Overlap of Versions A and L: Difference between revisions
From The Seven Sages of Rome
Created page with "{{Version |Has Title=Sept Sages de Rome |Has Siglum=Overlap of Versions A and L |Has Branch Of Tradition=West |Has Text Language=Old French |Has Modern Research Literature=ARL..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Has Siglum=Overlap of Versions A and L | |Has Siglum=Overlap of Versions A and L | ||
|Has Branch Of Tradition=West | |Has Branch Of Tradition=West | ||
|Has Original Language Of Version=Old French | |||
|Has Text Language=Old French | |Has Text Language=Old French | ||
|Has Modern Research Literature=ARLIMA: Les sept sages; Berne-Aïache (1966); Coco (2016 | |Has Modern Research Literature=ARLIMA: Les sept sages; Berne-Aïache (1966); Coco (2016); Foehr-Janssens (1994); Le Roux de Lincy (1838); Paris (1876); Runte (1971); Runte, Society of the Seven Sages Portal (2014); Runte, Wikeley, Farrell (1984); Speer (1981) | ||
}} | }} | ||
The texts attached to this version are those that are the subject of scholarly debate as to their placement in either Version A or Version L. These texts bear a range of distinctive differences, varying from text to text, that betray a cross-pollination between the two textual versions. Sometimes this is typified as part of a text copied verbatim from A, and other parts from L; in other cases, these texts adhere primarily to one tradition, but then borrow portions or embedded stories from the other. I am also including in this group all texts that Runte describes as having sixteen or seventeen stories, but otherwise following the Version A pattern, when those additional stories are those typical for Version L's distinctive pattern (''Noverca'' and ''Filia''). | The texts attached to this version are those that are the subject of scholarly debate as to their placement in either Version A or Version L. These texts bear a range of distinctive differences, varying from text to text, that betray a cross-pollination between the two textual versions. Sometimes this is typified as part of a text copied verbatim from A, and other parts from L; in other cases, these texts adhere primarily to one tradition, but then borrow portions or embedded stories from the other. I am also including in this group all texts that Runte describes as having sixteen or seventeen stories, but otherwise following the Version A pattern, when those additional stories are those typical for Version L's distinctive pattern (''[[Noverca]]'' and ''[[Filia]]''). | ||
Revision as of 12:21, 23 May 2024
Identification & General Information
Title
Tradition & Lineage
Branch of the tradition
Recorded Secondary Versions
Connected Manuscripts
| Has Language | Has Location | Has Date Range Of Production | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brussel Koninklijke Bibliotheek 9245 | Old French | Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek | 1300 - 1350 |
| Cambridge University Library MS Gg.6.28 | Old French | Cambridge University Library | 1275 - 1300 |
| Paris Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal 3354 | Old French | Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal | 1400 - 1500 |
| Paris Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal 3516 | Old French | Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal | 1250 - 1300 |
Modern Scholarship & Editions
The texts attached to this version are those that are the subject of scholarly debate as to their placement in either Version A or Version L. These texts bear a range of distinctive differences, varying from text to text, that betray a cross-pollination between the two textual versions. Sometimes this is typified as part of a text copied verbatim from A, and other parts from L; in other cases, these texts adhere primarily to one tradition, but then borrow portions or embedded stories from the other. I am also including in this group all texts that Runte describes as having sixteen or seventeen stories, but otherwise following the Version A pattern, when those additional stories are those typical for Version L's distinctive pattern (Noverca and Filia).