This chapter defines an optional additional tag set intended for use in the transcription of primary sources, in particular manuscripts, and describes how some elements defined in the core tag set should be used for this work. It is expected that this tag set will be especially useful in the preparation of critical editions, but the tag set defined here is distinct from that defined in chapter , and may be used independently of it.

Scholars may wish to record information concerning individual readings of letters, words or larger units, both within transcriptions and within editions. They may also wish to include other editorial material within transcriptions, such as comments on the status or possible origin of particular readings, corrections, or text supplied to fill lacunae, etc. Further, it is customary in transcriptions to register certain features of the source, such as ornamentation, underlining, deletion, areas of damage and lacunae. This chapter indicates means to record such information: first, the problem of recording editorial or other alterations to the text, such as expansion of abbreviations, corrections, conjectures, etc. (section ) then, methods of describing important extra-linguistic phenomena in the source: unusual spaces, lines, page and line breaks, change of manuscript hand, etc. (section ) finally, a method of recording material such as running heads, catch-words, and the like (section )

These recommendations are not intended to meet every transcriptional circumstance likely to be faced by any scholar. Rather, they should be regarded as a base which can be elaborated if necessary by different scholars in different disciplines, with distinct scholarly domains eventually developing their own document types. In time, the feature structure notation developed in chapter , may also permit scholars to tailor the encoding of complex transcriptional information in ways not here anticipated. In particular, this chapter focuses in its current state primarily upon problems associated with the transcription of manuscript materials; problems of codicology and problems peculiar to early printed materials are not treated. Many of the recommendations presented here may --- mutatis mutandis --- apply to printed matter, but a great deal of work remains to done in these areas, and the encoder will need to take even more individual responsibility than usual in applying the recommendations of this chapter in these contexts.

Many of the descriptions below use terms like scribe, author, editor, annotator, corrector, transcriber, and encoder, to make clear how they apply in cases where these roles are distinct. To the extent that these roles are not distinct (for example, in authorial manuscripts where the author and the scribe are the same person) the interpretation of the markup should be adjusted appropriately. Many of the elements defined here apply (within limits) also in cases of printed materials, so compositor, etc., may also be understood as applying where appropriate.

As a rule, all elements which may be used in the course of a transcription of a single witness may also be used in a critical apparatus, i.e. within the elements proposed in chapter . This can generally be achieved by nesting a particular reading containing tagged elements from a particular witness within the rdg element in an app structure.

Just as a critical apparatus may contain transcriptional elements within its record of variant readings in various witnesses, one may record variant readings in an individual witness by use of the apparatus mechanisms app and rdg. This is discussed in section .

The tag set defined in this chapter may be selected using the mechanisms described in section ; in a document using this tag set, the document-type-declaration subset should contain the following declaration of the parameter entity TEI.transcr, or the equivalent: ]]> In a document using this tag set together with that for textual criticism and the base tag set for verse, the entire document type declaration might resemble the following: ]> ]]>

The overall structure of the tag set defined by this chapter is as follows: ]]>

This tag set modifies the element class edit by declaring two extra attributes for members of the class: ]]> Altered, Corrected, and Erroneous Texts

In the detailed transcription of any source, it may prove necessary to record various types of actual or potential alteration of the text: expansion of abbreviations, correction of the text (by the author, by a scribe, by a later hand, or by the encoder), addition, deletion, or substitution of material, and the like. The sections below describe how such phenomena may be encoded using either elements defined in the core tag set (defined in chapter ) or specialized elements available only when the additional tag set described in this chapter is available. Use of Core Tags for Transcriptional Work

In transcribing individual sources (editions, manuscripts, witnesses of any type), encoders may record their corrections, normalizations, expansions of abbreviations, additions, and omissions using the elements described in section . Those particularly relevant to this chapter include: abbr contains an abbreviation of any sort. expan contains the expansion of an abbreviation. sic contains text reproduced although apparently incorrect or inaccurate. corr contains the correct form of a passage apparently erroneous in the copy text. add contains letters, words, or phrases inserted in the text by an author, scribe, annotator or corrector. del contains a letter, word or passage deleted, marked as deleted, or otherwise indicated as superfluous or spurious in the copy text by an author, scribe, annotator or corrector. hi marks a word or phrase as graphically distinct from the surrounding text, for reasons concerning which no claim is made. gap indicates a point where material has been omitted in a transcription, whether for editorial reasons described in the TEI header, as part of sampling practice, or because the material is illegible or inaudible.

When the additional tag set for transcription of primary sources is selected, these elements all gain two specialized attributes for specifying who is responsible for certain aspects of the interpretation and markup, and the certainty attributed to the interpretation: cert signifies the degree of certainty ascribed to some specific aspect of the markup: the identification of the hand of an addition or deletion, the correctness of the expansion of an abbreviation, the correction of an error, or the regularization of a non-standard form; or the correctness of the transcription of unclear material. resp signifies the editor or transcriber responsible for the salient information conveyed by a particular tag: the hand of an addition or deletion, the expansion of an abbreviation, the correction of an apparent error, the regularization of a non-standard form, the transcription of unclear material, or the decision not to transcribe some portion of the text. The specific aspect of the markup described by these attributes differs on different elements; for further discussion, see the relevant sections below, especially section .

The following sections describe how the core elements just named may be used in the transcription of primary source materials. Examples of more complex application in scholarly transcriptions of these core elements are given, and of their extension by linkage with the note, respons, and certainty elements. Where the core elements do not satisfy the needs of scholarly transcription, additional elements are defined. Abbreviation and Expansion

The writing of manuscripts by hand lends itself to the use of abbreviation to shorten scribal labour. Commonly occurring letters, groups of letters, words or even whole phrases, may be represented by significant marks. This phenomenon of manuscript abbreviation is so widespread and so various that no taxonomy of it is here attempted. Instead, methods are shown which allow abbreviations to be encoded using the core elements mentioned above.

A manuscript abbreviation may be viewed in two ways. One may transcribe it as a particular sequence of letters or marks upon the page: thus, a p with a bar through the descender, a superscript hook, a macron. One may also interpret the abbreviation in terms of the letter or letters it is seen as standing for: thus, per, re, n. Both of these views are supported by these Guidelines. The entity reference system allows the encoder to declare whatever entities are needed, using entity names like p-underbar, sup-hook, or macron. Furthermore, each entity reference may be linked to an image of the abbreviation itself, so that the reader might see a rendering of the text's appearance. Alternatively, the encoder may transcribe the letter or letters he or she believes the abbreviation stands for, as the content of an expan element: thus expanper/, expanre/, expann/.

These two methods of coding abbreviation may also be combined. An encoder may record, for any abbreviation, both the sequence of letters or marks which constitutes it, and its sense, that is, the letter or letters for which it is believed to stand. For example, the abbreviations of euery persone in the following fragment From The Manere of Good Lyuynge, fol 126v of Bodleian MS Laud Misc. 517, plate 8(ii) in by M. B. Parkes (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1969). may be transcribed as follows, using the expan element, with the abbr attribute to hold an entity reference for the brevigraph indicating the abbreviation in the manuscript: ery persone that loketh after heuen hath a place in this ladder ]]> Alternatively, the abbreviations may be encoded using the abbr element. &er;y &p-underbarsone that loketh after heuen hath a place in this ladder ]]>

The choice between the expan and abbr elements is left to the encoder. As a rule, the abbr element should be preferred where it is wished to signify that the content of the element is an abbreviation, without necessarily indicating what the abbreviation may stand for. The expan element should be used where it is wished to signify that the content of the element is an expanded text, without necessarily indicating the abbreviation used in the original. The decision as to which (abbr or expan) to use may vary from abbreviation to abbreviation; there is no requirement that the one system be used throughout a transcription. However, processing may be simplified if one only of these is used throughout a transcription. The choice is likely to be a matter of editorial policy, which might be applied consistently throughout. If the highest priority is to transcribe the text literatim, while indicating the presence of abbreviations, the choice will be to use abbr throughout. If the highest priority is to present a reading transcription, while indicating that some letters or words are expansions of abbreviations, the choice will be to use expan throughout.

Further information may be attached to instances of these elements by the note element, on which see section , and by use of the resp and cert attributes. In this instance from the English ,On fol 65v of Bodleian MS. Rawlinson Poetry 32; in Parkes 12(ii). a note is attached to an editorial expansion of the tail on the final d of good to goode: e I was welbeloued ]]> Then the note: The stroke added to the final d could signify the plural ending (-es, -is, -ys>) but the singular good was used with the meaning property, wealth, at this time (v. examples quoted in OED, sb. Good, C. 7, b, c, d and 8 spec.) ]]> The editor might declare a degree of certainty for this expansion, based on the OED examples, and state the responsibility for the expansion: e I was welbeloued ]]> Observe that the cert and resp attributes may be used with the expan element only to indicate respectively confidence in the content of the element, (i.e., the expansion) and the responsibility for suggesting this expansion. In the case of the use of these attributes with the abbr, the cert and resp attributes are defined as indicating respectively confidence in the expansion held in the expan attribute and the responsibility for suggesting this expansion. The above example could be encoded using the abbr element as follows: &tail; I was welbeloued ]]> If it is desired to express aspects of certainty and responsibility for some other aspect of the use of these elements, then the mechanisms discussed in chapter should be used. See also for discussion of the issues of certainty and responsibility in the context of transcription.

If more than one expansion for the same abbreviation is to be recorded, it is recommended that the markup for critical apparatus be used; an example is given in section . Correction and Conjecture

The sic and corr elements, defined in the core tag set, may be used to register authorial or scribal corrections within a witness. For example, in the manuscript of William James's , edited by Fredson Bowers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977) a sentence first written One must have lived longer with this system, to appreciate its advantages. has been modified by James to begin But one must ..., without the inital capital O having been reduced to lowercase. This non-standard orthography could be recorded and corrected thus: One must have lived ... ]]> The same information could be conveyed by the corr element: one must have lived ... ]]> In this example from Albertus Magnus,, fol 217r col b of Merton College Oxford MS O.2.1, (Parkes pl. 16). both the manuscript error angues and its correction augens are registered by the sic element: angues. ]]> The same information could be conveyed by the corr element: augens. ]]> In this example, from George Moore's draft of additional materials for Memoirs of My Dead LifeIn Pierpont Morgan MA 3421, from , by V. Klinkenborg, H.Cahoon and C. Ryskamp (New York: Pierpont Morgan Library, 1981). the transcriber supplies the word we omitted by the author: develope. ]]> Or with reverse use of the corr element: we develope. ]]> (N.B. when the additional tag set defined in this chapter is selected, the supplied element should normally be used in preference to sic or corr for such supplied text.)

As with the choice between expan and abbr, the choice between the synonymous sic and corr elements is left to the encoder. As a rule, the sic element allows the encoding to retain the original text as the content of the element, while simultaneously signifying that the contents of the element require correction, but without necessarily indicating what the correction may be. The corr element allows the text to be corrected, possibly without recording the details of the faulty source, while still marking explicitly the fact that the contents of the element have been corrected. The choice is likely to be a matter of editorial policy, which might be applied consistently throughout or decided case by case. If the highest priority is to present an uncorrected transcription while noting perceived errors in the original, the choice will typically be to use sic throughout. If the highest priority is to present a reading transcription, while indicating that perceived errors in the original have been corrected, the choice will be to use corr throughout.

Further information may be attached to instances of these elements by the note element and resp and cert attributes. Here, two separate corrections in Dudo of S. Quentin,, in fol 4v of British Library MS Harley 3742, Parkes pl 6(i). are assigned the same note. First the corrections, held in the attribute value of the sic elements: mens que nutu dei gesta sunt ... unde esset uiriliter negata ]]> then the note, linked to the id of the sic element for each of the two corrections: Substitution of a more familiar word which resembles graphically what the scribe should be copying but which does not make sense in the context. ]]>

The cert attribute may also be used with the corr element to signify the conjectural status of a particular editorial reading, with the resp attribute used to identify the scholar responsible for the conjecture. In this example, editorial confidence in E. Talbot Donaldson's emendation of the Hengwrt manuscript reading wight to wright in line 117 of Chaucer's may be marked as follows: wright ywroght? ]]> The editor might also conveniently add a note referring to Donaldson's discussion of this passage: This emendation of the Hengwrt copy text, based on a Latin source and on the reading of three late and usually unauthoritative manuscripts, was proposed by E. Talbot Donaldson in 40 (1965) 626-33. ]]>

Alternative corrections within a transcription of a single witness may be held within an app structure, in the same way that alternative expansions are so grouped in the example given in section . Here, Donaldson's conjectured emendation of the Hengwrt manuscript may be recorded not only alongside the editorial transcription but also alongside another conjecture: wight wright wyf ]]>

Observe that no resp attribute is necessary for the base transcription: by default, responsibility is assigned to the scholar(s) responsible for the transcription, as identified in the TEI header. The conjectures are held within corr elements, contained within the rdg elements. The resp attribute identifying responsibility for each correction is attached to the outer rdg, and inherited by the inner corr element. Note too that the support for these conjectures in other manuscripts can be noted in the wit attribute in the rdg element.

The cert and resp attributes may be used with the corr element only to indicate respectively confidence in the content of the element, (i.e., the correction) and the responsibility for suggesting this correction or conjecture. In the case of the use of these attributes with the sic element, the cert and resp attributes are defined as indicating respectively confidence in the conjecture held in the corr attribute and the responsibility for suggesting this conjecture. The above example could be encoded using the sic element as follows: wight ywroght? ]]> If it is desired to express aspects of certainty and responsibility for some other aspect of the use of these elements, then the mechanisms discussed in chapter should be used. See also for discussion of the issues of certainty and responsibility in the context of transcription. Additions and Deletions

Additions and deletions to a text may be described using the following elements: add contains letters, words, or phrases inserted in the text by an author, scribe, annotator or corrector. addSpan marks the beginning of a longer sequence of text added by an author, scribe, annotator or corrector (see also add). Attributes include: place indicates where the addition is made. Suggested values include: inline addition is made in a space left in the witness by an earlier scribe. supralinear addition is made above the line. infralinear addition is made below the line. marginleft addition is made in left margin. marginright addition is made in right margin. margintop addition is made in top margin. marginbot addition is made in bottom margin. overleaf addition is made on the other side of the leaf. resp signifies the editor or transcriber responsible for identifying the hand of the addition. cert signifies the degree of certainty ascribed to the identification of the hand of the addition. hand signifies the hand of the agent which made the addition. to identifies the endpoint of the added passage, by giving the ID of an anchor or other empty element placed there. del contains a letter, word or passage deleted, marked as deleted, or otherwise indicated as superfluous or spurious in the copy text by an author, scribe, annotator or corrector. delSpan marks the beginning of a longer sequence of text deleted, marked as deleted, or otherwise signaled as superfluous or spurious by an author, scribe, annotator, or corrector. Attributes include: type classifies the deletion, using any convenient typology. Sample values include: overstrike deletion indicated by line crossing out the text. erasure deletion indicated by erasure of the text. bracketed deletion indicated by brackets in the text or margin. subpunction deletion indicated by dots beneath the letters deleted. status indicates whether the deletion is faulty, e.g. by including too much or too little text. Sample values include: excess start some text at the beginning of the deletion is marked as deleted even though it clearly should not be deleted. excess end some text at the end of the deletion is marked as deleted even though it clearly should not be deleted. short start some text at the beginning of the deletion is not marked as deleted even though it clearly should be. short end some text at the end of the deletion is not marked as deleted even though it clearly should be. unremarkable the deletion is not faulty. resp signifies the editor or transcriber responsible for identifying the hand of the deletion. cert signifies the degree of certainty ascribed to the identification of the hand of the deletion. hand signifies the hand of the agent which made the deletion. to identifies the endpoint of the deleted passage, by giving the ID of an anchor or other element placed there. Of these, add and del are included in the core tag set, while addSpan and delSpan are available only when using the additional tag set defined in this chapter.

As described in section , the add element indicating material added may be used to signify manuscript additions or insertions, be they authorial or scribal. In the autograph manuscript of Max Beerbohm's ,In Pierpont Morgan MA 3391 (Klinkenborg 123). the author's addition of "do ever" may be recorded as follows, with the hand attribute indicating that the addition was Beerbohm's: do ever improve by recognition ]]> Similarly, the del element indicating material deleted may be used to signify manuscript deletions. In the autograph manuscript of D. H. Lawrence's (Pierpont Morgan MA 1892, Klinkenborg 129), the author's deletion of my may be recorded as follows. As well as the hand attribute indicating that the deletion was Lawrence's, the rend attribute indicates that the deletion was by strike-through: my body, which is so dear to me ]]> If deletions are classified systematically, the type attribute should normally be used to indicate the classification; when they are classified by the manner in which they were effected, or by their appearance, however, this will lead to a certain arbitrariness in deciding whether to use the type or the rend attribute to hold the information. In general, it is recommended that the rend attribute be used for description of the appearance or method of deletion, and that the type attribute be reserved for higher level or more abstract classifications.

Further characteristics of the addition and deletion, e.g. the date, or ink, may be needed for detailed transcription of manuscripts. Such characteristics may conveniently be recorded as attributes of the add or del element. The specific attributes required may be added to the formal declaration of these elements by using the techniques described in chapter .

The add and del elements defined in the core tag set available in all TEI documents will suffice for describing typically brief additions and deletions in the text being transcribed. On occasion, it will be necessary to record an addition or deletion which crosses a structural boundary in the text being encoded, for example the addition or deletion from a manuscript of a section containing several distinct structural subdivisions, such as poems or prose items. These are most conveniently encoded using the addSpan and delSpan elements, available in the additional tag set defined in this chapter. In this example of the use of addSpan, the insertion of a gathering containing four neo-Eddic poems into Landsbókasafn (Reykjavík, 1562 quarto) by Helgi Ólafsson is recorded as follows. The addSpan element is placed at the beginning of the span of added text. The hand attribute ascribes the responsibility for the addition to the manuscript to Helgi, and the to attribute declares the identifier for the anchor which marks the end of the added text: ]]>

In this example of the use of the delSpan element, a full two lines of Thomas Moore's autograph of the second version of In Pierpont Morgan MA 310, (Klinkenborg 23). are marked for omission by vertical strike-through. The two lines cross the structural line division marked l n=2, so it would not be possible to use a single del element, since it would have to span the l marker. The lines also themselves include a further deletion and addition. The delSpan element indicates the begining of the span marked for deletion, with the to attribute giving the identifier (delend01) for the anchor which marks the end of the span of text so marked: Tis moonlight uponover Oman's sky Her isles of pearl look lovelily ]]>

The text deleted must be at least partially legible, in order for the encoder to be able to transcribe it. If it is not legible at all, the gap element should be used to signal that the text was not (because it could not be) transcribed; the reason attribute can give the cause of the omission from the transcription as deletion, illegible. The gap element may optionally be enclosed by a del element, if it is thought useful to record the deletion explicitly using this element. If the deleted text is partially legible, the unclear element described in section should be used to signal the areas of text which cannot be read with confidence; it too may be enclosed within a del element. See further section and section .

The elements add, del, and gap are defined in the core tag set and are available in all TEI documents. The elements addSpan and delSpan have the following formal declarations: ]]> Substitutions

Substitution of one word or phrase for another is perhaps the most common of all phenomena requiring special treatment in transcription of primary textual sources. It may be simply one word overwriting another, or deletion of one word and its replacement by another written above it by the same hand at the one time; the deletion and replacement may be done by different hands at different times; there may be a long chain of substitutions on the one stretch of text, with uncertainty as to the order of substitution and as to the final reading.

Three different methods may be used to express substitution of one stretch of text by another: the sic and corr elements, either individually to encode a single substitution or nested to encode a sequence of substitutions; the del and add elements, used in sequence to show that text was first deleted then other text inserted; the del and add elements, used within an app structure (as defined in chapter ) to indicate that the deleted and added text within the individual reading elements making up the app structure are variants of one another. The use of all three of these is illustrated in the following encodings of the second line of from the Lawrence manuscript mentioned above. Lawrence first wrote How it galls me, what a galling shadow. Subsequently, he deleted galls and wrote dogs above the deletion.

This substitution could be registered using the first method outlined above, as a correction using the sic or corr elements. Note the use of the resp attribute on the corr element to assign the correction to Lawrence. (For further information on the hand and resp attributes, see section .) dogs me, what a galling shadow ]]> This substitution could be registered using the second method outlined above, using the del and add elements in sequence to reflect the fact that text was first deleted then other text inserted: galls dogs me, what a galling shadow ]]> This substitution could be registered using the third method outlined above, using the del and add elements within an app structure to indicate that the deleted and added texts are variants of one another. Note that within the app structure the hand attribute is moved from the inner del and add elements to the outer rdg element: galls dogs me, what a galling shadow ]]> Each of these three methods has its particular advantages and disadvantages. The first method (use of sic or corr) is compact and indicates clearly that one text is a substitute for another. However, it provides no clear means of stating how the substitution is effected: whether by deletion through strike-out, or underdotting, or erasure, followed by interlinear insertion, or marginal insertion. (The global rend attribute might conceivably be used, but this may not be thought an obvious place to put such information.) In a transcription where this information is not felt to be important, however, this method will suffice to indicate simple cases of direct substitution of one text for another.

The second method (use of a del and add sequence) is also compact and provides means for exact declaration of how the deletion and insertion are effected. However, it does not indicate explicitly that one text is a substitute for another. It is left for the reader or the application to infer from the del and add sequence that the insertion is to be taken as a substitution for the deletion. In many transcriptions, the inference may be safely drawn for simple cases of direct substitution of one text for another. In other transcriptions, for example of complex authorial manuscripts, this inference may prove fragile; those who desire to express clearly that an adjacent addition and deletion are not independent but constitute a single act of substitution will therefore wish to avoid this method. Others, of course, may prefer it for precisely the same reason, namely that it avoids prejudging the issue of whether adjacent deletions and additions are independent or joined.

The third method (use of the del and add elements within an app structure) provides means both for exact declaration of how the deletion and insertion are effected and for explicit indication that one text is a substitute for another. Further, the exact sequence of readings may also be declared by use of the varSeq attribute on the rdg element, as follows: galls dogs me, what a galling shadow ]]> Here, the combination of the hand and varSeq attributes suffices to inform the reader of the authorial substitution of dogs for galls.

Similarly, the varSeq attribute might be used in a transcription of the manuscripts of James Joyce's to indicate the sequence of Joyce's corrections which is implicit in Hans Walther Gabler's reconstruction of the overlay levels of Joyce's transcriptions. This third method is the most powerful and unambiguous of the three methods and enables the widest range of processing possibilities. However, it does suffer an apparent disadvantage. It introduces more markup into the text, which can prove a burden to those working without SGML-aware editors. The volume of markup may be reduced by markup minimization, as in the following recoding of the Lawrence example, but some overhead will remain nevertheless: galls dogs me, what a galling shadow ]]> A second disadvantage is that applications of considerable sophistication may be needed to make full use of all the information that may be held within an app structure. In the absence of such applications, scholars may feel that the present cost of the more informative coding using app structures outweighs the future benefits. In making such decisions, it should however be kept in mind that the capabilities of software at the time a project begins will often be wholly irrelevant when the project is completed some years later.

The Lawrence example above shows the three methods used for encoding a single substitution of one reading for another. The same three methods may also be used to encode longer sequences of substitutions. In the example from William James, first written out by James as One must have lived longer with this system, to appreciate its advantages the word this is first replaced by such a and this is then replaced by a.The manuscript contains several other substitutions, ignored here for the sake of clarity. This may be encoded using the first method, with the sequence of substitutions shown by the nesting of corr elements: a system, to appreciate its advantages. ]]>

It may be encoded using the second method, with the two changes being treated as a sequence of additions and deletions: this such a a system, to appreciate its advantages. ]]> Note the nesting of an add element within a del to record text first added, then deleted in the source.

It may be encoded using the third method, with each reading in the series contained in a rdg element within an app structure: this such a a system, to appreciate its advantages. ]]> The three encodings of this slightly more complex example illustrate the general truth that the more information involving substitutions there is to be encoded, the clearer become the advantages of the use of the app method over the other two methods. As a rule, it is recommended that the app method be used for encoding substitutions of any complexity. It is also desirable that the one method be used throughout any one transcription. Accordingly, the app method is recommended for text critical transcription of primary textual materials requiring encoding of instances of other than straightforward substitution. Cancellation of Deletions and Other Markings

An author or scribe may mark a word or phrase in some way, and then on reflection decide to cancel the marking. For example, text may be marked for deletion and the deletion then cancelled, thus restoring the deleted text. Such cancellation may be indicated by the restore element: restore indicates restoration of text to an earlier state by cancellation of an editorial or authorial marking or instruction. Attributes include: type indicates the action cancelled by the restoration. desc gives a prose description of the means of restoration. resp signifies the editor or transcriber responsible for identifying the hand of the restoration. cert signifies the degree of certainty ascribed to the identification of the hand of the restoration. hand signifies the hand of the agent which made the restoration.

Presume that Lawrence decided to restore my to the phrase of first written For I hate this my body, with the my first deleted then restored by writing stet in the margin. This may be encoded: my body ]]>

The restore element is defined as follows: ]]> Text Omitted from or Supplied in the Transcription

Where text is not transcribed, whether because of damage to the original, or because it is illegible, or because of editorial policy, the gap core element should be used to register the omission; where text not present in the source is supplied (whether conjecturally or from other witnesses) to fill an apparent gap in the text, it should be marked using the supplied element provided by the tag set defined in this chapter. gap indicates a point where material has been omitted in a transcription, whether for editorial reasons described in the TEI header, as part of sampling practice, or because the material is illegible or inaudible. Attributes include: desc gives a description of the omitted text. reason gives the reason for omission. Sample values include sampling, illegible, inaudible, irrelevant, canceled, canceled and illegible. extent indicates approximately how much text has been omitted from the transcription, in letters, minims, inches, or any appropriate unit, either because of editorial policy or because a deletion, damage or other cause has rendered transcription impossible. resp indicates the editor, transcriber or encoder responsible for the decision not to provide any transcription of the text and hence the application of the gap tag. hand In the case of text omitted from the transcription because of deliberate deletion by an identifiable hand, signifies the hand which made the deletion. agent In the case of text omitted from the transcription because of damage or other phenomenon resulting from an identifiable cause, signifies the causative agent. supplied signifies text supplied by the transcriber or editor in place of text which cannot be read, either because of physical damage or loss in the original or because it is illegible for any reason. Attributes include: reason indicates why the text has had to be supplied. resp indicates the individual responsible for supplying the letter, word or passage contained within the supplied element. hand Where the presumed loss of text leading to the supplying of text arises from action (partial deletion, etc.) assignable to an identifiable hand, signifies the hand responsible for the action. agent where the presumed loss of text leading to the supplying of text arises from an identifiable cause, signifies the causative agent. source states the source of the supplied text.

By its nature, the gap element must have no content. It should be used wherever an authorial or scribal erasure is so successful, or the text is so illegible, that nothing can be read. In the Beerbohm manuscript of cited above, for example, the author has erased several passages by inking them over completely: --and here is one of them... ]]>

In an autograph letter of Sydney Smith in the Pierpont Morgan library (Klinkenborg 11), three words in the signature are quite illegible: Sydney Smith ]]> It is possible, but not always necessary, to provide measurements precise to the millimeter or even to the printer's point. The degree of precision attempted will vary with the purpose of the encoding and the nature of the material.

In cases where there is damage, or a degree of illegibility, but the text is nevertheless legible and is transcribed, the gap element should not be used. Instead, the passage should be marked using one or more of the elements damage and unclear, which are described in section .

If the source text is completely illegible or missing, and new text is supplied to fill the gap, it should be marked as supplied. If another (imaginary) copy of the letter above preserved the signature as reading I am dear Sir your very humble Servt Sydney Smith, the text illegible in the autograph might be supplied in the transcription: very humble Servt Sydney Smith ]]> Both gap and supplied may be used in combination with unclear, damage, and other elements; for discussion, see section .

As noted, gap is defined in the core tag set. The supplied element is declared thus: ]]> Non-Linguistic Phenomena in the Source

This section describes methods for recording a number of non-linguistic characteristics of the source text which are often of particular interest in the transcription of primary sources: points at which one scribe takes over from another, or at which ink, pen, or other characteristics of the writing change; points at which the source is damaged or imperfectly legible; and unusual spaces or lines in the source. A discussion of the usage of the hand, resp, and cert attributes is also included. Methods for recording page breaks, column breaks, and line breaks in the source are described in section . Document Hands

For many text-critical purposes it is important to signal the person responsible (the hand) for the writing of a whole document, a stretch of text within a document, or a particular feature within the document. The hand may be of a known and named scribe or author, as DHL, or may be described by an anonymous formula, as hand one. Where the hand is associated with a particular feature tagged within a document, this may be indicated by the value of the hand attribute on that feature. The examples given above of the use of the hand attribute with coding of additions and deletions illustrate this.

In other cases, it may be necessary to identify a document hand without there being any association of that hand with any specific tagged document feature. The handList and hand elements are used in the TEI header (in the profileDesc element) to define each unique hand or scribe distinguished by the encoder in the document. One such element must appear within the header for each hand distinguished in the text. Each location where a change of hands occurs may then be marked in the text by the empty handShift element. hand used in the header to define each distinct scribe or handwriting style. Attributes include: hand unique identifier, either numeric or alphanumeric, used thereafter in the document to refer to this scribe or handwriting style. scribe gives the name of, or other identifier for, the scribe. style indicates recognized writing styles. lang indicates dominant language of hand. ink describes colour of ink, e.g. 'brown'. May also be used to indicate the writing medium, e.g. 'pencil', character used to describe other characteristics of the hand, particularly those related to the quality of the writing. first indicates the first scribe in the document. resp signifies the editor or transcriber responsible for identifying the hand. handList contains a series of hand elements listing the different hands of the source. handShift marks the beginning of a sequence of text written in a new hand, or of a change in the scribe, writing style, ink or character of the document hand. Attributes include: new identifies the new hand. old identifies the old hand. style indicates recognised writing styles ink describes colour of ink, e.g. 'brown'. May also be used to indicate the writing medium, e.g. 'pencil' character used to describe other characteristics of the hand, particularly those related to the quality of the writing. resp signifies the editor or transcriber responsible for identifying the change of hand.

The attributes old and new on the handShift element refer to the order of the text in the transcription: old is the material before the handShift, new the material following. This will ordinarily, but not necessarily, be the order in which the material was originally written. Neither attribute is required but both are recommended where there is a new hand, as opposed to a new writing style in the one hand. The character attribute will be most often used to encode descriptive shifts which the transcriber perceives within a manuscript and which may or may not be associated with or denote changes in scribe or content. The particular values encoded will depend upon the needs of the transcriber. Where many values are to be encoded, feature structures provide an alternative means of encoding these.

A single hand may employ different writing styles and inks within a document, or may change character. For example, the writing style might shift from anglicana to secretary, or the ink from blue to brown, or the character of the hand may change. Any such changes should be indicated by assigning a new value to the appropriate attribute within the handShift element. The one hand may employ different renditions within the one writing style, for example medieval scribes indicating a structural division by emboldening all the words within a line. These should be indicated by use of the rend attribute on an element, in the same manner as underlining, emboldening, font shifts, etc., in transcription of a printed text, rather than by introducing a new handShift element.

In this exampleFrom the Wiltshire Record Office, Dean of Sarum Churchwardens' presentments, 1731, Hurst; the transcription was provided by Donald A. Spaeth. first the document hands are declared in the header: ]]>

Then the change of hand is indicated in the text: and that good Order Decency and regular worship may be once more introduced and Established in this Parish according to the Rules and Ceremonies of the Church of England and as under a good Consciencious and sober Curate there would and ought to be and for that purpose the parishioners pray ]]>

In this exampleFrom folio 52 recto of the Holkham manuscript of Chaucer's . there is a change of ink within the one hand. This is indicated by a new value for the ink attribute on the handShift element: When wolde the cat dwelle in his ynne And if the cattes skynne be slyk and gaye ]]>

These elements are declared as follows: ]]> Hand, Responsibility, and Certainty Attributes

The hand and resp attributes have similar, but not identical, meanings. Observe their distinctive uses in the following encoding of the William James passage mentioned above in section . In this example, the But inserted by James is tagged as an add, and the consequent editorial correction of One to one treated separately: But one must have lived ... ]]> As in this example, hand should be reserved for indicating the hand of any form of marking---here, addition but also deletion, correction, annotation, underlining, etc.---within the primary text being transcribed. The scribal or authorial responsibility for this marking may be inferred from the value of the hand attribute. The value of the hand attribute should be one of the hand identifiers declared in the document header (see section ).

As in this example, the resp on a particular element should be used only to indicate the particular aspect of responsibility defined in these as appropriate to the resp attribute for that element. In the case of the add element, the resp attribute is defined as signifying the responsibility for identifying the hand of the addition: here, Bowers' identification of the hand as that of William James. In the case of the corr element, the resp attribute is defined as signifying the responsibility for supplying the intellectual content of the correction reported in the transcription: here, Bowers' correction of One to one.

As these examples show, the field of application of the resp attributes varies from element to element. In some cases, it applies to the content of the element (corr and expan); in others it applies to the value of a particular attribute (sic, abbr, del, etc.). In all cases where both the cert and resp attributes are defined for a particular element, the two attributes refer to the same aspect of the markup. The one indicates who is intellectually responsible for some item of information, the other indicates the degree of confidence in the information. Thus, for a correction, the resp attribute signifies the person responsible for supplying the correction, while the cert attribute signifies the degree of editorial confidence felt in that correction. For the expansion of an abbreviation, the resp attribute signifies the person responsible for supplying the expansion and the cert attribute signifies the degree of editorial confidence felt in the expansion.

This close definition of the use of the resp and cert attributes with each element is intended to provide for the most frequent circumstances in which encoders might wish to make unambiguous statements regarding the responsibility for and certainty of aspects of their encoding. The resp and cert attributes, as so defined, give a convenient mechanism for this. However, there will be cases where it is desired to state responsibility for and certainty concerning other aspects of the encoding. For example, one may wish in the case of an apparent addition to state the responsibility for the use of the add element, rather than the responsibility for identifying the hand of the addition. It may also be that one editor may make an electronic transcription of another editor's printed transcription of a manuscript text --- here, one will wish to assign layers of responsibility, so as to allow the reader to determine exactly what in the final machine-readable transcription was the responsibility of each editor. In these complex cases of divided editorial responsibility for and certainty concerning the content, attributes and application of a particular element, the more general mechanisms for representing certainty and responsibility described in chapter should be used.

The fields of reference of the resp and cert attributes for each element have been chosen to enable what are felt as the most frequent likely statements an encoder may wish to make concerning the areas of responsibility and certainty related to that element. It is open to each local transcription scheme to vary the use of the resp and cert attributes on particular elements where it is felt convenient. This practice should be documented in the encodingDesc element in the file header. Further, it is recommended that before interchange any such local usage of these attributes be converted to conformancy with the definitions of the resp and cert attributes given in these . Use of the resp and cert in interchange documents in ways not here defined may lead to unpredictable results.

It should be noted that the certainty and responsibility mechanisms described in chapter replicate all the functions of the resp and cert attributes on particular elements. For example, the encoding of Donaldson's conjectured emendation of wight to wright in line 117 of Chaucer's , (see ) may be encoded as follows using the resp and cert attributes on the corr element: wright ]]> Exactly the same information could be conveyed using the certainty and responsibility mechanisms, as follows: wright ]]> The choice of which mechanism to use is left to the encoder. In transcriptions where only such statements of responsibility and certainty are made as can be accommodated within the resp and cert attributes of particular elements, it will be economical to use the resp and cert attributes of those elements. Where many statements of responsibility and certainty are made which cannot be so accommodated, it may be economical to use the respons and certainty elements throughout.

The above discussion supposes that in each case an encoder is able to specify exactly what it is that one wishes to state responsibility for and certainty about. Situations may arise when an encoder wishes to make a statement concerning certainty or responsibility but is unable or unwilling to specify so precisely the domain of the certainty or responsibility. In these cases, the note element may be used with the type attribute set to cert or resp and the content of the note giving a prose description of the state of affairs. Damage, Illegibility, and Supplied Text

The gap and supplied elements described above (section ) should be used with appropriate attributes where the degree of damage or illegibility in a text is such that nothing can be read and the text must be either omitted or supplied either conjecturally or from other sources. In many cases, however, despite damage or illegibility, the text may yet be read with reasonable confidence. In these cases, the following elements should be used: damage contains an area of damage to the text witness. Attributes include: type classifies the damage according to any convenient typology. resp indicates the individual responsible for identifying the area of damage. hand In the case of damage (deliberate defacement, etc.) assignable to an identifiable hand, signifies the hand responsible for the damage. agent In the case of damage resulting from an identifiable cause, signifies the causative agent. degree Signifies the degree of damage according to a convenient scale. The damage tag with the degree attribute should only be used where the text may be read with some confidence; text supplied from other sources should be tagged as supplied. extent indicates approximately how much text is in the damaged area, in letters, minims, inches, or any appropriate unit, where this cannot be deduced from the contents of the tag. For example, the damage may span structural divisions in the text so that the tag must then be empty of content. unclear contains a word, phrase, or passage which cannot be transcribed with certainty because it is illegible or inaudible in the source. Attributes include: reason indicates why the material is hard to transcribe. resp indicates the individual responsible for the transcription of the letter, word or passage contained with the unclear element. cert signifies the degree of certainty ascribed to the transcription of the text contained within the unclear element. hand Where the difficulty in transcription arises from action (partial deletion, etc.) assignable to an identifiable hand, signifies the hand responsible for the action. agent Where the difficulty in transcription arises from an identifiable cause, signifies the causative agent.

The following examples refer to the recto of folio 5 of the unique manuscript of the Elder Edda.Codex Regius, ed. L. F. A. Wimmer and F. Jónsson (Copenhagen 1891). Here, the manuscript of has been damaged through irregular rubbing so that letters in various places are obscured and in some cases cannot be read at all. The existence of the damage may be registered in general for this leaf by use of the damage element. ... ]]> However, in fact the damage crosses structural divisions, so the damage element does not nest properly within the containing div elements. The simplest method to solve this problem is to split the element into two fragments, one within each structural division: