19 Critical Apparatus

19.1.1 The Apparatus Entry

Individual textual variations are encoded using the <app> element, which groups together all the readings constituting the variation. The identification of discrete textual variations or apparatus entries is not a purely mechanical process; different editors may group readings differently. No rules are given here as to how to group readings into apparatus entries; the tags given here may be used to group readings in whatever way the editor finds most perspicuous or useful.

The individual apparatus entry is encoded with the <app> element:

• <app> contains one entry in a critical apparatus, with an optional lemma and at least one reading.

  type	classifies the variation contained in this element according to some convenient typology.
  from	identifies the beginning of the lemma in the base text, if necessary.
  to	identifies the endpoint of the lemma in the base text, if necessary.
  loc	(location) indicates the location of the variation, when the location-referenced method of apparatus markup is used.

The attributes loc, from, and to, are used to link the apparatus entry to the base text. Several methods may be used for such linkage, each involving a slightly different usage for these attributes. Linkage between text and apparatus is described below in section 19.2 Linking the Apparatus to the Text.

Each <app> element comprises one or more readings, which in turn are encoded using the <rdg> or other elements, as described in the next section. A very simple partial apparatus for the first line of the Wife of Bath's Prologue might take a form something like this:

<app>
   <rdg wit="El">Experience though noon Auctoritee</rdg>
   <rdg wit="La">Experiment thogh noon Auctoritee</rdg>
   <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment though none auctorite</rdg>
</app>

The structure of an <app> element is formally defined as follows:

<!-- 19.1.1: Apparatus entry-->
<!ELEMENT app %om.RO;  ( (%m.Incl;)*, (lem, (%m.Incl;)*, (wit, 
(%m.Incl;)*)? )?,  
                        ( (rdg, (%m.Incl;)*, (wit, (%m.Incl;)*)? )  
                        | (rdgGrp, (%m.Incl;)*, (wit, (%m.Incl;)*)? ) )+)>  
<!ATTLIST app
      %a.global;
      type CDATA #IMPLIED
      from IDREF #IMPLIED
      to IDREF #IMPLIED
      loc CDATA #IMPLIED
      TEIform CDATA 'app'  >
<!-- end of 19.1.1-->

19.1.2 Readings

Individual readings are the crucial elements in any critical apparatus of variants. The following elements should be used to tag individual readings within an apparatus entry:

• <lem> contains the lemma, or base text, of a textual variation.

  No attributes other than those globally available (see definition for a.global)

• <rdg> contains a single reading within a textual variation.

  No attributes other than those globally available (see definition for a.global)

In recording readings within an apparatus entry, the <rdg> element may always be used; each <app> must contain at least one <rdg>.

The <lem> element may also be used, under some circumstances, to record the base text of the source edition, to mark the readings of a base witness, to indicate the preference of an editor or encoder for a particular reading, or to make clear, in cases of ambiguity, precisely which portion of the main text the variation applies to. Those who prefer to work without the notion of a base text may prefer not to use it at all. How it is used depends in part on the method chosen for linking the apparatus to the text; for more information, see section 19.2 Linking the Apparatus to the Text.

Readings may be encoded individually, or grouped for perspicuity using the <rdgGrp> element described in section 19.1.3 Indicating Subvariation in Apparatus Entries.

As members of the attribute class readings, both of these elements inherit the following attributes. Some of these attributes are intelligible only if the reading is ascribed to a single witness; others have no such restriction.

The wit attribute identifies the witnesses which have the reading in question. It is required if the apparatus gathers together readings from different witnesses, but may be omitted in an apparatus recording the readings of only one witness, e.g. substitutions, divergent opinions on what is in the witness or on how to expand abbreviations, etc. Even in such a one-witness apparatus, however, the wit attribute may still be useful when it is desired to record the occurrence of a particular reading in some other witness. For other methods of identifying the witnesses to a reading, see section 19.1.4 Witness Information.

The type attribute allows the encoder to classify readings in any convenient way, for example as substantive variants of the lemma:

<app>
   <lem wit="El Hg">Experience</lem>
   <rdg wit="La" type="substantive">Experiment</rdg>
   <rdg wit="Ra2" type="substantive">Eryment</rdg>
</app>

<app>
   <lem wit="El Ra2">though</lem>
   <rdg wit="Hg" type="orthographic">thogh</rdg>
   <rdg wit="La" type="orthographic">thouh</rdg>
</app>

The varSeq and cause attributes may be used to convey information on the sequence and cause of variation. In the following apparatus fragment, the reading ‘Eryment' is tagged as sequential to (derived from) the reading ‘Experiment', and the cause is given as loss of the abbreviation for ‘per'.

<app>
   <rdg wit="La" varSeq="1">Experiment</rdg>
   <rdg wit="Ra2" cause="abbreviation loss" varSeq="2">Eryment</rdg>
</app>

If a manuscript is written in several hands, and it is desired to report which hand wrote a particular reading, the hand attribute should be used. For example, in the Munich manuscript containing the Carmina Burana, the word ‘alle' has been changed to ‘allen':

<l>Swaz hi g&acirc;t umbe</l>
<l>daz sint alle megede,</l>
<l>die wellent &acirc;n man</l>
<l>
   <app>
      <rdg wit="M" varSeq="1" hand="m1">alle</rdg>
      <rdg wit="M" cause="nachgetragen" varSeq="2" hand="m2">allen</rdg>
   </app>
disen sumer g&acirc;n.</l>

Similarly, if a witness is hard to decipher, it may be desired to indicate responsibility for the claim that a particular reading is supported by a particular witness. In line 2212a of Beowulf, for example, the manuscript is read in different ways by different scholars; the editor Klaeber prints one text, and records in the apparatus two different accounts of the manuscript reading, by Zupitza and Chambers:¹⁵³

<l>se &eth;e on
  <app>
     <rdg wit="Kl">hea(um) h(&aelig;&th;)e</rdg>
     <rdg wit="MS" resp="Z">hea&eth;o hl&aelig;we</rdg>
     <rdg wit="MS" resp="Cha">heaum hope</rdg>
  </app></l>
<l>hord beweotode,</l>

The hand and resp attributes are intelligible only on an element recording a reading from a single witness, and should not be used if more than one witness is given on the same <rdg> or <lem> element. If more than one witness is given for the reading, they are undefined. To convey this information when the witness is one among several, the <witDetail> element should be used; see section 19.1.4 Witness Information.

Where there is a greater weight of editorial discussion and interpretation than can conveniently be expressed through the attributes provided on these tags (e.g. multiple causes for a single reading; multiple editorial responsibility for an emendation) this information can be attached to the apparatus in a note, or recorded in the feature structure notation defined in chapter 16 Feature Structures. In particular, such recurring text-critical situations as palaeographic confusion of particular letters, or homoeoarchy or homoeoteleuton involving specific character groups, may lend themselves to feature structure treatment. Information concerning these recurrent situations may be encoded into database-like fragments within the text which would then be available to sophisticated computer-assisted analysis. Further work remains to be done on such mechanisms, however, and so no examples are given here of the use of feature structures in text-critical apparatus.

The <note> element may also be used to record the specific wording of notes in the apparatus of the source edition, as here in a transcription of Friedrich Klaeber's note on Beowulf 2207a:

<l n="2207a">sy&eth;&eth;an Beowulfe
<note resp="Kl" place="app">Fol. 179a <mentioned>beowulfe</mentioned>.
  Folio 179, with the last page (Fol. 198b), is the worst part of the
  entire MS. It has been freshened up by a later hand, but not always
  correctly. Information on doubtful readings is in the notes of
  Zupitza and Chambers.</note></l>
<l n="2207b">brade rice</l>
<!-- ... -->

Encoders should be aware of the distinct fields of use of the attribute values wit, hand, and resp. Broadly, wit identifies the physical entity in which the reading is found (manuscript, clay tablet, papyrus, printed edition); hand refers to the agent responsible for inscribing that reading in that physical entity (scribe, author, inscriber, hand 1, hand 2); resp indicates the scholar responsible for asserting the existence of that reading in that physical entity. In some cases, the categories may blur: a scholar may produce an edition introducing readings for which he or she is responsible; that edition may itself become a witness in a later critical apparatus. Thus, readings introduced as corrections in the earlier edition will be seen in the later apparatus as witnessed by the earlier edition. As observed in the discussion concerning the discrimination of hand and resp in transcription of primary sources in section 18.2.2 Hand, Responsibility, and Certainty Attributes, the division of layers of responsibility through various scholars for particular aspects of a particular reading may require the more complex mechanisms for assigning responsibility described in chapter 17 Certainty and Responsibility.

The formal declaration of the <rdg> and <lem> elements is this:

<!-- 19.1.2: Readings-->
<!ELEMENT lem %om.RO;  ( #PCDATA | %m.phrase; | %m.inter; |
                         %m.Incl; | %m.fragmentary; )* > 
<!ATTLIST lem
      %a.global;
      %a.readings;
      TEIform CDATA 'lem'  >
<!ELEMENT rdg %om.RO;  ( #PCDATA | %m.phrase; | %m.inter; |
                         %m.Incl; | %m.fragmentary; )* > 
<!ATTLIST rdg
      %a.global;
      %a.readings;
      TEIform CDATA 'rdg'  >
<!-- end of 19.1.2-->

19.1.3 Indicating Subvariation in Apparatus Entries

The <rdgGrp> element may be used to group readings, either because they have identical values on one or more attributes, or because they are seen as forming a self-contained variant sequence, or for some other reason. This grouping of readings is entirely optional: no such grouping of readings is required.

• <rdgGrp> within a textual variation, groups two or more readings perceived to have a genetic relationship or other affinity.

  No attributes other than those globally available (see definition for a.global)

The <rdgGrp> element is a member of class readings and therefore can carry the wit, type, cause, varSeq, hand, and resp attributes described in the preceding section. When values for any of these attributes are given on a <rdgGrp> element, the values given are inherited by the <rdg> or <lem> elements nested within the reading group, unless overridden by a new specification on the individual reading element.

To indicate that both Hg and La vary only orthographically from the lemma, one might tag both readings <rdg type='orthographic'>, as shown in the preceding section. This fact can be expressed more perspicuously, however, by grouping their readings into a <rdgGrp>, thus:

<app>
   <lem wit="El Ra2">though</lem>
   <rdgGrp type="orthographic">
      <rdg wit="Hg">thogh</rdg>
      <rdg wit="La">thouhe</rdg>
   </rdgGrp>
</app>

Similarly, <rdgGrp> may be used to organize the substantive variants of an apparatus entry. Editors may need to indicate that each of a group of witnesses may be taken as all supporting a particular reading, even though there may be variation concerning the exact form of that reading in, or the degree of support offered by, those witnesses. For example: one may identify three substantive variants on the first word of Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Prologue in the manuscripts: these might be expressed in regularized spelling as ‘Experience', ‘Experiment', and ‘Eriment'. In fact, the manuscripts display many different spellings of these words, and a scholar may wish both to show that the manuscripts have all these variant spellings and that these variant spellings actually support only the three regularized spelling forms. One may term these variant spellings as `subvariants' of the regularized spelling forms.

This subvariation can be expressed within an <app> element by gathering the readings into three groups according to the normalized form of their reading. All the readings within each group may be accounted subvariants of the main reading for the group, which may be indicated by tagging it <lem> or <rdg type='group base'>.

In this example, the different subvariants on ‘Experience', ‘Experiment', and ‘Eriment' are held within three <rdgGrp> elements nested within the enclosing <app> element:

<app type='substantive'>
    <rdgGrp type='subvariants'>
        <lem wit='El Hg'>Experience</lem>
        <rdg wit='Ha4'>Experiens</rdg>
    </rdgGrp>
    <rdgGrp type='subvariants'>
        <lem wit='Cp Ld1'>Experiment</lem>
        <rdg wit='La'>Ex&p-underbar;iment</rdg>
    </rdgGrp>
    <rdgGrp type='subvariants'>
        <lem wit='[unattested]'>Eriment</lem>
        <rdg wit='Ra2'>Eryment</rdg>
    </rdgGrp>
</app>

Reading groups may nest recursively, so that variants can be classified to any desired depth. Because apparatus entries may also nest, the <app> element might also be used to group readings in the same way. The example above is substantially identical to the following, which uses <app> instead of <rdgGrp>:

<app id="a1" type="substantive">
   <rdg wit="El Hg Ha4">        
      <app id="a2" type="orthographic">
         <lem wit="El Hg">Experience</lem>
         <rdg wit="Ha4">Experiens</rdg>
      </app>
   </rdg>
   <rdg wit="Cp Ld1 La">        
      <app id="a3" type="orthographic">
         <lem wit="Cp Ld1">Experiment</lem>
         <rdg wit="La">Ex&p-underbar;iment</rdg>
      </app>
   </rdg>
   <rdg wit="Ra2">        
      <app id="a4" type="orthographic">
         <lem wit="[unattested]">Eriment</lem>
         <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment</rdg>
      </app>
   </rdg>
</app>

Reading groups may also be used to bring together variants which form an apparent developmental sequence, and to make clear that other readings are not part of that sequence, as in the following example, which makes clear that the variant sequence ‘experiment' to ‘eriment' says nothing about the relative priority of ‘experiment' and ‘experience':

<app type='substantive'>
    <rdgGrp type='subvariants'>
        <lem wit='El Hg'>Experience</lem>
        <rdg wit='Ha4'>Experiens</rdg>
    </rdgGrp>
    <rdgGrp type='sequence'>
        <rdgGrp varSeq='1' type='subvariants'>
            <lem wit='Cp Ld1'>Experiment</lem>
            <rdg wit='La'>Ex&p-underbar;iment</rdg>
        </rdgGrp>
        <rdgGrp varSeq='2' cause='loss of abbrev for PER' resp='PR'>
            <lem wit='[unattested]'>Eriment</lem>
            <rdg wit='Ra2'>Eryment</rdg>
        </rdgGrp>
    </rdgGrp>
</app>

Reading groups are defined formally as follows:

<!-- 19.1.3: Reading Groups-->
<!ELEMENT rdgGrp %om.RO; ((%m.Incl;)*, ( (rdgGrp, (%m.Incl;)*) 
                     | (rdg, (%m.Incl;)*, (wit, (%m.Incl;)*)?) )+) >  
<!ATTLIST rdgGrp
      %a.global;
      %a.readings;
      TEIform CDATA 'rdgGrp'  >
<!-- end of 19.1.3-->

19.1.4 Witness Information

A given reading is associated with the set of witnesses attesting it by listing the witnesses in the wit attribute on the <rdg>, <lem>, or <rdgGrp> element. Special mechanisms, described in the following sections, are needed to associate annotation on a reading with one specific witness among several (section 19.1.4.1 Witness Detail Information), to transcribe witness information verbatim from a source edition (section 19.1.4.2 Witness Information in the Source), and to identify the formal lists of witnesses typically provided in the front matter of critical editions (section 19.1.4.3 The Witness List).

<app type='substantive'>
    <rdgGrp type='subvariants'>
        <lem id='W026' wit='El Hg'>Experience</lem>
        <rdg wit='Ha4'>Experiens</rdg>
    </rdgGrp>
    <!-- ... -->
</app>
 
<!-- elsewhere in the text, perhaps in a separate section of notes ... -->
<witDetail target='W026' resp='PR' wit='El'>Ornamental capital.</witDetail>

<l>Swaz hi g&acirc;t umbe</l>
<l>daz sint alle megede,</l>
<l>die wellent &acirc;n man</l>
<l>
   <app>
      <rdg wit="M" hand="m1">alle</rdg>
      <rdg id="anon.6.4" wit="M" hand="m2">allen</rdg>
   </app>
disen sumer g&acirc;n.</l>
<!-- ... -->
<witDetail target="anon.6.4" wit="M">
   <ref>allen</ref>
   <mentioned>n</mentioned> nachgetragen.
</witDetail>

<!-- 19.1.4.1: Witness Details-->
<!ELEMENT witDetail %om.RO; %paraContent;> 
<!ATTLIST witDetail
      %a.global;
      target IDREFS #REQUIRED
      resp CDATA #IMPLIED
      wit CDATA #REQUIRED
      type CDATA #IMPLIED
      place CDATA "apparatus"
      TEIform CDATA 'witDetail'  >
<!-- end of 19.1.4.1-->

<lg type='stanza'>
    <l id='Diet1.1'>Sl&a-;fest du, vriedel ziere?</l>
    <l id='Diet1.2'>wan wecket uns leider schiere;</l>
    <l id='Diet1.3'>ein vogell&i-;n s&o-; wol get&a-;n</l>
    <l id='Diet1.4'>daz ist der linden an daz zw&i-; geg&a-;n.</l>
    </lg>
<!-- ... -->
<app type='secondary' loc='Diet.1.1'>
    <rdg wit='K Ba'>sl&a-;fst</rdg> <wit>K(Ba)</wit>
    </app>
<app type='secondary' loc='Diet.1.2'>
    <rdg wit='K V'>Man</rdg> <wit>K(V)</wit>
    <rdg wit='K Wa'>weckt</rdg> <wit>K (Wackernagel 401)</wit>
    <rdg wit='Ju'>Ich waen ez taget uns schiere</rdg>
    <wit><bibl>Jungbluth, Festschr. Pretzel 1963, 122.</bibl></wit>
    </app>
<!-- ... -->
<!-- (The non-standard entities &a-; &o-; and &i-; are used   -->
<!-- here to indicate vowels with circumflexes.)              -->
<!-- The edition in question has two apparatus:  one of       -->
<!-- manuscript readings, and one of readings from editions   -->
<!-- and the secondary literature; hence the attribute        -->
<!-- value type='secondary'.                                  -->

<!-- 19.1.4.2: Source-text Witness Lists in Apparatus-->
<!ELEMENT wit %om.RO;  %paraContent;> 
<!ATTLIST wit
      %a.global;
      TEIform CDATA 'wit'  >
<!-- end of 19.1.4.2-->

<witList>
   <witness sigil="El">    </witness>
   <witness sigil="Hg">    </witness>
   <witness sigil="La">    </witness>
   <witness sigil="Ra2">   </witness>
</witList>

<witList>
  <witness sigil="El">Ellesmere, Huntingdon Library 26.C.9</witness>
  <witness sigil="Hg">Hengwrt, National Library of Wales,
    Aberystwyth, Peniarth 392D</witness>
  <witness sigil="La">British Library Lansdowne 851</witness>
  <witness sigil="Ra2">Bodleian Library Rawlinson Poetic 149</witness>
</witList>

<witList>
   <witness sigil="A">die sog. <soCalled>Kleine (oder alte)
      Heidelberger Liederhandschrift</soCalled>.
      <bibl>Universit&auml;tsbibliothek Heidelberg col. pal.
      germ. 357. Pergament, 45 Fll. 18,5 &times; 13,5 cm.</bibl>
      Wahrscheinlich die &aelig;lteste der drei gro&szlig;en Hss. Sie
      <q>datiert aus dem 123. Jahrhundert, etwa um 1275. Ihre Sprache
      weist ins Elsa&szlig;, evtl. nach Stra&szlig;burg. Man geht wohl nicht
      fehl, in ihr eine Sammlung aus dem Stadtpatriziat zu sehen</q>
      (<bibl><author>Blank</author>, [vgl. <ref>Lit. z. Hss. Bd. 2,
      S. 39</ref>] S. 14</bibl>). Sie enth&aelig;lt 34 namentlich
      genannte Dichter. <q>Zu den Vorz&uuml;gen von A geh&ouml;rt, da&szlig;
      sie kaum je bewu&szlig;t ge&aelig;ndert hat, so da&szlig; sie f&uuml;r
      manche Dichter ... oft den besten Text liefert</q> (so wohl mit
      Recht <bibl><author>v. Kraus</author></bibl>).</witness>
   <witness sigil="a">Bezeichnung <bibl><author>Lachmann</author>
      </bibl>s f&uuml;r die von einer 2. Hand auf bl. 40&ndash;43
      geschriebenen Strophen der Hs. A.</witness>
   <witness sigil="B">die <soCalled>Weingartner (Stuttgarter)
      Liederhandschrift</soCalled>. <bibl>W&uuml;rttembergische
      Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, HB XIII poetae germanici 1.
      Pergament, 156 Bll. 15 &times; 11,5 cm; 25 teils ganzseitig,
      teils halbseitige Miniaturen.</bibl> Kaum vor 1306 in Konstanz
      geschrieben. Sie enth&aelig;lt Lieder von 25 namentlich genannten
      Dichtern. (Dazu kommen Gedichte von einigen ungenannten
      bzw. unbekannten Dichtern, ein Marienlobpreis und eine
      Minnelehre.)</witness>
   <!-- ... -->
</witList>

<witList>
   <witness sigil="Cp">Corpus Christi Oxford MS 198</witness>
   <witness sigil="La">British Library Lansdowne 851</witness>
   <witness sigil="Sl2">British Library Sloane MS 1686</witness>
   <witness sigil="c" included="Cp La Sl2">Constant Group c</witness>
</witList>

<rdg wit="c">Experiment</rdg>

<!-- 19.1.4.3: Witness Lists in Front Matter-->
<!ELEMENT witList %om.RO; ((%m.Incl;)*, (witness, (%m.Incl;)*)+)>  
<!ATTLIST witList
      %a.global;
      TEIform CDATA 'witList'  >
<!ELEMENT witness %om.RO; %paraContent;> 
<!ATTLIST witness
      %a.global;
      sigil CDATA #REQUIRED
      included CDATA #IMPLIED
      TEIform CDATA 'witness'  >
<!-- end of 19.1.4.3-->

19.1.5 Fragmentary Witnesses

If a witness is incomplete (whether a single fragment, a series of fragments, or a relatively complete text with one or more lacunae), it is usually desirable to record explicitly where its preserved portions begin and end. The following empty tags, which may occur within any <lem> or <rdg> element, indicate the beginning or end of a fragmentary witness or of a lacuna within a witness:

• <witStart> indicates the beginning, or resumption, of the text of a fragmentary witness.

  No attributes other than those globally available (see definition for a.global)

• <witEnd> indicates the end, or suspension, of the text of a fragmentary witness.

  No attributes other than those globally available (see definition for a.global)

• <lacunaStart> indicates the beginning of a lacuna in the text of a mostly complete textual witness.

  No attributes other than those globally available (see definition for a.global)

• <lacunaEnd> indicates the end of a lacuna in a mostly complete textual witness.

  No attributes other than those globally available (see definition for a.global)

Suppose a fragment of a manuscript X of the Wife of Bath's Prologue has a physical lacuna, and the text of the manuscript begins with ‘auctorite'. In an apparatus this might appear thus, distinguished from the reading of other manuscripts by the presence of the <lacunaEnd> element:

<app>
   <lem wit="El Hg">Auctoritee</lem>
   <rdg wit="La Ra2">auctorite</rdg>
   <rdg wit="X"><lacunaEnd/>auctorite</rdg>
</app>

<app>
   <lem wit="El Hg">Auctoritee</lem>
   <rdg wit="La Ra2">auctorite</rdg>
   <rdg wit="X"><witStart/>auctorite</rdg>
</app>

The formal declarations for these elements are these:

<!-- 19.1.5: Fragmentary witnesses-->
<!ELEMENT witStart %om.RO;  EMPTY> 
<!ATTLIST witStart
      %a.global;
      %a.fragmentary;
      TEIform CDATA 'witStart'  >
<!ELEMENT witEnd %om.RO;  EMPTY> 
<!ATTLIST witEnd
      %a.global;
      %a.fragmentary;
      TEIform CDATA 'witEnd'  >
<!ELEMENT lacunaStart %om.RO;  EMPTY> 
<!ATTLIST lacunaStart
      %a.global;
      %a.fragmentary;
      TEIform CDATA 'lacunaStart'  >
<!ELEMENT lacunaEnd %om.RO;  EMPTY> 
<!ATTLIST lacunaEnd
      %a.global;
      %a.fragmentary;
      TEIform CDATA 'lacunaEnd'  >
<!-- end of 19.1.5-->

19.2.1 The Location-referenced Method

The location-referenced method of encoding apparatus provides a convenient method for encoding printed apparatus; in this method as in most printed editions, the apparatus is linked to the base text by indicating explicitly only the block of text on which there is a variant (noted usually by a canonical reference scheme, or by line number in the edition, such as A 137 or ‘Page 15 line 1').

If the location-referenced method is used for an apparatus stored externally to the base text, the TEI header must have the declaration:

<variantEncoding method="location-referenced" location="external"/>

In the <body> of the document, the base text (here El) will appear:

<text>
  <body> 
    <!-- ... -->
    <div n='WBP' type="prologue">
      <head>The Prologe of the Wyves Tale of Bathe</head>
      <l n='1'>Experience though noon Auctoritee</l>
      <l>Were in this world ...</l>
      <!-- ... -->
    </div>
  </body>
</text>

Elsewhere in the document, or in a separate file, the apparatus will appear. On each <app> element, the loc attribute should be specified to indicate where the variant occurs in the base text.

<app loc="WBP 1">
   <rdg wit="La">Experiment</rdg>
   <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment</rdg>
</app>

If the same text is encoded using in-line storage, the apparatus is dispersed through the base text block to which it refers. In this case, the location of the variant can be read from the line in which it occurs.

<!-- in <editorialDecl> in <encodingDesc> in <teiHeader>: -->
<variantEncoding method='location-referenced' location='internal'/>
<!-- ... -->
<!-- later, in <div> in <body> in <text>: -->
<l n='1'>Experience
  <app>
    <rdg wit='La'>Experiment</rdg>
    <rdg wit='Ra2'>Eryment</rdg>
  </app>
  though noon Auctoritee</l>
<l>Were in this world ...</l>

Since the location is not required to be exact, the apparatus for a line might also appear at the end of the line:

<l n="1">Experience though noon Auctoritee
  <app>
    <rdg wit="La"> Experiment</rdg>
    <rdg wit="Ra2"> Eryment</rdg>
  </app></l>
<l>Were in this world ...</l>

When the apparatus is linked to the text by means of location references, as shown here, it is not possible to find automatically the precise portion of text varied by the readings. In order to show explicitly what portion of the base text is replaced by the variant readings, the <lem> element may be used:

<l n="1">Experience though noon Auctoritee
  <app>
    <lem wit="El">Experience</lem>
    <rdg wit="La">Experiment</rdg>
    <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment</rdg>
  </app></l>
<l>Were in this world ...</l>

Where it is intended that the apparatus be complete enough to allow the reconstruction of the witnesses (or at least of their non-orthographic variations), the location-reference method should be avoided in favor of one of the other two methods, which allow the unambiguous reconstruction of the lemma from the encoding.

19.2.2 The Double End-Point Attachment Method

In the double end-point attachment method, the beginning and end of the lemma in the base text are both explicitly indicated. It thus differs from the location-referenced method, in which only the larger span of text containing the lemma is indicated. Double end-point attachment permits unambiguous matching of each variant reading against its lemma. It or the parallel-segmentation method should be used in all cases where this is desired, for example where the apparatus is intended to enable full reconstruction of the text, or of the substantives, of every witness.

When the double endpoint attachment method is used, the from and to attributes of the <app> element are used to indicate the beginning and ending points of the reading in the base text: their values are identifiers which occur at the locations in question. If no other markup is present there, the beginning and ending points should be marked using the <anchor> element defined in chapter 14 Linking, Segmentation, and Alignment. In cases where it is not possible to insert anchors within the base text (e.g. where the text is on a read-only medium) the beginning and end of the lemma may be indicated by using the `indirect pointing' mechanisms discussed in chapter 14 Linking, Segmentation, and Alignment. Explicit anchors are more likely to be reliable, and are therefore to be preferred.

The double end-point attachment method may be used with in-line or external apparatus. In the latter case, the base text (here El) will appear with <anchor> elements inserted at every place where a variant begins or ends (unless some element with an identifier already begins or ends at that point):

<TEI.2>
  <teiHeader>
    <!-- ... -->
    <variantEncoding method='double-end-point' location='external'/>
    <!-- ... -->
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <!-- ... -->
      <div n='WBP' type='prologue'><head>The Prologe ... </head>
        <l n='1' id='WBP.1'>Experience<anchor id='A2'/> though noon Auctoritee</l>
        <l>Were in this world ...</l> 
        <!-- ... -->
      </div> </body> </text> </TEI.2>

<app from="WBP.1" to="A2">
   <rdg wit="La">Experiment</rdg>
   <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment</rdg>
</app>

When the apparatus is encoded in-line, it is dispersed through the base text. Only the beginning of the lemma need be marked with an <anchor>, since the <app> is inserted at the end of the lemma, and itself therefore marks the end of the lemma.

<!-- in <editorialDecl> in <encodingDesc> in <teiHeader>: -->
<variantEncoding method='double-end-point' location='internal'/>
<!-- ... -->
<l n='1' id='WBP.1'>Experience
   <app from='WBP.1'>
      <rdg wit='La'>Experiment</rdg>
      <rdg wit='Ra2'>Eryment</rdg>
   </app>
   though noon Auctoritee</l>
<l>Were in this world ...</l>

The lemma need not be repeated within the <app> element in this method, as it may be extracted reliably from the base text. If an exhaustive list of witnesses is available, it will also not be necessary to specify just which manuscripts agree with the base-text to enable reconstruction of witnesses. An application will be able to determine the manuscripts that witness the base reading, by noting which witnesses are attested as having a variant reading, and inferring the base-text reading for all others after adjusting for fragmentary witnesses and for witnesses carrying overlapping variant readings.

Alternatively, if it is desired to make an explicit record of the attestation of the base text the <lem> element may be embedded within <app>, carrying the witnesses to the base. Thus

<app from="WBP.1" to="A2">
   <lem wit="El Hg">Experience</lem>
   <rdg wit="La">Experiment</rdg>
   <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment</rdg>
</app>

This method is designed to cope with `overlapping lemmata'. For example, at line 117 of the Wife of Bath's Prologue, the manuscripts Hg (Hengwrt), El (Ellesmere), and Ha4 (British Library Harleian 7334) read:

Hg

And of so parfit wys a wight ywroght

El

And for what profit was a wight ywroght

Ha4

And in what wise was a wight ywroght

In this case, one might wish to record ‘in what wise was' in Ha4 as a single variant for ‘of so parfit wys' in Hg, and ‘was a wight' in El and H4 as a variant on ‘wys a wight' in Hg. This method can readily cope with such difficult situations, typically found in large and complex traditions:

<l id="wbp.117" n="117"> And
  <anchor id="a117.1"/> of so parfit
  <anchor id="a117.2"/> wys
  <anchor id="a117.3"/> a wight
  <anchor id="a117.4"/> ywroght
  <app from="a117.1" to="a117.3">
    <lem wit="Hg">of so parfit wys</lem>
    <rdg wit="Ha4">in what wise was</rdg>
  </app>
  <app from="a117.2" to="a117.4">
    <lem wit="Hg">wys a wight</lem>
    <rdg wit="El Ha4">was a wight</rdg>
  </app></l>

Because creation and interpretation of double end-point attachment apparatus will be lengthy and difficult it is likely that they will usually be created and examined by scholars only with mechanical assistance.

19.2.3 The Parallel Segmentation Method

This method differs from the double end-point attachment method in that all variants at any point of the text are expressed as variants on one another. In this method, no two variations can overlap, although they may nest. Thus, the concepts of a base text and of a lemma become unnecessary: the texts compared are divided into matching segments all synchronized with one another. This permits direct comparison of any span of text in any witness with that in any other witness. It is also very easy with this method for an application to extract the full text of any one witness from the apparatus.

This method will (by definition) always be satisfactory when there are just two texts for comparison (assuming they are in the same language and script). It will also be useful where editors do not wish to privilege a text as the `base' or when editors wish to present parallel texts. It will become less convenient as traditions become more complex and tension develops between the need to segment on the largest variation found and the need to express the finest detail of agreement between witnesses.

In the parallel segmentation method, each segment of text on which there is variation is marked by an <app> element; each reading is given in a <rdg> element; if it is desired to single out one reading as preferred, it may be tagged <lem>:

<!-- in <editorialDecl> in <encodingDesc> in <teiHeader>: -->
<variantEncoding method='parallel-segmentation' location='internal'/>
<!-- ... -->
  <l n='1'>
    <app><lem wit='El Hg'>Experience</lem>
         <rdg wit='La'>Experiment</rdg>
         <rdg wit='Ra2'>Eryment</rdg></app>
    though noon Auctoritee</l>
  <l>Were in this world ...</l>

This method cannot be used with external apparatus: it must be used in-line. Note that apparatus encoded with this method may be translated into the double end-point attachment method and back without loss of information. Where double-end-point-attachment encodings have no overlapping lemmata, translation of these to the parallel segmentation encoding and back will also be possible without loss of information.

For economy, the witnesses to the reading most widely attested need not be stated. Since all manuscripts must be represented in all apparatus entries, it will be possible for an application to read a <witList> declaring all the witnesses to the text and then calculate which witnesses have not been named. In the example below, only La and Ra2 are identified explicitly with a reading; an application might successfully infer from this that ‘Experience', whose witnesses are not given, must be attested by El and Hg. To avoid confusion, however, witnesses may be omitted only for a single reading.

<l n="1">    
   <app>
      <lem>Experience</lem>
      <rdg wit="La">Experiment</rdg>
      <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment</rdg>
   </app>
   though noon Auctoritee</l>
<l>Were in this world ...</l>

Alternatively, the witnesses for every reading may be stated, as in the first example.

As noted, apparatus entries may nest in this method: if an imaginary fifth manuscript of the text read ‘Auctoritee, though none experience', the variation on the individual words of the line would nest within that for the line as a whole:

<l n="1">
   <app>
      <rdg wit="Chi3">Auctoritee, though none experience</rdg>
      <rdg>    
         <app>
            <rdg wit="El Hg">Experience</rdg>
            <rdg wit="La">Experiment</rdg>
            <rdg wit="Ra2">Eryment</rdg>
         </app>
         <app>
            <rdg wit="El Ra2">though</rdg>
            <rdg wit="Hg">thogh</rdg>
            <rdg wit="La">thouh</rdg>
         </app>
         <app>
            <rdg wit="El Hg">noon Auctorite</rdg>
            <rdg wit="La Ra2">none auctorite</rdg>
         </app>
      </rdg>
   </app>
</l>

Parallel segmentation cannot, however, deal very gracefully with variants which overlap without nesting: such variants must be broken up into pieces in order to keep all witnesses synchronized.