English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This article reviews the terminological framework used 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’s 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’s 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.

Work, Version, Text and Scriptum: High Medieval Manuscript Terminology in the Aftermath of the New Philology