Rename 1 H.1 to "1 H.1 (B)" at least in the apparatus

[gerritbruening]

1 H.1 is equivalent to B9 most of the time. Only when there is a correction in this copy, it is relevant. Idea from the Seminar: 1 H.1 should appear in the line synopsis only when it has a correction. @thvitt do you object?

[thvitt]

I don’t really like this since it’s yet another irregularity.

There will not be a separate line for 1 H.1 anyway when it’s identical to B9, just an additional sigil in the list of sigils (cf. faustedition/faust-web#283), is the additional sigil considered problematic?

BTW link to B in 1 H.1’s metadata is broken

[gerritbruening]

This what I expected :-) @sandrakrause, do you remember arguments that came up in the session and could convince here? ABR argued quite strongly for this, so we should draw her into the discussion some time.

[thvitt]

Ich springe doch immer gern über die Stöckchen, die Du mir hinhältst :-)

[sandrakrause]

The arguments I can remember: H.1 should NOT appear when it is the same as B9, because: ~- then it is stated, that there are for example 6 variants, but in reality it's only 5, because b9 and H.1 are technically the same~

• it looks like there are more witnesses than there really are (H.1 should only count as witness when it differs from B9)
• Why would you look for H.1 in lines where it is the same as B9? When there is something interesting about H.1 you will see it in the list.

H.1 SHOULD always appear, because:

• it is hard to find the places where H.1 is different. If you are interested in that, you have to know where to look. It's not possible to select it from anywhere in the text but only from those special lines.

[thvitt]

If I understand that correctly, B is the base layer of H.1, i.e. B does not yet incorporate the changes made in H.1?

[sandrakrause]

Yes, that is true. H.1 is the same print as B9, but H.1 is the "Korrekturexemplar" and there are some handwritten changes to the text. So most of the text is the same, but there are a few differences in H.1

[thvitt]

• then it is stated, that there are for example 6 variants, but in reality it's only 5, because b9 and H.1 are technically the same

if B == H.1 then there is no additional variant, by definition

[sandrakrause]

Yes, you are right, I got that wrong. It's only the witnesses that differ. E.g. 5 variants in 6 textwitnesses, when it's technically only 5 textwitnesses, because H==B.

[sandrakrause]

Additional arguments:

• if you see the name H.1 you'd expect an interesting piece of handwritten manuscript, but it's just handwriting where it differs from B9, otherwise it just a simple print
• maybe all of that would not matter that much, but since H.1 appears first in the line of sigils, it's quite noticeable

[gerritbruening]

After all, I tend to agree with @thvitt|s objections. I think it is worth knowing (being told explicitly) that 1 H.1 does not have a correction in the respective passage. But I am used to see 1 H.1, so I do not stumble over it any more. @dietmarpravida, do you have an opinion on that question?

[dietmarpravida]

as far as I am concerned, H1 should be cited consistently. I see absolutely no point in leaving out a witness of linear descent as H1 clearly is. So, I'm in agreement with Thorsten, I guess.

[dietmarpravida]

We give the readings of D1 and D2 in every single case, so we cannot leave out H1 without at the same time reducing the readings of D1 and D2 in the same manner. And nobody wants to do that, right?

[thvitt]

it might be helpful to include B in 1 H.1’s headnote.

[dietmarpravida]

538

[dietmarpravida]

We should see to that the ordering of witnesses makes sense in terms of genealogical proximity. (Even though the only sequence possible here will turn out to be B Ba H1; B H1 Ba won't certainly do.) Is there an related issue yet?

[thvitt]

Anzeige 1 H.1 (B) statt

[thvitt]

Should we call it 1 H.1 (B) … a) everywhere? → Modification in 1 H.1’s metadata b) only in the synopsis? → variant-fragments.xsl