Brent:
"[O]rthographic evidence"? You've lost me. What does spelling have to do with your conjectural reconstruction of the compositional order?
Certainly my intent was not to
lose you, but if that was the effect of my employment of the term
orthography to describe the difference in letter size and spacing between the apparent emendation and the rest of the text, I sincerely apologize. Despite the fact that
orthography is certainly an applicable term, I will seek to be more democratic in my language in the future. I might note that (as a quick reference to Wikipedia would show)
orthography is
mistakenly believed to be only the study/science of spelling:
While "orthography" colloquially is often used synonymously with spelling, spelling is only part of orthography.
Wikipedia, under the entry “Orthography”
Orthography, in its complete sense, is the study/science of
how letters are actually made. In fact, you will find that an
orthographic drawing is a drawing that attempts to portray a three-dimensional object in two dimensions -- front, side, top. (See also
orthographic projection). Again, I apologize if my non-colloquial usage seemed idiosyncratic to you.
But let’s move on to the actual subject matter, shall we?
In response to my first listed evidence (the question of the parenthesis) that we are dealing with a secondary emendation, you wrote:
Obviously, if what you say above is not true, all other premises in your argument take on a decidedly speculative—if not specious—hue.
I could not disagree more. Indeed, the fact that the text of the apparently inserted phrase is considerably condensed (see my item #3 above) is the strongest and most obvious evidence for it being a secondary emendation – and there is no relationship between the character size and spacing that signify the emendation and the separate issue of the parenthesis, which merely serves to reinforce the conclusion suggested by the condensed text of the insertion.
Indeed, if there were not already a line written below the inserted emendation, there would have been no reason to condense the letters and spacing of the inserted phrase; nothing would have demarked the space available for the insertion. Simply put, Williams has inserted two lines in the space previously allotted to one line. That space is circumscribed by the line of the next paragraph having been written
prior to the insertion having been made.
Frankly, even if we dispense entirely with the question of the parenthesis, the text-critical evidence is all but overwhelming that we are dealing with a secondary emendation here. I find it difficult to believe that you are apparently going to make the argument that this is
not an insertion, but was written in the course of the “dictation” process. You’re really going to be up against a compelling body of counter-evidence and counter-analysis if you puruse this course – and not just from an amateur hack like me.
Nevertheless, let us examine your expressed rationale that the parenthesis was written
before the subsequent line. Your analysis attempts to explain the pooled ink at the ascender of the word “the” by saying that the ink from the previously-written parenthesis was still wet, and that the scribe writing “the” dragged some of this ink along with the ascender of the “h”.
I find your analysis entirely unpersuasive. In fact, I think the best explanation is just the
opposite of what you have suggested. The pool of ink was left by the scribe’s pen immediately after he had finished writing the parenthesis, and in the course of his pen moving back up to the remainder of the insertion. Under greater magnification, there is a distinct connection between the termination of the parenthesis and the ink pool above. Also, the terminating bottom curve of the parenthesis can be seen to
pass over the ascender of the “h”.
Furthermore, a cursory examination of several instances of “the” in the Williams manuscript shows that the scribe
never pauses at the point in question. His movement is consistently back down from the apex of the ascender, leaving not even a hint of an ink pool at the apex. I consider your suggestion that “ink flow” from the course of the “h” ascender is responsible for the pool to be completely nonsensical. An ink pool is caused only by the scribe
pausing at the completion of a stroke. The scribe
never pauses at that point when writing the word “the”. The ink pool we see is connected to the termination of the parenthesis, not to the transition from ascent to descent in the formation of the “h”.
In any case, this will no doubt be a question that will remain unresolved in the course of our discussion on this message board. We both see the evidence in question, but disagree on the meaning of that evidence. I suppose that is to be expected. So I am willing to leave the issue of the parenthesis to other professionals who will consider the question.
I might inquire as to why you think the scribe would employ a parenthesis at all? Why, if we are dealing with a phrase made in the context of a continuing dictation, would the scribe decide to randomly insert a lone parenthesis in the middle of sentence? Doesn’t that strike you as unusual in the least? After all, a parenthesis is always an initial indicator of some kind of
inserted comment. Hence the colloquial term, “a parenthetical comment.”
Why would Williams choose to insert this parenthesis in the middle of his sentence in the course of transcribing a dictation?
You also failed to address item #2 above: “I will refer” clearly rises to avoid the top of the parenthesis. How do you explain this if the parenthesis was not written first?
And, finally, how do you explain the fact that Williams has inserted two lines in the space previously allotted for only one?
I appreciate your previous reply and look forward to the next . . .
