ethio-spare list of additions

[thea-m]

The list of addition types inherited from Ethio-Spare seems to need some cleaning up: http://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=desc Please consider the definitions there, I'm not copying them here :) Some types of additions are, according to our guidelines, not additions, since they have not been added at a later stage. This concerns possibly:

• ScribalSignature
• Supplication (already clarified in the schema)
• Subscription (already clarified in the schema)
• ScribalNoteCommencing (apparently only used once in Ethio-Spare?)
• ScribalNoteOrdering
• ScribalNoteCommissioning
• ScribalNoteCompleting (how is this different from a subscription or a colophon?)
• ScribalSupplication (how is this different from Supplication?)

Subscriptions and supplications are already types for incipit/explicit, I could imagine a similar solution for ScribalNoteCommencing. I haven't encountered examples of ScribalNoteOrdering and ScribalNoteCommissioning, maybe those who have might have a suggestion?

Not related to the question whether or not they constitute real additions, the following types seem to need clarification:

• TransactionNote and RecordTransaction (is a record more formal than a simple note?)
• MagicText and ProtectivePrayer
• Comment and Gloss (the differenciation seems a bit artificial, is it really useful?)
• Invocation and Condemnation

I have also occasionally encountered catalogue descriptions stating that a prayer was added to the manuscript, without any further specifications. It could be helpful to add a "Prayer" type.

[eu-genia]

ScribalNoteCommissioning I had in ESakm007 but I note that there was also one used, as an addition, in BNFet35 (and there is a ScribalNoteCompleting in BNFet42, BNFet53)

Should all ScribalNotes be moved?

I do not think all supplications can be covered by incipit/explicit, or at least not automatically - e.g. ESaqg001 has many supplications that are inside the Psalter - they might be at the beginning or end of a Psalm but this is not further specified, so there is no msitem to fit

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

"ScribalNoteCommissioning" does exist as a marginal note genre, as well as "ScribalNoteCommencing". "Commissioning" (it exists: look in Ethio-Spare database, "Additional") is the same as "Ordering", the latter can be dropped. "ScribalNoteCompleting" was introduced to refer to a rudimentary "colophon" (like ተፈጸመ᎓ በሰላመ᎓ እግዚአብሔር።); it might be helpful to mark such colophons, though the border is a bit fluid. I will check the remaining. I think it would be most helpful to give one example for each of the types mentioned, since each implicates a certain formula and specific wording, and was established in Ethio-Spare on this criterium. I can do this. Otherwise it will be a bit abstract.

[thea-m]

Thank you!

I took the opportunity to go through The "ScribalNote" additions in the BNF manuscripts (encoded a long time ago...), and changed them to either colophon or explicit subscription/supplication, since these elements seem to be more fitting for the descriptions available.

• Supplications: The main issue to keep in mind is that we have repeatedly insisted and stated in the guidelines to be careful to encode as additions only true later additions. This is not the case for (most) supplications , whether they are included at the beginning, end or within the text. In the latter case, we would expect them to be transcribed and marked up together with the text, but since this is of course not going to happen for most manuscripts, I think that here the information should be encoded as an "extra" in additions.
• ScribalNoteCommissioning/ScribalNoteCommencing: Not sure if I use the Ethio-Spare data base correctly, do you mean the results I get by searching for "Commissioning"/"Commencing" in Additions, or something else? The only result for "Commencing" is GMS-008. Sorry if I missed something here... I did not go through all results for "Commissioning", but at least for some, the notes do not seem to be added later to the manuscripts (MR-045, QDS-007), though of course there might be such cases as well (QMA-006 possibly, though written by the main hand).
• ScribalNoteCompleting: This is what we encode as explicit @type="subscription": http://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?q=explicit&id=explicit

It is in general a bit problematic that these categories were established in Ethiospare and then exported without taking the definitions with them...Anyway, here we are, and I think that on the basis on the existing definitions in the guidelines and schema (and do write issues if you search for something there and don't find it...), as well as with the examples and theoretical work from Ethio-Spare we can reach satisfactory solutions.

I agree with @DenisNosnitsin1970 that more examples in the guidelines would be helpful, I will be happy to add them after our discussion. It would certainly be helpful if you added some to the discussed categories, whether in this issue or the guidelines.

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

Sorry, I do not understand one thing: what is the difference between "colophon" and "subscription"? (the rules read: "subscription | note originally added at the end of the main text concerning its completion. not to be confused with later additions"). Agree about supplications, this is also my understanding. But you do find some manuscripts where supplication for the owner of commissioner is written in a secondary hand, in the margins. To my opinion, to define "additional notes" only as later additions will bring difficulties. In Ethio-Spare, we qualified as additional notes also "untrue additional notes" written in the main hand. The developed taxonomy system for notes exists exactly for this aim, which immediately makes possible to understand the content of the note.
For "commissioning/commencing"You searched in the right way. "Commencing note" is a rare genre, but it exists; unless you want to classify them as colophon (note referring to the beginning/completion of the writing process, here to the beginning). In Ethio-Spare, there were no definitions, but only a list of the note genres and, we used exactly reference manuscripts.

[thea-m]

Thank you! It's clearer now to me. We follow the TEI descriptions for colophon, incipit and explicit: http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-colophon.html http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-incipit.html http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-explicit.html Of course we could (and have in many cases) specify these definitions for our project,. Supplications added by a secondary hand in the margins can still be encoded as addition @type supplication without any problem. We can discuss of course the definition of "additions", but this is the one we have followed until now. But you are right, "untrue additional notes" should be discussed and encoded systematically. I would be a bit reluctant to add them among additions, maybe as varia? Or a special type could be created for additions? For commencing notes, I would suggest to add a type to incipit, in analogy to incipit type supplication. But we could also consider adding a type to colophon or find another solution, though this should be clearly not encoded as addition.

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

The "untrue additions" are not varia; they encompass many categories of "true additions" only written in the main hand, whereas "varia" are basically "minor notes" (= non-texts, scribbles). We should better keep "true" and "untrue additional notes" on the same level. Another problem: frequently it is difficult to recognize the hand of an addition. I was puzzled many times: is it the main hand (and less careful execution) or a different hand? In many cases I remained inconclusive.

The definition of the colophon in TEI ("a statement providing information regarding the date, place, agency, or reason for production of the manuscript") follows a little bit different - much more generalized - pattern. They probably consider lots of things as colophon: "colophon of the scribe" and "colophon of the commissioner" at least. This is one of the definitions (based probably on European manuscripts), and not really tangible without examples. If we do according to TEI here and re-do Ethio-Spare mss at this point, we simply information. In Ethio-Spare the understandiong was more precise: a note referring to the stages of production of the manuscript (normally beginning or conclusion) and its circumstances (usually it is the time, and less frequently the place). In this sense, "commencing note" can be considered a short colophon, but this in GMS-008 was so peculiar that we distinguished it.

[thea-m]

Thank you! Regarding the untrue additions: I understand that "untrue additions" (notes written in the main hand) are not Varia. However, I think that it would be good to distinguish them from "true additions". What do you think, @PietroLiuzzo ? Would it be enough to describe the situation in <desc> and to add a reference to the main hand in order to do this? Of course, in many catalogue descriptions, the hands of the true or untrue additions are not described sufficiently to make the distinction, so that when the items are described as additions, we can only encode them as additions without specifying the hand, leaving the possibility that they were carried out by the main hand open.

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

In Ethio-Spare we did exactly in this way ("Ownership note, written probably/possibly in the main hand").

[thea-m]

As to the colophon issue, obviously no information from Ethio-Spare manuscripts should be lost or information from catalogues and other manuscripts be encoded in an unsatisfactory way. I still think though that "additions" is then the wrong category for encoding these types of "colophon". Maybe those items currently present in the additions typology that were developed in Ethio-Spare to subdivide and specify colophons could be added as @type to <colophon>? Whether additions should only be used to encode later additions (as the guidelines state, as far as I know, since the beginning of the project and as I have always done) or should accomodate also other features is quite a crucial question.

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

I think this will be difficult and will require a large-scale rearrangement. Also semanticall "note" (and "record") gives us flexibility and space. Ethio-Spare did not aim at subdividing the colophons, we simply took one of the most clear idea as to what is colophon. I see that in the guidelines the "subscription" is nearly the same as "colophon". I think that the most convinient and correct would be to keep the classical "colophon of the scribe" (called in whatever way) out of the system of notes/subscriptions, as a writing of a special status.

[PietroLiuzzo]

I think here there is already agreement and a lot to do

• [x] @DenisNosnitsin1970 will provide one concrete example for each addition type, to be documented in the schema (so that it ends up also in the guidelines) optimal would be the id and anchor of the manuscript in BM
• [x] we need a section in the guidelines helping to distinguish between additions and contents, as discussed in #917 I proposed there the criteria in COMSt book p. 512. This will mean updating this page http://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=additionsVaria and related and I can do it as stated in the other issue
• [ ] update the guidelines for the ScribalNotes / Supplication as per Dorothea comment (@thea-m could you do that?) so that one can decide if it is an addition or is encoded in the incipit/explicit/colophon. Note here that we could also use <seg> as it is already in use for documents, to highilight a specific part of the text with a function. It remains possible to do both things (additions or direct encoding in the colophon/msItem s) according to the actual situation. If the scribal note written in the main hand is in the colophon and marked there with a <seg> which has that type or a incipit which has that type is fine as much as having an addition with a desc and type. it is just a matter of what it actually is. the advantage of seg might be that in some cases I imagine you can have several of these distinct notes in the colophon/incipit/explicit and you can mark them there, instead of having to enter several of those elements. Let me know which one you prefer, or if you need those types in both, I will update the schema.

With these changes which are not a big rearrangement neither need us to redo all the ES manuscripts as they are in BM, we don't loose any ES data this way but we build on it to be able to encode more precisely IMHO, making a better use of the generic elements in TEI.

[PietroLiuzzo]

potentially making the above distinctions and allowing for more precise and diversified encoding of these notes not forced to one or the other method would also allow better evaluation of course, because we would know which one are part of the main text and which are not.