{"id":10517,"date":"2018-02-03T22:57:18","date_gmt":"2018-02-03T22:57:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?page_id=10517"},"modified":"2018-02-03T23:26:35","modified_gmt":"2018-02-03T23:26:35","slug":"hastings-2018-congress","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/abstracts\/hastings-2018-congress\/","title":{"rendered":"Hastings (2018 Congress)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Justin Hastings
\n(Loyola University Chicago<\/em>)<\/strong><\/h2>\n

“Allegoresis, Source-Text, and Paratextual Distortions:
\nHorace\u2019s Ode<\/em> 3.9
\nin Paris, Biblioth\u00e8que nationale de France, MS Latin 17897<\/a>“<\/h2>\n

Abstract of Paper
\nTo be presented at the 53rd International Congress on Medieval Studies
\n(Kalamazoo, 2018)<\/h3>\n

Session on
\n“Manuscript (Trans)formations: Transmission and Reception”<\/h4>\n

Sponsored by the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence<\/strong>
\nOrganized by Derek Shank and Justin Hastings
\n2018 Congress Program<\/a><\/h4>\n

[Published on 2 February 2018<\/em>]<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

In discussing Walter Benjamin<\/a>\u2019s term ‘the Nachleben<\/em> of texts’, the textual scholar Sakunta
\nChaudhuri<\/a> asserts that reception and transmission of literary works are \u201calways already\u201d an
\ninterplay of adaptation and alteration: \u201ctexts ceaselessly alter and extend their form; eventually
\nthey pass into, or turn into, other works where the \u2018original\u2019 work persists as a \u2018presence,\u2019 the old
\nmoon in the new moon\u2019s arms\u2019\u201d (1).\u00a0 The logical extension of this premise is that \u201call texts are
\nmade up of other texts\u201d (2). This idea gets at the very heart of source study as a legitimate field
\nof intellectual activity.<\/p>\n

The commentaries that accrued around the classical Roman poets in the
\nMiddle Ages were written to help medieval readers understand these works in a way that was
\nharmonious with Catholic dogma; the path through this hermeneutic morass was allegoresis and
\nits strategies of reductio ad concordiam<\/em>. My research centers around the ways in which
\nvernacular literature in medieval Britain made use of the commentary tradition that accrued
\naround the poetic corpus of Horace<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This paper seeks to explore what happens, with respect to tracing the transmission and
\nreception of the Horatian tradition, when allegoresis is so thorough in its methodologies that it
\nleaves behind reductio ad concordiam<\/em> to become, in essence, reductio ad absurdum<\/em>. To extend
\nChaudhuri\u2019s astrological conceit, what happens when the commentary so thoroughly \u201cexplains
\naway\u201d linguistic difference that it becomes impossible to see beyond the event horizon of
\nallegoresis? This paper takes as its focus the commentary on Horace\u2019s Ode<\/em> 3.9 in
\nParis BnF MS Lat. 17897<\/a> as a locus for exploring these forces at work upon the Horatian poetic corpus.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

Citations:<\/p>\n

(1) Sakunta Chaurhudi, “Introduction”, The Metaphysics of Text<\/em><\/a> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), page 8.<\/p>\n

(2) Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

\"Paris,<\/a>

Paris, BnF, MS latin 17987, folio 46 recto. Horaces ‘Odes’ (Carmina), Book IV.10-11 with commentary. Via gallica.bnf through Creative Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

\u2021<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

Website Editor\u2019s Note<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Another Abstract for a Paper presented by Dr. Hastings is posted here:<\/p>\n

Hastings (2013 Congress)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

We thank him for his expert contributions to our sponsored and co-sponsored Sessions, as well as our other Events.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Justin Hastings (Loyola University Chicago) “Allegoresis, Source-Text, and Paratextual Distortions: Horace\u2019s Ode 3.9 in Paris, Biblioth\u00e8que nationale de France, MS Latin 17897“ Abstract of Paper To be presented at the 53rd International Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo, 2018) Session on “Manuscript (Trans)formations: Transmission and Reception” Sponsored by the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence Organized by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10172,"parent":1023,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10517"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10517"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10517\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10530,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10517\/revisions\/10530"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1023"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}