Dear All,
As I am a strong supporter of digital scholarly editions, I wrote a little provocation on the question "Why are there no digital scholarly editions of 'classical' texts?" in
http://www.unipa.it/paolo.monella/lincei/why.html
(short link: http://goo.gl/GQ2JC)
Here is an abstract of what I wrote (*paragraph title* / summary):
* Starting point: we have a problem. Yes, we do *
Where I argue that there are no digital scholarly edition of a classical text with a multi-testimonial tradition (and I explain what I mean by that).
* Point 1: We don't have classical digital scholarly editions because classicists just don't feel they need them *
The title says it all.
* Point 2: They don't feel so because of the "canonisation" of the classical corpus *
Where I argue that classical texts are quite well preserved after all (due to "canonisation", in a specific sense that I explain), and that classicists don't feel they need digital scholarly editions because they consider the textual variance not too meaningful and they are more focussed on the "Text" than on "documents".
* Point 3. The missing link: is there also a modelling flaw? *
Where I notice that we have digital editions of "Texts" and digital editions of "documents", but no editions that link them (digital scholarly editions), and suspect that may be a flaw in our modelling of textual primary sources.
All comments and reactions are most welcome.
Best,
Paolo
http://www.unipa.it/paolo.monella/lincei
--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
|