The Particle at Line 47: Editing a Grammatical Variant
An editor is preparing a critical edition of a 5th/11th-century Arabic grammatical treatise on particles. In the chapter on mā and inna, two manuscripts diverge at line 47. MS A, dated 512 AH, reads 'wa-mā kāna min al-ḥarfayni muḥmalan fa-huwa ʿalā aṣlihi'; MS B, dated 610 AH but copied from a lost exemplar dated 480 AH, reads '... ʿāmilan ...'. The passage classifies particles that are 'neglected' (mulghā) and those that 'operate' (ʿāmila). The author elsewhere states that certain particles are mulghā when they enter a nominal sentence. MS A has water damage at the foot of the folio, but the word in question is clear. MS B carries a later marginal correction changing ʿāmilan to muḥmalan. Of the 12 variants in the chapter, eight are orthographic and two are obvious scribal slips. The publisher wants a single base text, a brief apparatus, and no long excursus.
1. Which reading should be adopted as the base text? Weigh manuscript age, internal consistency, and the later marginal correction, and identify the strongest counterargument.
Read the worked answer
Adopt muḥmalan, but not because A is older. The decisive weight is that the word is secure in A and coheres with the author's repeated classification: particles that are mulghā when they enter a nominal sentence. B's main text has ʿāmilan, which is the lectio difficilior and therefore deserves a hearing. However, B also has a later marginal correction to muḥmalan. That correction is more likely collation or conjecture than an independent witness: it agrees with the easier, expected term and cannot be shown to derive from B's older exemplar. The strongest counterargument is that ʿāmilan is original because the passage may report an opponent's view; if the surrounding verbs are doxographic ('they claimed'), the editor should reconsider. Check that before printing. Because the chapter has eight orthographic variants and two obvious slips, B is not uniformly careless, so its reading cannot be dismissed as a slip. Adopt muḥmalan, record ʿāmilan, and signal limited confidence in the apparatus.
2. Draft the apparatus entry, distinguishing witness, correction, and editorial judgment. What should the entry not imply?
Read the worked answer
A defensible entry is: '47 muḥmalan] A; ʿāmilan B; muḥmalan B^marg. (fort. ex coniectura vel collatione); cf. auctoris usum in cap. de particulis mulghā. Editoris textus: muḥmalan.' The entry should not print 'corr. B' as if B's correction were authoritative. It should say 'B^marg.' and note that the correction is later. If the edition uses a stemma, do not cite B's margin as a separate witness unless the marginal hand is dated and identified. Add a short note: 'The reading ʿāmilan is retained in the apparatus because it is the lectio difficilior; the editor follows A and the author's usage.' This gives readers the evidence without a lengthy excursus. It also prevents the apparatus from pretending that the editor has no judgment when he plainly does.
3. How would you avoid circular reasoning when using the author's other statements to decide this variant?
Read the worked answer
Use only passages whose text is secure in both branches of the tradition. If the doctrine is itself reconstructed from the same line, it cannot control the line. Build a control set: the author's undisputed statements, external parallels, and the genre of the passage (report versus doctrine). Ask whether ʿāmilan would make the passage a report of opponents; if yes, the author's own doctrine does not decide. Record the decision rule in the preface so readers can see the reasoning. A useful test is to reverse the argument: if A had read ʿāmilan, would the editor still infer muḥmalan from doctrine? If the answer is no, the doctrine is being used circularly.