Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
HesperosStudies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

P. J. Finglass, C. Collard, and N. J. Richardson

Print publication date: 2007

Print ISBN-13: 9780199285686

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: February 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199285686.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 17 October 2019

Reconstructing Archetypes: A New Proposal and an Old Fallacy

Reconstructing Archetypes: A New Proposal and an Old Fallacy

Chapter:
(p.326) 22 Reconstructing Archetypes: A New Proposal and an Old Fallacy
Source:
Hesperos
Author(s):

Michael D. Reeve

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199285686.003.0022

In Textkritik (1927), Paul Maas's procedure for reconstructing an archetype involves the elimination first of witnesses that descend from others, then of readings that have no stemmatic weight. He gives each kind of elimination its own name: eliminatio codicum descriptorum (§4), eliminatio lectionum singularium (§8c). The distinction also explains a detail in the section where he introduces the latter: his list of the witnesses that may have lectiones singulares in his imaginary example does not include J, which has already been eliminated as a descendant of another extant witness, F (§8a). In a commentary on Textkritik (2003), Elio Montanari builds on the clause a different interpretation of the procedure that Maas prescribes. The reconstruction of an archetype, he argues, is tantamount to eliminatio codicum descriptorum, because one moves up the stemma from the bottom and eliminates witnesses at lower levels by reconstructing their ancestors (§§5.7, 13.2.2, 23.4.1, 25.5, 30.3.3, 31.3.1, 130.3). What Maas calls eliminatio lectionum singularium has no validity, he argues, except as a logical consequence of that eliminatio codicum descriptorum (§§25.5, 25.5.3, 30.3.4, 117.7.1). This chapter raises the question: is Montanari right to argue that the two kinds of eliminatio collapse into one?

Keywords:   Textkritik, Paul Mass, Elio Montanari, eliminatio codicum descriptorum, eliminatio lectionum singularium, archetype

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .