Author: Susannah Wright

Suggested Markup Elements


My suffrage begins with a miniature, which I believe should be indicated in our digital edition. I would tag this with a combination of div and desc in the following way:

<div type=”miniature”> <desc type=”miniature”> This miniature depicts… </desc> </div>

Content Markers

I would suggest that we include content markers for each suffrage’s title and subsections. I would use an individual div to encompass each suffrage, placing its title in the <head> tag (perhaps in combination with the <title> tag) and placing its constituent parts (versiculus, responsum, etc.) in subordinate divs: <div type=”versiculus”> (or =”V”), <div type=”responsum”> (or =”R”), etc. Based on the general format of the suffrages, I believe this should not cause div nesting problems.

Decorated Initials

I would suggest, in accordance with Handout 7-2, that we use <hi rend=”…”> for this purpose, in conjunction with a <desc type=”initial”> tag to offer more detail on the decoration in question.

Rubricated Words and Initials

I would suggest that we use the <hi rend=”red”> tag here (for both single letters and full suffrage titles).

Touched Initials

My suffrage also includes a number of “touched” initials with additional strokes in colors other than that of the primary text. I believe that the tag <hi rend=”touched”>, perhaps with further color specification (e.g., <hi rend=”touched-red”>), would suit this purpose well.

Content and Linguistic Features (Jack and Susannah)


171v (seq. 350): St. Michael: miniature, antiphon (whose full rubrication begins on f. 171r), versicle, response, and oratio

172r (seq. 351): St Michael, cont.: oratio; St. John the Baptist: miniature, antiphon, versicle, and response

172v (seq 352): St. John the Baptist, cont.: response and oratio; St. Peter and St. Paul, antiphon, versicle, response, and oratio

173r: (seq. 353): St. Peter and St. Paul, cont.: miniature and oratio

173v (seq. 354):. St. Andreas/Andrew: antiphon, versicle, response, and oratio

174r (seq. 355): St. James: miniature, antiphon (whose full rubrication begins on f. 173v), versicle, response

174v: (seq. 356): St James, cont.: oratio; St. Sebastian: antiphon, versicle

175r (seq. 357): St. Sebastian, cont.: miniature, response, and oratio

175v (seq. 358): St. Sebastian, cont.: St. Dionysius: antiphon, versicle, response, and oratio;

176r (seq. 359): St. Dionysius, cont.: oratio; St. Anthony: antiphon, versicle, response

176v (seq. 360): St. Anthony, cont.: miniature, oratio

177r: (seq. 361): St. Nicholas: antiphon, versicle, response, and oratio; St. Mary Magdalene: antiphon; versicle

177v: (seq. 362): St. Mary Magdalene, cont.: miniature, versicle, response, and oratio

178r: (seq. 363): St. Mary Magdalene, cont.: oratio; St. Katherine: antiphon, versicule, and oratio.

178v: (seq. 364): St. Genoveva: antiphon, versicule, and oratio, all indicated with rubrication.


Linguistic Features:

Collapse of the ae diphthong is consistent throughout. Aspiration is occasionally added (as at h[er]emo, 172r), and ci is used somewhat frequently in place of ti (as at propicius, 172r, and tercio, 173r). Especially in proper names, y is often used where i might be expected (as is the case with hyspanie at 174r and moysi and synai at 178r). The ablative plural hiis appears with ii representing the long vowel, and there is some variation in use of u and v (e.g., viam at 172r and uiam at 172v). Syncopation of the second person perfect active indicative is frequent (confirmasti at 175r, roborasti at 176r). Nomina sacra are used with some regularity.

Pre-Workshop Reflection

The Burnard and Gailey articles brought to my attention several aspects of digital editing and text encoding which I had not previously considered. I found Burnard’s focus on the hermeneutic aspects of text encoding extremely interesting, as well as his classification of texts as simultaneously being images, linguistic constructs, and information structures; all three of these dimensions have bearing on how we interact with texts as both producers and users of digital editions, and navigating their interplay poses a significant challenge. I also appreciated Gailey’s discussion of the rather contradictory meanings of “search” in use today (“to thoroughly explore everything, to scrutinize it, or to simply ask a computer whether something contains a piece of information, without ever looking at it at all,” 125-6), an Internet-related semantic shift that I had not previously considered. Her examples of significant observations made throughout the digitization process for the Whitman Archive (such as Andrew Jewell’s discovery that the glue stains on a UVA manuscript matched one at Dartmouth!) brought into focus the ways in which our close engagement with a given text throughout the encoding process––one that, by nature, involves “searching” in its older definition––can provide entirely unexpected insights.

Skip to toolbar