Chapter 7. Altered, corrected and unreadable text

Version 1.1 (5 May 2004)

Please note that there will be a number of changes to this chapter in Version 2.0 (currently in progress).

7.1 Introduction
7.2 Additions, deletions and substitutions
7.3 Additions, deletions and substitutions made in the transcription of the manuscript text
7.4 Damage and illegibility

Back to list of contents

7.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with the encoding of additions, deletions and corrections made in the manuscript by the scribe or later users, or similar changes made in the transcription, e.g. by the transcriber or encoder of the manuscript text. Further, the chapter discusses the encoding of damage to the manuscript that effects the reading of the manuscript text. In ch. 7.2 corrections, deletions and additions made by the scribe or later users of the manuscript are treated. Ch. 7.3 treats corrections, deletions and additions made by the transcriber of the manuscript text that have been made e.g. from other text witnesses or earlier editions of the text. In ch. 7.4 damage to the manuscript that effects the reading of the manuscript text are treated. The encoding recommended here is based onthe TEI Guidelines, ch. 18, where the following elements are defined:

Within the tradition of medieval philology there are several different schools concerning the transcription and editing of texts. Scholars have construed different systems for handling the problems arising when phenomena within the manuscript should be rendered in a printed edition. When working with electronic transcriptions and encoding of manuscript texts the same problems are encountered, and although the electronic medium presents possibilities there are obviously parallels between the traditional transcription and editing and the work with electronic texts which could be used as starting points for a manual for handling the latter.

In a discussion on editorial practice for Old Norse texts Helle Jensen, with reference to Stefán Karlsson 1963, LXVII f., outlines aspects of the manuscript text which should be noted in an edition (Jensen 1988). Jensen's suggestions start with structural markup of e.g. line breaks in the manuscript. She also gives special signs for each of the features that has to do with scribal or later changes in the manuscript as follows (Jensen 1988, 102 f.):

In addition, Helle Jensen suggests that uncertain readings should be subpunctuated. In editions from the Arnamagnæan Institutes in Reykjavík and Copenhagen these suggestions are in general followed, and in most editions of medieval Scandinavian texts similar systems are used. This gives us a starting point when we are transcribing Old Icelandic and Old Scandinavian manuscripts.

The principles presented in this handbook are based on the tradition of producing scholarly editions of texts and individual manuscripts. The system for printed editions outlined by Helle Jensen can therefore very often be translated into the electronic markup language presented in this chapter.

Text written in the margins can be of various kinds and of varying interest for our knowledge about the main text and the history of the manuscript. Notes on the main text in the margins are of course valuable when we are interested in the text tradition. Other notes could indicate that someone at a certain stage has used it for example in a transcription of the text.

In medieval manuscripts, however, we often also find notes in the margins that have nothing whatsoever to do with the manuscript text. These notes can at first sight seem to be of no value to philological investigation, but in a larger context they can sometimes give information as to where a manuscript has been at a certain stage of its history. If e.g. the same scribbles are found in a group of manuscripts where one of the manuscripts can be geographically pin-pointed, this could indicate the whereabouts of the whole group. Information of this kind can also lead to the establishing of new connections between manuscripts that were not previously seen as connected. There are thus good arguments for including information also on this kind of marginal note, but these are more properly contained in the manuscript description in the header (cf. ch. 10) than within the encoded transcription.

The first kind of notes, i.e. comments or additions to the main text, are often treated in foot-notes in printed editions. They are considered relevant to the reading of the text, and are therefore given in relation to the main text. Marginal notes that indicate the owner or user of the manuscript in any obvious way are often treated in the introduction to the edition as they are considered relevant to the history of the text or manuscript.

The third category of notes, the ones that do not seem to give any relevant information, is often excluded or treated only briefly in the introduction. This is of course a rational way to handle these scribbles when the printed edition sets the limits, and the information often is obscure and cannot be easily related to parallel information concerning other manuscripts. In the electronic transcription of a manuscript, however, there is no reason to make this limitation. The information can be given in the same way as for the other categories, and thereby give us the possibility to search for all kinds of obscure information.

Medieval manuscripts have often become damaged through use, sometimes with relevance for our reading of the text. Pieces of parchment may for example have been torn out, leaving a physical gap in the manuscript. Parts of the text may be illegible because of use or deliberate erasure, or they may be darkened to such an extent that the text is no longer readable. In printed editions, unreadable sections of a text are marked as suggested by Helle Jensen. In the introductions to printed editions problems related to illegible text and damage to the manuscript are often discussed at length. If there are other text witnesses these are often used to replace missing stretches of text. In a diplomatic transcription of a manuscript text, however, the missing or unreadable parts are most often just marked as such. In the following sections the relation between the traditional markup of these kinds of textual and editorial difficulties and electronic encoding will be obvious. It is therefore relevant to take traditional transcription and editing as a starting point for the electronic encoding of transcriptions of manuscript texts.

The primary aim of the following sections is to give recommendations for the transcription and encoding of manuscript texts. They do, however, in some instances also give recommendations for editorial encoding, e.g. markup that refers to corrections or additions made by the transcriber or encoder. It is therefore important to keep the transcription and encoding of the manuscript text on the one hand and on the other hand the editorial changes consistently separated, so that the former provides a starting point for the editorial work.

7.2 Additions, deletions and substitutions

In the manuscript text and in the margins of the manuscript we often find different kinds of corrections, deletions and additions that we want to encode. These changes can be divided into different groups depending on the nature of the change and its relevance for the reading of the manuscript text or our knowledge about the manuscript. The main division is between additions or substitutions to the manuscript text, within the text or in the margins, and deletions made in the manuscript text. The former should be marked with the <add> element while the latter should be marked with the <del> element. Additions and substitutions made by the transcriber or editor are treated in the following chapter (see ch. 7.3).

7.2.1 Additions

The following elements are recommended for describing additions made by the author of the text, a compiler, scribe, annotator or corrector in the manuscript text. The TEI Guidelines recommend the use of the <add> element to describe additions in the manuscript (ch. 18.1.4). In the following the use of <add> in relation to our recommended encoding of the individual word within the element <w> and on the three different levels <facs>, <dipl> and <norm> is treated.

Additions which can be ascribed to the author of a text are rare in medieval Nordic manuscripts. The additions being described with the above-mentioned attribute hand will therefore primarily be ascribed to the values scribe, compiler, annotator or corrector as described below.

Scribal additions are probably the most common changes to be recorded in the transcription and encoding of a manuscript text. These additions, made by the scribe(s) of a manuscript, could be encoded as in the passage from Rómverjasögur (AM 595 a-b 4to; f. 14r22). Note that for the sake of clarity we limit the use of encoding to the relevant sequence and we have simplified the orthography (avoiding entities, too):

en skyllda þa til herfararinnar er þu uillder
<w>
<facs><add hand="scribe">en</add></facs>
<dipl><add hand="scribe">en</add></dipl>
<norm><add hand="scribe">en</add></norm>
</w>
gæyma allz uti ok inni

The addition is here given on all three levels within the <w> element. It is important to note, however, that once the information is given on one of the three levels it can be automatically generated for the remaining two levels.

The list of hands in the header (cf. ch. 10) should identify the individual hand, either as anonymous or, if possible, by name. The main hand in a manuscript could be marked as main scribe (main_scribe) as follows:

en skyllda þa til herfararinnar er þu uillder
<w>
<facs><add hand="mainscribe">en</add></facs>
<dipl><add hand="mainscribe">en</add></dipl>
<norm><add hand="mainscribe">en</add></norm>
</w>
gæyma allz uti ok inni

In the markup it is also possible to indicate where in the text the addition is made with the attribute place. An addition made over the line in the manuscript text should be described as follows:

en skyllda þa til herfararinnar er þu uillder
<w>
<facs><add hand="mainscribe" place="supralinear">en</add></facs>
<dipl><add hand="mainscribe" place="supralinear">en</add></dipl>
<norm><add hand="mainscribe" place="supralinear">en</add></norm>
</w>
gæyma allz uti ok inni

Additions are sometimes made by an annotator, i.e. comments to the text. This kind of additions could be encoded as the marginal note “vantar ekkert F. J.” by Finnur Jónsson in Codex Wormianus (AM 242 fol. p. 60; here only presented on the <facs> level):

<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence">vantar</add></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence">ekkert</add></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence">F&dot;</add></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence">J&dot;</add></facs>
</w>

It is also possible to indicate with the attribute place where on the manuscript page the annotation is made. Finnur Jónsson's annotation that is made in the bottom margin should be encoded as follows:

<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence" place="bottom">vantar</add></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence" place="bottom">ekkert</add></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence" place="bottom">F&dot;</add></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add hand="FJ" rend="sequence" place="bottom">J&dot;</add></facs>
</w>

In cases where the addition reaches over structural boundaries in the manuscript, we recommend using an <addSpan/> element to indicate the beginning of the addition and an <anchor/> element to indicate the end. The <addSpan/> element should be specified with the to attribute linked to an identical id attribute of the <anchor/> element:

<div>
<p>manuscript text runs here
<addSpan hand="scribe" to="page01_line01"/>
the added text </p></div><div><p> which includes a structural boundary
<anchor id="page01_line01"/>
the original manuscript text continues here</p>
</div>

7.2.2 Deletions

The TEI Guidelines recommend the use of the <del> element to describe additions in the manuscript (ch. 18.1.4). In the following the use of <del> in relation to our recommended encoding of the individual word within the element <w> and on the three different levels <facs>, <dipl> and <norm> is treated.

Deletions that can be ascribed to the author of a manuscript text are rare in medieval Nordic manuscripts. The deletions being described with the above mentioned attribute hand will therefore primarily be ascribed to scribe or corrector.

Deletions made by the scribe(s) or corrector(s) of a manuscript could be encoded as in the passage from Rómverjasögur (AM 595 a-b 4to). Note that we for clarity limit the use of encoding to the relevant sequence, and that the encoding is only presented on the <facs> level:

en tuenner flokkar þeirar þioðar er<lb n="3r:15"/>
<w>
<facs><del hand="mainscribe" rend="sequence">liguri</del></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><del hand="mainscribe" rend="sequence">hæita</del></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><del hand="mainscribe" rend="sequence">er</del></facs>
</w>
traceum hæiter.

In the TEI Guidelines cited above there are a number of possible types of deletion described with the attribute type. These could be applied to deletions made both by scribe(s) and corrector(s). If a deletion is made e.g. by overstriking the deleted text it could be encoded as (here only presented on the <facs> level):

en tuenner flokkar þeirar þioðar er<lb n="3r:15"/>
<w>
<facs><del hand="mainscribe" type="overstrike" rend="sequence">liguri</del></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><del hand="mainscribe" type="overstrike" rend="sequence">hæita</del></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><del hand="mainscribe" type="overstrike" rend="sequence">er</del></facs>
</w>
traceum hæiter.

This could then be displayed on the computer screen or in a printed edition in the manner suggested above (ch. 7.1):

14   ...en tuenner flokkar þeirar þioðar er
15   |-liguri hæita er-| traceum hæiter...

The text that is marked as deleted must be at least partly legible in the manuscript so that it can be read by the transcriber. If the deleted text is not legible the deletion should be marked up with the <gap/> element, described below (7.4.1). The <gap/> element could be enclosed in the <del> element to indicate that the gap is in some way intentional. Parts of the deleted text that are legible could be indicated by the <unclear> element in combination with the <gap/> element as described below (ch. 7.4.2).

In cases where the deletion reaches over structural boundaries in the manuscript, we recommend using a <delSpan/> element to indicate the beginning of the addition and an <anchor/> element to indicate the end. The <delSpan/> element should be specified with the to attribute linked to an identical id attribute of the <anchor/> element:

<div>
<p>manuscript text runs here
<delSpan hand="scribe" type="overstrike" to="page02_line02"/>
the deleted text </p></div><div><p> which includes a structural boundary is placed here
<anchor id="page02_line02"/>
the original manuscript text continues here</p>
</div>

7.2.3 Substitutions

In medieval manuscripts a rather common phenomenon is the combination of deleted text and added text. It is not always possible, however, to ascertain the relation between the two. If someone has deleted the originally written text inline this does not automatically mean that a corresponding addition above the line or in the margin is made by the same scribe. It can therefore not be stated as certain whether the correspondence is intentional or not. We suggest that substitutions made in the manuscript should be marked primarily with the two core tags <del> and <add>. In cases where we can be relatively sure about the agent of the whole substitution this could be indicated with a combination of the <del> and the <add> elements as illustrated below.

<w>
<facs><del>deleted word</del></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add>added word</add></facs>
</w>

If someone has deleted part of the manuscript text this could be encoded as has been demonstrated above (ch. 7.2.2), and if someone, the same hand or someone else in the manuscript history, has supplied new text for the deletion, this could be encoded as in the following example from Codex Wormianus (AM 242 fol.; here only presented on the <facs> level):

<lb n="5:14"/> ....
<w>
<facs><del type="subpunction" hand="scribe">bar</del></facs>
</w>
<w>
<facs><add place="supralinear" hand="scribe">tok<add></facs>
</w>

In this case the attribute hand indicates that both the subpunction and the supralinear addition can be attributed to the scribe of the manuscript text.

7.3 Additions, deletions and substitutions made in the transcription of the manuscript text

When transcribing medieval material we often encounter words or longer sequences of text that we consider corrupt in one way or another. Sometimes it may also be obvious that text is missing in the manuscript we are transcribing or that the scribe has made a mistake. The transcriber of the manuscript text may in these instances wish to indicate the mistake or even correct the text, either directly from other versions of the same text or based on already existing editions of the text. Sometimes the transcriber or editor may also wish to make obvious grammatical corrections in the text without having any other text witness or precedence in an earlier edition. In the following the encoding of corrections made by the transcriber of the text or by an editor are treated. Note that we do not recommend the use of the attribute hand for the changes made in transcription or encoding of the manuscript text. The attribute resp should be used consistently for corrections or additions made in the transcription or encoding of the text to distinguish clearly between what is found in the manuscript text and what is made in the transcription and encoding of the text.

7.3.1 Additions made by the transcriber or editor

If text is obviously missing in the manuscript text we may wish to supply it. This could be based on for example another text witness or on a earlier edition of the text. The markup of such additions should give information about the source as well as about the responsibility for the addition. To encode additions made in the transcription we recommend the use of the <supplied> element as described in the TEI Guidelines (ch. 18.1.5). In the following the use of <supplied> in relation to our recommended encoding of the individual word within the element <w> and on the three different levels <facs>, <dipl> and <norm> is treated.

If the transcriber or editor wishes to supply text that is missing in the transcribed manuscript text from for example another text witness this could be handled with the <supplied> element. The interpolated text could be transcribed as in this instance from Rómverjasögur (AM 595 a-b 4to). Note that we for clarity limit the use of encoding to the relevant sequence, and that the encoding is only presented on the <facs> level:

þa uar inumidia að þeir er epter uoru latner uoru með herinum af liði Calpurnii <lb n="1v:4"/>fylgðu siðum sins havfðingia
<w><facs><supplied>ok</supplied></facs></w>
giorðu marga glæpsamliga
<w><facs><supplied>luti</supplied></facs></w>.

This could then be displayed on the computer screen or in a printed edition in the manner suggested above (ch. 7.1):

3   ...þa uar inumidia að þeir er epter uoru latner uoru með herinum af liði Calpurnii
4   fylgðu siðum sins havfðingia <ok> giorðu marga glæpsamliga <luti>.

7.3.2 Corrections

In the manuscript it is not always possible to say anything with certainty about the intention of changes in the text. When transcribing the text, however, corrections of obvious mistakes in the manuscript text could be marked with the following tag set recommended in the TEI Guidelines (ch. 6.5.1). In the following the use of <sic> and <corr> in relation to our recommended encoding of the individual word within the element <w> and on the three different levels <facs>, <dipl> and <norm> is treated.

In a first-level transcription it can be relevant just to mark the obviously corrupted instances in the manuscript text. This could be done with the <sic> element as in this instance from Rómverjasögur (AM 595 a-b 4to). Note that we for clarity limit the use of encoding to the relevant sequence, and that the encoding is only presented on the <facs> level.

ok sua mikinn avrugglæik hafa þeir að giora illa
<w><facs><sic>uitier</sic></facs></w>
<lb n="1r:15"/>lavst að æigi munu þeir af lata nema þeim se bannað.

In this example the word uitier is marked as corrupt. There is no indication as to what is corrupt or how it should be corrected. The next step is to correct the corrupted instance, which could be made by combining the <sic> element with corr as an attribute.

ok sua mikinn avrugglæik hafa þeir að giora illa
<w><facs><sic corr="uitis">uitier</sic></facs></w>
<lb n="1r:15"/>lavst að æigi munu þeir af lata nema þeim se bannað.

This means that the correct reading of this passage should be as follows:

ok sua mikinn avrugglæik hafa þeir að giora illa uitis<lb n="1r:15"/>lavst að æigi munu þeir af lata nema þeim se bannað.

With this markup it is possible to show the text on the computer screen or in a printed edition in accordance with the suggestions above (ch. 7.1):

14   ...ok sua mikinn avrugglæik hafa þeir að giora illa *uitis
15   lavst að æigi munu þeir af lata nema þeim se bannað...

with the corrected form from the manuscript text underneath the edited text:

* uitier

It is also possible to include information about the person responsible for the correction with the attribute resp and its values:

ok sua mikinn avrugglæik hafa þeir að giora illa
<w><facs><sic corr="uitis" resp="transcriber">uitier</sic></facs></w>
<lb n="1r:15"/>lavst að æigi munu þeir af lata nema þeim se bannað.

It is, of course, also possible to use the <corr> element with sic as an attribute, but we recommend the use of the <sic> element.

7.4 Damage and illegibility

The following section deals with text omitted in the transcription or editing of text due to damage or illegibility in the manuscript, and text supplied from other sources such as other text witnesses or earlier editions.

7.4.1 Text omitted from or supplied in the transcription

When the manuscript is illegible we suggest the use of the elements <gap/> and <supplied> to indicate the illegible text, its extension and how it has been supplied (for the <supplied> element see ch. 7.3.1).

In medieval manuscripts we often find sections that for some reason are illegible. This can be due to e.g. damage or use. In the transcription we primarily wish to register the sections that are illegible and the extent of the illegibility. We suggest that the illegible sections should be indicated by the <gap/> element. The extent of the illegible section could be encoded as the following two lines from Völuspá in Hauksbók (AM 544 4to):

<lb n="20v:41"/>viðars niðia.<gap extent="00...00"/>naðr<gap extent="00...00"/>
<lb n="20v:42"/>munv halir<gap extent="00...00"/>yðia<gap extent="00...00"/>mið
<gap extent="00...00"/>

With this markup the extent of the illegible section is not defined. It can be presented on the computer screen or in a printed edition in the manner suggested above (ch. 7.1):

41   viðars niðia. 00...00 naðr 00...00
42   munv halir 00...00 yðia 00...00 mið 00...00 ...

If the transcriber or encoder of the text wishes to define the section more accurately it can be done as in the following example. The number of missing signs is given as a value to the attribute extent. It should be noted that the number given in the example is not intended as an exact evaluation of the number of signs missing in the present manuscript.

<lb n="20v:41"/>viðars niðia.<gap extent="40"/>naðr<gap extent="17"/>
<lb n="20v:42"/>munv halir<gap extent="31"/>yðia<gap extent="10"/>mið
<gap extent="11"/>

This could be represented as follows on the computer screen or in a printed edition. As the accuracy of this kind of evaluation is questionable it should not have the highest priority to display this in e.g. a printed edition.

41   viðars niðia. 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000naðr 00000000000000000
42   munv halir 0000000000000000000000000000000yðia 0000000000 mið00000000000 ...

In the above example there are other sources available for the illegible text. The text omitted can then be supplied from these sources within the <supplied> element as follows, where the supplied text is from Gustav Neckel's edition of the Edda (Hans Kuhn's revised 5. edition 1983, p. 13; Note that for clarity we limit the use of encoding to the relevant sequence, and that the encoding is only presented on the <facs> level).

<lb n="20v:41"/>viðars niðia.
<gap extent="32"/>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">Gengr</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">inn</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">mæri</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">er</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">af</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">móði</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">drepr</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">neppr</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">at</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs>naðr
<gap extent="14"/>
<supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">i</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">mögr</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs><supplied resp="KGJ" source="Neckel1983:13" rend="sequence">Hlóðyniar</supplied></facs></w>
<lb n="20v:42"/>
<w><facs>munv</supplied></facs></w>
<w><facs>halir</supplied></facs></w>
<gap/>

The second unreadable part in the manuscript text marked with <gap/> here starts within a word. With this encoding it will be possible to display the text as shown in the following example (using "ö" for "o ogonek"):

41   viðars niðia. [Gengr inn mæri er af móði drepr neppr at] naðr [i mögr Hlóðyniar]
42   munv halir [ _ _ _ ]

This kind of editorial change is, however, not suggested as compulsory. In a primary transcription and encoding the use of the <gap/> element should only give the essential manuscript information. The attributes to <gap/> and <supplied>, such as source or resp, can of course be included voluntarily and to the extent that information is available.

7.4.2 Uncertain readings in the manuscript

In medieval manuscripts we often encounter problems of illegibility due to use or damage. In the following the encoding of such sequences is treated. To some extent this has already been treated in the above section (ch. 7.4.1). In cases where the text is readable to some extent the <gap/> and <supplied> elements should not be used. The TEI Guidelines (ch. 18.2.3) recommend that the <unclear> element is used for encoding damage and illegibility where the text of the dammaged or illegible area can be read with some certainty.

The example given above from the version of Völuspá in Hauksbók (AM 544 4to) can be further encoded with the <unclear> element, to indicate that the text marked with the <unclear> element is read with some certainty while the <gap/> element indicates fully illegible text. For the sake of simplicity, we have given identical readings on all three levels below.

<lb n="20v:41"/>

<w>
<facs><unclear>viðars</unclear></facs>
<dipl><unclear>viðars</unclear></dipl>
<norm><unclear>viðars</unclear></norm>
</w>

<w>
<facs><unclear>niðia</unclear></facs>
<dipl><unclear>niðia</unclear></dipl>
<norm><unclear>niðia</unclear></norm>
</w>

<gap extent="00...00"/>

<w>
<facs><unclear>naðr</unclear></facs>
<dipl><unclear>naðr</unclear></dipl>
<norm><unclear>naðr</unclear></norm>
</norm>
</w>

<gap extent="00...00"/>
<lb n="20v:42"/>

<w>
<facs><unclear>munv</unclear></facs>
<dipl><unclear>munv</unclear></dipl>
<norm><unclear>munv</unclear></norm>
</w>

<w>
<facs><unclear>halir</unclear></facs>
<dipl><unclear>halir</unclear></dipl>
<norm><unclear>halir</unclear></norm>
</w>

With this encoding the text could be presented with subpunction for all the words that the editor can not read with absolute certainty. 

Top of page