I don’t think this is anything to do with “new philology” or “traditional philology” or any other label. Nor indeed, with making ‘decisions’ or not making them — making decisions is part of the business of engaging with texts, manuscripts, works, editing. This labelling is simplistic and unhelpful.
It would be nice to keep the rhetoric out of this discussion.
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Marjorie Burghart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>> As others have observed: the use of ‘omitted’ is problematic; one might as
>> readily flip the comparison to say “added”.
> I would not say it is problematic at all. It simply is a different school of textual criticism.
> If you are into "New Philology", then you will not want to make a decision regarding what's been added or omitted.
> If you are a traditional philologist, making this decision is part of your job as an editor.
> Since Chris, in his example, uses <lem/>, it seems to me that he places himself in the traditional philology current, and therefore making decisions is necessary.
> It seems to me that there is a strong temptation of "New Philology" in digital editions. I have often heard that it was "better" not to use <lem/> in the apparatus. It is a perfectly valid position if you're teaching "New Philology", but should be placed in the context of the different theories of editing, and never be presented as matter-of-fact.