JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DIGITALCLASSICIST Archives


DIGITALCLASSICIST Archives

DIGITALCLASSICIST Archives


DIGITALCLASSICIST@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DIGITALCLASSICIST Home

DIGITALCLASSICIST Home

DIGITALCLASSICIST  April 2012

DIGITALCLASSICIST April 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Why are there no digital scholarly editions of "classical" texts?

From:

Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The Digital Classicist List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:55:09 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

Of course, we consult the variant readings all the time.  Impossible
to read, e.g., Lucretius or Propertius without doing so.

Of course, we need to eliminate from consideration many witnesses to
many authors, both for the limited value they bring and the practical
reality that life is short and collating manuscripts of limited value
is tedious and unrewarding work.  (The reward can lie elsewhere:  if
Machiavelli's copy of Lucretius turned up, we'd study every line of it
carefully, even though it is most unlikely that it would influence how
we print Lucretius himself.)

So a project like Musisque Deoque can be of high value if it merely
reproduces existing editions well in a way that allows easy access to
the encoded information.  Doing that on a large scale would make
available to digital users material that now must be consulted in
print form.  That would surely be good.  How good?  To be more
precise, how many dollars or euros would you spend on doing that?
Complicated question that would take real work to answer.

But born-digital editions with many witnesses encoded, manuscripts
imaged, earlier editions consulted, etc.?  The Homer Multitext seeks
such a goal; will take years to advance; and exists in a unique
situation of a leading scholar, human and financial resources
available, and a project of broad interest to many readers of
classical texts.  The question should be what other possible projects
connect scholarly expertise, human and financial resources, and a
scholarly need/value for that particular edition?  That they are, so
far, few is not a condemnation of digital editing or of scholars who
refuse to participate:  it's a reflection of an intrinsic difficulty
that cannot be minimized.

Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Paolo Monella <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Henry,
>
> thank you for replying!
>
>> - 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.
>
> Unfortunately I do not have such stats: can anyone in the list help?
> All I know is that classicists who have published scholarly editions keep tellin me that they're too many and it's not worth to digitise them.
>
> At some point of my post, I start quoting the arguments I have heard over and over from traditional philologists. I hope that my implied polemic attitude towards those arguments came out: in my opinion, when they say that "it's not worth it", they're implying that they're not *that* interested in textual variance -- the worst of offenses for a classical philologist! In fact, seemingly they're not *so* interested as to embark in a transcription of all witnesses. Why? for the reason that you summarise very well:
>
>
>> - 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.
>
>> - 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?
>
> These are questions! I normally only consult the apparatus when I'm actually writing an article on that text (I think I'm not the only one).
> As to the "striking" variants, this is my point in the article: classical texts are quite well preserved, after all. Apart from some sense-changing variants occurring from time to time.
>
> Being semi-controversial again: one would imagine that classicists kept complaining on the fact that our *digital* reference editions  do not have variants yet. But we don't. If I'd perform a search on PHI 5.3 for "poena", I would miss Ov. Met. 6.538, where "poena" is a variant reading for "Procne"  (real example, but the other way around). So I'd be missing a plausible variant (that Anderson's key edition has chosen in fact over "Procne"). However, if a first-year grad student fails to write the exact place, year, publisher of the print critical edition he uses, he gets scolded badly.
>
> Best,
> Paolo
> --
> Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
> belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager