texts that were
central to Irish antiquarian research were being brought into the public
sphere through the medium of print. Their Gaelic character was what
defined the authenticity of these texts, and it was deemed necessary to
preserve the essence of that character in the print medium. It was part of
a process of re-Gaelicising the memory of the past, while demonstrating
the authenticity of texts (Leerssen 1996, 25; Leerssen 2002, 24-7).
Financing the publication of a text as large as the Annals of the Four
Masters proved to be a challenge. Neither the Irish Archaeological Soci-
ety nor the Royal Irish Academy had access to the necessary funds.6 The
Academy applied to the British Government for funding specifically for
the publication of the Annals, but without success.7 Thus, it fell to the
commercial publishing firm of Hodges and Smith to undertake the pro-
ject. The publisher, George Smith, paid John O’Donovan for his work of
translation and also Eugene O’Curry for his work in transcribing the
complete Irish text in a form suitable for use by the typesetter.8
The editorial scholarship associated with the Annals in the form they
were published was primarily topographical and genealogical in nature,
since these were O’Donovan’s areas of expertise. His translation is reli-
able and accomplished, but he did not aim at a full critical edition. Thus,
even though two autograph manuscripts of the later part of the annals
(post AD 1334) were available to him, he did not systematically represent
the variant readings of the two sources in his edition. He based his edi-
tion on one set of manuscripts (now RIA, MSS 23 P 6-23 P 7) while
referring in the notes to selected variants in the ‘college copy’ (now TCD,
MS 1301). O’Donovan’s primary objective was to make available a full
Irish text and English translation of an historical source he deemed to be
6
Hodges and Smith circular letter, 31 January 1844 (R.I.A., 12 I 15, p. 311).
7
RIA, Council minutes, VI, pp 64-70.
8
O’Lochlainn 1940, 179; RIA, Council minutes, VI, p. 218; Cunningham 2006a.
136 Bernadette Cunningham
ous threat to the viability of the first edition of O’Donovan’s work had
emerged with the publication by Brian Geraghty in 1846 of a rival cheap
translation of the same annals covering the post-1171 period. This alter-
native translation was the work of a respected scholar, Owen Connellan,
and was published entirely in the English language without any parallel
Irish text. The text was augmented with footnotes taken without ac-
knowledgment from historical articles published in popular magazines by
other scholars, not least John O’Donovan.11 In the manner in which they
were presented by the publisher, the footnotes bore little or no relation
to the text of the annals they purported to eludicate, comprising instead
general essays on miscellaneous aspects of Irish history and genealogy.
Connellan’s translation of the annals was initially published in periodical
format, with over 700 subscribers, and was subsequently issued in book
form in 1846. The scholarly community recognised this enterprise as a
cheap stunt designed to capitalise on the undoubted market that existed
for publications drawn from authentic Irish historical sources. Connellan
claimed that he was refused permission to consult Irish manuscripts in
the library of the Royal Irish Academy because of his association with
the publisher Brian Geraghty’s whose opportunism threatened to under-
mine the viablity of O’Donovan’s edition being published by Hodges
and Smith.12 In a letter to John Windele of Cork, O’Donovan mocked
the edition and also criticised Connellan’s adoption of the title of ‘Irish
Historiographer’ to his late majesty, adding ‘I cannot but laugh at the
folly of his publisher in allowing him to assume such a name’. He also
accused Connellan of citing his own work ‘without a single word of ac-
knowledgement’.13 A fellow antiquary, William Hackett, wrestled with
his conscience when asking for a loan of Connellan’s serial edition from
John Windele in the spring of 1845, commenting that it was ‘a pity to
encourage such an invidious project but, as I would not consider my
borrowing it from you would be any benefit to the Publishers, I should
not scruple you sending it (or my receiving it rather) by some convenient
opportunity.’14 The 327 unsold copies of Connellan’s English translation
11
Articles by John O’Donovan in the Dublin Penny Journal and the Irish Penny Journal
were among those adapted without acknowledgement for Brian Geraghty’s publica-
tion. See Ferguson 1848, 359.
12
Connellan to John Windele, 24 July 1846 (RIA, MS 12 L 10/83).
13
O’Donovan to Windele, 4 January, 1845 (RIA, MS 12 L 9/6 ii).
14
Hackett to Windele, 6 Feb 1845 (RIA, MS 4 B 5/88).
138 Bernadette Cunningham
15
Hodges and Smith to Windele, 19 Mar. 1844 (RIA, MS 4 B 5/16).
16
Hodges and Smith, circular letter dated June 1855 (RIA, 12 L 15, p 571).
17
O’Donovan to Windele, 25 June 1852 (RIA, MS 4 B 12/83 i).
18
Review in Irish Ecclesiastical Journal, 5 (1848): 123.
THE ANNALS OF THE FOUR MASTERS 139
on the Annals of the Four Masters but also on the other Irish historical
texts that had been edited by John O’Donovan for the Irish Archaeologi-
cal Society. While noting of late ‘among Continental and British writers,
something like a spontaneous movement showing a tendency to do [the
Irish race] justice’, Joyce still believed his history was necessary because
the Irish ‘have never, in modern times, received the full measure of
credit due to them for their early and striking advance in the arts of
civilised life, for their very comprehensive system of laws, and for their
noble and successful efforts, both at home and abroad, in the cause of
religion and learning’ (Joyce 1903, 1: xi-xii). Joyce’s historical writings,
like those of Haverty, included works for children. His illustrated A
Child’s History of Ireland (1897: 10-11) included an introductory essay on
sources, noting the importance of the annals, especially the Annals of the
Four Masters. He expressed the hope that his book, ‘written as it is in
such a broad and just spirit, may help to foster mutual feelings of respect
and toleration among Irish people of different parties, and may teach
them to love and admire what is great and noble in their history, no
matter where found’ (vi).
Despite the best efforts of these and other historians to present acces-
sible narratives based on authentic medieval Irish sources as mediated by
mid-nineteenth-century translators, the nationalist writer Alice Stopford
Green opened her study of The Old Irish World (1912) with a despondent
chapter on ‘The way of history in Ireland’. She insisted that history was
‘portioned out to Irishmen as a fragment of English history’, and ‘Irish-
men are still driven to discuss in belated fashion the question that all
Europe settled long ago – Why should we make the history of our coun-
try our serious study?’ ‘As members of a nation’, she reiterated, ‘we are
bound to make History our all important study’ (Green 1912, 2-4). For
Green, one of the few bright points in nineteenth-century historical
research had been the work of the state-sponsored Ordnance Survey, and
she praised the scholarship of Sir George Petrie, John O’Donovan and
their colleagues, in ‘a kind of peripatetic University’, noting that ‘It is
such things as these that reveal to us the soul of Irish Nationality and the
might of its repression’ (55-56). Calling for further research to be carried
out on Irish place-names and Irish antiquities, she argued that ‘All histo-
rians, all Irishmen alike, must ardently join in such an entreaty, for the
honour of their land. Is it too much to hope that (...) Irish scholars may
THE ANNALS OF THE FOUR MASTERS 143
yet be given the patriotic task of saving what yet remains on Irish soil of
the inheritance of her people’ (61).
Lacking knowledge of the Irish language, Green was limited in the
original research she could undertake on early Irish history, but major
progress in this sphere was achieved by Eoin Mac Neill, in his Phases of
Irish history (1919), and Celtic Ireland (1921). Mac Neill had been intro-
duced to the study of history by the Jesuit scholar Edmund Hogan, and
studied Irish with Douglas Hyde. He founded the Gaelic League in
1893, and subsequently became active in Irish nationalist politics
(Maume 2004; also Byrne & Martin 1971). Mac Neill, as professor of
Ancient Irish History at University College Dublin, argued that it was
necessary to go beyond the mid-nineteenth-century editions of Irish
texts, with the inevitable biases of their translations, and called for finan-
cial support for students engaged in the combined disciplines of history,
archaeology and Irish philology. Only in this way, he believed, could ‘our
Nation’s ancient story’ be given ‘the place it deserves in the world’s his-
tory’ (Mac Neill 1921, xiv-xv).
Mac Neill rejected implicitly the historicity of much of the pre-Chris-
tian content of texts such as the Annals of the Four Masters. While his
view came to be the orthodoxy in academic circles, the annals continued
to be relied on for the more local evidence they contained relating to the
medieval period. The ‘royalist’ master narrative of the Four Masters was
ignored, and emphasis was placed instead on other characteristics of the
work. Thus, the strands of history that emerged from the use of source
texts such as the Annals in the nineteenth century were attention to the
minutiae of local history and topography, the cult of individual heroes
and the stories of their military exploits, and the Christian heritage of
early Ireland.
In so far as Samuel Ferguson had been correct in his assessment in
1848 that narrative political history was best avoided in Ireland, and that
local history was the path to follow, O’Donovan’s edition of the Annals
of the Four Masters provided an important access point to the past. The
editor had devoted an entire volume to an index of names and places,
and together with his encyclopaedic annotations concerning individual
place-names and local family histories, even today the work is regularly
consulted by local historians and archaeologists concerned with medieval
Ireland. Scholars such as Edmund Hogan and P.W. Joyce would later
pursue a interest in Irish onomastics, which owed a considerable debt to
144 Bernadette Cunningham
19
For the discontinuities, see Cunningham 2006b and Rankin 2006.
20
In 1962 commemorative postage stamps were issued to mark the centenary of
the deaths of John O’Donovan and Eugene O’Curry: Buchalter 1972, 63.
146 Bernadette Cunningham
Before O’Clery ever entered the Franciscan Order he had been by profes-
sion an historian or antiquary, and now in his eager quest for ecclesiastical
writings and the lives of saints, his trained eye fell upon many other docu-
ments which he could not neglect. These were the ancient books and secu-
lar annals of the nation, and the historical poems of the ancient bards. (...)
There is no event of Irish history from the birth of Christ to the beginning
of the seventeenth century that the first inquiry of the student will not be,
‘What do the “Four Masters” say about it?’ for the great value of the work
consists in this, that we have here in condensed form the pith and substance
of the old books of Ireland which were then in existence but which – as the
Four Masters foresaw – have long since perished. (Hyde 1899, 574-580)
If O’Donovan had not already ensured that the Annals of the Four Mas-
ters would be regarded as a national classic, the endorsement of Douglas
Hyde certainly helped confirm the status of the work. As the twentieth
century progessed, the Franciscan order, too, embraced Ó Cléirigh as a
potent symbol of Catholic Ireland (Cunningham 2007).
In the Irish Free State after 1922, as in the nineteenth-century ‘prov-
ince’ of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the study of
history both national and local was important, not least because recalling
the story of Ireland seemed a more achievable objective than reviving the
national language. While an ‘800 years of oppression’ school of national-
ist history also came to the fore and informed contemporary politics, for
those who looked to the ancient past for affirmation of the value of
Irishness, the pages of the Annals of the Four Masters continued to
provide inspiration. The annals were valued for the affirmation they
provided regarding the antiquity of the kingdom of Ireland, the strength
of the Irish Christian heritage, and the tradition of the Irish language
through the medium of which those various elements of the Irish past
had been preserved for posterity. The Annals were not easily read as
narrative history, but yet it was recognised that something of the histori-
cal essence of Irishness was captured in their pages.
In the fledgling Irish state of the early twentieth century, there was a
strong growth in interest also in folklore and in local history as a way
into a different, more balanced view of the Irish past (cf. O’Leary 2004).
The capacity of the Annals of the Four Masters, in the form in which
they were presented to readers in the mid-nineteenth-century edition, to
connect local places and communities into the national story, through the
minutiae of John O’Donovan’s topographical information, was perhaps
their most important characteristic. O’Donovan’s achievement was to
THE ANNALS OF THE FOUR MASTERS 147
take a text that had been almost vanished without trace and make it
accessible to a wide public, whether in the full dual language edition that
adorned scholarly libraries or through the stories from the annals that he
and others popularised in penny magazines. The enhanced product that
was O’Donovan’s nineteenth-century edition of the Annals, together
with the Catholic credentials of the original annalists, and the romance of
a rescue mission, together created a foundational text for an emerging
republic out of the royalist ‘Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland’.
References
Buchalter, M. Don, ed. 1972. Hibernian specialised catalogue of the postage stamps of
Ireland, 1922-1972. Dublin: Hibernian Stamp Co.
Byrne, F.J. and F.X. Martin, eds). 1973. The Scholar Revolutionary: Eoin MacNeill,
1867-1945, and the Making of the New Ireland. Shannon, Irish University Press.
Campbell, Matthew. 2006. Poetry in English, 1830-1890: From Catholic Eman-
cipation to the Fall of Parnell’, in The Cambridge History of Irish Literature, ed.
Margaret Kelleher and Philip O’Leary, 1: 500-543. Cambridge:, Cambridge
University Press.
Cunningham, Bernadette. 1991. The Culture and Ideology of Irish Franciscan
Historians at Louvain, 1607-1650. In Ideology and the historians, ed. Ciarán
Brady, 11-30, 223-227. Dublin, Lilliput.
Cunningham, Bernadette. 2005. The Making of the Annals of the Four Masters.
PhD thesis, University College Dublin.
Cunningham, Bernadette. 2006a. ‘An Honour to the Nation’: Publishing John
O’Donovan’s Edition of the Annals of the Four Masters, 1848-1856. In
Print Culture and Intellectual Life in Ireland, 1660-1941, ed. M. Fanning and R.
Gillespie, 116-142. Dublin, Woodfield.
Cunningham, Bernadette. 2006b. Historical Writing, 1660-1750. In The Oxford
History of the Irish Book III: the Irish book in English, 1550-1800, ed. Raymond
Gillespie and Andrew Hadfield, 264-281. Oxford: Clarendon.
Cunningham, Bernadette. 2007. Remembering Mícheál Ó Cléirigh. In Writing
Irish History: The Four Masters and their World, ed. E. Bhreathnach & B.
Cunningham, 76-83. Dublin: Wordwell.
Denman, Peter. 1990. Samuel Ferguson: Thee Literary Achievement. Gerrards Cross:
Colin Smythe.
Ferguson, Samuel. 1848. The Annals of the Four Masters. Dublin University
Magazine, 31..
[Ferguson, Samuel]. 1868. Lord Romilly’s Irish publications. Quarterly Review
124: 423-45.
148 Bernadette Cunningham
FitzPatrick, Elizabeth. 1988. The Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the Royal Irish
Academy: A Brief Introduction. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.
Foster, R.F. 1993. Paddy and Mr Punch: Connections in Irish and English History.
London: Allen Lane.
Gillespie, Raymond. 2006. Printing History: Editing and Publishing Historical
Documents in Nineteenth-century Ireland. In Print Culture and Intellectual Life
in Ireland, 1660-1941, ed. M. Fanning and R. Gillespie, 74-94. Dublin:
Woodfield.
Green, Alice Stopford. 1912. The Old Irish World. Dublin: M.H. Gill.
Hyde, Douglas. 1899. A Literary History of Ireland, from Earliest Times to the Present
Day. London.
Joyce, P.W. 1903. A Social History of Ancient Ireland. 2 vols.; London: Longmans,
Green.
Kinane, Vincent. 1994. A History of the Dublin University Press, 1734-1976. Dub-
lin: Gill & Macmillan.
Leerssen, Joep. 1996. Remembrance and Imagination: Patterns in the Historical and
Literary Representation of Ireland in the Nineteenth Century. Cork: Cork University
Press.
Leerssen, Joep. 2002. Hidden Ireland, Public Sphere. Galway, Arlen House.
Maume, Patrick. 2004. Eoin Mac Neill. In Oxford DNB. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
McGowan, K. Megan. 2004. The Four Masters and the Governance of Ireland
in the Middle Ages. Journal of Celtic Studies 4: 1-41.
McGuinne, Dermot. 1992. Irish Type Design: A History of Printing Types in the Irish
Character. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.
Mac Neill, Eoin. 1921. Celtic Ireland. Dublin: Martin Lester.
Mitchell, G.F. 1985. Antiquities. In The Royal Irish Academy: A Bicentennial His-
tory, 1785-1985, ed. T. Ó Raifeartaigh, 93-163. Dublin: Royal Irish Acad-
emy.
Murray, Damien. 2000. Romanticism, Nationalism and Irish Antiquarian Societies,
1840-80. Maynooth: Department of Old and Middle Irish, NUI Maynooth.
O’Conor, C., ed.. 1826. Rerum Hibernicarum Scriptores, Tom III: Annales IV Magis-
trorum. Buckingham.
O’Donovan, John, ed.. 1848-51 Annála Ríoghachta Éireann. Annals of the Kingdom
of Ireland, by the Four Masters, from the Earliest Period to the Year 1616, Edited
from MSS. in the Library of the Royal Irish Academy and of Trinity College Dublin,
with a Translation and Copious Notes. 7 vols.; Dublin.
O’Leary, Philip. 2004. Gaelic Prose in the Irish Free State. Dublin: UCD Press.
O’Lochlainn, Colm. 1940. John O’Donovan and the Annals. Irish Book Lover, 27.
Ó Muraíle, Nollaig. 1987. The Autograph Manuscripts of the Annals of the
Four Masters. Celtica 19: 75-95.
Ó Muraíle, Nollaig. 1997. Seán Ó Donnabháin: ‘An cúigiú Máistir’. Léachtaí
Cholm Cille. 27: 11-82.
THE ANNALS OF THE FOUR MASTERS 149
Todd, J.H. and W. Reeves, eds. 1864. The Martyrology of Donegal: A Calendar of the
Saints of Ireland: Féilire na naomh nErennach. Dublin.
Petrie, George. 1831. Remarks on the History and Authenticity of the Annals
of the Four Masters. Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy 16: 381-393.
Rankin, Deana. 2006. Historical writing, 1750-1800. In The Oxford history of the
Irish book III: the Irish book in English, 1550-1800, ed. Raymond Gillespie and
Andrew Hadfield, 282-300. Oxford: Clarendon.
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 151-167
João Dionísio
Abstract
This essay examines the connection between nation-building and
editorial activity in Portugal towards the end of the eighteenth cen-
tury. It focuses on the hypothesis that the Lisbon 1755 earthquake (i)
fuelled the will to publish unknown preserved documents which,
should another earthquake occur, could be utterly destroyed and
thereby (ii) speeded up the development of palaeography and
diplomatics as core disciplines in the preservation of textual informa-
tion. The article focuses on José Correia da Serra, who between 1790
and 1793 directed the Royal Academy of Sciences’ edition of a
Collecção de Livros Ineditos da Historia Portugueza. Special attention is
given to the criteria behind the selection of the texts which were
edited in the Collecção, the rationale of this edition, and its reception.
Taken together, these different aspects of Correia da Serra’s work
suggest that already in his time and in the years to come nation build-
ing was carried out regardless of scholarly editing.
When, about Ten o’Clock, without the least warning, a most dreadful Earth-
quake shook by very short but quick Tremblings, the Foundations from
under the Superstructures, loosening every Stone from its Cement. Then,
with a scarce perceptible Pause, the Motion changed, and every Building
rolled and jostled like a Ship at Sea; which put in Ruins almost every House,
Church, and Publick Building, with an incredible Slaughter of the Inhabit-
ants.1
On 1 November, All Saints’ day, between 9.30 and 10 a.m., when many
people were gathered in churches, an earthquake occurred, measuring 8.5
to 9.0 on the Richter scale, and went on for approximately 9 minutes. It
was followed by a number of fires all over downtown Lisbon which
raged for five or six days, and finally by a tsunami, a gigantic wave rare
on the Atlantic coast. Of the estimated 20,000 houses then existing in
Lisbon, only 3000 could be securely occupied after the quake, which
mainly affected the medieval centre of the city. About 8000 people died,
that is, five per cent of the city dwellers. The tower of St. George’s Cas-
tle, which hosted the documents of the Royal Archive, was destroyed.
It has been pointed out that a consequence of the earthquake was a
feverish desire to reconstruct and to remap the city, of which there were
few descriptions and maps before it happened (Sequeira 1967, 17). The
natural cataclysm may have had a similar effect in editorial terms by
fuelling the will to publish those surviving documents which, should
another earthquake occur, stood in danger of total destruction. The
eagerness to protect historical and literary documents from natural disas-
ters must have sped up the development of palaeography and di-
plomatics as core disciplines in the preservation of textual information.
The Academy of Sciences took part in the process by promoting a gen-
eral inventory of documents, mainly in religious archives, involving
members such as Joaquim de Santo Agostinho, Santa Rosa de Viterbo
and, above all, João Pedro Ribeiro.2 On the other hand, however, the
1
Jackson 2005, 147. One might here recall that the earthquake totally destroyed
the building of the Bertrand bookshop, later to become one of the selling points of the
Colecção, and also the Bertrand storehouse: ‘l’incendie du Tremblement de Terre du
premier Novembre de 1755 en aiant consume toute l’Impression, ainsi que tout ce que
nous avions de librarie (…) ce n’était gueres le tems, après la perte que nous avions
fait dans ce terrible Tremblement de Terre d’un fonds aussi considerable comme celui
que nous avions en livres…’ (cf. Guedes 1987, 34).
2
Ribeiro taught Diplomatics, a subject formally created in 1796 at the University
of Coimbra, having obtained a post at the Royal Archive in 1801 (Gomes 2001, 44). In
the preface to volume 1 of the Colecção there is the announcement of the thorough
AFTER THE LISBON EARTHQUAKE 155
research in the national and foreign cartórios, to be carried out by João Pedro Ribeiro e
Joaquim José Ferreira. To place this sort of initiative in the European context, see
Leerssen 2006, 567.
3
I am quoting from Gumbrecht’s comment on the debris of Heidelberg’s Castle,
when he assigns to the ruins a slow rhythm of change ending in a ‘possible future
when the debris will no longer be recognizable as objects that once belonged to a
building’ (Gumbrecht 2003, 9-10).
4
Although there are several language-related documents in the Correia da Serra
Archive, it was the History branch that predominated in the Academy’s first decades.
On documents about language, see, e.g., A57 (Correia da Serra archive, hosted by I. A.
N. / Torre do Tombo), which comprehends very inchoative ‘Materiaes para o Glos-
sário Portuguez’, ‘Da origem immediata da Lingoa Portugueza / Modo Fizico com q-
se ella formou, e cauzas / Quanto aos sós / Quanto à sintaxe / Dos períodos de
variaçaõ da Lingoa Portugueza e cauzas. / Do estado actual da Lingoa Portugueza. /
Das perfeições e defeitos actuaes. / Do modo de augmentar huas, e evitar os outros’,
apart from some contrastive observations on Portuguese, French and Italian languages
and on the orthography and pronunciation of Portuguese. There are also some notes
on the usefulness of certain manuscripts (kept in Alcobaça) for the Dictionary of the
Academy and for a History of the Portuguese Language.
156 João Dionísio
ing the main epigraphs in the Colecção; another is to scan the paratext that
prefaces the first volume of the series.
On the title page of the Colecção’s three volumes there is a significant
quote from Horace’s Epistles II, ii, 115-116: ‘Obscurata diu populo,
bonus eruet, atque Proferet in lucem [speciosa vocabula rerum]...’ In
Fairclough’s translation: ‘Terms long lost in darkness the good poet will
unearth for the people’s use and bring into the light – [picturesque
terms]’. Putting himself in Horace’s shoes, Correia da Serra plans to
reveal texts previously neglected, and claims that there is fruitfulness in
this retrieval. The quote is doubly meaningful, as regards the Academy’s
aim of public instruction and as regards the Enlightenment spirit. In
contrast with Horace’s quote, the one with which the Preliminary Dis-
course of volume 1 starts is more general. It is taken from Lucretius, De
Rerum Natura I, 927: ‘Juvat intêgros accedere fontes’. In Rouse’s transla-
tion: ‘I love to approach virgin springs [and there to drink]’. As a matter
of fact, ‘virgin springs’ seem simply to duplicate Horace’s ‘terms long
lost in darkness’.
The short Preliminary Discourse of the Colecção (Serra 1790, VII-XI)
starts out with the editor’s statement that necessity and glory impelled
him to study Portuguese History. Necessity, he writes, because if one is
to understand the present one must know the past; glory because actions
of his ancestors affected all humankind. This last remark is an obvious
allusion to the Portuguese naval discoveries of the fifteenth and six-
teenth centuries. A logical progression is thus suggested: since (1) in
order to know the present, one has to know the past, and since (2) the
acts of our ancestors affected humankind, (3) people from other coun-
tries should be aware of the history of Portugal. This tallies both with the
international distribution of the Colecção and with Correia da Serra’s inter-
nationalist ideology.
In the Preliminary Discourse’s next paragraph, the editor claims that
study without certainty is vain, notably in the field of History, where one
is bound to deal with remnants:
The remnants that people left in monuments and the narration of contem-
porary people, that is all one has and if by chance [por ventura] they are ab-
sent, there is neither inventive ingeniousness [viveza de engenho] nor sharp
reasoning [agudeza de raciocínio] that may overcome its absence.
Correia da Serra asserts later that these remnants, these narrations, which
correspond to Horace’s ‘terms long lost in darkness’ and to Lucretius’
AFTER THE LISBON EARTHQUAKE 157
‘virgin springs’, are the basis for certainty, and that books which fail to
take them into account are superfluous. The fact that these works, which
he does not identify, exist in large numbers shows that Portuguese peo-
ple have been obscenely uninterested in having access to source docu-
ments. His collection should thus compensate for this historical weak-
ness and represent a vigorous back-to-basics movement – back to the
textual basics, that is.
This is why, as is stated in the fifth paragraph, the Academy has de-
cided to publish such ancient books, memories and monuments of the
Monarchy as were spared by Time (or rather, one should perhaps say, by
Time’s more tangible representation, the earthquake). Only when this
work is finished, Correia da Serra continues, will we know what Portugal
was, what past actions there were relevant to history, their causes and
effects.5 In the concluding paragraph, through a typical captatio benevo-
lentiae move, he claims that only the piety towards the fatherland, the
merit of the works edited and his own zeal made him endure the lack of
glory and tediousness implied in editing others’ works.
The corpus selected for inclusion in the first three volumes can be tabu-
lated as follows:6
5
Correia da Serra goes on to present the main persons responsible for the first
volume and a forthcoming volume in the sixth paragraph; he then gives examples of
contributions towards his stated goal: a forthcoming volume with the Arabic docu-
ments of the Royal Archive, edited by Fr. Joaõ de Souza; a work by the historian
Diogo do Couto, Observações sobre as principaes cauzas da decadência dos Portuguezes na Azia,
escritas em forma de Dialogo, com o Titulo de Soldado Pratico, to be published by Mr. António
Caetano do Amaral.
6
See the reference to extant copies of the Portuguese texts of the Colecção in Askins
et al., n.d.: Rui de Pina, Crónica de D. Duarte, Texid 1052; Rui de Pina, Crónica de D.
Afonso V, Texid 1149; Rui de Pina, Crónica de D. João II, Texid 1150; Rui de Pina,
Crónica de D. João II, Texid 1150; Gomes Eanes de Zurara, Crónica do Conde D. Pedro de
Meneses, Texid 1058; Gomes Eanes de Zurara, Crónica do Conde D. Duarte de Meneses,
Texid 1053; Livro Vermelho de D. Afonso V, Texid 9483; Livro Antigo das Posses da Casa da
Suplicação, Texid 9442.
158 João Dionísio
vol. 1 Preface
De Bello Septensi or Livro da Guerra de Ceuta, by Mateus
de Pisano
Crónica de D. Duarte, by Rui de Pina
Crónica de D. Afonso V, by Rui de Pina
vol. 2 Crónica de D. João II, by Rui de Pina
Crónica do Conde D. Pedro de Menezes, by Gomes Eanes
de Zurara (but ascribed here to Rui de Pina)
vol. 3 Crónica do Conde D. Duarte de Menezes, by Gomes Eanes
de Zurara
Livro Vermelho de D. Afonso V
Fragmentos de Legislação escritos no Livro chamado Antigo
das Posses da Casa da Suplicação
7
Zurara 1997, 175-176: ‘not only did he [Afonso V] content himself by having
them written in our own current Portuguese, but ordered their translation into the
Latin language, so that not only their naturals had cognizance and knowledge of the
great chivalric feats of that Count and of the others who took part in them with him,
but also in order to make them manifest to the knowledge of the noblety of Christian-
ity, by Master Matheus de Pisano’.
8
There is no separate introduction to Rui de Pina’s Crónica de D. João II, this being
subsumed in the editor’s preface to the Crónica do Conde D. Duarte.
9
Américo da Costa Ramalho writes that the manuscript that served for Correia da
Serra’s edition of De Bello Septensi, which is not necessarily a codex unicus, belonged to D.
Manuel II’s library, in Vila Viçosa (Ramalho 1989-90, 214). In Geraldes Freire’s view,
Ramalho is right in posing the hypothesis of the existence of other manuscripts, for,
according to his observation, the copy that served for Correia’s work is not the one
kept in Vila Viçosa (Freire 1989-90, 217).
160 João Dionísio
10
As a matter of detail: the editor confesses that he did not have the opportunity to
compare the papal bull as quoted within the edited text with its original (1793, 594-
595). However, he had recourse to Ordenações Afonsinas in order to detect an alleged
error in another text (1793, 605).
AFTER THE LISBON EARTHQUAKE 161
Reception
The reception of Correia da Serra’s work was generally enthusiastic.
Silvestre Ribeiro, for instance, considered that volume I was preceded by
an excellent introduction and that the Academy made the right choice
when it commissioned Correia da Serra with the research work and
selection of the texts to be included in the project (Ribeiro 1872,
293-294). According to the hyperbolic description given by the online
Classic Encyclopedia, Correia da Serra’s Colecção is ‘an invaluable selec-
tion of documents, exceedingly well edited’. A curious dissonant in the
generally benevolent chorus of contemporary opinion is the criticism of
Father Francisco José da Serra Xavier, kept in manuscript (now in
Brazil). It had scarcely any impact, for it was never published and, be-
sides, it has been passed over in silence by the Academy’s historians.
One of these, rather than dealing with the nature of the criticism, in-
dulges in presenting the genealogy of the critic: born in the parish of São
Paulo, borough of Penalva; married to Maria Luisa and moved to Lis-
bon, where he established himself as a grocer. The grocery was destroyed
by the earthquake. He had two children. When he was about to take
orders, he declared that his grandmother (on his mother’s side) was
nicknamed ‘Black’ (Negra) because she was fed by a black goat. And so
forth (See Carvalho 1948, 94).
What strikes us most in both the appraisal and the report of the criti-
cism is that nothing, absolutely nothing, is said about the editorial theory
162 João Dionísio
and performance of the series. Thus, Correia da Serra was right when he
stated that editing did not bring glory, but it did not bring disrepute
either. To bring either glory or opprobrium, it had to be noticed as such.
In the obscure history of Portuguese scholarly editing prior to the
nineteenth century, Correia da Serra’s project is as good as non-existent.
This is not his fault, however, for in handbooks on textual criticism in
Portugal nothing seems to have deserved observation in this field before
1800. In a way, Correia da Serra’s project clearly represents this nothing-
ness, which has to do with the ‘absence of a previous definition of the
fields of intervention of the editor’ (Brocardo 1997: 121). An absence
that is manifested in different procedures not made explicit by our editor:
abbreviation development; word separation; introduction of capital let-
ters; modernization of punctuation; correction (although rare) through
addition of words; graphic alteration with and without phonetic implica-
tions. All in all, as Teresa Brocardo says, his edition seems akin to a hand
copy, that frequently swings to and fro between fidelity and innovation,
clearly distant from scholarly editing.11
On another ground, the use made of the Colecção was paradoxical. Rui
de Pina, the best-represented author in the series, is an idiosyncratic
choice by Correia da Serra, at odds with the relative lack of importance
with which this historian is credited today (but also already in the nine-
teenth century). In contrast, the most canonic medieval chronicler,
Fernão Lopes, is ignored in these first three volumes and included only
in the fourth, in which Correia da Serra had no hand. Thus, the series
posits a sort of canon that was to be overtaken by later developments.
The Colecção failed to meet one of the most important prerequisites of
canonicity: the fact that ‘over successive generations (…) readers con-
tinue to affirm a judgement of greatness, almost as though each genera-
tion actually judged anew the quality of the work.’ (Guillory 1995, 236).
Yet there are contradictions even here. For one thing, texts edited in
the Colecção were read over successive generations in school anthologies
and in semi-deluxe books; still, this was a form of recycling rather than
11
One should say on Correia da Serra’s behalf that the most recent edition of
Crónica de D. Pedro de Meneses, a fine piece of scholarship, depends on the very same
manuscript he selected, which undoubtedly gives him some credit (Brocardo 1997, 23
and 111). The manuscript is now in Coimbra, Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de
Coimbra, ms. 439. Description by Brocardo 1997, 28-33. For a description of Correia
da Serra’s editorial work concerning Crónica de D. Pedro de Meneses, see Brocardo 1997,
117-148.
AFTER THE LISBON EARTHQUAKE 163
12
E.g. Tavares 1923, 211-222; Oliveira and Machado 1973, 642-46; Pina 1977, 479-
1033. On page XXIII of Lopes de Almeida’s introduction to the latter book he writes:
‘As to the reliability of the texts, we ask permission to declare them correct’.
164 João Dionísio
13
See Gadamer 2004, 182: ‘(...) there is a close correspondence between philology
and natural science in their early visions of themselves. That has two implications. On
the one hand, “natural” scientific procedure is supposed to apply to one’s approach to
scriptural tradition as well, and is supported by the historical method. But on the other
hand, just as naturalness in the art of philology means understanding from a context,
so naturalness in the investigation of nature means deciphering the “book of nature”.
To this extent scientific method is based on the model of philology.’
14
On textual scholars before Lachmann, see Timpanaro 1990.
15
A new section, ‘Inquisitiones’, was created (1888-97) after Herculano’s death.
AFTER THE LISBON EARTHQUAKE 165
16
See Siegfried Kracauer’s theory against the uniform flow of time as used by Hans
Robert Jauss’ thesis 6 (Jauss 1982, 36-39).
166 João Dionísio
References
Askins, Arthur L-F., Harvey L. Sharrer, Aida Fernanda Dias, and Martha E.
Schaffer. BITAGAP (Bibliografia de Textos Antigos Galegos e Portu-
gueses), http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Philobiblon/phhmbp.html
Bourdon, Léon. 1975. José Corrêa da Serra. Ambassadeur du Royaume-Uni de Portugal
et Brésil a Washington 1816-1820. Paris: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian –
Centro Cultural Português.
Brocardo, Maria Teresa. 1997. Introdução. In Crónica do Conde D. Pedro de
Meneses, ed. Gomes Eanes de Zurara. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulben-
kian – JNICT.
Caeiro, Francisco da Gama. 1980. Livros e livreiros franceses em Lisboa, nos fins de
Setecentos e no primeiro quartel do séc. XIX, separatim of Anais 2nd ser. 26.2
(Lisboa: Academia Portuguesa da História): 301-27.
Carvalho, Augusto da Silva. 1948. O abade Correia da Serra, Lisboa: Academia das
Ciências (Memórias, classe de Ciências, VI).
Classic Encyclopedia www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jose_Francisco_Correia_Da_Serra
Curto, Diogo Ramada. 2001-2002. A história do livro em Portugal: uma agenda em
aberto. Leituras. Revista da Biblioteca Nacional 9-10: 13-61.
Davis, Richard Beale. 1955. The Abbé Correa in America, 1812-1820. The contributions of
the diplomat and natural philosopher to the foundations of our national life. Philadelphia: The
American Philosophical Society.
Domingos, Manuela D. 2000. Livreiros de Setecentos. Lisboa: Biblioteca Nacional.
Freire, José Geraldes. 1989-1990. Primeiras referências latinas à conquista de Ceuta.
Humanitas, 41-42: 216-19.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Truth and method. rev. trl. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G.
Marshall; London: Continuum.
Gomes, Saul António. 2001. Anotações de diplomática eclesiástica portuguesa. Estudos de
Diplomática Portuguesa, 41-72. Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de
Coimbra – Edições Colibri.
Guedes, Fernando. 1987. O livro e a leitura em Portugal. Subsídios para a sua história. Séculos
XVIII-XIX. Lisboa – S. Paulo: Verbo.
Guedes, Fernando. 1998. Os livreiros franceses em Portugal no séc. XVIII. Lisboa: Academia
Portuguesa da História.
Guillory, John. 1995. Canon. In Critical Terms for Literary Study, eds. Frank Lentricchia
and Thomas McLaughlin, 233-249. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. 2003. The powers of philology. Dynamics of Textual Scholarship.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Herculano, A., and J. da S. Mendes Leal. 1856. [Advertências]. In Portugaliae Monumenta
Historica. A saeculo octavo post Christum usque ad quintumdecimum, iussu Academiae
Scientiarum Olisiponsensis edita, Scriptores volumen I, V-XXIII. Olisipone: Typis
Academicis.
Horace. 1966 [1926]. Satires, Epistles, Ars Poetica. trl. H. Rushton Fairclough; London –
Cambridge, MA: Heinemann & Harvard University Press.
AFTER THE LISBON EARTHQUAKE 167
Magí Sunyer
Abstract
In the period 1780-1840 there were very few reimpressions of medi-
eval Catalan texts and there was considerable confusion about the
value of the literary past. However, at the end of the eighteenth cen-
tury, a modern process of publishing medieval documentation was
instigated, largely thanks to Antoni de Capmany, that was to have an
extraordinary impact on the activity of men of letters, historians and
scholars in the following century. The introduction of Romanticism
by the review El Europeo (1823-24) prompted an interest in medieval
Catalan history in all sorts of literary and historical genres. In the
1830s philological projects were undertaken such as the dictionary of
writers by Josep Torres Amat and some collections of texts by ancient
writers, and the first steps were taken towards the accurate editing of
medieval texts. By the end of this period, Joaquim Rubió i Ors, im-
bued with this spirit, was advocating the use of the Catalan language
for cultured literature.
Joaquim Rubió i Ors decided to bring the poetical campaign that had
been printed in the Diario de Barcelona in 1839 and 1840 to its culmination
by publishing Lo Gayter del Llobregat (‘The Piper of the Llobregat’). In ex-
plaining his decision, he repeatedly stated, modestly, that he did not
deserve to be considered a troubadour, merely a piper; and among other
patriotic arguments he wrote:
seria molt convenient traure ses glòries passades a la memòria del poble que
treballa i s’afanya per sa glòria venidera, i que alguns records de lo que
fórem podrien contribuir no poc a lo que tal vegada havem de ser.
170 Magí Sunyer
1
Joaquim Rubió i Ors, prologue to Lo gaiter del Llobregat, in Miracle 1960, 278-80:
‘[the piper believes] that past glories should be transmitted to the memory of the
people who work and strive for future glories, and that the reminiscence of what we
once were may contribute to no small extent to what perhaps we should be.’ ‘one need
do no more than open our history book at its most brilliant pages; and sit among the
green and venerable ruins of the ancient monument that witnessed the heroic deeds
described therein.’ ‘Do we not have as abundant and varied a collection of chronicles
as any other people, and an immense gallery of troubadours, fathers to modern vulgar
poetry?’
2
Anguera 1997 provides considerable data about the generalized, practically exclu-
sive, use of Catalan as the colloquial language.
MEDIEVAL HERITAGE IN MODERN CATALAN LITERATURE 171
1780-1833
It should not be forgotten that Neoclassicism had little impact on the
part of the Catalan language domain subjugated by the Spanish crown at
the beginning of the eighteenth century, after the defeat in the War of
Succession. Northern Catalonia, under French government, and Minorca,
a British colony throughout much of the century, were unaffected; it was
in these territories that the Greek and Latin classics were reflected in
tragedies like Joan Ramis’s Lucrècia, set in Roman antiquity, and the 1808
translation of Virgil’s Bucolics by Antoni Febrer i Cardona. However, as
Joan Fuster (1976, 150-1) points out with regard to Valencia, we must
take into account the fascination that some eighteenth-century intellectu-
als felt for medieval authors. There, several works from ancient Catalan
literature were salvaged by Gregori Maians; also, Jaume Roig’s Espill
(Mirror) was published by Carles Ros in 1735, and a project was con-
ceived to publish a series of classics (not exclusively Valencian) by Lluís
Galiana in 1763. Throughout the eighteenth century, it was quite com-
mon for language apologias (for instance, those by Agustí Eura and by
Josep Ullastre) to refer to better times when both country and language
had full expression (cf. Feliu et al. 1992).
Josep Fontana points out that 1780 was the year in which the Board
of Trade and two historians, Jaume Caresmar and Antoni de Capmany,
established an economic, historic and philological programme that pre-
sented Catalonia’s specific needs to the State. Their approach focused on
Catalan history and literature as manifestations of a separate individual-
ity, which was also expressed in economic issues. The programme also
involved renouncing the Catalan language:
172 Magí Sunyer
Allò que els interessava no era la literatura catalana per ella mateixa, sinó
com a testimoni d’una cultura pròpia, la sola existència de la qual donava
suport a la imatge diferenciada de Catalunya que pretenien exposar.3
Integral parts of the programme were Memorias históricas sobre la marina,
comercio y artes de la antigua ciudad de Barcelona, published in 1779 by Antoni
de Capmany,4 and the plan to publish a dictionary of Catalan writers,
initiated by Jaume Caresmar and completed by Fèlix Torres Amat de-
cades later. Jordi Rubió i Balaguer (1986, 3: 82) points out that Jaume
Caresmar and his followers are fundamental to the process that was to
lead from the antiquarian study of history to archival and diplomatic
research, because it was based on a movement that was active through-
out Europe. Jordi Rubió himself stressed the importance of these initia-
tives:
Suggestions llançades per primer cop pels historiadors donaren estructura a
ideologies i programes de restauració que tingueren després vigència en la
Renaixença, la qual s’ha d’estudiar en funció del segle XVIII.5
Even so, let me stress once again that this movement rejected what was
to become the distinguishing feature par excellence of the Catalans: their
language.
The effect of these Enlightenment activities was twofold. On the one
hand, they drew attention to Catalan history and encouraged ancient
documents of historical and literary interest to be exhumed; on the other,
with the prestige of modernity, they pushed culturally ambitious dis-
course towards the use of Spanish. The later process that we know as
Renaixença, which depends precisely on pride in former glories, played a
vital role in the progress of scholarly investigation while striving to recu-
perate Catalan as a language appropriate for all uses. This process was
3
Fontana 1993, 120-1: ‘What they were interested in was not Catalan literature in
itself, but Catalan literature as proof of a culture, the mere existence of which gave
support to the image of a distinct Catalonia that they were trying to present.’
4
Fontana 1993, 119, considers this to be the greatest work of eighteenth-century
Catalan culture. Previously, Capmany had published Antiguos tratados de paces y alianzas
entre algunos reyes de Aragon y diferentes principes infieles de Asia y Africa, desde el siglo XII al
XV; his penchant for Spanish (over against Catalan) literature is manifested in his
Teatro histórico crítico de la elocuencia española, an anthology of Spanish literature from the
early romances to the present, published in 1786.
5
Rubió 1986, 83: ‘Suggestions first made by historians gave structure to ideologies
and restoration programmes that were subsequently to be valid during the Renaixença,
which has to be studied in the context of the eighteenth century.’
MEDIEVAL HERITAGE IN MODERN CATALAN LITERATURE 173
6
Ibid., 95: ‘Catalonia, however, knew how to read and understand the
Enlightenment lesson of her past revealed in the documents published in the Mem-
oirs.
7
One of these was between Josep Villarroya (Coleccion de cartas histórico-críticas en que
se convence que el Rey D. Jayme I de Aragon no fue el verdadero autor de la Crónica ó comentarios
que corren a su nombre, 1800) and a rejoinder ‘Sobre la Crónica del Rey Don Jayme I de
Aragon’ (published in Variedades de Ciencias, Literatura y Artes). Cf. Marcet & Solà 1998.
8
It was at this time that the dictionaries by Just Pastor Fuster and Fèlix Torres
Amat were planned; in June 1795 Antoni Elies i Robert read to the Barcelona Royal
Academy of Arts on a ‘Catálogo de las obras que se han escrito en lengua catalana
desde el reynado de Dn. Jayme el Conquistador’; cf. Marcet & Solà 1998.
174 Magí Sunyer
9
Simbor 1980, 84-85 reproduces an advertisement by the bookseller Just Pastor
Fuster (who was subsequently to publish a dictionary of Valencian authors) in the
Diario de Valencia offering ‘por raros’ Jaume Roig’s Llibre de les dones, and the poems
later known as the Cançoner Satíric Valencià (‘The satirical Valencian anthology’).
10
Badia 1994, 10: ‘is apparently based on the tradition that survived (...) throughout
the so-called Decadence; proof of this is the leading role given to Francesc Vicenç
Garcia’.
MEDIEVAL HERITAGE IN MODERN CATALAN LITERATURE 175
11
Quoted from Molas 1968, 108-9: ‘Such a noble language, spoken by/ Charle-
magne’s conspiring courtiers/ And the able Catalans / Who sailed the Ionian and
Aegean Seas / To become the masters of Athens. [...] It was also the language spoken
by the troubadours / To show noble thoughts and even nobler tenacity.’
12
Cf. also Philippe Martel’s contribution to the present volume.
13
See Rubió 1986, 407-17. For Catalan-Occitanian political links after this period,
see Martel 1992.
176 Magí Sunyer
1833-1841: ‘Taking Down From the Sacred Wall the Forefathers’ Lyre’
Romanticism entered Catalonia by means of the journal El Europeo (‘The
European’, 1823-24), which was directed by Bonaventura Carles Aribau
and Ramon López Soler, and really took off after 1833, the year of the
death of Fernando VII and the return of the anti-absolutist exiles. Aribau
and López Soler showed no interest in promoting medieval Catalan
classics; significantly, the Library of Spanish Authors which Aribau di-
rected from 1846 did not publish a single Catalan author either in the
original or in translation. The literary and philological orientation of
these authors was Spanish. López Soler made just one exception to this
(he wrote a single verse in Catalan); but among Aribau’s several minor
texts, one that was to prove to be fundamental to the history of Catalan
letters, ‘La Pàtria’.
It has been said that some passages from Aribau’s poem are indebted
to Puigblanch. However, it was of much greater literary quality and
managed to synthesize the main features of what would become domi-
nant in the re-emergence of Catalan literature. In his praise of the lan-
guage, which he also calls ‘Limousin’, the link with childhood and senti-
ment plays a major role; but Aribau also refers to past medieval glory,
not as explicitly as Puigblanch, but leaving no room for doubt:
Plau-me encara parlar la llengua d’aquells savis,
que ompliren l’univers de llurs costums e lleis,
la llengua d’aquells forts que acataren los reis,
defengueren llurs drets, venjaren llurs agravis.14
He mentions warriors and wise men (i.e., writers), using, in short, the
same characterization as Puigblanch, without making it clear to which
heroic deed or which wise men he is referring. Even so, he relates the
language to ‘the song of the troubadour’, and a little later appear the lines
that I quote by way of motto to this section of my article: ‘ni cull del mur
sagrat la lira dels seus avis’. Thus, like Puigblanch, Aribau uses the
well-known references to seafaring expansion and the troubadours.
14
Molas1974, 19-20: ‘It still pleases me to speak the language of those wise men, /
who filled the universe with their customs and laws, / the language of the strong who
obeyed the kings, / defended their rights and avenged their wrongs.’
MEDIEVAL HERITAGE IN MODERN CATALAN LITERATURE 177
15
Manuel Jorba, ‘La Renaixença’, in Molas 1986, 7: 17: ‘Largely owing to the
romantic ambition of presenting national individuality in its awareness-raising stage or
in its culmination, to the contributions of comparative linguistics and, in some cases,
to positivist procedures, did it become possible to discover and appropriate our own
classics and the project of publishing and studying our literary resources, particularly
the popular and medieval ones.’
178 Magí Sunyer
that he catalanized the theatrical themes from Generosos a cual más (‘No-
body more generous’, 1840) along the same lines as he was to do later
with Alfonso el Liberal o leyes de amor i honor (‘Alfonso the Magnanimous or
laws of love and honour’, 1843) and El espejo de las venganzas (‘The mirror
of revenge’, 1844). Tió also edited two popular historical texts which
were to inspire and inform a great deal of historicist literature: Expedición
de los catalanes y aragoneses contra turcos y griegos (‘The Catalan and Aragonese
expedition against the Turks and Greeks’) by Francesc de Montcada
(which was based on Ramon Muntaner’s Chronicle, and which generated
a great amount of literature on the medieval Catalan almogàver-soldiers),
and Historia de los movimientos de separación y guerra de Cataluña en tiempos de
Felipe IV (‘History of separatist movements and war in Catalonia in the
times of Philip IV’) by Francisco Manuel de Melo, a reference text about
the mid-seventeenth-century Reapers’ War.
In 1839, Pau Piferrer published the first volume of Cataluña in the
series Recuerdos y bellezas de España (‘Memories and sights of Spain’). Both
his contemporaries and latter-day historians consider this work to be the
cornerstone of Catalan historicist romanticism. Piferrer does not hesitate
to include documents, in their entirety or in excerpt, about a history and
a literature which he knows to be unfamiliar and poorly publicized. The
quotations are usually of a scholarly nature, but there is no shortage of
literary passages inserted on the least likely of pretexts. Thus the chapter
on Sant Cugat del Vallès begins with a beautiful capital letter S which
draws with it the following footnote:
Esta S es copia de la que encabeza la segunda de las cinco baladas del tro-
vador Luis de Vilarasa, caballero catalán que floreció a principios del siglo
XV, y uno de los que forman el cancionero de París. Como poseemos uno
de los facsímiles que trajo a Barcelona el anticuario francés M. Tastu,
creemos no será inoportuno continuar la mencionada balada, que no tra-
duciremos del catalán por no concentirlo su estremada senzillez y gracia de
la frase, prendas que desaparecerían si se virtiese en cualquier otro idioma16
16
Piferrer 1839, 190-191: ‘This S is a copy of the one to be found at the beginning
of the second of the five ballads by the troubadour Luis de Vilarasa, a Catalan knight
from the beginning of the fifteenth century, whose work is part of the Paris anthology.
As we have one of the copies that the French antiquarian M. Tastu brought to Barce-
lona, we believe that it would not be inopportune to continue this ballad, which we
shall not translate into Catalan so as not to spoil the extreme simplicity and grace of its
phrases, which cannot be rendered in any other language.’
180 Magí Sunyer
a sorprendre al món amb ses tensons, sos cants d'amor, sos sirventesos i ses
albades?17
That did not actually take place until 1859; but in 1841, as a sort of
rehearsal, the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Barcelona organized a
competition with two prizes. One was for a historical piece of work on
the Parliament of Casp, the prize for which consisted of copies of
Bofarull’s Los condes de Barcelona vindicados, and Capmany’s Memorias. The
other was for an epic poem, more than 600 lines long, about the Catalan
expedition to the East, which was awarded to Joaquim Rubió i Ors.
Significantly, the bibliography for this latter topic mentioned the popular
narrative history by Francesc de Montcada rather than the original chron-
icle by Ramon Muntaner.
Conclusions
On balance, the period between 1780 and 1840 was a lean time for the
publication of Catalan medieval literature. Very few editions were pub-
lished, and the ones that were often showed a considerable lack of edito-
rial sense of purpose. At the end of the eighteenth century, and largely
thanks to the initiative of Antoni de Capmany, documentation of funda-
mental historical interest with a modern approach began to be published.
At the same time a project got under way to write a dictionary of Catalan
writers, and in 1836 Torres i Amat published his Memorias. Despite the
difficulty of finding medieval texts, a medievalizing influence can be felt
in Antoni Puigblanch’s poem, in the references to Catalan expansion in
the East, in the popularization of troubadourism and, above all, in the
advent of romanticism. In fact it is already noticeable in Aribau’s ‘La
Pàtria’ and in historical novels and drama written in Spanish on Catalan
themes (Cortada, Tió i Noè). In Majorca, the journal La Palma was mov-
ing in the same direction. The most influential work at the end of this
period, Recuerdos y bellezas de España: Cataluña by Piferrer, laid down the
guidelines for assessing the past and medieval literature. Joaquim Rubió
i Ors started a new cycle with the campaign for catalanizing the language
of poetry and wrote the first manifesto of the Renaixença, including a
proposal for reviving the medieval-troubadouric Floral Games. Together
17
Joaquim Rubió i Ors, in Miracle 1960, 283: ‘For two centuries, Catalonia taught
literature to other nations. Why can we not revive the Floral Games and the academy
of poetry, and once again astonish the world with our love songs, sirventes and au-
bades?’
182 Magí Sunyer
with Josep Maria de Grau, he was also responsible for the publication of
a Co¹lecció d’Antigues Obres Catalanes, which did not however go beyond
two volumes (neither of which contained medieval authors).
It was only in the following decades that the great medieval writers,
from the chroniclers to Ausiàs Marc, were published. Initially, because of
an inherent mistrust of the Catalan language, they were translated into
Spanish; only subsequently were they published in the original. In a letter
to Rubió i Ors, Manuel Milà i Fontanals revealed that he was planning to
publish the great medieval classics, but this was not to be. In the course
of the nineteenth century, the assessment of Catalan writers was gradu-
ally refined. In this process, considerable influence was exerted by the
guidelines and publishing activity of Antoni de Bofarull, Constantí
Llombart, Josep Maria Quadrado, Gabriel Llabrés, Francesc Pelai Briz
and, above all, Manuel Milà i Fontanals and Marian Aguiló. According to
Lola Badia (1994, 13), Antoni de Bofarull’s 1858 vision of medieval
Catalan literature was similar to the one we have now, and she considers
that it was between 1860 and 1889 that the work was done to provide
Catalan literary history with a clearer profile.18
References
Anguera, Pere. 1997. El català al segle XIX. Barcelona, Empúries.
Anguera, Pere. 2000. Els precedents del catalanisme. Barcelona, Empúries.
Aramon i Serra, Ramon. 1997. Les edicions de textos catalans medievals, in
Estudis de llengua i literatura. Barcelona, Institut d’Estudis Catalans.
Badia, Lola. 1994. La literatura catalana medieval vista per alguns erudits vuit-
centistes, in Actes del Co¹loqui internacional sobre la Renaixença, 9-16. Barcelona,
Curial.
Cahner, Max. 2004. Literatura de la revolució i la contrarevolució (1789-1849). Barce-
lona, Curial.
Feliu, Francesc et al., eds. 1992. Tractar de nostra llengua catalana. Vic, Eumo.
Fontana, Josep. 1993. La fi de l’Antic Règim i la desamortització. 4th ed., Barcelona,
Edicions 62.
Fontana, Josep. 1997. El Romanticisme i la formació d’una història nacional
catalana, in Actes del Co¹loqui sobre el Romanticisme, 539-549. Vilanova i la
Geltrú: Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer.
18
This article is part of the research carried out by the research group in National
and Gender Identity in Catalan Literature of the Rovira i Virgili University and project
HUM 2006-13121/FILO of the Ministry of Education and Science.
MEDIEVAL HERITAGE IN MODERN CATALAN LITERATURE 183
Fuster, Joan. 1976. Llengua i literatura en el primer terç del segle XIX, in De-
cadència al País Valencià. Barcelona, Curial.
Gadea i Gambús, Ferran. 1994. Notes sobre la recuperació, valoració i edició
dels clàssics durant la Renaixença. Estudi especial de les cròniques, in Actes
del Co¹loqui internacional sobre la Renaixença, 2: 17-32. Barcelona, Curial.
Marcet, Pere, Joan Solà. 1998. Història de la lingüística catalana. Vic, Eumo.
Martel, Philippe. 1992. Occitans i catalans: Els avatars d’una germanor, in Actes
del Co¹loqui internacional sobre la Renaixença, 1: 377-390. Barcelona, Curial.
Miracle, Josep. 1960. La Restauració dels Jocs Florals. Barcelona, Aymà.
Molas, Joaquim. 1962. Poesia neoclàssica i pre-romàntica. Barcelona, Edicions 62.
Molas, Joaquim. 1974. Poesie catalana romàntica. 2nd ed.; Barcelona, Edicions 62.
Piferrer, Pau. 1839. Recuerdos y bellezas de España I: Cataluña. Barcelona.
Rubió, Jordi. 1986. Història de la literatura catalana. Montserrat, Publicacions de
l’Abadia de Montserrat.
Simbor, Vicent. 1980. Els orígens de la Renaixença Valenciana. València, Universitat
de València.
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 185-219
Philippe Martel
Abstract
In the investigation of the earliest medieval manifestations of their
national culture, nineteenth-century French scholars and intellectuals
faced a problem: the Troubadours use an idiom which some centuries
later had come to be rejected as mere patois. Paradoxically, a literary
tradition of Europe-wide prestige, born on French territory, is not
properly French. The discovery of the Oxford manuscript of the
Chanson de Roland (1837) and other Chansons de geste of the langue d’oïl
afforded more convenient Great Ancestors to the French intelligen-
tsia; accordingly, poetry of the langue d’oc drops out of the canonic
corpus of the beginnings of the nation’s literature. Meanwhile, the
theme of the Albigensian crusade is being re-discovered and quickly
sidelined as a threat to the French national mythology. But some
southern French intellectuals, sensitised to this heritage, devote them-
selves to its promotion. Mistral and his Félibres make it the basis of
their planned Occitan Renaissance. This incipiently nation-building
project faces two drawbacks: the social status of the actors of the
Occitan renaissance (modest middle-class in the main) bars them
from attaining any significant political or intellectual power; and no
room is provided for Occitan-related research either at University
level or in local institutions of learning. The attempt to re-integrate
the Troubadours and Occitan literature and history into the main-
stream of canonical French culture was doomed to fail.
From the late eighteenth until the mid-nineteenth century, France, like
many other European countries, built up progressively corpus of histori-
cal and cultural references constituting the basis for a national (moral
186 Philippe Martel
and civic) consensus. The dynasty, common identity focus for the subject
of the ancien régime, had vanished after 1789; values, records and myths
were needed for the citizens of the new French nation-state. This in-
volved a new scientific discourse about history, language and literature,
and a careful evaluation of the various and sometimes contradictory
elements inherited from France’s long past. A key issue in this process
was the tension between North and South.
Multilingualism had been the rule in pre-revolutionary France, and of
course it did not vanish on 14 July 1789. Frenchmen then, and through-
out the following centuries, could be speakers of Breton, Alsatian or
Occitan.
Occitan-speaking France in 1789 covered one fourth of the total
population, on one third of the national territory. An important part of
France has, then, its own language, social and familial structures, mental-
ity and culture, level of economical development. More than a periphery,
it was considered the other half of France, distinct from the region
around the capital Paris. This situation differs from other regions which,
like Brittany, have a particularism but a far less significant geographical
footprint.
This difference was increasingly highlighted by travelers, administra-
tors and statisticians, and was complemented by the gradual scholarly
recognition of a special language, literature and history. The question
thus arose, how the official new discourse about national identity was to
deal with this southern difference. Integrate, separate or ignore it alto-
gether?
The problem was further complicated by a basic literary fact: south-
ern France had in its own time given birth to a prestigious medieval
literature of Europe-wide renown. The trobadors or troubadours constitute
a second difference with other regions.1 Should they be recognised as the
true fathers of French literature, even though their language was not
French, but what is usually termed patois (a francocentric word indicating
boorish jargon utterly bereft of any literary quality)? How can the French
national ideology accommodate this awkward duality between the two
great literatures of medieval ‘France’, oc and oïl? How can it resolve the
contradiction between the image of prestigious medieval Occitan, and
the image of the contemporary southern-provincial patois, which most
1
Even the chivalric matière de Bretagne of Arthurian romance is in French, not in
Breton, and in any case deals with Britain rather than Brittany.
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 187
Italian literature. This is why from time to time, important Italian schol-
ars feel compelled to scrutinise these forerunners of Italian poetry. Thus
Pietro Bembo in the sixteenth century and Giovanni Crescimbeni in the
seventeenth planned (fruitlessly) an anthology of troubadour poetry; the
latter at least managed to see into print an Istoria della volgar poesia (1678)
which pays attention to troubadours.
In France meanwhile, ‘gothic’ (i.e. medieval) literature was little ap-
preciated, even held in contempt. But in Provence, some sixteen-century
scholars like Jean de Nostredame (Vies des plus célèbres et anciens poetes
provençaux, 1575) maintained some kind of knowledge about the trouba-
dours, albeit tainted sometimes with imaginative reconstructions or even
downright mystifications. Nostredame (brother, incidentally, of the fa-
mous Nostradamus) audaciously transforms all ancient Troubadours,
whatever their actual birth-place, in true and pure Provençals. He is also
responsible for an invention which remain current until the end of nine-
teenth century, the strange tribunal of the Cour d’Amour, in which beauti-
ful and wise Provençal noblewomen were supposed to have passed
judgement on intricate affairs of the heart. Nostredame is aware of Ital-
ian writing about the troubadours, and in return Italian scholars take
note of him throughout the next two centuries, helping his clever and
fantastic inventions to the status of respectable tradition.
Among Nostredame’s more reliable successors was the great
seventeenth-century Provençal scholar and humanist Fabri de Peiresc,
who researched and copied manuscripts available in France, and also was
in touch with Italian colleagues. Following him, other Provençal intellec-
tuals like Gallaup de Chasteuil or Honoré Bouche (author of a 1664
History of Provence), and later still, in the eighteenth century, Président de
Mazaugues continued the tradition of collecting ancient texts. But their
work remains unpublished and has exercised no direct influence on
cultural and literary life in modern Provence. There is still a literary pro-
duction in the vernacular language in the sixteenth through eighteenth
centuries, but its models are French and Italian, baroque in style and
without similarity to medieval Occitan poetry..
But changes were in the air. In Italy, a Catalan cleric, Dom Bastero,
developed during an Italian journey an interest in what he encountered
about troubadours. Although he failed to publish the genuine original
texts, he did produce a seminal book on the topic, La Crusca provenzale
(Rome, 1724), the first study about the subject which escapes the fate of
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 189
unpublished obscurity. That does not mean his work is above criticism.
He deals mainly with the Vidas or Lives of the ancient poets; they had
also been used by Nostredame to build some of his fantasies, and
Bastero does not correct those. Worse: being himself Catalan-speaking,
he succumbs to the temptation of claiming his own Catalan language as
the only true heir to the troubadours’ old ‘Provençal’, as opposed to the
‘debased’ idiom of ‘Occitania’ (a term he is familiar with). Nostredame
had outrageously ‘Provençalised’ all medieval Occitan poets, and Bastero
follows in his footsteps, out of Catalan patriotism. One century later, the
first protagonists of the Catalan renaixença remembered him, and took it
for granted that their Catalan ancestors had played a leading part in the
prestigious courtly productions of the twelfth century. Which could not
fail to engender subsequent controversies with Occitan intellectuals....
French learning followed suit. Troubadours found a place in the
monumental Histoire générale de Languedoc (1737) by two Maurist Benedic-
tines, Dom Vic and Dom Vaissète, who likewise emphasise the contribu-
tion of their province to ancient Occitan literature. But their main pur-
pose being historical (recalling the glory and, incidentally, the legitimacy
of old provincial privileges) rather than literary, their perspective on the
subject is derivative. Also in 1737, the great French literary antiquary
Lacurne de Saint Palaye, with the help of collaborators and correspon-
dents, began his enormous work of deciphering and copying the material
conserved in French libraries – first of all the Bibliothèque royale, later also
local or private libraries. By 1739, Lacurne and his staff extended their
survey to Italy. The result of this work: some five thousand items tran-
scribed with attempts at translation. One cannot but admire this achieve-
ment. Lacurne de Saint Palaye was an expert in medieval French, and
had a good command of paleography, but as a non-Occitan-speaker
from Bourgogne, he was in no position to grasp the language and the
subtle rhetoric of Occitan poetry. He nevertheless succeeded in making
his way through a vast amount of this foreign material.
But once again, this remarkable work was to remain largely unpub-
lished. Only in 1774 one of Saint-Palaye’s collaborators, Millot, pub-
lished a selection of ca. 100 items in a book audaciously en titled Histoire
littéraire des troubadours, contenant leurs vies, des extraits de leurs pièces et plusieurs
particularités sur les moeurs,les usages et l’histoire du XIIème et du XIIIème siècle.
For the first time, a large public – large by period standards of course –
190 Philippe Martel
was given a glimpse of what ancient Occitan poetry was. And that is
where the trouble started.
2
Millot 1774, 1: xx: ‘Under bright heavens, in a country favoured by nature, where
the warmth of climate excites spirit the without weakening the body, the inclination
for poetry has to be more vivid than elsewhere, and more fertile in productivity. So it
was in the French monarchy’s southern provinces, all known at that time under the
common name of Provence, because all shared the Provençal language’.
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 191
3
ibid. 1: 413-414. ‘In the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Provençal
language had that status among educated persons that was later enjoyed by Italian, and
nowadays by French. The fame and works of the troubadours made its fortune. Noth-
ing equaled those poets. Everyone was eager to know them, and sing their pieces.
They were like the heralds of chivalry and gallantry, whose empire took in all of
southern Europe. Authors who know how to please always contribute largely to the
prestige of their language. Provençal only fell into oblivion because Italian works
outshone it by their merit’.
192 Philippe Martel
4
Legrand d’Aussy 1781, 1-2: ‘As chance had associated me to the works of an
esteemed scholar, [Lacurne de Sainte Palaye], who had specially devoted himself to the
elaborate study of both Romance languages, French and Provençal, I became at last
capable of appreciating the poets of both traditions. What a surprise it was for me,
when, reading through those much-celebrated troubadours, who had been represented
to us as the preceptors of our nation, I found their works woeful, monotonous, dull
and unreadable, whereas the rhymers of our northern provinces, though unknown and
despised, provided me, to my great astonishment, with productions full of cheer, wit
and imagination.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 193
5
ibid. 55: ‘Whatever he may say about it, I do not believe that north of the Loire
the climate is icy; that up there one is born amidst fog, and with thick and sluggish
organs. Those dull colours in which the skies of Siberia or of Groenland are usually
represented to us, are not those which belong to Paris and Orleans (...) No, it is not, I
repeat, the favourable temperature of one climate or another that makes the men there
excel in poetry; it is not the advantage of a more southerly latitude that bequeathed to
us the masterpieces of Greeks and Romans.’
6
I bid. 523-53: Therefore I did not compare the two idioms, but the productions of
both people: because for a musician to become famous, it is not enough to have the
best instrument; he must also play it well. The poorer the instrument our trouvères had
to use, the greater is their glory at being nonetheless able to please us. Their language,
inform at first, improved with time (...) [What happened to Provençal] seems to me
almost entirely opposite. Welcomed by Italy and Spain as soon as it was born, it was in
some way marked out for a brilliant destiny; but soon this all changed. As soon as the
two nations which had adopted it began to produce their own poets, its own inner
mediocrity made it lose its fame. It has fallen back into obscurity and oblivion, and is
now nothing more than the patois of a particular district, whereas the happier Ro-
mance language of France succeeds to establish itself with splendour, and to dominate
as a sovereign.’
194 Philippe Martel
7
Bérenger, ‘Lettre à Monsieur Grosley’, Mercure de France, 24 August 1782: ‘This
poetry is not to be judged by the bad translation that was given of it, but has to be
read in its original language. However, this language is not easy to understand. M.
Legrand himself confesses he understands it only with difficulty. What opinion is he
therefore competent to give about its proper turns of phrase, expressions, metaphors,
imagery, as these, having passed through a foreign idiom, are ill-interpreted, weakened
and disfigured? In order to understand the troubadours’ poetry properly, one must
have been born in the country where they lived themselves. Additionally, it is not
enough to know the present language, one must also understand the old Provençal
Romance, which differs greatly from the modern and has no more link with it than
twelfth-century Italian has with modern Italian. And finally, supposing that an inhabit-
ant of the southern provinces would undertake to put his mind to this kind of work,
he would be infinitely more able than a foreigner to find beauty in these poems be-
cause of the analogies that still remain. Those expressions, which would seem weak or
meaningless to outsiders, to him would still offer very charming pictures.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 195
8
Achard 1785, ‘Iinstructions préliminaires’, 1: xi-xii: ‘The Provençal language was
for a long time that of the European courts. Its glory is to have given birth to French,
Spanish, Italian and several languages akin to these. This indisputable truth seems to
have been missed by several authors who derive these languages from Latin (...)
Wholly analogous to Provençal, the Romance spoken by the Frenchmen underwent
variations, and soon differed in each French province; not before the twelfth century
did the French language take on features alien to its mother speech. That mother
speech remained alive in some provinces among common people. It maintained itself
in its perfection in Provence, where it was maintained by the spirit of patriotism.
196 Philippe Martel
official French. Unlike Legrand d’Aussy’s model, this theory does not
blame the decline of Occitan on a lack of intrinsic qualities, is political
rather than literary and invokes something like a raison d’état. But it leaves
the nature of historical causation open: what precisely were the contin-
gencies which made Paris the centre of choice for the political powers,
and brought it into a position to enforce its rule upon southern country?
Still many authors, whatever their mutual differences, concur in applying
the ‘race between the twins’ model, and play the little rhetorical ‘what if’
game of the failed opportunities: we find it both in the writings of the
Languedocian lexicologist Boissier de Sauvages’s (Dictionnaire
Languedocien-français (1785 ed., 2: 143) and in §6 of Rivarol’s Universalité de
la langue française (1784):
Si le provençal, qui n’a que des sons pleins, eût prévalu, il auroit donné au
français l’éclat de l’espagnol et de l’italien; mais le Midi de la France, tou-
jours sans capitale et sans loi, ne put soutenir la concurrence du nord, et
l’influence du patois Picard s’accrut avec celle de la couronne. C’est donc le
génie clair et méthodique de ce jargon et sa prononciation un peu sourde
qui dominent aujourd’hui dans la langue française.9
This has become the accepted version to the point that Henri Grégoire,
the Convention representative (who had no common ground with the
reactionary Rivarol apart from their love for the French language) as-
serted almost literally the same thing in his notorious Rapport sur la né-
cessité et les moyens d’anéantir les patois et d’universaliser l’usage de la langue
française of 1794:
(...) probablement, au lieu de la langue des trouvères, nous parlerions celle
des troubadours si Paris, le centre du gouvernement, avoit été situé sur la
rive gauche de la Loire.10
‘Probably’: it was after all only a question of chance. As a consolation,
southern intellectuals claimed the famous Oaths of Strasbourg as a mon-
ument of their language, dating from a time when the scales had not yet
9
Rivarol as quoted in Lafont 1982: ‘Had Provençal, which knows only full sounds,
prevailed, it would have given to French the glamour of Spanish and Italian; but the
Midi of France, always deprived of a capital and lawless, could not cope with the
competition of the North, and the influence of the Picard patois grew along with that
of the crown. Hence the clear and methodic genius of this idiom, and its somewhat
muffled pronunciation, now dominate in the French language.’
10
Grégoire as quoted in De Certeau 1975, 306: ‘Probably, instead of the trouvères'
language, we would speak that of the troubadours, if Paris, the centre of government,
had been situated on the left bank of Loire.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 197
11
Trélis 1807, 104. There is also a historical lapsus here: the Louis mentioned in
the Oaths of Strasbourg was not Louis the Debonaire (better known as Louis the
Pious), but his son Louis the German.
198 Philippe Martel
tence of a literature in patois, etc.); but the core lies in points 30 and 31.
Question 30 asks whether the correspondents would consider it useful to
eradicate the patois; the next suggests the correct answer, by asking
through what means this eradication could be achieved. Grégoire’s view,
which he shared with many revolutionary thinkers, is that linguistic vari-
ety in France is the product of feudalism, the result of a devious aristo-
cratic plot to divide the common people into mutually unintelligible
jargons, in order to hinder any concord between them. Grégoire, like
many others (and not all of them on the side of the Revolution), is fur-
ther convinced that those jargons, rude and defective, are unable to
express modernity, Reason and Progress. To connect with those forces,
citizens must master French, the language of law and power, and in the
same gesture abandon their ancient idioms, in a kind of quasi-religious
conversion: a new language for a new Man.
A problem: if the correspondents, mostly militant revolutionaries,
duly and eagerly agree with Grégoire’s purpose, their answers give rise to
a good deal of contradictions, mostly with regard to Occitan dialects. As
we have seen, Achard naively sent along his grammar – whereas
Grégoire believed that a patois could not have any established grammati-
cal rules. Others assert that their patois is understood over great dis-
tances – whereas Grégoire suggests in his question nr 16 that it changes
from one village to the next. And many actually give titles of books, and
names of patois authors...Four years later, Grégoire’s Report cannot but
take account of those elements. It concludes, unsurprisingly, by stating
the necessity of eradication, but acknowledges the existence of what
could be called the Occitan exception, of which we had a glimpse earlier:
the vivid idiom of no less vivid Southerners could have been the official
language of France, if... This idiom has its dignity and its merits, its
authors and its literature. Therefore, if other patois-speaking regions
should be relieved to abandon their useless idioms, for Southerners it has
to be a heroically patriotic sacrifice – Grégoire speaks of ‘abjuring’. Also,
dialects may have their philosophical and scientific interest, for they
provide elements towards understanding the history of the French lan-
guage, in that they have conserved remains of former stages of its evolu-
tion. Moreover, southern dialects in particular (that is to say, Provençal;
and here perhaps Achard’s ideas show their impact) could provide new
post-revolutionary French with fresh words and turns of phrase.
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 199
12
Portalis as quoted in Merle 1990, 2: 523: ‘The Provence, situated under a pure
and serene sky, had kept the blessing of civilisation better, because it had been less
often visited by barbarians. Feudalism was established here later, with less might and
less thoroughly, and its links loosened sooner. The trade of the free cities of Marseille
and Arles, and their frequent communication with Arabs, kept intellectual movement
alive and introduced politeness. Thus, the Provençal language gave birth to vernacular
literature in Europe. (...) Afterwards, Italian, Spanish and French arose on the ruins of
Provençal and those proud daughters obscured the memory of their mother. (...)
French prevailed in all respects. The language of the troubadours was forgotten in
their fatherland, as were the books, both in prose and in verse, that they had left. Only
the exaggerated pretentions of the adepts of old French trouvères compelled the Pro-
vençals, aware of the outrage that their nation suffered, to unearth from the dust of
libraries their ancient titles to glory’.
202 Philippe Martel
longtemps consacrées par les fraudes des fourbes et par l’aveugle confiance
des peuples.)
13
Sismondi 1821-44, 6: 158-59, 250-251:‘Poetry had never been cultivated more
zealously. Almost all the troubadours whose names have remained famous for six
centuries and whose works have been recently brought back to light belonged to this
time’ (158). ‘At the same time and in the same regions, the spirit of humanity was
breaking the ancient chains of superstition: Waldensians, Paterins and Albigensians
were moving towards a more certain religion, and scrutinizing errors long established
by deceptive fraud and by blind popular credulity’ (159). ‘The Provençals were trying
to constitute themselves as a nation, and to get absolutely separated from Frenchmen,
to whom they were inferior in regard to art of warfare, but whom they surpassed in
every progress of civilisation’ (250). ‘The Provençals, having by then come to the acme
of their civilisation, looked upon the Northern French as barbarians. By them, trade
and arts had known rapid progresses. Their towns were wealthy and industrious, and
everyday they obtained from their lords new privileges. Cities were all governed in
almost republican form by consuls elected by the people’ (251).
204 Philippe Martel
14
ibid. 6: 251-252: ‘This beautiful land was left to the fury of a horde of fanatics, its
population was mown down by iron. Its trade was destroyed, its arts thrown back to
barbarism, and its dialect degraded from the rank of a poetical language to that of a
patois. Provençals were no longer a nation. (...) Too early enlightened, walking too
swiftly on the road of civilisation, those people stirred up jealousy and aversion from
the barbarians who surrounded them. The struggle began between the friends of
darkness and those of enlightenment, the supporters of despotism and those of free-
dom (...) The party opposing the progresses of mankind poured forth his foes, and
profited with such fury of his victory that the vanquished party could never come back
in the same provinces or in the same kind of people.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 205
15
Unsigned article, Le caducée 25 June 1821, quoted in Merle 1990, 664: ‘Provençals,
Languedocians, Gascons always have boasted of having plenty of wit. But what I
challenge is that their imagination is greater, bolder or more plentiful than that of the
inhabitants of northern France. Mr Legrand d’Aussi [sic], having published the collec-
tion of our fabliaux, has proved that the troubadours never exhibited any deep senti-
ment or any moving adventure. The Southerner pretends that the warmer and brighter
sun renders his imagination more fertile; so that, following that nice line of reasoning,
dark-complexioned people must have more wit than whites, and black ones more than
the dusky ones. On the contrary, does not the sun do to minds what it does to the
soil? It makes the Provence an arid land. The exaltation which the southerners boast of
nearly always destroys judgement, and without judgement enthusiasm is nothing but
madness: the great merit of an author is to join deep reasoning to exquisite sensibility,
and Mr Legrand has proved to us that you cannot name one work from a troubadour
that matches the tales of the trouvères.’
206 Philippe Martel
original families, and implies that French unity was obtained, as far as
the Languedoc was concerned, through the veritable extinction of one of
those families. This skeleton is stored deep in the recesses of the tricol-
oured closet.
Jules Michelet, inspiration of the republican discursive tradition con-
cerning the nation’s history, makes this clear. As his master Sismondi had
given the Albigensian crusade so prominent a place as to render it im-
possible to ignore, Michelet subtly revises its import. He retains the
words Sismondi has used to describe pre-French ‘Provençals’ and their
country, but then plays with these words:
Ces gens du Midi, commerçants industrieux et civilisés, comme les Grecs,
n’avaient guère meilleure réputation de piété ni de bravoure. On leur trou-
vait trop de savoir et de savoir-faire, trop de loquacité. Les hérétiques
abondaient dans leurs cités demi mauresques; leurs moeurs étaient un peu
mahométanes. (...) Le Languedoc était le vrai mélange des peuples, la vraie
Babel. L’élément sémitique, juif et arabe était fort en Languedoc (...) les
Juifs étaient innombrables.16
Industrious, civilised, knowledge, cities, heretics, even bourgeois urban
republics: the elements of the picture are there, but distorted. And in
spite of Michelet’s reputation as a democrat and humanist, one cannot
but wonder at the way he insists on the racial mixture that is the charac-
teristic of southern society, and the place he assigns to Jews in particular.
As for troubadour poetry, it is swiftly dismissed:
Gracieuse, légère et immorale littérature, qui n’a pas connu d’autre idéal que
l’amour, l’amour de la femme, qui ne s’est jamais élevée à la beauté éter-
nelle. Parfum stérile, fleur éphémère qui avait crû sur le roc et qui se fanait
d’elle-même quand la lourde main des hommes du Nord vint se poser sur
elle et l’écraser.17
16
Michelet 1975 (1833), 2:. 433 and 501: ‘Those southerners, industrious and
civilised traders like the Greeks, had not really a better reputation of godliness or
bravery. They were thought to have too much knowledge, too much ability, too much
loquaciousness. Heretics were abundant in their half-Moorish cities. Their morals were
somewhat Mahomedan (...) The Languedoc was the true mixture of people, the genu-
ine Babel. The Semitic element, Jewish and Arab was strong in Languedoc (...) Jews
were numerous.’
17
406: ‘A graceful, frivolous and immoral literature, which did not know any ideal
but love, love of woman, and which never rose up to eternal beauty. A sterile perfume,
short-lived flower grown on rock, which was already withering when the heavy hand
of Northerners came and covered it to crush it.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 209
18
Villemain 1830, 1-ff.: ‘While northern France underwent hard and violent domi-
nation (...), the Midi had been more peaceful, more industrious, wealthier (...). The
mildness of climate, a certain impulse of chivalry and magnanimity coming out of
Spain and even from the Moors, had communicated to the inhabitants a poetic ele-
gance that is not unlike the humanity of modern times. (...) Provençal poetry was, so to
say, the liberty of press in feudal times: a tougher, bolder, less repressed one than ours.
(...) In Provençal sirventé verse appears then not only a source of new poetry, but a
principle of reasoning and freedom that stands against what was then far stronger than
iron: theological and monastic influence.’
210 Philippe Martel
are good judges for southern poetry’ (p. 161). Climate now recurs as a
cleavage between north and south.
Cette poésie des Troubadours, en devenant satirique et haineuse, perdait
quelque chose de sa brillante inspiration. Elle semble née pour chanter le
beau ciel de Provence, le printemps, les plaisirs; quand elle s'arrachait à ce
doux emploi, elle était souvent plus injurieuse qu'énergique (...) Il est ma-
nifeste, il est visible que les Provençaux haïssaient les Français et voulaient
exister à part. Un peuple, une langue, une langue, un peuple. Si la Provence
fût devenue indépendante, c'était un peuple du Midi de plus, avec son nom,
sa langue, ses arts, son génie propre.19
This anticipates Michelet’s verdict of ‘gracious and immoral’. Worse: the
linguistic singularity of those southerners, and the hatred they felt for
their northern neighbours could have led to a historical catastrophe: the
birth of a separate nation with a separate language and conscience; to the
detriment of France proper. In the equation ‘a language, a people’,
Villemain’s France offers no space for Occitan. Anyway, Villemain at
this point dismissed Occitan with a cursory obituary, moving to this true
topic:
Messieurs, nous avons rapidement esquissé les traits principaux de l’esprit
provençal, qui, d’abord parent de l’esprit français, s’en était séparé, avait
brillé d’un vif éclat, et s’affaiblit et s’éteint au moment où les provinces du
Midi sont absorbées dans le territoire français. Maintenant, nous nous rap-
prochons de notre véritable patrie, et nous tâcherons de démêler les pre-
miers caractères, les premiers indices du génie purement français.20
‘Purely French’ ... Those who were building the edifice of a ‘purely
French’ literary history, had the stroke of good fortune around this time.
In 1837, the very moment of Fauriel’s edition of Cançon de la Crosada,
Francisque Michel retrieved the Chanson de Roland from the Bodleian
19
223: ‘This troubadour poetry, by becoming satirical and hateful, was losing
something of its brilliant inspiration. It seems to be born to sing the beautiful sun, the
spring and pleasures of the Provence. Once it tore itself away from this sweet use, it
was often more injurious than energetic. It is manifest, it is visible that Provençals
hated Frenchmen, and wanted to live apart. A people, a language; a language, a people.
Had Provence remained independent, it would have been a was a southern people,
with its name, its arts, its own spirit’.
20
ibid.: ‘Gentlemen, we have rapidly outlined the main features of the Provençal
spirit, which, at first akin to the French spirit, had left it, had had a vivid glamour, and
weakened and vanished as the Midi’s provinces got absorbed into French territory. By
now, we get actually nearer to our true fatherland, and we will try to make out the first
features, the first clues of the purely French genius.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 211
After 1860
After 1860, medieval philology in Paris was dominated by Gaston Paris
and Paul Meyer, who through the Ecole des Chartes, the Ecole Pratique
des Hautes Etudes, and the Collège de France, held a hegemonic posi-
tion in the field of philological studies until the beginning of twentieth
century, helping their disciples to install themselves in strategic positions
throughout the university system. Although Meyer was a friend of Mis-
tral, and capable of dealing with old Occitan texts, it is clear that the two
masters and their pupils locate early French literature within the langue
d’oïl. Both doubt any real difference between southern and northern
‘gallo-romance’ dialects: the various and varied idioms across the na-
tional territory constitute a tapestry in which their colours get impercepti-
bly mingled – and Occitan disappears (Lafont 1991).
21
Nisard 1844, 102: ‘Provençal poetry, yet languishing by the end of the twelfth
century, died in thirteenth century with the civilisation that had given it birth’, and
Gérurez 1852, ix: ‘By restricting this work to French literature, I shall have to let aside
all that has to do with Latin literature and even Provençal poetry, which left us nothing
or hardly anything, and which is more naturally linked, both through analogy of lan-
guage and through influence of feelings, to Italy and Spain.’
212 Philippe Martel
22
Diouloufet 1829: ‘Thanks to you, Provençal muse, our land is immortal. By then
you had no equal, your reign seemed eternal. The proud Muse of the Seine today
wants to reign supreme, since we have become French. But, to whom loves his father-
land, and songs, and harmony, the provençalés is always pleasing.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 213
speaking, republican-minded, not a very good idea in 1841; but that does
not fully explain the lack of interest among national institutions.
Another Occitan intellectual was more fortunate. Bernard Mary-
Lafon, born in the Montauban region, published his patriotic Histoire
politique, religieuse et littéraire du Midi de la France in 1845 – in Paris, where
Mary-Lafon had previously tried (rather unsuccessfully so) to make his
mark as a novelist. His purpose: to tell the story of a Midi characterised
by its love for freedom, gifted with qualities such as tolerance and clever-
ness. This Midi finds itself regularly confronted with the oppressive
jealousy of a semi-barbarous North, the country of the Franks. Through-
out the centuries, the dramatic conflicts in Southern France (the
Albigensian crusade, the sixteenth-century wars of religion, popular
revolts, and the federalist insurrection of 1793) mark so many moments
of struggle between North and South. In the end, Mary-Lafon endorses
post-revolutionary France because it subscribes to the values so long
defended by Southerners; but this does not alter the vindictive tone of
his history. Of course in this epic of the indomitable Southern spirit, the
troubadours have their place (Mary-Lafon 1845 2: 343-390). Immediately
afterwards comes the Albigensian Crusade, which ends the second vol-
ume and opens the third. Mary-Lafon not only quotes troubadour poems
in the original but also gives a fairly accurate translation, and biographic
comments about the main poets. Against national historians and literary
specialists who have at that time begun to dismiss both the troubadours
and the Albigensian Crusade, Mary-Lafon founds a counter-discourse
cleverly using the topoi established some twenty years earlier by Sismondi.
Just as Michelet draws up the outline of a national French history, whose
great principles, events and heroes constitute a canonical doxa about
Eternal France, Mary-Lafon, with his recurrent cycle of northern attacks
against freedom-loving southerners, provides his Félibrige and Occitanist
successors (on whom, cf. Martel 1992) with an Occitan doxa.
And successors he had, even if he himself did not like them very
much. Frederic Mistral (the 1904 Nobel Laureate and most prominent
representative of the Occitan renaissance) and his Félibrige friends present
themselves as the heirs of the medieval poets, and never fail to celebrate
their glory. One example among many others is Mistral’s 1861 poem
‘Odo i troubaire catalan’, an ode dedicated to Catalans poets and to the
freshly re-established Occitan-Catalan fraternity:
214 Philippe Martel
23
Mistral 1889, 166-168: ‘The troubadours – and no one since then surpassed
them, in spite of the priests – raising the common people’s language to the ear of
kings, sang lovingly, sang freely, the coming of a new world, and the scorn of old fears.
By then there were hearts, and sharp revival. The Arles republic, back in its marshes,
faced down the Emperor. That of Marseille, in feudal times, displayed written on his
gate: ‘All men are brethren’. By then when from far away to North, Simon de Mont-
fort, for the glory of God and the law of the strongest unchained the crusade and
when the starving raven, came flying, tearing apart nest, mother and brood. Tarascon
and Beaucaire, and Toulouse, and Beziers, their body a bulwark, Provence, thou saw’st
them, thou saw’st them seething, running at arms, and for freedom willingly dying.
Nowadays, we crouch in front of the face of a constable.’
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 215
studies of the language they use, and of the troubadour ancestry they
boast of. It comes as no surprise, then, to see that after1850 the main
studies about ancient Occitan and its literature, as well as the editions of
the fundamental Occitan corpus, continue to be pursued in Paris or in
German universities.
Conclusion
The problem with the troubadours is perhaps they have been spoken of far
more than actually studied: what Robert Lafont calls the ‘texte-trouba-
dours’, as substitute for the ‘texte des troubadours’. Just as if they were
not that important in themselves, but only as a pretext to speak of some-
thing else.
However, they had their chance, at one moment. They could have
been integrated into the official national canon as the first vernacular
lyric poets in France’s literary history. Their moment begins around
1774, and for all practical purposes may be considered as closed around
1840.
They could sow an entitlement to canonicity: their international re-
nown in their own day, to begin with, had been long testified to by Ital-
ian scholars. There was also their reputation of poetic elegance and pol-
ish, which made them stand out amidst the crudeness commonly attrib-
uted, in the late eighteenth century, to the Gothic Middle Ages. Their
style was both more natural and more naive, as befits the first generation
to use vernacular Romance for literary purposes; cultivated, almost mod-
ern.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the troubadours’ standing
was boosted by their association with the political and social events of
the Albigensian Crusade: progressive thought and progressive poetry
stood shoulder to shoulder against feudal and clerical violence.
But in the long run they faded from the family photograph of
France’s glorious past. For their language is not French The illusion that
Occitan is a variant of French, nourished by the false symmetry Langue
d’oc – Langue d’oïl and the confusing linguistic category of patois, only
lasted as long as the original texts remained unavailable; a more accurate
picture of France’s linguistic landscape only emerged after the 1789
Revolution and with the linguistic surveys of the Napoleonic Empire.
Occitan is then recognised as distinctly non-French, not even some
collateral ancestor of present French. Worse, its only obvious living
216 Philippe Martel
24
On climate theory and on the ambivalence inherent in many ethnotypes, see the
relevant articles in Beller & Leerssen 2007.
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 217
References
Beller, Manfred, and Joep Leerssen, eds. 2007. Imagology. The Cultural Construction
and Literary Representation of national characters. A critical survey. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Belmont, Nicole. 1995. Aux sources de l’ethnologie française: L’Académie Celtique.
Paris: CTHS.
218 Philippe Martel
De Certeau, Michel, Dominique Julia and Jacques Revel. 1975. Une politique de
la langue. Paris: Gallimard.
Denis, Andrée. 1982. Poésie populaire, poésie nationale. Deux intercesseurs:
Fauriel et Mme de Staël. Romantisme 35: 3-24.
Rieger, Angelika, and Bernadette Schmidt. Der deutsche Beitrag zur
Okzitanistik, 1803-1983. Eine Bibliographie. www.occitania.de/bibliografie
/bibliografie.htm.
Diouloufet, Jean. 1829. Odo a la Muso Prouvençalo. Id., Fablos, contes, epitros e
autros pouesios prouvençalos. Aix.
Fabre d’Olivet, Antoine. 1803. Le Troubadour: Poésies occitaniques du XIIIe siècle.
Paris.
Fabre d’Olivet, Antoine. 1988. La langue d’oc rétablie, ed. Georg Kremnitz. Wien:
Braumüller.
Fauriel, Claude. 1836a. Histoire de la poésie provençale. 3 vols., Paris.
Fauriel, Claude. 1836b. Histoire de la Gaule méridionale sous les conquérants germains.
Paris.
Fauriel, Claude. 1837. Histoire de la croisade contre les hérétiques albigeois. Paris.
Gardy, Philippe. 1987. L’Occitanie d’Aubin-Louis Millin. Amiras 15-16:
149-158.
Gatien-Arnoult, Adolphe Félix. 1841. Les Leys d’amor. Toulouse: Académie des
Jeux Floraux.
Géruzez, E. 1852. Histoire de la littérature française du Moyen Age aux temps modernes.
Paris.
Hroch, Miroslav. 1985. Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: A Compar-
ative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller Euro-
pean Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lafont, Robert. 1982. Le ‘Midi’ des troubadours: Histoire d’un texte. Romantisme
35: 25-48.
Lafont, Robert. 1991. La Geste de Roland. 2 vols., Paris: L'Harmattan.
Lafont, Robert. 1999. Pour rendre à l’oc et aux Normands leur dû: Genèse et
premier développement de l’art épique gallo-roman. Cahiers de civilisation
médiévale 42: 139-178.
Legrand d’Aussy, Pierre Jean-Baptiste. 1781. Observations sur les troubadours. Paris:
Onfray.
Martel, Philippe. 1982. Les historiens du début du XIXème siècle et le Moyen
Age occitan: Midi éclairé, Midi martyr ou Midi pittoresque. Romantisme 35:
49-71.
Martel, Philippe. 1988. La Revue des Langues Romanes. Romanische Forschungen
100: 246-257.
Martel, Philippe. 1992. Le Félibrige. Les Lieux de Mémoire, ed. P. Nora, 3.2:
567-611. Paris: Gallimard.
Martel, Philippe. 1997. Occitanum est, non legitur. L’estatut de la literatura
occitana dins los manuals de literatura francesa (Sègles XIX e XX). Textes
occitans 2: 71-84.
THE TROUBADOURS AND THE FRENCH STATE 219
Tom Shippey
Abstract
The poem Beowulf proved to be, from its first publication, a contested
site for nationalist scholarship. Though written in Old English, it
dealt exclusively with Scandinavia and its nearest neighbours. Was the
poem, then, in essence a poema danicum, as its first editor called it? Or
did it emanate from the disputed borderland of Schleswig, where
Low German speakers were still in the nineteenth century under
Danish rule? Interpretation of the poem was affected at every level by
nationalist sympathies, but even more by sub-national and
supra-national sentiments expressed by scholars of divided loyalties,
including pro-German Schleswigers, pro-Danish Icelanders, and
Englishmen such as Stephens and Kemble (respectively pro-Danish
and pro-German, but outstripping all others in intemperate chauvin-
ism). The poem’s early politicisation continues to affect scholarship
to the present day.
Beowulf has now been known to scholarship for almost two hundred
years, and has generated an immense amount of scholarly activity and
publication. In several important respects, though, we are no nearer
certain knowledge than we were at the beginning, and the problems
apparent to the scholars of the 1810s remain problematic in the 2000s. I
will begin, accordingly, by stating first three (I think) incontrovertible
facts about the poem; go on to indicate three areas of general agreement;
and then point to three embarrassing contradictions.
224 Tom Shippey
In brief, our literate Christian English poet has created a poem which is
entirely about illiterate pre-Christian Scandinavians. The poem, and the
events of the poem, do not seem to match each other. We have no con-
text in which to place it.
One result of this is that the poem became, immediately upon
publication, available for appropriation by competing theorists. It also
immediately became a contested site in both a philological, and a geo-
THE CASE OF BEOWULF 225
1
Most of the nineteenth-century works cited here are discussed and excerpted,
with translation into English, in Shippey and Haarder 1998. Translated quotations are
taken from there, unless otherwise stated.
2
Scholarly convention is to print transcriptions from runic letters in bold.
226 Tom Shippey
One might say that the only sensible conclusion is that it is in the lan-
guage Prof. Nielsen calls Early Runic. But this was not immediately
apparent. For one thing, it is clear that the letter given by scholars nowa-
days as R, at the end of the second and third words of the inscription, is
not the same as normal runic r, as in ‘horna’. It was read early on as m,
which allowed Karl Müllenhoff (see Nielsen 2002, 15) to read both
words as dative plurals, so that the inscription meant ‘I made the horn
for the Holtings (or Holsteiners), the people of the forest’. But perhaps it
should be transliterated Z? An –r ending on ‘gastir’ would be very like
regular Old Norse gestr. But a –z ending would leave it possible to take
the inscription as Primitive Germanic, or even German, rather than
Norse. Remember that the horns were found no more than ten kilo-
metres from the present Danish-German border, on the Danish side. But
if the inscriptions were in Primitive German, not Norse, then that would
imply that the area had been originally German-speaking, and that Dan-
ish had been imposed on it at some later period. Which, of course, in the
early nineteenth century, many German-speakers in Schleswig-Holstein
thought was exactly what was still happening.
Both the Gallehus horn and the poem of Beowulf accordingly became
involved in the question of Schleswig-Holstein, or Slesvig-Holsten (in
future written in the compromise form of Slesvig-Holstein). See here my
third quotation, a rather longer one. This comes from a letter written by
the Norwegian philologist P.A. Munch (1810-63), and sent to the Copen-
hagen professor George Stephens (1813-95). (I should add that it was
Munch who first suggested the R transliteration for the disputed
Gallehus rune). The letter is dated 27th April 1848, just after the first
clashes of the first Prusso-Danish war, expresses strong support for the
Danes and ends with a remarkable PS:
Aren’t you enthusiastic, by the way, about the Danes’ bravery and strength?
3
The meaning: ‘Lo, we have heard of the power of the warriors of the Spear-
Danes, thanes and nobles, how the princes carried out deeds of valour. Quickly the
Scylding carries off the mead-benches from troops of enemies, from many tribes of
Saxons and Prussians, those who are camped by the Eider, cruel oath-breakers, full of
treachery, mad for war; they want to have Hedeby, and the ancestral land of the Eng-
lish race: that is a monstrous people.’
4
For Kemble on runes, see Kemble 1840. The essay is famous for giving the first
fairly correct reading of the inscription on the Ruthwell Cross, and for Kemble’s
merciless mockery of the earlier attempts by the Icelanders Thorleifr Repp and Finnur
Magnusson. Just to show that the issue is not dead, the Icelanders have been de-
fended, and Kemble in his turn attacked, by another Icelander, see Fjalldal 2005.
228 Tom Shippey
very similar to that of his own time, and seeing it from the Scandinavian
side. George Stephens’s last work, incidentally, written at the age of
ninety-one, was titled Er Engels en Tysk Sprog? (1894, ‘Is English a Ger-
man Language?’), and the answer was a resounding ‘No!’
One can see that an English poem which was all about Danes was
very welcome, in 1815 and later, to some factions. It showed that the
English were really Scandinavians; and more importantly that their ances-
tral homeland of Angeln, in Slesvig, had also always been Scandinavian,
and should remain so; regardless of the question of Holstein, the Danish
border should run along the river Eider, as in Widsith. Any Slesvigers
who thought different were just being ungrateful. But then they always
had been, as you could see from Beowulf. It is this thought, I think, which
explains Thorkelin’s sudden panegyric on King Hrothgar in his Latin
‘Preface’ to the edition:
Fuit aliis una et vetus causa bellandi, profunda cupido imperii et divitiarum.
HRODGARO longe alia mens fuit. Ut suos ille subditos protegeret, posteris
firmam redderet pacem, et libertatem darit mari, necessum habuit arma
ferre in Jutos, et horum socios Frisones, populos immanes, duros, feros,
barbarosqve, qui tam fidei et honestatis, quam humanitatis et religionis
expertes nihil non ad effrænatæ libidinis sugestionem gerebant. Multa igitur
Regi optimo pericula domi, militiæ multa adversa fuere, qvorum omnia
Deorum auxiliis et virtute suâ superavit: inqve his omnibus, neqve animus
negotio defuit, neqve decretis labos. Malæ secundæqve res opes, non
ingenium mutabant. Qvod bonum, faustum, felixqve esset populo Danico,
semper ante oculos habuit, et jugiter in id ferebatur, ut Jutos et Frisones
Scyldingis conjungeret, horum plebi civitatem daret, primores in patres
legeret, unam gentem, unam rem publicam faceret.5
5
Thorkelin 1815, xiii-xiv: ‘Others had an old and single motive for making war, the
deep greed for power and riches. Hrodgar was of far different mind. In order to
protect his subjects, restore a lasting peace for his descendants, and give them the
liberty of the sea, he found it necessary to lead an army against the Jutes, and their
associates the Frisians, monstrous people, hard, fierce and barbarous, who, wanting in
faith and honesty no less than in humanity and religion, did nothing unprompted by
their unbridled lust. There were therefore great dangers for this best of kings at home,
and in the field much adversity, all of which he overcame with the help of the Gods
and by his own valour: and in all of this, neither did his courage fail in any hardship,
nor his industry in any decision. Good and bad fortune affected his wealth, but not his
character. He always had before his eyes what was good, favourable and fortunate for
the Danish people, and worked continually to join the Jutes and Frisians together with
the Scyldings, giving citizenship to their common people, appointing their nobility as
senators, making them one people, one state.’
THE CASE OF BEOWULF 229
There are two things underlying this passage: an editorial confusion, and
a political motive, the one serving the other. One aspect of the editorial
confusion is this. The monster Grendel is described as an eoten – a rare
word in Old, Middle and even modern English, but used some eight
times in the poem. It was, however, one which Thorkelin understood
well enough, because of its similarity to the Norse-Icelandic word iötunn,
‘giant’. However, the poem also refers some five times, if one accepts
modern editorial decisions, to the tribe of the Jutes, the Eote in Old
English. Unfortunately, the genitive plural of eoten is eoten-a, and the
genitive plural of Eote is Eot-ena. The two are easily confused, and indeed
it seems likely that the Beowulf-scribe himself confused them a thousand
years ago. Moreover, in one of the most confusing ‘digressions’ of the
poem – a paraphrase of a heroic song sung to entertain the company in
King Hrothgar’s hall, lines 1068-1159 – the Eotena, as they have become,
are associated with the Frysan, or Frisians, and in strong opposition to
the Danes. This explains Thorkelin’s account of ‘the Jutes, and their
associates the Frisians, monstrous people’, enemies of the Danes: he
takes Jutes and giants to be the same thing, explaining in an Index that
this is the way people talk about their enemies.
I can, however, see nothing in the poem to explain the remarks about
Hrothgar working continually ‘to join the Jutes and Frisians together
with the Scyldings, giving citizenship to their common people, appoint-
ing their nobility as senators, making them one people, one state’. This, I
think, is contemporary politics. Thorkelin praises Hrothgar for doing
what his master Frederik VI was engaged in doing, namely, trying to
persuade the inhabitants of Slesvig-Holstein, who might well be called
Jutes, that they were actually and in spirit Danes: and trying to draw in at
the same time, NB, another awkward and anomalous group, namely the
North Frisians, in the North Sea islands and along what is now the
Danish-German border. (The conviction that the poet was really thinking
of the North Frisians rather than the more familiar West Frisians lasted
a long time.) Finally, the remark about ‘appointing their nobility as sena-
tors’ looks to me like a reference to the repeated attempts by Danish
kings to deal with an especially troublesome body, the Ritterschaft of
Slesvig-Holstein, which apparently had unusual independence and auton-
omy.
This, we might say, is the Danish view of the question, perhaps espe-
cially forceful as coming from another Danish colonial. There was of
230 Tom Shippey
course another view, and it was expressed immediately. The most inter-
esting of the seven reviewers of Thorkelin’s edition (for whom see
Haarder 1988) is Pastor Nicholaus Outzen. He was a Dane. Or, he
ought to have been a Dane: he was a knight of the Dannebrog, and he
was born in Terkelsbøl, which is still (just) inside Denmark. But he spent
much of his life as Pastor in Brecklum, now part of Germany, and he
wrote in German. He wrote also for Kieler Blätter, a journal which was
shut down three years after his review appeared by the Danish authori-
ties for its German-nationalist views. And just to add further uncertainty
to his standpoint, he was an authority on the North Frisian dialects – his
Glossarium der Friesischen Sprache was published posthumously in 1837. I
suspect that Outzen was a precursor of Uwe Lornsen, a North Frisian
from Sylt who argued (a few years later) that the solution to the Slesvig-
Holstein question was to form one united independent multilingual
grand duchy to be called Nordalbingien.
Be that as it may, Outzen saw the problem of the poem which I
outlined at the start very clearly: it was an English poem about Danes.
His solution was very straightforward (Outzen 1816). It was a poem
from North Schleswig, indeed from ancient Angeln, the frumlond
Angelcynnes, as Munch called it. That was why it was in English. And it
appeared to be about Danes. But that was because the inhabitants of
ancient Angeln had been forced to call themselves ‘Danes’, just as he
himself had. The striking thing, to him, was that these ancient North-
Schleswigers distinguished themselves from both the Jutes of Jutland and
the Frisians of the islands, as, he said, they still did. Outzen backed this
up with a string of identifications between places in the poem and places
on the contemporary map, which have found very little favour. But he
did at least offer a solution to the problem of the poem, though it was
one which stemmed from contemporary politics: the poem was a product
of ancient Danish imperialism. Outzen’s view was in effect the mirror-
image of P.A. Munch’s, above.
Outzen’s editor at Kieler Blätter was Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann,
who was at once one of the Göttingen Seven; the dedicatee of Jacob
Grimm’s Deutsche Mythologie, ‘Dahlmann, dem Freunde’; secretary to the
Ritterschaft of Schleswig; and the man who in some views created the
conditions for the second Prusso-Danish war of 1864 (for the last claim,
see Cooley 1949). Dahlmann was also very interested in Beowulf, so inter-
ested that he added his own views to Outzen’s, in the form of editorial
THE CASE OF BEOWULF 231
notes; and his view was that Outzen had not gone far enough. His three
main points, which he then developed independently (Dahlmann 1840)
were that the North Schleswig area was urdeutsch (see the arguments over
the Gallehus horn above); that Anglo-Saxon was not a dialect of ‘Old
Nordic’ at all, but a Low German branch of West Germanic; and that the
Danes had entered the area, indeed taken it over, as a consequence of the
mass emigration of the Angles. The poem itself had however been writ-
ten in England on a basis of Continental tradition.
Rather surprisingly, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm did not have very
much to do with these arguments, though of course Jacob was responsi-
ble for the generally-accepted classification of Old English as the north-
ernmost branch of West Germanic, rather than the southernmost branch
of North Germanic, of which more later. Their place was filled for them
by one of Grimm’s most devoted acolytes, the Englishman John Mitchell
Kemble. Kemble has been treated very kindly by English scholars, as the
founding father of their discipline, but I have to say that in my opinion
he became, in the end, clinically insane, and that he was also, from the
start, very reluctant to give credit to other scholars, even when he used
their work. Be that as it may, he set himself in the 1830s to edit this great
English poem, and produced, in quick succession:
It is not surprising that scholars have been confused by him ever since.
But Grimm’s insertion of much of Kemble’s material first into an Ap-
pendix of the 1835 Deutsche Mythologie, and then into the main body of the
6
For an account of this extremely confused process, see Shippey and Haarder
1998, 29-34, and the excerpted quotations from Kemble in that collection.
232 Tom Shippey
work, as also the fact that the 1835 edition and 1837 translation were the
first productions, in this area, of the ‘philological revolution’, meant that
Kemble’s later views dominated the field for perhaps fifty years.
Kemble’s new idea was this. It had long been noticed that there were
two characters in the poem called Beowulf. One was the hero of the
poem, Beowulf the Geat, grandson of King Hrethel, henchman of King
Hygelac, slayer of monsters. The other was Beowulf the Dane, who
appeared only once, near the start, as the third in a genealogical line of
five (or four) kings, Sceaf – Scyld – Beowulf – Healfdene – Hrothgar.
Kemble argued that this second character was the true hero, not of the
poem, but of the myth from which the poem derived. He was the
culture-hero, the monster-slayer. His exploits had been transferred to the
other Beowulf, and embedded in a historical context of wars between
Danes and Geats and Swedes. But Beowulf, or rather Beowa, was the
important figure, and he was not a hero but a god, and not just a god but
the divine ancestor of the English people. So the poem really was about
the English, who furthermore were entirely German, not just Germanic,
not Scandinavians at all. If they were not to be called ‘Saxons’, which
was the term Kemble preferred, then they were ‘Northalbingians’. But
the poem Beowulf, as it stood, had been appropriated in antiquity by the
Scandinavians, and then again in modern times.
Kemble’s main pieces of evidence for this were, first, a document he
found in Cambridge, which is however far later than the poem – Kemble
commits the errors he often accuses the Danes of making, namely jum-
bling evidence from widely different periods, and also seizing eagerly on
any similarity of names as proving identity (see Wiley 1971, 61-65). Sec-
ondly, and later, he discovered a number of place-names in OE charters
which appear to preserve the names of Beowa and Grendel, sometimes
close together (see Kemble 1849, 416). He also tried to re-read lines
1925-31 of the poem, from the very confusing ‘Modthrytho’ episode, as
showing that Beowulf’s uncle Hygelac was the successor of the Anglian
King Offa, so that the Geats were really Angles from Hedeby, not from
Southern Sweden at all (Kemble 1837, 78-9).7 The idea that the poem
7
To illustrate the kind of problem the poem set for all its editors: modern editors
assume a very violent change of subject in line 1931, where the generosity of Hygd,
daughter of Hæreþ, the young queen of Hygelac, is suddenly opposed to the murder-
ous and un-queenly behaviour of a legendary lady, Modþryþo (?), whose ways were
reformed by the Anglian hero Offa. Kemble saw a lacuna four lines earlier, took
‘modþryþo’, not unreasonably, as an abstract noun, and concluded that Hygelac’s
THE CASE OF BEOWULF 233
was stratified, with its deepest and most original stratum a mythical and
German or Germanic one, overlaid by history, Scandinavianism, and
Christianity, remained dominant in many forms for many years.
One problem with it, though – apart from those just indicated – was
that one fact had been discovered about the events of the poem, and a
most surprising one. The poem is in essence about three royal dynasties,
the Danish Scyldings, the Swedish Scylfings, and the Geatish Hrethlings.
The first two of these are well corroborated by later Scandinavian tradi-
tion, but this knows nothing of the Hrethlings at all. Yet it is the
Hrethlings who are corroborated by evidence from outside the area:
Beowulf’s uncle Hygelac is the same person as the king, variously spelled
and identified, who was killed while making a raid on the Rhine round
about the year 525 AD. The identification had been made as early as
1817, by Grundtvig, and Grundtvig is always given the credit for the
discovery in modern times. However, Grundtvig very characteristically
made the point only in a footnote on p. 285, and he did not bother to
state the really convincing argument, which is that we have, in Gregory
of Tours, in the anonymous Liber Historiae Francorum, and in Beowulf,
three independent accounts which nevertheless corroborate each other:
the Liber’s ‘Attoarii’, for instance, are the Hetware of Beowulf. These points
were made in 1839 by Heinrich Leo, and generally accepted: German
scholars regularly gave the credit to Leo, not Grundtvig. The only
scholar who refused to accept this valuable and indeed unique piece of
information was Kemble. In his 1849 book The Saxons in England (note
the title, one might say a mirror-image of George Stephens’s) he said the
name-similarity was just coincidence. He wrote to Grimm, ‘Beowa, the
god in Angeln, I cannot give him up’ (Wiley 1971, 231).
I mean to bring only two more scholars into this discussion, and they
are Karl Victor Müllenhoff and Gísli Brynjolfsson, one might say a ‘colo-
nial German’ and a ‘colonial Dane’. Müllenhoff dominated the field of
Beowulf studies for the best part of forty years, approximately 1844-84.
One might well say he terrorized it, for he was an extremely forbidding
personality, quite prepared to destroy careers, such as those of Christian
queen, Hæreþ’s daughter, was the murderous lady of legend. She must, therefore, have
married Hygelac after being married to Offa, which to Kemble meant that Hygelac was
Offa’s successor to the Anglian throne, and therefore an Englishman. Since Hygelac
was Beowulf’s uncle, Beowulf could then be claimed as English too. It is characteristic
of Kemble that his 1837 translation does not match the reading of his 1835 edition,
136-137.
234 Tom Shippey
8
Müllenhoff 1849a, 423-424 (capitalization sic): ‘[Grendel] is the gigantic god or
demon of the wild and stormy sea at the time of the spring-equinox. At this time
Beowulf undertakes his swimming expedition with Breca. The storms rage and the sea
could, once it is unchecked, pour over the broad, flat coast-lands of the North Sea,
where the inhabitants, Frisian and Saxon tribes, lived on lonely mounds (Pliny 16, 1),
and where they were helplessly at the mercy of the wild element, if no god came to
their aid; the unfortunately all-too-credible story of these deities still tells of unbeliev-
able devastations, of the death of many thousands of people. I believe that the
man-swallowing, house-smashing sea-giant Grendel, and the whole myth, has this
definitely local basis.’
236 Tom Shippey
think the poem is an allegory, etc., but I do think that scholarly opinion
has become ‘Scandinavianized’, and sees the poem’s landscape in terms
of high moor and mountain tarn, whereas it seems to me to be a boggy
sort of poem, set in the fen: to quote Philip Cardew, the monster
Grendel and his mother are ‘oicotypes of the marsh’ (Cardew 2005, 205).
Müllenhoff’s views extended of course not only to myth and allegory,
to folktale, to Liedertheorie and to the origins of the poem, but also to the
very nature of the English language, and the English nation. As Andrew
Wawn has pointed out (Wawn 1994, 216-217; 2000, 237-239), there was
in the mid-nineteenth century a certain controversy in England over the
nature of the English: were they really Saxons (and so Germans, as
Kemble for instance would have it), or were they really Scandinavians (a
view popular in the North, and often in the manufacturing as opposed to
landowning classes)? The official view on this, still very firmly held and
expressed in British government circles, is that of Sir Walter Scott, name-
ly that there was never any such thing as English: just Saxons and Danes and
Normans, all now happily assimilated, a model for the present and fu-
ture. Nevertheless, the issue was at one time a live one, especially during
the two Prusso-Danish wars, of 1848-50 and 1864 – as we have seen
from Professor Munch’s little poem above.
Thus, in May 1852 George Stephens – Munch’s correspondent –
wrote a long and angry piece in The Gentleman’s Magazine (Stephens 1852),
in which he argued against Grimm’s classification of the Germanic lan-
guages, and declared that English was not West Germanic but South
Scandinavian. Such features as the Scandinavian ‘middle voice’ and suf-
fixed definite article could be found in English dialects too – and
Stephens, it should be remembered, was expert not only in standard
Danish but also in the southern Danish dialects, which, probably errone-
ously, have been thought to be more similar to English than modern
scholars can readily recognize. The last word on this may perhaps be
given to Professor Hans Frede Nielsen, who has shown recently that the
Early Runic language must be considered as the ancestor of Old Norse
alone (Nielsen 2000). But Professor Nielsen also points out a number of
anomalies in Old English, of which I will mention only one: it is the only
Germanic language with two complete present tense paradigms for the
verb ‘to be’, one very similar to the Scandinavian one, and one very
similar to Old Saxon (Nielsen 2000, 222-223). A natural conclusion is
that while a majority of the fifth- and sixth-century emigrants to Britain
THE CASE OF BEOWULF 237
were speakers of Anglian, or Saxon, from the south of what would be-
come a linguistic boundary, a large minority were Jutes, from the north
of the boundary (Nielsen 2000, 292-293). The dialects influenced each
other, as English and Danish would do again in later periods.
Gísli Brynjolfsson’s own point, however, was a very telling one,
which is that not only is Beowulf all about Danes and Swedes and Geats,
its characters are also often figures known from Scandinavian legendary
cycles; and – this point severely challenges the Kemble/Müllenhoff
belief in a stratified Anglian-mythological/Scandinavian-historical poem
– the link between monster-slaying and the Skjoldung court is made
independently in the Hrólfs saga kraka (Brynjolfsson 1852). So even if a
‘historical’ element was added to a ‘mythical’ element, the mythical ele-
ment also has connections with Denmark, not with the Ditmarsh. I may
perhaps add as a final coda to this story that in the prevailing twentieth-
century view of the poem, a critical character in it is the silent figure of
Hrothulf, addressed at one point by Hrothgar’s queen Wealhtheow,
though he makes no reply. He is now regularly identified with the saga-
hero Hrólfr kraki; this realization is also largely to the credit of a Danish
writer, Ludvig Schrøder, now almost completely forgotten by scholar-
ship, who wrote in the to him very personal aftermath of the Prusso-
Danish war of 1864 (Schrøder 1875).
What I have tried to show is how the editing of Beowulf and national self-
definitions mutually influenced each other: national feeling influenced
the editing, and editing and interpreting helped to create national, sub-
national, and supra-national feeling, in Denmark, in Germany, in Slesvig,
in Holstein, in Norway (and eventually elsewhere). What has been largely
missing has been, to quote Sherlock Holmes, the strange case of the dog
that did not bark in the night. Was there, and is there, no English senti-
ment about this potentially English national epic? The answer is, effec-
tively, ‘no’. The only English scholars to take a serious interest in the
poem were for many years expatriates like Stephens or Benjamin Thorpe,
or intellectual expatriates like Kemble, widely disliked for his devotion to
everything German. Partly this was caused by the intense amateurishness
of the two English universities, Oxford and Cambridge. In modern times
the need to suppress any feelings of English autonomy in the interests of
unity and the United Kingdom has also been powerful, see Shippey
2000. But Anglo-Saxon England seems never to have rooted itself in the
238 Tom Shippey
References
Brynjolfsson, Gísli. 1852. Oldengelsk og Oldnorsk. Antikvarisk Tidsskrift 1: 81-
143.
Cardew, Philip. 2005. Grendel: Bordering the Human. In The Shadow-walkers:
Jacob Grimm’s mythology of the monstrous, ed. Tom Shippey, 189-205. Tempe,
AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.
Cooley, Franklin D. 1949. Early Danish Criticism of Beowulf. English Literary
History 7: 45-67.
Dahlmann, F.C. 1840. Geschichte von Dänemark. Hamburg. (Author’s trl. of Dan-
marks Historie, Copenhagen 1840).
Fjalldal, Magnús. 2005. ‘A Lot of Learning is a Dang’rous Thing’: The Ruthwell
Cross Runes and their Icelandic Intepreters. In Correspondences: Medievalism in
Scholarship and the Arts, eds. Tom Shippey and Martin Arnold, 30-50. Wood-
bridge: Boydell.
Grundtvig, N.F.S. 1817. Om Bjovulfs Drape eller det af Hr. Etatsraad
Thorkelin 1815 udgivne angelsachsike Digt. Danne-Virke 2: 207-289.
Haarder, Andreas. 1988. The Seven Beowulf Reviewers: Latest or Last Identifi-
cations. English Studies 69: 289-292.
Indebrø, Gustav and Oluf Kolsrud, eds. 1924-71. Lærde Brev fra og til P.A.
Munch. 3 vols.; Oslo: University of Oslo.
Kemble, J.M., ed.. 1833. The Anglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf, the Traveller’s Song, and
the Battle of Finnes-burh. London (2nd rev. ed. London, 1835).
Kemnble, J.M., trl. 1837. A Translation of the Anglo-Saxon Poem of Beowulf, with a
Copious Glossary, Preface, and PhilologicalNotes. London.
Kemble, J.M. 1849. The Saxons in England: A history of the English Commonwealth
till the Period of the Norman Conquest. 2 vols.; London.
Kemble, J.M.: see also Wiley 1971.
Kiernan, Kevin. 1986. The Thorkelin Transcripts of Beowulf. Copenhagen: Rosen-
kilde and Bagger.
Leo, Heinrich. 1839. Beowulf, dasz älteste deutsche, in angelsächsischer mundart er-
haltene, heldengedicht. Ein beitrag zur geschichte alter deutscher geisteszustände Halle.
Müllenhoff, Karl Victor. 1844. Die deutschen Völker an Nord- und Ostsee in
ältester Zeit. Nordalbingische Studien 1: 111-174.
9
They are: Beowulf (directed Graham Baker, 1999); The Thirteenth Warrior (directed
John McTiernan, 1999); Beowulf and Grendel (directed Sturla Gunnarsson, 2006); and
Beowulf (directed Robert Zemeckis, 2007).
THE CASE OF BEOWULF 239
Müllenhoff, Karl Victor. 1845. Sagen Märchen und Lieder der Herzogthümer Schelswig
Holstein und Lauenburg. Kiel.
Müllenhoff, Karl Victor. 1849a. Sceaf und seine Nachkommen. Zeitschrift für
Deutsches Alterthum 7: 410-419.
Müllenhoff, Karl Victor. 1849b. Der Mythus von Beowulf. Zeitschrift für Deutsches
Alterthum 7: 419-441.
Müllenhoff, Karl Victor. 1869. Die innere Geschichte des Beovulfs. Zeitschrift
für Deutsches Alterthum 27: 193-244.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. 2000. The Early Runic Language of Scandinavia Heidelberg:
Winter.
Nielsen, Hans Frede 2002. Guldhornsinskriften fra Gallehus: Runer, sprog, politik.
Odense: Odense University Press.
Outzen, Nicholaus. 1816. Das angelsächsische Gedicht Beowulf, als die schätz-
barste Urkunde des höchsten Alterthums von unserm Vaterlande. Kieler
Blätter 3: 307-327.
Shippey, Tom. 2000. The Undeveloped Image: Anglo-Saxon in Popular Con-
sciousness from Turner to Tolkien. In Literary Appropriations of the Anglo-
Saxons from the Thirteenth to the Twentieth Century, eds. Donald Scragg and
Carole Weinberg, 215-236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shippey, Tom, and Andreas Haarder, eds. 1988. Beowulf: the Critical Heritage.
London: Routledge.
ten Brink, Bernhard Konrad Aegidius. 1877. Geschichte der Englischen Literatur.
Erster Band, Bis zu Wiclifs Auftreten. Berlin.
Thorkelín, Grímur Jónsson. 1815. De Danorum Rebus Gestis Secul[is] III et IV:
Poema Danicum Dialecto Anglosaxonica. Copenhagen.
Wawn, Andrew. 1994. The Cult of Stalwart Frith-thjof in Victorian Britain. In
Northern Antiquity: the Post-Medieval Reception of Edda and Saga, ed. Andrew
Wawn, 211-254. Enfield Lock: Hisarlik Press.
Wawn, Andrew. 1995. George Stephens, Cheapinghaven, and Old Northern
Antiquity. In Medievalism in England II, eds. Leslie Workman and Kathleen
Verduin, 63-104. Woodbridge: Boydell.
Wawn, Andrew. 2000. The Vikings and the Victorians: Inventing the Old North in
19th-Century Britain. Woodbridge: Boydell.
Wiley, Raymond A., ed./trl. 1971. John Mitchell Kemble and Jakob Grimm: A Corre-
spondence 1832-52. Leiden: Brill.
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 241-254
Thomas Bein
Abstract
Nineteenth-century scholars edited the verse of Walther von der
Vogelweide in various ways. Their different methods led to different
text editions, which exerted an interesting influence on the reception
of Walther’s works both in the academic field and in public cultural
life.
1
Cf. Heinzle 1996, Müller 2002, Ehrismann 1987, Göhler 1989, Hoffmann 1992,
Schulze 1997; and especially on the reception history: Heinzle & Waldschmitt 1991.
2
See 2003, 315: ‘Everywhere, people were searching for the “national epic”, the
major epic in which every national literature was considered to have its identity-build-
ing origin and high-point.’
242 Thomas Bein
3
Hagen 2003, 359: ‘grown from German life and attitude’; ‘No other poem can
thus touch and enrapture, delight and fortify a patriotic heart’.
WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE 243
Ludwig Uhland
The aim of Uhland’s monograph was to make a contribution to ‘das
Erforschen der altdeutschen Poesie’ (‘exploring Old German Poetry’),
with the ultimate goal to create a ‘lebendiges und vollständiges Bild von
dem dichterischen Treiben jenes Zeitalters’ (‘a living and complete pic-
ture of poetical practices in that period’; Uhland 1984, 31n7). It is the
first well-thought-out and well-structured attempt to describe Walther’s
poetry and its poetical achievement. In a surprisingly sober and detached
mode (by the standards of that time), Uhland analyses the extant texts,
refrains from judging, makes an obvious separation between subjective
opinion and factual description. In nine paragraphs Uhland devotes
himself to Walther’s biography (based on the texts), his poetical appren-
ticeship, his political commitment, his wandering life, the Minnesang with
its various hues, his (alleged) participation in a crusade, his literary-his-
torical position, his religious opinions and the last phase of his life. Near-
ly everywhere Uhland relies on the evidence of Walther’s texts. He pres-
ents these in New High German or in close paraphrases, because his first
priority is to make them understandable. However, Uhland was well
aware of the fact that this procedure would meet with disapproval:
‘Nicht unbekannt ist mir, wie wenig dieses Verfahren bei gründlichen
244 Thomas Bein
Kennern des deutschen Altertums empfohlen ist’.4 Only two years be-
fore, Jacob Grimm had written to Karl Lachmann: ‘Uhland ist einer der
guten neuen Dichter, aber im Altdeutsch wohl ungelehrter als Köpke’.5
In the second paragraph of his monograph Uhland characterises
Walther as a ‘Vaterlandsdichter’ (‘patriotic poet’):
Wir haben die schmerzliche Klage des Dichters über den Verfall von
Deutschland vernommen. Es hat uns daraus eine seiner schönsten
Eigenschaften angesprochen, die Vaterlandsliebe. Dieses edle Gefühl ist die
Seele eines bedeutenden Teils seiner Dichtungen. Überall erregt es ihn zu
der lebhaftesten Teilnahme an den öffentlichen Angelegenheiten. Ihm
gebührt unter den altdeutschen Sängern vorzugsweise der Name des va-
terländischen. Keiner hat, wie er, die Eigentümlichkeit seines Volkes er-
kannt und empfunden.6
This characterization of Walther by Uhland was to influence literary
history-writing as well as monograph studies for more than a century and
a half, with the period of National Socialism – when Walther counted as
a ‘Vorkämpfer deutscher Gesinnung’ (‘a champion of German-minded-
ness’) – undoubtedly presenting the most inglorious highlight (see Bein
1993). Still, it is not Uhland who should be blamed for the anachronistic
connection between the literary and political conditions of the Middle
Ages and the nineteenth century.
4
Uhland 1984, 33n7: ‘I am aware of the fact that this method is not recommended
by the experts of the German antiquity’.
5
Leitzman 1927, 1: 238, ‘Uhland is a brilliant new poet, but in the Old German
probably more uneducated than Köpke.’
6
Uhland 1984, 42n7 and 48ff.: ‘We heard the poet’s painful complaint about Ger-
many’s decline. What appealed to us here was one of his most beautiful qualities, the
love of his fatherland. This noble emotion is the soul of an important part of his
poetry. It excites him everywhere to the liveliest participation in public matters.
Among all the Old German singers he deserves the name of patriotic singer. No one
recognised and felt his people’s peculiarities the way he did.’
WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE 245
colleagues, and private matters such as the raging cholera epidemic: ‘Die
Cholera hat mir keine Angst gemacht, weil ich sogleich theils den
Glauben an die Contagiosität aufgegeben hatte, theils die ruchlose
Meinung womit sich viele auf kurze Zeit gesichert haben, sie treffe nur
den Pöbel.’7
In a constant interchange the three scholars set out to refurbish the
discipline’s foundation. This implies on the one hand differentiating and
describing the historical gradations of the language starting with Gothic
and Old Saxon, and continuing with Old and Middle High German until
Early New High German (as per Jacob Grimm’s ‘German Grammar’);
and on the other hand examining und securing the textual culture of the
Middle Ages, involving scholarly editing.
In matters of editorial method it is Lachmann who sets the tone. He
transfers his text-critical expertise, based on his experience in classical
philology (regarding which, cf. Lachmann 1876), to the Middle High
German textual culture. His strong belief in the possibility of establishing
a stemma, which at least leads to the archetype if not to the original, will
dominate German philology for decades. Besides, all three founders are
connected by the strong conviction that a (literary) text in the course of
its handwritten tradition steadily suffers losses, for which the persons
involved in the transmission process are to blame: heedless copyists,
philistines, arbitrary patrons and so on. There is a fundamental mistrust
of the text in its diverse handwritten manifestations. The early philolo-
gists of Grimm’s and Lachmann’s type see themselves as the poets’
advocates, who help them get back their very own words. They do this
with the help of text-healing operations, called corrections and conjec-
tures. A conjecture is an ‘assumption’, which means that a considerable
part of the process is speculation. But that is exactly what is demanded
and appreciated as a special ‘scientific achievement’ in the discipline’s
early phase.
Even today, Lachmann’s Walther edition is regarded as one of his
best editorial performances. This reputation was established immediately
after its first and second editions, not least because of the high esteem
from the brothers Grimm. In 1827, Jacob Grimm wrote to Lachmann:
7
Leitzmann 1927, 579n10: ‘I was not afraid of the cholera, because on the one
hand I have begun to dismiss the belief in contagion and on the other hand the das-
tardly opinion, that it would happen only to the rabble, an opinion with which a lot of
people secured themselves for a short time’.
246 Thomas Bein
‘Nun Ihr Walther gefällt mir sicher, die arbeit ist reinlich, gedrängt, be-
stimmt, es wird ihr kaum was anzuhaben sein.’ (‘Well I truly like your
Walther, the work is clean, concise, firm, there will hardly be anything
that can be said against it’). Grimm criticises Lachmann only on one
point: ‘Ich wollte, Sie hätten bei Gelegenheit dieses buchs sich über das
metrische näher herausgelassen, doch weiß ich nicht, was Sie damit
vorhaben; aber den lesern wirds schwer werden, Sie zu errathen und zu
begreifen’.8
Lachmann’s work is ‘hard’ philology. One can almost see him suffer
when he discovers misprints in his works. Frequently it upsets him so
much that he has to talk about it to friends at once. Thus he writes to
Moritz Haupt in 1843: ‘Der elende Setzer hat meinem Walther doch
mehr geschadet als ich dachte. S. 45,27 steht und für unde, S.82,23 dar für
har [etc.]’.9
Lachmann’s Walther edition quickly obtained the status of the bench-
mark, truly scientifically philological edition. It is part of what would
later come to be called the ‘Berlin School’ of ‘Lachmannians’, who
adopted the patriarch’s methodical heritage and often applied it much
more rigorously than Lachmann himself. It is no surprise that in 1880
Willibald Leo characterised Lachmann’s edition as follows:
Es ist die eigentliche Editio princeps Walthers von der Vogelweide und gilt
mit Recht als eine der besten Leistungen Lachmanns. Der Herausgeber
verwendete seine ganze Kraft darauf, eine mustergültige Ausgabe zu schaf-
fen, und dies ist ihm auch von seinem Standpunkte aus vollkommen ge-
lungen.10
But Leo also emphasises that Lachmann’s edition is ‘nur für Gelehrte
berechnet’ (‘only intended for scholars’), alongside other philologists who
popularised the poet. One of these philologists who surely deserves to be
mentioned in this context is Franz Pfeiffer, whose edition, according to
Leo, finally enabled Walther von der Vogelweide to find his way back
8
Leitzmann 1927 517n10: ‘I wish you would have taken this opportunity to say
more about the metrical aspects; I do not know what you intentions are in that regard,
but it will be hard for the readers to guess and understand you.’
9
Vahlen 1892, 188: ‘The miserable typesetter did more harm to my Walther than I
thought he would. On page 45,27 the text reads und instead of unde, on page 82,23 dar
instead of har [etc.]’.
10
Leo 1971, 14ff:: ‘This is the real editio princeps of Walther von der Vogelweide and
rightly counts as one of Lachmann’s best performances. The editor used his whole
strength to create a exemplary edition and from his point of view he fully succeeded’.
WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE 247
into the heart of the German nation. ‘Man sagt nicht zu viel, wenn man
Pfeiffers Werk ein Epochemachendes nennt.’11
11
Leo 1971, 16: ‘One does not say too much, when one calls Pfeiffer’s work an
epoch-making achievement’.
12
Cf. Hagen 1838; see also Grunewald 1988.
248 Thomas Bein
1816 gemacht hätte. (...) Wenn bei Hagen nicht alles Lüge wäre, so könnte
er viel mehr leisten.13
And one year later a withering comment followed (characteristic in its
combination of editorial punctilio and judgemental harshness) on
Hagen’s philological competence: ‘Auch ich habe inzwischen den
Verdruß gehabt zu sehn daß Hagen Walth. 106,21 hat treffe drucken
lassen, mit der Note “vermutlich ist zu lesen reife”. Wer das kann, dem ist
beinah nichts mehr zuzurechnen’.14
Nowadays Hagen’s achievements are judged quite differently. His
editorial concept is very similar to the ones that are used more and more
today. He largely does without reconstruction, which is frequently com-
mitted to aesthetic principles, and instead devotes himself intensely to
the wording of the actual textual sources (mainly the Codex Manesse).
Hagen gives detailed information and comments concerning his editorial
procedure. His interventions, including his thoughts on phonetic (and
orthographic) normalisations, his grammatical and dialectological as well
as his metrical discussions, are of great interest, too. He follows the ‘prin-
ciple of a leading manuscript’, does not insert many conjectures and
rejects any method of extensive mixed-editing: ‘bei mehreren Hand-
schriften habe ich vornämlich immer nur eine, und versteht sich, die
älteste und beste, so viel als möglich, zum Grunde gelegt, und die
übrigen nur zu Hülfe gerufen’.15
With his edition of the ‘Nibelungenlied’, Hagen had already pursued
a patriotic aim; the same applies to his Minnesinger edition. As he pointed
out in his dedicatory preface to the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III,
he intended it as of the ancient ‘Herrlichkeit des Deutschen Vaterlandes’
(‘glory of the German fatherland’; Hagen 1838, 111). Among the many
poets in his edition, Walther von der Vogelweide takes the most promi-
13
Leitzmann 1927 579n10: ‘The work surprised me by its unexpected inferiority: in
its entirety it is just as good as I would have done it in 1816. […] If Hagen’s work
would consist of more than just lies, he could achieve much more’.
14
Ibid. 588n10: ‘In the meantime I have also had the displeasure of seeing that
Hagen has printed treffe in Walth. 106,21 with the note “probably one can read reife”.
You can’t expect anything from someone who is capable of such a thing’. It should be
pointed out that treffe had been given as a conjecture by Lachmann in his 1827 edition.
15
Quoted Richter 1988, 111n6: ‘In case of several manuscripts I usually took for
my basis only one, of course the oldest and best, as far as possible, and used the others
for support.’
WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE 249
nent position, because Walther had struggled for the honour of medieval
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire.
With von der Hagen’s gigantic collection of poetry (including
Walther), with Karl Lachmann’s severe philological edition and with
Simrock’s poetic renewal sources had been made available rendering
access to Walther von der Vogelweide for all types of readership. The
only thing that was missing was a counterbalance to Lachmann, a synthe-
sis between philology and popularisation. This was achieved by Franz
Pfeiffer.
16
Pfeiffer 1877 [1864], ix: ‘that series of brilliant critical editions, which take pride
in not providing any explanation and instead indulge lavishly in a flood of unpalatable
variants’.
250 Thomas Bein
altdeutsches Buch kauft und liest, als wer muß, d.h. wer durch seinen
Beruf dazu veranlaßt und genöthigt ist.’17
Pfeiffer pursued his fight against this development by bringing to life
a new series of editions: the ‘German Medieval Classics’. He dedicated
the first volume to the poetry of Walther von der Vogelweide, which he
wanted to make accessible to a greater audience by putting the main
emphasis on the commentary.
Da unsere Sammlung sich zum Ziele gesetzt hat, die Theilnahme der Ge-
bildeten für die mittelhochdeutsche Literatur zu gewinnen, genauere
Kenntnisse der alten Sprache aber nur bei den Wenigsten vorausgesetzt
werden kann, so mußte vor allem auf jene weit überwiegende Zahl von
Lesern Rücksicht genommen werden, ‘die vom Altdeutschen gar nichts
verstehen’.18
Pfeiffer’s concept was very successful. After one year the first edition
had already sold out and a second one was printed. In the preface to this
second edition Pfeiffer proclaims, with obvious pride, the success of his
approach. At the same time he takes the opportunity to cross swords
with the ‘so-called critical school’. He reacts to fierce criticism from the
Berlin school by levelling a few polemic swipes himself. He emphasizes
that ‘die [Berliner] Schule nicht nur keine Ahnung hat von dem, was
unsere Ausgaben wollen, sondern daß ihr auch vollständig die Fähigkeit
gebricht, in einfacher verständlicher Weise lehrend und unterrichtend vor
die Gebildeten unsers Volks zu treten’.19
Pfeiffer was confirmed by the success of his edition, which was reis-
sued seven times until 1911, with several reprints following even after-
wards. It is true that he could not oust the Berlin School – after all Lach-
mann’s Walther edition maintained its canonical status and remained in
print until recently – but Pfeiffer and his edition occupied an important
market position, and deservedly so. Every editor has to carefully ask
17
Ibid.: ‘One can say that nowadays hardly anyone buys and reads an Old-German
book, except when those who must, i.e. those who are professionally required to do
so’.
18
Ibid., xii: ‘Since our collection intends to inspire interest among educated people
in Middle High German literature, but can only assume a few of these to have a
thorough command of the old language, it is necessary to show consideration for that
majority of readers “who do not understand a single word of Old German”.’
19
Ibid. xvii: ‘the Berlin school is not only ignorant of what our editions intend, but
it is also absolutely incapable of teaching our nation’s educated classes in an under-
standable way’.
WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE 251
himself, for what purpose he edits and which audience his edition is
meant to reach. These questions are of a surprising topicality. In a similar
way as in Pfeiffer’s time, one cannot assume today that German students
have the linguistic abilities to deal with ‘naked’ Middle High German
texts on their own. That is why in the first half of the twentieth century
numerous editions with translations and comments were published. Very
influential in this respect was Friedrich Maurer: he shaped the picture of
Walther for many generations of students (Maurer 1955-56, with a new
edition Maurer 1972). Meanwhile, the Reclam publishing house offers a
complete edition with translation and comments (Schweikle 1994-98),
and even the ‘most philological’ of all Walther editions, published by De
Gruyter in the Lachmann-von Kraus-Cormeau tradition, will include
several ‘additions’ in the next edition, in which I myself am involved.
These ‘additions’ (commentaries, translations and so on) ought to sim-
plify the reception for unpractised readers.
ity on the ‘German task’ (Hans Teske, 1935) and a ‘secular collector of
forces beyond time, which shaped the German character for ever and
always’ (Hans Böhm, 1942).20
Fortunately these times of politically-motivated distortions and trav-
esties of literary history are over. Both the Nibelungenlied and Walther von
der Vogelweide have survived the distortion of meanings and misinter-
pretations of Nazi Germanistik, and can nowadays be explored for what
they are: important heirlooms of the textual culture of the thirteenth
century.21
References
Bein, Thomas. 1993. Walther von der Vogelweide: Ein ‘unheimlich naher Zeit-
genosse’: Werkprofil und nationalsozialistische Mißdeutung. Leuvense Bij-
dragen 82: 363-381.
Bergmann, Conrad Arnold. 1933. Walther von der Vogelweide: Lehrer und Führer des
deutschen Volkes. Freiburg i.Br: Herder.
Brunner, Horst et al. 1996. Walther von der Vogelweide: Epoche, Werk, Wirkung.
München: Beck.
Ehrismann, Otfrid. 1987. Nibelungenlied: Epoche, Werk, Wirkung. München: Beck.
Grunewald, Eckhard. 1988. Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen, 1780-1856: Ein
Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Germanistik. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
von der Hagen, Friedrich Heinrich. 1838. Minnesinger. Deutsche Liederdichter des
zwölften, dreizehnten und vierzehnten Jahrhunderts. 4 vols.; Leipzig.
von der Hagen, Friedrich Heinrich. 2003. Der Nibelungen Lied. In Heinzle et
al., 359-60.
20
Documentation and source-referencing of all these quotations in Bein 1993. The
original German phraseologies: ‘echter Deutscher’ (Friedrich Panzer, 1934), ‘Sprecher
und Mahner’ (Herta Gent, 1938), ‘die höchste Blüte des germanischen Zweiges’
(Wilhelm Dilthey, 1933), der ‘älteste[] Rufer nach völkischer Erneuerung’ (Kurt Jacob,
1935), eine ‘Symphonie von deutschen Tönen’ (Hans Naumann, 1935), ‘der uner-
schrockene Vorkämpfer für Freiheit und Recht, für Wahrheit und Menschenwürde’
(Franz Rolf Schröder, 1930), ‘Priester und Herrscher, Dichter, Richter und Prophet’
(Hans Naumann, 1934), Urheber ‘eine[r] Welt deutschester Umschau’ (Friedrich
Neumann, 1942), ‘dichterischer “Evangelist des Reichs”’ (Hans Naumann, 1934),
Seher ‘deutsche[n] Schicksal[s] von Jahrhunderten’ (Friedrich Knorr, 1941), ‘Vor-
kämpfer (...) des christlich-völkischen Denkens’ (Conrad Arnold Bergmann, 1933),
Erkenner des ‘deutschen Auftrag[s]’ (Hans Teske, 1935), ‘zeitliche[r] Sammler
überzeitlicher Kräfte, die deutsches Wesen je und je geformt haben’ (Hans Böhm,
1942).
21
Many thanks to Esther Ehlen (Aachen) for the English translation of this article.
254 Thomas Bein
Herman Brinkman
Abstract
The German poet/philologist Hoffmann von Fallersleben (1798-
1874) was celebrated during his lifetime for his pioneering work on
medieval Dutch literature; after his death his philological merits were
questioned. This article attempts to place Hoffmann’s pioneering
work in perspective, taking into consideration his objectives in
searching, listing and editing medieval Dutch folk song. Special atten-
tion is given to discrepancies between his research strategies in Ger-
many and in the Netherlands. A muted response to his several ap-
peals to Dutch literati to forward samples of medieval song, as well
as his literary taste and preconceptions about what he believed was
the extinction of a native song culture in Holland, prevented Hoff-
mann from recording the living heritage of folk song in the Nether-
lands. Hoffmanns views as an editor are also discussed with respect
to his other, less academic objective: restoring medieval folk song to
popularity.
Changing Appreciation
In view of this recognition, it seems remarkable that the light shed on
Hoffmann’s achievements in the one great monument of Middle Dutch
philology, the Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek (MNW, Dictionary of Mid-
dle Dutch) is of quite a different nature. In the volume Bouwstoffen, which
presents detailed analyses of the sources used for the dictionary, paleog-
rapher Willem de Vreese, a man of undisputed standing, provided judge-
ments on the quality and reliability of the printed sources (Verwijs and
Verdam 1927-1952). His comments on Hoffmann’s editions speak for
themselves: ‘Een zeer willekeurig gewijzigde herdruk (...) die niet zonder
fouten is’; ‘een philologisch nauwelijks bruikbare uitgave’; ‘onbetrouw-
baar’; ‘philologisch nauwelijks briuikbaar’; ‘vrijwel onbruikbaar’.1 It is
hard to imagine a greater contrast between these words and the praise
that Hoffmann received during his lifetime.
Apparently after Hoffmanns death a change in the appreciation of his
scholarly work had taken place. When Matthias de Vries, initiator of the
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT, Dictionary of the Dutch Lan-
guage) published the first installments of a dictionary of Middle Dutch,
an undertaking which he soon afterwards was forced to abandon, he
dedicated his work in progress to Hoffmann, writing: ‘Aan niemand
1
Verwijs and Verdam 1927-1952, art. 606.1a, 1b, 5b, 6, 8a: ‘A very arbitrarily
altered reprint which is not without mistakes’; ‘A philologically hardly serviceable
edition’; ‘unreliable’; ‘philologically barely of use’; ‘hardly useful’.
HOFFMANN VON FALLERSLEBEN AND DUTCH FOLKSONG 257
2
De Raaf 1943, 92: ‘To no-one does our nation have a greater debt than to you, for
its knowledge and appreciation of the literature of the Middle Ages.’
258 Herman Brinkman
3
Hoffmann 1892-93, 305-6: ‘the folk songs of other countries within and outside
Europe need also to be taken into account; for only in this way a general perspective
on folk song can be achieved.’
4
ibid. 100-1: ‘It comprised Gothic, Old-, Middle- and New High German with all
its regional dialects, Old Saxon, Low German, Dutch, Frisian, Anglo-Saxon and Scan-
dinavian; furthermore the history of German culture and literature, folklore in morals,
customs, sagas and fairy tales, as well as the history, art, antiquities and law of Ger-
many.’
HOFFMANN VON FALLERSLEBEN AND DUTCH FOLKSONG 259
5
ibid., 82.: ‘She spoke the true dialect of Bonn and knew all the songs that used to
be sung when there was a dance, when people went into the fields, or when there were
gatherings’.
260 Herman Brinkman
the library was closed during the winter and that no one could locate the
key.
In 1820, after a short stay in his native Fallersleben, he took up trav-
elling again, visiting acquaintances and libraries. This kind of research,
travelling on foot, was extremely arduous. Reading Hoffmann’s accounts
of constantly getting wet and losing his way, one can understand that
such work could only be done by a young researcher.
The first immediate contacts with the Netherlands were established
through a professor Van Swinderen from Groningen. Van Swinderen
took a letter by Hoffmann to the antiquarian Nicolas Westendorp, who
obligingly mentioned it in his periodical Antiquiteiten as follows:
De Verzamelaar zou gaarne, zoo als velen ten opzigte van Duitschland
reeds gedaan hebben, de volkswijzen, Sagen, Märchen, (vertelsels), legenden
en soortgelijke, verzamelen, welke nog in ons Land in den mond van het
volk leven.6
Westendorp strongly supported this call, but also indicated that as an
ageing cleric, he himself could be of little help, since he seldom had the
opportunity to witness the people singing their old songs at merry times.
A letter Hoffmann sent to the legal scholar Hendrik Willem Tydeman
at Leiden (July 9, 1820) shows his plan to undertake similar researches in
Holland as he had done in Germany:
Zunächst möchte ich wissen, ob der jetzige Volksgesang noch Spuren alter
merkwürdiger Lieder, oder auch noch Weisen bewahre, und in welchen
Gegenden das Volk am singlustigsten geblieben sei.7
Recording the living cultural heritage was, at that point in time, his fore-
most research priority.
6
Westendorp 1820, 454: ‘The collector wishes, as many already have done for
Germany, to record the folksongs, folk- and fairytales, legends etc. which in our
country are still alive on the lips of the people.’
7
Brachin 1965, 193: ‘Most of all I would like to know, whether present-day folk-
song has preserved traces of remarkable songs of the past, or melodies for that matter;
and in what parts of the country the people still take most pleasure in singing’.
262 Herman Brinkman
(with practically no help from Dutch scholars and without setting foot
on Dutch soil) one cannot be but amazed of what he had accomplished
so far. Yet he knew that a visit to Holland held the promise of a much
richer harvest. In June 1821 the time had finally come for him to make
his journey to the Netherlands.
Shortly before his departure, he wrote to the 81-year-old Hendrik Van
Wijn, whose Letterkundige Avondstonden (Literary Lucubrations) had sup-
plied him with valuable information. He tried to win over this ailing and
somewhat confused old man and asked him to encourage his Dutch
friends to track oral versions of the Song of the Two Royal Children
(Gaedertz 1888, 26-27).
On his arrival in the Netherlands, his first encounter with academic
circles was far from encouraging. The Utrecht professor Simons, on
whom he called, was not amused by Hoffmann’s ambitions, and pointed
out that it was no custom in the Netherlands to make literary journeys.
He was better received in Leiden, where he stayed with his fellow coun-
tryman, the physician Salomon. What is more, without much ado the
keys of the well stocked library of the Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letter-
kunde (Society of Dutch Literature) were entrusted to him. This allowed
him to draw up the first catalogue of medieval manuscripts in this collec-
tion.
Up to a certain point Hoffmann proceeded in the same way as in
Germany: visiting large and small libraries, browsing the second-hand
book trade for old manuscripts and prints. This approach once again
proved very successful. In a relatively short period of time he acquired
an extremely valuable collection of medieval books, mostly by receiving
gifts and swapping cleverly with booktraders.
Yet there was one striking difference in his approach. One would
have expected him to start a thorough investigation into oral traditions.
But he did nothing of the kind. Nowhere in his autobiography do we
find any hint that he made endeavours in this field, neither during this
first visit nor during any of six consecutive ones. Later in life he stated
that he had started with high expectations, but that his hopes for abun-
dant material proved unrealistic (1833). The awkward thing is that Hoff-
mann’s notion on the dearth of material was also preconceived to a
degree. It appears that professor Siegenbeek of Leiden university, with
whom he had corresponded, had successfully tried to discourage him on
this point. For even before his first journey Hoffmann wrote:
HOFFMANN VON FALLERSLEBEN AND DUTCH FOLKSONG 263
In Holland ist aber gar keine Theilname dafür, und der Volksgesang lebt
nicht mehr fort (...). Ferner sind auch daselbst die älteren Lieder-
sammlungen untergegangen, oder, wie H. Prof. Siegenbeek zu Leiden mir
schreibt, in den Besitz von Privatleuthen gerathen; denn auf öffentlichen
Bibliotheken hielt man wol seit Jos. Scaliger’s Zeit bis zu Ruhnken weder
hdschr., noch gedruckte Sammlungen der Art, des Aufbewahrens werth.
Und auch im Privatbesitz liegen sie unbeachtet oder verachtet.8
From the moment of his arrival in the Netherlands, Hoffmann finds his
expectations confirmed. Three published appeals to the Dutch literary
and scholarly world, to come forward with song texts or songbooks,
remained without response, in spite of Hoffmann’s deliberate appeal to
patriotic sentiments among the Dutch:
Ik wenschte gaarne aan mijn Vaderland het êelste uit den Nederlandschen
volkszang medetedeelen; en daaruit te doen zien, hoe ook Nederland in
ouden tijd met echten Duitschen geest voor poëzij, muzijk en onvervalschte
zeden bezield was. (...) Dat deze gezangen, in den waren zin des woords,
Volksliederen waren, ziet men ook uit derzelver overeenkomst met
Duitsche en andere Germaansche Volksliederen, die veelal in schriftelijke,
maar ook in gedrukte verzamelingen gevonden, en ook thans nog meer of
min volledig door het volk gezongen worden.9
In an amazingly short period of time Hoffmann became convinced that
Dutch folk song up until the sixteenth century had been related to Ger-
man song, but that later on it had been suffocated by learning; with the
result that all that was left were insignificant tunes and dialogues.
Eine Volkspoesie in dem frühern Sinne ist jetzt weder in Holland noch in
Flandern und Brabant vorhanden; wenn der Holländer singt, so hat er
8
Hoffmann 1821, XXII: ‘In Holland folk song is no longer alive; and what is more,
all the older song collections are lost, or, as professor Siegenbeek of Leiden writes to
me, they are in private possession, for since the days of Scaliger neither manuscripts
nor early printed collections have been considered worth preserving. And in private
ownership they remain unnoticed or even scorned.’
9
Hoffmann 1821, 50, 55: ‘I would like to present to my fellow countrymen the
most noble specimen of Dutch folk song; and thereby demonstrate that in the old days
the Netherlands were inspired by a true German spirit for poetry, music and unspoiled
morals. (...) That these songs, in the true sense of the word, were folk songs, can be
seen from their resemblance to such German and other Germanic folk songs as can be
found in handwritten and printed collections, and up to the present day are being sung
in more or less complete form by the people.’
264 Herman Brinkman
nichts als einzelne gute Lieder der neuesten gefeierten Dichter und über-
setzte Operntexte des Auslandes, und der Vlaming singt lieber französisch.10
10
Brachin 1965, 194: ‘Folk poetry, in the ancient sense, can no longer be found in
Holland, nor in Flanders or Brabant; when a Dutchman sings, he comes up with some
fine songs from the latest fashionable poet and with translated opera texts from
abroad; when a Fleming sings, he prefers to sing in French.’ It should be understood
that Hoffmann, like Herder and Goethe before him, expressly excluded the songs of
street singers from folk poetry.
11
Hoffmann 1892-93, 117: ‘Ah, my little sister died /She was thirteen months of
age, / I saw her laid out in her coffin, /Ah, how cold my sister was.’
HOFFMANN VON FALLERSLEBEN AND DUTCH FOLKSONG 265
Children was one of his favourites; it was the song that had attracted him
more to Dutch literature than any other. Of all the thirty versions he had
collected in various languages, he preferred the Dutch one. During his
stay in Leyden, he had noticed that many people were fond of his perfor-
mances of German folk songs. Naturally, he thought he was at liberty to
come forward with one or two Dutch ones. In later years he recalled the
incident in this way:
Eines Tages wurde ich in einer grossen Gesellschaft junger hübscher
Mädchen ersucht, etwas zu singen. Ich sang deutsche Lieder und Alles war
erfreut. So wie ich aber das schöne altniederländische Lied: ‘Het waren twee
coningheskinder’, anstimmte, brach Alles in ein lautes Gelächter aus. Ich
sang nicht weiter, sagte eben auf holländisch, so gut ich eben konnte: ‘Ich
nehme von den schönen Fräulein keine Rücksicht für mich in Anspruch,
habe aber geglaubt, dass sie ihr eigenes Vaterland und seine schöne poeti-
sche Vergangenheit mehr ehren würden’.12
Although Hoffmann desisted from preserving the oral song tradition, he
nevertheless faced an enormous task: the careful reworking of his sur-
veys, a continuous search for new printed or handwritten sources and the
realisation of his editorial plans.
Hoffmann as Editor
Especially the latter task would prove to be an arduous one. At an early
stage, feeling insecure about the way in which he should edit a selection
of the best texts in his collection, he consulted Jacob Grimm. He did not
want to proceed in the manner of Von der Hagen or Arnim and
Brentano, whose work was under serious criticism at that time. On the
other hand he abhorred a textual treatment of Germanic texts by the
standards of classical philology.
At first he pleaded for a swift publication of discovered material, to
preserve other texts from irreparable loss. But the situation of 1821 did
not allow such a policy. He knew of the existence of important song
collections, was aware, indeed, of their exact location, but restricted
accessability frustrated an early realisation of his editorial plans. There-
12
ibid., 121: ‘One day I was invited into a large company of beautiful young girls
and was requested to sing something. I sang German songs and pleased everyone. But
as soon as I sang the first notes of the fine old Dutch song Once there were two royal
children the whole room exploded into laughter. I stopped singing and said, in my best
Dutch: ‘I did not expect the young ladies to spare me, but at least thought they would
have had more respect for their own native country and its beautiful poetic heritage.’
266 Herman Brinkman
fore, there was no option but to wait for better circumstances. However,
when in 1828 an anthology appeared entitled Letterkundig overzigt en proe-
ven van de Nederlandsche volkszangen sedert de XVde eeuw (‘Literary survey and
specimens of Dutch folksongs from the fifteenth century onwards’),
Hoffmann felt obliged to counter this ‘monstrosity’, by releasing the
songs he collected himself (Hoffmann von Fallersleben 1833). The 1828
anthology by Le Jeune once again displayed the low standards of Dutch
philology. With little respect for the original text the editor replaced
frivolous lines with lines of his own making.
Unfortunately Hoffmann was unable to use his greatest discovery in
this field: the Antwerp Songbook of 1544. As Gerrit Kalff later rightly
stated (Kalff 1884, 644), this book may be considered the foundation of
our knowledge of Dutch song culture of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. Hoffmann’s patron Von Meusebach, who prepared an anthol-
ogy of German songs and contended that the majority of the songs in
this Dutch collection were of German origin, monopolized its perusal
for a period of more than twenty years. Only from 1843 onwards,
twenty-three years after Hoffmann had discovered the copy, was he
allowed to look into it and, during short intervals, and only in Meuse-
bach’s presence, copy some of the songs. This restriction was so severe
that by 1854 Hoffmann had transcriptions of only 57 of 221 songs. And
when he finally obtained permission to publish the collection, he was
granted a mere eight weeks to get the job done, a task he was unable to
fulfill in time. With presses running, he was summoned to return the
book. Only through the intervention of another patron was he allowed to
use the little book for a slightly longer period of time, which was just
enough to accomplish the work. This edition, by the way, was the only
one that was benevolently treated by De Vreese in the Bouwstoffen of the
Middle Dutch Dictionary.
In more than one way, it may be argued, Hoffmann failed to live up
to his high ambitions. First of all he failed to restore the affection for
ancient folk song. He realized this when he wrote in 1852:
Wie ganz anders hätte sich die National-litteratur dort zu Lande gestaltet,
wenn die altniederländische volksthümliche Poesie als Muster und leitender
Grundsatz betrachtet worden wäre, wenn sie die poetischen Geister angeregt
und belebt hätte! Die heutige Poesie huldigt noch immer jener fremdartigen
Geschmacksrichtung aus den Zeiten der französischen Ludwige, sie hat
noch immer jenen fremdartigen Zuschnitt in ihren Formen beibehalten,
sowie jene gelehrte Ausdrucksweise und bleibt dadurch dem Gemüthe des
HOFFMANN VON FALLERSLEBEN AND DUTCH FOLKSONG 267
Volks eben so fern, wie die Vergangenheit der Gegenwart, und oft eben so
unverständlich, wie das Ausland dem Vaterlande.13
At the end of his life a certain indifference regarding editorial procedure
seems to prevail. In the 1870 edition of the collection of proverbs by
Tunnicius, instead of a justification of his editorial practice, we read a
diatribe against the modern-day generation of narrow-minded know-it-all
critics, who will never be satisfied, whatever decisions an editor may
take. If you faithfully transcribe the source, he complains, they will argue
that you made no effort to clarify the text; if you present a critical text
they will say it is a bad thing the original is faithfully reproduced (Hoff-
mann 1870, 9-10). His remarks may be more than the grousing of a
grumpy old man; that is, if we recall the nineteenth century appraisal of
his faithful textual rendition of the Antwerp Songbook and compare it
with the verdict of Wytze Hellinga, who characterized his edition as ‘as
boring as it is correct’, with the addition ‘the song returned, the book
remained dead’.14
The second point on which Hoffmann failed to accomplish what he
set out to do, was the recording of the oral tradition. It is most unfortu-
nate that Hoffmann seems to have been far too premature in his views
on the possibilities of researching Dutch folk song as part of a living
cultural heritage. The fact that his summons to the scholarly world failed
to raise a response, that his appeals to the patriotic sentiment in these
circles did not have the effect he expected them to have, has nothing to
do with the alleged disappearance of folklore. Nor does it have anything
to do with a lack of scholarly interest in history. On the contrary, pre-
cisely during the days that Hoffmann concerned himself with Dutch
literature, interest in history revived as never before, within the context
of an outspoken nationalism. In 1812, Jan Frederik Helmers’ De Holland-
13
Hoffmann von Fallersleben 1852, 123: ‘How differently the national literature of
the Netherlands could have developed, had the old Dutch folk poetry been taken up
as an example and lodestar; if this poetry had inspired and animated the poetic minds!
Today the poetic tastes are still similar to the fashions of French classicism; it still
maintains a foreign aspect in its forms, just as it has kept a predilection to phrases that
show off learning; therefore it will not reach the hearts of the people any closer than
the past comes close to the present, and often remains as hard to understand as a
foreign country.’
14
Hellinga 1941, 181. A recent edition of the Antwerp Songbook (Wolffenbüttel,
Herzog August Bibliothek, 236.5 Poetica) is Van der Poel, Geirnaert and Joldersma
2004.
268 Herman Brinkman
sche Natie (‘The Dutch Nation’) appeared, the most outstanding patriotic
poem ever written in Dutch. In the years following the French occupa-
tion this long poem went through many printings and gained immense
popularity. It is a permanent glorification of the past; in passionate
phrasings the poet presents historical scenes; a portrait gallery of national
heroes is established. Only, there is no place, no place at all, for the
Middle Ages in this picture. It is a celebration of the Golden Age and all
those who followed its protestant values.
Only very slowly did this attitude change. Helmers called the Middle
Ages the pitch black night of civilization; Willem de Clercq, twelve years
later, still spoke of ‘the fogs of the Middle Ages’. It took the Belgian
revolution in 1830 and the emergence of the Flemish Movement, with its
challenge to French linguistic supremacy, to create the conditions for
Hoffmann’s ideals to be taken up again and developed further.15
References
Borchert, Jürgen. 1991. Hoffmann von Fallersleben: Ein deutsches Dichterschicksal.
Berlin: Verlag der Nation.
Brachin, Pierre. 1965. Les Pays-Bas vus par Hoffmann von Fallersleben. Études
germaniques 20: 189-209.
Gaedertz, Karl Theodor, ed. 1888. Briefwechsel von Jakob Grimm und
Hoffmann-Fallersleben mit Hendrik van Wyn. Nebst anderen Briefen zur deutschen
Litteratur. Bremen.
Hellinga, W.Gs, ed. 1941. Een schoon liedekens-boeck in den welcken ghy in vinden sult,
veelderhande liedekens, oude ende nyeuwe, om droefheyt ende melancolie te verdryven.
’s-Gravenhage: Boucher.
Hoffman von Fallersleben, A.H. 1821. Aanzoek om mededeeling van oude
Nederlandsche volksliederen. Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode 2: 50-55.
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, A.H., ed. 1821. Bonner Bruchstücke vom Otfried nebst
anderen deutschen Sprachdenkmaelern. Bonn.
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, A.H. 1830-1862. Horae belgicae. Studio atque opera
Henrici Hoffmann Fallerslebensis. 12 vols. Vratislaviae.
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, A.H. ed. 1870. Die älteste Niederdeutsche Sprichwörter-
sammlung, von Antonius Tunnicius gesammelt und in Lateinische Verse übersetzt.
Berlin.
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, A.H..1892-93. Gesammelte Werke. Vol. 7, Mein
Leben. Berlin.
15
For a recent perspective of Hoffmann’s role in the cultural and nationalist move-
ments of the nineteenth-century Netherlands and Belgium, see Leerssen 2006, chapter
5; for further reading on Hoffmann see his biography by Jürgen Borchert (1991).
HOFFMANN VON FALLERSLEBEN AND DUTCH FOLKSONG 269
Jan Pauwels
Abstract
The Belgian Revolution of 1830, which marked the beginning of the
country’s independence, was initially felt as a disruption in the private
and public care of ancient books and manuscripts. Soon afterwards,
however, book-collecting resumed in circles of (mainly Flemish)
antiquarians and bibliophiles, whose interests were increasingly recog-
nized as providing the fledgeling state with the literary and cultural
ancestry needed to legitimise its independent existence. Soon, private
initiatives were to shade increasingly into the formation of public
(state-sponsored) initiatives and shifted fom the local (municipal) to
the national level.
ensued. Gradually these manuscripts and rare books would become the
property of public institutions. Their status shifted from antiquarian
collectables to pieces of the national cultural heritage. Further institu-
tional expansion in the course of the century, including a staff of trained
and remunerated scholars, led to greater professionalism in the field.
Therefore, in order to fully understand the literary activity during the
Romantic era, an institutional approach is required besides a mere poeti-
cal one (Leerssen 2004).
As elsewhere in Europe, there was a group of intellectuals in Belgium
who, from the 1820s, began to study language and literature in the ver-
nacular. Their main activity consisted in tracing and publishing old
Dutch texts. They represented a cultural emancipation movement that
strove to promote Dutch in the young, bilingual State of Belgium by
studying its literary history. The three most prominent representatives of
this movement, essentially amateur philologists, were also enthusiastic
book collectors: the libraries of civil servant Jan Frans Willems (1793-
1846) and his younger colleagues professor Constant Philippe Serrure
(1805-1872) and doctor Ferdinand Augustijn Snellaert (1809-1872) were
renowned. After the death of these collectors, large parts of their collec-
tions became public property. In what follows, I shall try to explain how
this first generation of philologists came to own such significant book
collections, how they used them for philological purposes, and how the
public authorities subsequently took over their roles as collectors.
the Netherlands, the terms of the Treaty of Paris and the Congress of
Vienna ordered the restitution of any confiscated property. But the li-
brarians who, under the protection of the occupying forces, set out to
locate the stolen treasures in France were able to recoup only a fraction
and, in some instances, actually brought back the wrong books (Lemaire
1981, Varry 1991, Machiels 2000, Opsomer 2001, Janssens 2005).
Nor did this partial restitution mark the end of the momentous shifts
in book ownership. On 25 August 1830, a revolution erupted in Brussels
that would lead to the independence of Belgium and the further disper-
sion of a number of sizeable collections. The military commander of the
revolutionaries set up his headquarters in the home of the well-known
bibliophile Karel Van Hulthem (1764-1832), on the corner of the Park in
Brussels. Consequently, Van Hulthem’s library was – quite literally –
caught in the line of fire. Miraculously, most of the volumes survived,
but an unknown number of manuscripts and books were lost, and
twenty others suffered ‘bullet holes’. Some valuable manuscripts were
shredded by the revolutionaries to produce cartridges. After a ceasefire
had been called, Van Hulthem had the remainder of his library moved to
Gent. (Leleux 1965, 421-442) The 6000 volumes in what was then Jan
Frans Willems’s collection were packed in peat baskets and stored in an
attic above the shed of a café in Antwerp. The most valuable items were
looked after by Serrure, who, after the bombardment of the city by the
Dutch, had some moved to the cellar of his own home and others to the
homes of acquaintances in other towns. If Willems needed any particular
volumes, they would be brought by barge to his new home, seventy
kilometres from Antwerp. Willems would later, in a letter to Hoffmann
von Fallersleben, complain about this dispersal and about the fact that
some works, including copies of his own writing, were lost in the process
(Deprez 1963, 37-38).
Much research is still required to unravel the developments outlined
here in their full complexity, but one thing is clear: in the space of just
one or two generations, the relatively static book collections of the ancien
régime in the Southern Netherlands had been superseded by a market
inundated with widely dispersed valuable items. The combination of low
prices and wide availability meant that private collectors at the time were
able to acquire huge libraries. Van Hulthem, for example, purchased the
best-known of all Middle Dutch manuscripts – which today carries his
name – for a mere 5.50 francs; a bargain even at the time. The market
PRIVATE TO PUBLIC 275
Conclusion
Due to an amazing series of historical events, early philologists were able
to make numerous new discoveries. They acquired manuscripts and rare
books that often had lain hidden behind the walls of monasteries for
centuries, and subsequently edited and published them. Through these
editions the books and manuscripts themselves gained fame and were
bought by the Belgian State upon the death of their owners. These ef-
forts for the preservation of the national cultural heritage thus made way
for the rise of a true professional modern philology. But even before,
from the 1830s onwards, book collecting, philological activity and na-
tional politics gradually merged into one another (Pauwels 2008). The
most striking example in that field will serve as the conclusion to the
present article: the before-mentioned Maetschappy der Vlaemsche Biblio-
philen, the only Dutch-speaking bibliophile society of the time, founded
by Serrure and Blommaert as early as 1839. Judging by the name, it could
easily have been mistaken for yet another club of wealthy collectors, but
its Laws stated unambigiously the society’s higher goals: ‘1. to publish
unpublished documents of literary or historical nature; 2. to reprint rare
books on national history.’ The limited editions on heavy paper were
intended only for the society’s 28 chosen members, the Royal Library
and the university library in Gent. The Belgian State however subsidised
individual editions, bought systematically twenty (and later one hundred)
copies of the less luxurious trade editions of each new title and even
went so far as to buy manuscripts explicitly for editorial work by the
society. Afterwards they were included in the collections of the university
library in Gent (Waterschoot 1990). There is no better example to illus-
284 Jan Pauwels
trate the shift from private to public book collecting and the rise of
Netherlandic philology in nineteenth-century Belgium.
References
Bethmann, L.C. 1843. Rapport de M. Bethmann, de Hanovre, sur les résultats
de ses recherches historiques dans les bibliothèques de la Belgique, faites en
1839, 1840 et 1841. Messager des sciences historiques, 133-162.
Bibliothèque royale. 1969. Bibliothèque royale: Mémorial 1559-1969. Bruxelles:
Bibliothèque royale.
Bols, Jan. 1909. Brieven aan Jan-Frans Willems. Gent: Koninklijke Vlaamse Aca-
demie.
Brinkman, Herman, and Jenny Schenkel. 1999. Het handschrift-Van Hulthem. Hs.
Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, 15.589-623. Hilversum: Verloren.
Broeckx, Corneille. 1863. La chirurgie de Maître Jehan Yperman, chirurgien belge.
Anvers: Buschmann.
Cockx-Indestege, Elly and Marcus de Schepper. 2000. ‘Il n’en existe pas d’autre
exemplaire dans notre littérature’. Handschriften en oude drukken uit de
Nederlanden van C.P. Serrure naar de hertog van Arenberg, en verder. In
Medioneerlandistiek: een inleiding tot de Middelnederlandse letterkunde, eds. Ria
Jansen-Sieben et al., 287-301. Hilversum: Verloren.
Couttenier, Piet. 1998. National Imagery in 19th Century Flemish Literature. In
Nationalism in Belgium: shifting identities, eds. Kas Deprez and Louis Vos, 51-
60. London: Macmillan.
Deprez, Ada. 1963. Briefwisseling van Jan Frans Willems en Hoffmann von Fallersleben.
Gent: Rijksuniversiteit Gent.
Deprez, Ada. 1985. De bibliotheek van dr. F.A. Snellaert: rondom de verwer-
ving door U.B. Gent 1872-1874. Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke
Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 343-391.
Deprez, Ada. 1987. De verwerving en de structuur van de bibliotheek van Dr.
F.A. Snellaert. In Miscellanea Neerlandica: opstellen voor dr. Jan Deschamps, eds.
Elly Cockx-Indestege et. al., 3: 85-96, Leuven: Peeters.
Deschamps, Jan. 1993. Handschriften van Jan Frans van de Velde in de
Koninklijke Bibliotheek te Brussel. In Miscellanea Martin Wittek: album de
codicologie et de paléographie offert à Martin Wittek, eds. Annie Raman et. al., 127-
155. Leuven: Peeters.
Deschamps, Jan. 2004. Constant Philippe Serrure (1805-1872). In E codicibus
impressique: opstellen voor Elly Cockx-Indestege, eds. Frans Hendrickx et. al., 3:
332-391. Leuven: Peeters.
Vander Haeghen, Ferdinand. 1911. Liste sommaire des principaux fonds entrés à la
Bibliothèque de la Ville et de l’Université de Gand. Gent: Vanderhaeghen.
Vander Haeghen, Ferdinand. 1858-1869. Bibliographie gantoise: recherches sur la vie
et les travaux des imprimeurs de Gand (1483-1850). Gent.
PRIVATE TO PUBLIC 285
Marita Mathijsen
Abstract
Editing procedures for early Dutch literature went through four
stages. Initially, in the eighteenth century, the main concern was the
origins of the Dutch language. Next came a stage (decisively influ-
enced by initiatives of German scholars) of collection and description
with a view to the literary interest of early texts. This is the period
when texts which nowadays still belong to the canon emerged from
archival collections and libraries. The scholars involved also began to
prepare editions by way of a scholarly and, as a rule, individual effort
(third stage). By the 1840s this gave way to a concerted effort by five
unruly Dutch junior scholars to professionalise editing procedures.
They founded the ‘Association for the Advancement of Early Dutch
Literature’, which made its mark with a feverish production of edi-
tions. The Association existed for a mere five years; yet in that short
timespan it managed to alter editorial practice from the ground up
and to effect a complete overhaul of the available knowledge of me-
dieval Dutch literature.
A Preliminary Stage
In the Netherlands, the study of medieval history and the edition of
historical texts took wing due to German influence. It would go too far
to speak of a German invasion of medievalists in the Netherlands of the
first decades of the nineteenth century. Still, one cannot doubt that with-
out the German interest in medieval manuscripts the emergence of such
288 Marita Mathijsen
an interest in the Netherlands would have been much delayed, and that
these manuscripts would have been edited much later.
In what follows, I address the first period of Dutch medieval studies,
which coincides with the first period of editing. It culminates in the
foundation of the Vereeniging ter bevordering van oude Nederlandsche Letter-
kunde (‘Association for the Advancement of Early Dutch Literature’), a
body uniting the first group of scholarly editors in the Netherlands. I
shall elucidate the objectives and the mode of operation of this Associa-
tion.
In the process of historical editing, four successive stages may be
distinguished, the Association belonging to the fourth. Incidentally, I
suspect that a similar four-stage development may be encountered in
other countries, too.
By way of a preliminary I should define what I mean when speaking
of an edition. There is no clear-cut boundary line between what one may
still call the renewed publication of an early chapbook and what is already
a scholarly edition. Particularly in the eighteenth century one encounters
medieval stories in publications which deviate but little from those
printed in the sixteenth century, but also publications preceded by a brief
preface pointing at the text’s historical significance. But there are also
editions proper, which provide a commentary and elucidate word mean-
ings. My definition of a scholarly edition requires at a minimum that the
new publication has been overseen by an editor who makes himself
known with his name or his initials, and who regards the text as a histori-
cal artefact in need of elucidation. Furthermore, the editor takes a critical
view of how the text has come down to us. Not required however in
these early stages of editing are comparisons between variant readings or
direct textual criticism.
1
Jan Rock, Ph. D. student at the University of Amsterdam and member of the
Huygens Institute, is preparing a study of the earliest editions in the Netherlands. Cf.
Rock 2006.
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 289
tury monk by the name of Klaas Kolijn was supposed to have written a
rhymed chronicle about Count Dirk of Holland. The fake manuscript
began to cirulate early in the eighteenth century, and soon went through
two editions. Considered in European perspective this was a very early
mystification, fabricated c. 1700 by an engraver and sold to a wealthy
collector.
The few editions that were prepared were published as a rule by
antiquarians who, just as elsewhere in Europe, profited from the
opportunity afforded by the disestablishment of the Catholic church in
the Netherlands – the market virtually abounded with manuscripts.
Among eighteenth-century collectors Balthazar Huydecoper stands out.
His primary interest was the language, his ultimate objective to compile
a lexicon of the Dutch language, enabling a reconstruction of pure
Dutch. His lexicon was never published, but tens of thousands of index
cards have been preserved and later linguists have put them to good use.2
The year 1766 saw the foundation of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse
Letterkunde (‘Society for Dutch Literature’), which still exists and which in
the nineteenth century was to become central to the scholarly investiga-
tion of Dutch language and literature. The Society started its activities by
bringing together a library of early manuscripts. Here, too, the produc-
tion of dictionaries was the prime objective.
At that time, then, people were busy collecting from a historical point
of view. Surveys of the literary history of the Netherlands did not yet
exist. The first dates from 1800, and soon more were written. These
earliest literary histories discuss about a dozen medieval texts. Siegen-
beek’s history of Dutch literature (1826) leaves the reader with the im-
pression that no more than some ten texts from the period until 1400
had come down, and not even all of these had been edited. It was as-
sumed that in the Netherlands no literary texts from before the thirteenth
century had been preserved.
Two authors stand at the centre of early literary history, Melis Stoke
and Jacob van Maerlant. Melis Stoke completed his rhymed chronicle of
the counts of Holland around 1305. His work was printed for the first
time in 1591, and the first edition proper was published in 1772 by the
aforementioned Huydecoper, who added ‘notes on early history and on
the language’. Alongside Stoke, the celebrated Flemish Jacob van
2
Huydecoper is discussed in Stein 2003.
290 Marita Mathijsen
Maerlant, who lived in the thirteenth century, was taken to be the earliest
writer in Dutch. A collector’s collection was not counted complete if the
owner could not boast of a Maerlant manuscript in his possession. He
was regarded as a civic poet, who had managed to disengage from the
uncivilised Middle Ages and whose poetry was directed towards the
spreading of knowledge.
In addition, collectors were aware of a few songs and a few chivalric
tales from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. These were not valued
particularly highly. Huydecoper’s statement is well known: not all manu-
script fragments of poetic works needed to be preserved, it sufficed to
make linguistic notes.
3
Based on the model of the Academie Française, this Academy (originally named
‘Koninklijk Instituut voor Wetenschappen, Letterkunde en Schoone Kunsten’) was
meant to be the national institution for the advancement of the sciences.
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 291
327-330). Grimm realised that the literary heritage of the Dutch and the
Germans were closely related and that all kinds of versions of medieval
stories might well be written down in Lower German varieties of the
language. He sought to get in touch with Dutch linguists and literary
historians, and through one of them he made an appeal to search for
early literary sources. By this he meant not only manuscripts, he also
expressly asked for ‘popular songs still known to elderly people’. No one
yet had directed such a public appeal to a Dutch audience.
A decade later it was once again a German philologist who tried to
elicit an interest in Dutch philology and medieval studies: August Hein-
rich Hoffmann von Fallersleben. He entered the archives in person, and
located the texts that still constitute in good part the medieval canon.
The same periodical which in 1811 had published Grimm’s appeal
printed Hoffmann’s 1821 survey of medieval texts held in a variety of
archival collections (Hoffmann 1821-22). Hoffmann also prepared the
first editions of these and other important medieval Dutch works.
Once again a German, the historian J. Mone, contributed significantly
to the preparation of an inventory of medieval Dutch texts. For a few
years he was professor of history at Louvain university, and in those
years he worked his way through libraries in the Southern Netherlands
and in Northern France. In 1838 appeared his Übersicht der Niederländi-
schen Volks-literatur älterer Zeit. This ‘Survey of Dutch popular literature of
early times’ provides a more extensive bibliographical overview than had
been listed by Hoffmann von Fallersleben. The labours of these two
Germans had in any case made available a highly useful overview of
what literary manuscripts had been preserved in libraries both at home
and abroad. True, these lists were as yet far from complete; even today,
discoveries may still conceivably be made.
‘Mirror of History’, that is, an anecdotal history of the world). That text
was well on its way towards becoming a shibboleth text, by which I
mean a text which forms the point of convergence where nationalism,
early scholarly attention, canon formation, and interest in the literary past
come together. Bilderdijk called van Maerlant ‘the Father of our litera-
ture’. It is interesting that he defended the preparation of a literal, diplo-
matic edition, as against the custom at the time in Germany, where edi-
tors met their supposedly ‘unexperienced’ readers half-way by modernis-
ing the early texts.
Bilderdijk’s introduction to his edition of Jacob van Maerlant’s Spie-
ghel historiael opens with a remarkable statement (Bilderdijk 1812). I para-
phrase: Those who are less experienced in reading early texts find it
convenient to have them modernised a little. Editors wished to help their
readers that way.4 But one should not edit early authors for readers who
are in need of such distortions. They are served better with a translation
into modern Dutch. Who truly wants to read an early text, will wish to
see it in its original guise.
Bilderdijk was not the only individual to engage the editing business.
The editors in this period were most often connected to universities,
where they taught literary history. Some editions prepared by some of
them have later become classic exemplars of editions as they should not
be, for instance, the first edition, by L.G. Visscher, of the important
chivalric tale Ferguut (1838). But in the editing business, too, we once
again encounter German prominence. Jacob Grimm edited texts in medi-
eval Dutch literature, among these the first edition of Van den vos Reinaer-
de, which was taken up in a large-scale Reinhart Fuchs edition of 1834.5
Eduard von Kauler published a series entitled Denkmäler altniederländischer
Sprache und Literatur (1840, ‘Monuments of early Dutch language and
literature’), which contained a Flemish rhymed chronicle. Hoffmann von
Fallersleben prepared more editions than anybody else. His publications
already fit in with the next stage, which can no longer be called individ-
ual and which is clearly marked off from the third stage by its program-
matic and scholarly nature.
4
Bilderdijk must be thinking here of philologists like Von der Hagen and Büsching
who unlike the Grimms were indeed in the habit of modernizing their texts.
5
The history of the Reinhart editions and the way in which editors sought to score
off each other, is described in Leerssen 2006.
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 293
The Fourth Stage: Editing as a Scholarly Activity: The ‘Association for the Ad-
vancement of Early Dutch Literature’
Hoffmann von Fallersleben is the man whose labours truly opened up
the great medieval texts which still form the Dutch canon. He began a
series Horae Belgicae (‘The Horae of the Low Countries’), for which he
edited texts yet unknown, such as Karel ende Elegast and Floris ende Blance-
floer (both in 1836).6 Even so, we do not meet with more truly scholarly
ambitions until the activities of those philologists who set out to form
what they called the ‘New School’. These men turned against the editing
procedures of their Dutch predecessors, but also against those of Hoff-
mann von Fallersleben, which they deemed unprofessional. Their real
preference is for Lachmann’s procedures, but in their first editions they
still lack the courage to move in one bold jump from diplomatic to criti-
cal editing. They have a programme; they debate editing procedures, and
they work as a scholarly team, complete with the quarrels that tend to
accompany such practices. I shall now address the objectives and proce-
dures of these editors, who came together in the Vereeniging ter bevordering
van oude Nederlandsche letterkunde or ‘Association for the Advancement of
Early Dutch Literature’.
Around 1840, a young generation of philologists began to criticise
earlier collectors and individual editors as amateurish dabblers, and they
proclaimed their intent to edit early texts in a professional manner. At
least three motives inspired them. There was in the first place an aware-
ness that something was wrong in the Netherlands if the edition of early
manuscripts depended on Germans and Flemish. There was also a gener-
ational impetus: the young generation found that their predecessors had
bungled their editions, lacking both sufficient knowledge of the language
and a thorough investigation of the times in which a manuscript had
originated. Thirdly, they were moved by a sense that early literature was
misunderstood. Maerlant in his dull didacticism was being praised to the
skies, so they felt, whereas a far earlier, more romantic literature from the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries remained unknown. Already in 1842
young Matthias de Vries wrote to Jan Tideman that he wanted his fellow
literary historians to apply themselves to early texts:
Dat tijdperk onzer letterkunde is het eigentlijk, dat te veel verwaarloosd en
miskend wordt. Het hooge belang daarvan is ons door Duitschers geleerd,
6
Cf. Herman Brinkman’s article in this volume.
294 Marita Mathijsen
en niets in ons vak dringender noodzakelijk, dan die letterkunde aan het
licht te brengen, wier kostbaarste gedenkstukken nog den slaap der vergetel-
heid sluimeren. (...) Bedenk dan toch, hoe de Walewein, hoe de kinderen
van Limborch, hoe de Leekenspieghel (...) hoe eene massa oude
meesterstukken om regt schreeuwt en niemand hen hoort, hen, die nog
niemand ooit het licht deed zien.7
And here is how, in a review in the prominent journal De Gids, another
representative of the young generation, Willem Jonckbloet, urged the
message upon his readers:
Eens en voor altijd dus: neen, onze letterkunde vangt niet aan met de helft
der dertiende eeuw; het is van dien tijd, dat haar verval dagteekent. Van
1150 tot 1270 heeft eene dichterlijke school gebloeid, rijk aan verbeelding.8
As is the case with so much in the nineteenth century, the new school
marches under the banner of nationalism. The literature of the father-
land, its early period included, is extolled for its high aesthetic merits and
as a witness to an uncorrupted, poetic language. All this serves the new
generation to justify their appeal for state support — the government
should acknowledge the existence of so fine an early literature and subsi-
dise its being edited. To be sure, in voicing these nationalist sentiments
they do not deviate from the Old School they are opposing.
Beginnings
The Association originated with the friendship between an archivist and
a student, both living in Utrecht. The archivist, P.J. Vermeulen, had in
1840 addressed a letter to his colleagues with a plan to found a literary
association capable of publishing early manuscripts and incunabula.
Foreign examples, such as the Stuttgarter Verein, had inspired him. He
regretted in particular that numerous small editions and studies appeared
7
28 May 1842: ‘That, after all, is the period in our literature that is being neglected
and underestimated too much. The Germans have taught us its high importance, and
nothing in our discipline is more urgently required than to bring to light that literature,
the most precious monuments of which still dose in oblivion. (...) Pray remind yourself
how Walewein, how the children of Limborch, how the Leekenspieghel (...), how a
mass of early masterpieces cries out for justice and how no one hears them, they who
have never yet seen the light of day.’
The records of the Vereeniging, which contain these letters, are at Leiden University,
Ltk 1519.
8
Jonckbloet 1846, 3: ‘Once and for all, then: No, our literature does not start by the
middle of the thirteenth century. That is rather where we must date its decay. From
1150 to 1270 flourished a poetic school rich in imagination.’
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 295
9
Cf. Gerritsen 1991, 174-175: ‘ (...) moet ieder onzer het werk aanvatten dat zijne
hand vindt om te doen.(...) Ik ben in staat en gereed hoogst belangrijke bijdragen te
leveren.’
296 Marita Mathijsen
Programme
The records of that first meeting have been preserved. Agreement was
reached over who would do what. Jonckbloet was to start with the ‘Ro-
man der Lorreinen’; De Vries with ‘Der Leken Spieghel’; Tideman with
‘Dboec van den Houte’, and Leendertz with ‘Der Minnen Loep’. In
practice things went a little different. In course of the first year, 1844,
three parts appeared, which contained part of the didactic poem Der
leeken spieghel from 1330; Jacob van Maerlant’s Dboec van den Houte from
roughly the same time, and a romance about Charlemagne, Karel de Groote
en zijne 12 pairs. The respective editors were de Vries, Tideman and
Jonckbloet. The speed with which they worked was remarkable (particu-
larly so if one considers that present-day professional editors usually
need years to complete an edition). Not only did they provide copies of
texts hitherto unpublished, but they also compared other versions and
fragments that had come down. Furthermore, they set up a glossary
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 297
Scholarly Outlook
The new generation of philologists, united in the Association, left noth-
ing undone to promote themselves as innovators. They called themselves
‘the new school’, so as to mark themselves off from an established ‘old
school’. They felt that the cultivation of early literature had so far been in
the hands of dilettantes, and that responsible scholarly editing started
with the Association. Before and during the period of the New School
one may roughly speak of three directions. Grimm’s direction, followed
in the Netherlands by Bilderdijk, stood for the literal, diplomatic rendi-
tion of texts. Hoffmann von Fallersleben aimed at a far-reaching nor-
malisation of manuscripts, self-evidently including the making of correc-
tions, in accordance with the idea that a normative construction of the
language of a given century can be attained. But the new development
was the one pioneered by Karl Lachmann, aiming for a critical rendition
of the texts based upon a comparative investigation of variants in the
298 Marita Mathijsen
lineage of textual transmission. The New School directed its critique not
so much against any of these three directions as, rather, against the indi-
viduals involved.
Jonckbloet in particular made his views loudly known. In reviews
published in the leading literary journal of those years, De Gids, but also
in his editions and in separate treatises he scolded his predecessors in an
often crass vocabulary. He chose for his prize victim a professor past his
prime, B.H. Lulofs, who had compiled an anthology of medieval Dutch
literature. In a letter to a friend Jonckbloet observed:
Om mij wat te verpoozen heb ik dezer dagen het beestachtig slechte Hand-
boek van prof. Lulofs eens uitgekleed: gij zult die man in de Gids van ja-
nuari eerstkomend spiernaakt (...) in het publiek zien staan. Ik heb bij die
gelegenheid zoowat mijne opinie gezegd over de geheele oude school. Het
werd tijd dat men die heeren de tanden eens liet zien.. (...) O dat verdoemde
liefhebberen!10
And in De Gids itself he expresses himself thus:
Het is meer dan eens gezegd, en met bewijzen gestaafd, dat de beoefening
der oude Nederlandsche letteren (...) geleden heeft door een dilettantisme
dat regts en links, zonder bepaald doel, beuzelend, zonder systeem, zonder
overtuiging, in plaats van de wetenschap, eene schrale, onvruchtbare
liefhebberij heeft daargesteld!11
Jonckbloet goes on to upbraid Lulofs for his false representations and
for his incompleteness and lack of consistency, all of which he demon-
strates with various examples of the lack of expertise in grammar and
lexicography.
What kind of editions, then, did the New School put forward in
contrast to the Old School? In organisation and execution all editions
prepared by the Association look the same. Most often the text begins
right after the title page. Most summarily in the margin one finds an
10
Ltk 1095: ‘I have entertained myself these days by stripping to the bone Profes-
sor Lulofs’ dreadfully incompetent textbook – in the January installment of De Gids
you shall find him exposed stark naked (...) before the readership. I have used the
occasion to speak my mind about the entire old school. It was about time to show
these gentlemen our teeth. (...) Oh, that damned dilettantism!’
11
Jonckbloet 1846, 3: ‘It has been said more than once, and proofs have been given
for it, that the cultivation of early Dutch literature (...) has suffered from a dilettantism
that to the right and to the left, devoid of any well-determined objective, full of drivel
and without conviction, has represented a meagre and fruitless amateurism rather than
true scholarship!’
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 299
indication whether more than one version exists. At the page bottom the
variants are rendered in a negative lemma-apparatus. This is followed by
a general explanation, by notes, and by a glossary. The notes may serve
to elucidate the manuscript but may also add historical explanations to
the text; they are rather concise. The glossary is mostly comparative; that
is, the editor lists other forms of a given word and other works where it
occurs as well.
There is nonetheless a curious discrepancy between the outbursts of
jubilation with which the members of the Association address their own
innovations in the domain of literature, and the direction they actually
follow. The statutes lay it down that they shall publish their editions
‘with diplomatic accuracy’. But this was no longer in conformity with the
editorial innovations of the time. De Vries and Jonckbloet, in particular,
had given up their erstwhile belief in diplomatic editing. Both men
sulkingly comply with the agreement, while indicating clearly that they
expect more from Lachmann’s method and that they prefer critical edi-
tions. Indeed, Jonckbloet goes so far as to publish a critical edition en-
tirely unconnected to the Association and without taking any of its rules
into account.
Already in the first annual report we encounter debate. Tideman
writes:
We geven onze stukken diplomatiesch, dat is met de grootst mogelijke
naauwkeurigheid, uit, zoodat wij, na de gewone verkortingen aangevuld te
hebben, het handschrift letterlijk weergeven. Het is ons geenszins onbe-
kend, dat wij wegens deze wijze van uitgeven, die hier te lande tot nog toe
meestal gevolgd werd, door Hoogduitsche geleerden van den eersten rang
zijn aangevallen, die voor iedere eeuw eene grammatica, op de lezing der
hun bekende stukken gegrond, hebben vastgesteld, en alle latere hand-
schriften diensvolgens met eene zoogenaamde Rechtschreibung in het licht
geven. Doch wij hebben gemeend in dezen onze eigene overtuiging te
moeten blijven volgen.12
12
Tideman 1895, 31: ‘We edit our pieces the diplomatic way, that is, with the
greatest possible accuracy so that, upon expanding the customary abbreviations, we
render the manuscript literally. We know very well that because of this editorial proce-
dure, which has most often been followed in this country, we have been attacked by
German scholars of the first rank. These scholars have established a grammar for
every century, founded upon a reading of the pieces known to them, so as to publish
all later manuscripts in the so-called Rechtschreibung [orthography]. We, however,
have decided in this to follow our own conviction.’
300 Marita Mathijsen
In the Association’s view, early Dutch grammar and spelling have not yet
been examined sufficiently to make normalisation possible.
Jonckbloet’s and de Vries’ editions show clearly that they felt bound
hand and feet by the agreement. Jonckbloet writes in Karel de Groote (‘Char-
lemagne’) that the manuscript has been printed the diplomatic way, with
all its mistakes and defects, not because he personally thinks that a criti-
cal edition would be premature, but because the homogeneity of the
editorial board requires it (Jonckbloet 1844, XXX-XXXI).
13
Ltk 1515: ‘There is no need for our Association to lick clean the plate after it has
pleased Jonckbloet to give the cake over to be eaten by De Gids. And what a cake!
Hard to chew on, without smell or spices.’
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 301
In 1895, many years after the Association has fallen apart, Tideman,
by now an old man, wrote its history, which he used to settle old scores.
He still felt slighted that in the public eye Jonckbloet had come to count
as the principal leader of the Association.
In the journal’s fifth year the editorial board inserted a note that the
number of members was diminishing, and that government support was
insufficient to continue. Furthermore, the work had been done. The
board has contributed to cultivating the literature of the fatherland, and
it now wished to dedicate itself to other labours. The note is cool, but
everything goes to show that the editorial board cannot advance any
further in the accustomed manner. Two members had failed to contrib-
ute to the efforts, Tideman remained the only one still to defend diplo-
matic transcription, and both de Vries and Jonckbloet were awaiting
appointments to prestigious professorial chairs. The objective had been
attained in that the existence of an earlier literature has been acknowl-
edged and Maerlant no longer counted as ‘the father of the fatherland’s
poets’.
Conclusion
The Association is an early example of scholarly collaboration. Jonck-
bloet is among the first to formulate an opposition between academic
and non-academic research, marking the start of the professionalisation
of Dutch studies. Given the period when they were prepared, the edi-
tions published by the Association do indeed attain a high level of
achievement. Some are still the only available edition of the text in ques-
tion; not as if we were not in need of a newer publication but simply
because no-one has taken the time and effort to edit them in accordance
with present-day standards. In that respect de Vries’ words are still as
valid as ever: ‘eene massa oude meesterstukken schreeuwt om recht en
niemand, niemand hoort hen’ – a mass of early masterpieces cries out for
justice and no one, no one hears them.
302 Marita Mathijsen
References
Archival:
Ltk: Collection Tideman. LTK 1519, LTK 1519, LTK 1095 Maatschappij der
Nederlandse Letterkunde. University Library, Leiden.
Published:
Algemeene konst- en letterbode 2 (1811).
van den Berg, Willem. 1999. De Tweede Klasse: een afdeling met een
problematische missie (1808-1816). In Een bedachtzame beeldenstorm, 137-165.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Biesheuvel, Ingrid. 2003. Strijd tegen dilettanten. Willem Joseph Andries Jonck-
bloet (1817-1885). In Der vaderen boek. Beoefenaren van de studie der Middel-
nederlandse letterkunde. Studies voor Frits van Oostrom ter gelegenheid van diens vijftig-
ste verjaardag, ed. Wim van Anrooij et al., 49-60, 259-262, 295-297. Amster-
dam: Amsterdam University Press.
[Bilderdijk, Willem]. 1812. Voorbericht. In Jacob van Maerlant, Spieghel historiael
of Rijmkroniek. 3e deel met aanteekeningen van Jan Steenwinkel, Uitgegeven
door de Tweede Klasse van het Hollandsch Instituut, VIII-IX. Amsterdam.
van Boven, Erica. 1980. Lulofs en Siegenbeek contra Jonckbloet en De Vries:
een wedstrijd in ‘scholen’? Een bijdrage aan de geschiedenis van de
Neerlandistiek. In Wie veel leest heeft veel te verantwoorden… Opstellen over filologie
en historische letterkunde aangeboden aan prof. dr. F. Lulofs, ed. M.M.H. Bax et al.,
190-215. Groningen: Nederlands Instituut
de Buck, H. 1931. De studie van het Middelnederlandsch tot in het midden der negentien-
de eeuw. Groningen: Wolters.
Buijnsters, P.J. 1984. Kennis van en waardering voor Middelnederlandse litera-
tuur in de 18e eeuw. Documentatieblad Werkgroep 18e eeuw 16.61-62: 39-58.
Colenbrander, Dieneke. 1980. Vereeniging ter Bevordering der Oude
Nederlandsche Letterkunde. In Wie veel leest heeft veel te verantwoorden… Opstel-
len over filologie en historische letterkunde aangeboden aan prof. dr. F. Lulofs, ed.
M.M.H. Bax et al., 216-232. Groningen: Nederlands Instituut.
van Dalen-Oskam, Karina. 2003. De idealistische lexicograaf. Matthias de Vries
(1820-1892). In Der vaderen boek. Beoefenaren van de studie der Middelnederlandse
letterkunde. Studies voor Frits van Oostrom ter gelegenheid van diens vijftigste verjaar-
dag, ed. Wim van Anrooijet al., 61-75, 262-264, 297-298. Amsterdam: Am-
sterdam University Press.
Gerritsen, W.P. 1991. ‘De lust voor dezen studietak’. De medioneerlandicus en
zijn publiek.. In Misselike tonghe. De Middelnederlandse letterkunde in interdiscipli-
nair verband, ed. F.P.van Oostrom et al., 171-187; 231-234. Amsterdam:
Prometheus.
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, A.H. 1821. Over de oude Hollandsche letter-
kunde. Algemeene konst- en letterbode.
DUTCH LITERARY HISTORICISM 303
Jonckbloet, W.J.A., ed. 1844. Roman van Karel den Grooten en zijne XII pairs
(fragmenten). Leiden.
Jonckbloet, W.J.A. 1846. [Review of] B.H. Lulofs, Handboek . De Gids 10: 1-56.
Laan, Nico. 1997. Het belang van smaak. Twee eeuwen academische literatuurgeschiedenis.
Amsterdam: Historisch Seminarium van de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Leerssen, Joep. 2006. De bronnen van het vaderland: Taal, literatuur en de afbakening
van Nederland, 1806-1890. Nijmegen: Vantilt.
Miltenburg, A.P.J. 1991. Naar de gesteldheid dier tyden. Middeleeuwen en mediëvistiek in
Nederland in de negentiende eeuw. Vier studies. Hilversum: Verloren.
Rock, Jan. 2006. Literary Monuments and Editor’s Jokes: Nationalism and
Professionalisation in Editions of Lodewijk van Velthem’s Spiegel Historiael
(1727-1906). Variants: The Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship
5: 285-314.
Stein, Robert. 2003 De heer Huydecoper bezit ze; maar wie meer? Balthazar
Huydecoper (1695-1778). In Der vaderen boek. Beoefenaren van de studie der
Middelnederlandse letterkunde. Studies voor Frits van Oostrom ter gelegenheid van diens
vijftigste verjaardag, ed. Wim van Anrooij, Dini Hogenelst, Geert Warnar,
11.21. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Tideman, J. 1895. De Vereeniging ter Bevordering der Oude Nederlandsche Letterkunde.
(1843-1850.) Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche letterkunde in de
negentiende eeuw. ’s Gravenhage.
Verslagen en berigten uitgegeven door de Vereeniging ter Bevordering der Oude Nederland-
sche Letterkunde 1-5 (1844-1848).
EUROPEAN STUDIES 26 (2008): 305-317
Joep Leerssen
Abstract
Taking the case of a book series claiming to be a ‘Library of the
Complete German National Literature’ (running from 1835 until the
early 1860s), this article looks at the emergence of a readership for
the medieval classics in what was, around these decades, becoming a
self-evidently national canon. The commercially-driven enterprise is
here presented, not only in the context of the ongoing professionali-
sation and growing academic prestige and ethos of the philologies,
but also in its competition with the dissemination forum of biblio-
phile societies with publications-for-members. Between sociability,
academic careerism and a widening appeal of ‘nationality’, the popu-
larisation and nationwide acceptance of the idea of a ‘national litera-
ture’ as a self-evident taxonomic unit is here traced in its early, hesi-
tant beginnings.
1
Dammann 1924,7: ‘From the earliest monuments which have come down to us to
the modern period, no work should be omitted from this library that can claim classi-
cal status or that is important in our national literature either for the study of our
language or for our understanding of the nation’s learning in successive periods.’ Most
of the information on Basse’s venture given in the following pages is from Dammann’s
book, and from inspection of the actual volumes (listed in the appendix to this article)
in the Widener Library, Harvard. For biographical information on the various scholars
involved I have relied on the AdB 1875-1912.
THE NATION’S CANON AND THE BOOK TRADE 307
rum’ or indeed ‘Library’,2 and signal by such names that they unite a
dispersed readership into a virtual concourse. And in many cases, the
‘imagined community’ constituted thereby (the insistent use of the first-
person plural our is noteworthy) is explicitly signalled as a national one:
nation-wide in its geographical dispersal, united in its common interest
and reading. Thus, the idea of publication plays subliminally but insis-
tently on the related concepts of a public and of the public spaces and
spheres where that public congregates.
The publisher, Basse, was trying to move with the times. The firm
had been active since the early nineteenth century and had become noto-
rious in the early 1820s for trying to cash in on the success of Goethe’s
Wilhelm Meister by publishing forgeries spuriously credited to the author of
the Wanderjahre. In a way, the roots of the Basse publishing house were
close to the murky ‘underworld’ of the book trade where seditious libels
(anti-Napoleonic in this case) went hand in hand with cheap novelettes
of dubious moral calibre. However, after the firm had been taken over
by Gottfried Basse, it attempted to catch the wave of national and liter-
ary historicism that was sweeping Germany, and to which it contributed
the new wide dissemination potential of their large-volume printing tech-
niques. Basse himself was among the early adopters of lithographic tech-
nique. His publications were printed on cheap woodpulp paper, recently
invented. His position in Germany is comparable, in this respect, to that
of the publisher Duffy in Ireland from the 1840s onwards, one of the
first to use stereotype print on cheap paper; with his high output and
social penetration, Duffy became the premier publisher for Irish
nationalism, ranging from devotional Catholic literature to the Irish
nationalist newspaper The Nation, the best-selling anthology The Spirit of
the Nation and the tellingly-named series ‘The Library of Ireland’ (cf.
Leerssen 1996, 3).
2
Such names are superimposed on older ones that echo the origin of the periodical
as a newsletter, or else periodicals that play on a notion of mediating social gossip
(Spectator, Observer, Tatler).
308 Joep Leerssen
often produced by printing houses with university links, and that of the
private bibliophile association. Text Societies had an important role
everywhere in Europe from the early 1800s onwards. In Central and
Eastern Europe, there were the matica rading (and publishing) societies,
or the Gelehrte Gesellschaft of Dorpat (present-day Tallinn). Britain is
particularly rich in examples of bibliophile-antiquarian book clubs: thus
the Camden Society for the publication of Early Historical and Literary
Remains (founded 1838), the Percy Society (founded 1840) and the
Bannatyne Club (on which, see Ferris 2005); following in the footsteps
of the old private associations of bibliophile collectors of facsimiles
(such as the Roxburghe Club) they paved the way at the same time for
more academic associations such as the Early English Texts Society
(founded in 1864). In Ireland there was the Irish Archaeological Society,
with links to the Royal Irish Academy, and its slightly more down-market
counterpart the Ossianic Society (which worked, significantly, with the
aforementioned publisher James Duffy; cf. generally Murray 2000). Simi-
larly poised between academic learning and private collecting was the
Belgian Maetschappij der Vlaemsche Bibliophilen. In Holland, the more aca-
demic Vereeniging ter bevordering der oude Nederlandsche letterkunde fits the
same European pattern.3 Just how ‘national’ such Texts Societies could
become, can be seen from the case of the Société des ancien textes français,
founded on the model of the Early English Texts Society with Paulin
Paris as the first president. Its first annoucement declares its na-
tional-mindedness in terms that must be seen in the bitter post-1871
climate to be fully appreciated:
Nous faisons appel (...) à tous ceux qui aiment la France de tous les temps,
à tous ceux qui croient qu'un peuple qui répudie son passé prépare mal son
avenir, et à tous ceux qui savent que la conscience nationale n'est pleine et
vivante que si elle relie dans un sentiment profond de solidarité les gé-
nérations présentes à celles qui se sont éteintes
Again, the 1877 report by Paulin Paris’s son Gaston Paris (1839-1903)
links the memory of Roland’s heroic defeat at Roncesvaux to post-1871
revanchisme, when he explains that the Société’s members pay their dues
3
For the Flemish society, see the contribution by Pauwels. As is pointed out in
Marita Mathijsen’s contribution, the Dutch Maetschappij was inspired by the Literarischer
Verein of Stuttgart. See also Fischer 1914 and more generally Arnold 1991.
THE NATION’S CANON AND THE BOOK TRADE 309
(...) parce qu’on leur a dit: La Société des anciens textes français est une oeuvre
nationale; elle a pour but de faire mieux connaître la vieille France; elle veut
que l’Allemagne ne soit plus le pays d’Europe où il s’imprime le plus de
monuments de notre langue et de notre littérature d’autrefois; (...) elle a
besoin de l’appui (...) de tous ceux qui qui savent que la piété envers les
aïeux est le plus fort ciment d’une nation, de tous ceux qui sont jaloux du
rang intellectuel et scientifique de notre pays entre les autres peuples, de
tous ceux qui aiment dans tous les siècles de son histoire cette ‘France
douce’ pour laquelle on savait déjà si bien mourir à Roncevaux.4
Thus the establishment of a national-literary society had the evident
added motivation and effect of mobilizing readers in a nationalist sense
by means of historicist literacy. That link between literary historicism,
sociability and nationalism is as strong in the emerging nations of Central
and Eastern Europe, with their matica’s and chitaliste, as it is in the more
well-established countries of Western Europe with their book clubs and
bibliophile societies. These societies in themselves form an intermediary
layer between the high-prestige academic editions, often sponsored by
government agencies or national academies and carried out by the coun-
try’s leading scholars, and new associations uniting a wider readership of
amateurs, with roots in the exclusive, bibliophile connoisseur-clubs of
the previous generation but branching out into a middle-class constitu-
ency. From there it is a small step to the proverbial type of prestigious-
looking book sets in showy uniform bindings which would, by the end
of the century, be displayed in the drawing room bookcases of the edu-
cated bourgeoisie. By the end of the nineteenth century, Europe’s
Bildungsbürgertum would have no hesitation in considering these medieval
texts as Basse had first presented them in 1835: ‘classics’ in the canon of
a ‘national literature’, by now firmly established after having been dis-
4
Quoted Ridoux 2001, 412: ‘We call upon all those who love the France of all
ages, all those who believe that a nation which repudiates its past is ill-placed to pre-
pare its future, and to all those who know that the national conscience can only be full
and alive if it joins, in deeply-felt solidarity, the present generations with the dead
ones.’ ‘because they have been told that the Société des anciens textes français is a national
undertaking; that its aim is to make the Old France better known; that it wants to put
an end to the situation where Germany is the European country that prints most of
the monuments of our ancient language and literature; that it needs the support of all
those who realize that the piety towards our ancestors is the strongest cement that
binds a nation, of all those to whom the intellectual and academic standing of our
country amidst other nations is a point of honour, of all those who love, across the
centuries of its history, that douce France for which one was willing to die bravely even
at Roncesvaux.’
310 Joep Leerssen
5
Keller (1812-1883) was a former student of Uhland and a specialist in the rela-
tions between medieval Germany and the Latin world. He edited two texts for Basse
as an aspiring young scholar in 1841, but also Li Romans des sept sages and other medi-
eval French texts, the Romancero del Cid, translated Kudrun, became professor and
university librarian at Tübingen in 1844 and ultimately rector of that university in
1858.
THE NATION’S CANON AND THE BOOK TRADE 311
6
Among the existing studies of emerging Germanistik, see Bluhm 1997, Kolk 1990,
Schmidt 2000, Wyss 1979.
312 Joep Leerssen
7
Thus on the title page; in the original: ‘wohlfeile Ausgabe des alten Heldenliedes
in der Ursprache mit der alterthümlichen Schrift gedruckt, so wie eine volksmässige
Erneuung desselben’.
THE NATION’S CANON AND THE BOOK TRADE 313
8
Grimm 1864-90, 5: 285: ‘Which text of, say, Wulfilas’s Gothic Bible, or Otfried,
does Mr. Basse propose to furnish? Does he have scholars at his disposal for fresh
critical renditions of those works? The prospectus breathes no word of it. So he
cannot include [i.e. plagiaristically reprint, JL] existing editions like Wulfilas, Otfried, or
for that matter Parsifal, Yvain, the Nibelungen and many others. And that renders his
series title, tasteless as it is anyway, wholly unseemly.’
9
An intriguing presence in the series is that of Albert Schulz (1802-1893), a private
scholar who wrote under the pen-name ‘San-Marte’ and who more or less single-
handedly filled the entire ‘second series’ between 1842 and 1872 (when he brought out
THE NATION’S CANON AND THE BOOK TRADE 315
occasionally cranks like Karl Roth, who imposed his own eccentric or-
thography and typography on the long-suffering printer.
Seen as a whole, however, the sum of many decades of dogged
persistence and never-quite-making-it, Basse’s Bibliothek der gesammten
deutschen National-Literatur testifies to the triumph of the national-literary
paradigm: the idea that each nation has, in its own language, a literary
inheritance that is uniquely its own, and that this canon can be called a
national literature. What is more, the series bespeaks a sense that this na-
tional canon is a matter of contemporary, public interest for the general
reading public and that it can be, and should be, made available in print.
Yet, while the series exemplifies the interesting conjunction between the
rise of medieval philology, the rise of nationalism and the rise of the
commerical book-trade, it also proves that the appropriation of the na-
tional past was a process where national and professional jealousies
placed a heavy mortgage on the materials that were coming to light.
first series
1 Kudrun (A. Ziemann, 1835)
2 Theuerdank (C. Haltaus, 1836)
3 Deutsche Gedichte des 12. Jahrhunderts (H.F. Massmann, 1837)
4 Kaiserchronik (H.F. Massmann, 1849)
5 Herbort’s von Fritzlar Liet von Troye (G.K. Frommann, 1837)
6 Eraclius (H.F. Massmann, 1842)
7 Die deutschen Abschwörungs-, Glaubens-, Beicht- und Betformeln (Massmann, 1839)
8 Liederbuch der Clara Hätzlerin (C. Haltaus, 1840)
9 Sanct Alexius Leben (H.F. Massmann, 1843)
10 Deutsche Interlinearversionen der Psalmen (E.G. Graff, 1839)
11a Deütsche Predigten des XII. und XIII. Jahrhundertes (K. Roth, 1839)
11b Deutsche Predigten des XIII. und XIV. Jh. (H. Leyser, 1838)
the final volumes and the entire enterprise wound down). Schulz’s main interest was
medieval romance, especially the matière de Bretagne; a comparative essay on the spread
of Arthurian themes from Wales to the Continent had won a prize at the Abergavenny
eisteddfod of 1839. On this Celtological cross-current, see Williams 1859; other entrants
for the same prize essay are mentioned there and in Constantine 2007.
316 Joep Leerssen
second series
1 F.J. Mone, Untersuchungen zur geschichte der teutschen heldensage, 1836.
2 A. Schulz, Die Arthur-Sage und die Mährchen des Rothen Buchs von Hergest, 1842.
3 A. Schulz, Beiträge zur bretonischen und celtisch-germanischen Heldensage1847.
4 A. Schulz, Zur Waffenkunde des lteren deutschen Mittelalters, 1867.
5 A. Schulz, Über Wolfram’s von Eschenbach Rittergedicht Wilhelm von Orange, 1871.
6 A. Schulz, Rückblicke auf Dichtungen und Sagen des deutschen Mittelalters, 1872.
third series
1 A. Ziemann, Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch zum Handgebrauch, 1838.
2 A. Schulz, Reimregister zu den Werken Wolframs von Eschenbach, 1867.
THE NATION’S CANON AND THE BOOK TRADE 317
References
Aarsleff, Hans. 1967. The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
AdB. 1875-1912.Allgemeine deutsche Biographie: Auf Veranlassung und mit Unter-
stützung seiner Majestät des Königs von Bayern herausgegeben durch die Commission der
Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften.56 vols; Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot;
also online at http://mdz2.bib-bvb.de/~adb/.
Arnold, Sven, ed. 1991. Literarische Gesellschaften in Deutschland: Ein Handbuch mit
Einzeldarstellungen in Texten und Bildern. Berlin: Argon.
Bluhm, Lothar. 1997. Die Brüder Grimm und der Beginn der Deutschen Philologie: Eine
Studie zu Kommunikation und Wissenschaftsbildung im frühen 19. Jahrhundert.
Hildesheim: Weidmann.
Constantine, Mary-Ann. 2007. The Truth against the World: Iolo Morganwg and
Romantic Forgery. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Dammann, Oswald. 1924. Aus den Papieren der Basseschen Buchhandlung: Ein Beitrag
zur Frühgeschichte der deutschen Philologie. Jena: Frommann.
Ehrismann, Otfrid. 1975. Das Nibelungenlied in Deutschland. Studien zur Rezeption
des Nibelungenlieds von der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg.
München: Fink.
Ferris, Ina. 2005. Printing the Past: Walter Scott’s Bannatyne Club and the
Antiquarian Document. Romanticism 11.2: 143-160.
Fischer, Hermann. 1914. Der Literarische Verein in Stuttgart-Tübingen. Die
Geisteswissenschaften 1: 1073-1075
Grimm, Jacob. 1864-90. Kleinere Schriften. 8 vols; Berlin & Gütersloh.
Kolk, Rainer. 1990. Berlin oder Leipzig? Eine Studie zur sozialen Organisation der
Germanistik im ‘Nibelungenstreit’. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Leerssen, Joep. 1996. Remembrance and Imagination: Patterns in the Historical and
Literary Representation of Ireland in the Nineteenth Century. Cork: Cork University
Press.
Leerssen, Joep. 2006. De bronnen van het vaderland: Taal, literatuur en de afbakening
van Nederland, 1806-1890. Nijmegen: Vantilt.
Murray, Damien. 2000. Romanticism, Nationalism and Irish Antiquarian Societies,
1840-80. National University of Ireland (Maynooth): Department of Old
and Middle Irish.
Ridoux, Charles. 2001. Évolution des études médiévales en France de 1860 à 1914.
Paris: Champion.
Schmidt, Thomas. 2000. Deutsche National-Philologie oder Neuphilologie in
Deutschland? Internationalität und Interdisziplinarität in der Frühgeschichte
der Germanistik. In Internationalität nationaler Literaturen. Beiträge zum ersten
Symposion des Göttinger Sonderforschungsbereich 529, ed. U. Schöning, 311-340.
Göttingen: Wallstein.
Williams, Jane, ed. 1859. The Literary Remains of the Rev. Thomas Price,
Carnhuanawc. 2 vols. Llandovery & London.
Wyss, Ulrich. 1979. Die wilde Philologie: Jacob Grimm und der Historismus. München:
Beck.
The Case for Latvia
i
Orders@rodopi.nl–www.rodopi.nl
p
Disinformation Campaigns
Against a Small Nation
o
USA/Canada:
295 North Michigan Avenue - Suite 1B, Kenilworth, NJ 07033,
USA. Call Toll-free (US only): 1-800-225-3998
All other countries:
Tijnmuiden 7, 1046 AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel. +31-20-611 48 21 Fax +31-20-447 29 79
Please note that the exchange rate is subject to fluctuations
Exile Cultures,
i
Orders@rodopi.nl–www.rodopi.nl
Misplaced Identities
p
USA/Canada:
295 North Michigan Avenue - Suite 1B, Kenilworth, NJ 07033,
USA. Call Toll-free (US only): 1-800-225-3998
All other countries:
Tijnmuiden 7, 1046 AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel. +31-20-611 48 21 Fax +31-20-447 29 79
Please note that the exchange rate is subject to fluctuations
Borderless Beckett
i
Orders@rodopi.nl–www.rodopi.nl
Anthony Uhlmann
d
USA/Canada:
295 North Michigan Avenue - Suite 1B, Kenilworth, NJ 07033,
USA. Call Toll-free (US only): 1-800-225-3998
All other countries:
Tijnmuiden 7, 1046 AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel. +31-20-611 48 21 Fax +31-20-447 29 79
Please note that the exchange rate is subject to fluctuations
Names of Nihil
i
Orders@rodopi.nl–www.rodopi.nl
Arvydas Šliogeris
p
Translated from Lithuanian by Robertas Beinartas
Preface by Leonidas Donskis
o
USA/Canada:
295 North Michigan Avenue - Suite 1B, Kenilworth, NJ 07033,
USA. Call Toll-free (US only): 1-800-225-3998
All other countries:
Tijnmuiden 7, 1046 AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel. +31-20-611 48 21 Fax +31-20-447 29 79
Please note that the exchange rate is subject to fluctuations
Baader-Meinhof
i
Orders@rodopi.nl–www.rodopi.nl
Returns
p
Gerrit-Jan Berendse
and Ingo Cornils
o
USA/Canada:
295 North Michigan Avenue - Suite 1B, Kenilworth, NJ 07033,
USA. Call Toll-free (US only): 1-800-225-3998
All other countries:
Tijnmuiden 7, 1046 AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel. +31-20-611 48 21 Fax +31-20-447 29 79
Please note that the exchange rate is subject to fluctuations
Territories of Evil
i
Orders@rodopi.nl–www.rodopi.nl
USA/Canada:
295 North Michigan Avenue - Suite 1B, Kenilworth, NJ 07033,
USA. Call Toll-free (US only): 1-800-225-3998
All other countries:
Tijnmuiden 7, 1046 AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel. +31-20-611 48 21 Fax +31-20-447 29 79
Please note that the exchange rate is subject to fluctuations