Several wrote something similar to what Paul wrote:

> Fine points are not our specialty, but we would certainly
> tag an epigraph like the one in question (which is very
> similar to the Lucretius example used in the Guidelines from P3
> to P5) using <epigraph> and <bibl>. Our reduced tag set
> collapses <quote> into <q> and abandons <cit> altogether,
> so we would tag simply as
> ...
> But this, I think, would be a little more correct:
>   <epigraph>
>   <cit>
>    <quote xml:lang="lat">
>    <l>Optima dies ... prima fugit</l>
>    </quote>
>    <bibl>VIRGIL</bibl>
>   </cit>
>   </epigraph>

O.k., it is now clearer how <bibl> may be used in this context. There
were two parts to my confused interpretation of "bibliographic

1) that appearing in the original, such as the "VIRGIL." "closer" to
   the epigraph. (Sorry to use "closer", but not sure what else to
   call it in this context.)

2) that added by the preparer of the TEI document, to augment the
   citation information.

I assume for #2 the extended bibliographic information can be placed
in the header section? For example, VIRGIL's full name is "Publius
Vergilius Maro".

Anyway, thanks again everyone.

Jon Noring