Tue Nov 5 09:33:08 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Nov  5 09:33:08 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA11390; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 09:31:24 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 09:27:13 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect?
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3314

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote:

>Hello all greek tc scholars.
>
>I have a very concrete question for you all. Very concrete because the
>answer you will give to it may affect the way I'll be working on a
>project...
>
>Here it is: What do you expect of a critical edition of a version?

[ ... ]

>
>* Do you need a translation of the text (and, probably of the variants or
>some of them) to accompany it? If yes, in what language? Latin, French,
>English?

I could argue for Greek. But I would say that, in general, it should
be in the language of the vorlage of the version. (I will admit that
I don't even know what the Arabic vorlage is, but that would argue,
e.g. for translating Georgian into Armenian. This might, in turn,
be rendered into Greek.

>* How can our textual apparatus be helpful to you?

The only comment I would make is that it should give primary attention
to variants which imply differences in the vorlage.

>* As it is a very first publication, and there's been few (in fact: not
>any) stemmatic work done, do you feel it's more prudent to give the text of
>a manuscript with the variants of the others in the apparatus, or try an
>eclectic text?

On this we should probably defer to you. Is there an "old Arabic" version?
If so, try to reconstruct that. Otherwise, print the best (or, perhaps,
the most typical) manuscript, and then take variations from that.

>* Do you feel a second apparatus with comparison with greek mss and other
>known versions is useful - or do you prefer to do it yourselves?

Even if we redo it, a preliminary analysis is helpful.

>* Should I directly incorporate the lectionary mss, or publish them
>separately?

Incorporate them.

>* What would you like to find in the introduction?

Descriptions of the mss, your analysis of their interrelations, a
history of the version, and anything it can tell us about the Greek
text.

Also, possibly, a list of special readings of the Arabic (readings
unattested elsewhere, or found only in select groups on manuscripts).

>* If recensions can be separated, do you prefer seeing them in columns like
>in Shanidze's georgian editions, or with the variants of the later
>recension(s) simply in the apparatus like in Lake and Briere's ? What if
>three or four recensions happen to be found instead of two?

I would print all recension separately if they can be clearly distinguished.
Otherwise, I might just print them in groups in the apparatus.

>* Is it a good thing if there are longuer annotations to try to show the
>origin of a variant?

Yes!

>etc, etc... Just tell me everything you think about, and if you disagree
>with each other, it's also interesting for me to know why!
>
>If you use several versions in your work, please tell me what helps you in
>those publications, and what may confuse you or make them less accessible
>to you. In your use of the versions, what are the good and bad features of
>the publications you use? What makes that the edition of a latin, syriac,
>armenian, etc... or arabic version ?

I don't know how much work it is, but I much prefer the Nestle system of
marking variants in the text to the Merk system of simply quoting
lemmata. If I'm reading the text, I want to know when I need to look at
the apparatus.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back