0.9 Textual criticism & Textual transmission  (Page 2/5)

P. Maas, Textual Criticism, transl. B. Flower (1958)

Also valuable for judiciousness and lucidity is:

R. J. Tarrant, “Classical Latin Literature” in D. Greetham, ed., Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research (1995): 95-148

You should be aware, however, that the classic theory is not the only theory of textual criticism. For medieval or non-literary texts, the most important theoretical work is:

H. Kantorowicz, Einführung in die Textkritik. Systematische Darstellung der textkritischen Grundsätze fur Philologen und Juristen (1921)

Postmodern textual theory, which concentrates on reception rather than reconstruction, is also valuable, even for classicists. Among the most useful works are:

G. Bornstein and R. Williams, eds., Palimpsest : editorial theory in the humanities (1993)

D. Greetham, Theories of the Text (1999)

J. McGann, A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (ed. 2, 1992)

---, The Textual Condition (1991)

Other major theoretical works you may encounter include:

J. Bédier, La tradition manuscrite du Lai de l'ombre : réflexions sur l'art d'éditer les anciens textes (1970)

L. Havet, Manuel de critique verbale appliquée aux textes latins (1911)

H. Quentin, Essais de critique textuelle (ecdotique) (1926)

Textbooks of practical textual criticism are not reliable, but are occasionally useful:

J. Willis, Latin Textual Criticism (1972). Aside from the fundamental error of equating textual criticism with emendation, the book is entertaining and gives practical exercises in emending texts without assuming (or supplying) any knowledge of their history or manuscripts.

W. M. Lindsay, An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation, Based on the Text of Plautus (1896). Lindsay’s work (and there is a great deal of it) is rarely exciting, almost always (with the exception of his book on Plautine meter) useful and clear. This book is exactly what it says it is—discussing varieties of correction, largely involving palaeographical errors.

The one truly great work of this kind for Latin is old, but still well worth reading:

J. N. Madvig, Adversaria Critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos (1871-1884). Madvig is a truly great scholar, often undervalued because he did not go in for the pyrotechnics and polemics of a Bentley or Housman. He is always worth reading.

2. the history of texts (recension)

Textual criticism is generally divided into two (circularly overlapping) parts: recension is the assembly, organization, and assessment of the manuscript (and sometimes other) evidence for the text in question, while emendation is the process of judging whether that transmitted text is what the author wrote and attempting to correct the transmitted text on the basis of style, history, grammar, or other criteria. Textual critics who emphasize recension and are wary of emendation are often described as conservative; textual critics who emphasize emendation and pay little attention to the manuscripts and transmission may be described as radical. These descriptions do not in fact map onto the political sensibilities of the critics of various types, and in any case responsible editors are close to the middle of the spectrum, with greater or lesser emphasis on recension or emendation, but making full use of both. Different texts require different approaches: one can not edit Catullus or Propertius conservatively, because the manuscript evidence is so poor; one can not be a radical emender in editing Virgil or Horace, because the manuscript evidence is so good. But even the manuscripts of Propertius and sometimes right, and those of Virgil sometimes wrong. But editors vary widely in their beliefs about the possibility of true conjecture and about the fallibility of the human intellect. A truly radical critic, such as Bentley or Housman or Shackleton Bailey, is supremely confident in his own genius, and believes that he knows Latin better than the scribes (not unreasonable) and better than the author he is editing (less reasonable). A conservative critic can often be too cautious in correcting passages that are obviously corrupt.