I. Clear-text Transcription and Apparatus
The finally revised form of the text is transcribed diplomatically; that
is, the transcription exactly follows the forms of the manuscript in spelling,
punctuation, word-division, italics (for underlining), and capitalization, but
not in matters of spacing or in line-divison, nor is a facsimile visual
presentation of alterations attempted. Only a few of the problems that are
inevitably encountered in engaging oneself to relatively exact transcription
can be considered here. For instance, it is an open question whether unusual
idiosyncrasies of no possible textual interest should be followed when their
reproduction would add to the difficulty of a reading text. Although in
general a scholarly transcript should follow an author's abbreviations or
informal shorthand, with or without following periods, some personal
peculiarities might be modified. For example, I have seen an early
manuscript by Edith Wharton in which a mark about the size of a hyphen
customarily does duty for a
period. In my own view, it ought to be possible for a transcriber to print
these as periods, with notice. The early twentiethcentury philosopher John
E. Russell, as in his letters to William James, not only often used such
hyphens for periods and even for commas but sprinkled his text with them
where no punctuation could possibly have been intended. Transcripts of
these letters would have been close to unreadable if draconian editorial
omissions of these latter, and various emendations of the former, had not
been made.
Most printers may be unable, without expensive handsetting, to
reproduce a manuscript's positioning of a period in an abbreviation directly
under a superscript letter, in which case commonsense economy suggests
that the period be silently moved to follow the letter, as in 'Mr.' or
'Co.' Similar difficulties may be encountered in placing acute or grave
accents above a full capital, but here I believe the manuscript must be
followed and handsetting resorted to if the use of an accent above a small
capital is not possible to get around the difficulty. If one's edition is printed
by photo-offset of type and not from type-metal,
then there is no problem, for all difficult characters and positioning can be
drawn in before photographing.
It is impossible to discuss here the numerous problems and the
occasional modifications required to deal with authorial orthographic
idiosyncrasies and to assess the actual intentions. Some authors form a few
minuscules (lower-case letters) very much like majuscules (capitals).
Ordinarily the context and syntactical position in the sentence prevent
confusion, and it would be most unwise to transcribe an obviously intended
lower-case initial letter as a capital just because of its formation. However,
problems may arise in distinguishing minuscules and majuscules when
capitalized personifications or conceptual nouns are possible, or in dealing
with variant usage in words of region like east or
East, and so on. Some writers intend to make a single word
in forms like anyone or someone and may often
link the two but on occasion write them separately but with a shorter space
between them than is usual between two words, in which case the forms
should be
transcribed as single words.
Note: Even in diplomatic transcripts it is impossible not to take
account of authorial intentions. For instance, many authors intending to
italicize a word will draw a line under it but fail to underline, let us say,
the first and last letters. It would be pedantic to the highest degree to
attempt to reproduce such a word in a mixture of italic and roman in
accordance with the exact extent of the underline, even if this could always
be determined with precision. (See the remarks in the text about the
positioning of punctuation in relation to quotation marks.) Correspondingly,
the font of punctuation after an underlined word needs to be arbitrarily
transcribed, for few authors are so scrupulous as to make sure that an
underline carries out their full intentions; or, in reverse, an underline may
carelessly be extended too far and inadvertently affect punctuation that by
all convention should be in roman. See below.
The position of punctuation in relation to quotation marks is particularly
difficult to transcribe since some authors have no fixed principle and may
place a comma, say, inside or outside a quotation mark almost at random
on those occasions when it is not written directly under the mark. Not only
would it be expensive to try to reproduce in type punctuation directly under
quotation marks but the attempt would be in vain since such authors will
also vary the positioning slightly so that a transcriber would need to make
dozens of arbitrary decisions whether punctuation were by a hairline to the
left or right, or under, all to no useful purpose in transcription. Arbitrary
normalizing is the only answer. Ordinarily even a writer who is highly
variable in his positioning of punctuation in relation to quotation marks will
conform to some extent to the national tradition. In the United States, by
the late nineteenth century at least (I am not
historian enough to know when the shift was made) under the influence of
the typographers a decision was made for arbitrary placement of commas
and periods ending a quotation inside the quote marks but colons and
semicolons outside. Question and exclamation marks were treated logically:
inside or outside according to the meaning. In Great Britain, on the
contrary, although the treatment of colons and semicolons has lately had a
tendency to agree with the American custom,
[1] commas and periods in strict usage are
placed inside or outside quotation marks (like question and exclamation
marks) according as they form part of the actual quoted matter or else as
they belong, instead, with the syntactical pointing of the sentence. If a
writer has some tendency to observe one or other system, a transcriber may
be forced to impose it on him throughout, without record, although a
general statement to this effect ought always to be made. But relatively
consistent
idiosyncrasies should be observed as the norm.
Note: Among the other matters that need to be made consistent in a
transcript is the length of dashes according to their function, and also the
matter of authorial spacing or non-spacing before and after dashes. Some
authors may use, irregularly, a hyphen-length mark for a dash, or two or
three such marks to add up to a dash, along with general dash-length marks
of different lengths although not necessarily different functions. In printing
it is ordinarily simplest to mark all internal dashes in a sentence as one-em
in length. If an author does not appear to make any distinction, this same
one-em dash may also be used when a sentence is ended without other
punctuation as a suspension of thought, although I prefer the two-em dash
for this purpose. One-em dashes may be most characteristic when used
between complete sentences. Authors may have some general system of
spacing in connection with dashes, which may be normalized as closeup or
with intervening spaces according to their
custom even if it is not regularly observed.
A more subtle problem may arise not only in the transcription of the
correct font of punctuation but also in seeing that the modern printer
observes the transcriber's intentions. When words are italicized in
manuscripts by underlining, the author may on occasion carelessly extend
the underline below a following punctuation mark, thus appearing to
italicize it. Printing practice through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
has been highly variable in this matter of the font of punctuation to be used
following an italic word when a roman word succeeds. Ordinarily there can
be no question that within an italic passage all punctuation should conform
to the italic text. Logically, in
all other circumstances the font of the punctuation should be roman or italic
depending upon its syntactical relationship to the font of the sentence as a
whole or else to the italicized matter. For instance, in the commonest cases
when one or more words are italicized and a syntactical unit of the roman
sentence requires a punctuation mark after the last italicized word, the
sentence then continuing in roman, the font of the syntactical punctuation
must be in roman since it applies not to the italicized matter but to the
roman sentence, as in a sentence, 'What we know is
this: the
correlative . . . .', or 'If we write the word
truth, we should
mean . . . .' Quotation marks enclosing an italicized word or phrase in a
roman sentence should be in roman, and so on.
[2] In some cases the matter is not merely a
typographical one, since meaning can be involved. Of course, the logical
system here described has its basis in meaning, but
vide
Orwell some situations may be more meaningful than others. A roman
interrogative sentence, for instance, may end with an italic word and an
exclamation or question mark. If the mark is in roman, the reader is
instantly made aware that the sentence as a whole is the exclamation or the
query but not the italicized word(s). Similarly, if the roman sentence is
declarative but the italic word (or words) ending the sentence constitutes a
question, the italic question mark (or exclamation) satisfactorily transmits
this sense.
For a time the best modern printers maintained this distinction about
all roman and italic punctuation when their copy gave them any
encouragement, but the present-day printer is growing careless and is as
likely as not to set italic punctuation after any italic word regardless of the
syntactical logic, and—worse—regardless of the exact underlining of
his copy. A scholar transcribing manuscripts, therefore, is faced with a
decision which is most easily solved by just such an arbitrary rule (after a
general statement to the effect) as was made about the positioning of
punctuation vis-à-vis quotation marks; that is, roman or
italic punctuation should be marked in the transcript according to the font
that is appropriate for meaning according to the logical relationship of the
punctuation to the text.
Note: The influential University of Chicago
Manual,
followed by some modern printers, recommends (p. 104, sec. 5.2) that
punctuation should generally
be printed in the same style or font of type as the word, letter, character,
or sample immediately preceding it. Whatever the aesthetic virtues of this
procedure, it is illogical and must not be followed in scholarly writing, least
of all in the transcription of manuscripts unless one is quoting from an
original printed work with such typography. For instance, in the sentence
'I do not believe
that, despite what you say', the comma after
italic
that must be roman. (In reverse, if the sentence were
italic but the 'that' in roman, the comma should properly be in italic.) A
series of separate italic words in a roman context cannot be treated like an
italic passage, however. 'The words he used were
self-sufficient,
reliant,
brave'
(roman commas) and '
The words he used were self-sufficient,
reliant, brave' (italic commas). It is proper to write an italic sentence with
italic punctuation such as: '
He asked: "Will you come in?"',
but if the
basic sentence were roman, it would read: 'He asked: "
Will you
come in?"', with roman colon and quotation marks. (Incidentally
these illustrations show the necessary placement of one's syntactical
punctuation in relation to quotation marks so as to distinguish quoted
punctuation from non-quoted, a necessity in textual work although it
violates popular American typographical custom.) A problem arises in
dealing with early manuscripts before italic commas were introduced into
the printer's cases. In a facsimile reprint of a printed text the roman
commas in italic context must be preserved, just as one preserves all of the
printer's wrong-font punctuation. However, in the transcript of a manuscript
of this period, it would be pedantic in the extreme to imitate the
contemporary printer's case with roman commas in italic context, and a
transcriber should consider the simplicity of using the logical system
uniformly, regardless of the period of his manuscript.
The further problem of forcing one's modern printer to follow exactly the
extent of the underline in one's transcript must then be met; usually general
instructions are insufficient since they do not get transmitted to all the
compositors who may work on a book, and in addition to specific
instructions one must mark the typescript with warning signs about the font
in any case (which
is any case) when the printer is likely to
go astray.
Diplomatic transcription and setting into type produce another
particular problem in the word-division. Many authors are irregular in their
division: the same word may be written as one word, as two, or as a
hyphenated compound. Even if an author is scrupulous in his division, a
word broken at the end of a line by a hyphen may create a problem of
interpretation whether it should be transcribed as a single word or a
hyphenated compound.[3]
Unfortunately, the clearest way of
recording such words is impracticable; that is, it would be possible to
transcribe them as broken, with a vertical stroke (or less preferably a slant)
indicating the line-ending, as in
child-|like. (Note that words
broken at the end of a line, as marked, should always be set close-up.) The
difficulty is that such scattered line-ending notations are obtrusive and could
be subject to misinterpretation because of their use only on special
occasions.
[4] It may seem that this is
another case where some editorial decision is needed to govern the form
used in the transcription. Obviously, if there is no question that the word
must or must not be a hyphenated form, one should transcribe it correctly
and in silence. If the phrase
vis-à-|vis or the number
thirty-|four or a capitalized compound like
neo-|Platonic were broken as marked, no problem exists, nor
need there be any problem about broken compounds like
eye-|sensations,
world-|romance, or
anti-|absolutist where a
single word would be practically impossible. If an author can be shown to
be consistent, a hyphenated form broken at the end of one of his lines can
be transcribed silently according to his invariable custom. If he always
writes
to-day, then when
to-|day is found it is
unlikely to be
today. Analogy can be misleading in
determining authors' practice in such matters, however, and one must make
sure of the invariable treatment of the word itself: with William James, for
example,
co-|exist can be transcribed
coexist
with confidence; on the other hand,
pre-|exist or
co-|ordinate might as easily be
pre-exist and
co-ordinate as
preexist and
coordinate and could not be transcribed as one or the other
silently. Since it is not advisable to mark merely such problem words in the
text with a line-ending stroke, an editor must transcribe one or other form
according as he estimates the odds favor his choice, but the facts should be
noted so that a user of the transcript may be warned that the forms of
certain words have been editorially interpreted. Moreover, the printer
setting the transcript into type will perforce break words that could cause
a reader some perplexity about their form in the manuscript. These cases
are easily enough handled by a word-division list in three sections as part
of the apparatus.
In the first section it is convenient to state that all end-of-the-line
hyphenated forms in the modern typesetting are to be taken as unbroken
single words unless specifically noted otherwise. Thus a reader can readily
recover the exact hyphenation or non-hyphenation of the manuscript when
the form occurred within a line, and so was not subject to dispute, by
knowing that all hyphenated compounds of
this kind that happen to be broken at the end of the line by the modern
printer will be specified in the apparatus-list. The form there is best given
visually as it occurs in the printed text:
- 000.00 pre-|empted
- 000.00 well-|being
- 000.00 co-|implicated
- 000.00 after-|thought
The presence of these words in the list guarantees that they do not come
under the general rule that hyphenated broken words in the modern print
are to be ignored; these would have read in the manuscript
pre-empted,
well-being,
co-implicated, and
after-thought.
A second list in the apparatus can treat doubtful words broken in the
manuscript at the end of a line, with the form the transcriber has chosen to
print in his text, either hyphenated or unhyphenated. The presence of these
words indicates to the reader that an editorial decision has been made
(unbroken words would have been broken in the manuscript only at the
point where ambiguity about their form could exist):
- 000.00 pre-empted
- 000.00 precondition
- 000.00 coexist
- 000.00 re-compounding
A third list should contain the more uncommon occurrences of
doubtful words broken at the end of a line in the manuscript and also in the
modern print. In these cases the editor will give the forms he thinks should
be transcribed if a reader were to copy out the passage containing the
words:
- 000.00 pre-|empted (i.e., pre-empted)
- 000.00 co-|exist (i.e., coexist)
Needless to say an editor should exercise some discrimination in the
selection of words for recording in this apparatus and need not list obvious
cases where there could be no dispute about the author's intentions. If an
editor prefers, these listed words could be included instead in the general
apparatus.
Note: If the transcription is for a critical edition of the manuscript
text containing a list of Emendations, this Emendations list will be the most
logical place for the words broken in the manuscript, just as the Historical
Collation (if one is provided) would also be the most logical place for the
words broken by the modern printer but not in question in the manuscript
(although they could be placed in the Emendations list with the correct form
followed by
stet). But placement among the entries in the list
of Alterations in the Manuscript would be at best an anomaly and to be
avoided in favor of separate listing. The simple notation found in the first
and third word-division lists ought to do if the items are integrated in the
general apparatus. For instance, if the printed text broke a
word that was hyphenated in the manuscript, the notation in the Historical
Collation would read: to-|day] to-day MS. Similarly, if the word were
broken in the manuscript, and transcribed with a hyphen by the editor:
to-day] to-|day MS. If in the manuscript and the modern printed text the
word were similarly broken: to-|day] to-|day MS (
i.e.,
to-day).
However, readers will find them most convenient to use if they have been
set apart in a separate section for emphasis and not buried in a mass of
other matter with which they have little in common. (For the forms of such
lists and their headnotes, see the Centenary Edition of Nathaniel
Hawthorne, the University of Virginia edition of Stephen Crane, and the
ACLS edition of William James for the Harvard University Press.)
Whether letters or numbers are used, footnote apparatus indicators in
a reading text are a nuisance for the majority of readers of a clear text, who
do not at all times wish to consult the apparatus for a view of the growth
and revision of the text. An editor is best advised to key his apparatus to
the page-lines of his own printed text, with or without marginal line
numbering.
Note: Line-numbering in the margin (if sufficiently discreet) may be
useful but is still slightly obtrusive, and publishers are likely to feel that it
puts off the 'general reader.' Any scholar who proposes to use the
apparatus extensively can make up for himself a slip of paper or cardboard
numbered according to the printed lines on the page and use this for ready
reference. Some publishers may provide such a ruled card laid-in
separately. Since the extensive users of an apparatus are likely to be in a
minority compared to those who utilize the text chiefly as a reading edition,
the convenience of the majority, and the virtues of a truly clear text,
suggest the removal of line-numbers from the margin, although the
line-numbering of poetry is often accepted as a real convenience.
Correspondingly, the apparatus of variants in a clear-text edition is best
placed in the back of the book and not at the foot of the pages unless the
text relies for its main interest on the account of the alterations so that
readers will require them in the most convenient place for
reference—certainly the foot of the page.
[5] The simplest way of keying is to give the
page number first, followed by a period and then the line number(s). For
economy, similar entries within some unit like a chapter, or within a
reasonable distance of each other, may be brought together: 243.18,20 will]
interlined above deleted 'would'; or 243.18;244.20 will]
above del. 'would'. In the second example the semicolon is
required to distinguish separate pages, whereas occurrences on the same
page are separated by commas: 243.18,20;244.31. It is economical of space
to mark these numbers for close-up setting.
Formulas for describing alterations are an essential, and it is
important that they be as descriptive as possible. The entry starts, after the
page-line reference,[6] with the lemma
to the left of the square bracket. This lemma is ordinarily the exact word
or words found in the text. If anything longer than a word or two is being
recorded in the lemma, space can be saved by the system of three dots (or
four for a sentence end) to indicate omitted material that will be found in
the text: 000.00 As . . . words]. The general rule is that punctuation
following a word in the text is not noted in the lemma before dots or at the
end of the lemma unless it is a part of the variant. For instance, in 000.00
list] final 's' deleted it is of no concern whether the text word
read 'list,', 'list.', or 'list' with no punctuation so long as the punctuation
was not affected by the alteration. (However, if a complete sentence forms
the lemma, it is convenient
for clarity to provide the closing period, with another in the description.)
On the other hand, a comma after list would be required in
the lemma in such cases as these and in any others that affect the
punctuation:
list,] comma added
list,] semicolon altered to comma
list,] interlined above deleted 'note,'
Note: It goes without saying that punctuation that is part of the
revision must always be noted as an integral part of the lemma as well as
in the description. Since in the example here noted the comma after
list was a part of the interlineation and the comma after
note was deleted as a part of the revision, each must be
given. When the punctuation is not part of the revision, mention need not
be made. If in the illustration the comma after deleted
note
in the text had been retained in the manuscript in order to apply to
interlined
list (without a comma), no punctuation would
appear in the lemma or description. Alteration of punctuation consequent
upon substantive revision is of course described: list]
interlined above
deleted 'note'
before comma altered from semicolon.
The syntactical modification of this condensed description requires
before to apply only to
note; if the punctuation
described had applied to
list, the
lemma would have read: list,]
interlined with comma altered from
semicolon above deleted 'note'; or, more economically: list,]
above del. 'note';
comma alt. from semicolon.
It is by no means uncommon for an author to neglect to delete punctuation
in a revised
part of the manuscript although supplying the substitute in the revision. For
example, William James might almost as readily have added a comma after
interlined
list but neglected to delete the comma after rejected
note as he might have allowed the undeleted text comma to
stand for the intended punctuation after
list interlined without
a comma. This duplication is an error, of course, but of so trifling a kind
as not to be worth recording when the punctuation is identical and no
possible textual interest is present. Normally, the comma after
list must be recorded as part of the interlined revision;
thereupon the simplest way of solving the problem is to assume (silently)
that the comma after
note had also been deleted as it should
have been, and so describe it. If the punctuation differs, the original must
always be noted, but again it is simplest to take the intention for the deed
and not to specify that, in the case here, the semicolon was
carelessly left undeleted: list,]
interlined above deleted
'note;'. Otherwise one is stuck with an expanded entry of questionable
value taking up extra space:
interlined above deleted 'note'
before undeleted semicolon.
In the above examples, the lemma is itself the alteration. However,
some alterations—principally deletions—will not be present in the text
and need to be keyed by reference to another word acting as the lemma:
this] followed by deleted 'notion'; or: is] preceded by
deleted 'notion'. Whether followed by
(before) or preceded by (after)
is used may be dependent on two factors. First, a word distinctive enough
to be readily located in the text-line by a reader is more useful for
positioning an entry than a neutral and commonplace word too easily
overlooked. For this reason, a, the,
is, and the like are less desirable as lemmata than other parts
of speech. It is better to write: reflection] after deleted
'thought' (than) the] before deleted 'thought'. Moreover, it
is simpler for a reader to follow a revising author's chain of thought if an
alteration can be positioned by a lemma that illuminates the
alteration. For instance, if an author first writes reflection but
then deletes it and adds thought, the association is better
shown by: thought] after deleted 'reflection' (than by)
signifies] before deleted 'reflection'. In any clash of interests
the second factor is subsidiary to the first, for quick identification is
certainly of primary importance.
Occasionally identification of a lemma is obscured by the duplication
of the identical word in the same line. The double occurrence must be taken
account of in one's typescript of the apparatus made up from the temporary
lining of the text before printing so that the exact word can be identified
when the text is received in page proof, with different lineation. Thus in a
case where the word is was inserted, and in one's copy-text
(or in one's typescript) another is appears in the same line,
one may adopt either of two means of identification. The most economical
is to distinguish the lemma by a superscript figure depending upon whether
it is the first, the second, etc., same word in the line: 1is]
interlined (or) 2is] interlined. Especial care
is needed later to check whether in the page proof is is in fact
repeated in the
same line and if so whether the original superscript figure still remains
accurate. If the repetition is not present in the proof of the text, then of
course the figure is removed before the apparatus is typeset.
[7] (Also, as a part of the rekeying of the
typed apparatus to the different lining of the final text in page proof, any
lemma must be checked to see that a repeated form has not crept in the
proof [though not present in the copy-text] that will require identification
by superscript figure.) Although more wasteful of space, positive
identification of a lemma may also be made in certain circumstances by
adding a word to the lemma or to the description that will distinguish it
from the same word elsewhere in the line:
2is] interlined (better than) is] interlined
before 'not'
is not] 'is' interlined
is not] after deleted 'may' (better than) 1is]
after deleted 'may'
When an apparatus is being constructed not for a manuscript text that
is being critically edited as in Stephen Crane's The O'Ruddy
or The Red Badge of Courage but instead for a manuscript
associated with an edition of a printed text, as in a revised book version that
has been chosen as copy-text over the manuscript, some special problems
arise about the lemmata. In William James's Meaning of
Truth (1909), for instance, Chapters XIV and XV were heavily
revised in the book from draft manuscripts that seem to have served as the
basis for lost printer's-copy typescripts. Since in this case the further
revised book was chosen as the copy-text for a critical edition (1975) in
James's Works, the edited volume contains as apparatus a list of
Emendations to the Copy-text, an Historical Collation of all rejected
readings (accidental as well as substantive) in the manuscripts, and a list of
Alterations in the Manuscripts.
Note: Lengthy as an Historical Collation may be that includes the
rejected accidentals of the manuscript as well as its substantives, the
manuscript cannot be fully reconstructed without this record. The present
paper, therefore, assumes that rejected accidentals will appear in the
Historical Collation. Ultimately, their inclusion is an editorial decision
dependent in considerable part on the close or distant relation of the
manuscript to the copy-text, since the question arises only when the
manuscript is not itself the copy-text. In some editions an editor may
deliberately choose to record only substantive differences in the manuscript,
in
which case he must decide whether also to add a list of alterations in the
manuscript that will enable a reader to reconstruct the substantive changes
from the original in the manuscript's final text, or to ignore such alterations
in favor of a collation only of the finally revised substantive variants. Such
a compromise might be acceptable where a draft manuscript varied so
basically from a final book or from another manuscript text as to make
reconstruction of its details very difficult indeed. In these cases an editor
should contemplate the possibility of reprinting the draft diplomatically with
its own apparatus, as occasionally in the Crane edition. The problem then
arises of recording the variants between this reprinted draft and the final
text. In one sense an editor has done his duty by simply reprinting the two
texts and thus permitting an interested reader to determine the variants for
himself. On the other hand, if the space can be managed, an ideal edition
would offer not
only the two texts but also a working collation that would save the reader
the labor of recording the detailed comparison himself, or at least would
serve as a more accurate standard and source of reference for whatever
comparison he wished to make. For attempts to solve these problems, see
Stephen Crane,
The Red Badge of Courage: A Facsimile Edition of
the Manuscript, ed. F. Bowers (Bruccoli-Clark, NCR/Microcard
Editions, 1973).
The Historical Collation is made up from the finally revised readings of the
manuscripts and (combined with the Emendations) enables a reader to
reconstruct in every detail the manuscripts' revised texts. It is, then, the
function of the Alterations list to complete the apparatus for the
reconstruction of the manuscript by listing every alteration, whether of
correction or revision, that James made during composition and review.
Note: Ideally, every change would be recorded, no matter what its
import or significance. However, slips of certain specific nature were
excluded in this list for The Meaning of Truth and later
volumes because the list was not made up for a transcript of the manuscript
printed as the edition-text; the existence of the book as copy-text for the
edited critical edition allowed the size of the Alterations apparatus to be
reduced by excluding certain categories of mechanical slips of no critical
significance. (See below under Alterations by superimposition
for the categories of omissions.) It is true that students of Elizabethan
manuscripts may gain valuable insights into the possible source of errors in
printed texts by observing scribal slips that might occasionally explain
doubtful readings in printed texts the manuscripts of which have been lost.
In nineteenth and twentieth-century texts, however, the relating of possible
errors in the print to hypothetical authorial
slips in inscription may seem to be a more tenuous exercise and not worth
the apparatus involved unless solid evidence for an author is present about
the value of such evidence. The situation changes, of course, if the edition
is of the manuscript itself.
Since the book-text often varies from the manuscript, a difficulty arises in
the form of the lemmata of the list of Alterations which should key the
readings of the two documents, for the lemma of a revised manuscript
reading may not be present in the still further revised book-text.
These differences being of various kinds yield to various methods of
treatment. In the first paragraph of Chapter XIV The Meaning of
Truth book-text reads but it entirely fails to hit the right point
of view. In the manuscript hit is also the final
reading, though revised from an earlier word, and so it is simple to write:
146.3 hit] interlined above deleted 'place himself at'. On the
other hand, the book's it before entirely was
originally he in the manuscript, and this he has
been deleted without substitution. The notation is simple enough: 146.3
entirely] after deleted 'he'; nevertheless, there are elements
of ambiguity present for a reader engaged in reconstructing the manuscript
from references to the book-text in the Alterations: it is theoretically
possible, of course, that MS could have read it before deleted
he. True, if this had been the reading, the positioning of the
entry for deleted he by the use of the key
entirely would have been misguided on the part of the editor,
for a normal entry would have read, more
helpfully: it] before deleted 'he'. Moreover, if
it had been squeezed in as an insertion before deleted
he, or interlined as a substitute, the entries would have read
respectively: it] inserted before deleted 'he' (or) it]
above deleted 'he'. Thus an expert reader with some
difficulty might figure out from the nature of the entry that it
was not present in MS, and if he needed confirmation he could secure it
from the Historical Collation where the absence of the word in MS would
have been noted: it] omit MS. Still, even though it is
obviously impossible to reconstruct a manuscript from an apparatus without
the simultaneous use of the Historical Collation and the list of Alterations,
an editor should be as helpful as he can in assisting a reader to find his way
about; thus a dagger placed before the page-line reference informs the
reader that in some respect the particular MS listing differs from the book
reading in the lemma and he had
better consult the Historical Collation (HC) to understand the difference. By
this convention, the Alterations entry would read: †146.3 entirely]
after deleted 'he'.
The virtue of the daggered entry is that it utilizes a lemma keyed to
the book-text—one either identical with or readily identifiable in the
Historical Collation—and yet conveys the essential information without
elaborate description of manuscript variants that have no direct pertinence
to the main point of the entry. For instance, in The Meaning of
Truth at 155.7-8 (references are to the Works) the book copy-text
reads But probably your intent is something different; so before I
say . . . . In the manuscript this is an interlineation above deleted
But before saying, but the manuscript inscription arrived at
the book-text wording only after some revision of the original form of the
interlineation. If the final form of the manuscript had been identical with
that of the book, a regular entry could have been contrived without
difficulty; however, there happens to be one accidental variant
in that the manuscript places a comma after
so whereas no
comma is present in the book. The essential fact a reader wants to know
from the Alterations is that this passage was an interlined revision of a brief
phrase; second, that it was also revised during the course of interlineation.
That in the MS a comma is found that is not present in the book has
nothing to do with the central fact of interlineation. The convention of the
dagger deals with this situation very efficiently by conveying to the reader
all the major information about the interlineation and its revision but with
the warning that some detail, unessential to an understanding of the central
facts of revision, has not been noticed in the manuscript description (since
although part of the major alteration it was not itself an independent change
that required listing). The reader can then identify this detail (or details) in
the Historical Collation.
†155.7-8 But . . . say]
above deleted 'But before
saying'; 'your intent'
added after independently deleted 'you'
and 'that is'
[8]
The Historical Collation, to which the dagger entry directs the reader,
provides the one point of variance between the book-text and the final
readings of the MS: 155.8 so&c.rat;] ~, MS.
A substantive variant is present in the next example. The book reads
proposition is one the whereas the MS interlined substitute for
a deleted earlier reading is proposition means one the. A
normal entry would read: 146.5 proposition . . . the] MS 'proposition
means one the' above deleted 'idea is one whose'; but the
daggered entry saves space: †146.5 proposition . . . the] above
deleted 'idea is one whose'. By referring the reader to the Historical
Collation (which would read: 146.5 is] means MS) for the variant, which
is only a minor detail in the major fact of the interlined revision, the need
to quote the passage in order to note the substantive variant is
obviated.[9] A similar example is:
†149.24-25 all . . . associates,] interlined. Here the book
reads all such accidents as contents, implications, and
associates whereas the MS has all such accidents as contents
and implications, and
associates.
Note: A descriptive entry, without dagger, could read: 149.24-25 all
. . . associates,]
interlined; MS
reads 'contents
and'. Descriptive entries that require quoting
can extend themselves unduly, however, as when MS interlines
harmless an account and the book reads
harmless and
natural an account. Here the daggered entry would be simply:
harmless . . . account]
interlined (but) a descriptive entry:
interlined; MS
reads 'harmless an account' (or)
(MS 'harmless an account');
interlined.
These illustrations have concerned variants in the manuscript that
were not represented in the words of the lemma; but so long as the situation
is clear in the Historical Collation, a considerable flexibility is possible that
saves valuable space even when variant words or accidentals are present
between the lemma and the manuscript. In some cases, as will be shown
below under the convention of the double dagger, it would be inefficient to
refer the reader to the HC for a variant in which the manuscript encloses
a word in single quotation marks but the book removes the quotes:
†000.00 &c.rat;truth&c.rat;] interlined above deleted ''verity''.
Such an expedient would prevent the necessity to quote, as in the normal
entry: 000.000 &c.rat;truth&c.rat;] MS ''truth'' above deleted
''verity''. But, as will be suggested, this is the sort of case easily handled
in another manner. On the other hand, in the next example the
single-dagger entry is highly efficient. At 158.4-5 the book
reads distinct from either the fact or whereas the MS
interlined words are different from either the event or. The
normal quoting entry would need to read: 158.4-5 distinct . . . or] MS
'different from either the event or' above deleted 'only
another name for'; 'either' inserted. On the other hand, when
the single dagger is used to refer the reader to the HC for the facts of
verbal variance, a condensed entry can read †158.4-5 distinct . . . or]
above deleted 'only another name for'; 'either'
inserted. It is impossible to condense a quoting entry in the
form 158.4-5 distinct . . . or] MS 'different . . . event or' above
deleted 'only another name for'; 'either' inserted. The
reason is that within single quotes all matter must be exactly transcribed,
and literally such an entry would mean that in the manuscript the three dots
were present between different and event. The
case is altered in the Historical
Collation, however, where the book-text is available to provide the full
reading of the lemma and no single quotes limit the conventions of listing
variants to the right of the bracket. Thus although two separate entries in
the HC could be written, one for distinct[
different and the other for fact]
event, an acceptable HC entry could pinpoint the only
variants: distinct . . . fact] different . . . event MS. In some examples a
line of apparatus might be saved, but not in all. This form would be
especially useful in such variants as: is . . . is] was . . . was MS.
When an editor is concerned to save space, the single dagger
referring the reader to the HC can be very useful if a somewhat
drastically reduced notation is thought to be acceptable. For example, a
complete normal entry would read: 148.1 consequences] MS 'consequences
that follow from their *nature [
above deleted 'assumption']'.
(For the use of the asterisk in this context, see below under the section on
the transcription of variants without an apparatus.) In such a case the
daggered entry †148.1 consequences] MS 'nature.'
above
deleted 'assumption.' by its reference to the HC would clarify the
otherwise gnomic description, for the HC would read: 148.1 consequences]
the consequences that follow from their nature MS. In a more complex
example, with more widely divergent text, the book reads
Perhaps
the rising generation will grow up but the manuscript
I must
appeal to the rising general.
Perhaps they may grow
up, in which
must was interlined above deleted
shall. Ordinarily the Alterations entry would need to quote
the whole in order to key in the single
change from
shall to
must in an understandable
context. However, as in the example from 148.1 above, this would
unnecessarily duplicate the HC, which would read: 159.13-14 Perhaps . .
. up] I must appeal to the rising general. Perhaps they may grow up MS.
Thus it should be possible by the single dagger to save space in the
Alterations by listing only the one change in the manuscript and referring
the reader to the HC for the context: †159.13-14 Perhaps . . . generation]
MS 'must'
above deleted 'shall'. Special emphasis must be
laid on the fact, however, that single-daggered entries of this nature in the
Alterations
must have the same lemma as that in the
Historical Collation, else the necessary ready reference cannot be
made.
In the convention of the single-dagger entries in the Alterations, the
lemma in agreeing with or being easily recognizable in the Historical
Collation must also agree with the edited text which the reader is using as
the basis for following the changes made in the course of writing and
revising the manuscript. When no dagger prefixes the page-line reference,
the reader can be assured that the text of the book and of the
final manuscript form is identical within the range covered by
the Alterations lemma unless variants to the right of the bracket are
specifically quoted and identified as MS readings not altered by revision.
Thus it is the function of the single dagger to refer the user to the HC only
for variant manuscript altered readings of words or accidentals (a) not
printed in the Alterations lemma, or (b) not specified in the descriptive part
of the entry as MS readings.[10] On the
other hand, a considerable amount of space devoted to quoting MS variants
of a certain kind can be saved by the convention of the double dagger which
is used to warn the reader that the lemma is not (as in every other
circumstance) the reading of the book-text but instead that of the
manuscript.
Note: Discretion is of course necessary as to what is and is not an
accidental variant warranting, according to the circumstances, either the
single or double dagger. For instance, if the editor has stated that in the
Historical Collation he will not treat ampersands and normal shorthand
abbreviations as recordable variants, it would be anomalous to give them
single daggers in the Alterations list—a symbol intended to refer the
reader to the HC—or even double daggers. Ordinarily flexibility suggests
that when in an editor's opinion such matters—although
transcribable—are not worth recording as manuscript variants from a
book-text, there can be no harm in ignoring them. For instance, even if MS
had interlined & he, nothing is lost if the Alterations
entry reads 000.00 and he] interlined, or for MS sd.
he one writes 000.00 said he] interlined, without the
single-dagger prefix, the more so since the dagger would refer the reader
to a non-existent
entry in the HC. If the only variant between manuscript and book were this
ampersand or abbreviation, it would seem to be equally superfluous to add
the double dagger to 000.00 & he] interlined, and the
like, and a difficulty could arise only if the manuscript actually had another
reading from the book. For instance, if the book read but it
and the MS & it, the entry ††000.00 & it]
interlined would be required. (Incidentally, all manuscript
forms of the ampersand are most conveniently normalized to '&'.) The
situation may change in two other instances. In the first, what may be taken
to be characteristic spellings of an author need emphasis since, in contrast
to such abbreviations as the ampersand and sd., these would
be listed (if rejected) in a full-scale Historical Collation. For example,
William James sporadically wrote such forms as publisht, but
in contrast to some other of his 'spelling-reform' words which he insisted
be
followed by the printer and would himself often alter in proof—such as
tho and altho—he did not alter these
manuscript forms in proof when they were not accepted by the compositor,
and thus an editor may decide to follow the book copy-text and not emend
from the manuscript. In such cases, it would seem necessary to warn of the
manuscript form by a dagger referring to the HC when words like these are
involved in alterations: †000.00 contains . . . course] above
deleted 'holds itself ordinarily' if the book had read contains
published material that in the normal course and MS in the
interlineation had contains publisht material that in the normal
course. Correspondingly, if the variant had been book
accomplished but MS accomplisht as a simple
interlineation, the necessary entry would be ††000.00 accomplisht]
interlined. Second, when the manuscript is being quoted in
a description to the right of the bracket, obviously
its exact forms must be followed: 000.00 terminal] after
deleted '& the'. It goes without saying that when keying to the
book-text is the only question, it is better to write: 000.00 but he]
after deleted 'a great deal' than ††000.00 accomplisht]
before deleted 'a great deal'.
Obviously, the two readings should be so similar that a person following the
Alterations list in the book-text will be able to identify with certainty the
reading that is intended. The simplest and most efficient use of this
convention comes when only a single word or identical phrase is being
noted but some accidental variant exists between the manuscript and book
(the bracketed information in the examples
below is not part of the apparatus but instead simply explains the situation):
- ††000.00 shall] above deleted
'does' [book read 'shall' roman]
- ††000.00 possesses] final 'es'
added [book read 'possesses'
italic]
- ††147.37 &c.rat;of course&c.rat;] interlined
[book read', of course,']
- ††148.21 once equated&c.rat;] above deleted 'of
the same value' [book read 'once equated,']
- ††154.12 Brother] ('B' over 'b'); after
deleted 'dear' [book read 'brother']
- ††156.9 truth, and any] comma before deleted
period; 'and any' above deleted 'Any' [book
read 'truth. Any']
Some of these examples are more useful than others, but all join in
revealing instantly to the reader of the book-text the nature of the variant
without recourse to the Historical Collation. In this respect it is simpler to
write italic
shall as the lemma when the reader will instantly
recognize the MS variant from the book-text roman without referring him
to the HC, as in: †000.00
shall]
above
deleted 'does'. The normal entry 000.00
shall] MS
'shall'
above deleted 'does' is certainly acceptable but takes
more space and, when reference is being made to the book-text, is no more
informative than the double-dagger entry. If 154.12 were to be written with
a single dagger, it might be possible at small expense of space to note
†154.12 brother] MS 'B'
over 'b' etc. (The single dagger
here is not strictly necessary but would be helpful since
Brother has not been quoted as a word.) The punctuation
variants are much more economically
listed with the double dagger than with the single, which forces the reader
to the further step of consulting the HC, and they are certainly more
economical when listed in this manner than a normal entry with repetitive
quoting that pinpoints the variance. Similarly, the limited substantive variant
at 156.9 would be difficult to write with a single dagger without expanded
quoting. Another simple example comes at 148.31 where following a
question mark the book conventionally writes the first word of the next
sentence as
Likewise but the MS, in a more old-fashioned
way for the start of still another question,
[11] has
likewise, which is an
addition. The condensed entry ††148.31 likewise]
inserted after
deleted 'And' should cause a reader no difficulty at all.
How far to carry the convention of the double dagger beyond the
relatively simple examples given is difficult to adjudicate, for its chief
usefulness certainly depends upon its simplicity. Nothing much is gained if
to enable a reader to compare the manuscript reading in the lemma with the
book-text in order to understand the variant being listed, the lemma must
be expanded beyond normal. For instance, it seems easiest to use the single
dagger, as illustrated, at 146.5 where the variant in an interlineation was
MS
means but book-text
is (as in: †146.5
proposition . . . the]
above deleted 'idea is one whose') than
††146.5 proposition means one the]
above deleted 'idea
is one whose'. (Note that dots for space-saving cannot be used in
double-dagger entries when the MS variant would be omitted by this device.
The lemma must contain the variant.) Allied with this difficulty is a more
serious matter when the manuscript alteration to be noted is only part of a
larger variant between MS and book. For instance, at 157.19 the book
reads, in italic,
in case he existed, which is roman in MS,
with roman
in case interlined above deleted roman
if. If
in case had been the only variant between
the two documents, the double-dagger convention would handle the situation
admirably; but if one were to write for the actual example ††157.19 in
case]
above deleted 'if', a reader following the book-text
might well be puzzled about the status of the remaining italic. It is true that
he could ascertain the facts by reference to the HC; but since the reference
would be required contrary to the purpose of the double dagger, it may be
thought simpler to refer to the HC for the whole entry by the single-dagger
entry: †157.19
in case]
above deleted 'if'. If
the lemma is short, a moderate expansion required by the double dagger
may still create the most efficient entry. At 148.32 the book reads in italic
nicht wahr followed by a comma and roman
etc.,
etc. In the manuscript the German words are in roman and by an
alteration the
original comma has been changed to a question mark and following
etc., etc, deleted. If the entry were only 148.32 wahr]
before question mark over comma and deleted 'etc., etc,', the
problem of book italic
nicht would remain, as in the example
above at 157.19. But rather than solve the problem by the use of a
single-dagger entry requiring consultation of the HC, it is perfectly simple
to use the lemma ††148.32 nicht wahr] and one's troubles are
over.
So long as the reader can easily identify the manuscript variant by
comparing the double-daggered lemma against the book-text, uncomplicated
variants can be noted. At 147.27 the book-text has reader but
the manuscript reader himself inserted as an interlineation that
is part of a larger variant. The single-dagger convention cannot handle this
situation, but the double-dagger entry is efficient: ††147.27 reader
himself] interlined. A normal entry is also acceptable though
longer:
147.27 reader] MS 'reader himself'
interlined. Another
example is book
prove the but MS interlined
prove
his, readily handled as: ††148.12 prove his]
above
deleted 'clinch the'. A borderline case where the altered word in MS
is part of a more extensive variant is illustrated by 146.8-10 where the book
reads
an obvious absurdity, for that fact is the deliverance of a new
proposition whereas for the whole passage MS has only
which obviously is quite a new proposition. The MS
alteration of
obviously from original
notoriously must be listed. Because of the peculiar nature of
James's alteration, the description is a bit complex, but if we chose the
generalized form of entry, one could read, normally: 146.9 obvious] MS
'obviously'
revised from 'notoriously'. The need to quote
would be removed, however, by the alternative: †† 146.9 obviously]
revised from 'notoriously'. This use of the double dagger
violates the
general understanding that its main purpose is to save the reader
consultation of the Historical Collation; but since with either entry the
reader cannot understand the alteration without seeing what the entire MS
reading was as recorded in the HC, the convention of the double dagger
here would seem to be fairly acceptable, although—to preserve the
principle of the self-explanatory lemma when the double dagger is
employed—an editor might well prefer the normal quoted entry.
Certainly, there are inherent dangers in straining this convention that
permits the shortcut of the double dagger to indicate that the lemma is
drawn from the manuscript instead of the book-text. Only when substituted
words are so close that there is no strain, should an exception be made. In
the discussion of the usefulness of the single-dagger entry, an example was
drawn from 158.4-5 in which the book-text read distinct from either
the fact or and an MS interlineation different from either the
event or. Because of the double variant distinct . . .
fact and different . . . event the convention of the
double dagger cannot be employed without a too lengthy lemma; but if MS
had actually varied only in different for book
distinct, then the doubledagger entry might well have been
used since the reader would have had no difficulty in identifying in the
book-text the interlined phrase of the manuscript and so could have been
made aware of the
alteration and its variant without referring to the HC: ††158.4-5
different . . . or] above deleted 'only another name for';
'either' inserted. However, in the actual case, because of the
presence of the added variant in MS event, this entry must
not be utilized.
Alterations in manuscripts resolve themselves into only a few general
categories: (1)Simple insertions; (2)Simple deletions; (3)Insertions
accompanied by deletions; and (4) Alterations made by superimposing other
letters or words.
(1) Simple Insertion.
The purpose of an insertion is to add material not present in the
original inscription, either during the course of composition or on review.
Wherever possible, authors generally interline such additions, with or
without a caret or guideline. If the editor always specifies the use of a
caret,[12] the reader has a guarantee
that the position of the interlineation has been fixed by the author and has
not been subject to editorial interpretation; thus it may be that an editor will
wish to distinguish those interlineations authorially marked by a caret from
those that are unmarked.
- habit] interlined with a caret
- habit] interl. w. caret
- habit] interlined
- habit] interl.
Abbreviations of the sort illustrated are necessary to conserve space and
may be used so long as they do not proliferate past the point of easy
recognition of their meaning. Readers ought not to be forced to memorize
more than a few conventions to be able to use an apparatus freely.
On the other hand, experience suggests that there is seldom any
significance in whether or not a caret has been marked. In theory a writer
might more frequently omit a caret (or add one) depending upon whether
he were interlining during the course of composition or revising on
review—in which rare case an editor should observe the
distinction—but otherwise when the positions of interlineations are not
subject to dispute, perhaps the specification may be thought not worth the
space; hence if an editor chooses ultimate condensation, all mention of
carets or guidelines may be dispensed with except when the editor thinks
the information useful, as when a caret has been moved to another place,
or has been misplaced, or a guideline has been extended to accommodate
an addition, or a caret has intentionally deleted some mark of punctuation.
If carets are not to be noted except in special cases, a general statement to
the effect should be made.
Not all insertions are interlined. William James, for example, often
added a word or more in the left margin before the word to follow instead
of interlining the insertion at the end of the line above after the immediately
preceding word. If there were no room for an
interlineation on the last line of a page, he might place the addition below
the line in the bottom margin, or tailspace. Unless a specific value exists
in noting the exact position of such additions that are not simple
interlineations, there seems to be little point in specifying marginal addition
(except for footnotes or sidenotes or lengthy passages) whether to the left
or the right of the line, so long as the position in the text is not in question;
and the same with additions placed below a line—especially since a
reader has no ready way of knowing the lineation of the manuscript that
produced the divergences. They are best lumped, then, under the general
head of
insertions, although
additions is as
acceptable: either word—like
interlineation—signifies that
the item was not written currently with the text on the line. Additions may
be made in manuscript to simple insertions with or without guidelines.
When a guideline is extended, the evidence can be
described: very great] 'great'
interl. w. caret and guideline extended
to included added 'very'. However, since the fact of addition is the
only important one, a condensed form without evidence can be written:
very great]
interl.; 'very'
added.
Note: There should be no need to write: very great] 'great'
interl.; 'very' added (or) 'great'
interl.; interl. 'very' added (or)
'great' interl.; preceded by interl. added 'very'.
In formulaic terms (described below) one could write: very great] 'very
[added] great' interl. Sometimes this formulaic
method is useful, and it should always be kept in mind as a possibility, but
in the present case it saves no space and is not greatly superior in clarity to
the recommended entry. In this entry in the text one should notice that the
word interl. necessarily applies to the whole lemma and
cannot be associated only with great or with
very as separate entities. For the font of punctuation in these
entries, see note on p. 246.
Other forms of insertions may be noted as:
- naturally] final 'ly' interl.
- nothing&c.rat;] comma inserted
- these] final 'se' added
- nothing&c.rat;] comma inserted after MS
'naught'
Note: By using the common convention of the inferior caret to
emphasize the lack of punctuation in the copy-text, the fact that the inserted
comma noted in MS is a variant is perfectly clear and its position is
established without ambiguity, although if one preferred one could write:
MS comma inserted. (No need exists here to complicate
matters by the convention of the single dagger: †000.00 nothing&c.rat;]
comma inserted, but the double dagger would be acceptable:
††000.00 nothing,] comma inserted.) On the other hand,
if the word as well as the punctuation had been variant, it would be
economical to write: †000.00 nothing&c.rat;] comma inserted
instead of quoting MS naught as in the examples in this
series, although again ††000.00 naught,] comma inserted
is a possibility owing to the closeness of MS naught to
book-text nothing.
(2) Simple Deletion.
Simple deletion is an excision made currently before inscribing the
next word, or in some cases it is deletion of an excess word made at a later
time, or the alteration of one form of a word to another by deletion.
Sometimes the difference in time may be established by the use of another
medium, like pencil in an ink text; but if the ink is like that of the text,
often no positive evidence can exist unless the nature of the alteration
reveals that it must have been performed currently.
- simple] deleted
- is&c.rat;] comma deleted
- be] preceded by del. 'pr'
- may] followed by del. 'pr'
- in] foll. by del. 'ha'
- natural] final 'ly' del.[13]
- natural] initial 'un' del.
- a hurry] prec. by del. 'ha'
The terms
followed by and
preceded by (with
their abbreviations) are perhaps the most precise one can employ. The
simpler
follows or
precedes in their full form
are equally precise but could be ambiguous if abbreviated, especially since
in a description it may be necessary to write phrases like
following
comma deleted. Thus the best alternatives to
preceded
by and
followed by are the words
before and
after, which could be further
reduced to
bef. and
aft. These may well be
adopted as the preferred forms.
- in] before deleted 'ha'
- in] before del. 'ha'
- in] bef. del. 'ha'
- a hurry] after deleted 'ha'
- a hurry] after del. 'ha'
- a hurry] aft. del. 'ha'
An editor is advised to select one set of terms capable of serving all
purposes and to use them exclusively (except in cases of real ambiguity);
random variation has no intrinsic value and could be confusing to a reader
who might suspect a different meaning when none exists.
Deleted false starts are as important to record as complete words,
especially when a change of intention is shown.
- 000.00 great] aft. del. 've'
- 000.00 end] aft. del. 'concl'
- 000.00 very] aft. del. 'gr'
- 000.00 usual] aft. del. 'cust'
Unless there is contrary specification, two adjacent deletions are to be
assumed as made at the same time, since independent deletion at different
times shows a change of intention:
- 000.00 decision] aft. del. 'very great' (but) 000.00
decision] aft. indep. del.
'very great' (or) aft. indep. del. 'very'
and 'great'
However, reference to another formula in the section on descriptive
transcription will illustrate what may be the better method in cases of
ambiguity bearing on the order of deletion. Although there is none here,
one could write:
000.00 decision] aft. del. '['very' del.]
great'
If
great had been excised earlier than
very, the
formula would be:
000.00 decision] aft. del. 'very ['great'
del.]'
Either by reason of a change in the medium or of a different system of
deleting strokes, the fact that separate deletion has occurred at different
times can sometimes be determined. If the case is ambiguous, no indication
need be given, or the queried statement can be made: decision]
aft. 'very great'
indep. (?)
del.
Sometimes a false start will be deleted but its substitute also deleted. That
the odds so strongly favor each to have been independently excised makes
it needless to state the fact: 000.00 decision]
aft. del. 've
great'.
When a reading is quoted in the description to the right of the
bracket, absolute clarity is gained only by enclosing the reading in single
quotation marks, the standard bibliographical means for denoting exact
quotation. (Double quotes are less exact in their common usage.) The
device of italicizing all descriptive words also serves to bring the quoted
reading into relief. If it were not for punctuation concluding or beginning
a quoted reading, the roman type without quotes might serve as a sufficient
distinction from this italic description; but the more complicated
descriptions of alterations in which the description must use its own
punctuation become thoroughly ambiguous as to whether the punctuation is
part of the reading or of the description. Hence experience dictates,
unfortunately, the invariable enclosure of all quoted readings within single
quotation marks. Single quotation marks in the text within the quoting
marks are kept as single since the quotation must be
exact.
(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.)
(4) Alterations by Superimposition.
Frequently an author may start to write one word and then change his
mind. Sometimes he merely deletes the false start and continues on the line
with the different word, but sometimes he may choose merely to write the
new word over the letters of the false start. Changes of mind like
this—whether occurring during composition or in later revision—must
be recorded, for often an acute critic can guess from the context what the
original word would have been if it had been completed, and more
information is gained about the author's style. In the description the word
over means, literally, this superimposition and it must always
be distinguished from above which describes an interlineation.
True revisions of this nature are to be distinguished from mere mendings
in which a writer touches up an ill-formed letter for
clarity—these are not worth recording.
[18] Allied to such mendings as not worth
recording are the repairs of inadvertent slips, such as letters transposed in
haste or an anticipated letter written too soon, or occasionally what may be
a genuine but inadvertent misspelling. Mechanical slips created during the
haste of composition add little or nothing to a critical view of an author,
and their value would seem to be nil. When a repaired genuine misspelling
can be distinguished from a slip, it may be thought of sufficient interest to
record. Discretion is needed, of course, even at the expense of uniformity
of procedure. For example, if one's author is a notably good speller but he
hastily writes
ocult and then squeezes in the second
c, the expense of noting the slip is wasted effort. On the
other hand, if occasionally he shows a little weakness about the
ei and
ie words, and writes
reciept, only to alter it by
ei
over
ie, an editor may choose to record the fact. But suppose
a good speller starts to write
propi, stops, alters the
i to
o, and then continues
sition,
the odds favor not a misspelling but a mind outrunning the pen. The value
of such information, given the expense of notation, cannot ordinarily be
justified.
However, an editor needs to be on the watch for alterations of letters
that probably mean a change to a different form of the word. For instance,
if the manuscript reads dialectic with the penultimate
i written over an a, the probability that
dialectal had at one moment been in the author's mind is
sufficiently strong to merit the entry: dialectic] second 'i'
over 'a'. An editor seeking some rule of thumb might
propose to ignore mended slips of non-words or impossible spellings, but
if an actual word has been originally formed, he might decide to record its
alteration in order to prevent any mistake in editorial judgment from
concealing what might have been momentarily an authorial intention.
Moreover, special reasons may attend more scrupulous than usual notation.
Note: For instance, at 115.23 of
The O'Ruddy Stephen
Crane inadvertently wrote
firsts but corrected it to
fists by deleting the
r. On its own merits this
slip is not worth attention since
firsts made no sense in
context and could never have been written intentionally. Moreover, if the
slip had been caught at the moment of writing and Crane had inscribed
t over the
r before he formed the final
s, an entry would doubtless have been wasted on trivia. As
it stands, however, the mending at a later time becomes part of a small
body of evidence that bears on
the question of Crane's care in working over this manuscript, a matter of
considerable critical importance. On these terms it deserves an entry, for
its import is far greater than a simple case of carelessness in inscribing a
memorial error without immediate correction.
Typical entries for revision and correction are:
- explanation] first 'n' over 'i'
- clearness] 'c' over 'g'
- hole] 'ho' over 'sa'
- truth] 't' over 'T'
- True] 'T' over 't'
- Dr.] 'D' over 'M'
In the first column the examples represent either obscure slips or else the
start of words that may be guessed at but not demonstrated; hence they
would not be subject to the formula
altered from. In the
second column an editor if he chose could write, for instance: Dr.]
alt. fr. 'Mr.', and so with: True]
alt. fr. 'true'.
It would seem that an editor need not be consistent but could choose
whichever form seemed to him either immediately clearer or else more
economical: the exact method by which the alteration was accomplished is
of little specific interest here.
'true']
single quotes over double (or)
sg. qts. ov.
db. (or)
alt. fr. '"true"' mine?]
question over
exclamation mark (or)
quest. ov. exclam. (or)
query over exclamation
[19]
Some superimposition revisions occur in connection with other
alterations:
- take] ab. del. 'hear'; 'e' over
'en'
- *take] ('e' over 'en'); ab. del.
'hear'
The first entry illustrates a good general rule that the position of the word
specified by the lemma may seem more important than alterations in its
form and should ordinarily come first. However, another method for
writing the same information might be: take]
alt. fr. 'taken'
ab. del. 'hear', which is only slightly longer. It would be
possible, of course, to write: take]
ab. del. 'hear';
alt.
fr. 'taken' but the form has less coherence than
alt. fr.
'taken'
ab. del. 'hear'. When only a single lemma word is
being noted, even though two alterations are described there is seldom
ambiguity no matter which form (as above) is chosen. Problems begin to
arise when the lemma must be two or more words. For instance, the
following entry is improper because its note of the alteration could apply
either to 'take' or to 'take in': take in]
ab. del. 'hear';
alt. fr. 'taken'. The expansion created by quoting
would solve the ambiguity, of course: take in]
ab. del. 'hear';
'e'
of 'take'
over 'en' (or) 'take'
alt.
fr. 'taken', (or, in this case) *take in] ('e'
over 'n');
ab. del. 'hear'. [If the alteration had been in
hear one could write, take in]
ab. del. 'hear'
('e'
over 'a').] Indeed, quoting is necessary only to refer to
a specific word in a lengthy lemma, or to a lemma that does not list the
altered word, or to a lemma which has more than one example of the
altered letter: take in more]
ab. del. 'hear greater'; 'take'
alt. fr. 'taken' (or) 'e'
of 'take'
over 'en' (or) we . . . sense]
ab. del. 'we
derive more meaning'; 'e'
of 'take'
over 'en'.
In the first case, the bold use of the double dagger, if favored, would
condense the entry: ††000.00 take ['e'
ov. 'en'] in more]
abov. del. 'hear'. Psychologically, the deeper the information
of a letter alteration
within the description, the more annoying it is for a reader to refer back to
the lemma when the word is not quoted, and thus a clash may result with
the general principle of the usefulness of providing the information about
position first: take in difficult]
ab. del. 'distinguish more
complex'; 'e'
ov. en'. One way of getting around this
difficulty, without quoting, is to place the alteration of the letters first but
with a special sign that indicates that the usual order has been broken: take
in difficult] ('e'
over 'en');
ab. del. 'distinguish
more complex'. Although this parenthesis is more useful for lemmas of two
or more words than for a single word, an editor alert to any possible
misunderstanding of his meaning can employ it flexibly. For instance, he
might feel that: take]
ab. del. 'know'; 'e'
ov.
'en' could scarcely be misread, whereas: take]
ab. del.
'hear'; 'e'
ov. 'en', despite the semicolon, could trouble a
reader
whether
take or
hear were in question, and
hence that: take] ('e'
ov. 'en');
ab. del. 'hear'
closes all possible avenues for error. On the whole, it may be thought that,
without quoting, the use of parentheses in this manner coming before the
position provides the happiest solution. Without quoting, unless the
description is so long as to puzzle a reader about the quoted word when he
finally comes to it, priority may ordinarily be given to position. Alternate
forms would be:
When] aft. del. 'Even'; bef. del. 'the';
'W' over 'w'
When] (alt. fr. 'when'); aft. del. 'Even';
bef. del. 'the'
*When] ('W' over 'w'); aft. del. 'Even';
bef. del. 'the'
When we meditate] ab. del. 'As we think'; 'W'
of 'when' over 'I'
*When we meditate] ('W' over 'I'); ab.
del. 'As we think'
In some forms of entries the use of altered from may
condense the description when the exact means of alteration is of no
significance.
*is. Each] alt. fr. 'is, each'
is. Each] ('E' over 'e'); period aft. del.
comma
is. Each] period aft. del. comma; 'E' over
'e'
Note: This is as good a place as any to discuss the font of the
punctuation to be used in descriptions to the right of the bracket. As has
already been remarked, one often encounters at the present day the printer's
convention that the font of punctuation should agree with the font of the
preceding word, as in aft. del. comma; when the font of the
next word changes. This arbitrary and illogical convention is completely
unsuited not only for descriptive bibliography (where it would create the
utmost confusion) but also for all general scholarly writing, where clarity
and precision demand the choice of the font for punctuation on purely
syntactical, not on supposedly aesthetic, grounds. To repeat, a crucial
distinction of meaning results from the correct use of the sentence's
syntactical roman punctuation in such an example as, 'James generally
insists in his books on the spellings tho, altho,
and connexion; but he is content to pass the printer's
photograph for his manuscript spelling-reform
fotograf, and alphabet for
alfabet.' On the other hand, when the punctuation is
syntactically part of an italic passage, it must also be in italic: 'James writes
as follows: Suppose, to fix our ideas, that we take first a case of
conceptual knowledge; and let it be our knowledge of the tigers in India,
as we sit here.' In writing descriptive apparatus entries, it is of more
than minor importance to adopt the same syntactical logic. Theoretically it
should make no difference whether an editor chose to consider the italic
description to the right of the bracket as the major syntactical font, or the
roman of the usual quotations, in which case the italic would be considered
to be only a distinguishing device and thus secondary to the roman font.
Perhaps no distress may be felt in typography like: period aft. del.
comma; 'E' over 'e'; but this is inconsistent in its
roman quotation marks as
well as in the roman semicolon, and true syntactical consistency would
require an entry like: ('E' over 'e'); period aft. del.
comma (or) ab. del. 'As we think'; 'W'
of 'when' over 'I', in which all parentheses and
quotation marks would need to be in italic as well as commas and
semicolons. The effect is not pleasing; more important, the marking of copy
for the printer would need to be scrupulous and infinitely detailed, and the
proofreading and resulting correction of the printer's inevitable mistakes
would be expensive. In the edition of William James it eventually proved
a practical necessity to adopt the principle of roman syntactical punctuation
in all the apparatus and to forsake the difficulties (and indeed the partial
inconsistencies) that resulted from an attempt at the opposite in the Stephen
Crane edition. Copy must still be carefully marked to emphasize to a printer
that he must not ordinarily follow an italic word with italic
punctuation both in the text and in the apparatus. In the examples in this
article, it will be observed, parentheses, square brackets, quotation marks,
commas, and semicolons not part of an italic quotation are invariably
printed in roman. This assumes that the major font of the apparatus is
invariably roman.
It is the normal interpretation of the above that the change was not made
during the original inscription but as an afterthought, and so with: What]
'W' over 'We', 'hat' interl.[20] On the contrary, an entry
using
altered from would in this case be ambiguous whether
the change were made currently or on review: What]
alt. fr.
'We'. The compression of the latter must be balanced against the value of
the information of the precise description. One must also consider that not
all precise descriptions do in fact distinguish the time of alteration. The
following entry could represent a change made during inscription or on
review: What] 'Wh'
over 'We' (which could be further
condensed under the circumstances to: What]
over 'We'). If
an editor felt the distinction were important, he could always expand: What]
'Wh'
over 'We', 'at'
squeezed in (or the
reverse: 'What'
currently over 'We').
In the examples so far, the alteration of letters by superimposition has
affected words in the lemma that constitute a unit of description. Sometimes
alteration of letters in one word can be combined with changes that need
recording in an adjacent word or words; but in such cases the problems of
position versus clarity may be intensified. For instance, the question of
distance arises in such an entry as: When we discover] 'discover' ab.
del. 'find'; 'W' over 'w', which can be solved by
quoting: 'discover' ab. del. 'find'; 'W' of
'When' over 'w' (or) by the parenthesis: *('W'
over 'w'); 'discover' ab. del. 'find'. On the
other hand, since in double-column typesetting two lines would need to be
devoted to this combined description, the question arises whether in the
long run the reader is not better served by two brief separate entries, also
taking up two lines:
- When] 'W' over 'w'
- discover] ab. del. 'find'