Folks
I am hardly fit to read this list, but I must say that I am surprised in
reading over the current thread that there has been no mention of the
Jewish medieval Bible and Talmud commentary tradition. Rabbinic Bibles
(the ones with various commentaries) and fully commented Talmuds would
have been known (as artefacts if not tools of study) to all variety of
educated Christian Europeans. There is a brief introduction to these
books in an essay by E. L. Greenstein in a book edited by Barry Holtz
called Back to the Sources (New York: Summit, 1984); there must be
something that makes the connections forward to early modern Europe, but
I can't think of anything just now.
Michael Patrick O'Connor
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Craig A. Berry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:27 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: commentary
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>At 10:59 AM -0500 12/1/02, dmiller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm writing to invite responses to two questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>How would you explain to a bright but untutored
>>>>>>>>>>>>group of undergraduates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) what a scholarly edition is and why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>produce them; and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) what the purpose is of editorial
>>>>>>>>>>>>commentary in such an edition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Those are great questions, and like most great
>>>>>>>>>>>>questions they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>only be dilated upon and not fully answered. One
>>>>>>>>>>>>way to approach the
>>>>>>>>>>>>significance of commentary would be to look at it
>>>>>>>>>>>>the way those of us
>>>>>>>>>>>>who happen to like old books tackle nearly any
>>>>>>>>>>>>problem: let's delve
>>>>>>>>>>>>into its intellectual history. How did commentary
>>>>>>>>>>>>come into use and
>>>>>>>>>>>>why were the various innovations introduced and
>>>>>>>>>>>>what did those
>>>>>>>>>>>>innovations reveal about their practitioners? I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>thinking of things
>>>>>>>>>>>>like the fact that it was scholastics, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>monastics, who introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>the interlinear gloss; they were interested in
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading a whole lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>more than just the bible (which I think many
>>>>>>>>>>>>monastics would know
>>>>>>>>>>>>more or less by heart) and they needed help linking
>>>>>>>>>>>>up the text at
>>>>>>>>>>>>hand with other texts too numerous for one person
>>>>>>>>>>>>to remember in
>>>>>>>>>>>>detail. Of course the interlinear gloss is very
>>>>>>>>>>>>limiting for any
>>>>>>>>>>>>kind of discursive commentary, so the commentary
>>>>>>>>>>>>inevitably moved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>the margin, and by the time of the humanists the
>>>>>>>>>>>>marginal commentary
>>>>>>>>>>>>had become the 800-pound gorilla of literary
>>>>>>>>>>>>studies; we've all seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>those folio volumes with two square inches of text
>>>>>>>>>>>>in the middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>the page surrounded by yards and yards of
>>>>>>>>>>>>commentary. How we read
>>>>>>>>>>>>and why we read are inseparable and I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>change in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>technique of commentary registers a change in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>purpose of it as
>>>>>>>>>>>>well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>>________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>Craig A. Berry
>>>>>>>>>>>>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"... getting out of a sonnet is much more
>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult than getting in."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brad Leithauser
>>>>>>>>>>>>
|