|
|
Savage Hopelessly Confused? [10 May 2012]
While I'm happy to accept the analysis, I want to know what part(s) of Savage's Samuel Rider sketch to discount or treat as errors. Can I get a slightly more objective statement of the problem that I can attach to the defect marker in the transcript? Thanks... --jrm03063 09:35, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
- I have not studied the various Samuel Riders well enough to separate them. I suggest starting with the Mayflower Descendant article (it should be somewhere on books.google.com since it was the 1914 issue). The narrative mentions a TAG article that would probably be useful. To start with, the same Samuel Rider married Sarah Bartlett and Lydia Tilden and it was he that had a son Samuel born in 1657. So elements of all three Samuel Bartletts quoted from Savage apply to one man, though most of the first entry is another man. Further, I think your citation of Savage is misleading, because when I look at it on books.google.com, it doesn't say what your citation says at all. You need somehow to give the page number where the corrections come from or else the citation is very confusing to a reader.
- I was only looking at the page because your last edit changed the location of the residence fact from "Yarmouth" to "Yarmouth, Norfolk, England". I assumed that was an error, but as no year and no source was specified, I couldn't entirely be sure whether it was a pre- or post- immigration residence? Then I noticed the other data on the page showing a death in Yarmouth (Mass.) and burial in Plymouth, and I realized the page was (and probably still is) somewhat messed up. But I was able to verify that his death is recorded in Plymouth, not Yarmouth, and his will says he is of Plymouth, so corrected the death location, and since it was going to take in-depth study to figure when he lived in Yarmouth, I decided to completely remove the residence fact altogether and let someone who has done that work put it back when they have all the information needed. --Jrich 10:09, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
- Thanks. You raise a couple great points!
- Thanks for the review generally, and analysis of Rider specifically. While I'm well aware of your feelings about Savage, I still hope you'll agree that trying to systematically get a handle on the foibles of the work has value.
- I agree that there's some potential confusion between Kraft's corrected Savage and published versions - particularly in the current situation. Perhaps this is the moment to have the discussion about when different source pages are needed for variants, and how they might be organized. The discussion was both abstract and overly pedantic when it lacked an actual example. I'm struck that the truth will be found in the middle - that we don't strictly need a different source page for EVERY edition or variant - but that we will often need a few. I seem to recall you suggesting a hierarchical approach. This suggests to me a practice of assuming that all variants of a work can be collected together (at least to begin with - akin to what the source committee originally came up with). As work goes on, if differences between variants of practical significance are encounterd (for example - Kraft corrected narrative versus as published forms) - THEN we create sub-pages that describe the two sub-sets. Arguably, that process could continue until every edition/revision had a sub-page (more like the standard that I think you'ld prefer). Still, if the sub-pages for variants are not created until there's a concrete reason to do so - perhaps we get a balance that everyone can live with? (or at least, uniformly hate?).
- Anyway - thanks again! --jrm03063 11:42, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
|
|
