Closed gerritbruening closed 5 years ago
Lesetext is always last, which makes sense from a chronological perspective :) If it is identical with the newest witness’s emended version, they are grouped together.
There’s no path from C.1 12 to C.3 12 in the current graph, so maybe its info is suboptimal
Order would be H.32 H H.0a C.1 C.3 meaning that there are some gaps in the data, sigh... Not sure wether I agree about the reading text. It in a way represents a pre-existing historic state within textual history. Which is identical to H.0a in this case.
For placing the reading text, we would need some kind of global rule.
a) always last (like now) a') always last, but never grouped with another witness b) always first b') always first, but never grouped with another witness c) integrated into the regular macrogenesis process, with, e.g., an absolute dating at Goethe’s death d) …
(I wonder why the prints lack absolute dating information)
Last position was approved in last F2F/TelKo meeting.
Look at
C.1 and C.3 are disconnected for some reason in the macrogenesis data. Is it by random where the reading text is? It would be more logical to put it together whith the base witness if it is identical with it.