Print

Print


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. 

Best, 
Marjorie