(3) Insertions Accompanied by Deletions.
Complex insertions and deletions may take a number of forms and
offer a series of problems. The basic formula covers the usual case of the
deletion of a reading and the interlined (or added) substitution of another.
146.3 hit] above del. 'place himself at'
The word
above must always mean 'in a position higher
than', in short,
an interlineation; thus there is no need to specify
interlined
above when there is also deletion.
000.00 points] 's' del. then interl. (or, better) 's'
above del. 's'[14]
000.00 change,] comma aft. del. period
[15]
An interlineation may itself be deleted in whole or in part, in which case
the formulas must be constructed with particular care to avoid ambiguity
while achieving economy. For example, 146.8 be in]
bef. del.
interl. 'the truth of' requires the reader to understand that
be
in only keys the position in the text of the deleted simple
interlineation
the truth of and is itself on the line and no part
of the alteration. If the whole phrase
be in the truth of had
been a deleted interlineation that had not acted as an originally intended
substitute for some deleted text, then a suitable key in the text needs to be
found to position the deletion: To]
bef. del. interl. 'be in the
truth of'. On the contrary, if
be in is itself part of an
interlined alteration not wholly deleted, two distinguishing entries may be
written to cover the different circumstances:
000.00 be in] interl. bef. del. interl. 'the truth of'
000.00 be in] interl. 'be in ['the truth of'
del.]'
By its terms the first entry indicates that there have been two
interlineations: first
the truth of and then its deletion when 'be
in' was inserted before it on the interline as a substitute. That
be
in was not part of the original interlineation may sometimes be
determined by the context, by an extension of a guideline-caret to include
it, by evidence that it was squeezed in or not normally written, or by its
inscription in a different medium.
[16]
The specification that both parts of the described alteration were interlined
is necessary to emphasize the distinction between the time of their
inscription and to avoid ambiguity.
The second entry solves a nasty problem by the use of a special
transcriptional formula that will be described later under problems
of transcription. With no ambiguity it describes the interlineation of the
complete phrase
be in the truth of and then the deletion of
the truth of. No unambiguous alternative to this formula is
available without a lengthy descriptive entry. The problem is the same
whether the undeleted part of the interlineation precedes or follows the
deleted section:
146.18 on occasion] interl. aft. del. interl. 'often'
000.00 on occasion] interl. '['often' del.]
on occasion'
000.00 it . . . proved] interl. '[often' del.]
it can be proved ['on occasion' del.]'
000.00 it . . . proved] interl. '['often'
del.] *it can be proved [ab. del. 'on
occasion']'
In the first,
on occasion is a later substitute following deleted
often; in the second the original interlineation was
often on occasion in which
often was then
deleted; in the third the original interlineation was
often it can be
proved on occasion, deleted except for
it can be
proved; in the fourth the original interlineation was
often on
occasion, which was deleted as a whole or in two sections at
different times (such a matter is not always to be determined) and
it
can be proved interlined above the interlineation. If evidence were
available for separate deletion, the formula could read:
interl.
'['often'
indep. del.] *it can be proved [
ab. del.
'on occasion']', etc. Other typical problems arise:
146.6 assumes us] 'for instance' first interl. w. caret
after 'us', then moved by guideline to bef. 'assumes',
and then del.
[17]
146.4 When . . . we] 'When we' ab. del. 'If we';
then 'we' del. and ', for instance, we'
added
000.00 cities] follows del. 'great' ab. del.
'grand'
000.00 cities] interl. aft. del. 'great' ab.
del. 'grand'
Note: In the first cities entry the lemma is only the key
to the positioning of the interlineation before it. In the second, the
description means quite definitely that cities is itself interlined
following interlined great, which is a substitute for deleted
original grand written on the line. In both entries one should
note that the syntax requires great to be interlined above
deleted grand, and there is no need to waste space by writing
aft. del. 'great' which is above del. 'grand'. If
the text had read great, which was then deleted
currente calamo and grand then inscribed on
the line but deleted and cities interlined above it, a choice of
entries would result, the best of which is the descriptive-transcription
method: cities] ab. del. '['great' del.]
grand'. A pure descriptive entry could read: cities] ab.
del. 'grand'
aft. del. 'great' (or)
ab. indepen. del. 'great'
and 'grand'. If
cities itself were the
interlineation, it must be used as the lemma; but if it is only the positioning
word for the respective deletion of
grand and
great, and if it seems to the editor that an entry using it might
be slightly ambiguous, the preceding word can be used instead as the key:
some]
before deleted 'great'
above deleted
'grand', the description abbreviated, of course.
Interlineations with substituted additions to replace deletions are
readily handled as above. However, a problem in compression arises when
the deletion, or the deletion and substitution, is within the interlineation. In
the first example, not as the was interlined but then
as deleted. This can be handled in several ways:
000.00 not the] interl.; 'as' del. bef.
'the'
*000.00 not the] 'not ['as' del.] the'
interl.
A bold use of the double dagger (to be employed with discretion) would
permit such an economical entry as:
††000.00 not ['as' del.] the]
interl.
Internal brackets of this nature should be set in a smaller size.
Some complexity is introduced when the interlineation is a substitute
for a deleted reading:
000.00 not the] ab. del. 'success'; 'as' del.
bef. 'the'
000.00 not the] 'not ['as' del.] the' ab.
del. 'success'
††000.00 not ['as'] the] ab. del. 'success'
If one supposes that not the is interlined, but as
has been added by further interlineation, we have:
*000.00 not as the] ab. del. 'success'; 'as'
interl.
000.00 not as the] 'not *as [interl.] the' ab.
del. 'success'
000.00 not *as [interl.] the] ab. del.
'success'
Note: It is an open question whether the lemma in the last entry,
which illustrates the bold inclusion of part of the alteration (distinguished
by small brackets), should or should not have a double dagger. If an editor
wished to mark off this unusual but sometimes convenient form of lemma
by a double dagger, no harm would be done; but logically since the final
form of the manuscript text used as lemma agrees with that of the book
text, the double dagger would seem to be superfluous. Most editors,
however, may prefer the safety of the double dagger.
Further changes can be rung if the interlined as was later
deleted:
000.00 not the] ab. del. 'success'; 'as' interl. but
del. bef. 'the'
*000.00 not the] 'not [del. interl. 'as'] the' ab.
del. 'success'
000.00 not [del. interl. 'as'] the] ob. del.
'success'
It is sometimes clearer and more economical to associate
consequential changes, as in
281.20 would] interl. bef. 'seem' (final
's' del.) (or) interl. bef. 'seem' with
final 's' del.
than to make two entries, as
281.20 would] interl.
281.20 seem] final 's' del. (or) alt.
fr. 'seems'
Note: The first entry illustrates that not all of a manuscript alteration
need compose the lemma when direct reference can be made to the
book-text. If seem had been a part of the lemma, the
description would need to be lengthened to distinguish the alterations of the
two words by quoting each: would seem] 'would' intrl.;
'seem' (final 's' del.). One should note, of
course, that in this alteration seem is a part of the original
inscription on the line, and only would is interlined. If both
had been interlined the lemma would need to have given them both: would
seem] intrl.; 'seem' (final 's'
del.).
On the other hand, if an editor prefers two entries, he may find that in
double-column apparatus two lines would be needed in any event by the
combined entry and that two condensed separate entries may require fewer
ens of typesetting. Sometimes it is worth counting off the length of an entry
before deciding on its form. Two entries, as in those above, may prove to
be acceptable, if not preferable.
Not all complex changes can be broken down into a number of single
entries, however. In the next example, several stages of revision appear.
What happened is this. James first wrote different from from
(by dittography between lines) the one originally believed in, and is
an idea . . . . Perhaps the initial revision was to delete
in and its comma and to insert a comma after
believed. At some point he then deleted originally
believed and interlined whose truth is in question as
a substitute. Then he deleted different and interlined
idea, but deleted it and interlined before it a new
proposition. Later he added a comma after proposition
and deleted from from the one whose truth is in question, and is an
idea, interlining one above the deleted final
idea. Last, he appears to have deleted this one
and interlined and one. The final reading was a new
proposition, and one. In
some respects a formulaic approach to this problem would be the best one
to adopt (see below) but in descriptive terms, although lengthy, an editor
might write the entry:
146.9-10 a new proposition,] interl. before del. 'idea'
above del. 'different'; following 'from | from
the one whose truth is in question and is an idea' del. ['whose
. . . question' above del. 'originally believed,' alt.
from 'believed in,']; 'and one' before del. interl.
'one' above final del. 'an idea'
How far to expand an entry by a true chronological description, and how
far to require a reader to reconstruct the sequence from the facts themselves,
is not always an easy question to answer. In the following passage James
first wrote:
The great shifting of universes in this discussion comes
from making the word truth . . . . His first revision was to delete
comes from and to interline
is the,
accompanied by the deletion of
making and the interlineation
of
carrying. He then deleted
is the and prefixed
to it interlined
occurs when we, at the same time deleting the
ing of
carrying. The revised text was,
The great shifting of universes in this discussion occurs when we
carry the word truth . . . . A chronologically contrived entry could
read:
151.6-7 occurs . . . carry] MS first read 'comes from
making'; 'is the' above del. 'comes from'; 'carrying'
above del. 'making'; 'occurs when we' interl. before
del. 'is the' and 'ing' of 'carrying'
del.
A more concise note, merely listing the facts, might read:
151.6-7 occurs . . . carry] 'occurs when we' inserted before
del. interl. 'is the' above del. 'comes from'; 'carry'
(final 'ing' del.) above del.
'making'
The condensation of the lemma in a case like this would seem to be
sufficiently clear when the entry is read against the text; since the main
purpose of the lemma is to accompany the page-line reference for
identification of that part of the text being noted, there would seem to be
sufficient justification to remove the repetitive quoting of text in the
description. (For a truly formulaic approach to this entry, see the
description of the folio at the end of this paper.)
