search

BetaMasaheft / Documentation

Die Schriftkultur des christlichen Äthiopiens: Eine multimediale Forschungsumgebung
3 stars 3 forks source link

Canons of Hippolytus #1681

Closed MarcinKrawczuk closed 1 month ago

MarcinKrawczuk commented 3 years ago

In BL Or. 600, f. 3v-4r there are two canons of Hippolytus i. e. no. 22 (on the week of Passover) and no. 38 (on the night of Resurrection, incomplete). Should I create records for these two canons or rather catalogue it under "LIT1544Gebrah#Introduction"? @eu-genia @abausi @thea-m @DariaElagina @DenisNosnitsin1970

abausi commented 3 years ago

The "Canons of Hippolytus" exist (so far) in Gǝʿǝz exclusively as part of other works. Contrary to what is reported sometimes, there is neither any independent occurrence of them nor do they exist, in whatever form, in their entirety. So, thre should be the cross-refenrece ot other repertories (CPG), but there should not be any "work" entry for the "Canons of Hippolytus"; they are just part(s) of other works.

MarcinKrawczuk commented 3 years ago

Thank you, does that mean that LIT1225Canons should be deleted or rather expanded with crossreference?

abausi commented 3 years ago

If to keep it means that they exist in Gǝʿǝz as an indepent or complete work, they should be deleted. Yet, we have many similar cases, and one should investigate which are the guidelines in similar cases. This is the typical case of a work only few excerpts of which are attested. Should this reference be kept or not? in the cases of the counciliar canons, for example, I advocated that we should have separate entries for each councilias canons, even though they are not transmitted as completely independent texts, because this is the regular way, everyhwere (that is, in all traditions), how they are transmitted. In this case, as in many similar cases, there are pros and cons. I would welcome an input from those who have a better memory of how we solved similar issues. To keep the entry has the great advantage that we provide clearly the evidence to those who are interested in the "Canons of Hippolytus" coming from, for example, the Coptic or Arabic tradition, that there is this, yet indirect, evidence also in Gǝʿǝz.

Il 02.02.2021 09:44, MarcinKrawczuk ha scritto:

Thank you, does that mean that LIT1225Canons should be deleted or rather expanded with crossreference?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/1681#issuecomment-771470009, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEYMY2AOGXAXW4HC6JOPL5DS463PNANCNFSM4W3XH6VA.

eu-genia commented 3 years ago

No, the ID should remain, as it appears in different constellations, it would otherwise be impossible to collect all occurences in one place.

abausi commented 3 years ago

Good, that's fine.

Il 02.02.2021 09:57, Eugenia ha scritto:

No, the ID should remain, as it appears in different constellations, it would otherwise be impossible to collect all occurences in one place.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/1681#issuecomment-771477844, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEYMY2A7M5AC4G3QFNSBIETS465A7ANCNFSM4W3XH6VA.

eu-genia commented 3 years ago

So, the ID should be expanded, with derived IDs for separate versions/canons/languages, so that from collections one could point, with a corresp, to the exact content

DariaElagina commented 3 years ago

Maybe, one should consider the usage of a narrative unit instead of a work ID? I am not well acqainted with the topic, but it seems to be a case for a narrative unit.