Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Chapter 10 - Editing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Summary
This chapter considers the concept of an ‘edition’ from two different perspectives. In the first half, Bob Kaster writes as an editor preparing a critical edition for conventional publication, first retrieving the relevant data - chiefly, the versions preserved in manuscripts - then analysing them to form a theory of the text’s transmission that began with the author’s original copy. Much attention is given to the ‘stemmatic method’, used to sift variations among the transmitted versions, aiming to establish the archetype - the latest copy of the text absent which no other copies would survive - or to show that no archetype can be reconstructed, or even to show that the notion of an ‘author’s original’ is misconceived. In the second half, Sam Huskey writes as the director of the Digital Latin Library, a project that aims to move critical editions of Latin texts to a digital paradigm. To demonstrate that such a transition does not render obsolete the methods and skills described in the first part of the chapter, but rather depends on them, traditional editions are described as databases of information encoded visually (e.g. with typography and layout). The experiences of two editors making this transition close this part of the chapter.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 516 - 562Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Apollon, D. and Bélisle, C. (2014) ‘The digital fate of the critical apparatus’, in Apollon, Bélisle and Régnier 2014, 81–113.Google Scholar
Apollon, D., Bélisle, C. and Régnier, P., eds. (2014) Digital Critical Editions, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Bagnall, R. S. and Heath, S. (2018) ‘Roman studies and digital resources’, JRS 108: 171–89.Google Scholar
Billerbeck, M. and Somazzi, M. (2009) Repertorium der Konjekturen in den Seneca-Tragödien, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, C. and Smith, N. (2014) ‘The Canonical Text Services protocol, version 5.0.rc.1’, http://cite-architecture.github.io/cts_spec/.Google Scholar
Bouquet, M. and Méniel, B., eds. (2011) Servius et sa réception de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Rennes.Google Scholar
Casali, S. and Stok, F., eds. (2008) Servio: stratificazioni esegetiche e modelli culturali / Servius: Exegetical Stratifications and Cultural Models, Collection Latomus 317, Brussels.Google Scholar
Damon, C. (2016) ‘Beyond variants: some digital desiderata for the critical apparatus of ancient Greek and Latin texts’, in Driscoll and Pierazzo 2016, 201–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damon, C. (2018) ‘The editor(s) in the classroom’, https://classicalstudies.org/annual-meeting/149/abstract/editors-classroom.Google Scholar
Del Turco, R. Roselli, (2016) ‘The battle we forgot to fight: should we make a case for digital editions?’, in Driscoll and Pierazzo 2016, 219–38.Google Scholar
De Nonno, M. (2010) ‘Transmissional history and textual criticism’, in Barchiesi, A. and Scheidel, W., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies (Oxford), 31–46.Google Scholar
Dolveck, F. (2015) Paulini Nolani carmina. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 21, Turnhout.Google Scholar
Dunston, A. J. (1952) ‘Two manuscripts of Suetonius’ De vita Caesarum’, CQ 2: 146–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, T., Bodard, G., Cayless, H. et al. (2006–17) EpiDoc: Epigraphic Documents in TEI XML, http://epidoc.sf.net.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1948 and 1949) ‘Review of Rand et al. 1946’, JRS 38: 131–43, 39: 145–54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Fraistat, N. and Flanders, J., eds. (2013) The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Franzini, G., Andorfer, P. and Zaytseva, K. (2016–) Catalogue of Digital Editions: The Web Application, https://dig-ed-cat.acdh.oeaw.ac.at/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcea, A., Lhommé, M.-K. and Vallat, D., eds. (2016) Fragments d’érudition: Servius et le savoir antique, Spudasmata 168, Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Goffaux, B. (2003) ‘Mémoire et citation poétique dans l’Histoire Auguste’, REL 81: 215–31.Google Scholar
Håkanson, L. (1979) ‘Problems of textual criticism and interpretation in Lucan’s De bello civili’, PCPhS 25: 26–52.Google Scholar
Heslin, P. (2016) ‘The dream of a universal variorum: digitizing the commentary tradition’, in Kraus, C. A. and Stray, C. A., eds., Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre (Oxford), 494–511.Google Scholar
Huitfeldt, C. (2014) ‘Markup technology and textual scholarship’, in Apollon, Bélisle and Régnier 2014, 157–78.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. and Oakley, S. P., eds. (2016) Latin Literature and Its Transmission: Papers in Honour of Michael Reeve, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Huskey, S. J. and Cayless, H. (2018) Guidelines for Encoding Critical Editions for the Library of Digital Latin Texts, https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. (2016b) ‘Making sense of Suetonius in the twelfth century’, in Grafton, A. and Most, G., eds., Canonical Texts and Scholarly Practices: A Global Comparative Approach (Cambridge) 110–35.Google Scholar
Keil, H., ed. (1855–80) Grammatici Latini. 7 vols., with a supplement edited by Hagen, H., Leipzig.Google Scholar
Kiss, D. (2013, 2017) Catullus Online: An Online Repertory of Conjectures on Catullus, www.catullusonline.org.Google Scholar
Langlois, P. (1997) ‘Le texte d’Ausone en face de la théorie des “variantes d’auteur”’, Latomus 56: 142–53.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. and Wilson, N. G. (1990) Sophoclea: Studies on the Text of Sophocles, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malaspina, E. (2015) ‘In Anglia invenitur: come Guglielmo di Malmesbury leggeva e soprattutto correggeva Cicerone nel XII secolo’, in De Paolis, P., ed., Dai papyri al XX secolo: l’eternità di Cicerone, Studi e ricerche del Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia 13 (Cassino) 31–52.Google Scholar
Malaspina, E. (2019) ‘A tradição manuscrita do Lucullus de Cícero: do Corpus Leidense a William de Malmesbury e à fortuna no período humanístico’, in Cardoso, I. T. and Martinho, M., eds., Cícero: obra e recepção (Coimbra), 19–53.Google Scholar
Marinone, N. (1946) Elio Donato, Macrobio, e Servio, Vercelli. Reprinted in N. Marinone, Analecta graecolatina (Bologna, 1990), 193–264.Google Scholar
McGann, J. (2013) ‘Coda: why digital textual scholarship matters; or, philology in a new key’, in Fraistat, N. and Flanders, J., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship (Cambridge), 274–88.Google Scholar
Munk Olsen, B. (1982–2009) L’Étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, 4 vols., Paris.Google Scholar
Murgia, C. E. and Kaster, R. A., eds. (2018) Serviani in Vergili Aeneidos libros ix–xii commentarii, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pellegrin, E. (1975–2010) Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: Catalogue, 3 vols., Paris.Google Scholar
Pellizzari, A. (2003) Servio: storia, cultura e istituzioni nell’opera di un grammatico tardoantico, Florence.Google Scholar
Pichler, A. and Bruvik, T. M. (2014) ‘Digital critical editing’, in Apollon, Bélisle and Régnier 2014, 179–99.Google Scholar
Preud’homme, L. (1902) ‘Première étude sur l’histoire du texte de Suétone, de vita Caesarum’, Bulletin de la classe des lettres et sciences morales et politique et de la classe des beaux-arts 3: 299–328.Google Scholar
Rand, E. K. et al., eds. (1946) Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum editionis Harvardianae volumen 2: Quod in Aeneidos libros i–ii explanationes continet, Lancaster, PA.Google Scholar
Reeve, M. D. (1986) ‘Stemmatic method: “Qualcosa che non funziona”?’, in Ganz, P., ed., The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture, Bibliologia 3 (Turnhout), 57–9.Google Scholar
Reeve, M. D. (2007) ‘Reconstructing archetypes: a new proposal and an old fallacy’, in Finglass, P. J., Collard, C. and Richardson, N. J., eds., Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on His Seventieth Birthday (Oxford), 326–40.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D., ed. (1983a) Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G. (2013) Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 4th edn, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sahle, P. (2013) Digitale Editionsformen: Zum Umgang mit der Überlieferung unter den Bedingungen des Medienwandels. Teil II: Befunde, Theorie und Methodik, Norderstedt.Google Scholar
Sahle, P. (2016) ‘What is a scholarly digital edition?’, in Driscoll and Pierazzo 2016, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, J. J. H. (1925) ‘The scholia in the Virgil of Tours, Bernensis 165’, HSPh 36: 91–164.Google Scholar
Savage, J. J. H. (1934) ‘The manuscripts of Servius’s commentary on Virgil’, HSPh 45: 157–204.Google Scholar
Skemer, D. (2013) Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library, 2 vols., Princeton.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (2009) ‘Citation in classical studies’, Digital Humanities Quarterly 3.1 (n.pag.).Google Scholar
Stocker, A. F. et al., eds. (1965) Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum editionis Harvardianae volumen 3: Quod in Aeneidos libros iii–v explanationes continet, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stok, F., ed. (2013) Totus scientia plenus: percorsi della esegesi virgiliana antica, Pisa.Google Scholar
Stover, J. A., ed. (in preparation) The Oxford Guide to the Transmission of the Latin Classics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (1995) ‘Classical Latin literature’, in Greetham, D. C., ed., Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research (New York), 95–148.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (2016) Texts, Editors, and Readers: Methods and Problems in Latin Textual Criticism, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiepmar, J. and Heyer, G. (2017) ‘An overview of Canonical Text Services’, Linguistics and Literature Studies 5: 132–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timpanaro, S. (2005) The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method (ed. and trans. G. W. Most), Chicago.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (1973) Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2004) ‘In Rand’s margins – from Fraenkel’s review to a post-modern Servius’. Paper presented in the panel ‘Whither the APA/Harvard Servius?’ at the 135th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association (San Francisco, 5 January 2004), www.academia.edu/35776337/In_Rands_Margins_From_Fraenkels_Review_to_a_Post-modern_Servius.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2005) Marginal Scholarship and Textual Deviance: The ‘Commentarium Cornuti’ and the Early Scholia on Persius. BICS Supplement 84, London.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2018) Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce, Oxford.Google Scholar