Yesterday, I discussed how Poliziano discovered the principles of textual criticism . In other words, he found out how scholars might reconstruct texts of ancient authors. Establishing the tradition, however, is just a first step.
Take, for example, the manuscripts of Arrian’s Anabasis , his book about the campaigns of Alexander the Great. In some copies, we read about a Babylonian canal named Pollakopas; in other copies, it’s called Pollakottas. As it happens, the solution is simple, because a Pallukkatu-canal is known from cuneiform sources, which means that Pollakopas is wrong. Probably, a scribe read π instead of ττ. A critical edition of the Anabasis will therefore opt for Pollakottas.
Still, we cannot entirely ignore Pollakopas: after all, we’re not interested in what Arrian should have written but want to know what he actually wrote. We cannot exclude the possibility that he himself was responsible for the error, which may have been corrected by a good scribe. Both words are therefore important and a critical edition will have a footnote with the ineliminable variants that the editor has decided not to use. These footnotes are called an ‘apparatus criticus’ and look like a cloud of abbreviations.