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

[Lou]

This seems to be a different case from the one discussed in sf ticket 
#2242434 then.

For the "stuff which the editor thinks should not be there but which 
isn't sic or gap" tag, any takers for "delenda"?

i'll get my coat




Elena Pierazzo wrote:
> 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
>