<i>Cuius in Usum</i>? Recent and Future Editing
Michael D. Reeve
In 1993 Michael Winterbottom remarked that we have reached ‘what may be the last decades of systematic editing classical texts’. If he was right, what has been dwindling: capacity, interest, scope, or confidence? When editors' prefaces include such Latin as ‘ad huius operis finem … longdudum exspectatum’ (1983), ‘non solum hominibus, sed ne libris quidem non pepercit’ (1991, War), ‘ex Italia, ut Munk Olsen videtur, ortus’ (1997), ‘latet uel peritus’ (1997, an untraced manuscript), it is tempting to blame incapacity, and in turn on a decline interest more narrowly textual criticism. Not just laudator temporis acti se puero could document by looking at statistics syllabuses; but there would widespread agreement so far criticism given way greater concern with content its proportional no bad thing. Relevant too, some say, composition; I am not convinced either obvious deeper reason they give. Obviously, preface should first thing, thing for thirty years, editor composes Latin. Need be, though? Lloyd-Jones Wilson chose English their O.C.T. Sophocles (1990), Green now followed example O.C.T., his very handy editio minor Ausonius (1999). Anyone who takes view expressed me distinguished German Latinist, abandoning one cuts off branch sitting on, answer Merkelbach's charge policy writing notes held up Inscriptiones Graecae . At level, composing language said best learning it; surely reading large amounts observantly good better, unless distinction between active passive knowledge holds only modern languages reads comfortably sometimes makes pitiful attempt speak. Even without mystical claims value composition, declining quite enough threat editing.
Journal of Roman Studies