Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Work, version, text and scriptum: high medieval manuscript terminology in the aftermath of the new philology

Tjamke Snijders UGent (2013) DIGITAL PHILOLOGY : A JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL CULTURES. 2(2). p.266-296
abstract
This article reviews the terminological framework to describe manuscripts. The Lachmannian terminology allows scholars to classify manuscripts as versions or variants of a work on a purely textual basis, but lacks a rigid designator to indicate a (part of a) manuscript as a unit of text and material considerations. Conversely, scholars who adopt Dagenais’ solution to renounce the work and concentrate on the material scriptum gain a rigid designator, but threaten to lose the ability to classify manuscripts at all. Proceeding from a case study, the article argues that the twelfth-century view of a work’s ontological status enables medievalists to keep classifying their scripta on both textual and material grounds. It explores the possibility of using Dagenais’ scriptum as the foundation for a Neo-Lachmannian terminological framework that allows scholars to study manuscript variance and materiality without losing the ability to classify them.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
Manuscript studies, Terminological framework, New Philology
journal title
DIGITAL PHILOLOGY : A JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL CULTURES
volume
2
issue
2
pages
266 - 296
ISSN
2162-9544
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A2
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
VABB id
c:vabb:351268
VABB type
VABB-1
id
3028694
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-3028694
date created
2012-10-15 09:16:48
date last changed
2015-06-17 10:16:50
@article{3028694,
  abstract     = {This article reviews the terminological framework to describe manuscripts. The Lachmannian terminology allows scholars to classify manuscripts as versions or variants of a work on a purely textual basis, but lacks a rigid designator to indicate a (part of a) manuscript as a unit of text and material considerations. Conversely, scholars who adopt Dagenais{\textquoteright} solution to renounce the work and concentrate on the material scriptum gain a rigid designator, but threaten to lose the ability to classify manuscripts at all. Proceeding from a case study, the article argues that the twelfth-century view of a work{\textquoteright}s ontological status enables medievalists to keep classifying their scripta on both textual and material grounds. It explores the possibility of using Dagenais{\textquoteright} scriptum as the foundation for a Neo-Lachmannian terminological framework that allows scholars to study manuscript variance and materiality without losing the ability to classify them.},
  author       = {Snijders, Tjamke},
  issn         = {2162-9544},
  journal      = {DIGITAL PHILOLOGY : A JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL CULTURES},
  keyword      = {Manuscript studies,Terminological framework,New Philology},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {266--296},
  title        = {Work, version, text and scriptum: high medieval manuscript terminology in the aftermath of the new philology},
  volume       = {2},
  year         = {2013},
}

Chicago
Snijders, Tjamke. 2013. “Work, Version, Text and Scriptum: High Medieval Manuscript Terminology in the Aftermath of the New Philology.” Digital Philology : A Journal of Medieval Cultures 2 (2): 266–296.
APA
Snijders, T. (2013). Work, version, text and scriptum: high medieval manuscript terminology in the aftermath of the new philology. DIGITAL PHILOLOGY : A JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL CULTURES, 2(2), 266–296.
Vancouver
1.
Snijders T. Work, version, text and scriptum: high medieval manuscript terminology in the aftermath of the new philology. DIGITAL PHILOLOGY : A JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL CULTURES. 2013;2(2):266–96.
MLA
Snijders, Tjamke. “Work, Version, Text and Scriptum: High Medieval Manuscript Terminology in the Aftermath of the New Philology.” DIGITAL PHILOLOGY : A JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL CULTURES 2.2 (2013): 266–296. Print.