{"id":4841,"date":"2020-12-15T00:18:15","date_gmt":"2020-12-14T21:18:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/?page_id=4841"},"modified":"2026-05-31T03:27:29","modified_gmt":"2026-05-31T00:27:29","slug":"2020-1-2-shumilin","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/volumina\/2020-1-2\/2020-1-2-shumilin\/","title":{"rendered":"2020-1-2-\u0428\u0443\u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u043d"},"content":{"rendered":"


Shumilin M.<\/em> Error vs Variant: The \u201cNew Philology\u201d, Latin Studies and the \u201cBad Language\u201d [Digital resource] \/\/ Vox medii aevi. 2020 Vol. 1\u20132(6\u20137). P. 28\u201375. URL: https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/2020-1-2-shumilin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DOI: 10.24411\/2587-6619-2020-10002<\/p>\n\n\n

> Download the article<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n
\n\n\n

Mikhail Shumilin<\/h3>\n\n\n

Candidate of Sciences (Philology), Senior Research Fellow, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Moscow); Senior Research Fellow, A. M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow)
mvshumilin@mail.ru<\/p>\n\n\n

Error vs<\/em> Variant: The \u201cNew Philology\u201d, Latin Studies and the \u201cBad Language\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n

The theoretical discourses on method in the fields of medieval text studies and textual criticism of Greek and Latin classics are to a great extent mutually isolated. The widespread explanation that the nature of classical and medieval texts is fundamentally different is hardly convincing. The article attempts to help disrupt this isolation by discussing the approach of the medievalist \u201cnew philology\u201d from the perspective of primarily classicist Latin studies, which is essentially a stemmatist perspective. The advantages and disadvantages of viewing manuscript readings as completely equal variants (the perspective of the \u201cnew philology\u201d) and as the original reading vs errors (the perspective of stemmatic textual criticism) are also discussed. The first section summarizes the criticism addressed by stemmatists to the \u201cnew philology\u201d and to other \u201canti-recensionist\u201d approaches to the text. I conclude that the weak side of the \u201cnew philology\u201d is its \u201canti-recensionist\u201d rhetoric, which is based on poor familiarity with the nature of contemporary stemmatic and \u201crecensionist\u201d approaches. While pretending to pay attention to the individuality of a particular manuscript, the \u201canti-recensionist\u201d forms of the \u201cnew philology\u201d actually distort its individual nature and act disrespectfully towards it. In the second section I discuss what stemmatic approaches to the text can gain from the ideas of the \u201cnew philology\u201d. I suggest that abandoning an utilitarist approach to manuscripts discouraged by the \u201cnew philology\u201d can actually be seen as a logical consequence of the internal developments of contemporary stemmatism. In the third section I argue that it might be fruitful to apply the perspective discussed so far to the problem of editorial approach to instances of \u201cincorrect\u201d Latin in the manuscript tradition of several 6th century Latin texts (first of all, Gregory of Tours\u2019 History<\/em> and the Rule of Saint Benedict). Despite objections to this approach that have recently become popular, the \u201canomalist\u201d approach is recommended, which implies reflecting the language of the manuscripts in the edition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords: <\/em>error, Gregory of Tours, \u201cnew philology\u201d, stemmatic textual criticism, the Rule of Saint Benedict, variant<\/p>\n\n\n

FOR CITATION
\u0428\u0443\u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u043d \u041c.\u0412. <\/em>\u041e\u0448\u0438\u0431\u043a\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0432 \u0432\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043d\u0442\u0430: \u00ab\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430\u044f \u0444\u0438\u043b\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0438\u044f\u00bb, \u043b\u0430\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0438 \u00ab\u043f\u043b\u043e\u0445\u043e\u0439 \u044f\u0437\u044b\u043a\u00bb [Digital Resource] [Shumilin M.<\/em> Error vs <\/em>Variant: The \u201cNew Philology\u201d, Latin Studies and the \u201cBad Language\u201d] \/\/ Vox medii aevi. 2020 Vol. 1\u20132(6\u20137). P. 28\u201375. URL: https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/2020-1-2-shumilin<\/a><\/h5>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":4828,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","generate_page_header":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":{"0":"post-4841","1":"page","2":"type-page","3":"status-publish","5":"no-featured-image-padding"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4841"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4841\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":53047,"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4841\/revisions\/53047"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4828"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voxmediiaevi.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}