Editions of the Paris Codex (taken from James B. Porter's site)
Aglio (1835) Drawn reproduction, one copy in Newberry library
Chicago (Stuart in Love 1994)
Duruy (1864) Photographic reproduction, (B+W), 10 copies
(Leclerc 1878), 50 copies (Burbourg 1871:95). The 1864 edition 'and the edition
of 1888 are to all general purposes identical; but, notwithstanding that the
photographs are steadily yellowing by age, the chromatic values are so far
superior that I have continually come to find them the court of final decision
in doubtful matters. In a very considerable number of instances a close
examination of the photographs has suggested the presence of faint lines of
color on glyphs or figures, which was entirely indistinguishable in both of the
printed editions, and which was yet in every case confirmed, although sometimes
with difficulty, by the examination of the original MS.' (Gates 1910:8-9).
1859 Jose Perez publishes two studies of the manuscript
(Stuart in Love 1994).
1859 Professor Leon de Rosny 'finds' the manuscript 'in a
basket among a lot of old papers, black with dust and practically abandoned in
a chimney corner. From a few words with the name Perez, written on a torn scrap
of paper then around it but since lost, it received its name.' (Gates 1910:7).
Thompson adds that the writing on the paper is 'claimed to be of the
seventeenth century' (Thompson 1950: 25). Most likely, Mr. Perez was still
deciding whether to liberate or reproduce the manuscript when Prof. Rozny
espied its hiding place and snatched it away for reproduction.
Rosny (1872: P. 117-142) Drawn reproduction, (B+W), x
copies. 'Rosny published a reproduction, drawn by hand, which, as stated by him
later, may be disregarded for practical purposes.' (Gates 1910:7).
Rosny (1887) lithographic reproduction, (color), 85 copies
(Gates 1910: 8), 45 copies (Anders 1968: 23). 'The colored edition of 1887,
having been worked over by hand, in lithography, is defective in various
places, both as regards the black of the figures and glyphs, and in the colors.
Coloring exists on the original codex which was not reproduced at all in the
edition, and the colors given are in many cases not exact. Thus on pages 19 and
20 two different reds are used for the backgrounds, whereas but one is found in
the original; on pages 15, 16 the figures are a turquoise green, and on pages
17, 18 an olive green, the correct color for all four being turquoise green.'
(Gates 1910:8).
Rosny (1888) Photographic reproduction, (B+W), 100 copies.
'I have been able to find no inaccuracy in the 1888 edition, which is indeed
stated in the introduction to be entirely by mechanical process, without hand intervention;
but being reproduced by printers ink in black only' (Gates 1910:8).
Gates (1909) Photographic and Typeset reproduction, (color),
x copies. Thompson advises 'The[Paris screenfold] published by Gates should be
avoided because of the casting of glyphs in type, a treatment which greatly
reduces their value for students. Gates also restores glyphs, usually without
any indication of the fact.' (Thompson 1950:26). Thompson's critique is
somewhat misleading, Gates reproduced his photographs of the 1864 edition along
with his type set reproduction and a separate set of glyph cards. Most of
Gates' restorations were confined to these cards and do not appear in the text
of the reproduction proper. While it is possible to fault Gates' identification
of individual glyphs it is grossly unfair to assert he did not indicate his
reconstructions.
Villacorta and Villacorta (1933) Drawn reproduction, (B+W),
x copies. Villacorta and Villacorta's edition is drawn freehand, possibly from
the photographs in Gates (1909) edition. Thompson observed that all editions of
Maya codices are very rare and advised the reader 'to use the accessible
edition published by Villacorta and Villacorta' (Thompson 1950:26). This in
spite of the generally low quality of the younger Villacorta's drawings.
Lounsbury was also overly generous when he observed that 'In minor details
[Villacorta's] drawings do not reproduce accurately the original of the codex'
(Lounsbury 1973). Thompson later observed that Villacorta's Dresden Screenfold
shows 'some errors in drawings of glyphs and occasionally in numbers;
artistically it is far inferior to the original' (Thompson 1972:17). These
statements are equally true for his Paris screenfold. Indeed, it is not
impossible that overreliance on Villacorta's drawings has retarded progress in
Maya epigraphy.
Anders (1968) Photographic reproduction, (color), x copies.
Anders edition reproduces Gates copies of the 1864 edition. Unfortunately, the
reproduction of the 1864 edition is screened rather than being reproduced in
continuous tone. Close inspection of this reproduction therefore reveals only a
field of small black dots.
Anders screenfold is essentially a reprint of Rosny's 1887
edition (Anders 1968:23). However, Anders screenfold is marred by discrepancies
between the black and white of the 1864 and 1887 editions. For example, the
head of the figure on page 3 A 3 is clearly visible in the 1864 edition and
entirely absent in Anders reprint of the 1887 edition.
Knorosov (1982) Drawn reproduction, (B+W), x copies.
Knorosov's edition reproduces Villacorta and Villacorta's freehand drawing,
which partially explains the resulting problems of identification in the
accompanying analysis.
Love (1994) Photographic reproduction, (B+W), x copies.
Love's edition reproduces Gates copies of the 1864 edition with the same
printing technique and the same unfortunate results as Anders' 1968
publication.
Porter Drawn reproduction, (color), x copies. The present
edition of the screenfold was traced from a projected image of Anders' 1968
edition. Each of the black lines was traced on both sides to ensure accurate
reproduction of the brush strokes on the original. This tracing was then inked
with Anders' edition as a guide and the inked copy was then checked against
Gates' photographs, typeset reproduction and glyph cards. There are several
instances where Gates' edition needed correction, but the present edition would
be wrong in several instances without his typeset edition. All restoration is
indicated by hachured lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment