Convert stoa0045

[PonteIneptique]

• stoa0045.stoa002.perseus-lat1 has first book poem lines starting again at each poem, while the second one has continuous numbered line despite poem system. Any point of you on how to deal with that @lcerrato ?

[PonteIneptique]

For the 002, I have found a solution : I have renumbered to follow one of the most recent numbering available, ie H P Green Edition

[lcerrato]

If we change numbering from original (print) edition, then that's a substantive revision from the book that requires a header notation.

Because now we're referencing different print editions for different parts of the text (in theory).

In the past this created confusion because there were texts that were silently "modernized" and when users went to cross check these against the book, they were confused by what the Perseus text actually was or was not.

[lcerrato]

Can you point me to the exact area where the problem/question occurs so I can better understand the question?

[PonteIneptique]

Of course, here is the diff : https://github.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/commit/00fe05f87c867f7f7f034e71ddf9c0e8f465e6d9

The issue is, the canonical scheme is not Poem/Line or Section/Line but indeed Line only. This was an inconsistence in the edition itself as it was not dealt the same way for each node. Because we need to have a clear citation scheme, line only is the best choice.

[lcerrato]

Ok, I don't think you can number this entire work consecutively, only the part that begins with the Tetrasticha.

If I am reading correctly we have: Book 14

• Section or Part (= "Monosticha")
  • Poem (x4)
  • Lines (renumbered within each poem 1- n)
• Section or Part (= "Tetrasticha")
  • Lines (1- 100 numbered consecutively throughout)
  • NB within these line numbers there are — except for the first part — numbered subheadings

which looks like this ...

Book 14: Ausonii De XII Caesaribus Per Suetonium Tranquillum Scriptis

[Monosticha]

• I. Ausonius Hesperio FIlio S. D. = a poem of 5 numbered lines [a greeting or preface
  • lines 1-5
• II. Monosticha de Ordine Imperatorum = a poem
  • lines 1-12
• III. De Aetate Imperii Eorum Monosticha
  • lines 1-12
• IV. De Obitu Singulorum Monosticha
  • lines 1-12

Then ....

Tetrasticha

• [preface/introduction] note that this is not designated as such per se
  • lines 1-4
• I. Julius Caesar
  • lines 5-8
• II. Octavius Caesar
  • lines 9-12
• [...] XXIV. Antoninus Helogabalus
  • lines 97-100

[lcerrato]

PS. You reminded me why I hated reading Ausonius! ;P

[PonteIneptique]

So, as for the Monosticha / Tetrasticha, what should be done ? I would either propose to treat monosticha as individual poems (ie poem/line) at the same level than the Tetrasticha, ie :

• Ausonius Hesperio FIlio S. D
• Monosticha de Ordine Imperatorum = a poem
• De Aetate Imperii Eorum Monosticha
• De Obitu Singulorum Monosticha
• Tetrasticha

or split the work into two individual works. Which would probably make more sense.

As for Ausonius, in stoa011 work, there is letter 21 and 22 missing. Any idea why ?

[PonteIneptique]

Ok, letter 21 is stoa0013, I assume I'll find 22 later. Which actually let me think that we should have splitted 002 in two works,

[lcerrato]

I'm not opposed to splitting this up —this seems to be one of those cases where we really want DTS not CTS — but I'm not sure I want to set that precedent without thinking on it more.

I'd go with the 5 poem approach for now.

1. Monosticha I.
2. Monosticha II.
3. Monosticha III.
4. Monosticha IV.
5. Tetrasticha

for future reference https://archive.org/stream/ausonius01evelgoog#page/n386/mode/2up