Talk:Lambeth Choirbook

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dating the manuscript

An editor has pointed out that DIAMM has changed their dating of this manuscript since the page was created (in 2009), to "late 1520s" (details). I propose to date the manuscript to 1525-1530, focusing primarily on 1525 for linking purposes. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The templates don't seem to allow for unknown dates, or variable dates either. I think "1520's" linking 1520 is more nuanced than "c. 1525" implying mid-twenties. But wouldn't it make more sense to revise template:pub so that all pages didn't need to be brought into agreement? There are some cases where varying dates can be assigned to different entries in a manuscript, and when a date is really unknown or unknowable it seems better to leave it blank than to pick some arbitrary 'working date'. Richard Mix (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
DIAMM says "late 1520's", so 1525 for parameter 2 isn't arbitrary. Choosing a date for all the works in a publication is necessary because of a number of examples of publications with exactly the same title but different dates; date is part of the ID for a publication, so that MultiPubList can find the correct works. Leaving it blank is worse, because (for example) Lambeth Choirbook is early sixteenth-century, not fifteenth nor seventeenth. One of the historical tools I use is to look at people belonging to the same or an overlapping generation as possible mentors or influencers, requiring some dating, even if just approximate; for example see English composers in chronological order. The text parameter 3 is available for additional explanation, and the Description field can be used to discuss dating of an individual work. — Barry Johnston (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
By arbitrary I mean 1526, 1527, 1528 or 1529 might have been chosen; in fact since we only have 3 significant digits there's a case for 1530 instead of the mid-twenties 1525. This is also an ethical issue, when one is forced to make a guess that is then presented as a fact (such as "Nth published"). A practical problem is that needing a single year for MultiPubList requires vigilance on work pages that might rely on older (or newer!) scholarship. Richard Mix (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)