In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6. Digital Critical Editing Separating Encoding from Presentation Alois Pichler and Tone Merete Bruvik The Principle What happens to “critical editing” in the digital context?1 What tells us that digital tools and media facilitate critical editing? Do digital media make critical editions more accessible and therefore more democratic? Does the quality of critical editions increase when they are produced with digital tools? These are some of the questions asked by the editors in the introduction to this volume, to which this chapter responds. It does so by invoking and describing a principle of editorial philology that for many will seem trivial, or, at least standard, while others may disagree with it. The principle we are talking about is the principle of separating transcription from presentation issues when engaging in activities of scholarly editing. Though this principle is defended here in the context of scholarly digital editing, we believe it applies to scholarly editing in general. It is, however, only through the digital turn and with the rise of digital publishing that this principle has made its strong entrance and has become practicable on a large scale, overcoming the material limitations of publishing on paper only. In this chapter we also describe specific methods and tools that we consider adequate for practicing this principle in a digital context, especially in the context of preparing digital scholarly editions. In order to illustrate and give substance to our points, we draw on our specific experiences with editing Ludwig Wittgenstein’s manuscripts in the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (WAB) and Henrik Ibsen’s complete works in the Henrik Ibsen’s Writings (Henrik Ibsens Skrifter [HIS]) projects. From 1990 to 1999 WAB prepared a machine-readable version of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass with source transcriptions from which different outputs and editions can be derived and which is developed and enriched further today. The most important output so far has been the Bergen Electronic Edition of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass (BEE) in the year 2000. Similarly, during the period from 1998 to 2009, the HIS project prepared a machine-readable version of Henrik Ibsen’s Writings (HIS), from which a book edition (published by Aschehoug 2005–2010) and an open online text archive are derived. In both projects, WAB and HIS, constant attention is being paid to separating transcription from presentation issues. WAB has transcribed and now maintains the twenty thousand pages of the Wittgenstein Nachlass in a machine-readable version consisting of marked-up source transcriptions, which, since 2000, have used an XML markup following the guidelines of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI). Outputs from this encoded machine-readable version are then produced through filters and conversion for the purpose of presentation. The same principle applies for the HIS project: a text base using a comparable XML markup takes care of the transcription, and from this base the entire book edition (presentation) is produced.2 Three clarifications will be helpful at this point: First, when speaking of primary sources, we center on text materials that are relatively complex and extensive rather than straightforward and small. Thus, the principle of separating transcription from presentation issues is imperative when one wants to prepare for the publication of texts that have a considerable degree of complexity and extent, such as the twenty thousand heavily revised pages of the Wittgenstein Nachlass. Second, we talk only about scholarly editions—that is, editions that are prepared in response to certain social, academic, and economic interests that one describes as “scholarly.” Third, we focus on situations where publication is not restricted to a certain format, and we leave a range of options open rather than settle on specific formats only (e.g., on book or web or CD-ROM edition). This is not to say that the principle of separating transcription from presentation does not apply to situations where these conditions are not present, but that there may be good reasons not to follow it if these conditions are not present. Still, while we do not claim that it is adequate or necessary in all cases of editing to make a wide range of options possible, we nevertheless consider it an advantage when publication is not restricted to a certain format. In general , it is our view that editorial projects and textual scholarship benefit from a conscious attitude and reflection as to the relevance of distinguishing between transcription and presentation issues as proposed here. We distinguish between the source material to be edited, the transcription of its data, and their...

Share