Cerquiglini - Written authority

Voici Cerquiglini

In his article, Cerquiglini discusses the written text versus oral performance and the importance of one over the other. He mentions the development of the written language, particularly the vernacular, and its influence on rising societies, emphasizing that the "written word made progress that was decisive" and that there was "no going back" from that point on.

In the end, I believe he narrows it down to two key points:

1. No work is original

2. Written work is more authoritative than oral work

Personally, I agree more with Zumthor and less with Cerquiglini in the idea that I believe every work is original, but let's talk about Cerq's approach. If no work is original, then you could look at it this way....

Each work is merely a mirror of a work that came before it, with slight alterations.

For example:

Okay, so this is a more obvious example, but what about other works that we would consider classics, such as Great Expectations, Pride and Prejudice, Where the Red Fern Grows, or more recently Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Alice in Wonderland?

Do these texts have any originality to them? I would say yes. Absolutely. But what is originality? What gives something the authority to claim originality? And how does originality add to the value of a work?

Jumping off of the theme of authoritative texts, Cerq's claim that written texts are more authoritative than oral texts is also something that perplexes me. While I understand the idea of something being "written in stone" as the expression goes, as being something complete, maybe even final, I have to wonder if written texts really do hold more power over spoken texts. I think that auditory texts contain an element of textness that written works lack. There's something intimate about hearing a pause as opposed to noting a comma. I think that the two are equal in regards to authority.

In fact, I think that the highest authority comes when both the written and the spoken come together.