[DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

[Deborah J. Leslie]

[Note: I embedded two images from Appendix G in this message, which appear not to have come through. Please see Appendix G for examples: http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/DCRMBepsilon20050531rcleancopy.pdf]

 

The DCRM(B) editors send our wishes for a happy New Year, and crave this group's collective wisdom. In Appendix G, the question has arisen about the transcription of a curved r set next to a v when it is used to approximate a w, as is done in some early German books [p. 155] ( ). Currently, the cataloger is directed to transcribe as "rv [i.e., w]". The example in the appendix is "rveysse [i.e. weysse]". One question in particular that has been raised is why an rv used in place of a w gets different treatment from a vv. 

 

DCRM(B) employs four different methods for transcribing letters that are in error or that deviate from a modern norm. 

1)      Transcribe the modern equivalent. This is what we do with archaic letter forms, such as the long s.

2)      Transcribe what is there, making no correction or explanation. This is what we do with vv as well as archaic spellings. 

3)      Transcribe what is there and make a correction, either through "i.e." or "sic." This is what we do with typographical errors.

4)      Transcribe what is intended. This is what we do with turned letters, whether deliberate or inadvertent (see 0G). Our transcription of the apostrophic forms of MD may reflect this method; or it may reflect the first method of transcribing the modern equivalent. (I don't know; perhaps we should figure out which is the guiding principle, which may help resolve the rv question).

 

The question is which of these categories fits the rv best: archaic letterform, archaic but acceptable spelling, typographical error, or turned letter.

 

Option 1. The first option doesn't fit this case, since we are dealing with two separate letters, one in an archaic form (curved r), but both of which have a clear and unambiguous modern equivalent.

 

Option 2. The second option is applying our treatment of vv in DCRM(B) to rv. The grounds for treating vv as an archaic but acceptable form of w can be found in their historical semio-etymological relationship. According to the Shorter OED, the letter "W, the 23rd letter of the modern English alphabet, is an addition to the ancient Roman alphabet, having originated from a ligatured doubling of the Roman letter represented by the U and V of modern alphabets. ..." This accounts for our transcription of vv without correction or explanation. There is no such historical relationship between rv and w. The rv cannot be considered analogous to vv without seriously distorting the situation. 

 

Option 3. rv was used to provide a graphic verisimilitude to a w, and since I have mostly seen it in display fonts, was probably used for the same reason that vv was used--when the compositor ran out of w in the appropriate font. An analogy is if a printer, having run out of d's, sets a c and an l side-by-side. There is no semio-etymological relationship between c l and d, but it can look enough like a d if a person squints, has normal cognitive capabilities, and a context in which to interpret. (And is set in a gothic typeface, which has extremely narrow spaces between letters). It would be appropriate in this case to transcribe what is set and provide an explanation: "cleath [i.e. death]" or "rvittenberg [i.e. Wittenberg]." 

 

Option 4. One can argue that since the rv is intended to represent a w, its use is more like a turned letter or an apostrophus than it is an anomaly needing correction as in option 3. Neither provides a strict analogy: a turned letter is a single letter, and for most of them, there is only one option for transcription. An upside-down r cannot be transcribed as anything other than an r. Deliberately-turned letters, such as a turned u for an n, does provide us with a choice: transcribe u or n? Transcribe "London" or "Londou [i.e. London]"? Since deliberately turned letters can only be identified as such by close scrutiny of the typeface, and may in fact be impossible in some cases (such as when an n and a u really are indistinguishable from each other), I see no difficulty in transcribing a deliberately-turned as the intended letter. 

 

How about an analogy between rv and the apostrophus [p. 151] ( )? As with the relationship between vv and w, there is an historical relationship between the apostrophic and modern forms of M (CI-backwards C) and D (I-backwards C). This provides us with strong support in the decision to transcribe apostrophic Roman numerals in their modern Roman equivalents. Plus, we have no other option for transcribing the apostrophus. Since the rv does provide other options than its intended letter of w for transcription (i.e., rv), this analogy carries only moderate weight.  

 

 

To my mind, options 3 and 4 are the only contenders, (although I would be interested if anyone has a closely-reasoned argument in favor of options 1 or 2). If we say that an rv is more like a deviation from the modern norm that needs correction, it should be transcribed as "rv [i.e. w]". If we say that an rv is more like an apostrophus or a turned letter, it should be transcribed as w.  

 

Your opinions, please.
  

_____________________________

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.

Head of Cataloging

Folger Shakespeare Library

201 East Capitol St., S.E.

Washington, DC 20003

202.675-0369

djleslie at folger.edu