Editing

doi:10.1017/9781108363303.011

Chapter 10 - Editing

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024

Samuel J. Huskey and

Robert A. Kaster

Edited by

Roy Gibson and

Christopher Whitton

Show author details

Roy Gibson: Affiliation:
University of Durham
Christopher Whitton: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter considers the concept of an ‘edition’ from two different perspectives. In the first half, Bob Kaster writes as an editor preparing a critical edition for conventional publication, first retrieving the relevant data - chiefly, the versions preserved in manuscripts - then analysing them to form a theory of the text’s transmission that began with the author’s original copy. Much attention is given to the ‘stemmatic method’, used to sift variations among the transmitted versions, aiming to establish the archetype - the latest copy of the text absent which no other copies would survive - or to show that no archetype can be reconstructed, or even to show that the notion of an ‘author’s original’ is misconceived. In the second half, Sam Huskey writes as the director of the Digital Latin Library, a project that aims to move critical editions of Latin texts to a digital paradigm. To demonstrate that such a transition does not render obsolete the methods and skills described in the first part of the chapter, but rather depends on them, traditional editions are described as databases of information encoded visually (e.g. with typography and layout). The experiences of two editors making this transition close this part of the chapter.

Keywords

archetype stemmatic method variants / innovations critical apparatus digital edition edition as database

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 516 - 562

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108363303.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apollon, D. and Bélisle, C. (2014) ‘The digital fate of the critical apparatus’, in Apollon, Bélisle and Régnier 2014, 81–113.Google Scholar

Apollon, D., Bélisle, C. and Régnier, P., eds. (2014) Digital Critical Editions, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar

Bagnall, R. S. and Heath, S. (2018) ‘Roman studies and digital resources’, JRS 108: 171–89.Google Scholar

Billerbeck, M. and Somazzi, M. (2009) Repertorium der Konjekturen in den Seneca-Tragödien, Leiden.CrossRef Google Scholar

Blackwell, C. and Smith, N. (2014) ‘The Canonical Text Services protocol, version 5.0.rc.1’, http://cite-architecture.github.io/cts_spec/.Google Scholar

Bouquet, M. and Méniel, B., eds. (2011) Servius et sa réception de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Rennes.Google Scholar

Casali, S. and Stok, F., eds. (2008) Servio: stratificazioni esegetiche e modelli culturali / Servius: Exegetical Stratifications and Cultural Models, Collection Latomus 317, Brussels.Google Scholar

Conte, G. B., ed. (2009) P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis, Berlin.Google Scholar

Cornell, T. J., ed. (2013) The Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols., Oxford.Google Scholar

Courtney, E. (1981) ‘The formation of the text of Vergil’, BICS 28: 13–29.Google Scholar

Courtney, E. (2002–3) ‘The formation of the text of Vergil – again’, BICS 46: 189–94.Google Scholar

Damon, C. (2015) Studies on the Text of Caesar’s ‘Bellum civile’, Oxford.CrossRef Google Scholar

Damon, C. (2016) ‘Beyond variants: some digital desiderata for the critical apparatus of ancient Greek and Latin texts’, in Driscoll and Pierazzo 2016, 201–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

Damon, C. (2018) ‘The editor(s) in the classroom’, https://classicalstudies.org/annual-meeting/149/abstract/editors-classroom.Google Scholar

Del Turco, R. Roselli, (2016) ‘The battle we forgot to fight: should we make a case for digital editions?’, in Driscoll and Pierazzo 2016, 219–38.Google Scholar

De Nonno, M. (2010) ‘Transmissional history and textual criticism’, in Barchiesi, A. and Scheidel, W., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies (Oxford), 31–46.Google Scholar

Delvigo, M. L. (2011) Servio e la poesia della scienza, Pisa.Google Scholar

Deufert, M. (2017) Prolegomena zur Editio Teubneriana des Lukrez, Berlin.CrossRef Google Scholar

Deufert, M. (2019) Titus Lucretius Carus. De rerum natura libri vi, Berlin.Google Scholar

Dolveck, F. (2015) Paulini Nolani carmina. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 21, Turnhout.Google Scholar

Driscoll, M. J. and Pierazzo, E., eds. (2016) Digital Scholarly Editing, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Dunston, A. J. (1952) ‘Two manuscripts of Suetonius’ De vita Caesarum’, CQ 2: 146–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Elliott, T., Bodard, G., Cayless, H. et al. (2006–17) EpiDoc: Epigraphic Documents in TEI XML, http://epidoc.sf.net.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. (1948 and 1949) ‘Review of Rand et al. 1946’, JRS 38: 131–43, 39: 145–54.Google Scholar Google Scholar

Fraistat, N. and Flanders, J., eds. (2013) The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Franzini, G., Andorfer, P. and Zaytseva, K. (2016–) Catalogue of Digital Editions: The Web Application, https://dig-ed-cat.acdh.oeaw.ac.at/.CrossRef Google Scholar

Garcea, A., Lhommé, M.-K. and Vallat, D., eds. (2016) Fragments d’érudition: Servius et le savoir antique, Spudasmata 168, Hildesheim.Google Scholar

Goffaux, B. (2003) ‘Mémoire et citation poétique dans l’Histoire Auguste’, REL 81: 215–31.Google Scholar

Goold, G. P. (1970) ‘Servius and the Helen episode’, HSPh 74: 101–68.Google Scholar

Gotoff, H. C. (1971) The Text of Lucan in the Ninth Century, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Håkanson, L. (1979) ‘Problems of textual criticism and interpretation in Lucan’s De bello civili’, PCPhS 25: 26–52.Google Scholar

Haslam, M. W. (1978) ‘Apollonius Rhodius and the papyri’, ICS 3: 47–73.Google Scholar

Heslin, P. (2016) ‘The dream of a universal variorum: digitizing the commentary tradition’, in Kraus, C. A. and Stray, C. A., eds., Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre (Oxford), 494–511.Google Scholar

Heyworth, S. J. (2007a) Cynthia: A Companion to the Text of Propertius, Oxford.Google Scholar

Heyworth, S. J., ed. (2007b) Sexti Properti elegos, Oxford.Google Scholar

Housman, A. E., ed. (1926) M. Annaei Lucani Belli Civilis libri decem, Oxford.Google Scholar

Huitfeldt, C. (2014) ‘Markup technology and textual scholarship’, in Apollon, Bélisle and Régnier 2014, 157–78.Google Scholar

Hunter, R. and Oakley, S. P., eds. (2016) Latin Literature and Its Transmission: Papers in Honour of Michael Reeve, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Huskey, S. J. and Cayless, H. (2018) Guidelines for Encoding Critical Editions for the Library of Digital Latin Texts, https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html.Google Scholar

Ihm, M., ed. (1907) C. Suetoni Tranquilli De vita Caesarum libri viii, Leipzig.Google Scholar

Kaster, R. A. (2010) Studies on the Text of Macrobius’ ‘Saturnalia’, Oxford.Google Scholar

Kaster, R. A. (2016a) Studies on the Text of Suetonius’ ‘De uita Caesarum’, Oxford.Google Scholar

Kaster, R. A. (2016b) ‘Making sense of Suetonius in the twelfth century’, in Grafton, A. and Most, G., eds., Canonical Texts and Scholarly Practices: A Global Comparative Approach (Cambridge) 110–35.Google Scholar

Keeline, T. (2017) ‘The apparatus criticus in the digital age’, CJ 112: 342–63.Google Scholar

Keil, H., ed. (1855–80) Grammatici Latini. 7 vols., with a supplement edited by Hagen, H., Leipzig.Google Scholar

Kiss, D. (2013, 2017) Catullus Online: An Online Repertory of Conjectures on Catullus, www.catullusonline.org.Google Scholar

Langlois, P. (1997) ‘Le texte d’Ausone en face de la théorie des “variantes d’auteur”’, Latomus 56: 142–53.Google Scholar

Lloyd-Jones, H. and Wilson, N. G. (1990) Sophoclea: Studies on the Text of Sophocles, Oxford.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lloyd-Jones, H. and Wilson, N. G. (1997) Sophocles: Second Thoughts, Göttingen.Google Scholar

Maas, P. (1927) Textkritik, Leipzig.Google Scholar

Maas, P. (1957) Textual Criticism, Oxford.Google Scholar

Malaspina, E. (2015) ‘In Anglia invenitur: come Guglielmo di Malmesbury leggeva e soprattutto correggeva Cicerone nel XII secolo’, in De Paolis, P., ed., Dai papyri al XX secolo: l’eternità di Cicerone, Studi e ricerche del Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia 13 (Cassino) 31–52.Google Scholar

Malaspina, E. (2019) ‘A tradição manuscrita do Lucullus de Cícero: do Corpus Leidense a William de Malmesbury e à fortuna no período humanístico’, in Cardoso, I. T. and Martinho, M., eds., Cícero: obra e recepção (Coimbra), 19–53.Google Scholar

Marinone, N. (1946) Elio Donato, Macrobio, e Servio, Vercelli. Reprinted in N. Marinone, Analecta graecolatina (Bologna, 1990), 193–264.Google Scholar

Marshall, P. K. (1997) Servius and Commentary on Virgil, Asheville, NC.Google Scholar

Marshall, P. K. (2000) ‘The Spangenberg Bifolium of Servius’, RFIC 128: 192–209.Google Scholar

McGann, J. (2013) ‘Coda: why digital textual scholarship matters; or, philology in a new key’, in Fraistat, N. and Flanders, J., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship (Cambridge), 274–88.Google Scholar

Munk Olsen, B. (1982–2009) L’Étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, 4 vols., Paris.Google Scholar

Murgia, C. E. (1975) Prolegomena to Servius 5: The Manuscripts, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Murgia, C. E. and Kaster, R. A., eds. (2018) Serviani in Vergili Aeneidos libros ix–xii commentarii, Oxford.Google Scholar

Mynors, R. A. B., ed. (1958) C. Valerii Catulli Carmina, Oxford.Google Scholar

Pasquali, G. (1929) ‘Review of Maas 1927’, Gnomon 5: 417–35, 498–521.Google Scholar

Pasquali, G. (1971) Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, 2nd edn, Florence.Google Scholar

Pellegrin, E. (1975–2010) Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: Catalogue, 3 vols., Paris.Google Scholar

Pellizzari, A. (2003) Servio: storia, cultura e istituzioni nell’opera di un grammatico tardoantico, Florence.Google Scholar

Pichler, A. and Bruvik, T. M. (2014) ‘Digital critical editing’, in Apollon, Bélisle and Régnier 2014, 179–99.Google Scholar

Preud’homme, L. (1902) ‘Première étude sur l’histoire du texte de Suétone, de vita Caesarum’, Bulletin de la classe des lettres et sciences morales et politique et de la classe des beaux-arts 3: 299–328.Google Scholar

Rand, E. K. et al., eds. (1946) Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum editionis Harvardianae volumen 2: Quod in Aeneidos libros i–ii explanationes continet, Lancaster, PA.Google Scholar

Reeve, M. D. (1969) ‘Author’s variants in Longus?’, PCPhS 15: 75–85.Google Scholar

Reeve, M. D. (1985) ‘Archetypes’, Sileno 11:193–201.Google Scholar

Reeve, M. D. (1986) ‘Stemmatic method: “Qualcosa che non funziona”?’, in Ganz, P., ed., The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture, Bibliologia 3 (Turnhout), 57–9.Google Scholar

Reeve, M. D. (2000) ‘Cuius in usum? Recent and future editing’, JRS 90: 196–206.Google Scholar

Reeve, M. D. (2007) ‘Reconstructing archetypes: a new proposal and an old fallacy’, in Finglass, P. J., Collard, C. and Richardson, N. J., eds., Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on His Seventieth Birthday (Oxford), 326–40.Google Scholar

Reynolds, L. D., ed. (1983a) Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford.Google Scholar

Reynolds, L. D. (1983b) ‘Velleius Paterculus’, in Reynolds 1983a: 431–3.Google Scholar

Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G. (2013) Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 4th edn, Oxford.Google Scholar

Sahle, P. (2013) Digitale Editionsformen: Zum Umgang mit der Überlieferung unter den Bedingungen des Medienwandels. Teil II: Befunde, Theorie und Methodik, Norderstedt.Google Scholar

Sahle, P. (2016) ‘What is a scholarly digital edition?’, in Driscoll and Pierazzo 2016, 19–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Santoro, A. (1946) ‘Il Servio Danielino e Donato’, SIFC 20: 79–104.Google Scholar

Savage, J. J. H. (1925) ‘The scholia in the Virgil of Tours, Bernensis 165’, HSPh 36: 91–164.Google Scholar

Savage, J. J. H. (1934) ‘The manuscripts of Servius’s commentary on Virgil’, HSPh 45: 157–204.Google Scholar

Skemer, D. (2013) Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library, 2 vols., Princeton.Google Scholar

Smith, N. (2009) ‘Citation in classical studies’, Digital Humanities Quarterly 3.1 (n.pag.).Google Scholar

Stocker, A. F. et al., eds. (1965) Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum editionis Harvardianae volumen 3: Quod in Aeneidos libros iii–v explanationes continet, Oxford.Google Scholar

Stok, F., ed. (2013) Totus scientia plenus: percorsi della esegesi virgiliana antica, Pisa.Google Scholar

Stover, J. A., ed. (in preparation) The Oxford Guide to the Transmission of the Latin Classics, Oxford.Google Scholar

Tarrant, R. J. (1983) ‘Lucan’, in Reynolds 1983a, 213–18.Google Scholar

Tarrant, R. J. (1995) ‘Classical Latin literature’, in Greetham, D. C., ed., Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research (New York), 95–148.Google Scholar

Tarrant, R. J. (2016) Texts, Editors, and Readers: Methods and Problems in Latin Textual Criticism, Cambridge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tiepmar, J. and Heyer, G. (2017) ‘An overview of Canonical Text Services’, Linguistics and Literature Studies 5: 132–48.CrossRef Google Scholar

Timpanaro, S. (1986) Per la storia della filologia virgiliana antica, Rome.Google Scholar

Timpanaro, S. (2001) Virgilianisti antichi e tradizione indiretta, Florence.Google Scholar

Timpanaro, S. (2005) The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method (ed. and trans. G. W. Most), Chicago.Google Scholar

Wardle, D. (2014) Suetonius: Life of Augustus, Oxford.Google Scholar

West, M. L. (1973) Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts, Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Wills, G. (1992) Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America, New York.Google Scholar

Wilson, N. G. (2015) Herodotea: Studies on the Text of Herodotus, Oxford.Google Scholar

Zetzel, J. E. G. (2004) ‘In Rand’s margins – from Fraenkel’s review to a post-modern Servius’. Paper presented in the panel ‘Whither the APA/Harvard Servius?’ at the 135th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association (San Francisco, 5 January 2004), www.academia.edu/35776337/In_Rands_Margins_From_Fraenkels_Review_to_a_Post-modern_Servius.Google Scholar

Zetzel, J. E. G. (2005) Marginal Scholarship and Textual Deviance: The ‘Commentarium Cornuti’ and the Early Scholia on Persius. BICS Supplement 84, London.Google Scholar

Zetzel, J. E. G. (2018) Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce, Oxford.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, M., ed. (2012) Apulei Metamorphoseon libri xi, Oxford.Google Scholar

Book contents

Chapter 10 - Editing

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive