Jump to content

Jonstown Compendium #271,852


Oracle

Recommended Posts

In the latest version of King of Sartar the Jonstown Compendium entry #271,852 is listed twice, once on page 30, and a second time on page 32. (It's even listed that way in the table of contents).

The two entries have different contents, and so I would guess, they should have different numbers.

The second entry does not exist in the original version of King of Sartar from 1992.

So is this just a editing error, which was missed during the proofreading of the newer version? Or are both sections only excerpts from a single (larger) entry in the Jonstown Compendium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Oracle said:

In the latest version of King of Sartar the Jonstown Compendium entry #271,852 is listed twice, once on page 30, and a second time on page 32. (It's even listed that way in the table of contents).

The latter looks like a partial expansion of the former. If you were to consult the original Jonstown Compendium you'd probably find them all part of a single entry, split by the compiler of the manuscript.

There are quite a number of inconsistences and apparent errors in King of Sartar (all intentional). It's an unreliable in-world set of documents, and in some areas is potentially as suspect as reading the Iliad as an accurate historical account of the wars in western Anatolia in the Bronze Age.

Edited by M Helsdon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:

There are quite a number of inconsistences and apparent errors in King of Sartar (all intentional). It's an unreliable in-world set of documents, and in some areas is potentially as suspect as reading the Iliad as an accurate historical account of the wars in western Anatolia in the Bronze Age.

Exactly.  The book goes to some length about the conflicts between the different 'historical' documents, and the imperfection acknowledged by some of the scholars involved about the accuracy of the foundational documents that they used (not to mention the foibles of the individual scholars themselves).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M Helsdon said:

The latter looks like a partial expansion of the former. If you were to consult the original Jonstown Compendium you'd probably find them all part of a single entry, split by the compiler of the manuscript.

There are quite a number of inconsistences and apparent errors in King of Sartar (all intentional). It's an unreliable in-world set of documents, and in some areas is potentially as suspect as reading the Iliad as an accurate historical account of the wars in western Anatolia in the Bronze Age.

 

1 hour ago, Yelm's Light said:

Exactly.  The book goes to some length about the conflicts between the different 'historical' documents, and the imperfection acknowledged by some of the scholars involved about the accuracy of the foundational documents that they used (not to mention the foibles of the individual scholars themselves).

All true. But so far I was under the impression (which may be wrong), that these inconsistencies existed between different documents, but not within a single document. Seeing the Jonstown Compendium as a single document, which compiles several information snippets, this double entry came a bit as a surprise.

So for me the question is still open, if this double entry is an (intentional) inconsistency, partial citations of a single entry from the Jonstown Compendium (as described by @M Helsdon) or just an editing issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Oracle said:

 

All true. But so far I was under the impression (which may be wrong), that these inconsistencies existed between different documents, but not within a single document. Seeing the Jonstown Compendium as a single document, which compiles several information snippets, this double entry came a bit as a surprise.

The author seems to have divided a single Jonstown Compendium entry for the purposes of his text. This supposition is further supported by the variation between the papers gathered together in the earlier text and the latest. It can only be supposed that, as with many ancient documents, different versions were preserved, and that the compiler of the later version attempted to impose additional order on the material taken from the Compendium, obtaining the Kings List, interposing other historical entries, before including the description of folk ballads (which the earlier version ignores), as they are not as historical in nature as the Kings List and the subsequent material. The JC entries run: 271852, 271851, 271850, 271852. Instead of retaining the entry order, the author or perhaps a scribe, has attempted to impose a thematic order instead.

It is only to be hoped that future archaeological excavations may unearth other versions including new material, which may add additional understanding of this poorly documented and legendary period.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Oracle said:

I've just realized, that @M Helsdon was the Copy Editor of the latest version of King of Sartar. So I take his above statement as kind of an official explanation :).

I proof-read it several times (and there's one very obvious typo I missed) but in this case, I thought the numbering was intentional: either due to a split entry or an intentional error. However, my opinion is in no way official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ls it possible that while the entry #271,852 starts on page 30, that entry #271,852 goes for 3 or more pages, and the relevant text entry is on page 32?  That way both entries are correct but using a marginally different notion of how to reference, as would be typical in any LM temple, and would generate endless academic arguments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

...  That way both entries are correct but using a marginally different notion of how to reference, as would be typical in any LM temple, and would generate endless academic arguments.

+pi

(Because +1 rendered into a circular argument becomes pi, doncha know...)

 

  • Like 1

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...