For all those who think that variant readings are usually minor and do not alter the interpretation of a text, I advise to read Sean Gurd's "Iphigenias at Aulis: Textual Multiplicity, Radical Philology" (2005).
Although I do not completely agree with his ideas on Radical Philology, he gives an excellent example in Chapter 1: On critical variation and a sacrifice (pages 6-21) on how minor variations can make a whole literary interpretation of an Aeschylean choral passage rather less convincing. And his chapters on the history of editing Euripides' Iphigenia Aulidensis should warn us against taking our own editing principles as unfallible.
Henry Lynam "If I understand your document correctly, you say that one of the reasons for the lack of interest in the textual tradition is because it is (relatively speaking) far from the source. So, the variant readings give more of an insight into the contemporary cultural context rather than the intentions of the original author."
This is also exactly the point: all classical texts are far from the source. Even literary papyri are usually centuries away from their original author. We only pretend we have THE author's text, in THE standard edition, until a new standard edition arrives. A digital environment would be able to give an insight into the complex transmission that followed, and to treat manuscript texts as historical documents rather than versions of THE text (by, for example, be able to read a MS text in transcript rather than a critical edition). This, in turn, would learn us more about reception of Classics, which is also an important field of interest.
On the subject of the multitude of manuscripts and the amounts of time and money to be spent on this: yes, this really is a problem. But it should not make us say beforehand 'this is useless, let's not do it.' Rather, we should seek collaboration with colleagues from medieval and modern studies, and try to set up systems that can be useful for all when editing texts, and learn from the experience of others.
E.J.W. (Eveline) Rutten, MA
PhD-student of Greek Literature
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> Van: "Paolo Monella" <[log in to unmask]>
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Verzonden: Woensdag 4 april 2012 22:38:14
> Onderwerp: Re: [DIGITALCLASSICIST] Why are there no digital scholarly editions of "classical" texts?
> Hi Henry,
>
> thank you for replying!
>
> > - Do you have any stats for the number of witnesses for well known
> > classical texts? This might put the digital scholarly editions
> > question
> > into perspective.
>
> Unfortunately I do not have such stats: can anyone in the list help?
> All I know is that classicists who have published scholarly editions
> keep tellin me that they're too many and it's not worth to digitise
> them.
>
> At some point of my post, I start quoting the arguments I have heard
> over and over from traditional philologists. I hope that my implied
> polemic attitude towards those arguments came out: in my opinion, when
> they say that "it's not worth it", they're implying that they're not
> *that* interested in textual variance -- the worst of offenses for a
> classical philologist! In fact, seemingly they're not *so* interested
> as to embark in a transcription of all witnesses. Why? for the reason
> that you summarise very well:
>
>
> > - If I understand your document correctly, you say that
> > one of the reasons
> > for the lack of interest in the textual tradition is because it is
> > (relatively speaking) far from the source. So, the variant readings
> > give
> > more of an insight into the contemporary cultural context rather
> > than the
> > intentions of the original author.
>
> > - If we're in the arena of semi-controversial thoughts, here's one
> > for
> > you.
> > Does anyone actually consult the critical apparatus in a standard
> > text?
> > Have you come across particularly striking
> > examples of variant readings in
> > classical texts?
>
> These are questions! I normally only consult the apparatus when I'm
> actually writing an article on that text (I think I'm not the only
> one).
> As to the "striking" variants, this is my point in the article:
> classical texts are quite well preserved, after all. Apart from some
> sense-changing variants occurring from time to time.
>
> Being semi-controversial again: one would imagine that classicists
> kept complaining on the fact that our *digital* reference editions do
> not have variants yet. But we don't. If I'd perform a search on PHI
> 5.3 for "poena", I would miss Ov. Met. 6.538, where "poena" is a
> variant reading for "Procne" (real example, but the other way around).
> So I'd be missing a plausible variant (that Anderson's key edition has
> chosen in fact over "Procne"). However, if a first-year grad student
> fails to write the exact place, year, publisher of the print critical
> edition he uses, he gets scolded badly.
>
> Best,
> Paolo
> --
> Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
> belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
|