Skipping ahead, a similar point is made more effectively in Notis Toufexis’ chapter on the diachronic study of Greek. Toufexis argues very convincingly that text mark-up allows us to move beyond the idea of a single critical edition of an ancient Greek text and instead to preserve the entire rich history of ‘misspellings’ and ‘misreadings’ in the manuscript tradition that the editors of ancient texts go to so much effort to marginalise. Here the review of the tradition of scholarship is well placed, for it highlights the specific textual and linguistic issues that might be tackled with a very large corpus of marked-up manuscript variants and clear digital conventions for editorial interventions. What Toufexis does not provide is a roadmap for the way in which the editor of a Classical text might approach the production of such a digital edition. Nor does he comment on the additional skills or effort a rich digital edition might demand of its editor, although he offers the reader several prototypes as examples (p116, footnote 49: an online edition of Galen’s commentary on Hippokrates and the ‘New Testament Transcripts Prototype’ give the reader a particularly good idea of the approach he envisions). One suspects, in fact, that such an edition would require far more than a single pair of hands. This is confirmed by the following chapter on the Homer Multitext Project, which describes the development of software for, and the practical execution of, a very similar approach.
via Internet Archaeol. 30. Review of Digital Research in the Study of Classical Antiquity [Book].
Reviewed by Adam Rabinowitz (July 2011)