-
Marcus Baumgarten authoredMarcus Baumgarten authored
networking_2017.xml 70.16 KiB
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-model href="http://www.zfdg.de/sites/default/files/schema/tei_zfdg.rnc" type="application/relax-ng-compact-syntax"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/html"
xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title level="a">International/global networking against the backdrop of
nondigital and digital editorial ventures</title>
<respStmt>
<resp>
<persName>
<name role="marc_aut">
<forename>João</forename>
<surname>Dionísio</surname>
</name>
<email>joaodionisio@campus.ul.pt</email>
<idno type="gnd">105735029X</idno>
<idno type="orcid">0000-0002-5211-0290</idno>
</persName>
</resp>
<orgName>Universität Lissabon, Philosophische Fakultät</orgName>
</respStmt>
<!-- <idno type="doi">xxx</idno> -->
<idno type="doi">10.17175/sb002_003</idno>
<idno type="zfdg">sb002_003</idno>
<idno type="ppn">892590505</idno>
<idno type="url">http://www.zfdg.de/node/219</idno>
<date when="2018-03-15">15.03.2018</date>
</analytic>
<monogr>
<title level="j">Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften</title>
<title level="m">Sonderband: Digitale Metamorphose. Digital Humanities
und Editionswissenschaft</title>
<respStmt>
<resp><name role="marc_edt"
><forename>Roland</forename><forename>S.</forename><surname>Kamzelak</surname><email>roland.kamzelak@dla-marbach.de</email></name><idno
type="gnd">173262678</idno><idno type="ocrid">0000-0003-4512-2047</idno></resp>
<orgName>Deutsches Literatur Archiv Marbach</orgName>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<resp><name role="marc_edt"
><forename>Timo</forename><surname>Steyer</surname><email>steyer@hab.de</email></name><idno
type="gnd">1053806175</idno><idno type="ocrid">0000-0003-0218-2269</idno></resp>
<orgName>Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel</orgName>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<resp>Publiziert von</resp>
<orgName role="marc_pbl">Herzog August Bibliothek</orgName>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<resp>Transformation der Word Vorlage nach TEI</resp>
<persName/>
<name role="marc_trc">
<surname>Steyer</surname>
<forename>Timo</forename>
<idno type="gnd">1053806175</idno>
</name>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<resp>Übersetzung des Abstract ins Englische</resp>
<name role="marc_trl"
><forename>Kathleen</forename><surname>Smith</surname></name>
</respStmt>
<availability status="free"> <p>Available at <ref target="http://www.zfdg.de"
>http://www.zfdg.de</ref></p>
</availability>
<biblScope unit="sonderband">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="artikel">3</biblScope>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</title>
</titleStmt>
<editionStmt>
<edition>Elektronische Ausgabe nach TEI P5</edition>
</editionStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<!-- Publikationsangaben zum Sonderband-->
<distributor>
<name><orgName>Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel</orgName></name>
</distributor>
<idno type="doi">10.17175/sb002</idno>
<idno type="url">http://www.zfdg.de/sonderband/2</idno>
<idno type="ppn">886387906</idno>
<date when="2018-03-15">15.03.2018</date>
<authority><name>Herzog August Bibliothek</name><address>
<addrLine/>
</address></authority>
<authority><name>Forschungsverbund MWW</name><address>
<addrLine/>
</address></authority>
<availability status="free">
<p> Sofern nicht anders angegeben </p>
<licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY SA
4.0</licence>
</availability>
<availability status="free">
<p> Available at <ref target="workID">http://www.zfdg.de"> (c)
Forschungsverbund MWW</ref>
</p>
</availability>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<p>Ausgewählte Beiträge der Tagung 2015 an der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel
im Rahmen des Forschungsverbundes Marbach Weimar Wolfenbüttel</p>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<!-- Angaben zur Enstehung des Textes -->
<editorialDecl>
<p>Transformation der WORD-Vorlage nach XML/TEI-P5 durch Apache TIKA 1.7 und
XSLT</p>
</editorialDecl>
<editorialDecl>
<p xml:lang="de">Lektorat des Textes durch die Redaktion.</p>
</editorialDecl>
<editorialDecl>
<p>Medienrechte liegen bei den Autoren</p>
</editorialDecl>
<editorialDecl>
<p>All links checked<date when="2018">07.03.2018</date></p>
</editorialDecl>
</encodingDesc>
<profileDesc>
<creation>Einreichung für den Sonderband 2 der Zeitschrift für digitale
Geisteswissenschaften</creation>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">Text in English</language>
<language ident="en">Abstract in English</language>
</langUsage>
<!-- Verschlagwortung -->
<!-- tadriah durch die Redaktion -->
<!-- gnd -->
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="gnd">
<term>Edition<ref target="4132033-5"/></term>
<term>Geschichte<ref target="4020517-4"/></term>
<term>Textstruktur<ref target="4117195-0"/></term>
<term>Philologie<ref target="4174271-0"/></term>
<term>internationale Kooperation<ref target="4120503-0"/></term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
<!-- Angaben zur vorliegenden Version -->
<revisionDesc>
<change><!-- Each change should include @who and @when as well as a brief note on what was done. --></change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text>
<body>
<div>
<div type="abstract">
<argument xml:lang="de">
<p>Der Artikel erforscht einige der Umbrüche, die den aktuellen Wandel bei
internationalen Editionsprojekten von der Nichtdigitalität hin zu einer
digitalen Umgebung kennzeichnen. Ein kollaboratives Arbeiten im
Mittelpunkt der Editionsarbeit anzusetzen, geht von dem Grundsatz aus,
dass Lesen den kleinsten kollaborativen Aufwand darstellt, der an der
Basis des „one-language/one-literature“-Modells liege, wie
beispielsweise das „national philology paradigm“. Ein derartiges
Denkmuster erwies sich für die internationale Kooperation auf
verschiedene Art und Weise als attraktiv (Archive, Zeitschriften,
Verlage usw.), doch warb es auch für die Idee eines abstrakteren
transnationalen Ziels (so zum Beispiel Lachmanns Ideal einer von
Interpretation befreiten Rezension oder Gaston Paris‘ utopisches cité
des sciences.) Diese Ziele begünstigten eine fortschreitende Etablierung
digitaler Paradigmen, die wiederum einen Richtungswechsel ermöglichten,
der von einer in situ-Analyse wegführt und auf die Ausstellung von
allgemeinen Textstrukturen abzielt. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser neuen
Ausrichtung wurde die internationale Zusammenarbeit intensiviert;
trotzdem wird argumentiert, dass das neue Medium nicht an die Stelle des
alten Mediums tritt, sondern vielmehr mit ihm interagiere. Zum Schluss
wird der Artikel den Fokus auf bestimmte Herausforderungen legen, die
mit Initiativen zur digitalen Edition einhergehen und hauptsächlich aus
politischen Unwägbarkeiten und Nachhaltigkeitsfragen bestehen.</p>
</argument>
<argument xml:lang="en">
<p>The article explores some of the continuities and discontinuities that
mark the ongoing change in international editorial ventures from a
nondigital to a digital framework. Placing collaboration at the centre
of the editorial work, it is assumed that reading is the minimal act of
collaboration which lies at the basis of the one-language/one-literature
model, i.e., the national philology paradigm. Such a paradigm appealed
to international cooperation in a number of ways (archives, journals,
publishing houses, etc.), but it also came to promote the idea of
trans-national abstract goals (e.g., in Lachmann’s ideal of recension
without interpretation or in Gaston Paris’s utopian <hi rend="italic"
>cité des sciences</hi>). These goals favoured the progressive
establishment of the digital paradigm, which in turn encouraged (or
facilitated) a change of direction, from the study of <hi rend="italic"
>in situ</hi> textual specificities to taxonomies aiming at a
representation of the general structure of texts. Against the backdrop
of the new paradigm, international collaboration has been intensified,
but, it is argued, the new medium does not take the place of the old
medium, rather interacts with it. In the end, the article touches upon
some of the challenges faced by digital initiatives, namely regarding
sustainability and political issues.</p>
</argument>
</div>
<div type="chapter">
<p>The title of this essay indicates that a transformation in academic cooperation in the field of textual scholarship has been occurring as a
consequence of the ways we explore the digital medium. It is always
difficult to speak detachedly about a phenomenon that is ongoing, fluid,
multi-faceted and complex in its several aspects. Transformation, especially
in the guise of metamorphosis, suggests that the changes in academic
cooperation have more to do with an alteration in nature than with an
alteration in degree. By adopting a historical point of view, I would like
to argue that, while some of the most visible changes are gradual, it
remains to be seen whether a few very important ones will not indeed become
differences in nature.</p>
<p>At the basis of networking lies cooperation. Since textual scholarship deals
mostly with written documents, it could be argued that the minimal scholarly
act and the backbone of editing activities is reading. Against essentialist
views of such an act, understanding reading as an instance of collaboration
may be seen as a mode of academic cooperation. Notwithstanding differences
in their approaches, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish and Jerome McGann, among
others, have contributed to the general acceptance of this viewpoint.</p>
<p>Iser claims that the transference of text to reader, rather than being put
into practice singly by the textual entity, occurs only if the
<quote>reader’s faculties of perceiving and processing</quote> are
activated. It is because the text does not fully control this process that
there is a <quote>creative side</quote> to reading.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#iser_act_1978">Iser 1978</ref>, S.
107–108.</note> Another name for this creative side is, of course,
cooperation.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#eco_leitura_1983">Eco 1983</ref>, S.
71–90.</note> When more than one scholar engages with a text or a set of
texts in complementary and/or competitive manner, and regardless of how many
people are involved in such activity, an interpretive community emerges.
Roughly at the same time, Stanley Fish argued that text is not a
<quote>self-sufficient repository of meaning</quote> because meaning is
produced in a <quote>dynamic relation with the reader’s expectations,
projections, conclusions, judgments and assumptions</quote><note
type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#fish_text_1980">Fish 1980</ref>, S.
2.</note>. It is neither located <hi rend="italic">in </hi>the text, nor
is the reader’s job to extract it <hi rend="italic">from </hi>the text. As a
consequence, the identification of formal units in interpretation is not due
to their presence in the text, but <quote>are a function of the interpretive
model one brings to bear</quote><note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#fish_text_1980">Fish 1980</ref>, S.
8.</note>. The standpoint Iser and Fish adopt reappear in general terms
in the field of textual scholarship, for instance in Jerome McGann’s <hi
rend="italic">The Textual Condition</hi>, namely in the chapter
<quote>How to read a book</quote>. McGann’s own viewpoint is clearly
constructivist and, in opposition to the once popular perception of textual
scholarship as an activity that guaranteed the stability of texts and the
taming of meaning, the recent past and the present in this field of
knowledge keep insisting on the acknowledgement of the importance of
interpretive communities in the construction of meaning.</p>
<p>For a considerable period of time an identification marker of the object of
attention of these interpretive communities in the Western civilization has
been the one-language/one-literature model, first centred on classical
antiquity and subsequently broadened to include modern vernacular cultures.
Around 1800 the pervading concept of national classicity in different
European countries contributed decisively to this broadening, thereby
playing a significant role in the process of nation building.<note
type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#lerssen_introduction_2008">Leerssen
2008</ref>; <ref type="bibliography" target="#henrikson_canon_2008"
>Henrikson 2008</ref>.</note> Such a concept was instrumentally
assisted by the work of the discipline lying at the basis of literary,
linguistic and later cultural studies: philology.<note type="footnote"> see
<ref type="bibliography" target="#baehler_romane_2004">Bähler
2004</ref>, S. 277–279; <ref type="bibliography"
target="#mcgann_republic_2014">McGann 2014</ref>, S. 20.</note> The
blurred (<quote>blurred</quote>, i. e., from our standpoint, which is
contemporary to the autonomous fields of knowledge that stemmed from
philology) frontiers of the research objects these communities worked on
have contributed to their expansion, but have also given rise to the appearance of alternative models to the Lang-Lit perspective. As Joep
Leerssen points out, the Lang-Lit model presented unsolvable problems and
ambiguities when one thinks of <quote>Milton writing in Latin and English,
Nabokov in Russian and English; the tradition of medieval Latin and
Neo-Latin; the cases of authors from bilingual countries rooted in more
than one linguistic tradition</quote> and so forth.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#lerssen_introduction_2008">Leerssen
2008</ref>, S. 14–15.</note> In any event, despite its role in the
defence of nations as autonomous <hi rend="italic">realia</hi>, the Lang-Lit
model may well serve as an example of a framework for scholarly cooperation
on an international level. After all, one of the eloquent examples of such a
model is the division of general philology into major linguistic branches
(Classical, Romance, German, etc.) that have to do with groups of different
countries, thus promoting the existence of international interpreting
communities. For the sake of a brief illustration, I will concentrate on the
Romance languages and literatures subset and briefly refer to the way three
facets of scholarly editing activities (archival institutions and libraries,
philological networks and publishing houses) show signs of international
collaboration. </p>
<p>In our day and age, we take for granted that European libraries and archives
take interest in acquiring and, most importantly, in making available
bibliographic items and documents whose cultural meaning is not parochially
national. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but it may suffice to
illustrate this point with reference to the fact that one of the most
crucial manuscripts of the <hi rend="italic">Chanson de Roland</hi>, a
cornerstone in the history of French literature and nation building, is kept
at the Bodleian library, in Oxford.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#lerssen_introduction_2008">Leerssen
2008</ref>, S. 23.</note> Similar situations abound in the field of
mediaeval Portuguese literature: the most distinguished document witness of
Arthurian literature written in Portuguese (a version of the <hi
rend="italic">Quest of the holy grail</hi>, ›Demanda do Santo Graal‹) is
kept at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek; a codex containing the text
of the most important late mediaeval chronicle (Fernão Lopes’s <hi
rend="italic">Chronicle of King John I</hi>, ›Crónica de D. João I‹) is
to be found at the Biblioteca Nacional de España; the most distinguished
manuscript of a <hi rend="italic">regimen principum</hi> of sorts (D.
Duarte’s <hi rend="italic">Leal Conselheiro</hi>) belongs to the
Bibliothèque de France; one of the very few handwritten songbooks witnessing
the Galician-Portuguese troubadour poetry is preserved at the Biblioteca
Vaticana.<note type="footnote"> see <ref type="bibliography"
target="#bitgab_datenbank_2014">BITAGAP 2014</ref>.</note> This
means that right at the beginning of the editing process the framework of
the access to primary sources of major texts according to the Lang-Lit model
is frequently international. </p>
<p>In yet another respect, the history of the codex I have just mentioned
showcases forms of cooperation against the backdrop of scholarly
international networks. In the context of Romance philology and the raiding
for manuscripts of unknown whereabouts, the Austrian philologist Ferdinand
Wolff thought that the most effective way to search for a songbook of
Portuguese mediaeval poems whose copy had been ordered by the Italian
humanist Angelo Colocci was to look for traces of it at the Vatican library.
The person Wolff asked to undertake this task was the Slovene slavist Jernej
Bartholomäus Kopitar, who proceeded accordingly, but without success. Later
on he asked the Portuguese Franciscan priest J. I. Roquette to resume this
assignment and Roquette was able to locate it: the Vatican codex 4803
transmits more than one thousand medieval poems, being a priceless document
of troubadour poetry in the Iberian Peninsula between the beginning of the
12 century and mid-14 century.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#vasconcelos_cancioneiro_1990"
>Vasconcelos 1904</ref>, S. 15–16</note>
</p>
<p>These were the times when German philologists animated the development of
editorial initiatives in other countries, both in Europe and beyond.
Although he spoke of Émile Raynouard as <quote>Gründer der romanischen
Philologie</quote>, it is Friedrich Diez who is more consensually viewed
as the founder of Romance philology and in analogy to the mandatory trip to
Italy for anyone wishing to become a professional in the fine arts, the
would-be philologist was expected to travel to Germany. Gaston Paris and
later on Joseph Bédier made such journeys.<note type="footnote"> <ref type="bibliography" target="#baehler_romane_2004">Bähler
2004</ref>, S. 42, 65; <ref type="bibliography"
target="#corbellari_ecrivain_1997">Corbellari 1997</ref>, S.
46.</note> And, more regularly than not, German philologists moved to
other countries. </p>
<p>One of the first landmarks in the description of romance languages and
literatures was the <hi rend="italic">Grundriss der romanischen
Philologie</hi>, organized by Gustav Gröber. The history of Portuguese
literature, attributed to the German philologist Carolina Michaëlis de
Vasconcelos and to the Portuguese polymath writer Teófilo Braga, was
included in the volume II, part I, issued in 1897. As a matter of fact, this
history of Portuguese literature was originally supposed to be designed and
written only by Braga and translated into German by Carolina Michaëlis. In
the end, though, the first and longer part of the history was eventually
written by Michaëlis based on Braga’s text, and only the second much shorter
part is ascribed to the Portuguese intellectual. Because Braga was not
comfortable with the credits of the first part, Carolina Michaëlis wrote him
a letter in order to explain the way she viewed the borders of intellectual
property within this collaborative initiative. A passage in this letter
discloses what Germany could mean in certain quarters: <quote>You, Sir, had
put your article entirely at my disposal. You have even asked me to
translate it freely, <hi rend="italic">germanising</hi> it somewhat,
that is, adding dates and bibliographic notes (which it much needed),
making it more precise, developing it and even modifying what seemingly
called for correction, etc. etc. (…) It is the fault of your courtesy if
I have come to see myself as your collaborator, rather than your
translator.</quote><note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#rodrigues_correspondencia_1988"
>Rodrigues 1988</ref>, S. 50, my translation and italics.</note>
</p>
<p>Apart from the role German scholarship played in romance philology during the
19 century and onwards, hinted at in this letter, the interpretive
communities working in editing medieval Portuguese literature have a
distinctly international scope: alongside Carolina Michaëlis, the reference
tool for this study field contains entries for scholars such as the British
William J. Entwistle, the Italian Ernesto Monaci, the Swiss-American Henry
R. Lang, the German Oskar Nobiling or the Brazilian Francisco A.
Varnhagen.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#lanciani_dictonario_1993">Lanciani /
Tavani 2013</ref>.</note> The international scope in other
interpretive communities within other subsets of global philology is similar
to the one described so far. </p>
<p>Such national diversity was also supported by scholarly journals, such as <hi
rend="italic">Rivista di Filologia Romanza</hi>,<hi rend="italic">
Romania</hi>, <hi rend="italic">Zeitschrift für Romanische
Philologie</hi>, which accepted articles in different languages.
Likewise, some publishing houses, namely Max Niemeyer, also published
philological works in various European languages. </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, and taking into account its strong international embedding,
Gaston Paris aimed to place romance philology within a system of fields of
knowledge he called the <quote>cité des sciences</quote>, the city of
sciences.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#baehler_romane_2004">Bähler
2004</ref>, S. 203 and fol.</note> This would be a more or less Utopian
space with no geopolitical borders, inhabited by scholars fully oriented, as
Ursula Bähler puts it, to pursue truth, as an un-national value. This
utopian impulse underpinning such a city of sciences, a close relative of
the republic of letters, echoed intensely at the opening session of the 1928
international congress of mathematicians, held in Bologna. It was then that
David Hilbert allegedly produced a statement of considerable political and
scholarly import: <quote>It makes me very happy that after a long, hard time
all the mathematicians of the world are represented here […]. It is a
complete misunderstanding of our science to construct differences
according to peoples and races, and the reasons for which this has been
done are very shabby ones. […] For mathematics, the whole cultural world
is a single country</quote><note type="footnote"> apud <ref
type="bibliography" target="#curbera_mathematicans_2009">Curbera
2009</ref>, S. 83.</note>. Even if some doubts remain as
to Hilbert’s exact words, it seems useful to take this quotation into
account when reflecting upon the dream-like pursuit of a common ground (in methodological, terminological and theoretical terms) within the field of
scholarly editing. </p>
<p>A sign of such a <hi rend="italic">desideratum</hi> may perhaps be found in
the supposedly Lachmannian ideal of establishing a text as the result of a
stemmatological enquiry conducted without having recourse to personal
judgement: <quote>recensere sine interpretatione possumus et debemus</quote>
(even if Timpanaro is right in suggesting that this was nothing more than
empty boasting on the part of Lachmann)<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#timpanaro_genesi_1990">Timpanaro
1990</ref>, S. 48.</note>. At a time when historical linguistics was
addressing the problem of hierarchically determining how dead and living
languages were connected, these Lachmannian hierarchical approaches on the
transmission of texts influenced the editors’ perception of the familial
relationships between ancient and medieval document witnesses. Another sign
of the <hi rend="italic">desideratum </hi>might be found in an extraordinary
statement by the scholar who created copytext editing, W. W. Greg, who, in
the article <quote>Bibliography: An apologia</quote>, declared that it would
be interesting to edit a text with no meaning (i. e., lacking
intelligibility in the eyes of the editor), this being the result of the
following premise: <quote>[…] the study of textual transmission involves no
knowledge of the sense of a document but only of its form; the document
may theoretically be devoid of meaning or the critic ignorant of its
language.</quote><note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#greg_bibliography_1932">Greg
1932</ref>, S. 122–123.</note> Editorial scholarship would thus
triumph in a highly formalized and shared way over textual dimensions one
could, after all, do without: language and meaning.</p>
<p>In the early days of the professionalization (and standardization) of
editorial scholarship, Housman would voice a strong individualistic claim
against the idea of common ground: it was not possible to ›become‹ a
professional textual critic. Either you were born one or no deal: <hi
rend="italic">criticus nascitur, non fit</hi>.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#housman_application_1972">Housman
1972</ref>, S. 1059.</note> Unsurprisingly, Housman did not hold in
high esteem those aspects of textual scholarship which would meet a strong
cooperative development over the 20 century and a strong boost with digital
philology: ›manuscript‹ work (through the availability of an ever growing
number of digital surrogates of document witnesses), collation and the
history of the transmission of texts (through the advances in computer
automated collation).<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#lernout_review_2013">Lernout
2013</ref>, S. 298.</note>
</p>
<p>In a increasingly flattened world, in which geographic borders tend to fade,
the expanding number of easily accessible digital archives, programmes and
tools has stimulated a modicum of standardization in order to guarantee
communication and interoperability. To a certain extent, this process in the
field of stated in the mid-twentieth century about World Literature: the
present conception of World literature, he said, accepts as an inevitable
fact that world-culture is being standardized.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#auerbach_mimesis_2003"
>Auerbach 2003</ref>, S. 68.</note> The World literature paradigm, with a more
global scope than the Lang-Lit model, would similarly give a crucial status
to communication and interoperability through the role it ascribed to
translation. </p>
<p>Notwithstanding the immense merits of sharable goals and <hi rend="italic"
>modus operandi</hi> in digital editorial activities, a crucial
dimension of editing and translating has to do with acknowledging and
representing difference. That is why, apart from isolated and high-brow
positions such as Housman’s, in other quarters one finds conflicting
perspectives with respect to the pair one goal-one method approach.
Actually, whereas a former goal of romance philology – reconstructing,
through the study of languages and literatures, the development of different
national awarenesses<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#baehler_romane_2004">Bähler
2004</ref>, S. 394–395.</note> – is no longer central, attention to
site- or text-specific features seems to resist what is seen as excessive
standardization. As Peter Shillingsburg has recently argued: <quote>[…]
different editorial goals are desirable under different cultural and
economic and intellectual conditions and […] different goals must be met by different methods […]</quote><note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#shillingsburg_scholary_2012"
>Shillingsburg 2012</ref>, S. 259.</note>. And, according to Paul
Eggert: <quote>The first rule of thumb in editing is that every editing
situation is different and therefore no rule will be universally
applicable.</quote><note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#eggert_secouring_2009">Eggert
2009</ref>, S. 208.</note>
</p>
<p>The tension between global aims and methods, on the one side, and local goals
and procedures, on the other, have gained special visibility with the
growing presence of digital editing. But before exploring some facets of
this tension, it seems relevant to say that similarly to what happened with
the transition from oral to written culture, there is no digital
metamorphosis because the ongoing change cannot be seen as digital editorial
scholarship’s take-over on pre-digital philology. Elena Pierazzo is right
when, commenting on a contribution by Ariana Ciula and Tamara López, she
says that the new medium <quote>does not supersede the old one, like the
wireless did not replace the concert hall and the television did not
replace the cinema, but joins the old medium in an often positive and
invigorating interaction.</quote><note type="footnote"> apud <ref
type="bibliography" target="#pierazzo_scholary_2015">Pierazzo
2015</ref>, S. 142.</note>
</p>
<p>There is also a <hi rend="italic">continuum</hi> between traditional
philology and textual scholarship in the digital age, for the goal digital
scholars pursue has not ceased to be <quote>[…] to preserve, to monitor, to
investigate, and to augment our cultural life and inheritance
[…]</quote><note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#mcgann_republic_2014">McGann
2014</ref>, S. 4.</note>, even if the available means to reach this
goal have undergone enormous changes. The cooperation between humanist
scholars and IT colleagues has shaped a new understanding of what C. P. Snow
termed the two cultures, English has become an academic <hi rend="italic"
>lingua franca</hi>, communication technologies have enabled an
impressive time acceleration (and a somewhat mitigated historical
consciousness), attention has been redirected from local textual
specificities to taxonomies that aim at representing the general structure
of texts. And at the bottom of all this international collaboration has been
intensified. <graphic xml:id="networking_2017_001"
url=".../medien/networking_2017_001.png">
<desc>
<ref target="#abb1">Abb. 1:</ref> Poster of Digitale Metamorphose.
Digital Humanities und Editionswissenschaft. Tagung vom 2. Bis 4.
November 2015 (detail) [document title: DionísioImage1]<ref
type="graphic" target="#networking_2017_001"/>.</desc>
</graphic></p>
<p>In any event, an idea of replacement is obviously hinted at by the poster of
the conference that originated this volume, in which the butterfly life
cycle is reduced to two stages, the larva (caterpillar) and the adult
butterfly, thus suggesting a symmetrical relationship with a pre-digital
editorial stage and a digital editorial stage. Central to the development of
the butterfly is the process of molting: since the skin of the caterpillars
cannot expand with them, they grow another larger skin which throws out the
outward skin, this process repeating itself until, after molting for the
fifth time, the new skin is shaped into the outer shell of the chrysalis. In
the end, inside the chrysalis or pupa, the caterpillar undergoes the
transformation into an adult butterfly. In a similar way, digital editing is
given the possibility of dealing with significantly larger textual storage
capacity than book format editorial ventures. Because of printing and
publication limitations, editors were compelled to select a single textual
version for presentation and to display incomplete information in
apparatuses, but the digital overcoming of these technological constraints
have allowed for seemingly all-inclusive editorial goals. Storage is then a
major strength among the possibilities opened up by digital philology, along
with others that are related to the stages of collation, stemma extraction,
analysis, annotation and edition proper, besides the results of some
research in the field of automated transcription.<note type="footnote"> see
<ref type="bibliography" target="#andrews_way_2013">Andrews
2013</ref>, S. 66–70.</note> </p>
<p>Sharing and making available tools and programmes in these different
editorial stages and fields have been enhanced by several digital
international and collaborative platforms, such as: Interedition, the
European funded COST Action and aiming at promoting <quote>[…] the
interoperability of the tools and methodology […] in the field of
digital scholarly editing and research […]</quote>; Textgrid<note
type="footnote"><ref target="https://textgrid.de/"
>https://textgrid.de/</ref>.</note>, a project funded by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research until very recently and seeking
to address the needs of virtual research environment in the Humanities; the
digital research infrastructure <ref target="https://de.dariah.eu/"
>DARIAH-DE - Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and
Humanities</ref>
<note type="footnote"><ref target="http://www.dariah.eu/"
>http://www.dariah.eu/</ref>.</note>, which is also supported by the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and administration and
repository technologies; the Australian Electronic Scholarly Editing
project, which intends <quote>[…] to develop a set of interoperable services
to support the production of electronic scholarly editions by
distributed collaborators in a Web 2.0 environment.</quote><note
type="footnote"><ref target="http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/eresearch/projects/austese"
>http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/eresearch/projects/austese</ref>.</note> Loyola University, Chicago, and
the University of Saskatchewan.</p>
<p>It is largely through networking platforms such as the ones I mentioned
before that this butterfly-like shortcoming of many digital editorial
initiatives has been addressed by some scholars. The life of butterflies
usually spans between a week and a month. One side of durability issues has
been referred to by Pierre-Marc de Biasi. Taking into consideration only the
developed countries, De Biasi wrote that since 1990 each one of us has
changed at least five or six times his or her personal computer, that is,
every three or four years, in order to stay technically updated. But who of
us, he asks, has kept the former six computers and their hard disks? Almost
no one. As a consequence almost all electronic genetic documents of the past
20 years are utterly lost. Then De Biasi concludes dramatically that there
will be no archives of our modernity between 1990 and 2010 – for the first
time after two centuries we have before us a black hole in our cultural
memory with no precedent but in the darkest periods of our history. More,
this black hole would be bound to expand [De Biasi 2012: 26]. In another
standpoint, Daniel O’Donnell realized that most of the editions on CD-ROMs
he examined could not be used shortly after their publication, and Elena
Pierazzo states that the obsolescence of web publication is becoming highly
visible: easy to put online, easy to take down, Elena Pierazzo says.<note
type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#pierazzo_scholary_2015">Pierazzo
2015</ref>, S. 134–135.</note> Why is this so? </p>
<p>Peter Boot and Joris Van Zundert list what can go wrong: temporary or
permanent unavailability of resources and services (service is either down
or discontinued); hosting institutions that are closed down or that are
affected by new objectives and priorities; upgrades to baseline services
(e. g. authentication) and non-baseline services (e. g. annotation linking
services), upgrades to platforms and code libraries.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#boot_edition_2011">Boot / van Zundert
2011</ref>, S. 145–146.</note> In order to live up to the <quote>[…]
growing technological and organizational burden[…]</quote> associated
with the preservation of digital editions, and thus to enable them to live a
longer and more stable life than that of butterflies, Joris Van Zundert and
Peter Boot<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#boot_edition_2011">Boot / van Zundert
2011</ref>, S. 145–146.</note> communicated their vision of future
libraries. In this vision, the library, besides being in a position to
transform resources into services<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#boot_edition_2011">Boot / van Zundert
2011</ref>, S. 144–145, 150.</note>, would not only preserve digital
editions, but also give access to their proteiform nature: <quote>[…] it is
the libraries that are able to define, manage and maintain the
processes, workflows and quality controls that can assure the edition’s
long term availability in the digital realm[…]</quote><note
type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#boot_edition_2011">Boot / van Zundert 2011</ref>, S. 144–145, 150–152.</note>. Therefore, it is not
international cooperation <hi rend="italic">per se</hi> that responds to
this vision, but inter-institutional collaboration, against the backdrop of
a redefinition of the roles ascribed to libraries, universities and funders.
Here possibly lies one difference between the frameworks of non-digital and
digital editorial scholarship that may not be just a matter of degree, as
the redefinition called for by Van Zundert and Boot goes beyond the sphere
of accessing more information in a more rapid way. </p>
<p>Among the many challenges this vision faces, one finds issues as different as
funding commitments to sustain online changing works beyond an horizon of
twenty years<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#mcgann_republic_2014">McGann
2014</ref>, S. 27.</note> or a reconfigured notion of legal deposit.
The legal deposit is often said to <quote>[…] ensure that the […] published
output is collected systematically, to preserve the material for the use
of future generations[…]</quote>, as stated on the British Library
Webpage (http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/legaldeposit/). If the published output is
to be systematically collected, namely every single accessible version of a
permanently updatable editorial venture (and I quote from a recent call for
contribution on Computer-Aided Processing of Intertextuality in Ancient
Languages), what is one to do with the `information overload´ of digitally
available data resulting from mass digitisation?</p>
<p>It may be advantageous to put issues such as this in the context of regional
and global policies. In the European Union funding programme Horizon2020,
the humanities and human sciences were not considered at first. And, as
Domenico Fiormonte points out, it was a successful petition signed by
thousands of professionals working in the cultural heritage sector (museums,
galleries, libraries, archives, etc.) that made the European Parliament
explicitly add the label <quote>Cultural heritage</quote> in the funding
program.<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#fiormonte_humanities_2014">Fiormonte
2014</ref>, S. 5.</note> This is not without import for the ongoing
reconfiguration of textual editing within the larger sphere of
conservation<note type="footnote"> see <ref type="bibliography"
target="#eggert_secouring_2009">Eggert 2009</ref>.</note> and the
technological possibilities allowing editors to deal not only with textual
documents but also with sound and iconic materials. In respect of
<quote>Cultural heritage</quote>, UNESCO and other organizations have
been actively promoting the preservation of world heritage sites and
artefacts. Underlying the classification of these sites and artefacts, as
well as the production of guidelines regarding conservation or restoration,
is a political principle of global understanding at large. An excerpt from
the preamble of the "Recommendation on International Principles Applicable
to Archaeological Excavations"<note type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#recommendation_unesco_1956">Unesco:
Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to
Archaeological Excavations 1956</ref>.</note> issued in New Delhi in
1956 may serve as an example of this principle. There one reads<quote>[…]the
feelings aroused by the contemplation and study of works of the past do
much to foster mutual understanding between nations, and that it is
therefore highly desirable to secure international co-operation with
regard to them and to further, in every possible way, the fulfilment of
their social mission […]</quote></p>
<p>As far as this social mission is concerned, and given the volatility of
political regimes in Africa and the cultural consequences often arising from
such volatility, reference should be made, even if in a restricted
linguistic sense, to the action of one of the international teams working at
the Institut des Textes et des Manuscrits Modernes (ITEM).<note
type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#manuscrits_item_2015">ITEM: Équipe
Manuscrits francophones du sud 2015</ref>.</note> The
<quote>Manuscrits francophones du sud</quote> team, supported by the
French National Funding Agency and the European programme Discovery, pursues
the goal of producing a reference edition of francophone literary texts of
special relevance, which are to be published in the ›Planète libre‹ series,
as well as saving from oblivion and destruction francophone literary
documents. The latter goal is to be reached through the creation of a
digital archive in addition to a physical library to keep the
manuscripts.</p>
<p>In our part of the world, the digital medium has facilitated the creation of new interpretive communities or strengthened already existing ones, which no
longer occupy a central position in Western education system or are even
endangered. The actual or potential disappearance of Greek and Latin from
the secondary school curricula in several European countries has been
successfully counterattacked by the acknowledgement of multi-communities
across the world interested in developing Classical Studies.<note
type="footnote">
<ref type="bibliography" target="#lernout_review_2013">Lernout
2013</ref>, S. 297.</note> But still one should bear in mind that
there are other worlds beyond our own.</p> <p><graphic
xml:id="networking_2017_002"
url=".../medien/networking_2017_002.jpg">
<desc>
<ref target="#abb2">Abb. 2</ref> John Stanmeyer: <hi rend="italic"
>Signal</hi>, February 26 2013 [<ref
target="http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2014/contemporary-issues/john-stanmeyer"
>online</ref>] [document title: DionísioImage2]<ref
type="graphic" target="#networking_2017_002"/></desc>
</graphic></p><p>On the now widely known night photo by John Stanmeyer, the World
Press Photo winner of 2014, some African migrants are seen in the city of
Djibouti raising their phones and trying to catch a signal from Somalia. In
the developed countries it is taken for granted that citizenship is served
by the digital medium. Because this is true, as long as the populations of
different regions of the world do not have access to digital tools, we
Westerners gain from being aware that ours is a position of privilege and
that the word ›global‹ deserves an Orwellian comment: the digital
metamorphosis is a global transformation, but much more global in some
places than in others. </p>
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<head>Bibliographische Angaben</head>
<listBibl>
<bibl xml:id="andrews_way_2013">Tara Andrews: The third way: Philology and
Critical Edition in the Digital Age. DOI: <ref
target="http://dx.doi.org/10.7892/boris.43071"
>10.7892/boris.43071</ref> In: Variants 10 (2013), S. 61-76. <ptr
type="gbv" cRef="777888785"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="auerbach_mimesis_2003">Erich Auerbach: Mimesis: the Representation of Reality in Western Literature. 50th anniversary ed. Princeton, NJ. 2003. Handle: <ref
target="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.09353.0001.001">/2027/heb.09353.0001.001</ref>
<ptr type="gbv" cRef="358658896"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="baehler_romane_2004">Ursula Bähler: Gaston Paris et la
Philologie Romane. Genève 2004. <ptr type="gbv" cRef="388937815"
/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="biasi_questions_2012">Pierre-Marc De Biasi: Vingt questions à
la génétique. In: Filologia, críticas e processos de criação. Hg. von
Célia Marques Telles / Rosa Borges dos Santos. Curitiba, Brasilien 2012,
S. 21-36. </bibl>
<bibl xml:id="bitgab_datenbank_2014">BITAGAB: Bibliografia de Textos Antigos
Galegos e Portugueses. Hg. von Bancraft Library. 1997-2014. Datenbank.
[<ref
target="http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/philobiblon/bitagap_po.html"
>online</ref>] </bibl>
<bibl xml:id="boot_edition_2011">Peter Boot / Joris Van Zundert: The Digital
Edition 2.0 and The Digital Library: Services, not Resources. In:
Digitale Edition und Forschungsbibliothek. Hg. von Claudia Fabian /
Michael Knoche / Monika Linder / Elmar Mittler / Wolfgang Schmitz /
Hellmut Vogeler. (Fachtagung, Mainz, 13.-14.01.2011) Wiesbaden 2011. S.
141-152. (= Bibliothek und Wissenschaft, 44.2011) PDF: [<ref
target="http://peterboot.nl/pub/vanzundert-boot-services-not-resources-2011.pdf"
>online</ref>] <ptr type="gbv" cRef="670245283"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="corbellari_ecrivain_1997">Alain Corbellari: Joseph Bédier.
Écrivain et philologue. Genève 1997. <ptr type="gbv" cRef="240401913"
/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="curbera_mathematicans_2009">Guillermo Curbera: Mathematicians
of the world, unite! The international congress of mathematicians. A
Human Endeavor. Wellesley, Mass. 2009. <ptr type="gbv" cRef="562451072"
/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="eco_leitura_1983">Umberto Eco: Leitura do Texto Literário. A
cooperação interpretativa nos textos literários. Lector in Fabula.
Lisboa 1983. (= Biblioteca de textos universitários, 56)<ptr type="gbv"
cRef="040006026"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="eggert_secouring_2009">Paul Eggert: Securing the past:
conservation in art, architecture and literature. Cambridge 2009. <ptr
type="gbv" cRef="574750363"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="fiormonte_humanities_2014">Domenico Fiormonte: Digital
Humanities from a global perspective. DOI: <ref
target="http://dx.doi.org/10.12862/ispf14L203"
>10.12862/ispf14L203</ref> In: Laboratorio dell’ISPF 11 (2014) <ptr
type="gbv" cRef="618327622"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="fish_text_1980">Stanley Fish: Is there a text in this class?
The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, Mass. u.a.
1980.<ptr type="gbv" cRef="193011131"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="greg_bibliography_1932">Walter Wilson Greg: Bibliography: an
apologia. DOI: <ref
target="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/library/s4-XIII.2.113"
>10.1093/library/s4-XIII.2.113</ref> In: The Library 4 (1932/1933)
Serie 13, H. 2., S. 113-143. [<ref
target="https://academic.oup.com/library/issue/s4-XIII/2"
>online</ref>] <ptr type="gbv" cRef="613937198"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="henrikson_canon_2008">Paula Henrikson: Canon and Classicity.
Editing as Canonising in Swedish Romanticism. In: Variants 7 (2008), S.
37-55.<ptr type="gbv" cRef="646233661"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="housman_application_1972">Alfred Edward Housman: The
application of thought to textual criticism. In: The Classical Papers of
A. E. Housman. Hg. von James Diggle / Francis Richard David Goodyear. 3
Bde. Cambridge 1972. Bd. 3: 1915 - 1936. <ptr type="gbv" cRef="212436805"
/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="manuscrits_item_2015">Manuscrits francophones du sud. Hg. vom
ITEM. Poitiers 26.01.2015. [<ref
target="http://www.item.ens.fr/index.php?id=579252">online</ref>] </bibl>
<bibl xml:id="iser_act_1978">Wolfgang Iser: The act of reading. A theory of
aesthetic response. Baltimore u.a. 1978. <ptr type="gbv"
cRef="122263596"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="lanciani_dictonario_1993">Dicionário da Literatura Medieval
Galega e Portuguesa. Hg von Giulia Lanciani / Giuseppe Tavani. Lisboa
1993. <ptr type="gbv" cRef="154233188"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="lernout_review_2013">Geert Lernout: Review of A. E. Housman:
Classical Scholar. Hg. von David Butterfield / Christopher Stray. London
2013. In: Variants 10 (2013), S. 297-300. <ptr type="gbv"
cRef="777888785"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="lerssen_introduction_2008">Joep Leerssen: Introduction.
Philology and the European Construction of National Literatures. In:
Editing the Nation’s Memory. Textual Scholarship and Nation-Building in
19Century Europe. Hg. von Dirk Van Hulle / Joep Leerssen. Amsterdam
2008, S. 13-27. (= European Studies, 26) <ptr type="gbv"
cRef="588646164"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="mcgann_republic_2014">Jerome McGann: A New Republic of
Letters. Memory and scholarship in the age of digital representation.
Cambridge, Mass. u.a. 2014. <ptr type="gbv" cRef="771858469"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="pierazzo_scholary_2015">Elena Pierazzo: Digital Scholarly
Editing. Theories, Models and Methods. Farnham 2015. <ptr type="gbv"
cRef="794096336"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="recommendation_unesco_1956">Recommendation on International
Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations. Hg. von Unesco. New
Dehli 5.12.1956. [<ref
target="http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13062&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html"
>online</ref>]</bibl>
<bibl xml:id="rodrigues_correspondencia_1988">Correspondência de Carolina
Michaëlis de Vasconcelos para Teófilo Braga. Hg. von Manuel Augusto
Rodrigues. Coimbra 1988.</bibl>
<bibl xml:id="shillingsburg_scholary_2012">Peter Shillingsburg: Scholarly
Editing as a Cultural Enterprise. In: Variants 9 (2012), S. 251-272.
<ptr type="gbv" cRef="715275542"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="british_library_2013">Legal deposit. Hg. von The British
Library. London 26.03.2013. [<ref
target="http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/legaldeposit/">online</ref>] </bibl>
<bibl xml:id="timpanaro_genesi_1990">Sebastiano Timpanaro: La Genesi del
Metodo del Lachmann. 2. erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage, 3.
Nachdruck. (Originalausgabe 1963). Padova 1990 <ptr type="gbv"
cRef="646330209"/></bibl>
<bibl xml:id="vasconcelos_cancioneiro_1990">Cancioneiro da Ajuda. Hg. von
Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcelos. 2 Bde. Nachdruck (Originalsausgabe
1904). Lisboa 1990. <ptr type="gbv" cRef="037117742"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
<div type="abbildungsnachweis">
<head>Abbildungslegenden und -nachweise</head>
<desc type="graphic" xml:id="abb1">Poster of Digitale Metamorphose. Digital
Humanities und Editionswissenschaft. Tagung vom 2. Bis 4. November 2015.
(detail) [document title: DionísioImage1]<ref type="graphic"
target="#networking_2017_001"/></desc>
<desc type="graphic" xml:id="abb2">John Stanmeyer: <hi rend="italic"
>Signal</hi>, February 26 2013. [<ref
target="http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2014/contemporary-issues/john-stanmeyer"
>online</ref>] [document title: DionísioImage2]<ref type="graphic"
target="#networking_2017_002"/></desc>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>