Print

Print


On 11-08-22 10:53 AM, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> Hi Martin!
>
> 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...

In that case, we probably do agree. I see the encoding as both an 
excellent way of performing a close-reading and recording your results, 
but also as the perfect basis for the edition you're going to produce as 
a result. The introduction is presumably the last thing you write, and 
it synthesizes everything you've learned from the process of encoding; 
the rendering of the actual text that you produce from the encoding 
provides the rich annotated edition; and the XML source provides the 
documentary evidence of your working methods, and the support for your 
conclusions.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])