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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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, 

On 6 November 2013 19:56, Robert Whalen <[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?