I do not find the discussion on Academe that you reference.  How can I locate it?  I would be very interested in reading your paper after you present it.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Digital Classicist List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paolo Monella
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DIGITALCLASSICIST] Why are there no digital scholarly editions of "classical" texts?

Dear all,

let me take advantage of this reply to thank (though late) all those who contributed to the discussion with interesting thoughts.

The issue is still open for my personal research, as I am planning to engage in a proof-of-concept digital scholarly edition on a carmen of the Anthologia Latina (so a "classical" text) based on a full digital representation of the MSS (TEI primary sources module; Canterbury Tales Project-like) and on the methodological remarks of Tito Orlandi (see book "Filologia testuale", Laterza 2010).

The question "is it really worth it" (to encode all witnesses, P. Robinson-style plus Orlandi-style 'complication') is really compelling for me, especially as my post-doc lasts only one year, so I'd certainly have to continue my work afterwords on my own. But I think it's worth trying. Proof-of-concept experiments may fail, but when they do, they do so usefully.

In the meanwhile, the discussion has continued on Academia (with the risk of turning into a flame, a risk that I carefully avoided):
http://www.academia.edu/Questions/12434/Why_are_there_no_digital_scholarly_editions_of_classical_texts

Also, I will deliver a paper on this topic on September 15, 2012 at the "IV Incontro di Filologia Digitale" (Verona 13-15 settembre 2012) http://www.filologiadigitale.it). Let's see what happens.

Best,
Paolo

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:58:53 -0400
> Von: Scott Carledge <[log in to unmask]>
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [DIGITALCLASSICIST] Why are there no digital scholarly editions of "classical" texts?

> Except for the Textus Receptus and Shakespeare variorum, I do not 
> believe that I have encountered a scholarly edition of a classical 
> text that listed textual variations.
> 
> I have not consulted variant readings primarilty because both the TR 
> and Shakespeare  give very complete textual variations.
> 
>  
> 
> From: The Digital Classicist List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Henry Francis Lynam
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DIGITALCLASSICIST] Why are there no digital scholarly 
> editions of "classical" texts?
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> I read your article with interest. Here are some questions:
> 
> - Do you have any stats for the number of witnesses for well known 
> classical texts? This might put the digital scholarly editions 
> question into perspective.
> 
> - If we're in the arena of semi-controversial thoughts, here's one for 
> you.
> Does anyone actually consult the critical apparatus in a standard text?
> Have
> you come across particularly striking examples of variant readings in 
> classical texts?
> 
> - If I understand your document correctly, you say that one of the 
> reasons for the lack of interest in the textual tradition is because 
> it is (relatively speaking) far from the source. So, the variant 
> readings give more of an insight into the contemporary cultural 
> context rather than the intentions of the original author.
> 
> Henry.  
> 
> On 2 April 2012 13:37, Paolo Monella <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de