Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 428. Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London Hosted by King's Digital Lab www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: email@example.com  From: Dr. Herbert Wender
Subject: Goethe's 'dirty trick' [Re: Humanist 32.423] (63)  From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.424: the McGann-Renear debate (42)  From: Dr. Herbert Wender Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.424: the McGann-Renear debate (52)  From: Gabriel Egan Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.424: the McGann-Renear debate (66) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-02-06 23:58:13+00:00 From: Dr. Herbert Wender Subject: Goethe's 'dirty trick' [Re: Humanist 32.423] Dear HUMANISTs, the experience of erroneous textual transmission - mistakes by authors, failures in the communication between author and scribe, typesetting errors, etc, - has always legitimated textual criticism. Though, one of my personal 'rÃ¨gles d'airain' is to be cautious if an editor comes quickly out pointing to an 'error' on author's side because another experience in my academic life is the observation that there are situations in which it is possible to show the rationale behind a strange behavior. The rapidity with which Gabriel Egan came back with the term 'error' after reading Matthew Bell's review cited in my week- end posting was really surprising. No, against the modern editions reviewed by Bell (including the one for which I prepared the files delivered to the printing house) I prefer the status quo ante as given by the first print (for this part of the text printed before Goethe's death). I take the passage out of the reading text giben by "Faustedition" - a really 'haute couture' luxury (Pierazzo) TEI/XML de luxe edition - but not as shown on the screen but but adapted to rebuild the appearence of the first print. Cf. http://www.faustedition.net/print/faust.30#lbefore_5150 For an image of the printed page see http://www.faustedition.net/document?sigil=C.1_12&page=282&view=facsimile§io n=30#lbefore_5150 A u s f o r d e r u n g. ... Blickt hervor aus reichen Locken! -- Doch wir R o s e n k n o s p e n. halten uns versteckt Glücklich wer uns frisch entdeckt I think with the exception of the vertical white space before "Rosenknospem" instead before the "Doch" line, that seems to be a pretty reasonably typeset text. It can be understood in the following way: After the "Ausforderung" (to come out of a placed behind the other plants; to be spoken resp. sung by actresses figuring female gardeners) another group of singing actresses take over the speech, coming out while beginning to sing in the hidden place. To speak with Hugh Cayles: Such a representation of text can be seen as 'the dramatic text itself' (what is spoken on the stage by allegoric and other characters) along with an argument how to understand it. In other words: The typesetting bears meaning. Surely, we can discuss if my understanding meets that of the author; how to decide? But in the McGann/Renear-debate the question was, IMHO, another: Can I express my argument in a formal OHCO designed language? And I would answer NO. So far for today resp. tonight. I'm old and eye-handicaped, I must take care of my sanity. If you'll respond please answer some questions: What kind of 'content object' is the mdash after "Locken!" What's his meaning? Where to place in the tree? Amd take a look in the mark-up done by "Faustedition". Thank you in advance, Herbert -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-02-06 20:11:27+00:00 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.424: the McGann-Renear debate I'd like to thank Hugh and Gabriel for their contributions to this thread. It piqued my curiosity to discover if there had been any evolution of this old problem in the last 20 years. There has, though not as much as I had hoped. "But, now that you've stated the whole of your case more debate would be simply absurd". I simply beg to differ with both of you, for the reasons already stated. However, I agree with Peter that there is in general a tiresome insistence that if the overlapping hierarchies problem could only be solved then all our difficulties with XML would go away. He's right that texts cannot be adequately modelled by a single stream of characters with various markup trees in standoff format. It is what was called OHCO-2 by Renear et al in 1992. I think this model comes from computational linguists not textual scholars, and their view of texts is understandably different. What Peter appears to be saying is that the base-text to which the markup applies might have different formulations (bits included or omitted), each of which require markup. His model is not a lot different from ours because textual variation internal to a document can also result in alternate bits of text. But the way we deal with it is rather different: our texts are non-linear documents composed of fragments of text arranged in a PARTIAL order, where bits of text may be in parallel to other bits OR in sequence. The markup then points to ONE coherent text-stream picked out from this partial order. This subdivides a complex problem into two parts using two separate technologies. The "howling wind-storm" that Peter refers to is due I think to trying to solve this problem using ONE technology that was designed for another purpose altogether. Desmond Schmidt eResearch Queensland University of Technology -- Dr Desmond Schmidt Mobile: 0481915868 Work: +61-7-31384036 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-02-06 18:38:50+00:00 From: Dr. Herbert Wender Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.424: the McGann-Renear debate Dear HUMANISTs, I'll try to separate the themes, debating here the OHCO questions without taking matter of the politics in the development of textual criticism and scholarly editing in times of digital practices. (Neverthless: It would be wishable if folks like the german TEI-project "Faustedition" would have the ears wide open to what Peterr Robinson has to recommend.) Hugh, I really appreciate your well-reflected, pragmatic minded defense of real-world editions in a world of imperfectness. But the question here, IMHO, is not: Howgood or problematic is the world of text processing today? Instead, inspired by Barbara Bordalejo's position paper, I would prefer to ask: In what respect is this world really better than the one 20, 30 or 50 yeasearlier? And, far more important perhaps: What wishable developments were blocked by the adoption of industrial standards when the publishing industries was voting for the OHCO-way of text processing? I'm looking for analogies. The world of programming languages was a bit better after moving from BASIC to PASCAL in studying and practicing informatics. The world of data base management systems was going into better times applying relational algebra and non-redundant storage ofÂ data. Analogously publishing new written work was remarkably more effective and reliable after the introduction of the SGML standard and its derivates, no question. But hold this also for works of literary art? for the representation of pre-existing texts standing in a long historical tradition? Another question: Do anyone take it as historically contingent that SGML's CONCUR concept newverÂ (so far I see) was implemented into a real life text processing system? Do you mead it was superfluously conceived by Goldfarb? Gabriel, you guess "the rise of markup languages has helped scholars of the stage to think more clearly about what hierarchies really existed in the minds of early modern dramatists as they worked and which hierarchies (such as the one Schmidt invokes) are historically belated." Don't see you the agreement with Desmond's suggestion: These hierarchies are *in the mind* of someone, not on the page or on the stage. Leaving beside the philosophical question what's 'real', perhaps we could agree in an analogy to the databse world stating that hierarchies as descrebed in OHCO textual models can be seen as 'views' on a certain textual data set? Henry and Bill, I don't understand what's the problem with pointer management in the revision of text. Do you have never sorted an array of strings without moving around any strings in the working storage? When I remember right the implementation of a strong pointer concept was one of the great benefits moving from PASCAL to C. With kindly regards, Herbert -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-02-06 09:00:43+00:00 From: Gabriel Egan Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.424: the McGann-Renear debate Dear HUMANISTs I ought not to have claimed that for early modern printers "the division into speeches" of early modern plays was "the dominant hierarchy" in the writing. I claim this only for the other people in my list: "Shakespeare, the other dramatists of his time, their scribes, [and] theatre practitioners". We used to think that some early modern plays were printed from actors' 'parts'--John Dover Wilson held this view--but there are good reasons for rejecting that hypothesis, although it would help explain some anomalies in some early editions. Peter Robinson points out that printing itself introduces a series of features that present difficulty for the claim I'm making about a single document hierarchy: "Consider the average book: the stream of semantic text (the 'text' of Hamlet etc) is broken up by page headers, page numbers, turned-over lines, footnotes, page footers, catchwords, etc etc". This gets right to the point. I am indeed claiming that the real 'Hamlet' itself is not the text that got printed (and so acquired these new features) but the historically earlier (now lost) physical documents that instantiated a quite different idea of the play. That idea was a speech-oriented one developed for the needs of performance. In case I haven't provided enough theatre-historical evidence to convince everyone that the speech-centered view of the play was the dominant one for early modern dramatists and players, I'll mention two other pieces. It is demonstrable that when plays were revised the preference was to alter the middle of a speech so as not to disrupt the 'cue', the last two or three words that the next actor to speak would be listening for so that he knew when to begin his speech. Speeches had a wholeness that mattered to theatre practitioners much more than the metrical unity of shared verse units did. But surely even this unity of speeches was cut across by the practical necessity of dividing an actor's 'part' across multiple leaves of paper? Actually, no: the surviving documents are made of joined-together leaves that form continuous rolls (hence we say today that an actor has a 'role' in a play). When they encountered the alternative hierarchy of paper leaves, early modern theatre practitioners turned to glue to do away with it. Those are the reasons I think we are entitled to treat the acts-made-of-scenes-made-of-speeches- made-of-lines organization of a play as a tree structure that really mattered to early modern dramatists, and hence to take that hierarchy as our pre-eminent one. I'm not claiming this for other kinds of writing, just for early modern plays and only because of the theatre-historical evidence. Regards Gabriel Egan _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted List posts to: firstname.lastname@example.org List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/ Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)
This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.