Acceso usuarios
Blanca Urgell Lázaro 
Lan honetan Larramendiren “apologia” izenaz ezagun den liburuak (De la antigüedad…) egilearen bizian izan zituen bi edizioak eta jasan zituen gorabeherak aztertu ditugu, beraren interpretazioa baldintza lezaketelakoan. Bien erkaketak berri jakingarriak eman ditu 1728ko lehen edizioak izandako harrera istilutsuaz, lehen edizioaren ale batzuetan bakarrik agertzen den “Aviso al lector” berriaz, atal horren edukiak 2. edizioan (d. g.) izan zuen patuaz eta gaztelaniazko hitzen euskal etimologia zerrendan gertatutako aldaketez, besteak beste.
Azterketaren ildoak 2. edizioaren data bilatzera eraman gaitu. Barneko eta kanpoko argudioak konbinatuz, aipatu ohi den 1740ko gutxi gorabeherako dataren ordez 1730-1736ko epea eman dugu ziurtzat, eta 1730-1732ko zehatzagoa aski egiantzekotzat. Bidenabar, Larramendiren hiztegiaren idazketaren kronologiarako argigarriak bide diren datuak ere erdietsi ditugu.
Ondorio orokor gisa, berriro egiaztatu dugu lan bibliografikoa filologoaren oinarrizko eta ezin utzizko zeregina dela.
In this paper we have analyzed the two editions that were made of the book known as larramendi’s «apology» (de la antigüedad...) during the author’s lifetime, and the dif-ficulties that surrounded it, because they could affect the interpretation of the book. The com-parison of both editions has provided us with a fascinating insight into the problems that arose from the publication of the first edition (1728), the «notice to the reader» that only appears in some copies of the first edition, the whereabouts of the «notice» in the second edition (s.d.), the changes made to the list of Basque etymologies of Spanish words and so on. Throughout our research, the need to date the second edition grew. By piecing together inter-nal and external arguments, we have proposed a range that seems to us to be certain, of between 1730-1736, and another more precise and quite plausible one of between 1730-1732 instead of the approximate date of 1740 that has hitherto been suggested. Along the way, we have also obtained some data that may be useful to the chronology of the composition of larramendi’s dictionary. By way of general conclusion, we have once again proved that bibliographical work is a fun-damental and indispensable task in philology.
