Usus scribendi or vitia codicis byzantini? Is transmitted punctuation relevant to the reception of the text?
• It is only in the last few decades that studies on Byzantine texts based on their manuscript tradition have considered specific tendencies of Byzantine scribes with regard to punctuation, orthography, accentuation and enclisis, as well as the joining of words. Tendencies previously regarded as vitia codicis are today recognized as part of the oral delivery of the text and important for its understanding. Those related to accentuation and orthography were included in the critical editions at an early stage, but this has not been the case with the punctuation signs.

Granted that they should be taken into account, is it helpful to retain exactly the same signs in a critical edition?
• No, especially if one considers the fact that punctuation theory and signs have gone through various modifications concerning their number, position and range of functions in the course of time, not to mention slight variations in punctuation practice between scribes.

Do the transmitted punctuation signs suffice for the modern reader? How can they be implemented in the editions? In case of diverging witnesses to the same text, which version should be preferred?
• These and other questions prompted the organization of a workshop and the papers presented there have now been collected in the forthcoming volume:

Introduction: The main subjects of the workshop are presented in summary fashion and emphasis is placed on the significance of Byzantine punctuation as evidenced directly (by the statements of the Byzantine authors) and indirectly (by the texts themselves) after paleographic and philological inspection. A modern edition must take into consideration not only the intention of the Byzantine authors and the transmission of their work but also the interests of the modern reader.
Charalambos Dendrinos: After a presentation of the scribal habits of two Palaiologan scholars and friends (Makarios Makres and Joseph Bryennios) on the basis of their autograph manuscript, as well as some comments on the transliteration of Latin texts into Greek, this paper discusses the advantages of an electronic edition.
Christian Gastgeber: On the basis of chancellery copies of the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (14th/15th c.), the author examines the transmitted punctuation and comments on guidelines for editorial practice as well as on decisions of general principle for textual reconstruction.
Antonia Giannouli: The punctuation of rhetorical works (Leon Balianites, 12th c.), as transmitted in a manuscript copied by an intellectual scribe less than a half century after its composition, proves to be often more rhythmic than syntactic, a fact which the editor cannot neglect, though he is obliged to make concessions (to signs and other layout options established in the editions).
Karin Metzler: The author demonstrates the importance of Bible-oriented writings, other than the Bible itself (such as exegetical and homiletic literature), for the decoding of Byzantine texts and discusses the question as to how the material can be organized in an edition followed by a commentary.
Jacques Noret: By means of examples from one manuscript by a scholar-scribe (Patriarch Gregorios Kyprios, 13th c.) the contributor presents his “signes graphiques” and orthographic habits and offers suggestions regarding editorial practice.
Sebastiano Panteghini: On the basis of the punctuation system, transmitted in a contemporary copy of a work (Nikephoros Xanthopoulos’s Historia ecclesiastica, 14th c.) copied in court circles, the contributor defines its place in the history of Byzantine punctuation and presents his decisions as regards the implementation of the transmitted system in the planned edition.
Diether Roderich Reinsch: Starting from the fact that Byzantine literature was meant for reading aloud, it is shown that the punctuation practices of Byzantine scribes (and the authors themselves) are meaningful and relevant for the understanding of the texts, an insight which suggests new edition principles. In this respect, the contributor explains his policy decisions on the basis of examples from texts transmitted in autograph or trustworthy witnesses.
Elisabeth Schiffer: The tendencies of two educated scribes as evidenced in their copies of homiletic literature, which were made close to the lifetime of the author (Patriarch Germanos II of Constantinople, 13th c.), are treated in relation to some individual problems regarding the reconstruction of the text.
Raimondo Tocci: The contributor comments on the punctuation signs in a group of manuscripts copied by Palaiologan professional scribes and calligraphers (14th-c.) contrasting one manuscript with another, and discusses problems of editorial technique.
• As demonstrated in this volume, the review and explanation of the idiosyncrasies of the Byzantine scribes are crucial issues not only for the reconstruction of Byzantine texts and the editorial technique, but also for their literary interpretation.

For further information about the publication of the forthcoming volume and future workshops, please contact us.

The next workshop will focus on the topic of Edition and Interpretation. Venue and date will be announced in due course. If you are interested in participating, you are invited to fill in the attached form and leave it on the desk of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.

You may also send an e-mail to one of the following email addresses:

Antonia Giannouli: agiannou@ucy.ac.cy
Elisabeth Schiffer: Elisabeth.Schiffer@oeaw.ac.at

Send or fax to your local bookseller or to: