Bergk is the second author quoted as an authority on the history of scholarship in this area.\u00a0 He writes so long ago that he uses “Capiteln” rather than “Kapiteln”!\u00a0 But I think it is interesting to see what this foundational author on the subject actually says.<\/p>\n
I have scanned and corrected his text.\u00a0 Since I\u00a0did not understand\u00a0some of the German (and didn’t understand ‘Musterst\u00fcrke’!), I will give that first, and then my English translation.\u00a0 I have omitted the Greek text of Polybius quoted, purely because I cannot bring myself to type it in.<\/p>\n
After a discussion of writers who give the number of lines of their works (Theopompus, Josephus), Bergk begins p.132 with the heading \u201cInhaltsangaben\u201d (\u201cContent information\u201d) and proceeds as follows:<\/p>\n
\nSp\u00e4ter war es ganz gew\u00f6hnlich, einer\u00a0 Schrift oder jedem einzelnen Buche eines gr\u00f6sseren Werkes eine summarische Uebersicht vorauszuschicken oder auch den Inhalt der einzelnen Abschnitte in Randbemerkungen oder Ueberschriften kurz zusammenzufassen und so f\u00fcr die Bequemlichkeit der Leser zu sorgen.\u00a0 Polybius hatte dies im Anfange seines Geschichtswerkes regelm\u00e4ssig getan, sp\u00e4ter, weil er wahrnahm, dass die Abschreiber\u00a0 diese Summarien geringsch\u00e4tzig behandelten und aus Bequemlichkeit meist wegliessen, zog er es vor, die einleitende Uebersicht mit der Darstellung selbst zu verbinden, um sie so gegen die Willk\u00fcr der Schreiber zu sch\u00fctzen. [124] So hat auch Diodor solche Inhaltsangaben selbst hinzugef\u00fcgt, die f\u00fcr die Kritik nicht unwichtig sind, wahrscheinlich auch Athen\u00e4us, w\u00e4hrend sie anderw\u00e4rts von fremder Hand herr\u00fchren m\u00f6gen; bei nachgelassenen Schriften mag der Herausgeber daf\u00fcr Sorge getragen haben. [125] Wie gedankenlos und nachl\u00e4ssig die Abschreiber mit der Ueberlieferung verfuhren, erkennt man aus der kleinen, gew\u00f6hnlich dem Aristoteles zugeschriebenen Abhandlung \u00fcber die Eleatischen Philosophen; hier war offenbar in der Ueberschrift jedes Abschnittes der Name des betreffenden Philosophen von dem Verfasser selbst hinzugef\u00fcgt; diese Ueberschriften wurden sp\u00e4ter als entbehrlich weggelassen, und da der Verfasser die Gewohnheit hat, der K\u00fcrze halber im Texte selbst niemals den Namen des Philosophen, dessen System er kritisirt, zu nennen, entstand eine heillose Verwirrung, indem sp\u00e4tere Abschreiber nach Gutd\u00fcnken die unentbehrlichen Ueberschriften erg\u00e4nzten. Indem man den Inhalt der einzelnen Abschnitte kurz angab, bildete sich ganz von selbst die Eintheilung der B\u00fccher in Capitel, [126] die wir besonders in gelehrten Arbeiten und Sammelwerken antreffen, wo die einzelnen Abschnitte lose an einander gereiht waren. Auch pflegte man wohl die Quellen, die man benutzt hatte, anzugeben, wie z. B. Parthenius in seinen erotischen Erz\u00e4hlungen, wo die neuere Kritik mit Unrecht Anstoss genommen hat, und Antoninus Liberalis in seinen Metamorphosen.<\/p>\n
124. Vielleicht f\u00fcgte er aber auch hier noch die prographai\\<\/em> hinzu, denn die Worte des Polybius XI, I sind nicht ganz klar: … hin ist entweder ou) mo\/non prographaj<\/em> zu lesen, oder kai\\<\/em> hinter a)lla\\<\/em> zu tilgen. Dass die Sitte der prographai\\<\/em> bei den Historikern vor Polybius allgemein \u00fcblich war, geht alls diesen Worten klar hervor; Polybius hatte dies Verfahren in den ersten f\u00fcnf (zehn!) B\u00fcchern, wie er sagt, beobachtet, aber seine Klage \u00fcber die Nachl\u00e4ssigkeit der Abschreiber ist nur zu begr\u00fcndet, es hat sich davon keine Spur erhalten. Die Neueren behandeln diese f\u00fcr das Verst\u00e4ndniss sehr dienlichen Summarien und Randschriften meist zu geringsch\u00e4tzig, ja aus Hyperkritik hat man dieselben sogar da, wo sie handschriftlich erhalten sind, getilgt.<\/p>\n
125. So r\u00fchren im Lucrez die Randschriften wahrscheinlich von Cicero her.<\/p>\n
126. Denn kephalaion<\/em> bedeutet ja eben die summarische Angabe des Inhaltes, welche am Rande vermerkt war. Kephalaia<\/em> oder tmh\/mata<\/em> werden namentlich bei den Erkl\u00e4rern des Aristoteles sowie des Hippokrates (Schol. Hippocr. Dietz 11, 3), dann auch bei Photius in der Bibliothek erw\u00e4hnt. Ebenso bei den Lateinern, Symmach. Ep. X, 27 citirt: Seneca lib. IV de benef. cap. XI<\/em>. Cassiodor Arithm. I: Josephus in libro I antiquitatum titulo IX<\/em>. In der alten c1assischen Zeit sind dagegen kephalaia Musterst\u00fcrke, die man aus den classischen Schriftstellern ausw\u00e4hlt, Plato Leg. VII, 810.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Which I render as:<\/p>\n
\nLater, it was quite common to precede a text, or any single book of a larger work, with a summary overview, or also to summarise briefly the contents of each section in marginal notes or headings, and thus to provide for the convenience of the reader.\u00a0 Polybius did this systematically at the beginning of his historical work, but later, because he perceived that the copyist of these summaries treated them with disdain and often omitted them for convenience, he preferred to link the introductory overview with the full text itself, thereby to protect against the whims of the transcriber. [124] So likewise Diodorus added himself such content information, which is not unimportant for critical studies, and probably Athenaeus also, although these may also derive from a alien hand; in posthumous works the editors may have taken on this task. [125] How thoughtlessly and carelessly the copyist proceeded with the transmission, is evident from the small treatise, usually attributed to Aristotle, on the Eleatic philosophers; here there was obviously in the heading of each section, the name of the philosopher, added by the author himself; these titles were later dropped as unnecessary, and since the author has the habit of brevity, half the time the name of the philosopher whose system he criticizes is not named, leaving a hopeless confusion, which was supplemented at will by later copyists with the indispensable headings. By indicating the contents of each section, the division of books into chapters arose automatically, [126] which we find especially in scholarly works and compilations, where the individual sections were loosely linked to one another. Also they were probably used to indicate the sources that had been used, as in e.g. Parthenius in his erotic stories, where more recent critical studies have wrongly objected to them, and Antoninus Liberalis in his Metamorphoses.<\/p>\n
124.\u00a0 Perhaps he also added the prographai, for the words of Polybius XI, 1, are not quite clear: \u2026 either we should read ou) mo\/non prographaj<\/em> or place kai\\<\/em> behind a)lla\\<\/em>. That the custom of prographai<\/em> was common among the historians before Polybius is clear from these words; Polybius had observed the custom in his first five (ten!) books, as he says, but his complaint about the negligence of the copyists is only too well founded, and his manuscripts retain no trace of them.\u00a0 Modern writers mostly disdain these summaries and marginal notes, which are very important for understanding, indeed treated them with hypercriticism, even when they are preserved in the manuscripts.<\/p>\n
125.\u00a0 Thus the marginal notes in Lucretius are probably due to Cicero.<\/p>\n
126.\u00a0 Because kephalaion<\/em> means equally the summary indication of contents, which were noted in the margin.\u00a0 Kephalaia<\/em> or tmh\/mata<\/em> were mentioned in the commentators on Aristotle and Hippocrates (Schol. Hippoc. ed. Dietz, 11, 3), and also by Photius in the Bibliotheca. Likewise among the Latin writers, Symmach.\u00a0 Ep.\u00a0 X, 27 cites:\u00a0 Seneca lib.\u00a0 IV\u00a0 de benef. cap.\u00a0 XI<\/em>.\u00a0 Cassiodorus\u00a0 Arithm.\u00a0 I:\u00a0 Josephus in libro I\u00a0 antiquitatum titulo IX<\/em>.\u00a0 In earlier classical times \u2018Musterst\u00fcrke\u2019 (?) are against kephalaia<\/em>, which are selected from classical writers, Plato Leg. VII, 810.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Bergk then goes on to discuss paragraphs as an aid to understanding.\u00a0 And that is all he says about capituli<\/em>.<\/p>\n
The point about marginal headings to indicate content brought to mind the Medici manuscript of Tacitus’ Annals<\/em>.\u00a0 This I know contains one or two words in the margin against various bits.\u00a0 Famously there is such a note against Annals<\/em> 15:44,\u00a0reading simply\u00a0\u2018Christianos\u2019.\u00a0 This would be a medieval example of an ancient practice.\u00a0 I doubt that Tacitus composed that note, however!\u00a0 But it could be ancient, if Bergk is right.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bergk is the second author quoted as an authority on the history of scholarship in this area.\u00a0 He writes so long ago that he uses “Capiteln” rather than “Kapiteln”!\u00a0 But I think it is interesting to see what this foundational author on the subject actually says. I have scanned and corrected his text.\u00a0 Since I\u00a0did […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[54],"tags":[391],"class_list":["post-5033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chapter-titles-manuscripts","tag-chapter-titles"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5033","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}