Print

Print


Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> A - For instance, when I have a footnote giving two /lectiones/ from the 
> same manuscrip, one before correction and the other after:
> Text: ad lectorem Venetum (b) .
> Note: b) /ms./, lectionem venerum corrigé postérieurement en lectorem 
> Venetum
> 
> Should I encode it like this, with two seprate rdg for the same witness, 
> each with a different @type (for instance, "anteCorr" and "postCorr")? 
> Ex.: 
> <app n="b">
> <lem>lectorem Venetum</lem>
> <rdg wit="#ms.2" type="anteCorr">lectionem venerum</rdg>
> <rdg wit="#ms.2" type="postCorr">lectorem Venetum</rdg>
> </app>
> 
> It gives an accurate account of the state of the witness, BUT it is an 
> interpretation of the original note in the critical apparatus, i.e. if I 
> do this I delete some text added by the original editor.
> 
> Is there a more accurate / cleaner way of encoding this kind of note?

Just to make sure, is the correction done by the scribe or the editor? 
If the latter the way to do this with <choice> with <sic> and <corr>. If 
the former then I'm guessing it is a <subst> in one of the original 
manuscript (I'm assuming.) Then of course it depends on whether the 
scribe crossed out just that letter, or rewrote the entire word.

====
<app n="b">
     <lem>lectorem Venetum</lem>
     <rdg wit="#ms.2">lectionem <subst>
             <del>v</del>
             <add place="supra">V</add>
         </subst>entum <note resp="#ed">/ms./, lectionem venerum corrigé 
postérieurement en lectorem Venetum</note>
     </rdg>
</app>
====

> B - Let's consider this other note. There is some text added verbosely 
> in the note by the editor.
> 
> *Text*: Hiis diebus civitas Pergamensis(b) tenebat exersitum
> *Note*: b) se, /mis indûment avant/ tenebat /par le ms/.
> 
> Should I encode it as:
> ... Pergamensis <app n="b">
>     <lem/>
>     <rdg type="addition" wit="#ms"><sic>se</sic></rdg>
> </app>...
> 
> (which again leads me to suppress remarks by the original editor)
> Or should I add a note in the rdg, to preserve the editor's comments? Like:
> ... Pergamensis <app n="b">
>     <lem/>
>     <rdg type="addition" wit="#ms"><sic>se</sic> <note><hi 
> rend="italics">mis indûment avant</hi> tenebat.</note></rdg>
> </app>...
> Here it could work, but not in the first example.

I would definitely preserve the editor's note as you have in the second 
method.  (though with a @resp).  You can always strip them out for display.

> C - A third example:
> 
> *Text*: …reliqui demum meos socios (d)
> *Note*: d) domum meam solito, /Bal.;/ dni /ou/ dm, /ms.; en note/ meam 
> solita.
> 
> Here we have 2 witnesses (Bal. et ms.), the latter with a) an uncertain 
> lectio ("dni" or "dm") and b) a part of the lectio which is written as a 
> note ("meam solita")
> Any suggestions on how to properly encode this?

<app>
<lem>reliqui demum meos socios</lem>
<rdg wit="#Bal">reliqui domum meam solito <note resp="#ed">domum meam 
solito, /Bal.;</note>
</rdg>
<rdg wit="#ms">reliqui <choice>
     <unclear>
         <choice>
             <abbr>dni</abbr>
             <expan>d<ex>omi</ex>ni</expan>
         </choice>
     </unclear>
     <unclear>
         <choice>
             <abbr>dm</abbr>
             <expan>d<ex>omu</ex>m</expan>
         </choice>
     </unclear>
</choice>
<add resp="#scribe">meam solita</add>
<note resp="#ed">dni /ou/ dm, /ms.; en note/ meam solita.</note>
</rdg>
</app>

So a reading with a choice between two unclears which then each have a 
choice to expand the abbreviation (which I'm just assuming you want to 
do...), with the 'meam solita' that the scribe added 'in a note' as an add.

Not sure if those are right, but they are what occur to me at first glance.

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk