in principle, your suggestion is feasible, and may turn out to be the case if checked against the manuscript page. However, based on the rendering/typesetting conventions of this particular letterpress edition, I'd tend to disagree: horizontal alignment like this seems to consistently indicate a substitution; insertions, on the other hand, are consistently rendered in one of the following ways, depending on the presence and location of insertion marks in MS:
* baseline caret and/or supralinear caret (carets can themselves be struck out)
* in the absence of any insertion marks in MS, the word is horizontally positioned to indicate the logical insertion point in the text
So if it were an insertion, as you suggest below, based on the conventions of the letterpress typesetting, I would expect to see "Speculatists" positioned to the left of "Theorists" (assuming there was no insertion mark). (If this doesn't make sense in writing, I can provide an example from the print edition.)
Thought experiment: For the sake of the argument, let's assume (1) that the example appears in MS exactly like on printed page, and that (2) we had strong supporting evidence that the authorial intent was in fact substitution, e.g. in the form of an authorial errata list or diary entry or what have you. Given those premises, how would you encode it?
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:03:14 -0400
Syd Bauman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I'm wondering if calling that most interesting case an obvious
>substitution might be a bit of a stretch for some. After all, the
>authorial intent might have been
>* writes "Theorists and men of ..."
>* Hmmm ... let's make that "Speculatists, theorists, and other men of
> business ..."
>* inserts "Speculatists"
>* [before getting around to "," and lower-casing 'T'] Hmmm ... that
> sounds over-the-top, "Theorists" will have to do
>* crosses out "Speculatists"
>> David and I here at Rotunda have some semi-diplomatic
>> transcriptions in the Alexander Hamilton Papers that sometimes
>> contain the following situation:
>> As it is on the page, I would hesitate to interpret “Theorists” on the
>> baseline as a case of “restored” or “stet”, and it's certainly not a
>> case for <del>.
>> To my mind, this is a word substitution where explicit cancellation is
>> not marked; since the insertion “Speculatists” was cancelled, my guess
>> would be that the reason was a “mid-substitution” change of mind on the
>> author's part.
>> More generically, it is the case of text that has no distinctive
>> features other than the fact that it is clearly part of a substitution.
>> We considered two solutions for this:
>> (1) schema modification to allow mixed content inside <subst>
>> (2) schema modification to allow <seg> inside <subst> (cf. David's
>> question datestamped 2011-01-07 under FR ticket #2859355)
>> FWIW, we decided on (2), thus:
>> If anyone has suggestions for a more elegant solution under P5, we
>> would be grateful to hear about them (maybe under a separate
Markus Flatscher, Editorial and Technical Specialist
ROTUNDA, The University of Virginia Press
PO Box 801079, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4318 USA
Courier: 310 Old Ivy Way, Suite 302, Charlottesville VA 22903
Email: [log in to unmask]