| 12 |
| Our method is in practice as follows: |
| As a result of our previous knowledge and experience those sources have been selected which best represent each liturgical tradition as far as we can tell at the moment. Occasional mistakes in the selection have no effect on the final results. After the comparison of two or three such sources one is taken as a norm, for a standard copy of the tradition and all of its chant incipits will be written out. Of the other sources of the same centre only the differences are recorded as compared to the standard copy. |
| Our first experiences induce us to check repeatedly the above procedures in two respects: l. Was our choice concerning the standard copy adequate or not? 2. Have we interpreted its contents correctly or not? This empirical process gradually sheds light on what is essential in a given tradition and which are details of secondary importance; which are the main and most typical documents of a usage which can be distinguished from peripheral ones. During this phase we sometimes realize that some of the sources must be excluded from the investigation or transferred to another place. Such decisions can, of course, be changed again. When explaining the causes of divergences we have to take into account the possibility of temporal changes, the role or function of the book, the division of the territory, individual peculiarities within the general uniformity etc. |
| It will be clear that a tradition is not the same thing as the sources, not even the same as the best sources. Anyone who confuses the accurate recording of a source with its interpretation will fall victim to a dangerous positivistic approach. Some redactional techniques may disturb the actual picture of a codex: the scribes may put individual items to different places, and tacitly omit other ones, etc. A real comparison of the sources is therefore fairly difficult and cannot be done without deciphering the manuscripts. By following the inner logic of a source and comparing it to the other sources of the same tradition we may succeed in finding out the meaning of a document and the conclusion will be nearer to the truth than a mere positivistic (or sometime negativistic) statement. |
| The succession of the offices - which may be interesting with regard to the recording habits of a source or circle - has nothing to do with the structure of these offices. A standard form of recording facilitates the comparative process in this respect and saves space in publications (cf. e.g. Hesbert CAO I. p. 75-105.). |
| The analysis of the sources may give rise to the emergence of a 'typical tradition', a kind of ideal state which is naturally not the same as the mixture of many sources. Hidden beneath this 'ideal' form you always find the best source or group of sources and, of course, the living tradition itself. On the other hand, even the best source may prove to be imperfect by reason of its omissions, lacunae, implied indications and solutions based probably on analogy. By collating two completely convergent and in every respect reliable sources we could establish the 'typical form' of a tradition since the omissions of one are presumably to be found in the other. The philological accuracy is guaranteed here by the inclusion of annotations that list the deviations of the sources from the distinctive 'type'. For this reason the CAO-ECE program aims at publishing the offices as they were actually celebrated in the different ecclesiastical centres, inasmuch as this rite is documented in the sources. |
| [Previous] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 |