Roberto’s update on the encoding
I am encoding glosses, names and a few themes in the Esposizioni:
a) Glosses.
I am glossing two kinds of terms that Boccaccio himself explains and defines in the text. In our editions, these terms are either:
- in quotation marks
- in italics
For Boccaccio’s explanations of terms that do not fall in neither of the above categories, I am leaving comments for Cristiana and all other collaborators: later we will have to decide whether or not also these terms deserve a gloss.
b) Names.
I am encoding four types of names, with or without glosses explaining their meanings in Boccaccio’s own words. Names can refer to a:
- Person. Yes/no subcategories: collective (ex. “fiorentini”, “centauri”), mythological, biblical (Vika and I have decided to consider “biblical” names as part of the “mythical” category as well; “mythical” are also fictional characters, for example Dante-personaggio as opposed to Dante-autore, when the distinction is applicable). For the moment, I have decided not to encode all the different names for “God” (”Dio”,”Creatore” etc.)
- Place. Yes/no subcategories: mythological (non-”real” biblical place names included)
- Myth-entity. Mythical characters that are also names for places (ex. “Oceano”)
- work (of art/literature) Ex. Eneide, Timeo… With specification of the author. I am encoding the references to “Divina Commedia” as “comedia”, and I am not considering the three separate “cantiche” as works in themselves (thus I am not encoding the occurrences of “inferno”, “purgatorio”, “paradiso” as parts of the “Divina Commedia”, but I do encode them when they are names of places).
For the moment, I am not encoding names of places, persons etc. when they appear in citations in languages other that Italian (for ex. Latin).
c) Themes.
I began encoding some passages according to very general abstract theme-categories such as: time, sexuality, health etc. I have labelled these categories with the mark “temrob” (=”tema-roberto”), that is: those are themes identified by Roberto, all of you are free to add others or discuss changes, sub-divisions etc. A theme suggested by Cristiana, for example, could be marked “temcri”, and the whole matter be discussed in a meeting later on (but I think it is important to start identifying these themes now, just to have a general idea and classification…)
As you can see, this work of encoding is already implying some issues to discuss and choices to make. It goes without saying that your opinion is more than welcome. Other issues and problems I have encountered so far, and on which I would like to hear your comments, are the following:
- I wrote “check” in those cases when I am not 100% sure of a certain information, for example the author of a certain work, whether or not a character is real or mythological etc.
- When Boccaccio refers to biblical psalms, he uses expressions such as “il Salmista scrive”. This problem could be solved in many different ways. I have chosen to encode “il Salmista” not as a “work” but as a person (mythological, biblical).
I’m very impressed with the amount of encoding that’s underway - complimenti! These are just a few comments off the top of my head, and I think we should talk properly very soon about the encoding of literary references. 1) I think it would be useful eventually to have all the different names for God encoded, i.e., as ‘God’ and also ‘Dio’, Creatore’, etc. This way we’ll be able to analyse B’s textual variations/choices. 2) Are we encoding the names of the literary works in their original languages (i.e., does the Aeneid appear as ‘Aeneid’, or ‘Eneide’? or both? (sorry if this one is a bit of a no-brainer). Do we include an English title, if there is one? The question of how to refer to the Commedia/comedia/Divina Commedia/Divine Comedy should probably be worked out properly as well, since Dante had no title, but refers twice to his ‘comedia’ within the poem; Boccaccio is the first person to call it ‘Divina Commedia’ in the Trattatello, but this title is not generally adopted until the Cinquecento; the wider audience knows it as the ‘Divine Comedy’, and ‘comedia’ might be meaningless for non-specialists.
Next, I think it’s essential that we encode the separate references to the Commedia as such, i.e., with full reference to their place in Dante’s text (e.g., Inf., 1, 1-3). For me, one of the most important strengths of the electronic Esposizioni is the fact that we will be able to map Boccaccio’s internal system of Dantean reference, so it’s fundamental that these elements are encoded. Finally, with reference to the ‘Salmista’, I think he or she should also be encoded as an author (of the work ‘Salmi/Psalms’, as well as more generally as one of the many authors of the books of the Bible.
There are a few problems here related to encoding that, I believe, may become a source of confusion later on down the line.
With regard to God, we will have to decide (i.e. interpret) when Boccaccio is referring to God and/or His various “personalities” with phrases not only like “Creatore,” “artefice” and so on but also like “Divina Potenza,” “Divina Giustizia,” “Divina Mente,” “Divino Intelletto” (and will similarly have to decide what to do - if anything - with things like “santi padri,” “primo Amore” and “santo Spirito”). One possible solution would be to put “Dio,” “Signore,” “Creatore,” “Domenedio” into the same category and create one other for all the rest, but “santi padri” and “santo Spirito” would still stick out unresolved. It is not at long last possible, I believe, to distinguish, for example, when “padri” and “dottori” are completely different groups and when there is overlap.
We must in any event be careful with things like “Giovanni” when for Boccaccio the gospel and Revelation were written by the same person. Similarly, there are more than a few moments of confusion in attribution. My suggestion would be to encode them as Boccaccio saw them and not as we think they really are.
This criterion could well be applied also to places. If we insert modern notions regarding what is “real” and “mythological”, we’re going to hit some snags. I’m thinking here not only of Averno but also Mongibello.
Regarding texts, there is the problem of “secondary” citations. Boccaccio not infrequently throws in things about which he is unsure (e.g. ref. to Epimenides in 1.lit.64). I don’t think that the encoding should be more specific than he is. This leads us to consider names of works that are different now than they were for him. How do we standardize, for example, the letters of Jerome? Similarly, we’ll have to decide how to attribute the Culex and like ilk. I think that more problems may be avoided by encoding things (even if incorrectly) in the medieval way. But, one may rightly add, that would imply (at least in my opinion) that “themes” too be encoded with a good measure of medieval sensibility. That, anyhow, is how I’d see it… even though it means more work.
Lastly, to throw one more wrench into the works, there are the problems of rhetorical devices mentioned in circumlocution (e.g. “synecdoche” in 1.lit.123) and that of modern rhetorical categories which differ from the traditional (e.g. “acirologia”).
I realize that I’ve raised no small amount of problems here. I firmly believe, however, that it’s better not be far LESS ambitious at the outset than more. I still have very clear memories of sitting at my kitchen table trying to “resolve” ultimately illogical attribute questions for characters and places in the Dec. I would desperately like to avoid a repeat of that misery…