Manuscript Collation

Contents: Introduction * Samples of Collations * What we learn from collations * Collations in Other Languages * The physical task of collating

Introduction

The manuscript collation is perhaps the most fundamental of all the tool of textual criticism -- the essential source of the data of the discipline.

The purpose of a collation is to transmit all basic information about the text of a manuscript without publishing the text of the manuscript in full. It does this by comparing a manuscript against a standard printed edition (usually the Textus Receptus) and noting all "significant" differences. The amount of space this can save is tremendous. The collation of 1739 by Lake and New, for instance, requires 24 pages to cover all of Paul, when printed in large print. The Nestle-Aland edition, printed in small print, requires 179 pages for the same books. Even allowing for the space required for the the critical apparatus of the Nestle text, this is a savings of at least a factor of five. And this for a manuscript with a relatively large number of deviations from the Textus Receptus! A Byzantine manuscript of the same books would result in a much shorter collation.

There is, unfortunately, no universally recognized standard method of collation. Different transcribers use different base editions, and have different styles of collation. The problem of base editions is probably beyond solution; the edition generally regarded as standard (the 1873 Oxford edition of the Textus Receptus) has been out of print for a very long time, and no new standard is emerging. Some have proposed collating against the United Bible Societies text, but this would mean that older and newer collations would be based on different texts -- a notion unfortunate enough that collations against the TR will probably continue for the foreseeable future. The TR also has the advantage of being a relatively Byzantine text, so that it takes relatively little space to collate Byzantine manuscripts against it (which also reduces the effort needed for the collation, which in turn probably reduces the number of errors). Ideally, we would like to see an electronic version of the Oxford edition made available online at no cost, but this does not appear likely at this time.

The form of collations is somewhat more standardized, though not perfectly so. In general, a collation consists of a series of variations recorded in the following form: Chapter and verse number, lemma (the text of the proof edition), and the variant (the text of the manuscript). The text of the lemma and the variant are normally separated by a square bracket, thus: ]

So, for instance, the first variation in the Nestle-Aland apparatus occurs in Matthew 1:3. Here the majority of witnesses, including the Textus Receptus, read Zara. In B, however, we read instead ZARE. So the collation of B against the Textus Receptus would read

1:1 Zara ] ZARE

There are, of course, variations on this; see the section on Samples of Collations. The most common variation involves omissions. For instance, in Mark 1:1, 28 (and several other manuscripts) omit the words uiou qeou. This may be noted in several ways, e.g.

1:1 uiou qeou ] OM. (the standard way), or
1:1 OM. uiou qeou

It is also quite common to see changes in word order marked ~. Ideally (to prevent ambiguity) both the word order of the collation base and the reading of the manuscript should be noted. You may also see "+" or "add" for additions to the text and "-" for omissions.

If a manuscript has been corrected, these readings should be noted. The reading of the original hand should, of course, be marked with the asterisk (*). If there are multiple correctors, care should be taken to distinguish them. Some collations will include readings of the correctors in the body of the collation; others add them as comments. Which is more effective may depend on the frequency and nature of the corrections.

Editors disagree about the exact amount of detail to be recorded in a collation. Some, e.g., would include variations involving nu movable, while others would omit it. Most would exclude punctuation, since this is known not to be original. Itacisms are also frequently excluded. The use of Nomina Sacra normally is not noted unless an abnormal form is used or in some way it affects the interpretation. But there are no hard and fast rules -- except two: First, a collation should announce what features it does and does not include, and second, if a reading may or may not have textual significance (e.g. in the case of an itacism), it must be noted.

In general, one should try to collate "whole variants" -- that is, if two consecutive words form a logical entity, one should record changes to both together, but if they are unrelated, treat them as two different variants.

Another difficulty arises with damaged texts. One needs a way to indicate both completely illegible letters (e.g. where there is a hole in the page containing a whole letter) and partially legible letters. The notation for the former is usually a dot (e.g. L . GEI indicates a l followed by a defect large enough for one letter, then gei. If the defect is large enough for two letters, one uses two dots, etc (e.g. L . GEI is LEGEI with one letter missing, while L . . EI would be the same word with a gap of two letters, etc.) Gaps of more than a few letters are often marked in the margin (e.g. if a manuscript were defective for the first verse of John's gospel, we would say something like "N.B. MS. defective for en... hn o logos."

A notation is also needed for a partially legible letter (and such are common; suppose a page has lost a margin, and the last thing at the edge of the page is a vertical stroke |. Depending on how the scribe wrote, this could be a portion of any number of letters, e.g. G H I K M N P R. The standard notation in such cases has been for the collator to guess what the letter probably was, then mark it with a dot below the letter. As this is difficult to do in electronic formats, other solutions have been devised, such as placing the letter in parenthesis or in some sort of symbolic notation (the COLLATE program uses a tag pair, [ut]...[/ut]). This should be made clear in the introduction to the collation. (And it should be repeated that this information must be provided. Printing a reconstructed text without noting this fact is purely inexcusable. Indeed, if there is any real doubt about the letter in the manuscript, and multiple readings are possible, these should probably be noted in the margin.)

A good collation should probably also be prefaced by information about the manuscript -- e.g. a list of lacunae (even though these will also be noted in the body of the manuscript), characteristics of the scribe, description of non-Biblical materials included in the volume. This information may not be of significance for the text, but it may well indicate something about the history of the volume -- which, in turn, may provide clues about the text in the book.

It is possible to collate multiple manuscripts in one collation -- indeed, very many collations follow this format, as it saves space. One simply notes which manuscripts have which readings by listing them after the variant. So, for example, the first few lines of Clark's collations of 223, 876, 1022, 1799, 1960, 2401, 2412, and 2423 in 1 Thessalonians reads:

1:1 qessalonikaiwn 223, qessalonikewn 1022      qew + kai 876

1:5 umas(1) ] hmas 1960      -en (3) 1022 2423**

Thus we see that, in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 223 and 1022 have various misspellings for qessalonikewn; the other manuscripts (876, 1960, 2401, 2412, and 2423; 1799 is defective here) agree with the reading of the Textus Receptus. Later in the verse, 876 has qew kai patri for the qew patri of the other manuscripts and the TR. From there on, all the manuscripts agree with the TR until 1:5, where 1960 reads eis hmas for the eis umas of the other manuscripts and the TR. Finally, where most of the manuscripts read kai en pneumati agiou, 1022 and the corrector of 2423 omit en.

Beyond this, the only way to get a feeling for collations is to work with them. The following samples provide a very brief introduction to this process....

Samples of Collations

The table below shows several samples of collations, all taken directly from published and relatively widely available editions of manuscripts. The first column of the table shows the text of Ephesians 1:1-6 as found in the Textus Receptus. The next three columns show the texts of manuscripts 330, 1739, and 1799 (taken, respectively, from the collations published by Davies, Lake and New, and Clark). The differences from the TR text are shown in bold (with omissions being marked [--], in order to make the omissions obvious). This is followed by the actual text of the collations (sometimes with some extraneous material about other manuscripts removed), so that the reader can see how each of these three collators approached their task. (Of the three, the collation of 330 by Davies is much the most idiosyncratic.)

TR	330	1739	1799
Eph. 11 Paulos apostolos Ihsou cristou dia qelhmatos qeou, tois agiois tois ousin en Efesw kai pistois en cristow Ihsou. 2 caris umin kai eirhnh apo qeou patros hmwn kai kuriou Ihsou cristou.	Eph. 11 Paulos apostolos cristou Ihsou dia qelhmatos qeou, tois agiois tois ousin en Efesw kai pistois en cristow [--] . 2 caris umin kai eirhnh apo qeou patros hmwn kai kuriou Ihsou cristou.	Eph. 11 Paulos apostolos Ihsou cristou dia qelhmatos qeou, tois agiois tois ousin [--] kai pistois en cristow Ihsou. 2 [--]	Eph. 11 Paulos apostolos Ihsou cristou dia qelhmatos qeou, tois agiois tois ousin en Efesw kai pistois en cristow Ihsou. 2 caris umin kai eirhnh apo qeou patros hmwn kai kuriou Ihsou cristou.
3 Euloghtos o qeos kai pathr tou kuriou hmwn Ihsou Cristou, o euloghsas hmas en pash eulogia pneumatikh en tois epouraniois cristw, 4 kaqws exelexato hmas en aut pro katabolhs kosmou, einai hmas agious kai amwmous katenwpion autou en agaph, 5 proorisas hmas eis uioqesian dei Ihsou cristou eis auton, kata thn eudokian tou qelhmatos autou 6 eis epainon doxhs ths caritos autou, en h ecaritwsen hmas en tw hgaphmenw....	3 Euloghtos o qeos kai pathr tou kuriou hmwn Ihsou Cristou, o euloghsas hmas en pash eulogia pneumatikh en tois epouraniois cristw, 4 kaqws exelexato hmas en aut pro katabolhs kosmou, einai hmas agious kai amwmous katenwpion autou en agaph, 5 proorisas hmas eis uioqesian dei Ihsou cristou eis auton, kata thn eudokian tou qelhmatos autou 6 eis epainon doxhs ths caritos autou, hs ecaritwsen hmas en tw hgaphmenw uiw autou....	3 Euloghtos o qeos kai pathr tou kuriou hmwn Ihsou Cristou, o euloghsas hmas en pash eulogia pneumatikh en tois epouraniois en cristw, 4 kaqws exelexato hmas en aut pro katabolhs kosmou, einai hmas agious kai amwmous katenwpion autou en agaph, 5 proorisas hmas eis uioqesian dei Ihsou cristou eis auton, kata thn eudokian tou qelhmatos autou 6 eis epainon doxhs ths caritos autou, hs ecaritwsen hmas en tw hgaphmenw....	3 adelfoi euloghtos o qeos kai pathr tou kuriou hmwn Ihsou Cristou, o euloghsas hmas en pash eulogia pneumatikh en tois epouraniois cristw, 4 kaqws exelexato hmas en aut pro katabolhs kosmou, einai hmas agious kai amwmous katenwpion autou en agaph, 5 proorisas hmas eis uioqesian dei Ihsou cristou eis auton, kata thn eudokian tou qelhmatos autou 6 [--] en h ecaritwsen hmas en tw hgaphmenw....

Davies's collation of 330 (without the collations of 436, 462, 2344):
1. ~ cristou a. ihsou.
   OM. ihsou².
6. hs / en h.
   + uiw autou r. hgaphmenw
N.B.: In this collation, / replaces ] and lemma appears after rather than before the slash. (This takes a great deal of getting used to!) Also, the abbreviation a. is used for "before" r. stands for "after." The symbol "~" is used here (as often elsewhere) for a change in word order.

Lake and New's collation of 1739:
i.1. om en efesw
  2 om caris .... cristou
  3 cristw praem en
  6 en h ] hs
N.B.: The notation praem means "add before the lemma" or "is prefixed by." Similar Latin notations may be encountered elsewhere.

Clark's collation of 1799:
3. +adelfoi [ euloghtos
6 - eis epainon doxhs ths caritos autou
N.B.: This collation uses both [ and ]. [ indicates an insertion before the word listed in the lemma. Note also the use of + to indicate an addition and - for an omission

For a fuller sample of a collation, one is invited to examine the author's own collation of 0243 and fourteen other manuscripts of Hebrews (in Adobe Acrobat form; you must have Acrobat or the Acrobat plug-in to read).

What we learn from collations

It may seem that working with collations is a rather specialized task, and that the use of a critical apparatus is enough for the ordinary student. This is true in some instances, but much oversimplified. A collation can teach us a great deal about a manuscript that cannot be learned from the apparatus criticus.

The collation, unlike the apparatus, teaches us something about the nature of the manuscript itself. If we examine the collation of Hebrews, for instance, we observe that Codex Claromontanus (D) regularly confuses the endings -qe and -qai, even when there is no variation in the other manuscripts. We learn, therefore, that Claromontanus has no authority when there are genuine variants of this type.

Most manuscripts have some such idiosyncrasies. , for instance, regularly confounds EI and I, while 056 and 0142 have a habit (derived probably from their common ancestor) of adding extra iotas. 1799 inserts adelfoi according to the lectionary, and so is unreliable for the handful of legitimate variants involving this word. And so forth. None of these facts can be learned from a critical apparatus, and most are quickly obvious in a collation.

In addition, a collation is a complete catalog of the readings of a manuscript, whereas a critical apparatus is always limited. As an example, consider the collation of Hebrews already cited above. This collation includes fifteen manuscripts, and shows 61 variants in Hebrews 1. The Nestle-Aland text, by contrast, cites only 21 variants, despite having 23 so-called "constant witnesses." Most of the extra variants in the collation are, of course, trivial -- spelling mistakes and the like -- but by working with the critical apparatus rather than the collations, one forfeits the ability to decide which variants are important. In addition, most critical apparatus have an associated critical text. This critical text will, almost inevitably, bias the user toward its readings. Whereas a collation, since it is based on a non-critical text (the Textus Receptus), should not result in any pre-judgement of the readings.

Collations in Other Languages

Greek is not the only language for which we need collations, of course. Any text existing in multiple copies calls for collation of these copies. And they may show the same sort of variety as we see in the Greek witnesses.

Let's take a couple of examples from the Vulgate. The following is a proper collation of Matthew 6:7-15. The text on the left is the Clementine Vulgate; that on the right is the text of Codex Lichfeldensis (as given by Hopkins-James). Divergences are shown in bold. The collation follows the text.

Clementine		Lichfeldensis
67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici; putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis; scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, 13 et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen. 14 Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum, dimittet et vobis Pater vester caelestis delicta vestra. 15 Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, nec Pater vester dimittet vobis peccata vestra.		67Orantes autem multum loqui sicut ci putant enim qui inmulti loquiosuo exaudiantur 8 nolite ergo adsimillare eis scit enim pater uester, quibus opus sit uobis ante quam petatis eum , 9 Sic ergo uos orabitis / tur nomentuu Pater noster quies incaelis, scifice nomen tuum, 10  et ueniet regnum tuum fiat uoluntas tua sicut incaelo et interra 11 panem nostrum cotidianum danobis odie 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos demittimus debitoribus nostris 13 et ne nos inducas intemptemtationem sedlibera nos amalo 14 Si enim demisseritis hominibus peccata eorum demittet et uobis Pater uester caelestis delicta uestra. 15 Si autem nondemisseritis hominibus nec Pater uester caelestis dimittet uobis peccata uestra

Collation of Lichfeldensis against the Clementine Vulgate:

6:7 nolite ] omit
    ethnici ] ci (sic.)
    quod ] qui
6:8 assimilari ] adsimillare
    quid ] quibus (scribe initially wrote quid then corrected it)
6:9 orabitis ] orabitis tur nomentuu
    sanctificetur ] scifice (i.e. sanctifice)
6:10 adveniat ] et ueniet
6:11 supersubstantialem ] cotidianum
     hodie ] odie
6:12 dimittimus ] demittimus
6:13 in tentationem ] intemptemtationem
     Amen ] omit
6:14 dimiseritis ] demisseritis
     dimittet ] demittet
6:15 non dimiseritis ] nondemisseritis
     vester] uester [i.e. vester] caelestis
     dimittet ] demittet

This is a fairly standard collation format. That doesn't mean it's always followed! Just to show the possible variations, here are samples of the marginalia to this passage in several Latin editions. I have in my library one publication of a Latin Gospel manuscript (Lemuel J. Hopkins-James, The Celtic Gospels, an edition of Codex Lichfeldensis, used to create the above collation of that manuscript) and three critical editions: The smaller Wordsworth-White, Merk, and the Nestle Greek/Latin/English triglot. Let's show a handful of variants to show how Latin collations and critical editions are sometimes done (for the symbols used for the manuscripts, see the section on the Vulgate in the article on the Versions). As a sample, let's reproduce the text and apparatus of all four volumes for Matthew 6:7-13, then do comparisons side by side for several readings.

Hopkins-James

Text

Apparatus

67Orantes autem multumloqui sicut ci putant enim qui inmulti loquiosuo exaudiantur 8 nolite ergo adsimillare eis scit enim pater uester, quibus opus sit uobis ante quam petatis eum , 9 Sic ergo uos orabitis / tur nomentuu Pater noster quies incaelis, scifice nomen tuum, 10  et ueniet regnum tuum fiat uoluntas tua sicut incaelo et interra 11 panem nostrum cotidianum danobis odie 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos demittimus debitoribus nostris 13 et ne nos inducas intemptemtationem sedlibera nos amalo

7 -nolite after autem.   qui Y for quia    8 adsimillare (gat adsimilari) with the first l erased for assimilari    The Hereford text is resumed here from the leaf (misplaced) inserted at viii.4 containing v.28 to vi.8. There is also a break here in the text of d from vi.8 to viii.27.    quibus is what the scribe wrote and is VO's reading, but the us has been erased not without leaving its traces. Enough of b was left to become part of an ugly d. It was thus corrected to quid which has the support of a b f ff1 h q Aug her gat D Q R C T W O V Z vg. In opus the us is in ligature. At the end of the verse is an example of the corrector's stop, a comma in addition to the scribe's stop viz. ,.    10 et ueniet (ff1 ueniat) foradueniat    11 cotidianum. This is the O.L text found in a f ff1 g1 h q and others though with some it has the tt, her lam IL mg D E C T W (gat has quotidianum with uel supersubstantialem between the lines). In St. Matthew, St. Jerome substituted supersubstantialem in its place but went back to the old word in St. Luke. The O.L. form, however, has not been displaced in public and private prayer. In our text the Lord's Prayer was transcribed again at the end of St. Mark with the reading sub stantialem showing the process whereby the O.L. text was corrected to the Vulgate standard.    odie for hodie.    12 demittimus O K V X for dimittimus    13 nos inducas E R W M Q K vg for inducas nos.    temptemtationem (temptationem b k f h S) for temtationem.

Merk

Text

Apparatus

67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici; putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis; scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, 13 et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

8 quid OZJMaDQRKVCTW] quibus rel. 11 supersubst.]cotidianum SmDssCTW 12 dimisimus Ep*Z*B*JD 13 amen > codd.

Nestle

Text

Apparatus

67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici; putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis; scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, 13 et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

8 quid ] quibus    13 > inducas nos | - amen

Wordsworth/White (editio minor)

Text

Apparatus

67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici: putant enim quia in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo adsimilari eis: scit enim Pater uester quibus opus sit uobis ante quam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo uos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adueniat regnum tuum: fiat uoluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie: 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: 13 et ne inducas nos in temtationem, sed libera nos a malo.

7 ethnici + faciunt    quia: quod 8 quibus: quid 11 supersubstantialem AHMVZ al. : cotidianum CD al. ; supersubstantialem cotidianum F 12 dimisimus DZ* 13 >nos inducas ; patiaris nos induci D (cf. Tert. 'de Orat.' viii)   malo + amen

Other examples of the various styles:

Mark12:29. The Clementine text reads Dominus Deus tuus; this has the support of Dublinensis, Sangermanensis, Vallicellanus, and others; Amiatinus and other early manuscripts read Dominus Deus noster (compare the Greek). Our authorities describe the variant as follows:

Text	Apparatus
Hopkins-James text: dns ds tuus	(not cited in apparatus)
Merk text: Dominus Deus tuus	tuus X*IGDLVThW ] noster rel. vl pl.
Nestle text: Dominus Deus tuus	tuus ] noster (i.e. A F both read noster for the tuus found in the text)
Wordsworth-White text: Dominus Deus noster	noster: tuus DGV :

Luke 2:2. The Clementine text reads Cyrino, supported by the large majority of manuscripts. The Wordsworth/White text reads Quirino on the basis of harleianus (and the historical name Quirinius). Our authorities describe the variant as follows:

Text	Apparatus
Hopkins-James text: quirno	quirno (her cirino) for Cyrino
Merk text: Cyrino	Quirino ZsL Hier (i.e. Z Ep* L Jerome)
Nestle text: Cyrino	quirino (no supporing evidence cited)
Wordsworth-White text: Quirino	Quirino Z: Cyrino ACDFHMV

At least Latin is widely read and has relatively stong standards. In less-common languages, things can get even more difficult. The following shows the opening of two editions of the Old English poem The Dream of the Rood. Both are based on the same manuscript (the Vercelli Book), though with different orthographic styles. I parallel the first ten lines of the poem as presented by (1) Bruce Dickens and Alan S. C. Ross, The Dream of the Rood, Methuen's Old English Library, 1963; and (2) John C. Pope, Seven Old English Poems, Norton, 1981.

	Dickens/Ross	Pope
(1)	Hæt, ic sefna cyst,     secan ylle,	Hwæt, ic swefna cyst     secgan wille,
(2)	hæt me emætte     to midre nihte,	hwæt me gemætte     to midre nihte,
(3)	syan reordberend     reste unedon.	sian reord-berend     reste wunodon.
(4)	uhte me æt ic esae     syllicre treo	uhte me æt ic gesawe     seldlicre treo
(5)	on lyft lædan     leohte beunden,	on lyft lædan    leohte bewunden,
(6)	beama beorhtost.    Eall æt beacen æs	beama beorhtost.    Eall æt beacen wæs
(7)	beoten mid olde;     immas stodon	begoten mid golde;    gimmas stodon
(8)	fæere æt foldan sceatum,     sylce ær fife æron	fægere æt foldan sceatum     swelce ær fife wæron
(9)	uppe on am eaxlespanne.     Beheoldon ær eneldryhte,	uppe on am eaxl-gespanne.     Beheoldon ær engel-dryhta fela,
(10)	fæere urh foresceaft;     ne æs ær huru fracodes eala.	fægere urh for-gesceaft;     ne wæs ær huru fracues gealga,
	(1) Hæt: MS Hæt with large h enclosing capital (2) hæt Grein1: MS hæt. (9) eaxlespanne Sweet: MS eaxle e spanne.   eneldryhte: MS enel dryht|nes ealle.	Emendations: 2 hwæt ] MS hæt   9 eaxl] MS. eaxle.   engel-sryhta fela] MS engel dryhtnes ealle. Variant spellings in the MS: 1 wylle.   3 syan.   wunedon.   4 syllicre.   treow.   8 swylce.   10 fracodes.

The physical task of collating

For the reasons described above, it is strongly suggested that every student undertake a collation or two. It need not be of an actual manuscript (though this is best). Simply take one printed or electronic text and compare it against another. Ideally it should be an actual manuscript text, but if worst comes to worst, one can (say) collate the UBS text against the Textus Receptus.

The results can be educational and humbling, especially if you are able to compare the result with an existing collation of the manuscript. Collation is a difficult and stressful occupation, even with the best manuscripts (generally the easiest are the better-preserved uncials). When dealing with a more difficult manuscript (e.g. 6, which is written in such a small hand that some people need to magnify it to read it; or 33 or 2344, damaged by damp; or any of the hundreds of manuscripts written by scribes with bad handwriting), the task becomes even more daunting. To give a personal example: The collation of Hebrews was based entirely on already-extant transcriptions, so eyestrain was not a factor. (Fortunately for me, as I have very weak eyes!) It was not, for obvious reasons, checked by anyone else, and I myself checked only the non-orthographic variants. The result is only about a dozen pages long, even in large print. And even so, it took me dozens of hours (spread over several months) to compile. And there are doubtless several errors even so.

The task being what it is, careful preparation is required to create a good collation. Experts make the following recommendations for accurate collations:

• All manuscripts should be "twice checked." Two collations should be made, without reference to each other, and compared. For a collation which is to be published or used for a major critical apparatus, it should not only be double-checked and compared, but the work should be done independently. That is, the initial collations should be done by two different individuals, and the results compares by a third individual, who will make reference to the manuscript where the two collations differ.
• Before beginning a collation, one should familiarize one's self with the manuscript. The best way to do this is to collate a chapter or two (preferably not the first chapters one will collate "for real"), then throw this collation away. Its only purpose is to make the collator familiar with the manuscript -- the handwriting style, the scribal peculiarities, the organization of the pages.
• One should maintain a proper schedule. Spending too much time collating will result in poor quality work, and may lead to eyestrain as well. Ideally, one should not collate for more than two hours a day, and one should not allow more than four hours of work under any circumstances. One should take regular breaks, and assure that there is proper lighting and working conditions. Distractions such as phone calls should be avoided if at all possible.
• Even if you cannot bring in someone else to check your collations, use as many cross-checks as possible. The method you use depends on your techniques. You might, for instance, read back your collation (aloud) to see if you have transcribed the words correctly. You might "collate back" into the Textus Receptus, and read that back, or compare it with your original manuscript.
• Never assume, because a word has the right beginning and ending, that it is the "correct" word. Variant spellings, some of which could represent different words or word forms, are very common.
• Before beginning the collation, examine the corrections. Try to determine how many correctors there have been, and perhaps their habits.
• If you are working as part of a project, and so are called upon to follow a particular collation format, study the format in detail before beginning. Look over other collations in this format. Practice using the format. (This is distinct from practicing with the manuscript. Don't try both at once; you're likely to lose track of one or the other.)

Another suggestion, this one personal: Don't start with a collation in a foreign language! Start by comparing two texts in your own language. A good place for this is in collections of old folk songs or modernized editions of an ancient text. This lets you practice the physical task of collation without having to worry about understanding a foreign language as well.

For those who wish to have something to work from, and whose native language is English, here are two transcriptions of a fifteenth century English text, "The Agincourt Carol." (This should, incidentally, put to rest the notion that "carols" are Christmas songs; they are a particular form of religious ballad.) The first is from Chappell's Popular Music of the Olden Time (also variously known as Old English Popular Music, etc.); the second is from Percy's Reliques. The Percy text was transcribed from a manuscript copied from the manuscript used by Chappell.

The Chappell Text Deo gracias anglia, Redde pro victoria 1 Owre kynge went forth to normandy, With grace and myght of chyvalry: Ther god for him wrought mervelusly. Wherfore englonde may calle and cry Deo gracias.... 2 He sette a sege the sothe for to say, to harflu toune with ryal aray; that toune he wan, and made afray, that fraunce shal rywe tyl domesday. Deo gracias.... 3 Than went owre Kynge with alle his oste, thorwe fraunce for all the frenshe boste: he spared no drede of leste ne most, tyl he come to agincourt coste. Deo gracias.... 4 Than forsoth that knyght comely, in agincourt feld he faught manly: thorw grace of god most myghty, he had bothe the felde and the victory. Deo gracias.... 5 Ther dukys and erlys, lorde and barone, were take and slayne, and that wel sone, and some were ladde into Lundone with ioye and merthe and grete renone Deo gracias.... 6 Now gracious god he save owre Kynge, his peple, and all his wel wyllynge: gef him gode lyfe and gode endynge, that we with merth mowe savely synge, Deo gracias....

The Percy Text Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria! 1 Owre kynge went forth to Normandy, With grace and myyt of chivalry; The God for hym wrouyt marvelously, Wherfore Englonde may calle, and cry Deo gratias: Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria. 2 He sette a sege, the sothe for to say, To Harflue toune with ryal aray; That toune he wan, and made a fray, That Fraunce shall rywe tyl domes day. Deo gratias &c. 3 Than went owre kynge, with alle his oste, Thorowe Fraunce for all the Frenshe boste; He spared 'for' drede of leste, ne most, Tyl he come to Agincourt coste. Deo gratias &c. 4 Than for sothe that knyyt comely In Agincourt feld he faught manly: Thorow grace of God most myyty He had bothe the felde and the victory. Deo gratias &c. 5 Ther dukys, and erlys, lorde and barone, Were take, and slayne, and that wel sone, And some were ledde in to Lundone With joye, and merthe, and grete renone. Deo gratias &c. 6 Now gracious God he save owre kynge, His peple, and all his wel wyllynge, Gef him gode lyfe, and gode endynge, That we with merth mowe savely synge Deo gratias &c.

(We note incidentally that, using these texts, we can detect the loss of an obsolete letter, just as Homeric scholars can detect the fact that Homer used the digamma. The Middle English text of this song clearly used the yogh, . In Chappell, this was replaced -- as is now fairly normal -- by gh; the Percy text substitutes y.)