Le 22/08/2011 18:57, Martin Holmes a écrit :
> I would like both.
Me too, actually :)
>> Let's face it once and for all: there is nothing - /nothing /- one can
>> make apparent through encoding as an editor, that could not be made just
>> as apparent, and maybe more intelligibly so, by a full-text introduction
>> to an edition.
> I'm afraid I disagree with this. [...]
Well, we might just agree to disagree, but I'm not so sure we really do
disagree :) I would therefore like to stress the difference between the
*medium* and the *material*.
I'll hold to my view that the *medium* of Humanities research is text,
and that the ultimate job of a scholar preparing a critical edition is
to provide a full-text introduction to it, explaining his ideas and
theories about this text. Encoding the text, however craftily, and
however faithfully it can express your theory of this text, is NOT the
*medium*, it's a mean of working on your source *material*.
And it seems to me that your arguments are perfectly valid, and I share
them, as regards the *material* accompanying the medium.
But this might be getting a bit side-tracked...
EHESS (pôle de Lyon) / UMR 5648
Histoire et Archéologie des Mondes Chrétiens et Musulmans Médiévaux
18 quai Claude Bernard
69007 Lyon - FRANCE