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

[Elena Pierazzo]

Hi Lou,
> 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".
Yes, precisely, which is a very common phenomenon  in medieval 
manuscripts editing.
>  So this is a judgment of the editor, which possibly 
> doesn't belong in a conservative leiden-style transcription at all?
>   
It belongs to transcription as much as <supplied> or <sic> does: when an 
editor uses <supplied> it is because he/she thinks that something is 
missing, and this can be because of a evident damage, an unclear passage 
or any other reasons (grammar, logic, etc.) which are not self evident, 
but the results of an editorial judgement; the same apply to <sic> which 
marks an editorial judgement about the correctness (for many reasons) of 
a given reading. So if <supplied> and <sic> belong to transcription, the 
marking up of interpolated/superfluous passages belong to the same 
category.

But If you prefer, I will be perfectly happy to see such an element to 
be included within the module for critical edition/apparatus.

Elena
> (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
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
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