[tei-council] Suppressed text: summary of position (FR 2242434)

[Lou]

One of us is very confused, probably me. I thought you were talking 
about an evident addition in the manuscript, for example in a different 
hand, or from a later revision stage, or in some other way clearly 
distinct from the rest. Your comments below imply that on the contrary 
you are talking about material which is written in the manuscript along 
with the rest, but which the editor believes to be interpolated from 
elsewhere (another ms, another tradition)  or in some other way 
"inauthentic". So this is a judgment of the editor, which possibly 
doesn't belong in a conservative leiden-style transcription at all?

(I am not saying you shouldn't mark it up, I am just trying to get clear 
in my head what it is before proposing ways of marking it and apologise 
if this is already crystal clear to everyone else)


  Elena Pierazzo wrote:
> They are not for two reasons:
> 
> 1. We don't know who actually did the adding, we cannot be sure it is 
> the responsibility of the scribe of the manuscript we are transcribing 
> or of his predecessor (the manuscript from which he copy from) or of 
> another predecessor we have lost, so which scribe? In some cases the 
> text is a transcription done by memory from an oral tradition and the 
> insertion could have been done by anybody. It would be therefore really 
> wrong to attribute that addition to someone in particular. Another 
> example: there is a branch of the tradition of the Inferno of Dante that 
> has 8 interpolated verses in Canto 33. What would you do in his case? 
> use the <add> for each of the manuscripts (8) that contain the 
> interpolation as they all did independently from each other?

> 
> 2. We cannot document (i.e. we do not have the evidences), a part from 
> very very occasional cases (where I would actually use <add>) for the 
> act of adding, the only thing that an editor can say is that  *in his 
> opinion* there is an interpolation for this and this reason, meaning 
> that the treatment of interpolation documents an act of the editor and 
> not an act of the scribe (or whoever), where again <add> is not 
> appropriate as it refer to the scribe (or someone else which interfered 
> with the source).
> 
> Make sense?
> Elena
> 
> Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Why are they not <add resp="scribe" type="interpolation"> then?
>>
>> Elena Pierazzo wrote:
>>   
>>> Gabby also says this would not solve the case "for interpolated verses"
>>> which is quite possibly true, but (if I understand his reason for saying
>>> so) the same would apply to any phrase-level element you might invent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that interpolated segments (and the consequent need for an editor to mark them as superfluous) are quite common in medieval texts. This is a standard practice in editorial work and I think that a standard practice should not be left to the invention of single editors (with consequent proliferation of element, as it is now, by the way), but TEI should provide a standard solution for it.
>>>
>>> Interpolations are not errors of the scribes (so sic cannot be used), but texts that have been added by someone (a scribe, a reader of the text), perhaps initially as a gloss and then have been incorporated to the text. The editor might want, in those cases, to espunge them altogether, or mark them as superfluous, or say 'possibly interpolated' (so a @cert attribute would be required).
>>>
>>> Elena
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Dr Elena Pierazzo
>>>
>>> Research Associate
>>>
>>> Centre for Computing in the Humanities
>>>
>>> King's College London
>>>
>>> 26-29 Drury Lane
>>>
>>> London WC2B 5RL
>>>
>>>
>>> Phone: 0207-848-1949
>>>
>>> Fax: 0207-848-2980
>>>
>>> elena.pierazzo[at]kcl.ac.uk
>>>
>>> www.kcl.ac.uk/cch<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/cch>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>   
> 
> -- 
> Dr Elena Pierazzo
> Research Associate
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities
> King's College London
> 26-29 Drury Lane
> London WC2B 5RL
> 
> Phone: 0207-848-1949
> Fax: 0207-848-2980
> elena.pierazzo at kcl.ac.uk
> www.kcl.ac.uk
>