Parentheses And Variants In Perseus Greek Texts: A TLG2045 Case

This article delves into a specific issue encountered within the Perseus Digital Library's canonical Greek Literature project, focusing on the representation of parentheses and variant lines in the Dionysiaca (tlg2045.tlg001.perseus-grc2.xml). Specifically, we'll examine how quotation marks are sometimes erroneously used in place of parentheses due to potential errors in Beta Code conversion. Furthermore, we'll explore the best practices for marking up variant lines semantically within TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) documents.

The Case of the Misplaced Parentheses in Dionysiaca

In Book 26, line 151 of Nonnus' Dionysiaca, a curious anomaly appears. Where the print edition clearly uses parentheses, the TEI representation exhibits characters resembling quotation marks. This instance occurs in the following lines:

<l n="150">κτεινομένους κατʼ Ἄρηα χυτῇ κρύπτουσι κονίῃ </l>
<l n="151">ʽκ̔τεινομένους κατὰ δῆριν ἐτυμβεύοντο κονίᾐ.</l>
<l rend="align(indent)" n="152">καὶ στρατὸν ἀγκυλότοξον ἀολλίσσας ἐπικούρων</l>

As the provided image demonstrates, line 151 in the print edition is enclosed in parentheses. However, in the TEI version, the left parenthesis is rendered as a U+02BD MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA (ʽ), often used as an opening single quotation mark. The right parenthesis manifests as a rough breathing diacritic over the letter ῃ. This discrepancy likely stems from an error during the conversion from Beta Code to Unicode. In Beta Code, ( represents a smooth breathing mark, while ) signifies a rough breathing mark. This mix-up highlights the challenges inherent in automatically converting between encoding systems and the importance of careful proofreading.

The immediate solution involves replacing these erroneous characters with standard parentheses. However, a more nuanced question arises: how should we semantically mark up line 151, given that it's identified as a variant of line 150? This leads us to a broader discussion of best practices for handling textual variations within TEI documents.

Handling Textual Variants in TEI

Textual variants are common in ancient texts due to multiple manuscript traditions and scribal errors or emendations. The TEI Guidelines offer several ways to encode these variations, each with its own semantic implications. Here are a few options:

1. Using the <app> Element: The <app> (apparatus) element is specifically designed for recording textual variations. It allows you to group different readings of a particular passage and provide information about their sources and relationships.

   <l n="150">κτεινομένους κατʼ Ἄρηα χυτῇ κρύπτουσι κονίῃ </l>
   <app>
   <rdg wit="#printEd">κτεινομένους κατʼ Ἄρηα χυτῇ κρύπτουσι κονίῃ</rdg>
   <rdg wit="#otherManuscript">κτεινομένους κατὰ δῆριν ἐτυμβεύοντο κονίῃ</rdg>
   </app>
   <l rend="align(indent)" n="152">καὶ στρατὸν ἀγκυλότοξον ἀολλίσσας ἐπικούρων</l>
   

   In this example, <app> encloses the variant readings. The <rdg> (reading) element represents each specific reading, and the wit attribute points to the source of that reading (e.g., a specific manuscript or edition).

2. Using the <note> Element: If the variant is considered a minor correction or a gloss, the <note> element can be used to provide additional information without disrupting the main text flow.

   <l n="150">κτεινομένους κατʼ Ἄρηα χυτῇ κρύπτουσι κονίῃ
   <note type="variant">Line 151 is a variant: κτεινομένους κατὰ δῆριν ἐτυμβεύοντο κονίῃ</note>
   </l>
   <l rend="align(indent)" n="152">καὶ στρατὸν ἀγκυλότοξον ἀολλίσσας ἐπικούρων</l>
   

   This approach is suitable when the variant reading doesn't significantly alter the meaning of the text.

3. Using Plain Parentheses: As the original question suggests, simply enclosing the variant in parentheses is a straightforward option. While it doesn't provide explicit semantic markup, it clearly indicates that the enclosed text is an alternative or addition. This approach might be acceptable for simple cases where the relationship between the main text and the variant is self-evident.

   <l n="150">κτεινομένους κατʼ Ἄρηα χυτῇ κρύπτουσι κονίῃ </l>
   <l n="151">(κτεινομένους κατὰ δῆριν ἐτυμβεύοντο κονίῃ)</l>
   <l rend="align(indent)" n="152">καὶ στρατὸν ἀγκυλότοξον ἀολλίσσας ἐπικούρων</l>
   

Choosing the Right Approach

The choice of which method to use depends on the specific context and the desired level of detail. For critical editions where a thorough record of textual variations is essential, the <app> element provides the most robust and semantically rich solution. For less critical situations, the <note> element or even plain parentheses might suffice. In the case of Dionysiaca 26.151, given that line 151 is explicitly identified as a variant of line 150, using the <app> element would be the most semantically appropriate choice. However, if the goal is simply to indicate the presence of an alternative reading without delving into detailed source information, using parentheses might be a pragmatic compromise.

Conclusion

This exploration of Dionysiaca 26.151 highlights the importance of careful attention to detail when converting texts between different encoding systems. The erroneous substitution of quotation marks for parentheses underscores the potential pitfalls of automated conversion processes. Furthermore, the discussion of variant lines emphasizes the need for a thoughtful approach to encoding textual variations within TEI documents, considering the semantic implications of different markup choices. By carefully considering these factors, we can ensure that digital editions of ancient texts accurately reflect the complexities of the source material and provide valuable resources for scholars and readers alike.

For more information on the TEI guidelines and best practices for encoding textual variations, please visit the TEI Consortium website. It provides comprehensive documentation and resources for working with TEI. Also you can check the Perseus Digital Library for more information.