To say that Russia's literary tradition is rich would be an understatement. Russian authors from Pushkin to Pasternak have left a large body of literary texts. However, there have been major disagreements about how to edit these literary texts. The author outlines these disagreements, using the works of Alexander Sumarokov (1717-1777) as an example. He then describes how digital editions might help overcome these issues while also augmenting the value of these texts.
Levitt explains that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the world of text editing has been in turmoil. He explains that every aspect of modern text editing has come under questions, even the definition of what a text is. Other problems include how to order texts in an edition (genre? chronology? other?) and to what degree orthography and punctuation should preserved or modernized. As a result, there now exists what he calls "hyper-scholarly" editions, along with commercial versions without standards at all, and everything in between.
The author then uses Sumarokov as an example of these problems. During the 18th and 19th centuries, there were no institutions that regularized orthographic norms, so grammar and spelling could be different from author to author, even if they were contemporaries. Needless to say, there were a lot of debates, which Sumarokov took part in. For example, he was against the use of capital letters anywhere but the beginning of a sentence or verse. This is in contrast to authors like Karamzin, who practised a style of capitalization closer to German. But Levitt points out that Sumarokov's essay on the subject was printed in the exact style to which he was so opposed. This posits the question, is it better to recreate the document the way the author intended or leave it the way it was published?
Levitt suggests that digital applications can act as an extension of a text or enrich a text by adding hyper-textual and hypermedia features. In the case of Sumarakov, he suggests the creation of a digital edition of his works in all of its multiple variants while also creating a database of 18th century texts in order to study their linguistic forms.
He believes that one advantage of a digital edition is that it can seamlessly combine both critical and documentary aspects of the text together. Levitt also supports the addition of hypermedia in order to expand on the value of the text. In the case of Sumarakov, his collection of poems could be accompanied images of the monuments he describes in the poems or his songs published with the musical scores written using his lyrics, and his operas and ballets linked to visual materials such as set and costume design sketches, but also linked to audiovisual recordings. The challenge, he concedes, is not only what to present, but how to present it.
I must admit that I found this article a little challenging, mostly because I don't work with older texts or manuscripts. However, I had never actually thought about the differences in orthography and the affect they have on various editions in great detail. Thus, I found the section about orthographic differences and how they are represented (or not represented) in older editions.
As far as his ideas for digitization, I think that Levitt is on to something. First, I think his idea of adding media to accompany the editions can be achieved. The challenge would be displaying the options in the architecture of the web-site. Would it simply consist of a work and a menu with links to it's variations? Would this be the same if additional media was also added? The idea of adding hypermedia is great because it helps place the text within a cultural context.
From a linguistic point of view, making an 18th century textual database available would be a huge asset to those studying issues in Slavic linguistics because a user would have the ability to view and compare these different editions.
I liked this article because it opened my eyes to a topic that I hadn't really thought about before in great detail. However, I wish he would have spent more of the article actually talking about the possible benefits of digitization of 18th century texts. Instead, he spent more time explaining the orthographic difficulties that these texts can sometimes cause.
Levitt suggests that digital applications can act as an extension of a text or enrich a text by adding hyper-textual and hypermedia features. In the case of Sumarakov, he suggests the creation of a digital edition of his works in all of its multiple variants while also creating a database of 18th century texts in order to study their linguistic forms.
He believes that one advantage of a digital edition is that it can seamlessly combine both critical and documentary aspects of the text together. Levitt also supports the addition of hypermedia in order to expand on the value of the text. In the case of Sumarakov, his collection of poems could be accompanied images of the monuments he describes in the poems or his songs published with the musical scores written using his lyrics, and his operas and ballets linked to visual materials such as set and costume design sketches, but also linked to audiovisual recordings. The challenge, he concedes, is not only what to present, but how to present it.
I must admit that I found this article a little challenging, mostly because I don't work with older texts or manuscripts. However, I had never actually thought about the differences in orthography and the affect they have on various editions in great detail. Thus, I found the section about orthographic differences and how they are represented (or not represented) in older editions.
As far as his ideas for digitization, I think that Levitt is on to something. First, I think his idea of adding media to accompany the editions can be achieved. The challenge would be displaying the options in the architecture of the web-site. Would it simply consist of a work and a menu with links to it's variations? Would this be the same if additional media was also added? The idea of adding hypermedia is great because it helps place the text within a cultural context.
From a linguistic point of view, making an 18th century textual database available would be a huge asset to those studying issues in Slavic linguistics because a user would have the ability to view and compare these different editions.
I liked this article because it opened my eyes to a topic that I hadn't really thought about before in great detail. However, I wish he would have spent more of the article actually talking about the possible benefits of digitization of 18th century texts. Instead, he spent more time explaining the orthographic difficulties that these texts can sometimes cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment