Light into Gray Areas: A Systemic Approach to a Typology of Philological Writings

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate with two examples how a systemic approach to a typology of philological writings can elucidate some "gray" regions in the spectrum of ancient philological text types. Ancient scholarship has become an increasingly researched area in classical studies. But a more fully developed typology of philological writings is still a desideratum. Pfeiffer 1968 is interested predominantly in the historical development of ancient scholarship. Dickey 2007 structures her valuable monograph mainly by ancient primary authors (Homer, Aristophanes, Euripides, and so forth). Montanari 1993 (similarly 1984) gives a rich overview of types of ancient scholarly literature that is descriptive rather than analytical.Ancient scholarship, however, seems to invite a systemic analytical approach. It does so because, almost a precursor to modern Wissenschaft (cf. Stichweh 1979/1987/1994), it had developed for considerable periods into a remarkably autonomous (see already Pfeiffer 1968: 4 and elsewhere) self-generating, self-organizing, and increasingly complex field of discourse. A systemical approach prompts new questions: not simply which types of philological writings did exist, but also why these types, and how are they functionally related to one another? (for a similar approach see Asper 2007 on Greek scientific texts)The paper's first part sketches briefly the resulting typology. It distinguishes A) broad-function and B) special-function philological writings. The former are suited for flexibly addressing issues of textual criticism and/or interpretation. They can be divided according to their degree of textual autonomy into 1) marginal or interlinear annotations, 2) commentaries, and 3) monographs (each with subtypes). Special-function writings, by contrast, respond to basic and frequently recurring specific needs, namely for 1) identification and orientation: met by catalogues and lists, 2) for preliminary information: met by summaries of context and content, and 3) for semantic aid: met by glossaries and lexica.The paper's second part casts light onto some notoriously gray areas of philological writings, as exemplified by Galen's De diaeta in morbis acutis secundum Hippocratem – is this a monograph or a commentary? – and Dicaearchus' Peri Dionysiakon agonon – is this a work of antiquarian study or philology? A systemic view shows that, in predictable places in the "system", there will always be areas of gradual transition rather than clear-cut divisions. Such regions of transition are an inherent part of the system. Therefore, typologically ambiguous texts like Galen's De diaeta in morbis acutis secundum Hippocratem or Dicaearchus' Peri Dionysiakon agonon are not surprising anomalies or mysterious conceptual break-downs. They are simply what they are: transitory text types that appear naturally and inevitably in precisely describable areas within the system of philological writings. BibliographyAsper, Markus (2007), Griechische Wissenschaftstexte. Formen, Funktionen, Differenzierungsgeschichten. Stuttgart.Dickey, Eleanor (2007), Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period, Oxford.Ihm, Sibylle (2002), "Untersuchungen zu einer Typologisierung medizinischer Kommentare," in: Wilhelm Geerlings, Christian Schulze (eds.), Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter: Beitrage zu seiner Erforschung, Leiden/Boston/Koln: 315-333.Montanari, Franco (1984), "Gli Homerica su papiro: per una distinzione di generi," in: Filologia e critica letteraria della grecita, Pisa (Ricerche di filologia classica; 2): 125-138.Montanari, Franco (1993), "L’erudizione, la filologia e la grammatica," in: Giuseppe Cambiano, Luciano Canfora, Diego Lanza (eds.), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica I.2, Roma: 235-281.Pfeiffer, Rudolf (1968), History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford.Stichweh, Rudolf (1979/1994), "Die Differenzierung der Wissenschaft," (orig. 1979) in: Stichweh, R. (1994), Wissenschaft, Universitat, Professionen: Soziologische Analysen, Frankfurt a. M.: 15-51.Stichweh, Rudolf (1987/1994), "Die Autopoiesis der Wissenschaft," (orig. 1987) in: Stichweh, R. (1994), in: Stichweh, R. (1994), Wissenschaft, Universitat, Professionen: Soziologische Analysen, Frankfurt a. M.: 52-83.