Is ignoring critical editions of texts ok?

[Santommaso]

I was a reviewer for a manuscript on an early modern thinker, and I recommended revise-and-resubmit. One of my criticisms was that the manuscript author used 16th- and 17th-century editions of primary texts rather than critical editions of those texts that have appeared in the last 50 years. The revised manuscript has now been sent back to me for another round of review, and this problem has not been remedied. I understand that it could be tedious to update all of the references and check the Latin again. I like the manuscript very much, and but this dependence on old editions bothers me. To be sure, there aren't any major differences between the 16th-century editions and the modern critical ones (as is often the case), but I cannot think of why one would use older editions when better ones are available. Am I being too judgmental here?

[ergative]

Why does it matter? If you thought they should be citing or engaging with the actual criticism of the texts in the critical editions, that's one thing. But if they are literally just citing primary sources for the text itself, then who cares which text they use? And why make it their problem just because you can't think of a reason to use older editions when 'better' ones are available--especially when you also can't think of a reason to use newer editions when older ones are equivalent?

So: yes, you're being too judgmental here.

[mamselle]

Does the focus of the work include a critique of those earlier texts in particular?

Or do the more recent texts indulge in too much lit-crit self-justification to be useful, in the writer's view?

Did you ask why they elected to work from those texts in particular?

If they're closer in time to the originals, the writer might have wanted deliberately to work within that bubble.

Or if they're from a less-advantaged country/school/program, the writer may not have access to the more recent versions.

It seems to me they should indeed know about them and refer at least once to their choice and reasoning for not working with them...or else note variances in interpretation, but a couple of the things I work on don't benefit (as far as I can see) from all the "latest and greatest" commentary because that commentary is self-referential or makes assumptions about the early texts that presume a univocal interpretation inflected by modernistic ethics or ideas that did not (so far as we know) obtain in the contemporaneous era in which the original texts were produced.

I agree one should be "up" on all the recent scholarship and signal its existence in a lit review or notes somewhere, but in some cases, I'm a fan of sticking closer to the era in which a MS or other work was produced.

In my case, 17th c.canons commenting on 13th c. liturgical MSs understood more about the daily use and intentions for a book's production because they lived something closer to the life of those who commissioned and used it.

Par contre, one gets the blitherings of a "modern" scholar who can't figure out why anyone would get up at midnight and troop into a cold church with a lot of other canons to sing midnight Martins every night of their lives.

Taking the work on its own terms is a valuable point of parallax all its own.

Maybe they're just lazy, haven't kept up with the scholarship, etc. , too.

But they might have a good reason. Maybe ask why?

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm with ergative and mamselle.

To be sure, there aren't any major differences between the 16th-century editions and the modern critical ones (as is often the case), but I cannot think of why one would use older editions when better ones are available. Am I being too judgmental here?

I think this is key: the differences aren't very big, so you shouldn't make a mountain out of this molehill. Obviously it depends on just what's being done with the texts, but it seems to me that if we're not talking about relying on translations, it may well be desirable to stick to a text that's closer to the original. Or, as mamselle observes, the newer, critical editions may not be available to the author, either because their institution doesn't carry them or because COVID has hampered their library access.

I would have expected the author to address that point in their response to the referee comments, however. But if, as you said, it's not really a big deal, then it's not a big deal.

[nonntt]

A critical edition of a 16th c. text is probably available in maybe 100 libraries worldwide, most of which are currently closed, while a good digital facsimile is probably available right now, for free, from your desktop. I know there are situations where citing to the critical edition is preferable or even essential, but you haven't mentioned if this is one of those cases. As someone who reads and writes this kind of stuff, I'd much rather have the author working with and citing to an actual historical edition.*

*Unless it's that one case where the one 16th-century edition is just plain bad and we're much better off now there's a modern critical edition to work with.

[Hegemony]

What date are the texts themselves?  I mean the originals?  If this is, say, a 16th-century printing of a 16th-century text, then I can see where it might be warranted. 

But if this is a 16th-century printing of, say, Augustine, or 13th-century exegesis, or some other earlier text, then the author should unquestionably be using a modern critical edition. If there are no differences between a modern critical edition and a 16th-century printing, that's just coincidence — there could be very important differences, and each reader of the article should not have to collate the 16th-century printing with the modern critical edition just to be sure there are not.  I get that many books may be inaccessible right now.  Nevertheless, the problems with using a 16th-century version of something as representative of the critical edition are potentially numerous.  For me this would be a case of "I cannot possibly approve this article for publication unless the author uses the standard scholarly edition."

[Santommaso]

OP here. Thanks everyone. I think in light of what is advised, I'll recommend that the author state why the older editions are being used. I just received the revised manuscript, not a list of answers to my queries and suggestions. The editor seems keen to publish. Yes, the older versions are available in Google books, but the critical editions are in closed libraries. I bought the critical editions myself a few years ago, but not everyone buys books I suppose. Thanks!

[Hegemony]

But did the author only start writing the article in mid-March? Otherwise I see no reason they shouldn't have had access to the modern critical editions. And if your review went to them in mid-March or after, they should have at least explained why they couldn't get the editions. Many revisions come in with an explanation of why this or that change hasn't actually been made, despite recommendations. The fact that the author ignored this recommendation as if it was inconsequential is not actually reassuring to me. I think you are exactly right to follow up on it.

[Caracal]

OP here. Thanks everyone. I think in light of what is advised, I'll recommend that the author state why the older editions are being used. I just received the revised manuscript, not a list of answers to my queries and suggestions. The editor seems keen to publish. Yes, the older versions are available in Google books, but the critical editions are in closed libraries. I bought the critical editions myself a few years ago, but not everyone buys books I suppose. Thanks!

I'm still a bit unclear. Is the situation that this is a paper on some aspect of Hobbes' thought and they are using a 1750 version of Leviathan? If the paper was on responses to Hobbes in the 18th century, that might make sense. When I'm writing about 19th century Americans' understanding of the Bible, I quote the King James version because that's what my subjects were reading.

[jerseyjay]

This seems probably somewhat discipline specific.

I have to admit that I do not necessary see the issue.  As a historian, I would tend to prefer to see the original sources being used. But I could see in literature, classics, philosophy, and political science, there might well be very different norms. It seems like your book could fall in any of these fields.

The question has been asked several times, is there anything particularly authoritative about the editions the author uses? That is, are they the editions that the subject would have likely looked at? For example, if I wanted to write about the influence of Marx on late 19th and early 20th century US politics, I might use the translations that were available at the time, instead of either the German or English Collected Works, both of which are more authoritative in terms of Marx's actual thought but less so on how they would have been viewed at the time.  However, if I wanted to write about the concept of (say) commodity fetishism or primitive capitalist accumulation in Marx, I would probably use one or the other Collected Works. If I wanted to write about the influence of Greek philosophy on the founding fathers of the US, I would likewise look at what editions they would have used, not what is now considered authoritative.   

On the other hand, if I were writing about Shakespeare, I don't think I would use the editions I bought at a garage sale. I assume there is an established edition that is considered authoritative.

I think that you need to make a case why one edition is better than the other--and the fact that you bought the newer edition is not a real reason.  If the norm in your discipline is to use a particular edition, it is fair to note that the m.s. does not use that edition. But if you just wish the norm were to use a particular edition, that's not a good enough reason.

It might also be that the author is from a different discipline with a different norm.

Finally, since you did not get the author's response to your report, you don't really know what he or she said or not. It is possible that there is a good reason for the way he or she has done it, and you just don't know. I think you could note in your final  review that you think it would best to use a particular edition. Then it is up to the editor to decide.

The final reader of my most recent book had a list of suggestions, but my editor essentially told me to ignore some of them. (The reader wanted more discursive footnotes, which the press was not keen on.) So who knows how the press will go forward. But unless you think there is a reason this m.s. CANNOT go forward (e.g., it is plagiarized) it's not really your job except to tell the editor your opinion.