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 and general Information | |
|---|---|
| Reference Number | |
| Siglum of the version of the Seven Sages | Overlap of Versions A and L |
| Version Number | |
| Title | Sept Sages de Rome |
| Author | |
| Tradition and Lineage | |
|---|---|
| Branch of the tradition | West |
| Adapted from (version) | |
| Adapted into (version) | |
| Source for composition and adaptation information | |
| Recorded secondary versions |
|---|
| Connected manuscripts |
|---|
|
|
| Language and Composition | |
|---|---|
| Original language of version | Old French |
| Language of text | Old French |
| Regional or specific language of version | |
| Translated into (languages) | |
| Place of composition | |
| Date of composition | |
| Islamic date of composition | |
| Hebrew date of composition | |
| Source for date of composition | |
| Modern Scholarship and Editions | |
|---|---|
| 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) |
| Modern Editions | |
| Notes and Commentary | |
|---|---|
| Note | |
| Notes on motifs | |
| Notes on the frame | |
| Pattern of embedded stories in this version |
|---|
|
| Connected prints |
|---|
|
No connected prints |
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).