Surely the distinction, Tim, is not between pre- and post-Gutenberg
editors, but between the editor who writes on the very manuscript
(papyrus, stone, etc.) that we are describing, and the one who is
conjecturing, restoring, expanding, or otherwise improving the text for
an external edition. (I appreciate that this distinction is much clearer
in epigraphy than it is in manuscript studies, where sometimes there
will be ambiguous instances; occasional ambiguity is no reason not to
have a clear system in place.) So if a late Byzantine scribe has
scrawled on a much older manuscript, we as editors have no choice but to
record that in our edition of the text/object. But if an early modern
editor prints an edition and conjectures some wild emendations, we don't
have to record that in the description of the text at all (although we'd
probably mention it in an apparatus).
Of course ancient and modern editors are often doing the same thing in
principle, and in their own minds, but the essential difference is what
they are doing to the piece of papyrus/stone that we're commenting on.
The editorial conjectures you print in the text (or tag in the text)
depend on your judgement. What scribal annotations you record is
entirely down to what is on the page. That's why we have to preserve a
very clear distinction between how we tag them.
Thanks for the ref to the V marginalium: very entertaining!
Tim Finney a écrit :
> It still seems to me that scribes and editors, whether lazy, drunk,
> incompetent or otherwise, are fundamentally and self-evidently doing the
> same thing--conveying what they think the text is or should be.
> It is self-evident that I am rather outspoken on this, so I will hold my
> peace. I suppose that I can live with the convention of using
> <sic>/<corr> for post-Gutenberg editors and <add>/<del> for
> pre-Gutenberg ones.
> As a parting shot, I recount the following from Codex Vaticanus at Heb
> 1.3, where we get a rare insight into the mind of a scribe. The first
> hand wrote φανερων. A much later hand made some changes indicating he
> (very unlikely to be she in this case) thought the correct reading was
> the more common φερων. A yet later scribe wrote in the margin, "Bad and
> stupid [scribe]! Leave the old [reading] alone. Don't change it!"
> Here are relevant images:
> So, is this scribal change better represented by using <add>/<del> or
> Tim Finney
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 78 48 13 88
Fax: +44 (0)20 78 48 29 80