Karina van Dalen-Oskam
Introduction
WhenIfirstreadBernardCerquiglini’sÉloge de la variante(1989),oneofthe
firstandmostinfluentialpublicationsrelatedtotheNewPhilological“move-ment,”IwasworkingasalexicographerontheDictionary of Early Middle Dutch (1200–1300).Theyearwas1993.Ourdictionaryprojectwasoneofthefirsttobe
fullycomputer-assisted.Wehadcreatedadigitalcorpusofliteraryandnon-literarytextsenrichedwithlemmasandpart-of-speechtags.Bymeansofan
intricatesystemthatenabledustoquerythecorpusandtosort,classifyand
marktheexacttextstouseasquotationsinourdictionaryentry,wecouldin-putourlexicographicaldescriptionsintoadigitalformfromwhichtheactual
dictionarycouldbegeneratedinunlimitedkindsofvisualizations.Ourproject
hadbeenrunningforfouryears,andforseveralyearswehadputouryear’s
workofentriesbeforeacommitteeofwisescholarsforcomment.Ourlexico-graphicalandlinguisticspeersinTheNetherlandsandFlandersgaveusmuch
supportandusefulcriticism.Wehadadifficulttime,however,inexplaining
two of our most fundamental methodological choices to our literary col-leagues: our corpus consisted only of those Middle Dutch manuscripts of
whichitwascertainthattheywerewrittenintheThirteenthCentury,andwe
onlyusedthetextsofthesemanuscriptsinadiplomaticedition.Literaryschol-arsdidnotunderstandwhythemostfamousofourMiddleDutchliterary
texts,ofwhichitwascertainthattheywereoriginallywrittenintheThirteenth
Century,wereexcludedfromourcorpusonlybecausetheirmanuscriptswere
fromtheFourteenthCentury–muchofthelexiconmuststillhavebeenThir-teenthCentury.Weexplainedthatifyouwanttofindouthowmuchofthe
lexiconisindeedfromtheThirteenthCentury,youhavetobeabletocompare
ittoareferencecorpusthatwasasrigidlyselectedasourswas.IfsuchaFour- teenthCenturycopywasincludedintheThirteenthCenturycorpus,thecor-puswouldbepollutedandwouldexcludethepossibilityofacomparison.And
astoourfanaticaladherencetodiplomatictexts:weexplainedthatifyouwant
toknowwhichspellingsandvariantsThirteenthCenturyscribesusedinwhich
© KarinavanDalen-Oskam,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_004
ThisisanopenaccesschapterdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.
geographicalareaorinwhichdecade(forexample),youagainneedededitions
reproducingtheexactspellingsandvariantsasrepresentedinthemanuscripts.
Therefore,diplomaticeditionsarethemostsuitable,astheymarkresolvedab-breviationswithitalicsanddonotadaptspelling,punctuationandcaseuse.
Wealsopreferrededitionsinwhichemendationswerenotappliedtothemain
text,butweresuggestedbytheeditorsin(e.g.)footnotes,inordertomaintain
apurelyThirteenthCenturytextwhichwouldgivethescribesduecreditfor
havingpresentedalinguisticallycorrecttext.Wefounditdifficulttoexplainto
ourliterarypeersthatthesechoiceswerenecessarytoguaranteeagood,verifi-abledictionary,whichinitsturncouldbeusedbyscholarseditingatextinthe
correctmanner,editionswhichintheirturnwouldbetrustworthysourcesfor
evenbetterdictionariesinthefuture.1
AsamatteroffactCerquiglini,inhisÉloge de la variante(onlytranslated
intoEnglishin1999,underthetitleIn praise of the variant),eloquentlyde- scribedthephilologicalsideofwhatweweredoinginourlexicographicalproj-ect. He proposed to abandon the old approach to medieval text and text
editions,andinsteadtoapplyaNewPhilologicalperspectivetomedievaltexts.
Insteadoflookingatvariationastheresultofalterationswhichpollutedand
degraded“theoriginal,”eachcopyofatext(withallitspartlyunique,partly
sharedvariants)shouldbeseenasanewanduniquetext,functioninginits
own,uniqueway,initsown,uniquecontext.Eachcopyshouldberesearched
baseduponthisapproach.
Iwaselated.Oneofmylexicographicalcolleagues,KatrienDepuydt,andI
wroteapaperdescribingourmethodologicalapproach,withreferencetoCer-quiglini’sbook.ItwaspresentedatthefirstInternationalMedievalCongressat
theUniversityofLeedsin1994,publishedinavolumeofproceedingsandig-noredbyourliterarypeers.2
The Role of the Computer: Cerquiglini’s Predictions
Inhis1989book,Cerquigliniadmittedthatthemethodologicalchangeshe
proposedwouldnotbeeasytoapplyinpractice.Heexpectedthatthecom-puterwouldplayaveryimportantroleinleadingusbacktomedievaltextual
variance.Itisnow2012,andwhatIproposetodointhispaperislookbackat
1 Apointwellunderstood,however,byMasters(1991)284.Masters’article–apublicationI
foundthankstoanexplicitreferenceinBusby(1993)–takesacomparablestandtoCerquiglini
inhisÉloge de la variante.
2 VanDalen-OskamandDepuydt(1997).
Cerquiglini’sspecificpredictionsandtoshowwherehiswordsconcurwith
currentpractice,andwherehisvisionandourcurrentexpectationsdiffer.In
thelattercase,Iwillshowhowcurrent,aswellasanticipated,technicaldevel-opmentsmayinfluenceeditorialpracticesinthenearfuture.Inthis,Iwillpay
special attention to the discipline of Stemmatology: the building of family
treesofmanuscripts.Thisdisciplinehasanintriguingstatuswhenweconsider
itfromCerquiglini’spointofview.Inthe“old”days,astemmawasoneofthe
firstthingsaneditorwouldestablish.Buildingastemmahelpedtofindout
whichoftheexistingmanuscriptsofatextseemedtobetheclosestrepresen-tativeoftheoriginaltextbytheoriginalauthor.Thiswouldusuallybecomethe
manuscripttobeedited,whilethevariantsinothermanuscriptscouldbeei-therignoredbytheeditorasunimportant,ormentionedintheapparatus,or
chosenasabetterreadingthantheoneinthemanuscriptbeingeditedand
promoted/elevated into the edition of the text. From the New Philological
pointofview,however,thebuildingofthestemmaisnotnecessaryatthebe-ginningoftheeditionproject–wemerelywanttohaveatranscriptionofall
manuscripts.SowhyhasStemmatologygonethroughsuchabigtechnicalde-velopmentontheonehand,whileontheotherhandmosttexteditorshave
ignoredthisnewpotential?Iwillendmypaperwithashortreflectiononthis
issue.
ToshowexactlyhowCerquiglinithoughtabouttheroleofthecomputerin
1989,Iwillquoteratherextensivelyfromthelastpagesofhisbook.Here,he
statesthatthecomputer:
allowsthereadertoseeandconsultnotonlythetotalityofthemanu-scriptsofaparticularmedievalworkbutalsotheeditions(empirical,
Lachmannian, Bédierist, etc.) which took these manuscripts as their
objects.Moreover,itcanprovideagreatmanyminorbitsofinformation,
whichshouldremainvirtualsotheywillnotgetinthewayofreadingbut
whichoneneedstobeabletolocate:makersofconcordances,frequency
lists,tablesofrhymes,everysortofcalculation,codicologicalandpaleo- graphicdata,andsoon–everythingthataprintededitionusuallyaban-dons or from which it makes a painful choice, everything that the
hyper-scholarlyeditionhypostatizestothepointofunreadability.3 Cerquiglinifurtherstatesthat:
3 Cerquiglini(1999)79–80.
thecomputerisabletohelpusdetectthedynamicsofthetextbymaking
visibletheconnectionspreparedandsuggestedbytheeditor.Itislessa
question,therefore,ofprovidingdatathanofmakingthereadergrasp
thisinteractionofredundancyandrecurrence,repetitionandchange,
whichmedievalwritingconsistsof–andtodosoaccordingtothetwo
axesthatwehavebroughttolight.Vertically,alongthethreadthatleads
throughthework,itcanbringbackallthethingsthateachnoteworthy
utteranceconstantlyechoesbutwhichmodernmemorynolongerhears;
thescreenunrollstheinfinityofmemorablecontext.Horizontally,itcan
comparetheutteranceswithinapersistentandchosenrangeofvariants
thatareparaphrasesofoneanotherfromonemanuscripttothenext,
evenindicatingbysomesymbolornotewhatthecharacteristicsofthis
relationshipare.4
Cerquigliniknewverywellwhatallthiswouldmean:
Thattrulywouldbepublishingonagrandscale,editingonascalenever
beforerealized,yetindispensable,andonlytheinformationtechnology
oftodaycanprovideuswiththemeans,probablyeventheidea,ofdoing
so. Because the computer, through its dialogic and multidimensional
screen,simulatestheendlessandjoyfulmobilityofmedievalwritingasit
restorestoitsreadertheastoundingfacultyofmemory–thememory
thatdefinesitsaestheticreceptionandisbasictothepleasuretakenbya
reader.5
The Role of the Computer: Realized Potential
Onlynow,morethan20yearsafterÉloge de la variante,isthetypeofdigital
texteditionsCerquiglinihadinmindslowlystartingtoemerge.PeterRobinson
hasinitiatedseveralimportantdigitaleditions,suchasintheCanterburyTales
projectIwillgointomoredeeplyinthelastsectionofthiscontributionand
theveryimpressiveCodexSinaiticuswebsite.6SotooHuygensINGandthe
VanGoghMuseumhavepublishedthewidelyacclaimedwebsiteVincent van Gogh: The Letters,7andBarbaraBordalejohaspublishedtheOnlineVariorum
4 Cerquiglini(1999)80.
5 Cerquiglini(1999)80–81.
6 Cf.http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
7 Cf.http://www.vangoghletters.org/vg/
ofDarwin’sOrigin of Species.8Theseareonlyafewofanewgenerationof(dig-ital)editions.Muchworkhasbeendoneonamoretheoreticallevelaswell,by
scholarssuchasPeterShillingsburgandPeterRobinsonwhobothcontributed
toaninterestingvolumeofarticlesentitledText and genre in reconstructionon
thesubjectof,respectively:“Digitaleditionsforeveryone”(Robinson),sketch-inganewwayofinvolvingmanymorepeopleineditingthanscholarsalone,
and:“Howliteraryworksexist:implied,represented,andinterpreted”(Shil-lingsburg),which,amongstotherthings,dealswithseveralkeytheoreticaland
technicalaspectsofdigitalediting.9ElenaPierazzogivesasoliddescriptionof
thestateoftheartofdigitaleditinginherarticle“Arationaleofdigitaldocu-mentaryeditions.”10Foranoverviewofthehistoryofdigitaleditionsbefore
2010,EdwardVanhoutte’sarticle“Definingelectroniceditions:ahistoricaland
functionalperspective”isextremelyuseful.11JorisvanZundertandPeterBoot
lookaheadatthepossibletaskdistributionbetweenscholarlyeditorsanddig- itallibrariesintheirpaper“TheDigitalEdition2.0andtheDigitalLibrary:Ser-vices,notResources.”Andtheseareonlyafewoftheimportantpublicationsof
thelastcoupleofyears.Thisisnottheplacetogiveanelaborateoverviewof
thecurrentstateoftheart.Myaimhereis,beforeIgointothereasonsforthe
mentionedtimelapsebetweenCerquiglini’sideasandtheemergenceofthe
digitaleditionmoredeeply,topresentsomedigitaleditionswithwhichIam
familiarinmoredetail,tosketchthewaysinwhichcurrentdigitaleditions
fulfilsomeofCerquiglini’spredictions,anddivergefromothers.Thefirsttwo
examplesareonlinedigitaleditionspublishedbyHuygensING.Indealingwith
thesetwoeditionsIwouldadvisethereadertoopenabrowseronacomputer,
gotothesitesdescribed,andtofollowmyinstructions.Thiswillbringabouta
muchclearergraspofnewpotentialitiesthanpagesandpagesofwordscould
achieve.ThethirdexampleisfromadigitaleditiononCD-ROMmadebyAn-dreadeLeeuwvanWeenen.
Example1:Cerquigliniimaginedtheparallelpresentationofdifferentwit-nessesonscreen.Anexampleofthisistheonlinetexteditionofanessayby
LodewijkvanDeyssel,Menschen en bergen.12Gotothenavigationbaronthe
leftandchoose“Bekijk de editie”[viewtheedition].Underthebutton“Versies en varianten”theusercanchoosefromaneditionofalldifferentversionsof
theessay.Under“Versies vergelijken”[compareversions],theusercanselecta
8 Cf.http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/index.html 9 Robinson(2010),Shillingsburg(2010).
10 Pierazzo(2011).
11 Vanhoutte(2010).
12 Cf.http://menschenenbergen.huygens.knaw.nl/path
partofthetext,anddecidewhichoftheversionsofthatpartheorshewishes
tocompare.
Here(Figure2.1),wecomparethetextinthemanuscript(lefttextcolumn)
withthefirstprintededition(righttextcolumn).Additionsaremarkedwitha
greenmarkandareunderlined;replacementswithapurplemark.
Example2:Howmanytypesofannotationscanbeshownwithouthaving
theminterferewiththereadingofthetext?Cerquiglinisawherethepossibil-ityofaninfiniteamountofinformation.Forthis,wegototheonlineeditionof
aMiddleDutchArthurianromance,Walewein ende Keye[GawainandKay].13
Weopen“II. De editie”inthenavigationcolumnontheleft,thenchoose“Over-zicht per kolom, met afbeeldingen”andgoto178rand178ra.Whenweclickon
this,severalcolumnsareopened:ascanofthemanuscriptcolumn,thetran-scription,andtheannotations.Therearethreetypesofannotationsinthis
edition,eachmarkedwithadifferentcolourinthetranscription.Buttheuser
canchoosewhichonestoseeandwhichonestoignorebyusingtheOptions
buttonatthetopofthescreentotheright(Figure2.2).Uncheckingallthe
boxeswillresultinaverysimpleandclearvisualizationofthetext.Itisalso
possibletoshowornottoshowtheitalicsinthetextthatdenoteabbrevia-tions,thelinenumbersorareferencetothelinenumbersinanearlieredition
13 http://www.waleweinendekeye.huygens.knaw.nl/path
Figure2.1 Text version comparison in the Menschenenbergen online edition
ofthistext.Notethattheusercanalsoclickawayanyofthecolumnsheorshe
doesnotneed,e.g.togivethescanofthemanuscriptandthetranscription
morespaceonthescreen.
Example3:Cerquiglinialsomentionedthedesirabilityofhavingconcor-dances,indexesandlinguisticinformationathandinthedigitaledition.The
two online editions presented above have simple search options that yield
concordancesofthehits.Atthemoment,thisisabouttheextentofwhatwe
cando,butwewanttodomoretorealizeCerquiglini’sidea.Iwillgiveanex-amplefromarecenteditionoftheOld-IcelandicAlexanders sagaonCD-ROM
byAndreadeLeeuwvanWeenen,toshowoneofthethingsthatIwouldliketo
achieveinthefuture.14Inthisedition,whentheusermovesthemouseovera
word,asmallboxshowsthemostlinguisticallyrelevantinformation:theform
ofthewordinthefacsimileedition,thenormalizedwordform,thelemma
(dictionaryentry),thelinguisticformandfunction(e.g.presenttense,third
person singular for a verb form), and the page and line of the manuscript
wherethewordoccurs.Thisisexactlytheinformation,bytheway,withwhich
wehadenrichedthecorpusofThirteenthCenturyDutchonwhichtheDic-tionary of Early Middle Dutchwas based.
14 DeLeeuwvanWeenen(2009).
Figure2.2 The Options screen for annotation categories in the WaleweinendeKeye online edition
Why Did It Take So Long to Publish this Kind of Edition?
ThegrandscaleofCerquiglini’sideaswasrecognizedbyothermedievaliststo
requireanenormousamountofwork.KeithBusbyexpressedthismostclearly
inareactiontoCerquiglini’sbook:
ConsiderwhatwouldbeinvolvedinCerquiglini’sidealedition:notjust
transcriptionofthetexts,butthecodingofabbreviations,differenttypes
ofletters(forexample,longandrounds),majusculesandminuscules,
varietiesofcapitalsandotherformsofdecoration,word-division,line- division,enclisis,proclisis,scribalpunctuation,etc.Andbecauseofcon-siderableorthographicalvariationbothbetweenandwithinmanuscripts,
transcriptionswouldhavetobeuniformizedinordertopermitmany
kindsoflinguisticanalysis.Foranythingotherthanashorttextextantin
asmallnumberofcopies,thedifficultiesinvolvedandtheamountof
timethatwouldberequiredareenormous.15
15 Busby(1993)42.
Figure2.3 The hover-over box with linguistic information in the Alexanderssaga edition on CD-ROM, De Leeuw van Weenen (2009)
Busbywasquiteright:eachparticulartypeofinformationandeverycategory
thatcanbemadevisibleorclickedawayintheexamplesIhavepresented
aboveisencodedwithspecialtagsandthistooktheeditorsagreatdealof
time.In1994,theTEI(TextEncodingInitiative)encodingschemefortextual
scholarshipstartedtobeusedinvariousprojects.Editorsneededtolearnthis
markuplanguagetomakethekindofdigitaleditionsCerquiglinihadinmind.
EncodingatextinTEItakesanenormousamountofwork,andinpracticeis
notdoneveryoften,orwithonlyaverylimitedTagSet.TheexampleIhave
givenoftheessayMenschen en bergenisbasedonmaterialthatwasencoded
inthisway.MostscholarsdeemedthelearningcurveforTEItobetoosteep,or
theydidnotseeanyimmediatebenefits,anddecidednottospendtimeon
learningandusingit.Theycontinuedtomaketheireditionsinthetraditional
way,usingthecomputermerelyasawordprocessor,andusingcommercial
softwaresuchasWordorWordPerfect.Thisresultedintraditionalprintededi-tions.TheWordorWordPerfectfilesusedfortheseeditionsareextremelyhard
toconvertintofilesthatcanbeusedforadigitaledition,becauseoneneeds
notonlytochangetheformatofthefilesintoanaccuratelytaggedformat,but
alsotothinkoftheeditioninadifferentwayandusedifferenttypesoftagsto
thoserequiredforaprintededition.Evenindigitalform,theseeditionswill
stilllookandfeellikeprintedones.AsCerquiglinisoclearlyperceived:print
texteditionsareheldbackbythetechniqueofbookprinting,andtraditional
choicesintexteditingareinspiredbythetechnicalpossibilitiesandlimita-tionsofprintingandreadingprintedtext.Thecomputerhasadifferentsetof
possibilitiesandlimitations,andformostoftheselimitationsthecomputer
alsohasasolution(e.g.theclickingawayofinformationthatisnotusefulto
theuseratthismoment,butisavailableifneededlater).
Inrecentyears,severaltoolshavebeendevelopedwhichhaveenabledthe
creationofadigitaleditioninanonlineenvironment.Agoodexampleisthe
toolforthecrowd-sourcingprojectofthecollectedworksofJeremyBentham
(Causeretal.2012).Thistoolrequirestheusertoapplyasimpleencoding
scheme.HuygensINGhastakenanotherapproachintheonlineworkenviron-mentithasdevelopedfortranscribingandeditingtextsonline,aloneorwitha
scheme.HuygensINGhastakenanotherapproachintheonlineworkenviron-mentithasdevelopedfortranscribingandeditingtextsonline,aloneorwitha