Source: email
Date: 21 Jan 2005
File name: Wd2644
Vid: 48625
Page ref: unknown
Keywords: NOTE
Query. As per the specifications, we have only four place attributes viz. "marg", "foot", "inline" & "inter" for capturing the references. However, in this case, endnotes are appearing at the end of each section. Kindly clarify your preferred treatment for capturing such cases.
Answer. End notes are a subject that would (and should) have been in the keying guidelines, had I brought them up to date as I should have done. As it happens, the only guide to endnotes that I think we have put online is among our 'internal' documents at:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/tcp/docs/dox/notes.html#endnotes
In brief, we prefer that end notes (especially lengthy end
notes like those in this book) not be captured with the
<DIV2 TYPE="section">
....
<DIV3 TYPE="notes">
Within that DIV, there are various ways to capture each note. If the notes are brief, using a simple P for each note will often work. In this case, the notes are much more elaborate, so I suggest making each note a DIV, e.g.
<DIV2 TYPE="section">
<DIV3 TYPE="notes">
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="a">
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="b">
The note markers in the text can remain as literal text:
<P>OF all those (a) Paradoxes, that have been advanced in our Age, there is none, in my Judgment, more rash and dangerous than the Opinion of those, who have presu|med to deny that <HI>Moses</HI> was the Author of the <HI>Pentateuch</HI>: For what can be more rash than to deny Matter of Fact, that has been established by express Texts of Holy Scripture (b), by the Authority of Jesus Christ (c), byt the Consent of all Nations (d), and by the Authentick Testimonies of the most Ancient Authors (e)?
The note references in the notes themselves can be treated either as ordinary text or perhaps (I would have to look at more of them) could serve as part of a HEAD for the note in question. In either case, since the markers represent an intelligible series, I would use the note marker also to supply an "N" value for the DIV containing that note, e.g.:
<DIV3 TYPE="notes">
<HEAD>NOTES.</HEAD>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="a">
<P>(a) <HI>THere is no Paradox more dangerous than the
Opinion of those who have presumed to deny that the</HI>
Pentateuch <HI>was composed by</HI> Moses.] I have already...
Finally, there is the matter of linking. There are two elements in the DTD (<PTR> and <REF>) for creating links within the text; we have sometimes used these to create links between note markers and end notes, but it is rather a painstaking business, so we have never required conversion firms to do it. You may if you like! It is simply a matter of assigning an arbitrary ID based on the STC number to each note (using an ID attribute), and then 'targeting' that ID in the <REF> element, using a TARGET attribute. E.g., using the example above, the text would look like this:
<P>OF all those <REF TARGET="WD2644_not1a">(a)</REF> Paradoxes, that have been advanced in our Age, there is none, in my Judgment, more rash and dangerous than the Opinion of those, who have presu|med to deny that <HI>Moses</HI> was the Author of the <HI>Pentateuch</HI>: For what can be more rash than to deny Matter of Fact, that has been established by express Texts of
and the notes like this:
<DIV3 TYPE="notes">
<HEAD>NOTES.</HEAD>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="a" ID="WD2644_not1a">
<P>(a) <HI>THere is no Paradox more dangerous than the
Opinion of those who have presumed to deny that the</HI>
Pentateuch <HI>was composed by</HI> Moses.] I have already...
As I say, however, this last step is purely optional.
Source: email
Date: 12 Jan 2005
File name: Wh803e
Vid: 59395
Page ref: unknown
Keywords: NOTE
Query. We have encountered notes in two columns. Please advise on correct capture.
Answer. The marginal notes here seem to fall into two sets: one consists of an extensive running summary of the main text (in one column) and the other (in the other column) ordinary bibliographic citations to various pieces of the Bible. Though I see a number of alternatives, the easiest is probably the method indicated in the original keying guidelines, namely to record both sets of notes using the NOTE element, but distinguish the two sets by adding a number to the value of the "PLACE" attribute: capture one set of notes using <NOTE PLACE="marg1"> and the other set using <NOTE PLACE="marg2">. </P>
The only thing I can add to this is to suggest that (as usual) the notes from the set containing running summaries should if possible be placed at the beginning of the section of text to which they refer-- often at the beginning of the paragraph; or where there is no corresponding paragraph break, at the beginning of the sentence summarized in the note. But the notes containing citations should (again as usual) be placed after the bit of text that seems to be referred to by the citation, or after the nearest punctuation mark. I realize that the proper placement of these is often difficult.
Source: email
Date: 17 Mar 2004
File name: Ww2196
Vid: 59027
Page ref: 210, 215, 226
Keywords: NOTE
Query. It looks like we have a 2-level interlinear in 210, 215 and 3-level in 226. Would it be possible to capture in a single note tag with a bottom to top capture sequence?
Answer. Interlinears in general are very hard for our system to handle; and these are just plain awful.
I think there are three questions to ask: (1) Can we proceed on a word-by-word basis, or must we go line-by-line? I think that the answer is: it is simply not practical to try to go word-by-word. For a few words, it works: a single word in English corresponds with a single 'word' in the author's philosophical language, and there is a single note-reference number attached to it. But soon one encounters places where the correspondence is not obvious--where it is not clear how to match elements in the three levels to each other. So let's go line-by-line.
The next question is: how do we represent the connections between the words in one level and the 'words' in the others. NOTE is possible, and follows the guidelines, but I'm not really happy with it here, especialy with the second (three-level) interlinear.
Could we possibly resort to TABLE? With each ROW containing a single CELL in which the whole line is placed?
Finally, the third question is: what to do with the numbers, which are actually note markers to an extensive set of comments (end notes). I wonder if we could treat these not as a separate interlinear line in their own respect, but as superscripts attached to the 'word' immediately below them.
The result would be not be beautiful, but would at least make a kind of sense (please note that I am using <G> here as a shortcut for <GAP DESC="foreign">):
(img 210, with 2-level interlinear, and numbers treated as superscripts:)
<TABLE>
<ROW>
<CELL><G>^1 <G>^2 <G>^3 <G>^4 <G>^5 <G>^6 <G>^7 <G>^8 <G>^9 <G>^1^0
<G>^1^1</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>Our Parent who art in Heaven, Thy Name be Hallowed, Thy</CELL> </ROW>
<ROW> <CELL><G>^1^2 <G>^1^3 <G>^1^4 <G>^1^5 <G>^1^6 <G>^1^7 <G>^1^8 <G>^1^9
<G>^2^0 <G>^2^1 <G>^2^2 <G>^2^3 <G>^2^4 <G>^2^5 <G>^2^6</CELL> </ROW>
* * *
</TABLE>
(img 223, with 3-level interlinear, and numbers again treated as superscripts:)
<TABLE>
<ROW>
<CELL><GAP DESC="foreign"></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>H&agr;&igr;^1 coba^2 &ougr;&ougr;^3 &igr;a^4 ril^5 dad,^6 ha^7
b&agr;b&igr;^8 &igr;o^9 s&ougr;&yhook;m$a^1^0 ha^1^1</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>Our Father who art in Heaven, Thy Name by Hallowed, Thy</CELL>
</ROW>
[etc.]
</TABLE>
Source: notes file
Date: 8 Oct 2003
File name: Wm247
Keywords: NOTE, MILESTONE
Endnotes and markers: Each chapter in the text was followed by a section of endnotes with comments on specific sentences in the text. In the chapters, the sentences (to be commented on later) were signalled by letters in the margin: A., if there was only one on the page, or A, B, C, etc., if more than one. Apex captured these as <NOTE PLACE="marg">A.</NOTE> I thought, perhaps, they should be MILESTONEs but John said that that was not a correct use of milestones and that the treatment with NOTEs was probably the best solution (barring the use of links to the endnotes which we haven't used yet on this side of the pond).
PFS: we've used MILESTONEs for things like this before. The other circumstance in which such things frequently arise is when a chapter has an <ARGUMENT> keyed to points in the text that follows. E.g. <ARGUMENT><P>In which (1) sheepherding is praised; (2) cattlekeeping is put to scorn; and (3) the joy of dogs is explored</P></ARGUMENT>-- with (1) (2) (3) matching similar numbers in the margin of the text that follows. We've always used MILESTONEs for the marginal numbers. The alternative, as you say, is to tag them as <REF> (i.e. as cross-references), which as the dtd is now written, would require specifying a TARGET attribute for every one of them--since there are only 17 of them, not impossible. In this case, probably pointless, however, since the vast majority of the notes are not tied to the letters but to the page number alone. I'd go with MILESTONEs. In fact, I did.
Source: notes file
Date: 21 Oct 2004
File name: Wb1111
Keywords: MILESTONE
Paul, there's one &lindx; in the margin on p174, im96, apparently pointing at nothing special. I've changed it from a marginal note to a milestone: <MILESTONE N="&lindx;">, because that seemed more useful than a note. Is it OK to use the N value of milestones in this way?
PFS: I've been afraid of being too loose with MILESTONEs, lest their meaning become diluted, but you're right that MILESTONE yields better sense and a better online than display in this case than NOTE. So yes, I think this is OK--though it should be noted that all, or nearly all, of the similar cases in the existing texts are tagged as NOTE. Perhaps we should change them?
Source: notes file
Date: 7 Mar 2002
File name: S11085
Keywords: MILESTONE
PFS: Removed all unit values (e.g. UNIT="Instruction" or UNIT="Reproof") from milestones; where words previously used as units actually appeared in margin, reinserted them as NOTEs. When similar numbers in combination with words (e.g. 3.Reproofe) were captured as values of the N attribute of the NOTE tag, changed them into milestones (MILESTONE N="3"), leaving the word in the note (NOTE Reproofe /NOTE). Moved many milestones to paragraph-beginnings.
Source: notes file
Date: 30 Aug 2002
File name: Wh3656
Keywords: LETTER, inline NOTE
On ref 218 - 220 there is a letter quoted. Halfway through there is a comment on the contents, then the letter resumes. The letter sections are marked with marginal quotes. At the moment the whole thing is in <LETTER> and the bits that were highlighted with marginal quotes are in <Q> tags. This seemed better than breaking it into two letters. You might want to look at the tagging though.
PFS: this instinct seems right, but the solution doesn't: to mark the highlighted bits as Q implies that the quoted letter is itself quoting something else. I can think of only two solutions that leave the integrity of the letter intact: mark the *unmarked* paragraph with HI, or tag the paragraph as a NOTE PLACE="inline" (which according to the TEI is for notes that occupy a paragraph forming part of the main text). Either will parse; the HI solution will probably display better online.
Source: notes file
Date: 19 Jun 2003
File name: Wr1594
Keywords: Endnote
PFS: On PB N="126" REF="96," a note that began as a marginal note extended for eight
pages (where it became the only text on the page). I have instead treated this as an
'end note':
(1) put literal marker in text, using <REF> tag: <REF TARGET="WR1594.longnote">(u)</REF>;
(2) placed text of note after the paragraph of text ended (instead of embedding it in the
text at the marker);
(3) tagged note itself as <P><TEXT><BODY><DIV1 TYPE="note">;
(4) supplied ID value to the note in order for the REF tag to link to it:
<P><TEXT><BODY><DIV1 TYPE="note" ID="WR1594.longnote">.
Source: notes file
Date: 17 Sep 2003
File name: Wd2710
Keywords: Linking, Endnote
There were end notes (annotations) in this text, so I used <PTR> tags and ids to link to them.
PFS: One cavil: since the text contains markers (a), (b), (c), etc.) that serve as references to the annotations, the appropriate tag is actually <REF> rather than <PTR>. The latter is an 'empty' tag, used when there is no literal text that serves as marker; the former is a non-empty tag (like the HTML <A> tag) used to mark up the marker that's there. Otherwise, they work similarly.
So I changed, e.g.:
(<PTR TARGET="Wd2710-2-g"><HI>g</HI>)
to
(<REF TARGET="Wd2710-2-g">g</REF>).
Source: notes file
Date: 17 Feb 2004
File name: Ww1129
Keywords: NOTE
There were lots of ^* presumably as note markers (indicating the point to which notes applied), although the notes themselves didn't have *. I started moving the notes to be next to the ^* but then decided it would be a lot of work for not much gain to do this for the whole text. Please don't do it for me Paul!! I'd rather you sent it back to me!
PFS: ah, once you hand it over, it's at my mercy....
I tried this:
(1) made sure lines began with <P> or <PB>, removed extra \n's
(2) changed all ^* temporarily to #
(3) inserted \n after every </NOTE> (ie. repl. </NOTE> with </NOTE>\n to 'split' lines at end of NOTEs)
(4) moved all <NOTE PLACE="marg"> to the next nearest # (i.e. repl. <NOTE PLACE="marg">\(.*</NOTE>\)\(.*\)# with \2<NOTE PLACE="marg" N="@">\1)
Source: notes file
Date: 3 May or 5 Mar 2004
File name: Wg2111
Keywords: NOTE
--Paul, you may want to link text and notes with this.
PFS: this is an unusual situation: on the left page of each opening is a verse translation of Grotius; on the right page is an elaborate set of notes keyed to the translation opposite. Because they are on the same image as the text to which they refer, these are more akin to marginal notes than to end notes, so they should have been captured as <NOTE>s and inserted in the correct place in the text, especially since the numbering restarts on each page.
However, they were instead captured in their own DIV as if they were a separate (parallel) text. Rather than laboriously inserting several hundred notes, we've decided to leave them in their separate DIV and provide links from the text to the notes, a slightly easier task (though made a little harder by the fact that the numbering restarts on each page.)
Source: notes file
Date: 20 Jan 2004
File name: S10737
Keywords: NOTE
Please review how to correctly handle endnotes! Briefly, endnotes should be treated as any other part of the text, *not* as notes to be embedded in or inserted into the main text.
PFS: working with Olivia, I removed the end notes from the main text (while leaving the note marker behind), gathered them back together in the aggregations where they originally appeared, and created links from text to note using <REF> tags, e.g.:
<DIV3 TYPE="Appealer's doctrine">
<PB N="1" REF="9">
<HEAD>APPEALER.</HEAD>
<P>_<HI>APPEALE</HI> to <HI>Caesar, pag.</HI> 58. In all
which passage (to wit, of the seuenteenth Article there
re|hearsed) both concerning Gods decree and execution of that
de|cree, is not one word, syllable, or apex touching your absolute,
necessary, determined, irre|sistible, irrespectiue decree of God to
call, saue, and glorifie, Saint <HI>Peter,</HI> for instance, in|fallibly
without any considerati|on had of, or regard to his faith, obedience,
and repentance.</P>
<P><HI>Appeale</HI> to <HI>Caesar, pa.</HI> 54. Nothing is by
mee ascribed to your side, and to your Doctors, but an absolute
and irrespectiue decree concerning man, <HI>in v|tramque partem.</HI>
I brought no inferences to presse you with|all,
<PB N="2" REF="10">
such as are commonly, and odiously made against you by op|posites,
whose virulent inue|ctiues, though too true imputa|tions, I vsed not.
I did not charge you with making <HI>God the Au|thor of sinne;</HI>
That the repro|bate are incited on, and prouo|ked to sinne by
God; That God was the Author of Iudas trea|son, and the like.</P>
<P><HI>Appeale, pag.</HI> 68. I neuer yet read of any prime,
preuious determining decree, by which men were irrespectiuely
denied grace, and excluded from glory: vnlesse from damned
<REF TARGET="S10737.note1e">^e</REF>
Here|tiques, or <REF TARGET="S10737.note1f">^f</REF>
Stoicall Philoso|phers.</P>
<P><HI>Appeale, pag.</HI> 30. Against that absolute, irrespectiue,
ne|cessitating, and fatall decree of your new Predestination.</P>
<P><HI>Appeale, pag.</HI> 60. I must
<PB N="3" REF="10">
confesse my dissent through and sincere from the faction of
No|<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="2" RESP="tech">lising <HI>Puritans,</HI>
&c. but in no one point more, than in this their
<REF TARGET="S10737.note1h">^h</REF>
desperate doctrine of Predestination, in which as they delight
to trouble themselues and others in nothing more, so, I professe,
I doe loue to meddle nothing lesse. I haue not, I did not desire,
nor intend to declare my opinion in that point.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="comments">
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="a" ID="S10737.note1a">
<P>^a <HI>Edit. Lugduni Batau. ex officina Tho. Basson, 1512.</HI></P></DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="b" ID="S10737.note1b">
<P>^b <HI>Positâ Praedestinatione illâ absolutâ,
necessarium fuit to|tam scripturam loco mouere vt illud caput adsereretur.</HI></P></DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="c" ID="S10737.note1c">
<P>^c It no way followeth: See <HI>Caluines</HI> Preface of his booke of
<HI>Diuine Predestin.</HI> and first booke of <HI>Institut. 17. Chap.
Beza</HI> against <HI>Castellio Peter Martyr</HI> in his <HI>Comment.</HI>
on the 1. <HI>Chap.</HI> of the Epistle to the <HI>Romans. Zuinglius</HI>
in his Sermon of <HI>Prouidence. Abbot Prelect.</HI> of the <HI>Author of
sinne. Paraeus</HI> Answer to <HI>Bellarmine</HI> second booke of the
<HI>state of sinne, and losse of grace, chap.</HI> 4. and diuers others.</P></DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="d" ID="S10737.note1d">
<P>^d God decreed the permis|sion and disposing of sinne, which he
fore-saw vpon his permission would be, hee did not decree the effe|cting,
or existence of it, that it should be. Saint <HI>Au|gustine</HI>
fully answereth these and the like Arguments in his booke
<HI>de Corrept. & Grat. cap.</HI> 10. We freely
<PB N="4" REF="11">
confesse that, which we most rightly beleeue, that the God and Lord
of all things, who made all things ex|ceeding good, and fore-saw,
that euill things would arise out of good, and knew, that it more
appertained to his most omnipotent goodnesse, to draw good out of
euil, than not to suffer euils to be, hath so ordred the life of
men and Angels, that in it first he might shew the power of their
owne free-will, and then the be|nefit of his grace, and iudgement
of his iustice. And in his <HI>Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap.</HI>
11. God, being most exceeding good, would not by any meanes suf|fer
any euill to be in his workes, but that he is also so omnipotent and
good, that he can and doth worke good euen out of euill.</P></DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="e" ID="S10737.note1e">
<P>^e As <HI>Iulian</HI> the <HI>Pelagian</HI> often in his bookes vpbrai|ded Saint <HI>Augustine</HI> with <HI>Manicheisme;</HI> so doth <HI>Armi|nius</HI> and the <HI>Appealer</HI> (following the <HI>Pelagians</HI> step by step) lay the same imputation vpon the orthodox defenders of Predestination. But the imputation is most false; for the <HI>Manichees</HI> held two soules in a man, one good, another bad, and ascribed good and euill not to the free-will of man, but to those two soules: We, with the holy Fathers, teach but one soule in man, and referre good and euill to Free-will, but so that the will of it selfe is free to euill, but is not, neither can, si|thence the fall of <HI>Adam,</HI> be free vnto good, till God
<PB N="5" REF="11">
hath freed it by his grace, according to the words of our Sauiour in Saint <HI>Iohns</HI> Gospell, Chap. 8. 36. But <HI>if the Sonne make you free, you shall be free indeed.</HI> And of Saint <HI>Paul, Rom. 6. 18. Made free from sinne,</HI> &c.</P></DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="f" ID="S10737.note1f">
<P>^f A stale obiection long sithence answered by Saint <HI>Augustine,</HI>
in his second booke, <HI>cap. 5. ad Bonifac.</HI> Wee maintaine not
<HI>Fate,</HI> or fatall necessity vnder the name of grace; but if
it please some men to call the omni|potent will of God vnder the
name of <HI>Fate,</HI> we seeke indeed to auoid prophane nouelty
of word, but wee will not contend about words. To which answer of
Saint <HI>Augustine</HI> we may further adde, that the beleefe of
Christians, touching the falling out of all things according to
the determinate counsell of God, <HI>Act.</HI> 2. differeth from
the <HI>Stoicke Fate,</HI> or <HI>Fatality,</HI> in foure things.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. The <HI>Stoicks</HI> subiected God himselfe to
<HI>Fate: Iupiter,</HI> though he most desired, could not
free <HI>Sarpedon;</HI> we subiect <HI>Fate,</HI> that is,
the necessitie of things, to Gods most free-will.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. They vnder the name of <HI>(Fate)</HI> vnderstood
an eternall fluxe and necessary connexion of natu|rall
causes, and effects: we teach that all natural and second
causes had their beginning in the Creation; neither is there
such a necessary and absolute depe~dance of effects from their
natu|rall
<PB N="6" REF="12">
causes, but that God can, and often doth suspend those effects,
and miraculously worke beside, aboue, nay against nature.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. The <HI>Stoicks</HI> by their Fatality took away all
con|tingencie, wee admit contingencie in future euents, in
respect of their second causes which worke contingently,
though whatsoeuer com|meth to passe falleth within the certaine
presi|ence of God, and is ordered by his proui|dence.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. The <HI>Stoicks</HI> taught, that men were impelled
to sin by a fatall motion, and that mans will was forced by
Destiny. We detest and abhorre any such assertion. See more
hereof in <HI>Melancthon</HI> his <HI>Common places.
Gratianus Ciuilis in Semipela|gianismo. Lipsius lib. 1. de
Constantia cap.</HI> 18. & <HI>sequent.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="g" ID="S10737.note1g">
<P>^g Tis true, as we reade in the seuenteenth Article, that
for curious and carnall persons lacking the Spirit of Christ,
to haue continually before their eyes the sen|tence of Gods
Predestination, is a most dangerous downefall, whereby the
Deuill doth thrust them ei|ther into desperation, or into
retchlesnesse of most vncleane liuing, no lesse perillous than
desperation. The sweetest meat in a corrupt stomacke turnes to
choller, but the fault is in the stomacke, not in the
<PB N="7" REF="12">
meat; in like manner the word of God, and in parti|cular this
doctrine of the Word is in it selfe <HI>a sauour of life vnto
life,</HI> but to some proues no better than <HI>a sa|uour of
death vnto death,</HI> because as Saint <HI>Peter</HI> 2. 3. 16.
telleth vs, <HI>They peruert the doctrine of holy Scriptures to
their destruction.</HI> For the doctrine it selfe of Predesti|nation,
it openeth no gate to a dissolute life, but shut|teth and barreth
all such vnlawfull posternes; <HI>Shall we continue in sinne
because grace aboundeth? God forbid, Rom.</HI> 6. 1. On the
contrary, it openeth a faire gate, and directeth a certaine
readie way to holinesse of life; For <HI>God hath predestinated
vs, that we might be confor|mable to the Image of his Sonne,
Rom</HI> 8. 29. And God <HI>hath chosen vs before the
foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blamelesse
before him in loue, Ephes.</HI> 1. 4.</P></DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="note" N="h" ID="S10737.note1h">
<P>^h In this obiection from Desperation, the <HI>Armini|ans</HI>
and <HI>Appealer,</HI> as likewise in the former, furbush vp
the old <HI>Pelagians</HI> harnesse, which Saint <HI>Augustine</HI>
hath beat in peeces in his booke of the gift of <HI>Perseuerance,</HI>
chap. 17. I will not amplifie with mine owne words, but I leaue
it rather to them seriously to consider, what a strange thing it
is, that they should perswade themselves the doctrine of
Predestination doth bring to the hearers, rather matter of
desperation, than ex|hortation, (or consolation:) for this
is in effect to say, that then a man is to despaire of his
saluation, when
<PB N="8" REF="13">
he is taught to repose his hope and confidence not in himselfe,
but in God; whereas the Prophet crieth out, <HI>Cursed is he
that putteth his trust in man.</HI> Some indeed make a desperate
vse of this doctrine, but the doctrine it selfe is no desperate
doctrine, or doctrine of despera|tion, but of heauenly consolation,
as we reade in the seuenteenth Article, [which ought for euer to stop
the mouth of the <HI>Appealer,</HI> from slandering as he doth, the
truth of God.] <HI>The godly consideration of Predestinati|on and
our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and vnspeakable
comfort to godly persons, and such as feele in themselues the working
of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their
earthly members, and draw|ing vp their minde to high and heauenly
things, as well be|cause it doth greatly establish and confirme their
faith of eternall saluation to be enioyed through Christ, as because
it doth feruently kindle their loue towards God.]</HI> On the contrary,
the doctrine of the <HI>Arminians</HI> and the <HI>Ap|pealer,</HI>
which maketh Gods Election to depend vpon the will of man, which, as
they say, may totally and finally fall away from grace, is in truth
a most despe|rate doctrine, taking away all solid and firme ground of
comfort both in life and death, as shall appeare hereafter.</P>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
Source: notes file
Date: 2005-01-25
File name: apex/Ww1811
Keywords: NOTE
This is a catechism which has marginal notes strung out so that a sentence like "wherefore God was not made but was ever" spans the area of the text where that theological point is being argued:
<SP>
<SPEAKER>S.</SPEAKER>
<P>God Almighty, who made all things; and after all the rest, made
<HI>Adam</HI> of earth, and <HI>Eve</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">wherefore</NOTE>
of a rib of <HI>Adam</HI>'s side.</P>
</SP>
<SP>
<SPEAKER>M.</SPEAKER>
<P>And who made God Al|mighty
<NOTE PLACE="marg">God was not made,</NOTE>
to bee?</P>
</SP>
<SP>
<SPEAKER>S.</SPEAKER>
<P>God always was, and so cannot be made; for, nothing
<NOTE PLACE="marg">but</NOTE>
can be made unless it once were
<PB N="15" REF="9">
not, that so it might be made.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">was ever</NOTE></P>
</SP>
I can't think of a satisfactory way to capture this. Putting the whole sentence in one note would violate the placing of the whole sentence, but leaving it as above leaves notes containing odd words like "but" and "and". I decided to leave it as above on the basis that the reader could easily gather from the image what is happening.
PFS: a display like that used at the UChicago site would also improve matters--i.e., one that actually displayed all the marginal notes in the margin--as opposed to ours, which displays the notes one by one as popups. I too see no easy way to represent this kind of layout-dependent information within the limits of our markup scheme. TABLEs would be cumbersome, would interfere with the dialogue structure, and in any case proper alignment of the marginal texts would be virtually impossible. The only compromise solution I can think of would be to reduce the number of notes: i.e., keep the NOTE open until the sentence (or at least the clause) was complete, and then place those NOTEs at the beginning of the span of text next to which the material occurs, much as we do the kinds of marginal notes that provide running summaries. After all, the exact division of marginal material into separate notes is always a matter of judgment.
In your example:
<SP>
<SPEAKER>S.</SPEAKER>
<P>God Almighty, who made all things; and after all the rest, made
<HI>Adam</HI> of earth, and <HI>Eve</HI> of a rib of <HI>Adam</HI>'s
side.</P>
</SP>
<SP>
<SPEAKER>M.</SPEAKER>
<P>And who made God Al|mighty to bee?</P>
</SP>
<SP>
<SPEAKER>S.</SPEAKER>
<P>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">wherefore God was not made, but was ever</NOTE>
God always was, and so cannot be made; for, nothing
can be made unless it once were
<PB N="15" REF="9">
not, that so it might be made.</P>
</SP>