From Chswiki

Overview

The Multitext explicitly avoids notions of "archetype" and "base text" as those terms are used in traditional textual criticism. At the same time, we need to define a canonical reference system that we can apply to all versions of the Iliad in our Multitext. In hopes of avoiding confusion of these issues, we will use Wolf's line numbering as our canonical reference. (Presumably no one will mistake our use of Wolf for a "base text" of the Multitext project!)

Note: it would be very desirable to add a text of Wolf's Iliad to the collection.

Plus and minus verses

One function of an end-user system for working with the multitext will be to identify automatically differences between any two versions in our collection. In addition to identifying differences within a line, we need to be able to identify automatically the presence of absence of lines.

The sequence of lines in a given Iliad has no necessary relation to the canonical reference for that line. In one Iliad, line referred to as "book 4 line 10" (ie, "4.10") might be followed by "4.12"; in others by "4.11". The reference values are identifiers only.

Representing "minus" verses presents no problem in marking up the text: if a line identified as "4.10" is followed by a line identified as "4.12", automated processing can verify that that sequence is missing a line compared to a text where "4.10" is followed by "4.11" which is followed by "4.12".

"Plus" verses, on the other hand, have to be handled differently. By definition, "plus" verses do not have a canonical reference in citation practice based on Wolf's numbering. One task we are compelled to take on therefore is to define canonical reference values for plus verses compared to Wolf's numbering.

If a given version of the Iliad has a "plus" verse between "4.10" and "4.11", we would normally assign it a reference like "4.10a". But just as different editions might not number their lines in coordination with Wolf's numbering, so editors of texts with plus verses do not necessarily coordinate those additional references. If two different versions have two different plus verses between "4.10" and "4.11", both editions might label these distinct lines "4.10a" in a print publication. We need to ensure that each plus verse will be uniquely identified.

Suggested procedure for editors

Editors who discover a "plus" verse should be able to check a registry to see if there are any plus verses following a given verse. E.g., editors should be able to verify quickly whether any of our extant texts have a plus verse following "4.10". There are two possible results:

1. If there are no plus verses in our current corpus, the editor should assign the verse a new canonical value by appending a lower-case alphabetic letter to the reference of the preceding verse. E.g., the first plus verse discovered following "4.10" should be assigned the reference value "4.10a".
2. If there are plus verses following the given reference, one or more instances should be displayed with each reference so that editors can determine whether the line in question corresponds to any of the existing plus lines. Here again there are two possible results:
   1. If some recognizable version of the line already has a canonical value (e.g., "4.10a"), the editor should use that value for the reference to the line in question.
   2. If none of the plus lines correspond to the line in question, the editor should create a new, unique reference value fo the line in question. E.g., if there is a "4.10a" but it is not the line in question, the new line should be given the reference "4.10b".

We will need to automate the maintenance of the project-wide index of canonical references. It might be ideal if editors who create new plus line references could send a message or in some other way initiate the process that indexes all the canonical references in the MTH.

See on this and other technical questions some initial notes on how to implement support for editing plus verses in the Multitext