engleski

The <i>Vinodol Statute</i> and the <i>Istrian Perambulation</i>: A history of their readings

The <i>Vinodol Statute</i> (Croatian: <i>Vinodolski zakon</i>, also referred to as <i>Vinodolski zakonik</i>) and the <i>Istrian Perambulation</i> (Croatian: <i>Istarski razvod</i>) have drawn scholarly attention since the 19th century. There are two simple reasons for this – both texts are quite old, and they are much longer than average compared to other Old Croatian legal documents. This paper will describe the rich tradition of scholarly readings of these two Glagolitic texts, which are attested today in copies made in the 16th century. We consider this tradition to be a <i>conditio sine qua non</i> before reliable readings are finally created, and therefore we shall provide a brief review of this tradition. Each new editor of a text must take into consideration all previous readings and make the best use possible of this tradition in order to make any advancement in resolving philological issues tied to the text. It is entirely possible to create a new edition that is worse than its predecessors, because no editor is immune to mistakes, especially when dealing with long texts. However, if previous readings are studied carefully, it is possible to attain a good result. This will be briefly argued through an analysis of one relatively new revision to the text and some discrepancies between editors of previous editions. Apart from having new editions published frequently, the <i>Vinodol Statute</i> and the <i>Istrian Perambulation</i> are two of a few Old Croatian legal documents published in transcriptions (instead of being transliterated, which is far more common). For a period of more than a century, a group of legal documents published in large 19th-century anthologies were never published using the transcription method. Therefore, the history of the readings of the majority of these documents actually ended in the 19th century, a pause that lasted until the most recent edition of <i>Acta Croatica</i> (2017). The rich history of the readings of the <i>Vinodol Statute</i> and the <i>Istrian Perambulation</i> should be able to teach us a great deal about how to approach the scholarly editing of documents that have not yet drawn significant attention from philologists. In principle, our conclusion can be summarised as follows – the more readings, the better.

Vinodol Statute ; Istrian Perambulation ; transcription ; scholarly editing ; Old Croatian language

nije evidentirano