II. Descriptive Transcription
The transcription of a manuscript may be required: first, in an edition
of a manuscript in which the editor wishes to present what has been called
a 'genetic' text; that is, one that by a special construction provides within
the text itself all the evidence for its growth and thus is without an
apparatus; second, within an apparatus itself when another document
provides the copy-text but an unreproduced underlying manuscript must be
reconstructed by reference to the Historical Collation and a special list of
Alterations in the Manuscript. In this second connection two main uses
appear: (a) to transcribe passages of deleted or of variant matter of some
length as part of an Alterations entry or else in a separate section of the
apparatus devoted to transcripts of all deleted draft leaves and extraneous
matter; (b) to solve the problem of a more condensed
form of description in a complex regular entry than can be managed by the
usual verbal description.
Heretofore, 'genetic' texts have been produced by transcribing the
original form of the manuscript and then indicating the series of its
revisions directly after the revised word(s) by means of a number of
arbitrary symbols like pointed brackets to the left or right, arrows, bars,
and so on. This method was brought to a high state of refinement by the
publication in 1962 of Melville's Billy Budd, edited by
Harrison Hayford and Merton M. Sealts, Jr., which has since served as a
general model for other manuscript texts. Despite the maximum
compression gained by these symbols, the form of transcription is subject
to certain difficulties: the symbols take considerable acquaintance before
they can be read with any sort of ease and understanding, and this difficulty
is compounded by the lack of any agreed standard for the use of these
symbols; as a result, each subsequently edited manuscript has introduced
different purposes for the same marks and freshly minted symbols preferred
by its editor in an attempt at improvement on his predecessors, much to the
confusion of the reader. Moreover, a genetic text of this sort cannot be read
with ease (the difficulty of symbols apart), principally because the basic
transcript is by necessity of the original unrevised inscription; hence the
successive revisions that form the final text are encountered only as one
plunges deep into the thicket of the arbitrary markings. It is difficult to read
the original text consecutively; it is impossible to read the revised text at all
in a coherent sequence. As a consequence, the editors of Billy
Budd found it necessary to accompany the genetic reference text
with a reading text that presented in usable form the finally revised version.
A genetic text, in short, cannot be a reading edition except of a very lightly
revised manuscript. It follows that an editor must make the basic decision,
often, whether as in a genetic text his edition will be confined to the status
of a
reference work on which other editions will be built, or whether he will edit
a reading text of the finally revised manuscript and in an apparatus detail
by description and quoting, as necessary, the development of the final text
from its original form. Since in either case a reader must work hard to
reconstruct the other form, the matter may boil down to the general
usefulness of having to hand the final revised text and to labor over the
original, or vice versa.
For the purposes of the present paper, however, the problem centers
chiefly on the method of transcription to employ when a manuscript must
be reconstructed from the apparatus in cases where extensive transcription
of rejected text or of text in the process of
revision is required. (Also in question is the method for transcribing, apart
from the Alterations apparatus, deleted or discarded trials, drafts, and the
like, that may accompany the final manuscript text.)
Note: Among the practical inconveniences of apparatus is the primary
fact that prose text requires temporary page-line keying in one's typed copy
until the text is available in page proofs, to which final reference must then
be made by altering the original keying in the copy of the apparatus to go
to the printer. Since the text and apparatus must thus be set in two different
operations, the consequent delay slows production and adds somewhat to the
costs. The problem is intensified, and costs rise, if appendixes after the
main apparatus must have their own apparatus, in which case all appendixes
following the first with apparatus cannot be typeset directly into page proof
(or paged from galleys) until the first apparatus has itself been keyed and
paged. Delay ensues since the appendix page-line apparatus must be set
later after the edition's appendix text page-line references can be
determined. Brief appendix texts can use apparatus keyed to superscript
numbers or letters in the
text which can be set at the same time like footnotes. For longer texts
which must be readable but which act chiefly as reference material, the
descriptive transcription suggested here becomes a useful tool.
The methodology of transcription does not differ in the system here
proposed, no matter to what purpose it may be put, however: it is the same
whether it is utilized for condensing an entry in an ordinary descriptive list
of Alterations or for transcribing a revised document for reading and
reference. In the latter case it may often serve as an acceptable compromise
between a reading and a reference text.
The central feature of the system is that it transcribes the finally
revised form of the text and within brackets placed after the appropriate
words describes the changes made in this text from the original inscription.
(The method of this description agrees with that illustrated above for use in
an apparatus list of Alterations.) In a genetic text with arbitrary symbols
one is forced to transcribe the original version since the symbols must be
placed immediately after the word affected by revision and such placement
is possible only with the original word, to which the revisions may then be
appended. In descriptive transcription the convention of the asterisk frees
the transcript of this necessity and effectively delimits even a considerable
area of final text to be described. For instance, as illustrated, the first page
of the manuscript of Chapter XIV of William James's Meaning of
Truth (1909) is transcribable as follows:
Mr. Bertrand Russell's article, entitled Transatlantic Truth,
x
[
fn: 'x In the Albany Review for January, 1908.'] has *all
[
intrl.] the *clearness ['c'
over 'g'],
[21] dialectic subtlety, & wit which *one
['o'
over 'w'] expects
from his pen, but ['he'
del.] entirely fails to *hit [
ab.
del. 'place himself at'] the right point of view for apprehending *our
[
ab. del. 'the pragmatist'] position. *When, ['we'
del.] for instance, we [
ab. del. 'If we'] say that
a true *proposition means one the [
ab. del. 'idea is one
whose'] consequences *of believing which [
intrl.] are good,
he [
intrl. 'for instance'
moved fr. aft. 'us'
and del.] assumes us to mean that *anyone ['one'
added] ['concrete person'
del.] who ['belief'
del.] believes his *proposition [
ab. del. 'idea']
to be true must first have made out clearly that its consequences
are good, and that his belief must *primarily
[
intrl.] be in ['the truth of'
del. intrl.]
that [
del. '['idea'
del.]
proposition,'
ab. del. 'fact']—which *obviously ['obvious'
ab. del. 'notorious'
of 'notoriously'] is
['something
*a [
intrl.]'
del.] quite *a new proposition,
['idea'
del.] [
ab. del. 'different from | from the
one **whose truth is in question' [
ab. del. 'originally
believed, ['in,'
del.]']] *and one [
ab. del. 'and
is an idea'] ['one'
del. intrl.] usually ['hard'
del.] very hard to verify, it *being [
ab. del. 'It
is'] 'far easier,' as Mr. Russell *justly [
intrl.] says, 'to
This is complicated, but the revised text itself can be read simply by
skipping all brackets; indeed, at some extra cost the legibility of the revised
text could be increased by reducing the size of the type in all bracketed
items, although this expedient might be imprudent in transcriptions within
the apparatus list where ordinarily the type has been made as small as can
be read without strain.
Several points need comment. First, all text intervening between the
asterisk and the applicable bracketed description is covered by the
description. Bracketed entries containing quoted words, as in notation of
deletions or interlinings, may intervene without ambiguity between the start
of the asterisked text and the applicable description, as in: *When, ['we'
del.] for instance, we [ab. del. 'If we']. If an
editor feels uneasy, he might, as in this example, reduce the size of these
intervening brackets as is done in bracketed entries within bracketed entries.
Morever, an asterisked passage may itself have an internal asterisked entry
(which should be double asterisked), in which case the first small-bracketed
description to appear applies to the internal double asterisk (and so on) and
the final full-bracketed description to the whole of the material present
between it and the original single asterisk. No example occurs in the
transcript, but if we hear you
were interlined above a deletion and that then interlined after
hear, the text would read: *we hear **that
[interl.] you [ab. del. 'it has come
to our attention']. If, instead,
that had been a part of the
original interlineation but had been deleted, then no asterisk would be
needed: *we hear ['that'
del.] you [
ab. del. 'it
has come to our attention']. In the transcript an example does appear,
however, of double asterisked words within a bracketed description to an
asterisked passage: *a new proposition, ['idea'
del.]
[
ab. del. 'different from | from the one **whose truth is in
question' [
ab. del. 'originally believed, ['in,'
del.]']].
It will be remarked in this example that idea (deleted)
was the original interlineation and that a new proposition is
the revised interlineation. There should also be no difficulty in perceiving
that in the first inscription the deleted reading was originally believed
in, and that a comma was added after believed when
in, was first deleted before the decision was made to revise
the whole phrase. No asterisk is needed if the description applies only to a
single word following a bracketed description, since ambiguity could not
then be present: was [interl.] he [ab. del. 'she']
aware. Independently deleted words may be given separate brackets: this
['great' del.] ['good' del.] noble man. But, as
in the transcript's independently deleted idea proposition, the
two can be included in the same bracketed notice: this ['great'
del. 'good' del.] noble man (or in a descriptive
entry): noble] aft. del.
'great ['good' del.]' (or, in another situation): this *noble
[ab. del. 'great ['good' del.]'] man.
Note: The text formula ['great'
del. 'good'
del.] is perhaps superfluously exact, but an ambiguity might
exist for some readers in the compressed ['great' 'good'
del.]
as to whether the two were independently excised, or even whether
quotation marks had been around them in the original. This ambiguity
should not exist, of course, because if both had been deleted at the same
time, the entry would have read ['great good'
del.] and if
both had had single quotes about them and been deleted at the same time
the form would have been [''great' 'good''
del.]. If the text
formula is disliked, it would be quite possible to write: ['great' 'good'
indep. del.] and take one's chance on a misinterpretation of
the quotation marks. An ambiguity still remains, however, in that a reader
cannot be certain of the order of deletion. For instance,
great
could have been inscribed but immediately deleted before the inscription of
its substitute
good, which in turn was deleted before the finally satisfactory
word
noble was arrived at and only then was
man inscribed. Or in different combinations
great and
good could have been written and
either one deleted before the inscription of
noble, the deletion
of the odd one coming later, and so on. Some contexts like deleted
idea proposition would not admit variant interpretation like
this, of course, but the present example does. The intent of the second and
third formulas in the text above is to suggest that
good had
been deleted earlier than
great. If the contrary, the formulas
would have read respectively: [
aft. del. '['great'
del.] good' (and) [
ab. del. ['great'
del.] good'], in which
great is noted as first
deleted. The case is exactly the same if the manuscript had originally read
this noble man and
great had first been
interlined above deleted
noble but then
deleted and
good added after it above the line, this
good in turn being deleted so that the final text read
this man. It would seem to be a sufficiently clear formula to
write: this [
del. '['great'
del.] good'
ab.
del.
'noble'] man. If, on the contrary,
good as a substitute for
great had been added before it, the formula would be: this
[
del. 'good ['great'
del.]'
ab. del.
'noble'] man.
On the other hand, since there could scarcely be ambiguity about the
deletion of a false start before a word that was later itself deleted, no very
useful purpose is served by marking them as separately deleted, and the
simple form would appear to be acceptable: All *of life's [
ab.
del. 'ro mental'] roads. Of course, if one wished to be scrupulous,
one could write: All *of life's [
ab. del. 'ro'
del. 'mental'] roads (or preferably) [
ab. del.
'['ro'
del.] mental'] roads.
As remarked, simple deletion is best handled by: is ['something'
del.]. But when description must be added which applies to
the deletion, the simplest order is: is ['something' del.] ['a'
del. intrl.]. Another sequence might be used to clue the
reader in earlier on the position when the deletion is a long one, and thus
to prepare him for the final notation of deletion: [del. intrl.
'the four day working week has been tried in certain industries'].
Preliminary warning is even more necessary in such cases as: [del.
intrl. 'the four day working week has been tried in certain
industries' ab. del. 'various experiments to promote leisure
have been tried'], which is clearer than [intrl. 'the four day
working week has been tried in certain industries' del. ab.
del. 'various experiments to promote leisure have been tried'] and
more satisfactory for indicating the position at the earliest moment than the
conventional [del. 'the
four day working week has been tried in certain industries' ab.
del. 'various experiments to promote leisure have been
tried'].
In an ordinary apparatus entry if the description quotes text that
passes from one page to another, usually no purpose is served by noting the
end of one page and the beginning of the next so long as the pages are in
order: the reader has no opportunity to identify the page endings and
beginnings in the edited text, anyway; thus in normal diplomatic transcripts
(and always in edited text) no more significance inheres to passing from one
page to another in the original document than from one line to the next.
The case is altered, however, in the transcription in appendixes of discarded
trials and the like, not as entries in the apparatus, or in the edition-text itself
in a diplomatic transcript. Moreover, if the transcription in an apparatus
entry continues not on the next page but on another that is not in order,
although the text is continuous, notation of the difference in the page is
necessary. When on folio 17 of the manuscript for Chapter XIV of
The Meaning of Truth
James deletes a sentence that begins on the last line and continues over onto
folio 18, the distinction between the
deleted text on the two pages is superfluous. However, deleted text at the
foot of folio 4 is continuous with deleted text beginning folio 10 as a
consequence of a major revision and expansion of the deleted material that
takes up folios 5-9. It would be most unhelpful to a reader to stop the
transcription in the apparatus of this deletion with the end of folio 4,
continue with normal entries for a considerable amount of text on fols. 5-9,
and then when folio 10 was reached begin the broken-off deleted text as a
fresh entry. Obviously, the whole passage must be transcribed as a unit
since it is continuous text, no matter how separated, but an indication must
be made at the proper point that the deleted text jumps from folio 4 to 10.
Note: Foliated manuscripts are numbered only on the recto of a leaf;
paged manuscripts are numbered both on recto and on verso. (The
abbreviations are respectively fol. and p., with
plurals fols. and pp.) Hence folio rectos need
to be distinguished from the versos in cases where writing is also present
on the versos. By long custom it has been generally understood that when
the folio number alone appears (as in fol. 5), the recto is
meant in contrast to the verso, which is always specified (fol.
5v). Recently some dissatisfaction has been expressed with the
supposed lack of precision of this traditional loose system, since technically
fol. 5 stands for the leaf (both recto and verso) and is often
so used as in the paper of fol. 5 changes from wove
to laid. (Similarly, sig. B3 stands for the third leaf in
gathering B and not necessarily just for its recto.) Hence it has been urged
that recto and verso should
always be distinguished as fol. 5r and fol.
5v, not merely when the context might be ambiguous between 5 and
5r as is often done. It was pointed out some years ago, however—as
one of the reasons for using the superscript r
sparingly—that in small type it is readily confused with superscript
v. For this reason, some writers prefer to place the
r and v (or the v alone) on the
line, as in fol. 5r and fol. 5v. Lately
the use of superscript a and b has been
suggested to replace r and v and their
confusion. In its favor is the fact that incunabulists are accustomed to such
notation instead of r and v. On the other hand,
this system cannot be recommended, for it conflicts with the
post-incunabulist custom of distinguishing the columns of double-columned
books as a and b. Thus sig.
B3ra and B3rb (or B3ra and B3rb) would apply to the left and
the right columns of a recto page and B3va and B3vb to the
columns of a verso page. (Any attempt to label them B3rl or B3v2
introduces certain elements of ambiguity.) Since it is desirable that the
notation for signatures and for manuscript folios should be identical (even
though double-columned manuscripts after the early period are not
common), it seems best to maintain the use of r and
v without breaking sharply from the past (whatever its faults)
with the inevitable confusion between two systems. Whether the writer
prefers always to label the recto as fol. 5r even if the
verso is usually blank, or to retain the old system of fol. 5
and fol. 5v (using 5r when absolute precision is
required by the context) is a matter of choice. Fol. 5r-v
specifies both pages of the leaf, of course.
When the beginning of pages is being indicated within transcribed
text, it is usually best to enclose the folio number for the new folio (or
page) in square brackets after a vertical stroke at the point where the
transition occurs: as Mr. Russell justly says, 'to | [fol. 2]
settle the plain question . . . . In the example mentioned of a skip, the
transcript
might read: He is a logician and a mathematician, accus-[
end
fol. 4 |
begin fol. 10]tomed to think in complicated
chains of identities. (Broken words on either side of a stroke are set close
up; separate words are spaced.) In transcribing a manuscript when a
sentence begins a new folio, the bracketed folio number may be placed on
a separate line and the vertical stroke at the end of the text of the preceding
sentence and page. An attempt to set the brackets before the sentence could
be ambiguous, whether or not a paragraph were also present. Space may be
saved by including the folio number within the text itself and running it on:
to settle the plain question. | [
fol. 92] This is a matter etc.
If the text on the new folio begins with a paragraph, one may write in this
form of continuous transcription: to settle the plain question. |
[
fol. 92] [¶] This is a matter etc. However, when a page
begins with a new paragraph, or with something not continuous,
like another item in a list written in separate lines, it is consistent with the
rest of the transcript if a new page is indicated visually by the setting of the
bracketed folio number in a separate line, the text then continuing below it:
to settle the plain question. |
[fol. 2]
This is a matter . . . .
The following items appear: |
[fol. 2]
(1) A list of Emendations
(2) A series of Textual Notes
Of course, in transcription within an apparatus entry, the run-on notatation
must be employed.
Descriptive transcription of underlined (italic) passages should put the
bracketed description in roman instead of the customary italic for
differentiation: *of believing which [intrl.] are good
he [intrl. 'for instance' moved fr. aft. 'us' and del.]
assumes us to mean . . . . Similarly, bracketed folio numbers
intervening between italic text may be printed in roman.
In the apparatus to a complicated revision, descriptive transcription
is sometimes necessary to reproduce a revised passage that, say, has been
deleted or is a substitute for a deletion. The simplest case is exemplified by
lengthy deletions to shorten text, or deletions at the heads or feet of pages
accompanying major revision. As a consequence of the rewriting of folio
5 by a substitute leaf in James's Chapter XIV,
folio 6 begins with deleted text that has no antecedent. The record of this
passage in the apparatus reads:
147.26 play] aft. del. '['or Mr. Hawtrey.'
del.] This is the usual slander repeated to satiety by our
critics. ['But whereas' del.] Using the word *'truth'
[ab. del. 'true'] absolutely (whereas in any discussion as to
*truth's [insrt. for del. 'its'] place in human ['human'
del.] life it can only be used relatively to some particular
'trower') they easily make out that.'
Since this passage must appear in the apparatus, no separate listing of the
variants can be managed, and descriptive transcription is a necessity.
Descriptive transcription can also clarify as well as condense
descriptive entries of revisions. In the transcript above of folio 1 of James's
Chapter XIV, the book-text reads a new proposition, quite but
the final MS text is quite a new proposition,. A combination
of description and quoting could be contrived to deal with the complex
revision:
146.9-10 a new . . . quite] (MS reads 'quite a new
proposition,'); 'quite' aft. del. 'something *a
[intrl.]; bef. del. intrl. 'idea' ab.
del. 'different from | from the one *whose truth is in question'
[ab. del. 'originally believed, ['in,' del.]'] and
is
but this compromise, useful as it sometimes is, in this case yields in clarity
and compression to straight descriptive transcription:
146.9-10 a new . . . quite] MS '['something *a [intrl.]'
del.] quite *a new proposition, ['idea' del.]
[ab. del. 'different from | from the one **whose truth is in
question' [ab. del. 'originally believed, ['in'
del.]']] *and is
In the first entry it would have been possible to refer the reader by a single
dagger to the Historical Collation for the variant MS text, but the quoting
of the MS text is here a preferred device to make an extended and
complicated description immediately understandable within itself. Of course,
in the second, full-fledged descriptive transcription no reference to the
Historical Collation need be contemplated since the transcription
automatically provides the MS text.
The book-text continues shortly and is, moreover, a fact
usually very hard to verify, it being "far easier," as Mr. Russell justly says,
"to settle the plain question of fact:. A series of separate entries
could be contrived to deal with the MS variants in this stretch:
146.10 and . . . fact] MS intrl. 'and one' bef.
del. 'one' ab. del. 'and is an idea'[22]
146.11 very] aft. del. 'hard'
146.11 ,it being] (comma over period); insrt. for
del. 'It is'
146.12 justly] intrl.
If an editor chose, these separate facts could be combined into one
descriptive entry pretty much as they are in separate entries; however,
descriptive transcription would be much clearer and shorter:
146.10-12 and is . . . justly] MS *and one [ab. del.
'and is an idea'] ['one' del. intrl.] usually ['hard'
del.] very hard to *verify, [comma over period]
*it being [ab. del. 'It is'] 'far easier,' as Mr. Russell *justly
[intrl.]
This example may serve as a good illustration of the way in which it is
possible to do away with a series of short entries in favor of one
transcript.
At 151.4 James wrote we must but then deleted
must before continuing need to stay. Later, he
deleted we and interlined one above it, and
added a final s to original need. The need for
flexibility in the choice of constructing an entry is shown by the following
four options:
151.4 one needs] 'one [ab. del. 'we'] ['must'
del.] needs ['s' added]
151.4 one needs] 'one' ab. del. 'we ['must'
del.]'; 's' added to 'need'
151.4 one needs] ('s' added); 'one' ab.
del. 'we ['must' del.]'
151.4 one] ab. del. 'we ['must' del.]'; 's'
added to 'need'
The first (straight descriptive transcription) takes about 65 ens to set; the
second, a mixture of description and descriptive transcription, requires
about 64 ens; the third and fourth, similar mixtures, take about 56 and 52
ens respectively. The compression of the last is gained by the omission of
needs from the lemma as not strictly required. Economy
suggests a choice either of the third or fourth.
In the next sentence James first wrote comes from
making (the m of making written over
some letter that just possibly may be an a). First he deleted
making and interlined carrying; he then deleted
comes from and interlined is the but deleted
this is the and added before it occurs when we,
necessarily then deleting the final ing of
carrying. Two separate entries are possible:
151.6-7 occurs when we] intrl. bef. del. intrl. 'is the'
ab. del. 'comes from'
151.6-7 carry] (final 'ing' del.) ab.
del. 'making' ['m' over doubtful 'a']
However, in this case the two entries can profitably be combined into a
single descriptive transcript:
151.6-7 occurs . . . carry] '*occurs when we [['is the'
del.] ab. del. 'comes from'] carry['ing'
del.] [ab. del. 'making' ('m' over
doubtful 'a')]
The rest of the alterations for this page (see the illustration) can be given
as examples of fairly typical entries in a list of Alterations:
151.7 from] aft. del. 'sometimes carry the subj'
151.8 realm,] ab. del. 'world,'
151.8 applying] MS reads 'appling'; 'ng'
over 'es'
151.8 1sometimes] ab. del. 'not only'
151.8 of] ab. del. '['of the' del.]
our'
151.8 2sometimes] ab. del. 'but'
151.9 which] ab. del. 'asserted ['by the'
del. 'in the ob' del.] by'
151.9 assert] aft. del. 'own asser'
151.9 as] intrl. aft. del. intrl. '[like' del.]
*such as [pencil]'
151.10 himself,] intrl.; comma over pencil
'&'
151.10 and others] ab. pencil del. 'and others'
151.10 favor] ab. del. 'use'
††151.11 invented—] pencil ab. pencil del.
'meant'; ink dash over ink comma
151.12 this] alt. fr. 'the'
151.12 truth&c.rat;] ('t' over 'T'; comma
del.); aft. dash over period
151.13 naming] ab. del. 'defining ['ing'
over 'tion'] a'
151.13 propositions] final 's' added
151.13 impossible not] ab. del. 'inevitable'
151.14 that] aft. del. 'is a
proposition,'
151.15 propositions.] bef. del. 'But the 'that' has the
extremely convenient ambiguity ['for those' del.] [end
fol. 16 | skip fol. 16 ½ | begin fol.
17] who wish to *give pragmatists trouble, [ab. del.
'demolish pragmatism,'] that sometimes it means ['for example' del.
intrl.] the fact that, ['([over del. dash]
Caesar died, for example)' del.] [ ][23] and [ab. del. dash]
sometimes the belief that [del. 'for example'
ab. del. 'he died'] Caesar is no longer living. When I speak
of [begin indep. deletion] the belief's *as
[intrl.] satisfactory ['y' over 'iness'], I am told
"that has nothing to do with the *fact [ab. del. 'proposition'].
When I speak of Caesar's existence the ['fact,' del.] truth as
meaning its expediency I am told *the [insert.]
[del. 'that truth' [del. intrl. 'of the' ab.
del. 'of the'] belief *as true, [intrl.] I am told that
*the [insrt. [pencil intrl. 'a true,'
del.]] truth [ab. del. 'the proposition']
means *the [intrl.] [del. 'a'
ab. del. 'the'] fact; when I [del. 'admit'
ab. del. 'allow'] *claim the [ab. del. 'speak of']
[del. 'a' ab. del. 'the'] fact *also,
[intrl.] I am told that the ['a' del. insrt.]
proposition means a belief, and that *truth [insrt.] in my
mouth, *being defined as the ['the' del.] belief's workings,
[intrl.] can only mean *the [ab. del. 'a'] belief
and *must exclude the [ab. del. insrt. 'and [del.
not a']] fact,' [end indep. deletion]