Towards a theoretical model for the evolution of manuscript traditions Caroline Macé (K.U.Leuven) & Philippe Baret (U.C.Louvain) e-Science Institute in Edinburgh October 16-17, 2008

1. Introduction: the genealogical method 2. Stemmatics and phylogenetics 3. Beyond the results 1. Convergences and divergences 2. Cladistics vs. Phylogenetics 4. Conclusion: is there a future for the genealogical method?

1. Genealogical Method

Searching for a method Textus receptus Best manuscript Best text: eclectism, emendatio, divinatio

Genealogical method: stemma P. Van Deun (ed.), Maximus Confessor, Liber Asceticus, Turnhout, 2000.

Result: critical text and apparatus C. Steel, C. Macé, P. d’Hoine (eds.), Proclus, In Parmenidem, Oxford, 2007.

Criticizing the genealogical method Bédier Too many equally possible stemmata = misleading Too many bifurcating trees (bifid stemmata) = unrealistic Cerquiglini, “Eloge de la variante” Living texts vs. dead (a-historical) editions

The origin of the genealogical method C.G. Zumpt (ed.), Cicero, Verrine Orations, 1831, p. xxxviii (footnote)

The origin of the genealogical method Gaston Paris ( )Karl Lachmann ( )

Schleicher’s tree (1853) Winfred P. Lehmann, A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics

Charles Darwin ( ) Charles Darwin, Notebook B, 1837, p. 36 (

The origin of species, 1859 All the foregoing rules and aids and difficulties in classification are explained, if I do not greatly deceive myself, on the view that the natural system is founded on descent with modification ; that the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent, and, in so far, all true classification is genealogical; that community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation, or the enunciation of general propositions, and the mere putting together and separating objects more or less alike. (p. 420)

2. Stemmatics and phylogenetics

The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales: Nature 394 (1998), p. 839.

Two experiments Overabundant manuscript tradition of a Patristic text Gregory the Theologian (ca ca. 390) 45 homilies written around manuscripts copied between 850 and 1550 ancient translations made between 400 and 650 Artificial tradition S. Dagerman, Notre besoin de consolation est impossible à rassasier (transl. from Swedish by P. Bouquet) 12 copies No external evidences, no relative dating of the witnesses

Two experiments Gregory the Theologian, Homily words 130 witnesses 126 manuscripts ( ) 4 translations ( ) Editio Princeps Aldina (1516) Collation 556 variant locations 691 variant readings Artificial tradition 1015 words 12 copies Collation 119 variant location up to 4 variants on each variant location

Two experiments Of Gregory was there a 18 th cent. edition, but no complete history of the text The stemma of the artificial tradition had been documented

Gregory the Theologian: Neighbor Joining

Gregory the Theologian: Parsimony Consensus Unrooted Tree A B

Gregory the Theologian: validation

Gregory the Theologian: Parsimony Consensus Rooted Tree A B B sub-B A Sicily Syria

Artificial tradition: NeighborJoinining

Artificial tradition: Parsimony Consensus Tree

Artificial tradition: philology

Artificial tradition: difficult cases T1/T2 “cime” A “scime” J “scime”C “(sc/n)ime”U “cîme” M “nime” S “cime” copies

Artificial tradition: exemplar shift NJ - 1st third of the fileNJ - 3rd third of the file

Artificial tradition: internalisation of nodes ? ? ?

3. Beyond the results

Convergences and divergences Convergences Same methodological principle: shared innovations Similar difficulties in applying this principle: cladistics vs. other methods in phylogenetics Similar problems in delimiting, describing and weighting “characters” Divergences Dichotomy vs. polytomy Surviving intermediates

Phylogenetics M. Holder - P.O. Lewis, Nature 2003, Vol. 4 (April), p

Phenetics vs. cladistics PHENETICS similarities unrooted tree, which can be rooted on the basis of external evidences CLADISTICS characters states only derived states are informative, as we don’t know when an ancestral state was acquired Phylogenetic character (Vogt): ‘position’ whithin an organism where the mutation occurs, and its corresponding transformation. (…) a phylogenetic character is always a phylogenetic hypothesis.

Recoding the information

Cladistic approach – Tree 1 Tree 2 – Differences

Cladistic approach – Tree 1 Neighbour Joining

Cladistic approach – Tree 1

4. Conclusion: is there a future for the genealogical method?

Towards a theoretical model for the evolution of manuscript traditions