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  June 2012

DIGITALCLASSICIST June 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:

Paolo Monella <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:48:21 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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