Leiden Conventions

The Leiden Conventions are an established set of rules, symbols, and brackets used to indicate the condition of an epigraphic or papyrological text in a modern edition. In previous centuries of classical scholarship, scholars who published texts from inscriptions, papyri, or manuscripts used divergent conventions to indicate the condition of the text and editorial corrections or restorations. The Leiden meeting was designed to help to redress this confusion.

The earliest form of the Conventions were agreed at a meeting of classical scholars at the University of Leiden in 1931, and published in an article shortly thereafter.[1][2] There are minor variations in the use of the Conventions between epigraphy and papyrology (and even between Greek and Latin epigraphy). More recently, scholars have published improvements and adjustments to the system.[3]

Most important sigla

siglum explanation
[...] a lacuna or gap in the original text, not restored by the editor (extent known)
[— — —] a lacuna or gap in the original text, not restored by the editor (extent unknown)
[abc] letters missing from the original text due to lacuna, restored by the editor
a(bc) abbreviation in the text, expanded by the editor
⟨ab⟩ characters erroneously omitted by the ancient scribe, restored or corrected by the editor
{ab} letters in the text considered erroneous and superfluous by the editor
ạḅ characters damaged or otherwise unclear in the text, ambiguous outside of their context
... traces of letters on the surface, insufficient for restoration by the editor (Greek and Papyrological usage)
+++ traces of letters on the surface, insufficient for restoration by the editor (Roman epigraphic practice)
ABC clear but incomprehensible letters
⟦abc⟧ deleted letters
vac. space left empty (vacat) on the stone or page

See also

References

  1. ↑ Woodhead, Arthur Geoffrey (1981) [1959]. The Study of Greek Inscriptions (Second ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 6. Retrieved 13 November 2012.
  2. ↑ See Groningen (1932) and cf. Hunt (1932); these articles are part of the proceedings of the XVIIIe Congrès international des Orientalistes, Leiden, 7-12 septembre 1931, Section autonome des Papyrologues.
  3. ↑ See e.g. Dow (1969) and Krummrey-Panciera (1980). Cf. Robert (1954), 9-11, who seemingly rejects Leiden.

Bibliography

Leiden usage in corpora