Scribal copying is investigated as a test case for the memetic and epidemiological models for explaining the distribution of cultural items. We may hypothesize that the incidence of errors could be low enough to allow two conditions for neo-Darwinian explanation to be fulfilled: first, that there be a rather reliable mechanism for heredity, and second that occasional mutations might produce a version more likely to survive and be propagated than the exemplar. Scriptorial conventions are reviewed. Textual criticism is investigated. Finally, (...) some attention is given to the psychology of language perception and production. In conclusion, it is argued that the memetic model for cultural transmission is not generally fecund while the epidemiological model is. (shrink)

Scribal copying is investigated as a test case for the memetic and epidemiological models for explaining the distribution of cultural items. We may hypothesize that the incidence of errors could be low enough to allow two conditions for neo-Darwinian explanation (or an analogue of it) to be fulfilled: first, that there be a rather reliable mechanism for heredity, and second that occasional mutations might produce a version more likely to survive and be propagated than the exemplar. Scriptorial conventions are reviewed. (...) Textual criticism is investigated. Finally, some attention is given to the psychology of language perception and production. In conclusion, it is argued that the memetic model for cultural transmission is not generally fecund while the epidemiological model is. (shrink)

The subject of medieval scribes is bound up with the question of textual authority. Scribes not only left their marks upon the manuscripts they copied, they also functioned as interpreters, editing and consequently altering the meaning of texts. Writers, however, did not simply employ scribes as copyists; they elaborated upon the figurative language associated with the book as a symbol and incorporated scribes into their texts as tropes. Such “ghostly scribes” provided authors with (...) figures through which they could project authorial personas, indicate what we would call generic categories, express a sense of community, or guide a reader's responses to a text. Though a writer like Chaucer employed scribal metaphors to signal his relative powerlessness, thereby indicating the outlines of a carefully conceived and concealed persona, women writers such as Hildegard of Bingen and Christine de Pisan exploited those same metaphors to signal both their sense of authority and their awareness of the social constraints placed upon it. The two most important English women writers of the late Middle Ages, Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe, seem especially aware of the ways in which the deployment of a scribe could be used strategically, as a means of maintaining control over texts they profess neither to control nor to aspire to control. (shrink)

Volume 7 of the Tsinghua manuscripts contains multiple historiographical narratives interspersed with punctuation. This article looks into two manuscripts likely prepared in the same workshop and possibly by the same scribe. I examine how punctuation in the manuscripts engages with the structure of the texts, forming a particular reading experience and understanding of the sectioning of the narrative. The article suggests that the use of punctuation in these manuscripts reflects the punctuator’s understanding of the narrative divisions and main points (...) of the texts. Far from merely marking individual sentences, the punctuation selectively marks sections and subsections in the narrative, corresponding to changes of interlocutor, scene and setting, and key information supporting a particular reading of the sense of the texts. The punctuator chose to amplify certain aspects of the narrative—for example, advisors outdoing their superiors—by highlighting certain sections of the text more than others. By examining the ways in which punctuation and nar- rative structure interact in these two case studies, the article aims to understand the complex relation between punctuation and narrative structure. In doing so, it evaluates the potential agency of punctuators in shaping the reading experience of early historiographical narrative texts. (shrink)

The Book in Mamluk Egypt and Syria : Scribes, Libraries and Market. By Doris Behrens-Abouseif. Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts, vol. 162. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Pp. xii + 178. $120, €100.

The article presents a preliminary survey of textual reuse in Nepalese collections of j?takas and avad?nas, focusing in particular on three works: the Avad?na?ataka, the Divy?vad?na, and the Dv?vi??atyavad?nakath?. The reassessment of the manuscript tradition of these three Sanskrit collections, based on Nepalese manuscripts and Tibetan translations, sheds more light on the role of scribes in the creation of these collections and of the Nepalese avad?nam?l? literature. In particular, the great role played in the 17th century by the Nepalese (...) scribe and scholar Jayamuni in shaping the text of the Avad?na?ataka, the Divy?vad?na, and many other Buddhist narrative works is brought to light. The result of this preliminary survey shows that a study of this type of collections based on the available critical editions should be rethought in the light of the specific character of their manuscript and textual transmission in medieval and early modern Nepal. (shrink)

What can textual combinations, format, and size tell us about the worldviews of the donors, scribes, and readers of medieval Chinese Buddhist manuscripts? How can material sources inform us about the ways adherents both perceived and actively shaped their traditions? This essay offers answers to these questions through analysis of several manuscripts of the Scripture on the Cause and Effects of Wholesome and Unwholesome Acts (Shan’e yinguo jing 善惡因果經, T no. 2881), discovered in the Dunhuang Library Cave. The text (...) was likely composed in Chinese, and it first appears in Buddhist catalogs in the year 695 ce. Extant manuscripts of Cause and Effects appear in both scroll and booklet formats and number at least fifty-two in total, a significant number that attests to the popularity of the text. This essay analyzes the textual content and literary techniques, relating both to physical aspects of the manuscripts. It examines the textual and the material together through the mediating concept of practice—in this case, medieval Chinese reading practices. (shrink)

In recent years students of medieval literature and its history have begun increasingly to appreciate the value of their primary source materials — the manuscripts. Editors of Middle English texts are less apt nowadays, having found their “best text,” to jettison as worthless all other surviving copies and renderings of it. It is recognized that a “corrupt” text may reflect the activity of a contemporary editor, critic, or adapter rather than that of a merely careless copyist. Medieval scribes, (...) whether professional or amateur, clerical or lay, were producing works of literature for their original consumers; close examination of scribal behavior, whether it be script, spelling, or choice and ordering of material, provides insight into the way literary texts were received, understood, and disseminated. The studies of paleographer, dialectologist, textual critic, and literary historian can and should be complementary. (shrink)

The abbreviation-symbols of the Romans, found in ancient uncial MSS., may be roughly divided into three classes: Those peculiar to juristic writing, e.g. R.P. ‘res priuata’ , Q.D.R.A. ‘qua de re agitur.’ They are properly called ‘notae iuris.’ They abound in the famous Verona MS. of Gaius. A few used in histories, etc., e.g. R.P. 'respublica' , Q. ‘Quintus’ . Valerius Probus, who compiled a manual of ancient Notae, calls this class ‘notae publicae’. They appear in such MSS. as the (...) codex Puteanus of Livy ; and since they have been transferred into modern editions of the Latin historians, etc., no one is at a loss to interpret them nowadays, although they puzzled mediaeval scribes. Symbols of ordinary words of frequent occurrence in any type of literature, e.g. Q. ‘que.’ It is this class which is the subject of this article. (shrink)

The text of Ezekiel continues to present some challenges to students studying it. This is in view of what one school of thought identify in the Ezekiel text as extensive redactions and revisions, whilst another school of thought is hesitant to subject the Masoretic Text to such critical analysis. Amidst these differing viewpoints, I have discussed by means of literary analysis, the possibility that chapter 6 of Ezekiel may have been intended as a prophetic poetic message, or was later edited (...) to conform to the genre of prophetic poetry. This is in the light of the so-called repetitions or 'additions' reflected in the MT if compared against the LXX, as well as the general problems associated with the Hebrew text of Ezekiel. The findings indicate that the text of Ezekiel 6 probably already had a complete theological corpus when it left the hand of the prophet Ezekiel or those who penned his words down. However, scribes saw it necessary to restructure, organise and colour the prophetic oracle in a literary form and structure they thought was necessary. This finding could be vital for solving literary and text critical problems in Ezekiel. (shrink)

Qurʾān was revealed to the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) not as a written document, but by word of mouth over a period of approximately 23 years. He dictated the verses to the scribes of revelation. After this, Abū Bakr compiled the written verses; i.e. gathered between two covers. Thus when the Qurʾān was compiled as a text, a number of addresses lost their characteristics. This situation, which is a result of the shortcomings in inscription, suggested the necessity of separating the (...) verses, preserving the recitation method (waqf places) learned from Prophet and transmitting the Qurʾān towards new learners. As a result, the science of al-Waqf and al-Ibtidāʾ has emerged. The systematics of al-Sajāwandī was chosen among the people who systematized the waqfs marks and the mushafs that we have today are arranged according to the systematics of al-Sajāwandī. At this point, the issue of showing other addressing features of the Qurʾān, such as the emphasis, in text appeared as an area that to be considered. The aim of this study is to analyze this issue and to focus on the possibility and method of realizing the subject. If punctuation marks are to be added to the Qurʾānic text, this should be done by taking into account the characteristics of punctuation marks in Arabic. According to comparison between punctuation and wakf marks, it was seen that they have different characteristics. First difference is the systematic difference. Punctuation marks in modern Arabic script are divided into four groups: end marks, tone marks, quotation marks, and the signs used in mathematics. However, al-sajawānds consists of only end/stop marks. In this case, al-sajawānds do not function as punctuation marks indicating tone of voice/emphasis and quotations. The second difference is that punctuation marks are more about the meaning than waqf marks. Because waqf marks do not oblige reader to understand only one of the possible meanings. However, punctuation marks limit or even determine the meanings. In addition, waqf marks are also based on the recitation(s) of the Prophet/al-qirāʾat al-manqulah. Correct comprehension depends on correct reading. For correct reading, addressable features must be able to be incorporated into the text as much as possible. Today’s muṣḥaf, cannot show emotions, emphasis to the reader. Beside, each of the characteristics of waqf marks (al-waqf al-muʿānaqah ext.) cannot meet the end marks found in today’s punctuation marks. In this case, we can add emphasis marks to text in order to reflect the emphasis that are missing from them by keeping al-sajāwands. Likewise, the question of to where/whom the word belongs to, which may cause confusion in text, can be resolved with quotation marks. Hereby, it has been concluded that a pseudonym system that can reflect the emphasis features of the Qurʾān and show quotations, should be developed in addition to al-sajāwands. So, our proposal includes the following steps: keeping al-sajāwands existing in the muṣḥaf; placing the emphasis marks in today's punctuation marks, which will serve this function in places where the emphasis and tone of prayer’s voice cannot be reflected in writing; putting quotation marks. Thus, it will be possible to develop a system that can show the linguistic, grammatical, semantic, phonetic, emotional and reciprocity dimensions of address in the writing/text. In this context, the punctuation marks that we find useful to be added to the muṣḥaf are emphasis marks (:!؟) and some quotation marks («»: -). قَالَ فَمَنْ رَبُّكُمَا يَا مُوسٰى؟ قَالَ رَبُّنَا الَّذ۪ٓي اَعْطٰى كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلْقَهُ ثُمَّ هَدٰى. Tāhā 20/49-50 As an example, in this verse, there is a real question that is expected to be answered. Then a question mark can be put at the end of this sentence. In addition, a dot mark can be placed at the end of the answer sentence to indicate that the answer is concluded. (shrink)

My apology for reverting to this subject is a recent article by Mr. W. C. F. Walters in the April number of the Classical Quarterly for 1910 on the signatures in the Vatican Codex . Mr. Walters does not seem to have been aware that this manuscript, though not of direct value in the constitution of the text of Livy, is one whose interest from a palaeographical point of view has long been recognized. A number of articles have been written (...) concerning it, most of which deal with the signatures, the subject of Mr. Walters' paper, more fully and more accurately than he has done. Beyond giving the signatures, two of them incorrectly, Walters does nothing more than to conclude that there were eight scribes, who copied 42 quaternions. But a great deal more than this is known about the scribes and the manuscript. In fact, thanks to the ingenious combinations of Chatelain and Traube in piecing together the hints suggested by the signatures, more is known about this particular manuscript and the circumstances under which it was made than is the case with any other manuscript of a classical author of so early a date. It may therefore be worth while to summarize the known data concerning the manuscript, with a brief account of how they were worked out, referring the reader for the details to the articles mentioned in the footnotes. (shrink)

This is Part II of a two-part study on the questions on Aristotles’ Physics by Francesc Marbres, the artist commonly known as “John the Canon.” Although written around 1330, only two fourteenth-century manuscripts preserve the work, but it became so popular around 1450 that dozens of fifteenth-century manuscripts containing the work survive and it was printed eight times from 1475 to 1520. Here the manuscripts and early prints are described, and then an attempt is made to trace the tradition of (...) the text using structural differences, the colophons and variant readings in the question-titles and small passages. These three sets of data turn out to be insufficient for constructing a stemma; instead they provide evidence of extensive contamination, suggesting that many scribes and printers employed more than one witness. This conclusion reinforces what we learn from marginalia and from information about the Oxford curriculum: the questions on the Physics by the mysterious “John the Canon” played an active rol... (shrink)

n his Problemata, Aristotle provided medieval thinkers with the occasion to inquire into the natural causes of the sexual desires of men to act upon or be acted upon by other men, thus bringing human sexuality into the purview of natural philosophers, whose aim it was to explain the causes of objects and events in nature. With this philosophical justification, some late medieval intellectuals asked whether such dispositions might arise from anatomy or from the psychological processes of habit formation. As (...) the fourteenth-century philosopher Walter Burley observed, "Nothing natural is shameful." The authors, scribes, and readers willing to "contemplate base things" never argued that they were not vile, but most did share the conviction that they could be explained. From the evidence that has survived in manuscripts of and related to the Problemata, two narratives emerge: a chronicle of the earnest attempts of medieval medical theorists and natural philosophers to understand the cause of homosexual desires and pleasures in terms of natural processes, and an ongoing debate as to whether the sciences were equipped or permitted to deal with such subjects at all. Mining hundreds of texts and deciphering commentaries, indices, abbreviations, and marginalia, Joan Cadden shows how European scholars deployed a standard set of philosophical tools and a variety of rhetorical strategies to produce scientific approaches to sodomy. (shrink)

Este artículo pretende dar cuenta del rol de los libros, los copistas y la circulación de textos en la obra de Libanio, y especialmente en su Autobiografía. Sobre la base de las referencias a la cultura libresca, por lo demás, se establecen vínculos con la cultura griega anterior, en particular con la segunda sofística; contemporánea y cristiana; y posterior, de los períodos medio y tardo-bizantino. This article tackles the role of books, scribes and text circulation in the oeuvre of (...) Libanius, especially in his Autobiography. On the basis of his references to scriptorial culture, I underline his links to previous Greek culture -mainly to the Second Sophistic -; to contemporary Christian paideia; and to later Byzantine erudition. (shrink)

Examines the nature and origins of Hobbes's Biblical criticism, concentrating on what has always seemed his most radical claim—the argument that the Pentateuch was written not by Moses but by a much later figure, Ezra the Scribe. It traces the origins of this theory, showing how some key elements of Hobbes's biblical criticism were already present in the mainstream tradition; but it argues that Hobbes's insistence on the grounding of the authority of the text in political authority did give a (...) radical new edge to his theory. Finally, it considers whether it is correct to describe Hobbes as having founded modern biblical criticism. (shrink)

In 1475, the Florentine humanist Piero Cennini sent a friend a letter in Latin, in which he described in detail both the Florentine baptistery and the yearly celebration of the feast of St John in late June. This article presents a full text and English translation of the document, with an introduction and notes. Cennini, a scribe and scholar, belonged to a distinguished family of Florentine goldsmiths, with whose members he collaborated on an edition of the commentaries of Servius on (...) Virgil. His description of the baptistery was informed by his knowledge of and pride in his family’s craft, as well as by the teachings of Leon Battista Alberti, which he had mastered. Cennini’s hybrid of craft and humanism enables him to fill his account of the celebration of St John with vivid detail, but his choice of Latin also makes it too artificial to convey the enchantment that the plays and processions, like the baptistery itself, inspired in other observers—a feature that helps to explain the author’s frustration with his remarkably vivid text. Drawing on contemporary texts and paintings, this article finally places Cennini’s vision on the spectrum between the magic of Florentine religion and its disenchantment. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy by Myles F. BurnyeatAllison Piñeros Glasscock and Elizabeth C. Shaw and Staff*BURNYEAT, Myles F. Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy, vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. xii + 395 pp. Cloth, $120.00The eleven essays in this collection were originally published while Burnyeat was at All Souls College, Oxford (1996–2006) and during his subsequent retirement. Like volume 3 of the same series, (...) the collection was published posthumously, with editorial work undertaken by Carol Atack, Malcolm Schofield, and David Sedley. Part I contains seven essays on topics in ontology and epistemology; part II contains four essays on physics and optics. The figures examined include the usual suspects—Plato and Aristotle (plus an appearance by Aquinas)—but Burnyeat also draws our attention to some less appreciated accomplices to the ancient philosophical project: the Platonist commentator Numenius of Apamea, the Pythagorean Archytas of Tarentum, and Anaxarchus of Abdera, a follower of Democritus. The result is a collection that showcases one of Burnyeat's greatest strengths: his ability to identify the clues left for us in ancient texts and to produce from them compelling and exquisitely detailed accounts of what ancient philosophers were thinking and why.One of the final papers of the volume illustrates Burnyeat's detective acumen. "Archytas and optics" starts from the following question: Why is optics absent from the mathematical curriculum Plato sketches in the Republic? Burnyeat hypothesizes that if mathematical optics existed when the Republic was written, Plato likely excised it from the curriculum on the grounds that the discipline would lead the student to focus on visible things and their appearances. The bulk of the paper is devoted to establishing the antecedent of this conditional. Burnyeat argues that mathematical optics did exist at the time of the Republic's writing, and he posits the noncanonical Pythagorean Archytas as its founder. To recognize the significance of this lacuna in the Republic's curriculum and to provide a persuasive identification of the founder of an entire discipline is already to make a substantial contribution to scholarship. But how Burnyeat arrives at his central conclusion is equally impressive. He takes the reader on a tour of Aristotle, Plato, and Iamblichus, fragment 4 of Archytas, and the Apologia of Apuleius (whom readers might better recognize as the novelist responsible for The Golden [End Page 345] Ass). The result is not only an answer to the paper's central question, but a deeper understanding of the broader intellectual network in which canonical figures like Plato and Aristotle operated.No fragment is too small to catch Burnyeat's notice, nor is any line in a manuscript too faint. Part I of the collection includes Burnyeat's famous paper "Kinēsis vs. energeia: a much-read passage in (but not of) Aristotle's Metaphysics." The central argument is that Metaphysics 9.6.1048b18–35 is out of place. It was written by Aristotle for a different context and should not be printed in book 9. Because this article is so well known, I will not dwell on the details of the argument, but once again Burnyeat's methodology is worthy of comment. The first part of the paper offers a careful examination of the Metaphysics's manuscript tradition that attends both to what is present and to what is absent. For example, we learn that the focus passage is missing from an entire branch of the tradition, which Burnyeat suggests is the result of a learned excision. Later, Burnyeat develops a psychological sketch of the scribe of manuscript Ab beginning from the observation that a faint line is drawn through part of the focus passage. He argues that the scribe's motivation is not disapproval of the passage's contents but a desire to keep his text and commentary in sync. Observations like these provide the foundation for Burnyeat's thesis about the philosophical import of the focus passage, and they demonstrate that the physical record can be just as vital to reconstructions of ancient philosophy as the words that the record preserves.Occasionally, Burnyeat offers more direct admonitions to his readers about how to approach ancient philosophy. A key lesson... (shrink)

John 8:3–11 depicts the story of a woman who is condemned to death because she was caught in the act of adultery. The Pharisees and Scribes who condemned the woman cited Deuteronomy 22:23–24 and Leviticus 20:10 which prescribe death penalty for adultery. What begs answers through this hermeneutical study of the pericope from the lens of gender-based violence (GBV) in Johane Marange Apostolic Church, Ruwa District, in Zimbabwe, is why only the woman was picked for condemnation yet the cited (...) Mosaic Law provides that both the man and the woman who engage in the act of adultery face capital punishment. The article interrogates the text to identify limbs or tentacles on which the decision by the Pharisees and Scribes to condemn only the woman leaving out the man stands. An exegetical study of the text is conducted to explore possible reasons behind the relegation of women to the receiving end of misogynistic socially constructed gender stereotypes. A qualitative methodological praxis fusing socio-historical method and qualitative analysis is engaged in analysing the Biblical Johannine and Johane Marange Apostolic Church Ruwa District communities, respectively. The article mirrors patriarchal tendencies in the Johane Marange Apostolic Church into the selective application of biblical doctrine between males and females depicted in the Johannine text of John 8:3–11. The article argues and concludes that, as reflected in John 8:3–11, GBV practices in Johane Marange Apostolic Church have sentenced women to sexual exploitation, rape, early child marriages and high maternal mortality rate. Contribution: The study recommends ways of cutting the tentacles of the acts of GBV being imposed on women in general, and on the girl child in particular. (shrink)

This book presents the first comprehensive study of Anglo-Saxon manuscript texts containing runic letters. To date there has been no comprehensive study of these works in a single volume, although the need for such an examination has long been recognized. This is in spite of a growing academic interest in the mise-en-page of early medieval manuscripts. The texts discussed in this study include Old English riddles and elegies, the Cynewulfian poems, charms, Solomon and Saturn I, and the Old (...) English Rune Poem. The focus of the discussion is on the literary analysis of these texts in their palaeographic and runological contexts. Anglo-Saxon authors and scribes did not, of course, operate within a vacuum, and so these primary texts are considered alongside relevant epigraphic inscriptions, physical objects, and historical documents. Victoria Symons argues that all of these runic works are in various ways thematically focused on acts of writing, visual communication, and the nature of the written word. The conclusion that emerges over the course of the book is that, when encountered in the context of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, runic letters consistently represent the written word in a way that Roman letters do not. (shrink)

In the afterword for his book, Malory states that it “was ended the ix yere of the reygne of Kyng Edward the Fourth” , but we have no copy of the book from his own hand. For almost five hundred years the book was known ultimately only from the edition by William Caxton, who indicated in his preface that he printed it “after a copye unto me delyverd” and in his colophon that he finished the printing “the last day of (...) Juyl, the yere of Our Lord MCCCCLXXXV”; we do not have the manuscript copy from which Caxton and his compositors produced the book. Then in 1934 Walter F. Oakeshott discovered in the Fellows Library at Winchester College, England, a manuscript of Malory's book, roughly contemporary with Caxton's edition, prepared by two scribes, lacking nineteen leaves—including the beginning and the ending—and differing rather considerably from Caxton's text. (shrink)

Once the Luwian hieroglyphics for God “” and Gate “” were discovered at Göbekli Tepe, this author was able to directly link the site’s carved pillars and pillar enclosures to the Abrahamic/Mosaic “Word of God”,. Archaeologists and anthropologists have long viewed the Bible as mankind’s best guide to prehistoric religion, however, archaeologist Klaus Schmidt had no reason to believe that the site he spent years excavating at Göbekli Tepe might be the legendary “Pillars of Enoch”, carved by the first Biblical (...) holy man and scribe. To make this connection, the author first had to decipher Judaism’s Razah D’Oraytah (Secret of Knowledge) from the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation). The Book of Creation is the only text to explain the Secret of Knowledge, and the only text attributed to the prophet Abraham within the rabbinical community. The Zohar, Judaism’s most accessible Kabbalistic text, admits that it lacks knowledge of “deep and hidden things which issue from God’s thought and are taken up by the Voice [of God] which are not disclosed till the Word [] reveals them”. Abrahamic/Mosaic “Word of God” encrypts the mathematics of sound that emanates from God’s “Voice” in terms of ancient string theory. Just as modern string theory defines a Theory of Everything (ToE) within theoretical physics, so too does this ancient string theory define the Theory of Everything that Abraham named the “Living God”. The author’s previous paper ties Jewish sources to Göbekli Tepe, while the current paper applies this sonic “God Table” to the textual exegesis and hermeneutics structuring all religious creation allegories, including the writings of Sumer, Assyria, Babylonia, Vedic India, pre-Dynastic Egypt, Ugarit, and Israel. This paper will apply Göbekli Tepe’s structural template to archaeology’s oldest legible cuneiform tablets, including the Kesh Temple Hymn, Sumerian King List, and the Akkadian Ark Tablet. It will also be demonstrated that Göbekli Tepe holds the key to the Rig Veda, Hinduism’s oldest text, and defines the essence of Plato’s metaphysics. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Tacitus, Annales VI: Beginning and EndClifford AndoOur sole witness for the text of Annales I–VI, the so-called Mediceus, 1 duly registers the ends of books 1 through 4, but of no book thereafter. The question of where to locate the beginning of book 6 has not been discussed at any length since 1848, and that we have the end of book 6 at our 6.51 has not, to my (...) knowledge, ever been disputed. The answer we posit to both questions has, obviously, profound implications for modern attempts to interpret the structure of the Annales. This note urges on the former issue a return to the division after 5.11 first established by Lipsius, and on the latter proposes the radical solution that we do not possess the end of book 6.Though Emilio Ferretti (1541, ad loc.) was the first to perceive the difficulty in the text of books 5 and 6 as preserved by M, Lipsius took the necessary step of establishing a break between the books, at 5.11: his book 6 begins at the start of A.D. 32. Though he perceived that a two-year gap separates 5.5 and 5.6, he settled on 6.1 not for any solid reason, but on purely arbitrary grounds (1585, 265). Lipsius did, however, attempt to anticipate one counterattack: some will argue that his division leaves book 5 too short, since it will contain the events of only three years, 29–31 A.D. (ibid.). In 1848 Friedrich Haase attacked the position taken by Lipsius on several fronts: first, Lipsius’ division leaves book 6 disproportionately short, and nothing can be missing from the end of this book because it cannot be doubted that Tacitus began book 7 with the accession of Gaius. Second, even if it were not self-evident that the death of the emperor was more important than the end of a year, this would follow naturally upon the observation that Tacitus closes book 12 in October, after the death of Claudius, although in order to complete that year he would only have had to move the first ten chapters of book 13. Third, there is no way that the scribe could have overlooked or forgotten a colophon between 5.11 and 6.1 because M records them in such large letters. Finally, Tacitus would have regarded the death of Seianus, [End Page 285] the aftermath of which is covered in 5.6–11, as eminently suitable for the end of a book, as he closed book 9 with the death of Messalina, or book 15 with the suppression of the Pisonian conspiracy. Haase also anticipated, and dismissed, the charge that, on his reconstruction, book 5 will be too short, since it will cover even less than the three years assumed by Lipsius (1848, 152–53).Subsequent scholars, to the extent that any have commented on this issue, have followed Haase as resolutely as earlier editors followed Lipsius. 2 Variations on Haase’s argument have been offered by Nipperdey 1879, who suggested that the downfall of Seianus was so dramatic that readers needed a respite in the form of a book-break before resuming with the prosecution of his adherents (ad 5.5); and by Ronald Martin, who argued that “in spite of the loss of most of Book 5 and (probably) the beginning of Book 6 it seems clear that, as Germanicus dies towards the end of Book 2, with the aftermath of his death flowing over into the opening chapters of Book 3, so Seianus’ death occurred at or near the end of Book 5, while the aftermath of his death flows over into the early chapters of Book 6” (1991, 1518 n. 55).We can first dispose of any concerns about the length of either book. There were relatively few constraints upon the size of a papyrus roll: one could be as long or short as desired. A roll’s apparent length would also depend in large measure on the hand in which it was written, and how tightly it was rolled. For obvious reasons, long books were far more unwieldy than short ones, not least because it... (shrink)

Starting from the concept and definition of littera in the Grammar treatises of the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, the contribution analyzes common graphic elements which were used by the scribes to create initials, ornamental patterns and the layout of the manuscript page. These elements and their functions were partly described in encyclopaedic works, e. g. of Isidor of Sevilla and Martianus Capella in the chapters about Geometry. Not only were these features well known through the study (...) of the Artes, they also represented useful tools for the invention and production of medieval diagrams. (shrink)

Through a free reading of Heidegger's Zur Seinsfrage, we propose - with the help of the reader - to scribe into being the space of an opening; in fact, to transcribe it with the drawing of an ×. The point of this writing and thinking "Over the Line" is neither to draft a new structure nor to mark a new center but, as a sign of nothing, to inscribe a hole in the text of philosophy. In view of a topological (...) sketch of the original opening of Western ontology, the unfolding of a complete nihilism may finally be described, in a thinking that marks its own vanishing point. (shrink)

The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated the fluidity of biblical and early Jewish texts in antiquity. How did early Jewish scribes understand the nature of their pluriform literature? How should modern textual critics deal with these fluid texts? Centered on the Serekh ha-Yaḥad - or Community Rule - from Qumran as a test case, this volume tracks the development of its textual tradition in multiple trajectories, and suggests that it was not understood as a single, unified composition (...) even in antiquity. Attending to material, textual, and literary factors, the book argues that ancient claims for textual identity ought to be given priority in discussions among textual critics about the ontology of biblical books. (shrink)

Chaucer’s Treatise on the astrolabe is one of the earliest English-language works on an astronomical instrument. It draws on earlier sources, including a work on the astrolabe attributed in the Middle Ages to Messahalla, but reorders and reworks these sources to produce a description of the parts of, and the use of, the planispheric astrolabe. In their turn, fifteenth-century scribes sometimes drew on more than one source when producing a new copy of Chaucer’s text. Conflation of this kind means (...) that working out the relationship between the extant manuscript copies of the text can be complex and confusing. In this paper we reconsider the relationship between copies of Chaucer’s Treatise on the astrolabe by using new techniques derived from evolutionary biology to clarify the copying and conflation of this important early scientific text. We propose a stemma for the extant manuscripts, place fragmentary copies of the text on it in relation to the more complete versions, and argue that the conflation of Chaucer’s text may have been motivated by a concern amongst scribes for the completeness of what always was an incomplete work.Keywords: Astrolabe; Geoffrey Chaucer; Manuscripts; Stemmatics; Phylogenetics. (shrink)

As is well known, this poem, which stood in the Anthologia Latina, is preserved in two MSS. only, the Salmasian and the Pithoean , Nos. 10318 and 8071 in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; ‘the handwriting dates’ the former ‘as written at the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century; the other…is about two hundred years later in date. Modern scholars regard both MSS. as traceable to a common archetype, probably of the sixth century’ . At (...) first sight these MSS. seem quite untrust-worthy, for they differ from each other in more than one hundred words, while the scribe of S copied the refrain incorrectly twice, the scribe of T twice as often. Strangely enough, however, these variations are comparatively unimportant, for most of them disappear when the spelling of the two clerks is assimilated to some recognized usage. Each manuscript in turn corrects the other in many of these passages, and conjecture has successfully emended nearly all of the remainder—the variation S peruiclanda, T peruigila in v. 47 is perhaps the only passage of this kind which still causes anxiety. The grave corruptions of the text are found in passages in which the MSS. are in agreement; they agree exactly in five lacunae, T having an additional one; in two or more misplaced passages; in the placing of the refrain, with all of which matters I deal below; they agree exactly in an error in the title ‘Peruirgilium’ for ‘Peruigilium,’ and in about twelve lines, of which vv. 51 and 79 have almost certainly been preserved in an incorrect form. (shrink)

Much of the surviving text of the Epic of Etana tells the story of an eagle and a snake. The eagle and snake are extraordinary creatures, and their story abounds with mythological subtext. This paper argues that the Neo-Assyrian recension of Etana was amended to include explicit references to the eagle and the snake by the names of their mythological counterparts, anzû and bašmu. These references occur in two analogous contexts and serve the same narrative purpose: to dehumanize the other (...) when the eagle and the snake seek to do each other harm. The deliberate character of these changes and their symmetry suggest that they are the product of a conscientious scribe with a developed literary sensibility. (shrink)

It is commonly accepted that the spelling of the pre-exilic books of the Bible was generally defective like that of contemporary epigraphy, and that the matres lectionis were inserted into the original texts by scribes during the first half of the Second Temple period. This article argues that the orthography of the ancient books of the Bible was from its beginning similar to that of the MT. The difference between the current biblical spelling and the defective spelling of (...) the inscriptions should instead be understood as a matter of different registers. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Ancient and Modern HermeneuticsDavid HalliburtonAncient and Modern Hermeneutics, by Gerald L. Bruns; xii & 318 pp. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992, $37.50.Modern hermeneutics, Bruns explains, has mainly gone in two directions. One is toward the transcendental ground-swells of Husserl, who remains committed to idealities, as exemplified in geometry. The second direction, taken by Heidegger, Gadamer, and Bruns (not to mention Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, and the Pragmatists) hews (...) to the worldly rootedness of understanding; here each and all enjoy the capacity to comprehend—if not perfectly, at least perfectly well.Bruns divides his admirable opus into two large sections. Part One, on the Ancients, consists of essays on Socrates, Thucydides, the Hebrew Bible, allegory, the Jewish Midrash, and what may be broadly viewed as a correlative Islamaic text. He argues that Socrates’ ironic inclinations are not forensic ploys but manifestations of an authentic ontological disposition. (This ontological motif sounds throughout Bruns’s text.) Bruns’s Socrates has but to carry out the phusis that he himself is—in the undertow of which he cannot but be ironic even as, in being ironic, he cannot but be, like phusis, elusive and even impenetrable: “The point about Socrates is that we never know how to take him” (p. 32).Bruns handles ingeniously the problem of speeches that Thucydides “reported” but could not have heard. He argues that Thucydides provides a sort of simulacrum of the speeches. On this view, the historian does not attempt to report what the speakers actually said; instead he portrays implicitly the concrete historical situations (the modifiers are mine) in which orators orate: “the true author... would not be its original speaker nor its subsequent scribes but the situation that called for the speech to be made” (p. 58).In his challenging chapter on allegory, especially in Philo, Bruns approaches the former’s mystical commentary on the cherubim by problematizing familiar, restrictive distinctions. “In this case there can be no easy or gross distinction between the exoteric and the esoteric, the literal-minded and the wise....” To Philo “understanding is a form of recognition, of being turned toward and received into what before had been hidden or strange” (p. 102).Part Two, on the Moderns, treats of hermeneutic issues raised by Wordsworth [End Page 158] but even more paradigmatically by Luther; the tragic concept of experience; the question of tradition; radical hermeneutics; and the quarrel between philosophy and poetry. The journey ends in Bruns’s attempt to hypostatize an originary concept of freedom.To Bruns the liminal figure for modernity is Luther. It is a high hermeneutic moment that each of Luther’s students receives his own Bible with wide margins in which to copy the master’s—or conceivably his own—commentaries. Here Scripture is not merely grasped cognitively but is immediately, and, with full Deweyan and Diltheyan overtones, experienced. Luther for his part postulates that the text interprets itself. Concurring, and returning to the ontological motif noted above, Bruns proposes the one’s relation to a text “is ontological rather than simply exegetical. Luther’s distinction between law and gospel is a way of extending this ontological relation from the notion of a legal indictment to that of a spiritual one in which one’s self-understanding or self-identity is reconstituted by the text” (p. 146).Later Bruns deftly contrasts Hegel’s Umkehrung, the “movement toward enlightenment and the self-certainty of absolute consciousness” (p. 157), with Heidegger’s resolute refusal to appropriate or manipulate the world into which he, with everyone else, has been thrown. This attitude is somewhat akin to negative capability or wise passiveness—no English word or phrase gets it right—and requires a kind of letting-be, or letting-go. Bruns puts the matter about as well as one can, in short compass: “Thinking... is not reasoning or questioning but listening; its goal is not conceptual representation by Gelassenheit, or a letting go, releasement, and ‘openness to the mystery’” (p. 158).In his chapter on romantic hermeneutics, Bruns returns to Luther who, though stressing the empowerment of the individual reader, nonetheless regards the text as a vital force entering into and transforming the... (shrink)

The earliest extant manuscript of Polybius, Books 1–5 is A . It was copied by a monk called Ephraim in the tenth century in a fine early minuscule hand; quite probably A should be dated to A.D. 947, though this cannot be certain, since Ephraim gave the day of the month and the indic-tion in the subscription, but not the year. A is written in two columns to the page, the average line length is 19–21 letters, and the almost invariable (...) extreme lengths are 18 and 22 letters. There are two lacunae in A on successive pages, the first affecting the bottom six lines of the second column of f. 1v and the top line of the first column of f. 2r, and the second affecting 11. 3–9 of the second column of f. 2r. These lacunae also appear in all other manuscripts covering the same section of text, with no significant variation of the content; however, the scribe of A has clearly taken a good deal of trouble to reproduce as accurately as possible the text in front of him, while all other manuscripts reproduce the text across the page with gaps of varying length. In addition to this, it can be shown that the line length of A is the same as that of the hyparchetype of all the extant manuscripts of Books 1–5. (shrink)

To those who know little about the Middle Ages, the copying of manuscripts of “the ancients” (whether classical, such as the Roman poet Horace, or Christian, such as Saints Jerome or Augustine) often seems either a laudable act of preserving the past or an unfortunate fixation on repeating the words of others rather than penning new and original compositions. Even scholars of the Middle Ages appear sometimes more interested in new types of works such as fabliaux or courtly romances written (...) in the vernacular; when they study the practice of copying, they often concentrate on identifying prototypes or legacies. Finding old wine in old bottles has been a fairly constant theme in medieval studies; sometimes, we must admit, medievalists have just thrown out the old bottles and moved on to something completely new. In this context, it may seem strange to find a work about medieval Latin manuscript commentaries titled “The Birth of the Author,” responding to Roland Barthes's well-known essay “The Death of the Author,” published in 1984 and cited repeatedly since. What can it mean to see new, self-conscious awareness of the act of personal creation in works that are copies by scribes of other works that themselves comment on yet earlier works, often of a certain age or canonicity? Yet in this intelligent, engaging, and beautifully produced book, art historian Jeffrey Hamburger not only shows how those who wrote commentaries came to suggest that anyone who composes a work (even the scribe who copies it) could be considered a creator of meaning but also that the images in commentaries themselves sometimes make statements—indeed, statements more radical than those in the text—about the author of the work being illustrated. Long known as one of the relatively rare historians of medieval art equipped with a wide knowledge of theology and hence of how images respond to and reflect text, Hamburger here shows himself possessed of a shrewd eye for the image itself. He studies illuminated prefaces to, among other texts, the prose and poetic works of Horace as used in the medieval classroom, copies of the major biblical commentary of the High Middle Ages, the Glossa ordinaria, and Rupert of Deutz's erotically charged commentary on the Song of Songs. Changing the lens through which scholars have usually viewed such texts, Hamburger argues that images of authors of commentaries sometimes go beyond anything in the text to assert the authority not only of the author of the text commented on and of the commentator but occasionally even of the scribe.The Birth of the Author is a work of complicated analysis, and its full power demands close attention. Understanding how images construct claims that go beyond the text involves a good deal of careful looking. Hamburger is a patient and clear guide, but the reader must be prepared to flip back and forth between the magnificent colored images the publisher provides and to follow what are often painstaking arguments from comparison of small visual differences or puzzling identifications of seemingly strange details. The result of doing so is, however, to gain not only the reward of Hamburger's ingenious conclusions but also a lesson in how to look. For example, in a discussion of Gilbert Universalis's commentary on the Lamentations of the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, Hamburger shows how Gilbert not only identifies Jeremiah as a “divine rhetorician” but also assimilates his own act of authorship to Jeremiah's prophetic speech. In the only extant copy of Gilbert's text that has a program of illustrations, the artist constructs both Jeremiah's speech and Gilbert's interpretation as similar acts of creation by framing both authors in parallel architectural images that evoke the Old Testament temple and a Christian church. Or to give a final example of Hamburger's interpretive reach: the book concludes not with yet another medieval preface but with an example of the far less usual manuscript epilogue. Here not only commentator, scribe, and illustrator but even the medieval reader construct themselves. Reception becomes interpretation, illustration becomes construction. In a commentary by the Carolingian figure Sedulius Scotus (fl. 840–60) on the Roman grammarian Donatus (mid-fourth century), the illustrator depicts Donatus as author and scribe (thus assimilating author into copier and vice versa). On the same folio, a later medieval reader constructs himself as reader/author in a charming marginal doodle that seems to entrap Donatus in a sort of hangman's noose. Thus, a bit wryly perhaps, Hamburger—himself teacher, commentator, and consummate scholar—seems to suggest that even frustrated students can construct themselves as interpreters and, yes, authors. Behind the seeming repetition and backward glance of the images in medieval commentaries lies radical and forward-looking self-awareness of the acts of authoring, interpreting, reading, and imagining. In Hamburger's analysis, the most seemingly conventional of medieval genres—the preface to commentaries on the texts of others—is a locus of the birth in illustration of the self-conscious and self-expressive author and reader. (shrink)

When Immanuel Bekker, the editor to whom Aristotle owes his page numbers, travelled to Paris in search of manuscripts between 1810 and 1812, Theognis had been a mainstay of classical scholarship for many hundreds of years. Even so, the small tenth-century parchment volume Bekker discovered there came as a surprise. Not only did it contain a text of theTheognideawhich was four hundred years older than the earliest codex known so far; it also added an entirely new section of 176 lines. (...) Presented by the scribe as ‘book 2’ of theElegiac Poemsby Theognis, they revolved around the theme of pederastic love – until then a topic not usually associated with the moralist from Megara. In spite of their similarities to what had now turned into ‘book 1’, they were dismissed as a late forgery almost instantly after Bekker's 1815 edition. Although that view came to be challenged later and can now be considered obsolete, even van Groningen's first comprehensive commentary to theTheognidea, published in 1966 and not superseded since, breaks off where the second book would have begun. Until today, research on this part of the Theognidean corpus has not grown much beyond a trickle flowing at some distance from the classical mainstream. (shrink)

Both editors have long been known for their work on Plotinus. Schwyzer has published important articles on the MSS A, V, and D, on the Pseudo-Aristotelian Theology and its relation to Porphyry's edition of the Enneads, on Plotinus' interpretation of Timaeus 35 A, and on the relation of Plotinus' triad of hypostases to his interpretation of Parmenides 139-145 ; and he is the author of the new article on Plotinus in the Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie. Ever since 1933 Henry has been publishing (...) a series of books and articles dealing with the text of Plotinus, its constitution, influence, and transmission. Of these works three books are especially important, since they were meant to constitute a critical introduction to the edition of the Enneads. The first of these, Recherches sur la Préparation Évangélique d'Eusèbe et l'Édition Perdue des Oeuvres de Plotin Publiée par Eustochius, undertakes to establish the fidelity of Porphyry, the first editor of the Enneads, to the autographs of Plotinus from which he made his recension. The second, Études Plotiniennes I: Les États du Texte de Plotin, a detailed study of the indirect tradition, reinforces this conclusion and establishes the authority of the archetype of the direct tradition. That archetype, Henry concludes, was as faithful to the recension of Porphyry as Porphyry was to the original written by Plotinus, and the indirect tradition is rather a guarantee of the faithfulness of the Porphyrian edition reproduced by the archetype than a source of corrections for the text of our MSS. The third volume, Études Plotiniennes II: Les Manuscrits des Ennéades, an exhaustive study of the character and history of the extant MSS, has for its purpose the determination of the necessary and sufficient evidence for the reconstitution of the archetype, the common ancestor of all the MSS of the direct tradition. No attempt is made to establish a stemma leading from the original to the extant MSS. Henry is here concerned rather to identify in the mass of material all the representative elements of the direct tradition and so to establish the apparatus of the critical edition on a basis broad enough to be forever independent of any hypothesis concerning the ultimate relations of the families represented by the extant MSS. In four chapters he studies the MSS of groups w, x, y, z respectively, in a fifth the MSS which Perna used for the editio princeps, and in two Appendices four lost MSS of which some record remains and the fragment of Eusebius in Vaticanus Rossianus 986. The volume is equipped with a detailed inventory of the MSS, a table of water, marks, and an index of proper names. One of the most important results of this study of Henry's is the identification of the MSS derivative from A, several of which had been used as independent witnesses to the arche- typal text but which Henry has shown to have no textual authority whatever. The results of this volume, however, are to be corrected in the light of three pages of "Corrections et Compléments" at the end of the second edition, which save for this list is an exact reimpression of the first. In 1946 Henry and Schwyzer began their collaboration in the preparation of the critical edition, and their study of the variants led them to certain conclusions different from those that Henry had printed in Les Manuscrits. In particular, they decided that D, which Henry had, though with some hesitation, treated as a member of family y, does not belong to y or to any other of the recognized groups of MSS but constitutes a family of its own; and they distinguished in the hand which Henry had hitherto called A1 and Schwyzer A2 two separate hands: one, hereafter to be called A1, which they believe to be that of the scribe of A himself correcting his MS from a source different from any extant MS and different also from the sub-archetypes of these MSS, so that the readings of A1 must represent a separate family or another archetype ; and a second, hereafter to be called A2, the corrections of which appear to be conjectures and so to have no authority for the text. (shrink)

Thus it would not be the content or meaning of a written Torah that Jeremiah would attack; rather it would be the Deuteronomic “claim to final and exclusive authority by means of writing” . Jeremiah’s problem is political rather than theological. He knows that writing is more powerful than prophecy and that he will not be able to withstand it—and he knows that the Deuteronomists know no less. As Blenkinsopp says, “Deuteronomy produced a situation in which prophecy could not continue (...) to exist without undergoing profound transformations” —that is, without ceasing to be “free prophecy,” or prophecy unbound by any text, including its own. “It might be considered misleading or flippant to say that for [Deuteronomy], as for rabbinic orthodoxy, the only good prophet is a dead prophet. But in point of fact the Deuteronomic scribes, despite their evident debt to and respect for the prophets, contributed decisively to the eclipse of the kind of historically oriented prophecy represented by Jeremiah and the emergence in due course of quite different forms of scribal prophecy” .It is at this point that we reach a sort of outer limit of biblical criticism—a threshold that scholars, with their foundations in literary criticism, their analytical attitude toward texts, and their theological concerns, are not inclined to cross. In any case, it is no accident that the political meaning of the conflict of prophecy and canon has received its most serious attention not from a biblical scholar but from a radical historian, Ellis Rivkin. In The Shaping of Jewish History, a brilliant and tendentious book, Rivkin proposes to treat the question of canon-formation and the promulgation of canonical texts of the Scriptures, not according to literary criteria but according to power criteria. For Rivkin, the production of the Hebrew Scriptures “was not primarily the work of scribes, scholars, or editors who sought out neglected traditions about wilderness experience, but of a class struggling to gain power.”23 23. Ellis Rivkin, The Shaping of Jewish History: A Radical New Interpretation , p. 30; further references to this work will be included in the text. Gerald R. Bruns is professor of English at the University of Iowa. He is the author of Modern Poetry and the Idea of Language and Inventions: Writing, Textuality, and Understanding in Literary History . The present essay is from a work in progress, Hermeneutics, Ancient and Modern. (shrink)

Muslims are fundamentally interested in the practice of writing especially for scribing the copies of the Qur’ān. Later, the practice of scribing ḥadīths texts and writing diplomatic correspondence increased the demand for developing this practice. It is because the writing is based on a religious reference in Islamic societies; over time, the interest in writing and writing materials has also turned into an art form. Thus, writing and writing materials have been named with the selected words from the Qur’ān. (...) Pencil, book, pages (ṣuḥuf), line, stone tablet (alwāḥ) are some of the examples of those words. The writing constituted a series of professions. Calligraphers and warrāqs (book dealers/booksellers) are some examples in Islamic societies. Until the printing press became widespread, the books were written and reproduced by hand which is called istinsākh. Nowadays, these manuscripts are protected in libraries and digital archives. Codicology examines the external elements of these manuscripts such as ink, binding and paper. In addition, the critical edition method was used to bring out manuscripts to the surface. Critical edition of manuscripts is not only transferring the text to the computer. The critical edition is to compare manuscripts of work to reach the original text of the author. While doing this, the evaluation of the text has been held to reveal the historical value of it. In this article, the place of manuscripts in Islamic culture has been discussed and the basic principles of the critical edition, how to create the editing (dirāsa) and text (naṣṣ) sections of the critical edition are explained with examples. The examples were selected from the previous critical editions conducted by the author. This study aims to give an introduction to a very wide field of codicology and critical edition. This article is intended to provide basic information for researchers interested in codicology and critical edition.Summary: Classical Islamic writing culture has its method. For centuries, Muslims have written manuscripts according to this method. This method has been applied from writing the knowledge on paper to collecting and binding the fascicles.The adventure of creating a manuscript is a long process. A lot of people come around to contribute this process initiating from the writing of the first sentence. Producer of the knowledge: scientists, paper-producer: werrâq, the calligrapher: khaṭṭāṭ, bookseller, bookbinder, expert in the ink, naqqāsh who marbles the papers, sponsors of the project, collection and the librarian are some of the contributors. Today, this adventure continues with the participation of enthusiasts which are: the author who re-writes the manuscript to revive it, the restorer who repairs the damage of the manuscript, the expert who creates the digital copy and institutions which publishes the facsimile.Nowadays manuscripts are accepted as important scientific data and are examined in many ways other than their contents thus new specialities have been occurred. At universities, the institutes which examine manuscripts have been established and academic journals have been published. Moreover, the critical edition of manuscripts is the main subject of some of the M.A. and Ph.D. theses.The studies on critical edition, which initiated earlier in some of the western countries, have made a rapid development and created its method. In Turkey, there are many critical editions of works which are based on various manuscripts from Theology to Literature fields. However, there is no significant mutual method among the studies yet. Also, their understanding of critical edition differentiates. In those studies, it has to be examined that basic parameters such as the selection of convenient copy, access to all copies of manuscript or priority of copies are applied to critical edition process. Most of the time it is observed that the advisor’s way of the critical edition has shadows on studies. However, fundamentally critical edition process needs expert contribution itself. Difference between studies is related to the fact that the critical edition is relatively a new field of study in Turkey. Therefore, specific studies in the field of critical edition and codicology are still needed to be developed. On the other hand, there are various publications to establish an objective methodology of the critical edition. Significant studies are being held by the Center for Islamic Studies (ISAM) to establish a mutual language and method for critical edition studies. The factor that led to the emergence of this article is the effort to contribute to the realization of this method. The article discusses the principles to be followed during a critical edition process. Moreover, topics are explained practically with examples selected from manuscripts. Those examples have been chosen from the author’s previous critical edition works. The article would be considered as an “Introduction to Critical Edition” for the researchers who are new at this field. In this respect, the article aims to make a methodological contribution to the critical edition studies.There are many parts of a manuscript –something more than the written text on the page– which makes it a whole. These parts can be divided into internal and external elements of the manuscript. All of these are parts have different levels of contribution to the examination of the critical edition of the work and the interpretation of the texts.Some external elements of manuscript are: ink production and color, inkwell, production of paper, foliation, rule-borders, and frames, ruling board (misṭara), sewing of quires, gilt and gilding, bookbinding, stamping and tooling, frontispiece, cases and pouches, storage boxes and cabinets, flap, tabula ansata, the history of manuscript.The internal elements of the manuscript are: text of the manuscript, script, subject, authenticity, historical value and importance, proprietor, literary features, number of copies and textual variants, scribes and copyists, whether it has been falsified or not, sources used or referenced by the author, abbreviations, records of marginalia, colophon, glosses and scholia, ownership statements, seals and seal impressions, word transposition or transposition of words/letters, waqf-statements, correction signs and corrections, countermarks.While the internal elements of manuscript are the work of critical edition, the external elements of the text fall within the field of codicology. Although critical edition and codicology are considered as separate sciences, there are points where they can contribute to each other. For instance, the ink tone or binding style of a manuscript may help to determine the writing date range of it. The references used by the manuscript can give us an idea about the name or the subject of another manuscript. The literary characteristics of the manuscript may reflect the author's success in language and literature fields. Thus, we are able to inform that the critical edition process of a manuscript requires the evaluation of substantial information at the same time which is no different from an archaeologist carefully examining an arrowhead. Therefore, whatever is the relation between History and Archeology has; Islamic sciences have the same relationship with critical edition. They are both individual sciences with methods of their own and two inseparable common sciences. Thus, without the contribution of codicology or other sciences, rewriting a manuscript on a computer does not mean making a critical edition of it. According to this information, we can define the critical edition as follows, “Critical Edition is the process of reviving of any manuscript -which belongs to Islamic civilization- with comparison of all available copies to create a single text which is closest to the text of the author and to determine the sources which this main text is based, citations such as verses, hadiths and poetry.”For studies on critical edition, the priority should be given to the texts which will contribute to this science. Before initiating critical edition, the authenticity of the author of the manuscript should be determined precisely. Of course, having a person's name on the page is not enough for determination. All copies of the manuscript must be identified. From those copies, critical edition should be based on the text that the author has personally written or prepared as a draft and other copies should be compared with this. In the absence of the author’s authentic copy, new criteria will apply. For instance, the copy written by the closest student of the author or the copy with the closest writing date takes precedence over the copies with no date. After comparison of all copies, the differences are shown in the citation.Critical Edition consists of two sections entitled as Edition (Editing/Dirāsa) and Text (Naṣṣ):The Edition section includes: the author’s name, lineage, place and date of birth, scientific life of the author and his/her prominent students, works, the authentication document which is proven that the text is belong to the author, the place of the work in the history of science, studies about the work, bibliography, literary characteristic, terms in the text, the amount and characteristics of the copies, the characteristic of the main copy which is determined as the fundamental text for the research, the rules and principles applied during the critical edition, the digital images of the first and last pages of the copies used. The Edition section is the part that demonstrates the reliability of the study. All external elements of writing are being introduced here. The importance of the text is confirmed by this edition process. Thus, the final shape of the edition section must be shaped by reading and understanding the text.In the text section, the main aim is to reach the very first text which has been written originally by the author. In this section, principles of morality and objectivity are followed. The text is preserved; additions or subtractions are not made. Cited sources at the manuscript are being found. Verses and ḥadīths are written with their sources. Poems are found in Dīwāns. Text is made legible with punctuation and pilcrow. Proper names, dates of death are written together. Page numbers in the manuscript are shown in square brackets. Some simple grammatical errors are corrected without interfering with the main text. Mostly the reason for this is the letters used for men or women. At the end of the study, a bibliography with all the resources used during the critical edition process is added. The Islamic codicology and manuscripts appear to receiving interest especially in academic studies. Considering that many manuscripts from the Ottoman Era are still waiting to be revived thus, we may come across profound critical edition works in the near future. Therefore, it is understood that individual studies related to the manuscript itself and the method of the critical edition will guide the researchers. (shrink)

This article presents a first edition of three Mandaic lamellae from the Schøyen Collection, MS 2087/10, 2087/11, and 2087/18, which are the product of the same scribe and probably constituted a single amulet. The language of the amulet differs from that of other Mandaic texts, and demonstrates unknown or rare phonetic and morphological features. In addition, several lexemes that were hitherto unattested in Mandaic have been identified. Some of the amulet’s formulae are familiar from previously published texts, but (...) in several cases the new textual evidence allows us to improve upon their readings. (shrink)

The De Officiis, written hurriedly not long before Cicero's death, has always commanded attention. It is based on the moral philosophy of the Greek Stoic Panaetius; but Cicero adapted the material to his audience in such a way that the book stands as an invaluable witness to Roman attitudes and behaviour. This new edition is based on a more systematic examination of the vast manuscript tradition than has previously been attempted, and exploits fresh evidence for the poorly represented X branch. (...) The apparatus shows with new clarity the major contribution to the emendation of the text made by scribes and readers of the later manuscripts, both in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. (shrink)

Early period (h. I-III) works are the most basic data sources in tafsīr studies. However, the related works were shaped within the conditions of the period. In this process, the literacy and schooling rate is low. It is not easy to obtain sufficient writing materials. For this reason, the information was initially transferred as a verbal, some of the original material that has been written has not survived. The information, which is usually narrated and sometimes written, can be learned through (...) the written copies of the next dates. However, there are serious time intervals between the author and the manuscript copies. This time period has led to some problems. There are such works that the author is controversial. There is such information that it is obvious that it was added later. Although some works belonging to the period were compiled from the sources of the following centuries, they were printed under the name of some people who lived in the early period, as if they gave the impression of author copy. Each of these matters has the quality to affect the nature of the information to be used as reference and the perception to be created on it. The relation of the subject with the interpretation of the Qur'ān and the fact that it is binding has a special importance, therefore, it requires knowing the formation stages of the reference source, especially in the commentary of tafsīr. In the article, the author-work relation in early tafsīr works has been tried to be processed on a sufficient number of examples with their respective dimensions.Summary: Early works in tafsīr studies are the most basic data sources. However, the related works were shaped within the conditions of the period. The data at the beginning were verbally transmitted, but some original material that has been written has not survived until nowadays. Therefore, the information about tafsīr are derived from the mainly Buhkārī (d. 256/870), Muslim (d. 261/875), Tirmidhī (d. 279/892), Nasā’ī (d. 303/915) which have tafsīr contents, and encyclopedic sources which have been contended narrations suhc as Țabarī (d. 310/923) and Ibn Abī Ḥātim (d. 327/938).Some later dated work/s belonged to people who lived in the early period alo contribute to this accumulation. However, in scientific studies it is necessary to pay attention to the harmony or difference between the author manuscripts and copies which have been survived. Because the limited possibilities of the period, the time interval between the author and the writing copy, the corrosion that occurred in the texts over time, the capacity or thought the scribe has caused the addition and reduction of the original copy of the text. Although it is rare, it is also possible to attribute the work to a well-known person of the period in order to gain the reputation of the views in the work.In this regard, the article first draws attention to the time difference between the author and the copies that have survived to the present day. Accordingly, it was emphasized that there may be works with controversial belonging to the author. Because, it may be that the names of those who expand, explain or shorten the work with additions are given as the author's name.It is shown with examples that additions to the work could be made in the time interval between the author and the manuscript that has survived to the present day. However, sometimes the difference between copies can be based on many reasons, from the ignorance of the obscene to its forgetfulness and even deliberate replacement. Even in the hadith narrations that attribute special importance to its narration, it is quite possible that the additions were made intentionally or unknowingly, even after the transition to the written period.However, this study was carried out only on tafsīr works. Because even the sampling on a limited number of tafsīr works pushes the limits of the article.In the study, the original texts of the selected works as samples such as Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Farrāʾ, Abū ʿUbayda, etc. were reviewed, and the master's and doctorate studies on the relevant works and the period, especially their editorial evaluations, were tried to be examined as much as possible. In the evaluations, the classical period sources such as Ibnu-Nadīm, Thaʻlabī and Ibn Khallikān, where tafsīr works were subject, as well as the Ottoman period like Edirnevī; Modern era works such as Brockelman and Sezgin were used. Books, articles and encyclopedia articles evaluating the manuscripts were also used.The study revealed that when the early tafsīr references were given, the author-copy relationship should be taken into consideration. Because, although some names are mentioned as mufassīr in the sources, it is controversial whether some of them convert the relevant information into written form. Because the period of the compilation is started in the period of tâbiûn in its earliest form. It is understood that even though the writing is partially activated, the tendency to convey information by narration continues from the examples given.The fact that no original work of the period reaches the present day, there is a serious time gap between the oldest manuscripts carrying the relevant information to the present day and its authors raises the issue of the reliability of the information. This is an issue to be considered in research and updating of information. Because it was seen that some information was difficult to determine the author. In addition, it has been understood that there may be additions afterwards besides the possibility of missing or misreported information due to various factors during the transfer. The fact that narration analysis has not been done properly in the context of the tafsīr science can lead to wrong conclusions in some works, if the possibility of reaching the information added later has not been taken into consideration.In addition, creating author copies from manuscripts is a challenging process with some difficulties in itself. No matter how fastidious it is shown, it should not be forgotten that the work is compiled from manuscripts, it should be known that errors may occur despite the maximum sensitivity.It is another point to consider that some information should be associated with the author and turned into a book based on the narrations in the sources of the next period. It should not be forgotten that some works were created by collecting the narrations of the next period. When the process in its formation is not taken into account, there is a possibility that the relevant information creates an early perception of false perception, as well as the belief that it expresses correct and precise information in all aspects due to its connection with the sacred. It is obvious that there is a difference between the original information from the author's pen and the quality and knowledge value of the information collected by claiming belonging to the author from later works. It is necessary to pay attention to this difference in information transfer.Therefore, during the investigation of the envoy, whose main task is to determine the will of Allah, he has to take into account the mentioned features of the early works. Reliable knowledge transfer and correct religion perception can only be achieved with this care. (shrink)

Much attention has been paid to ‘deictic shifts’ in Ancient Greek literary texts. In this article I show that similar phenomena can be found in documentary texts. Contracts in particular display unexpected shifts from the first to the third person or vice versa. Rather than constituting a narrative technique, I argue that such shifts should be related to the existence of two major types of stylization, called the ‘objective’ and the ‘subjective’ style. In objectively styled contracts, subjective intrusions (...) may occur as a result of the scribe temporarily assuming himself to be the deictic center, whereas in subjectively styled contracts objective intrusions may occur as a result of the contracting parties dictating to the scribe, and the scribe not modifying the personal references. There are also a couple of texts which display more extensive deictic alter­nations, which suggests that generic confusion between the two major types of stylization may have played a role. (shrink)