Print

Print


Of course. In this case, you will certainly agree that if someone (Chris Forster namely) encodes a textual phenomenon like this:

<l>I will arise and go now<app><lem wit="#A">,</lem><rdg wit="#B" /></app> and go to Innisfree</l>

he means that he has made a decision, for whatever reason, that witness A has the right reading, and witness B is *omitting* the comma? Otherwise, he would have encoded this phenomenon like that: 

<l>I will arise and go now<app><rdg wit="#A">,</rdg><rdg wit="#B" /></app> and go to Innisfree</l>

So when Chris wants to transform his encoding into a print version, categorising the absence of comma in source B as an "omission" is *not a problem, but a feature*. 


As for the label of "New" philology, as I suppose you are well aware, I did not coin this opposition for rhetorical purpose. This is how this school of textual criticism is self-described, since Stephen Nichols. As to whether it is really new, or whether the opposition is of any interest, I'm sure we can agree. 

Marjorie




----- Mail original -----
De: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Lundi 30 Novembre 2015 14:15:29
Objet: Re: Appearance of <app> with empty <lem> or <rdg> -- "New Philology"?

It is simply that if you have source a as
cat
and source b as 
cat,
You would see the comma as ‘added’ in source b relative to source a; as ‘omitted ’in source a relative to source b. The problem is having two ways of saying the same thing — and not wishing to imply any sense of priority as to what is relative to what. There might be many reasons for not wanting to imply that either a or b should be seen as more ‘original’, of which supposed affiliation to ‘traditional’ or ‘new philological’ ideas may or may not be a part. I suppose too that I dislike the supposed opposition of ‘traditional’ and ‘new’.

peter

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Marjorie Burghart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. Could you then elaborate on what you mean by the following? That would surely be helpful.  
> 
>>> As others have observed: the use of ‘omitted’ is problematic; one might as 
>>> readily flip the comparison to say “added”.
> 
> 
> Marjorie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
> À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Envoyé: Lundi 30 Novembre 2015 11:49:57
> Objet: Re: Appearance of <app> with empty <lem> or <rdg> -- "New Philology"?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Peter
>> 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. 
>> 
>> Best, 
>> Marjorie
>