Hasty response to only one point...
Quoting Neven Jovanovi? <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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.
This is a good observation, and I wonder if there is a single
explanation for this? One reason might be that a lot of work has
already been done on the canonical classical texts, so that the hunger
for a (nother) new edition of Euripides or Ovid is not as acute as that
for an editio princeps of an obscure (=marginal) manuscript. (I found
this when I was looking for support to create a hypermedia edition--not
so much critical as hanging with bells and whistles--of a canonical
text, and the response I received was "Why do we need *another* text of
that? Why not do an electronic version of something that *needs* a new
text anyway?")
Then on the other hand, there is the Chicago Homer, which is one of the
most deeply encoded e-texts out there. And the most exciting plans for
new electronic critical texts are coming out of Perseus, who are only
(at the moment) focussing on the more canonical texts. So there are
certainly those who would complain about too much focus on canonical
classical texts...
Best,
Gabriel
--
=======================================
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
The Strand
London WC2R 2LS
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)2078481388 / Fax: +44 (0)2078482980
=======================================
|