Print

Print


This seems to me to reprise that debate about whether or not the 
interventions of modern editors in a text are ontologically different 
from the interventions of copyists or scribes. #justsaying


On 06/11/13 19:07, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> From a philological point of view, it would be mistaken indeed. We 
> sometimes consider an "early translation" a witness, because it may 
> happen that such a translation is the only remaining trace of a text 
> or of a branch of the tradition. But a modern translation is of course 
> a totally different kettle of fish.
>
> Best regards,
> Marjorie
>
>
> On 6 November 2013 19:56, Robert Whalen <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     The Guidelines allow "early translations" as possible witnesses in
>     a scholarly edition. What about a modern translation commissioned
>     for the edition? Would it be mistaken to consider that a witness,
>     especially when there is no early translation extant?
>
>     Rob
>
>