Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 471. Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London Hosted by King's Digital Lab www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: email@example.com  From: Hugh Cayless
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.467: the McGann-Renear debate (25)  From: Francois Lachance Subject: Coda to the Humanist restaging of the McGann-Renear debate (68) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-02-19 02:20:03+00:00 From: Hugh Cayless Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.467: the McGann-Renear debate I think it’s unlikely this over-extended argument can have a resolution, so we should probably drop it. I have my reservations about Desmond’s theory of editing layers, but for the record, I’m fully in support of folks who want to publish open access editions using techniques other than TEI. I’m sympathetic to the resource constraints faced by many among us, as well as the gaps that have been created by our tendency to focus on canonical works. Efficiently addressing those gaps is vital, and while TEI might be a useful tool in your kit, it also might not be, depending on your circumstances. But I’d push back hard against the idea that digital editions are pointless unless easier. I want there to be space for doing digital editions that are just as rigorous as their print analogues and at the same time *better* for being digital. Specifically, I want a world where students are not required to cross over into expensive, scarce print editions in order to do serious work; where the first edition they encounter online might be the *best* edition. I see a big role for TEI there. I see it as a powerful tool precisely because it can accommodate more than one view of the text at the same time. And because, despite its associations with the OHCO theory, it is not in thrall to any particular hierarchical model of text. All the best, Hugh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-02-18 16:28:22+00:00 From: Francois Lachance Subject: Coda to the Humanist restaging of the McGann-Renear debate Willard As the thread inaugurated by a revisiting of the McGann-Renear debate spins off into other considerations, it may be timely to thank the contributors to Humanist who engaged in lively discussion about what constitute the objects of our attention. I remain intrigued by the dual focal points in the discussion between the carrier and what is carried and am reminded of a formulation from Owen Feltham: "Contemplation is necessary to generate an object, but action must propagate it." The two ways bring to mind a statement by Jerome McGann in his essay "The Rationale of Hypertext" [quote] To the imagination, the materialities of text (oral, written, printed, electronic) are incarnational not vehicular forms. [/quote] To be found in _Electronic Text: Investigations in Theory and Method_. Ed. Kathryn Sutherland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997 (p. 19). I am intrigued by the possibilities of recasting the exclusionary dichotomy into a pair of allied pursuits (incarnation-contemplation and vehicle-action). The question takes on a hermeneutical hue: just where does the encounter between the horizon of the reader and the horizon of the author take place? The answer may require a whole (social) renegotiation of what it means to contemplate versus to act upon a text. I suspect that the vexed question of the relations between powers of abstraction and embodied knowledge is at play. The relations are not likely to be a one-way street. And this has bearing on what is involved in the telos of editing. I turn to Julia Flanders, "The Body Encoded: Questions of Gender and the Electronic Text" (which we find p. 129 in _Electronic Text: Investigations in Theory and Method_) for a recovery of a history of what were deemed the stakes in editing. She draws on Stephanie H. Jed _Chaste Thinking: The Rape of Lucretia and the Birth of Humanism_ (1989) to trace and critique a spirit/flesh dichotomy at play in textual editing: [quote] The organizing terms of this relationship revolve around a familiar binary of body and spirit: each physical text, the manuscript or printed book, is a particular concrete carrier of a universalized and disembodied textuality, the "text of the author" which may be fully represented in one physical object, in many, or in none at all. Within this schema the physical object, in a manner familiar to any student of neoclassical aesthetics, is subject to corruption and debasement, its very physicality and particularity drawing it towards the realm of the monstrous and the deviant. The task of the scholar and editor, then, is to discern the universal text within the various documents which instantiate it, and by patient study and labour produce a new -- but also originary and authoritative -- witness which perfectly transmits the "text of the author". In Jed's example, these texts are the foundational documents by which republican Florence was to construct a public ideology based on an assertion of lineage from ancient republican Rome (p. 75) [/quote] Of course the story does not stop here. -- Francois Lachance Scholar-at-large http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance https://berneval.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ 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.