Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Textual Criticism.Zetzel
Sander M. Goldberg
This work is produced by OpenStax-CNX and licensed under the
Abstract
A bibliography composed with the needs of graduate students in mind.
(ed. 3, 1991).
It is a lucid, readable, and accurate account of how ancient texts, both Greek and Roman, got from
antiquity to Now, followed by a clear and brief explanation of textual criticism. For many purposes, you
need go no further. But if you want or need more, read on.
1.1 I. I am using a critical edition and need to learn what the hen-tracks at the foot of the
page meanand why it matters.
1.1.1 1. Textual criticism: theory and practice
A critical apparatus is meant to explain to the reader what words in the text are preserved in what
manuscripts (generally identied with capital Roman letters in modern editions) or groups of manuscripts
(generally identied with lower-case Greek letters or occasionally lower-case Roman letters), and what words
in the text are modern (broadly dened) corrections. The key to the codes used in the apparatus was set
out by an international convention printed as:
Emploi des signes critiques, dispostion de l'apparat dans les ditions savantes de textes grecs et latins,
conseils et recommandations. Union Acadmique Internationale. Paris, 1932
Like many international treaties, however, it is frequently ignored and the conventions for editing texts
preserved in dierent media (manuscript, papyrus, inscription) remain quite dierent from one another. Not
Version
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://cnx.org/content/m35176/1.1/
to mention the fact that these conventions are fairly recent, and any edition earlier than the 20
th
century is
and read an apparatus, and a good account of how textual criticism works, is:
M. L. West,
(1973)
West's is a relatively user-friendly version of the classic exposition of the editorial theory generally known
as the Method of Lachmann (on which see further below). The theory itself is set out in terse, elegant, and
abstract form in a very brief masterpiece:
P. Maas, Textual Criticism, transl. B. Flower (1958)
Also valuable for judiciousness and lucidity is:
R. J. Tarrant, Classical Latin Literature in D. Greetham, ed.,
(1995): 95-148
You should be aware, however, that the classic theory is not the only theory of textual criticism. For
medieval or non-literary texts, the most important theoretical work is:
H. Kantorowicz, Einfu
hrung in die Textkritik. Systematische Darstellung der textkritischen Grundstze
fur Philologen und Juristen (1921)
Postmodern textual theory, which concentrates on reception rather than reconstruction, is also valuable,
even for classicists. Among the most useful works are:
(1993)
D. Greetham,
La tradition manuscrite du Lai de l'ombre : rexions sur l'art d'diter les anciens textes
(1911)
H. Quentin,
Textbooks of practical textual criticism are not reliable, but are occasionally useful:
J. Willis,
with emendation, the book is entertaining and gives practical exercises in emending texts without assuming
(or supplying) any knowledge of their history or manuscripts.
W. M. Lindsay,
(1896).
Lindsay's work (and there is a great deal of it) is rarely exciting, almost always (with the exception of his
book on Plautine meter) useful and clear. This book is exactly what it says it isdiscussing varieties of
correction, largely involving palaeographical errors.
The one truly great work of this kind for Latin is old, but still well worth reading:
J. N. Madvig,
scholar, often undervalued because he did not go in for the pyrotechnics and polemics of a Bentley or
Housman. He is always worth reading.
recension
is the assembly,
organization, and assessment of the manuscript (and sometimes other) evidence for the text in question,
while
emendation
is the process of judging whether that transmitted text is what the author wrote and
attempting to correct the transmitted text on the basis of style, history, grammar, or other criteria. Textual
critics who emphasize recension and are wary of emendation are often described as conservative; textual
critics who emphasize emendation and pay little attention to the manuscripts and transmission may be
described as radical. These descriptions do not in fact map onto the political sensibilities of the critics of
various types, and in any case responsible editors are close to the middle of the spectrum, with greater or
lesser emphasis on recension or emendation, but making full use of both. Dierent texts require dierent
http://cnx.org/content/m35176/1.1/
approaches: one can not edit Catullus or Propertius conservatively, because the manuscript evidence is so
poor; one can not be a radical emender in editing Virgil or Horace, because the manuscript evidence is so
good. But even the manuscripts of Propertius and sometimes right, and those of Virgil sometimes wrong.
But editors vary widely in their beliefs about the possibility of true conjecture and about the fallibility of
the human intellect. A truly radical critic, such as Bentley or Housman or Shackleton Bailey, is supremely
condent in his own genius, and believes that he knows Latin better than the scribes (not unreasonable)
and better than the author he is editing (less reasonable). A conservative critic can often be too cautious in
correcting passages that are obviously corrupt.
The rst place to turn to nd out the history of most works of Latin literature is:
L. D. Reynolds ed.,
about the transmission of every major Latin author (and some fairly minor ones).
Other guides are much less useful and much less complete, e.g.
H. Hunger et al.,
The one great, classic work on the transmission of ancient literature is:
G. Pasquali,
(ed. 2, 1962)
Some other recent works dealing with more than a single author include:
O. Pecere, ed.,
criticism or the history of texts, start here. In fact, read anything Traube ever wrote. Various essays on the
transmission of texts are included in his
by later research, but no one has ever had a better understanding of the process of transmission. A note on
intellectual genealogy: Traube taught, among others, the American scholars E. K. Rand, E. A. Lowe, and C.
H. Beeson; most American palaeographers and textual critics of Latin in the twentieth century were taught
by them.
If you really want to learn textual criticism, read the work of good editors and historians of texts.
For Latin literature, here are some I admire, listed by scholar, not by ancient text..
outstanding editions; these oer prefaces or comments that illuminate editorial method and textual history.
The secondary bibliography oered on a few scholars is very limited, but oers a start.
R. Bentley, ed.,
(1711)
, ed.,
Q. Horatius Flaccus ex recensione & cum notis atque emendationibus Richardi Bentleii
England
(1727)
Institutes
14 (1951) 137-208
http://cnx.org/content/m35176/1.1/
(1956)
A. E. Housman, ed.,
(1954)
O. Ribbeck, ed.,
Vol. 1 (1983)
1.2 II. I have found a reference to a manuscript and need to nd out more about it.
1.2.1 1. Repertories of catalogues and groups of manuscripts
All manuscript collections have catalogues, but not all catalogues are either a) printed or b) informative. If
you want to start serious study of manuscripts of a given author (or of manuscript catalogues that mention
a given author), start from broader collections and work your way down to specic libraries.
G. Becker,
B. Bischo,
wisigotischen) (1998-)
P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum; a nding list of uncatalogued or incompletely catalogued humanistic
manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and other libraries. (1963-97)
, Latin manuscript books before 1600; a list of the printed catalogues and unpublished inventories of
extant collections. (1965)
P. O. Kristeller et al., Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum (1960)
E. A. Lowe, ed., Codices latini antiquiores : a palaeographical guide to Latin manuscripts prior to the
ninth century (1934-1972)
B. Munk Olsen, L'tude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe sicles (1982-2009)
http://cnx.org/content/m35176/1.1/
1.2.2 2. Palaeography
The invention of the historical study of script belongs to the Maurist priest Jean Mabillon:
J. Mabillon,
De re diplomatica Libri VI
(1681)
It is a grand book, which includes not only the development of Latin scripts but diplomatics and the
historical authentication of documents. The term `palaeography' was invented a few years later by Mabillon's
friend and fellow Maurist Bernard de Montfaucon in his
Palaeographia Graeca.
history of scripts is no longer valid; Montfaucon's book is still a good introduction to Greek palaeography.
a) textbooks and studies of scripts
G. Battelli,
B. Bischo,
illustrata (ed.
Scriptura Latina libraria, a saeculo primo usque ad nem medii aevi, LXXVII imaginibus
2, 1970)
E. A. Lowe,
J. Mallon,
B. L. Ullman,
(1969)
c) Abbreviations.
A. Cappelli, Lexicon abbreviaturarum : dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane usate nelle carte e
codici specialmente del Medio-Evo, riprodotte con oltre 14000 segni incisi, con l'aggiunta di uno studio sulla
brachigraa medioevale, un prontuario di sigle epigrache, l'antica numerazione romana ed arabica ed i segni
indicanti monete, pesi, misure, etc. (ed. 6, 1990; many editions with various titles in several languages)
W. M. Lindsay, Notae latinae : an account of abbreviation in Latin Mss. of the early minuscule period
(c. 700-850) (1915)
L. Traube, Nomina sacra, versuch einer geschichte der christlichen ku
rzung (1907)
1.3 III. I have found a reference to an editor or modern scholar, and need to learn more about
him/her.
1.3.1 1. Biographical Dictionaries of Classicists.
These are of very variable value. For early scholars, start with the very brief but invaluable Po
kel. National
biographical dictionaries, where available, are generally more informed about intellectual background and
context than biographical dictionaries of classicists alone.
http://cnx.org/content/m35176/1.1/
A. Eckstein,
A. Gudeman,
J. Sandys,
A. Grafton,
,
invaluable
Garin, 1967)
iii. Regional/Modern
English classical scholarship : historical reections on Bentley, Porson and Housman (1985)
Geschichte der classischen Philologie in Deutschland (1883)
L. Mueller, Geschichte der klassischen Philologie in den Niederlanden (1869)
M. Platnauer, ed., Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship (1968)
C. Stray, Classics transformed : schools, universities, and society in England, 1830-1960 (1998) [and
C. Brink,
C. Bursian,
S. Timpanaro,
P. Treves,
http://cnx.org/content/m35176/1.1/