Search

Historical evidences include inscriptions, copper plates, coins, palm leaf manuscripts and paper manuscripts. Many literary, grammatical, mathematical, medical, astronomical and historical works handed down to us by our forefathers are also present in paper trails. These are also primary sources of evidence in the field. In that sense, the role of paper traces is also primary in the edition history of Aganaanooru, one of the Sangam literatures. Considering the scope of the research, this article examines the editions that came before 1940 and highlights the utility of paper manuscripts in them.

Historical evidences include inscriptions, copper plates, coins, palm leaf manuscripts and paper manuscripts. Many literary, grammatical, mathematical, medical, astronomical and historical works handed down to us by our forefathers are also present in paper trails. These are also primary sources of evidence in the field. In that sense, the role of paper traces is also primary in the edition history of Aganaanooru, one of the Sangam literatures. Considering the scope of the research, this article examines the editions that came before 1940 and highlights the utility of paper manuscripts in them.

Se presenta la primera edición de las Obras Completas de José Hernández organizadas en 7 tomos. Se ofrece el detalle de los contenidos de cada uno de los tomos que incluyen la labor periodística, poética, ensayística, parlamentaria y de pedagogía rural, un epistolario, una bibliografía actualizada, índices completos, estudios filológicos y críticos. The first edition of the Complete Works of José Hernández is presented and organized in seven volumes. Here its offered a detail of the content of each volume, which includes his journalistic labour, poetry, essays, parliamentary work and rural studies, letter collection, up to date bibliography, complete indexes, philological and critic studies.

This short paper reveals for the first time the existence of an extremely rare copy of the editio princeps of Coloquio de las damas (1547), now held in the private library of Javier Krahe. It is bound with another ancient book in a volume that once belonged to Lord Grantham, British Ambassador to Spain from 1771 to 1779. Se da noticia por primera vez de un rarísimo ejemplar de la princeps del Coloquio de las damas (1547), que se conserva actualmente en la biblioteca particular de don Javier Krahe. La cinquecentina forma parte de un volumen facticio que antaño perteneció a Lord Grantham, embajador británico en España de 1771 a 1779.

Tra i testimoni dell’ode pariniana “A Silvia”, il più autorevole, individuato da Dante Isella (e confermato come tale da Franco Longoni e Mirella D’Ettorre, successivi editori dell’opera), è un opuscolo privo del nome dell’autore le cui lezioni sono più corrette dell’esemplare comasco ritenuto l’editio princeps. I due testimoni, benché tipograficamente simili, non furono tuttavia stampati dallo stesso tipografo – come ritiene Isella – dal momento che il primo è identico a un esemplare dell’ode “Alla Musa”, stampato a Milano e conservato presso la Biblioteca Ambrosiana. A short note about the editions of the Parini’s ode “A Silvia”The most authoritative text of Parini’s ode A Silvia has been identified by Dante Isella, then confimed by Franco Longoni and Mirella D’Ettorre. It is an opuscule whose text is considered more correct than the one published in Como, considered the editio princeps. The two opuscules are typographically similar, although published by different printers: the first one has probably been printed by the same printer of the ode Alla Musa, now archived in Ambrosiana Library (Milan)., The most authoritative text of the Parini’s ode A Silvia has been identified by Dante Isella, confimed by Franco Longoni and Mirella D’Ettorre. It is an opuscule whose text is considered more correct than the one published in Como, considered the editio princeps. The two opuscules are typographically similar, although published by different printers: the first one has probably been printed by the same printer of the ode Alla Musa, now archived in Ambrosiana Library (Milan).

This study is the first in Japan, and perhaps in the world, to examine the first edition of Ferd. Beyer's preliminary school for the pianoforte op.101, published by the German publisher Schott in 1850. In order to ascertain the first edition, we compared four old versions in detail: the first old version is owned by us that we bought in the antiquarian bookstore in Germany, the second old version is housed at Yale University Library, and the third and fourth old versions are in the possession of the Austrian National Library. The conclusion is that the first old version is the first edition by Shott.

La donación a la Biblioteca Nacional de España de un ejemplar perdido del Arte de putear de Nicolás Fernández de Moratín (1737-1780) ha abierto nuevas e interesantes perspectivas de estudio para la crítica. El presente trabajo pretende, por un lado, recuperar la historia que se escondía detrás de esta editio princeps, publicada clandestinamente a principios del siglo XIX; y por otro, exponer los problemas críticos —adiciones, supresiones, contaminaciones y sustituciones— que muestra el poema a la luz de su cotejo con los restantes testimonios conservados The donation of a lost copy of the Arte de putear of Nicolás Fernández de Moratín (1737- 1780) to the National Library of Spain has brought to light new and interesting perspectives of study for the critics. On one hand, this article pretends to recover the history hidden behind this first edition, published underground at the beginning of the Century 19th. On other hand, it presents the critical problems, such as additions, eliminations, contaminations and replacements, that the poem shows according to his comparison with the remaining testimonies conserved.

One of the most famous texts ever written by a humanist in the Kingdom of Hungary is the Historia verissima of Stephanus Brodericus (Stjepan Brodarić, ca 1480–1539). It is the only source we have describing the events of the decisive battle at Mohács, 1526, written by an eyewitness. Due to its unique status, the text of Brodericus has been analysed and interpreted many times by many scholars, first of all by historians, in the endeavour to reconstruct the course of the battle from the account of Brodericus. On the other hand, literary historians paid much less attention to the circumstances in which this celebrated text was written. According to the literature, Brodericus wrote the Historia verissima because he was charged by the Polish King to give an account about the defeat in which the nephew of King Sigismund had died, and because he himself wanted to defend his fellow-countrymen against Cuspinianus, who had accused the Hungarians of cowardice and treachery. It is generally accepted, too, that the Historia was written sometime in the spring of 1527 and that it was printed by Vietor in Cracow on 18 April 1527. This date has never been disputed, although not a single copy of this edition is preserved, and the only source that mentions this edition is the Janociana, a bibliography written in the second half of the 18th century, i.e. 250 years later. Recently, however, I came across a new source referring to the origin of the Historia, in the light of which the abovementioned date is called into question. In the first part of my paper I am going to prove that Brodericus wrote the Historia not earlier than 1528, from which it naturally follows that 1527 cannot be the year of its first edition. In the second part of the paper I am going to answer the question that obviously arises: when was Historia published for the first time? The answer to this question is of crucial importance because Brodericus’ work played a prominent role in the construction of the Mohács-concept; we can count on its impact on early modern historiography only after the date of the first edition., Jedan od naglasovitijih tekstova što su ikad potekli iz pera humanista koji je djelovao u Ugarskom Kraljevstvu svakako je De conflictu Hungarorum cum Solymano Turcarum imperatore ad Mohacs historia verissima Stjepana Brodarića (Stephanus Brodericus, oko 1480–1539). To je jedini rukom očevidca napisan izvor u kojem se opisuje odlučna bitka na Mohačkom polju 1526. Brodarićev su tekst zbog njegove jedinstvenosti mnogo puta proučavali i analizirali brojni stručnjaci, u prvom redu povjesničari, koji su na temelju ondje iznesenih podataka pokušavali rekonstruirati tijek bitke. S druge pak strane, književni su povjesničari puno manje nastojali osvijetliti okolnosti nastanka toga važnog i slavnog zapisa. Dosad se o tim okolnostima znalo to da je Brodarić tekst napisao zato što je poljski kralj Žigmund I. želio dobiti prikaz poraza u kojem je poginuo njegov nećak Ludovik II, a i stoga što je sam pisac želio obraniti svoje sunarodnjake od Johannesa Cuspiniana, koji je Ugre optužio zbog kukavštine i izdaje. Kao treća važna okolnost obično se uzima da je Historia verissima napisana negdje u proljeće 1527, a tiskana kod Vietora u Krakovu 16. travnja 1527. Taj nadnevak nikad nije bio podvrgnut raspravi, iako se nije sačuvao ni jedan jedini primjerak spomenutog izdanja. Godine 2013. naišao sam na novi izvor koji se tiče nastanka Historia verissima: poljski humanist Andrzej Krzycki (Andreas Cricius, 1482-1537) u pismu od 18. travnja 1528. daje podatke koji nukaju na zaključak kako Brodarić svoju Historia verissima nije napisao prije proljeća 1528. Ako je to točno, onda djelo naravno nije moglo biti tiskano u travnju 1527. Analiza provedena u ovom radu pokazala je da podatak o 1527. kao godini prvog izdanja svi bibliografski izvorni temelje na djelu Janociana poljskoga bibliografa Jana Daniela Janockog, koje je objavljeno 1770. Potanki pak uvid u vijest Janockoga o izdanju iz 1527. ukazuje na to da Janocki nije u rukama imao tiskanu knjigu, nego rukopisni prijepis uvršten u osmi svezak zbirke Acta Tomiciana. Postavlja se, dakle, pitanje kada je Brodarićevo djelo prvi put uistinu tiskano. Prvo je posvjedočno izdanje Historia verissima ono koje je objavio János Zsámboky (Joannes Sambucus): on je Brodarićev spis uvrstio kao prilog u svoje izdanje decades Antonija Bonfinija, objavljeno u Baselu 1568. (pritom je Zsámboky iz nepoznatog razloga izostavio Brodarićevu posvetu). U sljedećih 150 godina to izdanje Bonfinijeva djela pretiskano je, zajedno s Brodarićevim tekstom, u deset navrata u raznim europskim gradovima. Tako je, zahvaljujući popularnosti Bonfinijeva djela, uvećana i recepcija Brodarićeva spisa. No upravo Zsámbokyjevo izdanje dodatno potvrđuje zaključak kako navodno izdanje Historia verissima iz 1527. nikad nije postojalo: sva djela koja se bave mohačkom bitkom a u kojima se spominje i Brodarićev tekst nastala su nakon 1568, tj. nakon Zsámbokyjeva izdanja. Jedina je iznimka Paolo Giovio, koji se, kako se čini, Brodarićevim tekstom koristio već u ranim pedesetim godinama 16. st. No ta iznimka na svoj način potvrđuje zaključak da je do 1568. Brodarićevo djelo ostalo u rukopisu: Giovio je s Brodarićem bio u prijateljskim odnosima, pa je pripadao malom krugu onih kojima je Historia verissima bila dostupna i prije nego što je objavljena tiskom.

Este texto expone el análisis filológico de las distintas ediciones de la novela Toá: Narraciones de caucherías (1933) del escritor colombiano César Uribe Piedrahita. Dicho análisis se basa esencialmente en la teoría de la crítica textual, la cual presenta una metodología de corte filológico para la realización de la edición crítica del texto, lo cual implica una edición fiel al original o más próxima a la voluntad del escritor. En este sentido, el análisis de las ediciones de Toá permitió la identificación y selección de las mismas, la exposición de sus características editoriales y la realización del proceso de cotejo a partir de la primera edición o príncipe, para luego continuar con el proceso de la fijación textual. Este proceso finalmente permitió la realización de la edición crítica de la novela, con sus respectivas variantes filológicas y notas explicativas. Por último, se concluye que el proceso editorial de las cinco ediciones de la novela Toá presentó inconsistencias de toda índole, inconsistencias que la presente edición crítica pretende corregir. This text presents the philological analysis of the different editions of the novel Toá:Narraciones de Caucherías (1933) by Colombian writer César Uribe Piedrahita. This analysis is essentially based on the theory of textual criticism, which presents a derivation of a philological methodology for the execution of the critical edition of the text, which implies an edition faithful to the original or closer to the will of the writer. In this way, the analysis of the editions of Toá allowed the identification and selection of them, the exposition of their editorial characteristics and the execution of the comparison from the first edition, and then continuing with the process of textual fixation; process that finally allowed the execution of the critical edition of the novel with their respective philological variants and explanatory notes. Lastly, it is concluded that the editorial process of the five editions of the novel Toá showed inconsistencies of all kinds, inconsistencies that this critical edition aims to correct.

Tras localizar la edición príncipe que incluye esta comedia y establecer el carácter de su asunto, se intenta identificar algunas fuentes latinas de la historia legendaria que recrea la comedia, comentando la adecuación o alejamiento de ciertos episodios con respecto a las mismas. Se incluye un breve comentario acerca de la intención del autor y del tema, y se resaltan varios recursos dramáticos, a saber: la ironía, el eco, las denominadas «voces del cielo» y el enigma. After locating the first edition of the comedy and studying the plot, we try to pick out the latin sources of those legends that appear in Mira’s play. The author’s purpose and the theme are explained in the article as well as some dramatic aspects such as: the irony, the echo, the divine voices («voces del cielo») and the riddle.

Diese Erstausgabe von Goethes Werther von 1774 erschien 1774 in Leipzig (zur Leipziger Buchmesse) bei Weygand und wurde rasch zum Bestseller. Der Titel der Erstausgabe lautete Die Leiden des jungen Werthers, in der Überarbeitung von 1787 entfiel das Genitiv-S. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Leiden_des_jungen_Werthers, This the digitalised first edition of Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther, as it was published in Leipzig in 1774. the work was later re-edited by Goethe in1787. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorrows_of_Young_Werther