The Transmission of Manuscripts and the Genetics of Texts. A new critical edition of Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival

The discussion on the New Philology triggered by French and North American scholars in the last decade of the 20th century emphasized the material character of textual transmission inside and outside the written evidences of medieval manuscripts by downgrading the active role of the historical author. However, the reception of the ideas propagated by the New Philology adherents was rather divided. Some researchers questioned its innovative status (K. Stackmann: “Neue Philologie?”), others saw a new era of the “powers of philology” evoked (H.-U. Gumbrecht). Besides the debates on the New Philology another concept of textual materiality strengthened in the last decade, maintaining that textual alterations somewhat relate to biogenetic mutations. In a matter of fact, phenomena such as genetic and textual variation, gene recombination and ‘contamination’ (the mixing of different exemplars in one manuscript text) share common features. The paper discusses to what extent the biogenetic concepts can be used for evaluating manifestations of textual production (as the approach of ‘critique génétique’ does) and of textual transmission (as the phylogenetic analysis of manuscript variation does). In this context yet the genealogical concept of stemmatology – the treelike representation of textual development abhorred by the New Philology adepts – might prove to be useful for describing the history of texts. The textual material to be analyzed will be drawn from the Parzival Project, which is currently preparing a new electronic edition of Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival novel written shortly after 1200 and transmitted in numerous manuscripts up to the age of printing (www.parzival.unibe.ch). Researches of the project have actually resulted in suggesting that the advanced knowledge of the manuscript transmission yields a more precise idea on the author’s own writing process.

Rhyming the National Spirit: Taras Shevchenko and Ilia Chavchavadze

The paper is a comparative inquiry into the roles of Ilia Chavchavadze (1837-1907) and Taras Shevchenko (1818-1861) as national poets and anti-colonial (anti-Tsarist) intellectuals within the context of their respective national traditions (Georgia and Ukraine). During the period of their activity (19th and the beginning of 20th century) both Ukraine and Georgia were under Tsarist imperial rule, albeit the two poets lived in different periods of Russian empire history. Through their major works, each called on their communities to ‘awaken’ and ‘revolt’ against oppression, rejected social apathy caused by Tsarist subjugation and raised awareness about the historical past of their nations. The non-acceptance of present and belief in an independent future was one of the dominant themes in the poetry and prose of both. Their contemporary importance is illustrated in political discourse both after Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), and Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003) where both poets are referred “as founding fathers of national ideology”, the history textbooks alluding to them as “symbols of anti-colonial resistance”. To this day, however, there has been surprisingly little academic writing in the West endeavoring to compare the works and activities of the two poets and their impact on national mobilization in Tsarist Ukraine and Georgia, even though their countries are often mentioned in a same breath by commentators on contemporary culture and politics. The paper attempts to fill this gap and tries to understand the relationship between literature and social mobilization in 19th century Russian Empire. By reflecting on Taras Shevchenko’s and Ilia Chavchavadze’s poetry, prose and social activism, I will try to explain how in different periods of Russian imperial history, the two poets helped to develop a modern form of political belonging among their compatriots and stimulated an anti-colonial mobilization with different political outcomes. To theorize on the role of poets and novelists in anti-colonial national movement, I will reflect on the writings of Benedict Anderson (1991), John Hutchinson (1994; 1999), Rory Finnin (2005; 2011) and problematize Miroslav Hroch’s (1996) three phase model of the development of national movements. Overall, the paper would aim to show the importance of, what John Hutchinson called, ‘cultural nationalists’ in understanding contemporary nationalist discourse in Georgian and Ukrainian societies.

‘Idolatry’ and Religious Diversity: Thinking about the Other in Early Modern Europe

Idolatry is a key concept in the history of Western thinking about religion, as an all-encompassing category in which all religions more or less alien to the Christian tradition could be subsumed. From Late Antiquity to the Modern period, we can follow how the notion was put to work within Christian discourse to think about the religious “other. ” In fact, the word is almost ubiquitous in pre-modern debates on religion and the origins of religion. Theories on the nature and causes of “idolatry” framed much of the issue of “Religion” vs. the “religions,” and largely provided the conceptual space, in early modern Europe, in which religious anthropology would emerge. The present paper will investigate some aspects of the early modern discourse on idolatry, and its place in early modern discussions on the “diversity” of religions.

Socio-technical transitions and policy change - Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy

Policies and politics are an integral part of socio-technical transitions but have not received much attention in the transitions literature so far. Drawing on the advocacy coalition framework, our paper addresses this gap with a study on actors and coalitions in Swiss energy policy. Our results show that advocacy coalitions in Switzerland have largely remained stable despite the Fukushima shock. However, heterogeneity of beliefs has increased and in 2013, even a majority of actors expressed their support for the energy transition – an indication that major policy change might be ahead. It seems that in socio-technical transitions, changes in the policy issue and in the actor base also work toward policy change, next to changes in core beliefs. We make suggestions how the advocacy coalition framework can inform analysis and theory building in transition studies. We also present first ideas about the interplay of socio-technical systems and policy systems.