Dear Neven,
I agree with you that the main problem is not the choice of schema, though I
do think it is important. The orientation towards the print medium is -
understandably - still pervasive and preventing drastic developments, though
I am not sure whether that is a completely bad thing. I found the
Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity (http://www.insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004/) project
a very good way in smoothly introducing changes into the epigraphic
community, by 'digitizing' the second edition of an already existing (but
out of print) print text, while showing the advantages of the digital medium
on the one side (searchability, less restrictions with images, etc.) and
dealing with some of the issues (stability of the text/URL, protocols of
usage etc.), on the other.
I do not think that the situation is as dire as the lack of publicly
available electronic digital editions seems to indicate. There are many
issues still to be tackled (the respectability of the digital medium vs the
print medium, copyright issues, protocols, technology, long-term maintenance
and sustainability etc.), but there are some important ventures going on.
Paolo did make a great effort to start mapping those ventures. Alongside the
list of actual editions I should perhaps start another list linking to
institutions dealing with these issues, such as the Institute for Textual
Scholarship and Electronic Editing at Birmingham
(http://itsee.bham.ac.uk/index.htm). There are also some important
discussions going on (I hope this one proofs to tease out the formulation of
the problems and possible answers). Gabriel Bodard (with my humble input) is
proposing a workshop at the Methods Network
(http://www.methodsnetwork.ac.uk/), which was set up to deal precisely with
these kind of issues.
I do disagree on some of the suggestions you make, Neven. Obviously these
observations always depend on the national context, but I don't think
researchers do not feel the need for critical editions - the OCP was set up
precisely for that reason. Neither do I think that editors are fully
rejective of the digital medium. The issue with the latter has to do with, I
believe, the professional respectability of a print publication vis-à-vis a
digital publication; and that seems to be related with the lack of
established protocols and satisfactory solutions for inherent weakneses of
the medium - weaknesses that need to be addressed, but are outweighed by its
advantages.
Best wishes,
Juan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Juan Garcés
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Kay House, 7 Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
T: +44 (0)20 7848 1393
F: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
-----Original Message-----
From: The Digital Classicist List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Neven Jovanovic
Sent: 08 June 2006 06:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Electronic critical editions?
Dear Paolo et al.,
the list of links I compiled was intended precisely to help start the
discussion --- the discussion that is, it seems to me, for some reason
missing (and Paolo sees it too): why there are so few digital scholarly
editions of classical texts?
I am afraid that here the main problem is not "which encoding schema will
we use". More important are two other points.
First, the Classics as a field does not feel the need to use "critical
editions" any more. Second, the people who edit classical texts for the
renowned series (OCT, Teubner) are exclusively "book-oriented" --- their
publishers want it so, and they themselves have gained the skills
necessary in, and from, the medium of print (and analog photography).
The situation varies significantly from country to country; from what I
have seen, in Italy people think very seriously about digital publishing
--- and are ready to adopt the new medium even for Greek and Latin texts.
Something similar happens in Germany, where you can choose a critical
edition as a PhD theme (one wonders how many of such editions are to be
done digitally).
Also, the situation varies from one sub-field to another --- I believe,
for reasons stated in my second paragraph; in Greek and Latin, most
"daring" digital work is done in "marginal" fields, such as Neo-Latin,
medieval Latin, Biblical studies, papyrology.
Once one decides to do an electronic scholarly edition of a classical
text, one will find that the "usual" form --- the main text and the
"fearful" apparatus criticus --- is not necessary, not even meaningful
anymore. So the editor will lose (or, may renounce) his / her authority
in selecting the "true" readings. I think those doing critical editions
have to get used to this idea yet.
Also, in a digital scholarly edition, the sources suddenly gain more
importance than they used to have --- the manuscripts etc. cease to be the
means to reach the end, the "ideal" reconstructed reading; they become
cultural evidence to be studied on their own. That is why I think Dan
O'Donnell's suggestion that the Digital Medievalist host a Digital
Classicist issue is very appropriate --- in a digital scholarly edition of
a classical text we think of the "authors" and scribes who produced a
manuscript --- why did they write so and so? How did they cope with what
we hold to be meaningless? Why did they choose "lectio deterior" over
what is for as a better one? What about their variants, noted in margins?
I will be very glad to read Paolo's text. Paolo, please tell us when and
where it is published!
By the way, I transferred the list of digital "critical" editions to the
Digital Classicist wiki:
http://digitalclassicist.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/FAQ/digitalcritical
Anyone interested is invited to change and add to the data listed.
I hope this discussion keeps going,
Neven
|