Print

Print


As so often in these discussions, I suppose it boils down to how the (modern) editor in question sees his/her role, and perhaps those of us who've argued for a clear distinction between 'what's on the manuscript' and 'what we think should be on the manuscript' are guilty of over-privileging our own role whereas Tim is more humbly seeing himself as just one more link in a long textual chain.  Despite what I earlier said, I'm beginning to see the logic in Tim's approach, though it still 'feels' wrong to me.  The pragmatic value of Elena's and my approach is that you have a concrete distinction between Tim's later scribe's comment, which physically appears on the manuscript, and our assessment of the correctness of that comment, which will only appear in the electronic document.
 
Also, a new level of complication arises here: later scribe's comment obviously is editorial and should be tagged as such - <add type="editorial" resp="scribe2">?  But was the earlier scribe editing what he thought was an error in his source or was he really just being a 'bad and stupid' scribe and reading what he expected to see instead of what was actually in the text?  (I'm sure we've all done that, I know I have.)  So if we as editors agree with Later Scribe, it surely makes sense to say so in a <corr> or <sic> tag on Earlier Scribe's reading.  I don't see how it could make sense for Modern Editor to <delete> Earlier Scribe's mistake and <add> Later Scribe's correction _in the text_, but it does make sense to tag Later Scribe's _comment_ as <add>.
 
But I do see the argument that that's what Later Scribe was doing himself - instead of altering the text, he commented on it, so _from his point of view_ his comment is more like a <corr> than an <add>.  The distinction isn't as clear-cut as I'd initially thought.  And heaven knows what will happen if at some point people start producing new electronic editions of older electronic editions and find themselves having to correct the earlier electronic editor's 'corrections'.
 
I do agree it was a very entertaining example - and also a good way of focussing on the issues at stake.
 
John
John Young
The Newton Project
Imperial College London
 
(Apologies for double-posting to Tim - I hit Reply instead of Reply All first time round.)

________________________________

From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Tim Finney
Sent: Mon 29/01/2007 4:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scribe / editoral corrections



I am temporarily suspending the promise to hold my peace. As far as
logical distinction is concerned, I think that attribute values are
sufficient to separate the opinions of modern and ancient editors.

Best

Tim Finney

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 15:55 +0000, Elena Pierazzo wrote:
> I don't think the point here is chronological (i.e. pre or post
> Gutenberg) or if the kind of operation performed by a modern editor
> are the same as the one done by a scribe.
>
> I think the distinction is more on describing a primary source as it
> is vs. editing the same source. What I think is fundamental is keeping
> logically separated the two operations, i.e. having separate elements
> to deal with in both circumstances.
>
> Elena
>